Best Of

FPT…

Is there any evidence that foreign aid has produced any positive results over the last 60 years? Or does most of it go in the pockets of autocratic leaders.

Yes, lots of good has been done and it's fairly straightforward to see.

The wealth of autocratic leaders does not come from embezzled aid, not least because very little aid is intergovernmental. Almost all is given via nongovernmental partners.

The vast wealth of corrupt autocrats is nearly all derived from oil and mineral deals with major international mining and petrochemical companies, largely from selling mining and drilling concessions. Much of their wealth is then banked in the City and other western countries Its capitalists not aid workers that fund their lifestyles and armies. It looks like Trump wants to continue this dishonourable tradition.

By which you mean NGOs.

I've reviewed the list posted upthread. My suspicion is that aid, hosed liberally across a spectrum of failed and failing states, achieves very little and is possibly even malign. "Aid" should be specific, targetted, emergency-only and time-limited.

Like with Kids Company, another original Cameron-era trophy that fell apart, I expect this to all come out in reports and scandals in the years to come, just as it did with Camila Batmanghelidjh.

"emergency-only"

How do you define that? Are vaccination campaigns an 'emergency' in your eyes?

e.g. this:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5e62181fe90e077e3c38a330/Gavi-Replenishment-campaign.pdf

An "emergency" is a sudden, unexpected situation that requires immediate action to prevent harm, injury, or danger to people, property, or the environment. They can range from medical crises (new or novel or major disease outbreaks or severe injuries) to natural disasters (earthquakes, fires or floods). In some instances, that might extend to creating safe refuges for people.

I don't think the aid budget should be used to permanently sustain vaccination programmes in other countries, unless we have a direct national interest in the global suppression of a disease.

Don’t we usually have a direct national interest in the global suppression of a disease? Infectious diseases do not respect international borders.

In many instances, yes, but not always - such as some tropical diseases.

That may come under the aegis of the WHO
or other NGOs but I don't think the UK government should be more widely cross-subsidising the healthcare of other countries.

The UK is the leader in vaccination programmes through Malaria Action, GAVI, etc. It is the single most impactful intervention in human health anywhere in the world.

Many of these countries simply can’t afford these programmes - they need food and water for their citizens first.

I’m pretty right wing. But this is both a good use of money and the right thing to do

The attempt to say a halving of overseas aid (which is what this is) won't have casualties is not credible.

Half of the aid budget is international subscriptions like the WHO.
A quarter is on housing asylum seekers in the UK.
A quarter is on Direct aid from the UK, half of it to Africa.

We could withdraw from WHO and similar, and have a blanket amnesty for all asylum seekers, including prospectively.

That is the way to make the sums add up if we want to cut £13 billion from the aid budget and spend it on defence.

We do not need to amnesty asylum seekers - just rescind May's idiotic ruling that they couldn't work while applying. If there are any policies in the last couple of decades that have managed to be as simultaneously vicious, pointless and self-destructive, I can't think of them.

Our latest voting intention: small Reform dip, Labour at post election low, but biggest shift is Lib Dems hit 16% their highest from us

🌳 CON 25% (+2)
➡️ REF UK 24% (-2)
🌹 LAB 23% (-2)
🔶 LIB DEM 16% (+4)
🌍 GREEN 8% (+1)
🟡 SNP 3%(-)

https://x.com/luketryl/status/1894662426076799297?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

Gives Conservatives 202 seats, Labour 166 and Reform 148 and LDs 66, so Kemi would be PM if she could get Farage's support

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=N&CON=25&LAB=23&LIB=16&Reform=24&Green=8&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTReform=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2024base

As per my usual post on using electoral calculus when polls are like this - it is bollocks. It is set up for a 2 party system with minor other parties. The surge in Reform completely breaks the model.

So just for one example is it credible that the decent increase in the LD vote is going to result in them losing 6 seats by any serious analysis? It isn't. Just comparing the relevant change in LD/Tory percentages should shows gains for the LDs, then there is the increase in tactical voting from Labour voter collapse in the LD/Tory marginals. So simple analysis should show gains for the LDs not loses (regardless of what actually happens). So where have these LD seats gone then if not to the Tories (who are currently actually their main challengers in every one of their 72 seats)? Reform? Labour? Neither of those seem remotely likely.

I suspect the other numbers are way out as well but that is more difficult to analyse.

PS Just seen the breakdown. It seems it is 5 Tory gains and 1 Reform gain. Bonkers.