It's a real mixed bag for Priti. She wanted DfiD disbanded not so long ago - so it may be 'eat your greens' appointment by May. I think she'll take a knife to a lot of the nonsense spending that went on under previous regimes.
Greening was very rapidly house-trained there after an initial good start. I can't see Priti being deflected by anyone. She's very hawkish.
What are some examples of the nonsense spending at DFID, say over the last five years?
Aid to India is definitely a waste of money.
What aid to India? Thought it was stopped years ago?
Though given how many Indians are still impoverished whether it was a waste is debatable.
It didn't stop. The aid lets the Indian government off the hook for solving their own poverty issues.
No it does not, we are not giving that much. It makes sense to provide aid in the form of specific British expertise and experience to work in conjunction with India's own efforts (not in place of it).
Absolute rubbish. We are subsidising India's space programme and weapons programme. We should not let the Indian government off the hook for having priorities that don't benefit the population. It is not our responsibility to look after the world's poor in nations who have the means to support their own.
Indian military expenditure is 2.3% of GDP which is not particularly excessive.
It's a real mixed bag for Priti. She wanted DfiD disbanded not so long ago - so it may be 'eat your greens' appointment by May. I think she'll take a knife to a lot of the nonsense spending that went on under previous regimes.
Greening was very rapidly house-trained there after an initial good start. I can't see Priti being deflected by anyone. She's very hawkish.
It's time that overseas aid was provided in kind by government funded exports from the UK instead of giving cash to corrupt governments in underdeveloped countries.
As I understand it, overseas aid these days is mostly project based. Not about handing a cheque to the local government. Dfid prides itself on taking an "evidence based" approach, only funding projects proven to be "effective".
I suspect that the metrics this is based on are contendable, if you want to go down that route, but "it's all just a waste" or "they're just funding corrupt regimes" are weak arguments though.
Personally I think there might be room to fit in more strategic planning (we have priorities overseas that I'm sure development aid could be fitted around) and use of trade as a tool against poverty (tariffs against low income countries are heinous in my opinion, though that's one for post Brexit).
It's a real mixed bag for Priti. She wanted DfiD disbanded not so long ago - so it may be 'eat your greens' appointment by May. I think she'll take a knife to a lot of the nonsense spending that went on under previous regimes.
Greening was very rapidly house-trained there after an initial good start. I can't see Priti being deflected by anyone. She's very hawkish.
What are some examples of the nonsense spending at DFID, say over the last five years?
Aid to India is definitely a waste of money.
What aid to India? Thought it was stopped years ago?
Though given how many Indians are still impoverished whether it was a waste is debatable.
It didn't stop. The aid lets the Indian government off the hook for solving their own poverty issues.
No it does not, we are not giving that much. It makes sense to provide aid in the form of specific British expertise and experience to work in conjunction with India's own efforts (not in place of it).
Absolute rubbish. We are subsidising India's space programme and weapons programme. We should not let the Indian government off the hook for having priorities that don't benefit the population. It is not our responsibility to look after the world's poor in nations who have the means to support their own.
Indian military expenditure is 2.3% of GDP which is not particularly excessive.
That's 0.2% higher than ours though. I'm all for aid spending, but not giving developing nations a free pass.
It's a real mixed bag for Priti. She wanted DfiD disbanded not so long ago - so it may be 'eat your greens' appointment by May. I think she'll take a knife to a lot of the nonsense spending that went on under previous regimes.
Greening was very rapidly house-trained there after an initial good start. I can't see Priti being deflected by anyone. She's very hawkish.
What are some examples of the nonsense spending at DFID, say over the last five years?
Aid to India is definitely a waste of money.
What aid to India? Thought it was stopped years ago?
Though given how many Indians are still impoverished whether it was a waste is debatable.
It didn't stop. The aid lets the Indian government off the hook for solving their own poverty issues.
No it does not, we are not giving that much. It makes sense to provide aid in the form of specific British expertise and experience to work in conjunction with India's own efforts (not in place of it).
Absolute rubbish. We are subsidising India's space programme and weapons programme. We should not let the Indian government off the hook for having priorities that don't benefit the population. It is not our responsibility to look after the world's poor in nations who have the means to support their own.
Indian military expenditure is 2.3% of GDP which is not particularly excessive.
And dwarfs our spend, so why don't they foot the bill if the projects are so important?
It's a real mixed bag for Priti. She wanted DfiD disbanded not so long ago - so it may be 'eat your greens' appointment by May. I think she'll take a knife to a lot of the nonsense spending that went on under previous regimes.
Greening was very rapidly house-trained there after an initial good start. I can't see Priti being deflected by anyone. She's very hawkish.
It's time that overseas aid was provided in kind by government funded exports from the UK instead of giving cash to corrupt governments in underdeveloped countries.
As I understand it, overseas aid these days is mostly project based. Not about handing a cheque to the local government. Dfid prides itself on taking an "evidence based" approach, only funding projects proven to be "effective".
I suspect that the metrics this is based on are contendable, if you want to go down that route, but "it's all just a waste" or "they're just funding corrupt regimes" are weak arguments though.
Personally I think there might be room to fit in more strategic planning (we have priorities overseas that I'm sure development aid could be fitted around) and use of trade as a tool against poverty (tariffs against low income countries are heinous in my opinion, though that's one for post Brexit).
One of the many ironies of the modern world is that alleviating poverty in places like Africa simply empowers people to migrate. Very poor people stay and starve. Quite poor people move. Slightly apropos, this was quite an interesting essay to put migration into perspective:
Our aid to India in 2015 - £279 million - BUT, from my reading, it could well be the last time we actually give aid to India.
Anyhoo, their space program had a budget of 1.2 billion DOLLARs for 2015-16. Um, I'm not sure how much that is in £ Pounds now
As of 24 June 2016, ISRO has launched 131 satellites using indigenously developed launch vehicles out of which 74 are foreign. Also, 29 Indian satellites have been launched by foreign launch vehicles.[7] As of October 2015, ISRO has agreed to launch 23 foreign satellites of nine different nations including Algeria, Canada, Germany, Indonesia, Japan, Singapore and the US.[8] On June 18, 2016 India successfully set a record with launch of 20 satellites in a single payload, one being a satellite from Google.[9]
I actually happened to know the answer, so as you can see they could quite easily redirect funds for these projects themselves.
I actually wouldn't have so much of a problem if it were an actual bi-lateral project to allow India to increase development and support its people. It isn't.
BUT, from my reading, 2015 could well be the last time we actually give aid to India.
Whether that's true or not, it is ridiculous it happened in the first place.
By the way, did anyone catch Lynne Featherstone's praise of Theresa May over the same sex marriage bill? I think it surprised a number of us to discover the bill may have fallen had TM not backed it to the hilt against massive opposition in the Home Office.
I have spoken to Lynne about this personally. Despite their huge political differences Featherstone readily acknowledges the backing she got from May that was critical to getting a potentially sceptical Tory party on side.
Yes, I remember May on question time around the time of the bill passing, she explained how she had changed her viewpoint from being against to being for it, and she seemed to be a genuine conversion to the cause.
Didn't Cameron recently say that his government was the first centre-right government in the world to legalise gay marriage? If that's correct, quite an achievement for Cameron and May (and the Lib Dems of course, but as an explicitly progressive party it's less newsworthy).
It wouldn't have happened without the LibDems - Featherstone was a very powerful advocate behind the scenes, and was probably responsible for May's conversion - but of course it wouldn't actually have been pushed through without the Tories (and under Labour wasn't even on the agenda). The Tory support was probably a mix of conviction and expediency (i.e. as a useful issue for Cameron to further his agenda within his party), but it got done nevertheless and the country is better because of it.
Plato talked about "nonsense spending", HurstLlama refers to "this wasteful department that was set up so that a few politicians could feel pleased with themselves".
