UK General Election thread

[N35t0r]

Because actions like that one have excellent track record in improving developing countries

[Sava]

Africa is a continent of 1.1 billion. Boko Haram has killed an estimated 5,000 from 2009-2014. They number less than 10,000. They couldn't fill the stands at a professional baseball game. They are operating primarily in parts of Nigeria and three other countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boko_Haram

69% of all people infected with HIV live in sub-Saharan Africa. We could do nothing else but airdrop condoms and save more lives than by dealing with Boko Haram.

http://www.avert.org/worldwide-hiv-aids-statistics.htm

... and cost?

I suspect a crate full of condoms costs less than a cruise missile. It would be cheaper to buy all their vehicles, for instance, than bomb them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But Saaaava, if we just got rid of Boko Haram, the continent would magically stop getting AIDS!

[Dauphin]

how do you propose to achieve your aims in the context of the present system?
.

I am not setting out a policy agenda. I am looking at the parties and seeing if their policies 1) speak to me as a philosophy and 2) add up to a coherent view.

There are many things I like about the Green's policies, but the logic behind them does not reflect my philosophy and I don't think they make a coherent overall policy.

I don't lay claim to have a coherent policy approach to resolve current issues such as wealth inequality, but I don't need to. I only need to decide who I think has the least worst approach.

[C0ckney]

Handing welath to under developed countries has historically not been a particularly great way of turning them into developed countries. It takes time and internal development to raise countries up to developed level, and whilst external help is obvious great, just turning on the cash tap isn't that helpful.

i don't agree and reject the premise that wealth has ever been 'handed [over]' to developing countries, high interest loans and military aid not counting as handing over wealth in my book. it's remarkable how much 'foreign aid' actually turns out to be military aid, or better yet, given in the form of credits to buy arms from western manufacturers, but i digress...

but you do indirectly raise an important point about distribution and how to avoid any wealth given ending up paying for guns or a new set of luxury cars for the dictator's favourites. i would suggest that any such programme needs to bypass states as far as possible and give money directly to local communities, along with technical expertise where necessary.

How is handing over vast sums of cash a 'small sacrifice'? You're basically asking parents to accept a lower standard of living for their children to help people they've never met, and we know how well that goes over at the polls.

because the amount of wealth needed to take people out of desperate circumstances is actually quite small, relatively speaking. to give but one example let's take this oft-quoted statistic.

Less than one per cent of what the world spent every year on weapons was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it didn't happen.

if one makes it seem impossible, then of course no one will support it. make it seem realistic, which it is, then people will.

if you want to talk about base politics then you could have a poster campaign showing various scenes of third world poverty with the tag-line: would you want to live there? if we make the third world better, fewer of its inhabitants will want to come here: support global wealth redistribution!

so that's the racist working class and the daily mail readers signed up, as well as the bleeding hearts who'd like the idea anyway; quite a sizeable proportion of the electorate already.

[C0ckney]

I am not setting out a policy agenda. I am looking at the parties and seeing if their policies 1) speak to me as a philosophy and 2) add up to a coherent view.

There are many things I like about the Green's policies, but the logic behind them does not reflect my philosophy and I don't think they make a coherent overall policy.

I don't lay claim to have a coherent policy approach to resolve current issues such as wealth inequality, but I don't need to. I only need to decide who I think has the least worst approach.

well fair enough, everyone has a right to their own opinion and political views, and to vote for whoever they wish. given the dislike you expressed in this thread for labour and SNP figures, it's unlikely that an option further to the left would appeal to you.

[kentonio]

i don't agree and reject the premise that wealth has ever been 'handed [over]' to developing countries, high interest loans and military aid not counting as handing over wealth in my book. it's remarkable how much 'foreign aid' actually turns out to be military aid, or better yet, given in the form of credits to buy arms from western manufacturers, but i digress...

but you do indirectly raise an important point about distribution and how to avoid any wealth given ending up paying for guns or a new set of luxury cars for the dictator's favourites. i would suggest that any such programme needs to bypass states as far as possible and give money directly to local communities, along with technical expertise where necessary.

How exactly do you 'bypass' a countries national government without basically completely undermining that countries self governance? So you're going to tell that country that you'll help them, but only if you get to determine exactly how that help is carried out? How exactly do you propose ensuring that regional or national government dont then simply take the wealth that is arriving in local communities?

because the amount of wealth needed to take people out of desperate circumstances is actually quite small, relatively speaking. to give but one example let's take this oft-quoted statistic.

if one makes it seem impossible, then of course no one will support it. make it seem realistic, which it is, then people will.

It's just idealism that ignores the reality of many of the countries in question. Oh so you're going to build a school? Ok, what happens when some group like Boko Haram decides to burn it down for educating women? Or the local warlord decides that those building supplies would be put to better use building him a compound?

I'm all in favour of helping the third world, but this idea that we could just build them better facilities and things would magically improve is simply not true. Until a country develops stability (which sometimes is going to involve fighting) there's no foundation there to build upon. Look at the African nations that have done well, it's pretty much unanimously come about because of strong local people developing communities. If you just inject cash into the sitution (including in the form of building projects or whatever) you just increase the risk of corruption and instability.

if you want to talk about base politics then you could have a poster campaign showing various scenes of third world poverty with the tag-line: would you want to live there? if we make the third world better, fewer of its inhabitants will want to come here: support global wealth redistribution!

so that's the racist working class and the daily mail readers signed up, as well as the bleeding hearts who'd like the idea anyway; quite a sizeable proportion of the electorate already.

