ChatterBank0 min ago
If Any Party Said They Would End This Madness Would That .......
9 Answers
http://
.........help in moving you towards voting for them? The amount is about a third of the defence budget. Why are we so obsessed with giving away money to foriegners that we are actually creating legislation? They must be pi55ing themselves lauaghing at our stupidity. We moan about MPs etc snouts in trough, that's drop in the ocean compared to this, yet no one seems all that bothered.
.........help in moving you towards voting for them? The amount is about a third of the defence budget. Why are we so obsessed with giving away money to foriegners that we are actually creating legislation? They must be pi55ing themselves lauaghing at our stupidity. We moan about MPs etc snouts in trough, that's drop in the ocean compared to this, yet no one seems all that bothered.
Answers
1 to 9 of 9
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Yes quite,
A grease fund, slush fund, a fund used to corruptly secure contracts. Call it what you will but don't bamboozle the taxpayer into believing that it is helping "international development". Furthermore, if it is indeed securing contracts for UK firms why is the taxpayer providing the bribe money? Surely if there is that much in it for UK companies they can fund the bribes themselves.
Zambia is not a very good advert as a success for International Development funds, Eddie. The UK spent £54.7 million on programmes in 2010-11, a figure that will increase to £63 million in 2014-15 according to DFID plans. There’s plenty of info available on their current dire straits, but here’s a couple of extracts describing its current state:
"Unemployment and underemployment are serious problems. National GDP has actually doubled since independence [in 1964], but due in large part to high birth rates and per capita annual incomes are currently at about two-thirds of their levels at independence. This low GDP per capita, which stands at $1400, places the country among the world's poorest nations. Social indicators continue to decline, particularly in measurements of life expectancy at birth (about 50 years) and maternal and infant mortality (85 per 1,000 live births). The high population growth rate of 2.3% per annum makes it difficult for per capita income to increase. The country's rate of economic growth cannot support rapid population growth or the strain which HIV/AIDS-related issues (i.e., rising medical costs, street children, and decline in worker productivity) places on government resources."
"Although Zambia has enjoyed significant economic growth in the last decade, it remains one of the least-developed countries in the world, ranking 164 out of 187 countries in the 2011 UN Human Development Index with a third of the population unable to meet even basic food needs. The country is seriously off track on the poverty Millennium Development Goal (MDG1) and inequality remains very high. Women suffer disproportionately; violence against women is widespread and maternal mortality rates (MDG5) are high."
So, not much signs of "development" there then.
This is a nation awash with copper which is among the world’s most valuable mass produced commodities. The foundation for this industry was laid by a good mate of Cecil Zimbabe (formerly Cecil Rhodes). Now that really was International Development, but I suppose today it is seen as colonial plundering.
So it may well be true that UK State funded palm-greasing facilitated by the now legally enforceable “International Development” budget has amply benefitted the directors and shareholders of the Union Jack Copper Company (no doubt among others). But it does not seem to have done too much for the man and woman on the Lusaka omnibus. And that’s what we’re told it’s supposed to be for.
A grease fund, slush fund, a fund used to corruptly secure contracts. Call it what you will but don't bamboozle the taxpayer into believing that it is helping "international development". Furthermore, if it is indeed securing contracts for UK firms why is the taxpayer providing the bribe money? Surely if there is that much in it for UK companies they can fund the bribes themselves.
Zambia is not a very good advert as a success for International Development funds, Eddie. The UK spent £54.7 million on programmes in 2010-11, a figure that will increase to £63 million in 2014-15 according to DFID plans. There’s plenty of info available on their current dire straits, but here’s a couple of extracts describing its current state:
"Unemployment and underemployment are serious problems. National GDP has actually doubled since independence [in 1964], but due in large part to high birth rates and per capita annual incomes are currently at about two-thirds of their levels at independence. This low GDP per capita, which stands at $1400, places the country among the world's poorest nations. Social indicators continue to decline, particularly in measurements of life expectancy at birth (about 50 years) and maternal and infant mortality (85 per 1,000 live births). The high population growth rate of 2.3% per annum makes it difficult for per capita income to increase. The country's rate of economic growth cannot support rapid population growth or the strain which HIV/AIDS-related issues (i.e., rising medical costs, street children, and decline in worker productivity) places on government resources."
"Although Zambia has enjoyed significant economic growth in the last decade, it remains one of the least-developed countries in the world, ranking 164 out of 187 countries in the 2011 UN Human Development Index with a third of the population unable to meet even basic food needs. The country is seriously off track on the poverty Millennium Development Goal (MDG1) and inequality remains very high. Women suffer disproportionately; violence against women is widespread and maternal mortality rates (MDG5) are high."
So, not much signs of "development" there then.
This is a nation awash with copper which is among the world’s most valuable mass produced commodities. The foundation for this industry was laid by a good mate of Cecil Zimbabe (formerly Cecil Rhodes). Now that really was International Development, but I suppose today it is seen as colonial plundering.
So it may well be true that UK State funded palm-greasing facilitated by the now legally enforceable “International Development” budget has amply benefitted the directors and shareholders of the Union Jack Copper Company (no doubt among others). But it does not seem to have done too much for the man and woman on the Lusaka omnibus. And that’s what we’re told it’s supposed to be for.
1 to 9 of 9
Latest Posts
ChatterBank4 mins ago
ChatterBank12 mins ago
ChatterBank28 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles40 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.