All I'm seeking are concrete examples of such project failures. I don't doubt a number exist: it would be unique in government departments if there weren't. But in the (relative) absence of conspicuous blunders, is it not an unreasonable assumption that DFID must doing some good work in helping to alleviate global poverty?
That's what Dfid thinks it achieved. I've no particular axe to grind one way or another. If we're cutting spending, look at the big targets, not the small.
If you do even a cursory scan of our ODA efforts, they're widely distributed, broad in intent - and the spend is by no means confined to DfiD. Even the Welsh Assembly has ODA programs, modest though they are.
Could we be more efficient and better targeted? Of course. Should we be spending what can be considered borrowed money? Political call.
Bet they spend more on themselves and swanning about the world.
Malcolm your criticisms are just ignorant.
You could look at any government department, or the EU, or any international body, your local council, and point to money that could be better spent. Probably some of your own money could be better spent, who knows?
The fact remains that a lot of the DFID programmes produce impressive returns at relatively low cost. I have seen some of these first hand - for example the support given to reforming primary education in Rwanda. And its as much about exporting our expertise, know-how and support (which obviously costs money) as in just handing over cash.
And, at big picture level, the long-run solution to a lot of the domestic challenges we face lies in supporting the rest of the world in its development. Of course its slow, of course its painful and painstaking, but nevertheless its the only way. The fact that we can now see an end to the relentless growth of the world's population - which not too many years ago people thought would be inexorable - is just one example where development interventions have made a real and significant difference.
Oddly, female education is an area where small sums can have large rewards. Women with higher levels of education can not only potentially earn more, they are less likely to have large numbers of children, meaning that each child can get more resources.
In cultures where it's less likely for girls to be educated than boys, this can make a real difference to lives and outcomes.
It's also why extreme religious sects traditionally educate girls to a lower standard than boys.
Plato talked about "nonsense spending", HurstLlama refers to "this wasteful department that was set up so that a few politicians could feel pleased with themselves".
Could we be more efficient and better targeted? Of course. Should we be spending what can be considered borrowed money? Political call.
Bet they spend more on themselves and swanning about the world.
Malcolm your criticisms are just ignorant.
You could look at any government department, or the EU, or any international body, your local council, and point to money that could be better spent. Probably some of your own money could be better spent, who knows?
The fact remains that a lot of the DFID programmes produce impressive returns at relatively low cost. I have seen some of these first hand - for example the support given to reforming primary education in Rwanda. And its as much about exporting our expertise, know-how and support (which obviously costs money) as in just handing over cash.
And, at big picture level, the long-run solution to a lot of the domestic challenges we face lies in supporting the rest of the world in its development. Of course its slow, of course its painful and painstaking, but nevertheless its the only way. The fact that we can now see an end to the relentless growth of the world's population - which not too many years ago people thought would be inexorable - is just one example where development interventions have made a real and significant difference.
Oddly, female education is an area where small sums can have large rewards. Women with higher levels of education can not only potentially earn more, they are less likely to have large numbers of children, meaning that each child can get more resources.
In cultures where it's less likely for girls to be educated than boys, this can make a real difference to lives and outcomes.
It's also why extreme religious sects traditionally educate girls to a lower standard than boys.
Precisely. And today's events in Turkey underline the struggle that is going on within many countries between progress and reaction.
I don't really understand why (or don't like that) some people *want* to believe that all aid money is simply wasted on foreign travel or corruption, and aren't interested in looking at any evidence. There must be more to it than simply falling for the line being spun by our crappier newspapers looking for cheap copy.
Or believe that people supporting primary school teachers in remote and poor parts of Africa are somehow doing it whilst living it up in a four-star hotel with luxury food and drink, that just happens to be a few miles down the dirt track from the village.
It's a real mixed bag for Priti. She wanted DfiD disbanded not so long ago - so it may be 'eat your greens' appointment by May. I think she'll take a knife to a lot of the nonsense spending that went on under previous regimes.
Greening was very rapidly house-trained there after an initial good start. I can't see Priti being deflected by anyone. She's very hawkish.
What are some examples of the nonsense spending at DFID, say over the last five years?
Aid to India is definitely a waste of money.
What aid to India? Thought it was stopped years ago?
Though given how many Indians are still impoverished whether it was a waste is debatable.
It didn't stop. The aid lets the Indian government off the hook for solving their own poverty issues.
No it does not, we are not giving that much. It makes sense to provide aid in the form of specific British expertise and experience to work in conjunction with India's own efforts (not in place of it).
Absolute rubbish. We are subsidising India's space programme and weapons programme. We should not let the Indian government off the hook for having priorities that don't benefit the population. It is not our responsibility to look after the world's poor in nations who have the means to support their own.
Indian military expenditure is 2.3% of GDP which is not particularly excessive.
That's 0.2% higher than ours though. I'm all for aid spending, but not giving developing nations a free pass.
Assuming an EU population of 500 million, our contribution of £8.5 billion (NET!) on a per capita basis is £17 per European (2015 figure).
It's a real mixed bag for Priti. She wanted DfiD disbanded not so long ago - so it may be 'eat your greens' appointment by May. I think she'll take a knife to a lot of the nonsense spending that went on under previous regimes.
Greening was very rapidly house-trained there after an initial good start. I can't see Priti being deflected by anyone. She's very hawkish.
What are some examples of the nonsense spending at DFID, say over the last five years?
Aid to India is definitely a waste of money.
What aid to India? Thought it was stopped years ago?
Though given how many Indians are still impoverished whether it was a waste is debatable.
It didn't stop. The aid lets the Indian government off the hook for solving their own poverty issues.
No it does not, we are not giving that much. It makes sense to provide aid in the form of specific British expertise and experience to work in conjunction with India's own efforts (not in place of it).
Absolute rubbish. We are subsidising India's space programme and weapons programme. We should not let the Indian government off the hook for having priorities that don't benefit the population. It is not our responsibility to look after the world's poor in nations who have the means to support their own.
Indian military expenditure is 2.3% of GDP which is not particularly excessive.
HMS Hermes (of Falklands fame!) is still sailing in the Indian Navy as INS Viraat - though, sadly, not for much longer.
It's a real mixed bag for Priti. She wanted DfiD disbanded not so long ago - so it may be 'eat your greens' appointment by May. I think she'll take a knife to a lot of the nonsense spending that went on under previous regimes.
Greening was very rapidly house-trained there after an initial good start. I can't see Priti being deflected by anyone. She's very hawkish.
It's time that overseas aid was provided in kind by government funded exports from the UK instead of giving cash to corrupt governments in underdeveloped countries.
As I understand it, overseas aid these days is mostly project based. Not about handing a cheque to the local government. Dfid prides itself on taking an "evidence based" approach, only funding projects proven to be "effective".
I suspect that the metrics this is based on are contendable, if you want to go down that route, but "it's all just a waste" or "they're just funding corrupt regimes" are weak arguments though.
Personally I think there might be room to fit in more strategic planning (we have priorities overseas that I'm sure development aid could be fitted around) and use of trade as a tool against poverty (tariffs against low income countries are heinous in my opinion, though that's one for post Brexit).
One of the many ironies of the modern world is that alleviating poverty in places like Africa simply empowers people to migrate. Very poor people stay and starve. Quite poor people move. Slightly apropos, this was quite an interesting essay to put migration into perspective:
There's also another issue. The rise of modern communications means *everyone* now knows how people live in the West. Even without people in Africa becoming slightly richer, that knowledge was always going to drive people to emigrate.
Plato talked about "nonsense spending", HurstLlama refers to "this wasteful department that was set up so that a few politicians could feel pleased with themselves".
Could we be more efficient and better targeted? Of course. Should we be spending what can be considered borrowed money? Political call.