Because you think pretty much everyone doesn't already know what the third world looks like, after several decades of Live Aid style TV events? People know, and people feel bad, and people still have absolutely zero interest in making their own kids poorer to help the third world.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

It's just idealism that ignores the reality of many of the countries in question. Oh so you're going to build a school? Ok, what happens when some group like Boko Haram decides to burn it down for educating women? Or the local warlord decides that those building supplies would be put to better use building him a compound?

You build roads linking the capital to the outlying areas where the extremists lurk, allowing the government to move fast and strike back when they pose a threat. You set up power lines so that the rural areas can summon help when they need it. This also sets up the infrastructure that Africa needs most in order to develop.

In return for that overseas aid outlay, you get trading partners and access to Africa's abundant natural resources. That's what China is doing, and doing very well.

[kentonio]

You build roads linking the capital to the outlying areas where the extremists lurk, allowing the government to move fast and strike back when they pose a threat. You set up power lines so that the rural areas can summon help when they need it. This also sets up the infrastructure that Africa needs most in order to develop.

In return for that overseas aid outlay, you get trading partners and access to Africa's abundant natural resources. That's what China is doing, and doing very well.

Ahh, access to their natural resources. Yes, this will doubtless ensure a fair and safe society for the common people..

[pchang]

You vastly overstate what China is doing for the poor of Africa.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

You vastly overstate what China is doing for the poor of Africa.

What? Building roads? Do you need me to post an example before you accept the Chinese are building roads in Africa?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Ahh, access to their natural resources. Yes, this will doubtless ensure a fair and safe society for the common people..

As starting points go, it's a damned good one. Every single developed nation, without exception, started on the path to development by tapping its natural resources. And you need infrastructure to get that ball rolling. And infrastructure is what Africa needs most. And that's exactly where overseas development aid can help most.

[C0ckney]

How exactly do you 'bypass' a countries national government without basically completely undermining that countries self governance? So you're going to tell that country that you'll help them, but only if you get to determine exactly how that help is carried out? How exactly do you propose ensuring that regional or national government dont then simply take the wealth that is arriving in local communities?

It's just idealism that ignores the reality of many of the countries in question. Oh so you're going to build a school? Ok, what happens when some group like Boko Haram decides to burn it down for educating women? Or the local warlord decides that those building supplies would be put to better use building him a compound?

I'm all in favour of helping the third world, but this idea that we could just build them better facilities and things would magically improve is simply not true. Until a country develops stability (which sometimes is going to involve fighting) there's no foundation there to build upon. Look at the African nations that have done well, it's pretty much unanimously come about because of strong local people developing communities. If you just inject cash into the sitution (including in the form of building projects or whatever) you just increase the risk of corruption and instability.

wealth is absolutely not positively correlated with corruption and instability. wealthy places tend to be both more stable and less corrupt. when people are fed and have the chance of decent life, the message of extremists has less appeal.

the third world has several issues, the primary one being a simple lack of wealth, or capital. however, there are also governance problems. i absolutely agree with you that the answer is sustainable local solutions. these are far more likely to happen if that is what we actually support, rather than giving it to corrupt national/regional authorities and hoping that a bit of it gets spent on the people. if the empowerment of local communities undermines the authority of corrupt elites and violent extremists, then so much the better.

Because you think pretty much everyone doesn't already know what the third world looks like, after several decades of Live Aid style TV events? People know, and people feel bad, and people still have absolutely zero interest in making their own kids poorer to help the third world.

but they don't know, at least not in a real way; how could they? or to put it another way, until one has seen and smelt an open sewer, one cannot know what it is like. one can imagine of course, but that's where these things stay in people's minds, in the realm of imagination, like a film, or a book, rather than the real world formed by their lived experience.

[kentonio]

the third world has several issues, the primary one being a simple lack of wealth, or capital. however, there are also governance problems. i absolutely agree with you that the answer is sustainable local solutions. these are far more likely to happen if that is what we actually support, rather than giving it to corrupt national/regional authorities and hoping that a bit of it gets spent on the people. if the empowerment of local communities undermines the authority of corrupt elites and violent extremists, then so much the better.

Why would these corrupt elites allow you to just ignore them and work directly with the poor?

but they don't know, at least not in a real way; how could they? or to put it another way, until one has seen and smelt an open sewer, one cannot know what it is like. one can imagine of course, but that's where these things stay in people's minds, in the realm of imagination, like a film, or a book, rather than the real world formed by their lived experience.

So what's your answer? Fly every voter over there for a tour before the election?

[C0ckney]

Why would these corrupt elites allow you to just ignore them and work directly with the poor?

they haven't any resources, but we mustn't give them any or someone might steal them.

So what's your answer? Fly every voter over there for a tour before the election?

i would probably focus on the potential benefits that they can appreciate: fewer immigrants; a richer third world means more trade and so forth.