• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

£3bn overseas aid would have kept Harrier jets flying for 20 years

#1
HERE Mail on Sunday

Extra £3bn overseas aid would have kept Harrier jets flying for 20 years

By Glen Owen
Last updated at 9:33 AM on 24th October 2010


British aid projects abroad are to be ‘branded’ with the Union Jack in an attempt to stem growing public anger over the amount spent on international development.
While most Government departments suffered savage cuts in last week’s Spending Review, foreign aid will rise by £3.1 billion by 2014.

The amount is enough to keep the 80-strong Harrier jump jet fleet – which will be axed under the cuts – in the air for 20 years.





Alternatively, it would pay for the building of 310 primary schools, or overturn the scrapping of child *benefit for high earners.

A new Mail on Sunday/BPIX poll shows that four out of five voters think it was wrong to protect aid-spending while cutting defence.

Now International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell has promised to show taxpayers what their money is buying by flying the flag over bridges, hospitals and other projects funded in poor countries.

The move follows criticism that – unlike schemes paid for by the EU – British enterprises remain unmarked, a product of the ‘old school’ diplomatic belief that it would look crass and ostentatious.

The idea will be pioneered in ‘more stable’ parts of Africa. But Mr Mit*chell has been warned of the danger it could pose to aid workers in such states as Pakistan or Afghanistan, where anti-Western opinion is rife.



‘We need to make British aid more visible. The Union Jack is the most identifiable symbol of the UK,’ said Mr Mitchell. ‘But we have to be *sensible so we don’t put humanitarian workers at risk.’

The move follows irritation at the aggressive way the EU claims credit.

Mr Mitchell said MPs on the International Development Select Committee visiting a foreign project which was 90 per cent funded by the UK and ten per cent by the EU were *infuriated by the Brussels flag flapping at the site.

Locals thanked them in the belief that they were MEPs. Our poll shows 81 per cent of voters think it was wrong to raise overseas aid by 37 per cent to £9.4  billion, while defence is cut by eight per cent.

Much of our aid goes to pros*perous countries such as India. The world’s fourth-largest economy, with its own space and nuclear programmes, it received £295  million last year. Russia and China also *benefit from UK largesse.



Last night Mr Mitchell said: ‘Aid is given to advance British interests, as with money given to Afghanistan to help protect national security.

‘But it is also morally right. The British instinct is to help people in developing countries, as demonstrated by our generous response to the recent floods in Pakistan.’

But Tory MP Douglas Carswell said: ‘I don’t think we can justify such a sharp hike at a time of such chilling austerity.’

This does more harm than good, Mr Osborne

ANALYSIS by JULIAN MORRIS

Backfired: Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne

Billions of pounds are spent by Britain every year on overseas aid – otherwise known as official development assistance (ODA). Much of this money ends up in the hands of the venal and corrupt political elite in poor countries.

Study after study shows that such spending does more harm than good. The spending review presented Chancellor George Osborne with a perfect opportunity to cut this counter-productive programme. He blew it. Spectacularly.

Instead of cutting ODA, Osborne announced plans to increase it by 50 per cent from £8.4  billion in 2010-11 to £12.6  billion in 2014-15 (this figure includes capital outlay in this country as well as the £9.4  billion spent overseas).

Over the next five years, the Government will borrow more than £50 billion to fund various dodgy activities in poor countries.

The spending review claims that ODA will now be ‘more focused on boosting economic growth and wealth-creation’. But for five decades, the governments of Britain and other rich countries have been sending money to the governments of poor countries in order to promote economic development, and it hasn’t worked.
Actually, it has backfired. Countries whose governments have received more ODA have grown more slowly than those that received less.

When governments receive handouts, they behave much like welfare scroungers. Instead of putting their countries to work by providing a friendly environment for business, they mooch around.

Of course, they nearly always agree to do their bit to promote development, just as welfare recipients swear blind that they are looking for a job. But there is a difference. Most welfare recipients live in council accommodation and many earnestly search for a job.