Bet they spend more on themselves and swanning about the world.
Malcolm your criticisms are just ignorant.
You could look at any government department, or the EU, or any international body, your local council, and point to money that could be better spent. Probably some of your own money could be better spent, who knows?
Oddly, female education is an area where small sums can have large rewards. Women with higher levels of education can not only potentially earn more, they are less likely to have large numbers of children, meaning that each child can get more resources.
In cultures where it's less likely for girls to be educated than boys, this can make a real difference to lives and outcomes.
It's also why extreme religious sects traditionally educate girls to a lower standard than boys.
Precisely. And today's events in Turkey underline the struggle that is going on within many countries between progress and reaction.
I don't really understand why (or don't like that) some people *want* to believe that all aid money is simply wasted on foreign travel or corruption, and aren't interested in looking at any evidence. There must be more to it than simply falling for the line being spun by our crappier newspapers looking for cheap copy.
Or believe that people supporting primary school teachers in remote and poor parts of Africa are somehow doing it whilst living it up in a four-star hotel with luxury food and drink, that just happens to be a few miles down the dirt track from the village.
In fairness Ian, we see the same thing across politics. The IFS report had plenty of ammunition for both sides of the EUref campaign, yet both sides ignored it, or, at best, grossly misinterpreted it.
Post Brexit, we see Remain-leaning people preaching economic disaster, with Leavers being outrageously over-optimistic. The most likely outcomes are drowned out as it suits neither set of partisans.
People seem to prefer to emote rather than analyse, reflect then debate. Perhaps its because the world is so complex, it's just easier to pick a side and start flinging dung at the opposition.
Oddly, female education is an area where small sums can have large rewards. Women with higher levels of education can not only potentially earn more, they are less likely to have large numbers of children, meaning that each child can get more resources.
In cultures where it's less likely for girls to be educated than boys, this can make a real difference to lives and outcomes.
It's also why extreme religious sects traditionally educate girls to a lower standard than boys.
It's a real mixed bag for Priti. She wanted DfiD disbanded not so long ago - so it may be 'eat your greens' appointment by May. I think she'll take a knife to a lot of the nonsense spending that went on under previous regimes.
Greening was very rapidly house-trained there after an initial good start. I can't see Priti being deflected by anyone. She's very hawkish.
It's time that overseas aid was provided in kind by government funded exports from the UK instead of giving cash to corrupt governments in underdeveloped countries.
As I understand it, overseas aid these days is mostly project based. Not about handing a cheque to the local government. Dfid prides itself on taking an "evidence based" approach, only funding projects proven to be "effective".
I suspect that the metrics this is based on are contendable, if you want to go down that route, but "it's all just a waste" or "they're just funding corrupt regimes" are weak arguments though.
Personally I think there might be room to fit in more strategic planning (we have priorities overseas that I'm sure development aid could be fitted around) and use of trade as a tool against poverty (tariffs against low income countries are heinous in my opinion, though that's one for post Brexit).
One of the many ironies of the modern world is that alleviating poverty in places like Africa simply empowers people to migrate. Very poor people stay and starve. Quite poor people move. Slightly apropos, this was quite an interesting essay to put migration into perspective:
There's also another issue. The rise of modern communications means *everyone* now knows how people live in the West. Even without people in Africa becoming slightly richer, that knowledge was always going to drive people to emigrate.
That was the thrust of an Economist (*spit*) article on Sierra Leone. Once you can afford a smartphone, you can actually see that the streets of London are indeed paved with gold.
It's a real mixed bag for Priti. She wanted DfiD disbanded not so long ago - so it may be 'eat your greens' appointment by May. I think she'll take a knife to a lot of the nonsense spending that went on under previous regimes.
Greening was very rapidly house-trained there after an initial good start. I can't see Priti being deflected by anyone. She's very hawkish.
It's time that overseas aid was provided in kind by government funded exports from the UK instead of giving cash to corrupt governments in underdeveloped countries.
As I understand it, overseas aid these days is mostly project based. Not about handing a cheque to the local government. Dfid prides itself on taking an "evidence based" approach, only funding projects proven to be "effective".
I suspect that the metrics this is based on are contendable, if you want to go down that route, but "it's all just a waste" or "they're just funding corrupt regimes" are weak arguments though.
Personally I think there might be room to fit in more strategic planning (we have priorities overseas that I'm sure development aid could be fitted around) and use of trade as a tool against poverty (tariffs against low income countries are heinous in my opinion, though that's one for post Brexit).
If there are insufficient projects that meet the criteria does the government
a) Not spend 0.7% of GDP on overseas aid?
b) Lower the criteria but face delay?
c) Just hand 'project' money to some overseas governments to fill the shortfall?
It's a real mixed bag for Priti. She wanted DfiD disbanded not so long ago - so it may be 'eat your greens' appointment by May. I think she'll take a knife to a lot of the nonsense spending that went on under previous regimes.
Greening was very rapidly house-trained there after an initial good start. I can't see Priti being deflected by anyone. She's very hawkish.
It's time that overseas aid was provided in kind by government funded exports from the UK instead of giving cash to corrupt governments in underdeveloped countries.
As I understand it, overseas aid these days is mostly project based. Not about handing a cheque to the local government. Dfid prides itself on taking an "evidence based" approach, only funding projects proven to be "effective".
I suspect that the metrics this is based on are contendable, if you want to go down that route, but "it's all just a waste" or "they're just funding corrupt regimes" are weak arguments though.
Personally I think there might be room to fit in more strategic planning (we have priorities overseas that I'm sure development aid could be fitted around) and use of trade as a tool against poverty (tariffs against low income countries are heinous in my opinion, though that's one for post Brexit).
Certainly that was the strategy in the 1990s. Nowadays there is a more mixed approach - based on the experience that in some circumstances funding governments (national or local) directly to get the right stuff done can be more effective, with less risk of funds being siphoned off into the local black economy, than a poorly managed project. And also that if the country manages things itself you are more likely to get lasting change. So there is a lot more inter-governmental funding nowadays than you would have found previously: the emphasis is on the most effective way of meeting the objectives of the intervention.
It's a real mixed bag for Priti. She wanted DfiD disbanded not so long ago - so it may be 'eat your greens' appointment by May. I think she'll take a knife to a lot of the nonsense spending that went on under previous regimes.
Greening was very rapidly house-trained there after an initial good start. I can't see Priti being deflected by anyone. She's very hawkish.
What are some examples of the nonsense spending at DFID, say over the last five years?
Aid to India is definitely a waste of money.
What aid to India? Thought it was stopped years ago?
Though given how many Indians are still impoverished whether it was a waste is debatable.
It didn't stop. The aid lets the Indian government off the hook for solving their own poverty issues.
No it does not, we are not giving that much. It makes sense to provide aid in the form of specific British expertise and experience to work in conjunction with India's own efforts (not in place of it).
Absolute rubbish. We are subsidising India's space programme and weapons programme. We should not let the Indian government off the hook for having priorities that don't benefit the population. It is not our responsibility to look after the world's poor in nations who have the means to support their own.
Indian military expenditure is 2.3% of GDP which is not particularly excessive.
That's 0.2% higher than ours though. I'm all for aid spending, but not giving developing nations a free pass.
Assuming an EU population of 500 million, our contribution of £8.5 billion (NET!) on a per capita basis is £17 per European (2015 figure).
Cf. 23p per Indian in 2015.
They don't have a free pass unless you think 23p per Indian is the be all and end all of development and other measures to address poverty. Do you?
It's a real mixed bag for Priti. She wanted DfiD disbanded not so long ago - so it may be 'eat your greens' appointment by May. I think she'll take a knife to a lot of the nonsense spending that went on under previous regimes.
Greening was very rapidly house-trained there after an initial good start. I can't see Priti being deflected by anyone. She's very hawkish.
