India and foreign aid

Rifte · 16 Aug 2018 at 08:57

Yes I was under the impression that it was an above board over the table bribe system.

What would be interesting is to know how far this 'aid' gets down the food chain to tackle poverty and the lack of education (not really a concern for the UK).

My guess would be slim to none.

Semple · 16 Aug 2018 at 09:02

As has been said, it's a meagre amount (in reality) and is typically made to promote British interests, so yes, no more than a bribe really.

The biggest question is if we didn't give that aid to India, would we a) see less favourable interests from India, and b) where would that 40/50 million go once back in the public purse.

Frankly with such a small amount it would probably just get gobbled up by interest and the public wouldn't be any better off anyway.

BowdonUK · 16 Aug 2018 at 10:57

I've long thought aid money was a cover of something else.

Also giving money away is one way to control currency value by making sure people outside of UK have our currency.

dirtychinchilla · 16 Aug 2018 at 11:22

I don't think I could care any less that we send them this money. Good for them that they've got a space program. Hopefully they'll be more successful than we have been of late.

phil-k · 16 Aug 2018 at 11:26

We should stop giving them a handout, none of it seems to get to their poor anyway, just gives a luxury lifesyle to the few at the top

G-MAN2004 · 16 Aug 2018 at 11:31

It's a drop in the ocean as far as budgets are concerned, but we could be spending that on getting our homeless off the streets...

Terminal_Boy · 16 Aug 2018 at 11:32

dowie said:
It does seem pretty silly tbh.. should be going to much poorer countries, it is up to the Indian government to allocate resources more efficiently if required.

No. While there are homeless Britons sleeping on the streets, we shouldn't be sending a single penny overseas.

Beaten to the punch. I must learn to read the entire thread before replying...

Jumper118 · 16 Aug 2018 at 12:50

We should not send aid to any country unless they have a natural disaster. All it does is weaken their currencies and keep basic things high

Diddums · 16 Aug 2018 at 12:52

Jumper118 said:
We should not send aid to any country unless they have a natural disaster. All it does is weaken their currencies and keep basic things high

Which is great for us folks buying stuff from them.

Minusorange · 16 Aug 2018 at 13:06

Diddums said:
Which is great for us folks buying stuff from them.

What are we buying from India though apart from cheap Call centre support and Microsoft support scams ?

Neither are really useful for the UK people

LOAM · 16 Aug 2018 at 13:36

Minusorange said:
What are we buying from India though apart from cheap Call centre support and Microsoft support scams ?

Neither are really useful for the UK people

£3.5b is imported from India annually (or thereabouts). Cars, car parts, clothes, food, leather and gold amongst various other things. Oh and a large chunk of our doctors.

Jumper118 · 16 Aug 2018 at 13:51

Diddums said:
Which is great for us folks buying stuff from them.

Not really because we are paying for it in tax in the first place. It benefits nobody

CREATIVE!11 · 16 Aug 2018 at 14:06

Makes no sense at all....

I've actually discussed this in the past with a friend. Why we are still sending foreign aid to certain places.....

LOAM · 16 Aug 2018 at 14:10

CREATIVE!11 said:
Makes no sense at all....

I've actually discussed this in the past with a friend. Why we are still sending foreign aid to certain places.....

For the reasons highlighted in this thread.

Minusorange · 16 Aug 2018 at 14:27

LOAM said:
£3.5b is imported from India annually (or thereabouts). Cars, car parts, clothes, food, leather and gold amongst various other things. Oh and a large chunk of our doctors.

Surely India needs us to keep importing that £3.5b worth of goods vs us sending them £56million a year ?

So we don't pay them that money, what are they going to do ? Stop us from importing and lose £3.5billion worth of GDP ?

It sure seems like we don't need to bribe them in order to buy £3.5billion worth of goods off them

arknor · 16 Aug 2018 at 14:31

BowdonUK said:
I've long thought aid money was a cover of something else.

Also giving money away is one way to control currency value by making sure people outside of UK have our currency.

its magical money though not tied to anything

Burnsy2023 · 16 Aug 2018 at 14:33

Minusorange said:
Surely India needs us to keep importing that £3.5b worth of goods vs us sending them £56million a year ?

So we don't pay them that money, what are they going to do ? Stop us from importing and lose £3.5billion worth of GDP ?

It sure seems like we don't need to bribe them in order to buy £3.5billion worth of goods off them

It's silly to think we'll stop trading. But they might reduce the amount they import from us in favor of another nation. If that costs UK business even only say £300m, surely that's worth it?

Minusorange · 16 Aug 2018 at 14:39

Burnsy2023 said:
It's silly to think we'll stop trading. But they might reduce the amount they import from us in favor of another nation. If that costs UK business even only say £300m, surely that's worth it?

I don't think they would reduce their imports from us because we could just equally reduce our imports from them

The fact we have to pay a country to both import and export goods to/from us just sounds so silly

I'm not buying the whole bribe for trade idea because they need our trade as much as we need theirs

Burnsy2023 · 16 Aug 2018 at 15:01

Minusorange said:
I don't think they would reduce their imports from us because we could just equally reduce our imports from them

The fact we have to pay a country to both import and export goods to/from us just sounds so silly

I'm not buying the whole bribe for trade idea because they need our trade as much as we need theirs

I don't think you understand how international trade works.

Take India looking for a new Navy ship. They could buy from a number of companies in a range of countries. Say a British diplomat has access to many of the ministers making this decision due to the aid that had been donated. They have the opportunity to lobby for BAE to get the contract rather than another company. Due to that decision they also end up buying a load of other military technology to compliment that purchase such as missiles. Perhaps that's a £500m contract.

Now lets say we didn't have that diplomatic access and therefore we didn't get the contract. Are you suggesting that the UK Gov then start trying to pressure high street shops to stop importing Indian made shoes or something?

arknor · 16 Aug 2018 at 15:28

Burnsy2023 said:
I don't think you understand how international trade works.

Take India looking for a new Navy ship. They could buy from a number of companies in a range of countries. Say a British diplomat has access to many of the ministers making this decision due to the aid that had been donated. They have the opportunity to lobby for BAE to get the contract rather than another company. Due to that decision they also end up buying a load of other military technology to compliment that purchase such as missiles. Perhaps that's a £500m contract.

Now lets say we didn't have that diplomatic access and therefore we didn't get the contract. Are you suggesting that the UK Gov then start trying to pressure high street shops to stop importing Indian made shoes or something?

doesnt seem to work with fighter jets