Off Topic Political Debate

The problem in a lot of the emerging economies is that the wealth sector has expanded massively and it will take years for the poorest to benefit. Plus the caste system which was manipulated by the British to ensure they kept the people they needed to sweet. So the money and power went to the 'high' castes who looked after their own.

The governments are corrupt and so far removed from day to day life...

Most economic support in these countries from UNDP and the aid agencies goes to projects that generally target the very poor. If this aid was not there the govts would do nothing etc etc.

Some of the very poorest people I have ever come across have been in India.

So the money we give goes to direct projects not to Govts.

 

The UK government stopped aid to India in 2015 in agreement with the government there. The Indian government was actually giving aid to poorer countries to a larger extent than they received from us, £328m compared to the £280m. With the Indian economy growing quickly it was asking for the UK to share skills rather than money. The money saved was committed to helping countries that are poorer with their development projects.

 

I doubt you are stupid - and I can't equate the word 'ethics' to what happened in those cases. I think it's all about greed...
Thankfully, those quoted instances are over, but it's anyone's guess as to whether or not they will be resurrected. What bugs me at the moment is where else UK's aid is spent. For example:

In 2015, UK spent £900M of its aid budget helping Syrian refugees - I don't particularly have a problem with that per se, but...
*The actions of the UK are quite clearly part of the reason for those refugees having to leave in the first place;
*The cost of those actions is being borne by UK taxpayers - as is the cost of the aid;
*Part of those costs include the manufacture of the arms & ammunition used against Syria;
*Seven out of the top ten arms companies used are actively involved in tax avoidance - a double whammy against UK taxpayers;
* Profits from those businesses obviously benefit shareholders - and I'd lay good money on betting how many & who of The Establishment' are shareholders and where those profits are squirreled away to. I doubt they include the likes of you or I.

None of which in any way justifies Austerity and its resultant vicious financial assault on the less fortunate in our society.

 

Austerity was required because of the sub prime fiasco and the failures of the Labour government's fiscal policies. Lets not re-write history.

 

(No doubt some one will try and bring it all back to party politics and lay the blame for the world wide problem with the banks and the greed of the money players at the feet of the last UK Labour govt... yawn.)

Good points made here Bolton... Our foreign policy for decades has been based on this practice regardless of who is in power.... Palestine being a prime example. That is why the media owned by the money players always vilify any politician who speaks the truth as they see it.

 

Is this the end of ken Livingstone's career.?
He is acting increasingly strange with comments bound to cause offence.

 

Interesting development - but doubtless it will simply end in yet another cover-up.

 

I agree that Ken's comments were ill advised, as well as betraying a certain lack of historical knowledge. However, the theme of anti semitism in the Labour party is a difficult one. Is every criticism of Israel to be interpreted as anti semitic ? Even the question of doubting the legitimacy of the allied powers taking away land from Palestinians to create the new Israel based on it being the so called promised land (do the ancient Britons have the right to take back England ?) - even raising a question on this is seen as racist. The left has a difficult position on Israel - on the one hand many Jews have been highly active in the Socialist movement, Israel itself has a far higher level of state ownership than eg. the USA or Britain, and many socialists have spent time on Kibbutzes - but can they ignore the Palestinian problem and the carnage caused there by Israeli governments ? Also, the expression anti semitic also involves the Arab world - because they are also Semites. So is the Islamophobia currently prevailing in Europe not also anti semitic ? Oh, and by the way - he is behaving strangely (not strange) - we need an adverb here.

 

I think we are seeing a fracturing in UK politics at the moment cologne. It is not just Livingstone as there have been rumblings going on within the Labour party for several weeks on this issue. Even today some of Corbyns backers were seen to be supporting Ken. Farage is feeling that he is being pushed out of the way by people in the Brexit campaign and is taking quite a swipe at them. He is saying that he cannot work with Boris and will run his own campaign. We have known for years that the Tory party has had the hard right who think they still have an Empire, while the Liberals have disappeared out of sight. Politically at present I see a state of flux, and after the referendum it is anyone's guess how things will settle down.