It's time that overseas aid was provided in kind by government funded exports from the UK instead of giving cash to corrupt governments in underdeveloped countries.
As I understand it, overseas aid these days is mostly project based. Not about handing a cheque to the local government. Dfid prides itself on taking an "evidence based" approach, only funding projects proven to be "effective".
I suspect that the metrics this is based on are contendable, if you want to go down that route, but "it's all just a waste" or "they're just funding corrupt regimes" are weak arguments though.
Personally I think there might be room to fit in more strategic planning (we have priorities overseas that I'm sure development aid could be fitted around) and use of trade as a tool against poverty (tariffs against low income countries are heinous in my opinion, though that's one for post Brexit).
Certainly that was the strategy in the 1990s. Nowadays there is a more mixed approach - based on the experience that in some circumstances funding governments (national or local) directly to get the right stuff done can be more effective, with less risk of funds being siphoned off into the local black economy, than a poorly managed project. And also that if the country manages things itself you are more likely to get lasting change. So there is a lot more inter-governmental funding nowadays than you would have found previously: the emphasis is on the most effective way of meeting the objectives of the intervention.
Interesting, thanks. Knew there'd been a move to joint projects (as you said, builds local capacity, no point all the good work having wheels fall off when the aid stops) but didn't know re local funding. Presumably funding often happens at local rather than national level?
We have a ComRes opinion poll for The Independent tonight, shared with the Sunday Mirror. It gives an early indication of what people think of the new Prime Minister, and of the state of the Labour opposition.
We asked:
Please select each of the following that you think apply to Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn....
Plato talked about "nonsense spending", HurstLlama refers to "this wasteful department that was set up so that a few politicians could feel pleased with themselves".
Could we be more efficient and better targeted? Of course. Should we be spending what can be considered borrowed money? Political call.
Bet they spend more on themselves and swanning about the world.
Malcolm your criticisms are just ignorant.
[snip for space]
Oddly, female education is an area where small sums can have large rewards. Women with higher levels of education can not only potentially earn more, they are less likely to have large numbers of children, meaning that each child can get more resources.
In cultures where it's less likely for girls to be educated than boys, this can make a real difference to lives and outcomes.
It's also why extreme religious sects traditionally educate girls to a lower standard than boys.
Precisely. And today's events in Turkey underline the struggle that is going on within many countries between progress and reaction.
I don't really understand why (or don't like that) some people *want* to believe that all aid money is simply wasted on foreign travel or corruption, and aren't interested in looking at any evidence. There must be more to it than simply falling for the line being spun by our crappier newspapers looking for cheap copy.
Or believe that people supporting primary school teachers in remote and poor parts of Africa are somehow doing it whilst living it up in a four-star hotel with luxury food and drink, that just happens to be a few miles down the dirt track from the village.
How can you tell that people want to believe that rather than do, actually, believe it? Saying that all money is wasted is of course an exaggeration but a great deal of it is - unless you think that third world corruption is a myth or that aid money is immune from it. Neither is the case; and I know that from going to East Africa for months at a time, not from the newspapers.
Foreign aid is one of those things that I think should be down to individual conscience - not funded by taxation. If people want to give their own money to charities, fair enough, but I can't see the benefit from a government doing it. It is not a public good (in the technical, economic sense) nor is it a merit good, etc. There is no justification for government funding it from the form of legalised extortion known as taxation when there are unmet needs at home.
Incidentally, I am in Washington DC at the moment, staying at the house of an international aid consultant. He says they love working for DfID as they often make a fortune off them, particularly during their periodic rushes to spend enough money to justify their current budget, lest it be clipped for next year.
Plato talked about "nonsense spending", HurstLlama refers to "this wasteful department that was set up so that a few politicians could feel pleased with themselves".
Could we be more efficient and better targeted? Of course. Should we be spending what can be considered borrowed money? Political call.
Bet they spend more on themselves and swanning about the world.
Malcolm your criticisms are just ignorant.
And, at big picture level, the long-run solution to a lot of the domestic challenges we face lies in supporting the rest of the world in its development. Of course its slow, of course its painful and painstaking, but nevertheless its the only way. The fact that we can now see an end to the relentless growth of the world's population - which not too many years ago people thought would be inexorable - is just one example where development interventions have made a real and significant difference.
Oddly, female education is an area where small sums can have large rewards. Women with higher levels of education can not only potentially earn more, they are less likely to have large numbers of children, meaning that each child can get more resources.
In cultures where it's less likely for girls to be educated than boys, this can make a real difference to lives and outcomes.
It's also why extreme religious sects traditionally educate girls to a lower standard than boys.
Precisely. And today's events in Turkey underline the struggle that is going on within many countries between progress and reaction.
I don't really understand why (or don't like that) some people *want* to believe that all aid money is simply wasted on foreign travel or corruption, and aren't interested in looking at any evidence. There must be more to it than simply falling for the line being spun by our crappier newspapers looking for cheap copy.
Or believe that people supporting primary school teachers in remote and poor parts of Africa are somehow doing it whilst living it up in a four-star hotel with luxury food and drink, that just happens to be a few miles down the dirt track from the village.
I wonder if people have become more cynical about 'do gooders'. Kids Company being maybe the latest example. There's a belief that large charities exist to fund the lifestyles of the people who work for them.
There's more to it than that, isn't there? We're not a small island loosely connected with the rest of the world any more; we're a small island that is highly connected.
Our children, and probably grandchildren, might be poorer if we *don't* try to help people abroad, especially when it comes to diseases and the like.
I'm not blithely disregarding waste; that needs to stop. But the idea that foreign aid does no good is ridiculous IMO.
We are mostly in agreement Mr. J., for I have never believed that foreign aid does no good only that large sums are frittered away and probably hundreds of millions of pounds per annum from our children's and grandchildren's future are being squandered for no good purpose. That money would be better spent at home.
Where I think we might disagree is in having a department whose sole task is to give away a fixed amount of money each year. As far as I am aware no other country on the planet does this. Why do we alone feel it is a good idea? If not politicians' vanity, why?
The problem could be easily solved. Make the £12bn a maximum spend and not a mandatory one. Then let individual projects bid for cash, each project being judged on its merits with performance criteria and failure standards written in. Let the details of each project then be published in full on the DfID's website, indexed by country and purpose.
Incidentally, finding out where the DfID was spending its cash and on what on was much easier before 2010. Once Cameron's 0.7% promise was introduced the website was changed and it became much harder to find out where the money was going. That might have changed, I haven't looked for a while.
It's a real mixed bag for Priti. She wanted DfiD disbanded not so long ago - so it may be 'eat your greens' appointment by May. I think she'll take a knife to a lot of the nonsense spending that went on under previous regimes.
Greening was very rapidly house-trained there after an initial good start. I can't see Priti being deflected by anyone. She's very hawkish.
What are some examples of the nonsense spending at DFID, say over the last five years?
Aid to India is definitely a waste of money.
What aid to India? Thought it was stopped years ago?
Though given how many Indians are still impoverished whether it was a waste is debatable.
It didn't stop. The aid lets the Indian government off the hook for solving their own poverty issues.
No it does not, we are not giving that much. It makes sense to provide aid in the form of specific British expertise and experience to work in conjunction with India's own efforts (not in place of it).
Absolute rubbish. We are subsidising India's space programme and weapons programme. We should not let the Indian government off the hook for having priorities that don't benefit the population. It is not our responsibility to look after the world's poor in nations who have the means to support their own.
Indian military expenditure is 2.3% of GDP which is not particularly excessive.
And dwarfs our spend, so why don't they foot the bill if the projects are so important?
No it does not dwarf our spend, we spend billions more than them. And they do.foot the bill for nearly all projects there unless you think 23p per capita is all that gets spent per year. What we are doing is exporting expertise etc and that costs money.