By contrast, many ODA recipients live in mansions, own fleets of Mercedes and fly first-class – and have no intention of reforming their economies. Why would they give up the backhanders for handing out aid-related contracts? Economists now understand what conditions lead to growth – ‘economic freedoms’. The most important of them are secure property rights, free markets, low taxes and the rule of law. Countries with more economic freedoms grow faster than countries with fewer.

The spectacular growth rates since the Sixties of Hong Kong, Singapore, Mauritius and Botswana – and, more recently, China, India and Vietnam – can be explained by improvements in economic freedoms. While ODA might conceivably be used to encourage governments to improve their economic freedoms, this rarely happens. ODA was misconceived.

It was thought that the lack of growth in poor countries was because of a lack of investment, so governments of rich countries gave money to governments of poor countries. But this ignored the causes of under-investment – a lack of economic freedoms. ODA has also often been spent pursuing foreign-policy objectives.
The spending review commits 30 per cent of ODA ‘to support fragile and conflict-affected states’ such as Afghanistan and Pakistan. But poverty in such countries will be perpetuated by political elites empowered by ODA. And the disenfranchised poor will be even more likely to join the militant extremists.

Most of us feel a moral obligation to help the poor. But we are perfectly capable of fulfilling that obligation ourselves by donating to charities. At present, many of our choices are being made for us, with theGovernment giving hundreds of millions of pounds of ODA money to UK-based ‘development’ charities on our behalf.

Ironically, Osborne seems to understand the perverse effects of welfare. The spending review outlines plans to cut the amount welfare recipients get after a year – which should encourage them to get a job. It’s a pity he doesn’t apply the same rationale to ODA.

If he did, he might have said that ODA would be cut to zero. That would concentrate the minds of the political elite in poor countries.

Realising that they would have to raise more money through taxes would encourage them to create a more business-friendly environment. It would also reduce Britain’s national debt by tens of billions of pounds – helping our own poor taxpayers.
Julian Morris is executive director of think tank International Policy Network (Home | International Policy Network).



 

Trans-sane

LE
Book Reviewer
#2
Appart from one little detail mentioned on these halloed pages that (and I quote) "the airframes have had the arrse shagged out of them doing CAS in Helmand"

I've nothing against foreign aid as long as it is used to win friends and influence people that are strategicly and ecconomically useful (India being a prime example). But when the foreign aid takes less than a week to go to a numbered Swiss bank account, THATS a problem. The African despots tastes for Mercedes, Maybach and shopping trips for their wives/mistresses/daughters to London, Paris and Milan does not benefit the UK at all...
 
#3
Does that mean there'll be a Union Jack on the side of India's new £700m aircraft carrier? Seeing as the UK gave them about that much in aid last year (or was it the year before?)
 
#5
Racists! How DARE you put the lives of UK cancer patients and Old Age Pensioners before the needs of the Indian Space programme.

Just because they have worked all their lives, paid their taxes and national Insurance contributions doesn't give them the right to see their taxes spent paying for little luxuries like life saving drugs or heating in winter.

Its all about making moral judgements don't you know.
 
#6
Over the next five years, the Government will borrow more than £50 billion to fund various dodgy activities in poor countries.

So we borrow money to give to other countries, you couldn't make it up.

If he did, he might have said that ODA would be cut to zero. That would concentrate the minds of the political elite in poor countries.

Not a bad idea.

‘We need to make British aid more visible. The Union Jack is the most identifiable symbol of the UK,’ said Mr Mitchell. ‘But we have to be *sensible so we don’t put humanitarian workers at risk.’

Good idea, although I thought it was the 'Union flag' not the Union Jack or am I just being picky.

We (as a country) have to start being more choosy who we give aid to, China, India, Russia and other economically growing states should have no aid at all, basically if you have a space/ nuclear programme then you do not qualify for aid, period. Any country that's hostile towards the UK, again should get no aid. Also aid money should be passed to a recognisible charity that is working in the country and not to the leader/ government of that country.