 

What was so offensive about his comments?

 

What was the lack of historical knowledge shown by Livingstone?

 

His comments were judged offensive enough to suspend him by his previous backers in new new labour. You need to read their justification for their severe action.

 

Compared to the current french political scene the UK's outlook looks almost serene.

 

He stated that Hitler originally wanted to deport all Jews to Israel and could be seen as a kind of Zionist because of that - which is complete rubbish because Israel did not exist at that time (1933)

 

Yes, but we need to look both at the context of the interview that Livingstone was undertaking at the time and also his previous history when it comes to Israel, which he himself brought up in that interview.
He had been hawking himself around supporting Naz Shah who had also been suspended for alleged anti-Semitic comments - in particular making the assertion that if "Israel" moved to the US, that would be the solution to that areas problems. Whilst the argument can be blurred in that many different religions and races live within Israel, she clearly meant Jews. Let's be clear, in this context when someone writes anti-Semitic, they mean anti-Jewish. Livingstone then threw ignited gasoline into the debate by introducing Hitler into the discussion - as I am not a Jew, I cannot say what can be classed and offensive or anti-Jewish, but it does not take a Jew to understand the crass stupidity of bringing that monster into the debate. We should also remember the comments of Vicki Kirby, who has been suspended twice from the LP for comments like "Hitler was a Zionist God" - so it is clearly a theme in the far left of the New New Labour Party.
Another comment from Livingstone in that interview tells me more about him when he claimed that this was just some kind of revenge for the wish of the Labour Party to recognise the PLO in 1981. At that time PLO was a proscribed by the UN as a terrorist organisation whose chief aim was the destruction of Israel - which in the same way we really know they meant the destruction of the Jews in Israel. Livingstone, Comrade Corbyn and the far left in New New Labour have a lot of history of openly supporting terrorist organisations and many people remember this.

 

Sometimes 'terrorism' is the only weapon open to people who are oppressed. One person's terrorist is another freedom fighter.......

Livingstone was more than stupid though entering this particular issue in the way he did.

I do have jewish friends who openly support the Palestinians... it is very difficult for a non-Jew though. i also have an American friend for whom being anti-Israeli policy means anti-semitic

 

Likewise yorkshire, several Jewish friends who are fiercely anti-Israeli policy - doesn't mean they are anti-Israel. I am anti-UK policy on a number of things, doesn't mean I'm against the idea of a British state. Smoke and mirrors from those who support the destruction of Palestinians.

 

Why on Earth UK and USA continue to support the actions of the Israeli Govt on the ground is beyond me.... and why do the Muslim states let it happen? It is of course all the Great Game of politics whereby the collateral damage of a few hundred dead Palestinians is worth the price.

Interestingly we saw Eye in the Sky last night about the use of drones etc against terrorists in Kenya. Alan Rickman's last film. There is always a price to pay.....

 

Follow the money trail and look at the names at the top - all will become apparent. World Bank, IMF - every country they have 'helped' has ended with crashed economy, destroyed government, ruined infrastructure, riots.....

 

Why do you feel the need to put terrorism in quotes? - a terrorist is a terrorist. I don't buy the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" story. It's an invention for those who wish to condone the terrorist actions of groups whose politics they support. That is why Comrade Corbyn openly supported the IRA, including attending fund raising events, because the hard left in the LP supported a United Ireland. Similarly Corbyn has attended events in Egypt that included groups that are openly slaughtering Coptic Christians in Egypt and groups aligned with ISIS - are these freedom fighter as well?
The sheer hypocrisy of the Labour Party in this area is demonstrated by their actions during the Biafran Civil War - whilst the world was condemning the Nigerian government for the genocide they were carrying out, the Wilson government was quietly selling Armoured Cars and bullets used to prosecute that war.