We have a ComRes opinion poll for The Independent tonight, shared with the Sunday Mirror. It gives an early indication of what people think of the new Prime Minister, and of the state of the Labour opposition.
We asked:
Please select each of the following that you think apply to Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn....
We have a ComRes opinion poll for The Independent tonight, shared with the Sunday Mirror. It gives an early indication of what people think of the new Prime Minister, and of the state of the Labour opposition.
We asked:
Please select each of the following that you think apply to Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn....
It's a real mixed bag for Priti. She wanted DfiD disbanded not so long ago - so it may be 'eat your greens' appointment by May. I think she'll take a knife to a lot of the nonsense spending that went on under previous regimes.
Greening was very rapidly house-trained there after an initial good start. I can't see Priti being deflected by anyone. She's very hawkish.
What are some examples of the nonsense spending at DFID, say over the last five years?
Aid to India is definitely a waste of money.
What aid to India? Thought it was stopped years ago?
Though given how many Indians are still impoverished whether it was a waste is debatable.
It didn't stop. The aid lets the Indian government off the hook for solving their own poverty issues.
No it does not, we are not giving that much. It makes sense to provide aid in the form of specific British expertise and experience to work in conjunction with India's own efforts (not in place of it).
Absolute rubbish. We are subsidising India's space programme and weapons programme. We should not let the Indian government off the hook for having priorities that don't benefit the population. It is not our responsibility to look after the world's poor in nations who have the means to support their own.
Indian military expenditure is 2.3% of GDP which is not particularly excessive.
HMS Hermes (of Falklands fame!) is still sailing in the Indian Navy as INS Viraat - though, sadly, not for much longer.
Avast, Cap'n Doc. I thought Viraat went out of commission a couple of months ago.
Doesn't alter the fact the the Indian Navy is still more powerful than the Royal Coastal Defence Force (formerly known as the Royal Navy).
Belike, else.
P.S. In this glorious summer weather, one's thoughts naturally turn to your Mum's front garden. Will she be entering the competition again this year?
Plato talked about "nonsense spending", HurstLlama refers to "this wasteful department that was set up so that a few politicians could feel pleased with themselves".
Bet they spend more on themselves and swanning about the world.
Precisely.
In fairness Ian, we see the same thing across politics. The IFS report had plenty of ammunition for both sides of the EUref campaign, yet both sides ignored it, or, at best, grossly misinterpreted it.
Post Brexit, we see Remain-leaning people preaching economic disaster, with Leavers being outrageously over-optimistic. The most likely outcomes are drowned out as it suits neither set of partisans.
People seem to prefer to emote rather than analyse, reflect then debate. Perhaps its because the world is so complex, it's just easier to pick a side and start flinging dung at the opposition.
I know, but it's just so depressing.
I spent a short time living with aid workers in Rwanda. It's a night flight with Air Ethiopia, the small hours at Addis airport, another flight in an old aircraft to Kigali, a ride on the back of a motorbike into town, then three hours on a hot sweaty minibus filled with more people and goods than you can imagine, then a long walk, to get there. Yes, aid workers get the best house in the village, but that just means the roof doesn't leak and in theory it has electricity and running water. In practice the electricity randomly came and went, as did the water, cold only. There was no shower, bath or flushing toilet, all of these jobs done by buckets large and small, mostly from water lugged about in jerry cans. The weather is mostly either super hot or torrential rain, there are lots of insects and other unwelcome wildlife, the food is mainly chewy goat and bananas. They get about either by walking or motorbike taxi, their pay is good by local standards but poor by international ones. They do long hours and doing amazing work which is at times fulfilling, but also often very hard, frustrating and thankless. Yes they enjoy a few beers at the weekend, but there is nothing else to do, and now and again they go travelling, which means more hours on sweaty minibuses, at their own expense. Maybe they come back and see their families once or twice a year. Any sort of healthcare or western admin was three hours away on the same minibus. I came away with a lot of respect for the lives they have chosen.
These are the people the likes of Malcolm think are spending money "on themselves" and "swanning about the world".
It's a real mixed bag for Priti. She wanted DfiD disbanded not so long ago - so it may be 'eat your greens' appointment by May. I think she'll take a knife to a lot of the nonsense spending that went on under previous regimes.
Greening was very rapidly house-trained there after an initial good start. I can't see Priti being deflected by anyone. She's very hawkish.
What are some examples of the nonsense spending at DFID, say over the last five years?
Aid to India is definitely a waste of money.
What aid to India? Thought it was stopped years ago?
Though given how many Indians are still impoverished whether it was a waste is debatable.
It didn't stop. The aid lets the Indian government off the hook for solving their own poverty issues.
No it does not, we are not giving that much. It makes sense to provide aid in the form of specific British expertise and experience to work in conjunction with India's own efforts (not in place of it).
Absolute rubbish. We are subsidising India's space programme and weapons programme. We should not let the Indian government off the hook for having priorities that don't benefit the population. It is not our responsibility to look after the world's poor in nations who have the means to support their own.
Indian military expenditure is 2.3% of GDP which is not particularly excessive.
HMS Hermes (of Falklands fame!) is still sailing in the Indian Navy as INS Viraat - though, sadly, not for much longer.
Avast, Cap'n Doc. I thought Viraat went out of commission a couple of months ago.
Doesn't alter the fact the the Indian Navy is still more powerful than the Royal Coastal Defence Force (formerly known as the Royal Navy).
Belike, else.
P.S. In this glorious summer weather, one's thoughts naturally turn to your Mum's front garden. Will she be entering the competition again this year?
Avast, Mr Llama, looks like it'll be a November decommissioning for Viraat (ex-Hermes).
Thanks for the kind words, but unfortunately building work means our front drive is a mess, so Mum will have to wait till next year to re-enter Redbridge in Bloom. But, still, she as has won it five times (container garden category).
It's a real mixed bag for Priti. She wanted DfiD disbanded not so long ago - so it may be 'eat your greens' appointment by May. I think she'll take a knife to a lot of the nonsense spending that went on under previous regimes.
Greening was very rapidly house-trained there after an initial good start. I can't see Priti being deflected by anyone. She's very hawkish.
What are some examples of the nonsense spending at DFID, say over the last five years?
Aid to India is definitely a waste of money.
What aid to India? Thought it was stopped years ago?
Though given how many Indians are still impoverished whether it was a waste is debatable.
It didn't stop. The aid lets the Indian government off the hook for solving their own poverty issues.
No it does not, we are not giving that much. It makes sense to provide aid in the form of specific British expertise and experience to work in conjunction with India's own efforts (not in place of it).
Absolute rubbish. We are subsidising India's space programme and weapons programme. We should not let the Indian government off the hook for having priorities that don't benefit the population. It is not our responsibility to look after the world's poor in nations who have the means to support their own.
Indian military expenditure is 2.3% of GDP which is not particularly excessive.
And dwarfs our spend, so why don't they foot the bill if the projects are so important?
No it does not dwarf our spend, we spend billions more than them. And they do.foot the bill for nearly all projects there unless you think 23p per capita is all that gets spent per year. What we are doing is exporting expertise etc and that costs money.
Sorry I didn't word that accurately, I meant it dwarfs our aid spend.
Avast, Mr Llama, looks like it'll be a November decommissioning for Viraat (ex-Hermes).
Thanks for the kind words, but unfortunately building work means our front drive is a mess, so Mum will have to wait till next year to re-enter Redbridge in Bloom. But, still, she as has won it five times (container garden category).
Well, perhaps missing out on a year will spark some competition and she'll have to have an even better display next year to regain her title.
Thanks for the information on Viraat and please give my regards to your mum.
We have a ComRes opinion poll for The Independent tonight, shared with the Sunday Mirror. It gives an early indication of what people think of the new Prime Minister, and of the state of the Labour opposition.