Whats the saying, ' Give me a fish and I'll eat for a day, give me a net and I'll eat for the rest of my life' or something like that.

CG
 
#7
What is the obsession with Harrier?

You are replacing it with a much more capable, newer, easier to maintain aircraft (yes in smaller numbers ... but sometimes less in more).
 
#8
I've nothing against foreign aid as long as it is used to win friends and influence people that are strategicly and ecconomically useful (India being a prime example)....
Yes what would India do if we stopped giving them money?

Maybe all the people of Indian descent might withdraw all their support over here and go and work over in India?
Maybe all the call centers in India will stop working for us and we will have to man them over here?
Maybe they will stop selling us all their goods?
Yes lots of things India could do if we stopped giving them free money.
 
#9
What is the obsession with Harrier?

You are replacing it with a much more capable, newer, easier to maintain aircraft (yes in smaller numbers ... but sometimes less in more).
Its the fact that its being withdrawn before a replacement is fielded.

In the meantime Argentina has decided to massively increase itse defence budget including the development of nuclear powered subs etc.

It is simple common sense.

You don't say you are skint and unable to afford a proper defensive capability and then give billions away to countries who have larger growth than us.

Oh and the EU is demanding we increase our contributions to such things as their Champagne budget.

The governments position on defence cuts whilst increasing foreign aid is indefensible.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#10
Its the fact that its being withdrawn before a replacement is fielded.

In the meantime Argentina has decided to massively increase itse defence budget including the development of nuclear powered subs etc.

It is simple common sense.

You don't say you are skint and unable to afford a proper defensive capability and then give billions away to countries who have larger growth than us.

Oh and the EU is demanding we increase our contributions to such things as their Champagne budget.

The governments position on defence cuts whilst increasing foreign aid is indefensible.
That issue cropped up here a few months back and the increases were equal to the square root of **** all in real terms.
 
#12
IVV is right. And losing Harrier now means none of the skills to run a carrier safely will exist in ten years. How long to learn from scratch? About ten years.

Doh!

Is Argentina's 50% budget increase really that easy to dismiss? An amphibious capability is on the shopping list...
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#13
IVV is right. And losing Harrier now means nne of the drills to run a carrier safely will exist in ten years. How long to learn from scratch? About ten years.

Doh!

Is Argentina's 50% budget increase really that easy to dismiss? An amphibious capability is on the shopping list...
Don't get me wrong I think the capbilty gap is a mistake (hello pro-CVF here) but considering Argentine defence spendign was $1.7billion back in 2007 and around $1.8 billion an increase of 50% is still **** all in the grand scheme of things.
 
#15
£3 billion. Nothing to the bunch of twerps now running this country. That said, it is quite a lot to waste on:

EUROPEAN SOVIET UNION
BULGARIAN BANDITS
ROMANIAN RAPISTS
FAT AND OVERWEIGHT, FOUL-MOUTHED, ILL-MANNERED HARRIDANS AND OIKS IN THE NHS
INDIA
CORRUPT AFRICAN DICTATORS
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#16
But how effective is their ability to project that power? Far less than ours, we could get a small taskforce down to the islands before they've even navigated out of the River Plate.

CVF is an asset we need to keep and fully stock with whizzy thingies, we also need to develop a range of new amphibious assault ships (c.30,000-35,000tn think small Wasp class), though incumbent with that is an increase of escorts. Political dithering, inservice cock-fighting and quite an unbelievable inabilty to control the money in defence has led us to this point.

FWIW this is the set up (surface fleet) the RN should have IMHO:

2 CVF
3-4 AAS
15 Type 45
20-25 Type 26
20 C3 or a new OPV (H) class capable of embarking 2 or more helos like the Shikishima Class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shikishima_(PLH_31)

(off the top of my head, I can't find my original list)

If a sensible staggered rolling procurement system were established this could be affordable - but sensible is something that does not happen in defence procurement.

Addendum: we should only really start worrying about Argentina when she and Venezuela start co-ordinating outcries - when BA & Caracas start talking about Britain, Falklands and Guyana at the same time, then start worrying.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#17
£3 billion. Nothing to the bunch of twerps now running this country. That said, it is quite a lot to waste on:

EUROPEAN SOVIET UNION
BULGARIAN BANDITS
ROMANIAN RAPISTS
FAT AND OVERWEIGHT, FOUL-MOUTHED, ILL-MANNERED HARRIDANS AND OIKS IN THE NHS

INDIA
CORRUPT AFRICAN DICTATORS
You forgot piss-stained Daily Mail readers in Care Homes
 
#18
But how effective is their ability to project that power? Far less than ours, we could get a small taskforce down to the islands before they've even navigated out of the River Plate.

CVF is an asset we need to keep and fully stock with whizzy thingies, we also need to develop a range of new amphibious assault ships (c.30,000-35,000tn think small Wasp class), though incumbent with that is an increase of escorts. Political dithering, inservice cock-fighting and quite an unbelievable inabilty to control the money in defence has led us to this point.

FWIW this is the set up (surface fleet) the RN should have IMHO:

2 CVF
3-4 AAS
15 Type 45
20-25 Type 26
20 C3 or a new OPV (H) class capable of embarking 2 or more helos like the Shikishima Class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shikishima_(PLH_31)

(off the top of my head, I can't find my original list)

If a sensible staggered rolling procurement system were established this could be affordable - but sensible is something that does not happen in defence procurement.

Addendum: we should only really start worrying about Argentina when she and Venezuela start co-ordinating outcries - when BA & Caracas start talking about Britain, Falklands and Guyana at the same time, then start worrying.
"Rampant" old chap, that is exactly what chavez has been doing see here:- Freeborn John: Chavez threatens Britain
The Argies have also got some support from Brazil & even Chile see here :- Latin America backs Argentina as Britain begins Falklands oil quest - contains video

Now that oil with the potential value of BILLIONS of pounds has been found there, I think we need to worry & take these S. American threats seriously and reinforce our garrison on the Falklands and our capability to reinforce them or the Argies with help from the other dictators will just stroll in. I cant see Europe or the Yanks doing much if anything to stop it! Lets not forget it was Britains neglect and disinterest in the 80's that encouraged them then! My son spent some time in Argentina at the beginning of the year and he said it was very apparent that their claims to "las Malvinas" are as strong or stronger than ever! If they see that it would bring them oil & not just mangy sheep, its an even bigger incentive add that with our catastrophic defence cuts and it is just the trigger they need!!!
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#20
"Rampant" old chap, that is exactly what chavez has been doing see here:- Freeborn John: Chavez threatens Britain
The Argies have also got some support from Brazil & even Chile see here :- Latin America backs Argentina as Britain begins Falklands oil quest - contains video

Now that oil with the potential value of BILLIONS of pounds has been found there, I think we need to worry & take these S. American threats seriously and reinforce our garrison on the Falklands and our capability to reinforce them or the Argies with help from the other dictators will just stroll in. I cant see Europe or the Yanks doing much if anything to stop it! Lets not forget it was Britains neglect and disinterest in the 80's that encouraged them then! My son spent some time in Argentina at the beginning of the year and he said it was very apparent that their claims to "las Malvinas" are as strong or stronger than ever! If they see that it would bring them oil & not just mangy sheep, its an even bigger incentive add that with our catastrophic defence cuts and it is just the trigger they need!!!
Indeed, but not quite what I meant: most of the leaders in SAm have expressed support for Argentine claims, the question is will they follow through. My contention is that Chavez would only give overt support to Argentina if he can benefit territorially or finacially from that support, hence why I included Guyana, if claims for Falklands/Guyana start appearing at the same time along with better military co-ordination then start worrying, as it stands that is someway off (fortunately).
 

Latest Threads