We asked:
Please select each of the following that you think apply to Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn....
It's a real mixed bag for Priti. She wanted DfiD disbanded not so long ago - so it may be 'eat your greens' appointment by May. I think she'll take a knife to a lot of the nonsense spending that went on under previous regimes.
Greening was very rapidly house-trained there after an initial good start. I can't see Priti being deflected by anyone. She's very hawkish.
What are some examples of the nonsense spending at DFID, say over the last five years?
Aid to India is definitely a waste of money.
What aid to India? Thought it was stopped years ago?
Though given how many Indians are still impoverished whether it was a waste is debatable.
It didn't stop. The aid lets the Indian government off the hook for solving their own poverty issues.
No it does not, we are not giving that much. It makes sense to provide aid in the form of specific British expertise and experience to work in conjunction with India's own efforts (not in place of it).
Absolute rubbish. We are subsidising India's space programme and weapons programme. We should not let the Indian government off the hook for having priorities that don't benefit the population. It is not our responsibility to look after the world's poor in nations who have the means to support their own.
Indian military expenditure is 2.3% of GDP which is not particularly excessive.
HMS Hermes (of Falklands fame!) is still sailing in the Indian Navy as INS Viraat - though, sadly, not for much longer.
Avast, Cap'n Doc. I thought Viraat went out of commission a couple of months ago.
Doesn't alter the fact the the Indian Navy is still more powerful than the Royal Coastal Defence Force (formerly known as the Royal Navy).
Belike, else.
P.S. In this glorious summer weather, one's thoughts naturally turn to your Mum's front garden. Will she be entering the competition again this year?
How dare you traduce the Senior Service in this disrespectful fashion! I'll have you know that our under-protected aircraft carriers (soon to be christened HMS Large Targets I & II) will soon be floating uselessly somewhere near you. Take that Putin!
Clinton presently leads Trump by 2.7% in the RCP poll average whole Obama beat Romney by 3. 8% so already the 2016 election looks even tighter than 2012.
Clinton leads by 3. 2% in Pennsylvania, 0. 6% in Florida, 1. 3% in Ohio, 3. 8% in Iowa, 5. 8% in Virginia, 2% in North Carolina and 2. 7% in New Hampshire. So Trump could win Ohio, Florida and North Carolina on present polling even if Hillary narrowly wins nationwide
It's a real mixed bag for Priti. She wanted DfiD disbanded not so long ago - so it may be 'eat your greens' appointment by May. I think she'll take a knife to a lot of the nonsense spending that went on under previous regimes.
Greening was very rapidly house-trained there after an initial good start. I can't see Priti being deflected by anyone. She's very hawkish.
What are some examples of the nonsense spending at DFID, say over the last five years?
Aid to India is definitely a waste of money.
What aid to India? Thought it was stopped years ago?
Though given how many Indians are still impoverished whether it was a waste is debatable.
It didn't stop. The aid lets the Indian government off the hook for solving their own poverty issues.
No it does not, we are not giving that much. It makes sense to provide aid in the form of specific British expertise and experience to work in conjunction with India's own efforts (not in place of it).
Absolute rubbish. We are subsidising India's space programme and weapons programme. We should not let the Indian government off the hook for having priorities that don't benefit the population. It is not our responsibility to look after the world's poor in nations who have the means to support their own.
Indian military expenditure is 2.3% of GDP which is not particularly excessive.
And dwarfs our spend, so why don't they foot the bill if the projects are so important?
No it does not dwarf our spend, we spend billions more than them. And they do.foot the bill for nearly all projects there unless you think 23p per capita is all that gets spent per year. What we are doing is exporting expertise etc and that costs money.
I think there's a good case for overseas aid on the basis of enlightened self-interest. For example, it costs about £30,000 p.a. For the State to look after an unaccompanied refugee child in this country, whereas one can look after ten times that number of children, closer to home, at the same cost.
I don't agree with the commitment to an ever-increasing aid budget, however.
I have family in India. Please don't try and lecture me about this. They don't need the aid subsidy. As surbiton has said, a fair amount if the money is probably spent here or on UK agencies with UK employees with little to no benefit for Indians. It is just bullshit spending that would be better spent on ensuring the refugee camps in Jordan and Turkey are fit for purpose. I'm not against aid spending and I don't mind the target, it needs redirecting to areas of real need.
IIRC the Indian programme has been stopped and we are running out a multi-year commitment. Which is the right thing to do.
You need to reneber than money is a very important asset that the UK can use to further its strategic goals. (We've done this for centuries - e.g. paying Austria to fight France during the Napoleonic years).
There are two types of aid - emergency (e.g. the Syrian camps) which we do because it is the right thing to do (but may also have benefits such as reducing the flow of refugees) and strategic (e.g. investing in secondary education for women in Eithiopia as this has been demonstrated to have one of the biggest impacts on reducing radicalism).
What is daft is to say we will spend x% of GDP. We should spend as much as makes strategic sense up to limit of what we can afford.
Clinton presently leads Trump by 2.7% in the RCP poll average whole Obama beat Romney by 3. 8% so already the 2016 election looks even tighter than 2012.
Clinton leads by 3. 2% in Pennsylvania, 0. 6% in Florida, 1. 3% in Ohio, 3. 8% in Iowa, 5. 8% in Virginia, 2% in North Carolina and 2. 7% in New Hampshire. So Trump could win Ohio, Florida and North Carolina on present polling even if Hillary narrowly wins nationwide
Trump appeals to anyone who sees themselves as part of a group that's on the slide, economically, demographically, and in terms of status. That may be 50%+.
Oh indeed. Treason is treason. All the more reason for them to plot it properly beforehand. Idiots.
It's a disaster for Europe though. The army will be purged, Erdogan strengthened and Turkey will turn further from secularism; and the people who came out to support him will find the rights stripped further.
It's a disaster for the people of Turkey, most of all.
I suspect the impact on the rest of Europe will be very modest. Ultimately, it's not in the power of the Turkish state to bus refugees into Europe. And it would come with an incredibly high economic cost to attempt to increase the flow. The EU accounts for more than 50% of Turkey's exports, and Erdogan will want to increase government spending - no reward those who supported him and punished those who did not. Tourism, one would suspect, is going to be... more subdued for a period in time.
Of course, with North Africa off the map for tourists, and now Turkey too, it's great news for the economies of Italy, Greece, Portugal and Spain - all of whom will get a boost until things have quietened down.
How dare you traduce the Senior Service in this disrespectful fashion! I'll have you know that our under-protected aircraft carriers (soon to be christened HMS Large Targets I & II) will soon be floating uselessly somewhere near you. Take that Putin!
Nice post Mr. M, but in all seriousness the state of the RN is a disgrace. Recommissioning HMS Belfast would actually add to its capability - at least it would have some anti-surface capability.
Clinton presently leads Trump by 2.7% in the RCP poll average whole Obama beat Romney by 3. 8% so already the 2016 election looks even tighter than 2012.
Clinton leads by 3. 2% in Pennsylvania, 0. 6% in Florida, 1. 3% in Ohio, 3. 8% in Iowa, 5. 8% in Virginia, 2% in North Carolina and 2. 7% in New Hampshire. So Trump could win Ohio, Florida and North Carolina on present polling even if Hillary narrowly wins nationwide
Trump appeals to anyone who sees themselves as part of a group that's on the slide, economically, demographically, and in terms of status. That may be 50%+.
Leading brexiter Dominic Raab leaves the government
Raab was a Gove supporter I believe.
yes, but as TSE says she is not showing herself to be any good at this. She has a tiny majority and now she has made enemies with the Osborne, Cameron and Gove supporters.
They won't vote against her but if they don't show up to crucial votes she will lose them. Although apperently he was a minister of Human Rights and since her position on this has changed she didn't want a right winger like him in the same job? but could've given him something else, he is popular with the right of the party.
Clinton presently leads Trump by 2.7% in the RCP poll average whole Obama beat Romney by 3. 8% so already the 2016 election looks even tighter than 2012.
Clinton leads by 3. 2% in Pennsylvania, 0. 6% in Florida, 1. 3% in Ohio, 3. 8% in Iowa, 5. 8% in Virginia, 2% in North Carolina and 2. 7% in New Hampshire. So Trump could win Ohio, Florida and North Carolina on present polling even if Hillary narrowly wins nationwide
Trump appeals to anyone who sees themselves as part of a group that's on the slide, economically, demographically, and in terms of status. That may be 50%+.
Clinton presently leads Trump by 2.7% in the RCP poll average whole Obama beat Romney by 3. 8% so already the 2016 election looks even tighter than 2012.
Clinton leads by 3. 2% in Pennsylvania, 0. 6% in Florida, 1. 3% in Ohio, 3. 8% in Iowa, 5. 8% in Virginia, 2% in North Carolina and 2. 7% in New Hampshire. So Trump could win Ohio, Florida and North Carolina on present polling even if Hillary narrowly wins nationwide
Trump appeals to anyone who sees themselves as part of a group that's on the slide, economically, demographically, and in terms of status. That may be 50%+.
To win Trump has to win Ohio and Pennsylvania and North Carolina on the back of such voters and add Florida too on the back of Cubans
Plato talked about "nonsense spending", HurstLlama refers to "this wasteful department that was set up so that a few politicians could feel pleased with themselves".
All I'm seeking are concrete examples of such project failures. I don't doubt a number exist: it would be unique in government departments if there weren't. But in the (relative) absence of conspicuous blunders, is it not an unreasonable assumption that DFID must doing some good work in helping to alleviate global poverty?
That's what Dfid thinks it achieved. I've no particular axe to grind one way or another. If we're cutting spending, look at the big targets, not the small.
If you do even a cursory scan of our ODA efforts, they're widely distributed, broad in intent - and the spend is by no means confined to DfiD. Even the Welsh Assembly has ODA programs, modest though they are.
Could we be more efficient and better targeted? Of course. Should we be spending what can be considered borrowed money? Political call.
Bet they spend more on themselves and swanning about the world.
Malcolm your criticisms are just ignorant.
You could look at any government department, or the EU, or any international body, your local council, and point to money that could be better spent. Probably some of your own money could be better spent, who knows?
The fact remains that a lot of the DFID programmes produce impressive returns at relatively low cost. I have seen some of these first hand - for example the support given to reforming primary education in Rwanda. And its as much about exporting our expertise, know-how and support (which obviously costs money) as in just handing over cash.
And, at big picture level, the long-run solution to a lot of the domestic challenges we face lies in supporting the rest of the world in its development. Of course its slow, of course its painful and painstaking, but nevertheless its the only way. The fact that we can now see an end to the relentless growth of the world's population - which not too many years ago people thought would be inexorable - is just one example where development interventions have made a real and significant difference.
Must have changed plenty , used to be just business class jollies for all and sundry. Lots of mediocre people hiring consultants and contractors to tell them how to splash the cash.
PS: Given we have no real clue what they do I would say uninformed rather than ignorant.
Plato talked about "nonsense spending", HurstLlama refers to "this wasteful department that was set up so that a few politicians could feel pleased with themselves".
All I'm seeking are concrete examples of such project failures. I don't doubt a number exist: it would be unique in government departments if there weren't. But in the (relative) absence of conspicuous blunders, is it not an unreasonable assumption that DFID must doing some good work in helping to alleviate global poverty?
That's what Dfid thinks it achieved. I've no particular axe to grind one way or another. If we're cutting spending, look at the big targets, not the small.
If you do even a cursory scan of our ODA efforts, they're widely distributed, broad in intent - and the spend is by no means confined to DfiD. Even the Welsh Assembly has ODA programs, modest though they are.
Could we be more efficient and better targeted? Of course. Should we be spending what can be considered borrowed money? Political call.
Bet they spend more on themselves and swanning about the world.
We all have bats in our belfry about some aspect of government spending Malcom. Mine is debt servicing costs and pensioner benefits (for rich pensioners, don't want to grind the faces of the poor).
As part of our global branding, Dfid is probably worthwhile, if just to stop this 'isolationist' wank that the media keeps spouting. Who knew a customs union would be so vital in determining our place in the world? Possibly its because people conflate some European programs (e.g. Horizon, Erasmus) with the EU. Whatever.
I agree, it would be nice if they could manage to actually show some of these benefits to the public rather than just a PDF full of wonk speak and bullsh**. I still maintain £12B is a lkot of money being hosed about and especially as we are borrowing it to give out the largesse. I bet it could be done just as well on 50% of the cash.
It's a real mixed bag for Priti. She wanted DfiD disbanded not so long ago - so it may be 'eat your greens' appointment by May. I think she'll take a knife to a lot of the nonsense spending that went on under previous regimes.
Greening was very rapidly house-trained there after an initial good start. I can't see Priti being deflected by anyone. She's very hawkish.
What are some examples of the nonsense spending at DFID, say over the last five years?
Aid to India is definitely a waste of money.
What aid to India? Thought it was stopped years ago?
Though given how many Indians are still impoverished whether it was a waste is debatable.
It didn't stop. The aid lets the Indian government off the hook for solving their own poverty issues.
No it does not, we are not giving that much. It makes sense to provide aid in the form of specific British expertise and experience to work in conjunction with India's own efforts (not in place of it).
Absolute rubbish. We are subsidising India's space programme and weapons programme. We should not let the Indian government off the hook for having priorities that don't benefit the population. It is not our responsibility to look after the world's poor in nations who have the means to support their own.
Indian military expenditure is 2.3% of GDP which is not particularly excessive.
More than ours and that spare 0.3% would more than cover any handouts we supply.
Plato talked about "nonsense spending", HurstLlama refers to "this wasteful department that was set up so that a few politicians could feel pleased with themselves".
All I'm seeking are concrete examples of such project failures. I don't doubt a number exist: it would be unique in government departments if there weren't. But in the (relative) absence of conspicuous blunders, is it not an unreasonable assumption that DFID must doing some good work in helping to alleviate global poverty?
That's what Dfid thinks it achieved. I've no particular axe to grind one way or another. If we're cutting spending, look at the big targets, not the small.
If you do even a cursory scan of our ODA efforts, they're widely distributed, broad in intent - and the spend is by no means confined to DfiD. Even the Welsh Assembly has ODA programs, modest though they are.
Could we be more efficient and better targeted? Of course. Should we be spending what can be considered borrowed money? Political call.
Bet they spend more on themselves and swanning about the world.
We all have bats in our belfry about some aspect of government spending Malcom. Mine is debt servicing costs and pensioner benefits (for rich pensioners, don't want to grind the faces of the poor).
As part of our global branding, Dfid is probably worthwhile, if just to stop this 'isolationist' wank that the media keeps spouting. Who knew a customs union would be so vital in determining our place in the world? Possibly its because people conflate some European programs (e.g. Horizon, Erasmus) with the EU. Whatever.
I agree, it would be nice if they could manage to actually show some of these benefits to the public rather than just a PDF full of wonk speak and bullsh**. I still maintain £12B is a lkot of money being hosed about and especially as we are borrowing it to give out the largesse. I bet it could be done just as well on 50% of the cash.
But think of the Barnet Consequentials if we didn't spend it
Comments
As I understand it, overseas aid these days is mostly project based. Not about handing a cheque to the local government. Dfid prides itself on taking an "evidence based" approach, only funding projects proven to be "effective".
I suspect that the metrics this is based on are contendable, if you want to go down that route, but "it's all just a waste" or "they're just funding corrupt regimes" are weak arguments though.
Personally I think there might be room to fit in more strategic planning (we have priorities overseas that I'm sure development aid could be fitted around) and use of trade as a tool against poverty (tariffs against low income countries are heinous in my opinion, though that's one for post Brexit).
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/why-global-migration-statistics-do-not-add-up-a-1090736.html
In cultures where it's less likely for girls to be educated than boys, this can make a real difference to lives and outcomes.
It's also why extreme religious sects traditionally educate girls to a lower standard than boys.
I don't really understand why (or don't like that) some people *want* to believe that all aid money is simply wasted on foreign travel or corruption, and aren't interested in looking at any evidence. There must be more to it than simply falling for the line being spun by our crappier newspapers looking for cheap copy.
Or believe that people supporting primary school teachers in remote and poor parts of Africa are somehow doing it whilst living it up in a four-star hotel with luxury food and drink, that just happens to be a few miles down the dirt track from the village.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/statement-the-status-of-eu-nationals-in-the-uk
Cf. 23p per Indian in 2015.
Post Brexit, we see Remain-leaning people preaching economic disaster, with Leavers being outrageously over-optimistic. The most likely outcomes are drowned out as it suits neither set of partisans.
People seem to prefer to emote rather than analyse, reflect then debate. Perhaps its because the world is so complex, it's just easier to pick a side and start flinging dung at the opposition.
161 people killed and 1440 wounded. Plus, 104 coup plotters are reported to have died
2839 military personnel have been arrested
Plus 47 civilians
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/military-opens-fire-on-turkish-civilians-in-coup-against-erdogan-2mqzrdvfb
(Why 'oddly'?)
a) Not spend 0.7% of GDP on overseas aid?
b) Lower the criteria but face delay?
c) Just hand 'project' money to some overseas governments to fill the shortfall?
+70 Pak
-80 Draw for me.
We have a ComRes opinion poll for The Independent tonight, shared with the Sunday Mirror. It gives an early indication of what people think of the new Prime Minister, and of the state of the Labour opposition.
We asked:
Please select each of the following that you think apply to Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn....
....Nasty....
https://www.facebook.com/MrJohnRentoul/posts/1659014801088335
Incidentally, I am in Washington DC at the moment, staying at the house of an international aid consultant. He says they love working for DfID as they often make a fortune off them, particularly during their periodic rushes to spend enough money to justify their current budget, lest it be clipped for next year.
Where I think we might disagree is in having a department whose sole task is to give away a fixed amount of money each year. As far as I am aware no other country on the planet does this. Why do we alone feel it is a good idea? If not politicians' vanity, why?
The problem could be easily solved. Make the £12bn a maximum spend and not a mandatory one. Then let individual projects bid for cash, each project being judged on its merits with performance criteria and failure standards written in. Let the details of each project then be published in full on the DfID's website, indexed by country and purpose.
Incidentally, finding out where the DfID was spending its cash and on what on was much easier before 2010. Once Cameron's 0.7% promise was introduced the website was changed and it became much harder to find out where the money was going. That might have changed, I haven't looked for a while.
Luckily Momentum pay no attention to opinion polls
Leading brexiter Dominic Raab leaves the government
Doesn't alter the fact the the Indian Navy is still more powerful than the Royal Coastal Defence Force (formerly known as the Royal Navy).
Belike, else.
P.S. In this glorious summer weather, one's thoughts naturally turn to your Mum's front garden. Will she be entering the competition again this year?
I spent a short time living with aid workers in Rwanda. It's a night flight with Air Ethiopia, the small hours at Addis airport, another flight in an old aircraft to Kigali, a ride on the back of a motorbike into town, then three hours on a hot sweaty minibus filled with more people and goods than you can imagine, then a long walk, to get there. Yes, aid workers get the best house in the village, but that just means the roof doesn't leak and in theory it has electricity and running water. In practice the electricity randomly came and went, as did the water, cold only. There was no shower, bath or flushing toilet, all of these jobs done by buckets large and small, mostly from water lugged about in jerry cans. The weather is mostly either super hot or torrential rain, there are lots of insects and other unwelcome wildlife, the food is mainly chewy goat and bananas. They get about either by walking or motorbike taxi, their pay is good by local standards but poor by international ones. They do long hours and doing amazing work which is at times fulfilling, but also often very hard, frustrating and thankless. Yes they enjoy a few beers at the weekend, but there is nothing else to do, and now and again they go travelling, which means more hours on sweaty minibuses, at their own expense. Maybe they come back and see their families once or twice a year. Any sort of healthcare or western admin was three hours away on the same minibus. I came away with a lot of respect for the lives they have chosen.
These are the people the likes of Malcolm think are spending money "on themselves" and "swanning about the world".
Thanks for the kind words, but unfortunately building work means our front drive is a mess, so Mum will have to wait till next year to re-enter Redbridge in Bloom. But, still, she as has won it five times (container garden category).
Thanks for the information on Viraat and please give my regards to your mum.
There is also a Raab in modern-day Austria.
Marvellous stuff.
https://twitter.com/DavidCoburnUKip/status/753877501466841088
Factoids on @UKLabour grassroots from @ESRCPtyMembers research reported in @TheStaggers 1.What they like in a leader https://t.co/mgWttgaJom
BIKERS FOR TRUMP on their way to Cleveland! Security will be fine. https://t.co/PjVgRHkC8r
That's a LOT of bikers
Clinton leads by 3. 2% in Pennsylvania, 0. 6% in Florida, 1. 3% in Ohio, 3. 8% in Iowa, 5. 8% in Virginia, 2% in North Carolina and 2. 7% in New Hampshire. So Trump could win Ohio, Florida and North Carolina on present polling even if Hillary narrowly wins nationwide
I don't agree with the commitment to an ever-increasing aid budget, however.
You need to reneber than money is a very important asset that the UK can use to further its strategic goals. (We've done this for centuries - e.g. paying Austria to fight France during the Napoleonic years).
There are two types of aid - emergency (e.g. the Syrian camps) which we do because it is the right thing to do (but may also have benefits such as reducing the flow of refugees) and strategic (e.g. investing in secondary education for women in Eithiopia as this has been demonstrated to have one of the biggest impacts on reducing radicalism).
What is daft is to say we will spend x% of GDP. We should spend as much as makes strategic sense up to limit of what we can afford.
https://esrcpartymembersprojectorg.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tables-of-labour-selectorate.pdf
Compares members who joined in the year after the general election in May 2015 with those up to May 2015.
83% Remain.
57% graduates.
47% London and the South.
75% ABC1
Largely favour immigration.
So not northern, working class, Leave supporters.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/07/labour-may-block-supporter-applications-vote-if-called-mp-scum-or-traitor
Honoured by invitation from PM to be part of new government and join @gregclarkmp and team as MOS at exciting new Business Department #BEIS
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/16/indian-businessman-famed-for-240000-gold-shirt-beaten-to-death
Raab out, too. Snap election by May 2017 feels increasingly likely.
Think I follow the logic here, May will need a wider margin than 12, given the number of malcontents now cluttering the backbenches.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-10-questions-about-where-the-2016-race-stands/
They won't vote against her but if they don't show up to crucial votes she will lose them. Although apperently he was a minister of Human Rights and since her position on this has changed she didn't want a right winger like him in the same job? but could've given him something else, he is popular with the right of the party.
Something went wrong in British Politics.
BREAKING: Turkey’s top judicial body HSYK lays off 2,745 judges after extraordinary meeting - @DailySabah
PS: Given we have no real clue what they do I would say uninformed rather than ignorant.
Class War
@BBCNews 15 July Meet 8pm Angel tube EC1V 1NE to march on Boris Johnson's house https://t.co/kLl4s0Hoqj #BorisisBack https://t.co/tpXlAer8kD