Labour attacked after giving £170 million to the People's Republic of China

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1264696/Labour-attacked-giving-170m-aid-China.html


Labour was blasted last night by one of its former ministers for spending £170million of taxpayers' money on aid to China, the world's third largest economy. Ministers were told that it was 'wrong' that such huge sums should be handed to a country that was able to splash out £20billion hosting the Olympic Games in 2008. Britain has given Beijing on average £34.5million a year since 2004-05 to boost its schools, tackle Aids and provide fresh water. Senior peers yesterday questioned whether it was right that development cash should be spent on China, which is forecast to become the biggest economic superpower on the planet within five years. Latest figures from the World Bank show China's GDP was £2.8trillion in 2008 - eclipsed only by the U.S. (£9.3trillion) and Japan (£3.2trillion).
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/04/09/article-1264696-06A84080000005DC-252_468x286.jpg



Baroness Symons - Tony Blair's former Middle East envoy and an ex Foreign Office minister - said it raised 'very, very important questions' about the Government's priorities. She acknowledged parts of China had 'real poverty and deprivation', but added: 'I would not have thought by any standards that China can resile from the responsibility of dealing with its own poverty given its enormous and growing wealth.' She said: 'The primary responsibility for dealing with that poverty should be with the government which is now presiding over a huge and growing economy, an enormous sovereign wealth fund and which is such a strong competitor to our own companies when they are doing business abroad.'

The Conservatives have pledged to shake up Britain's £9.1billion overseas aid budget by cutting funding to more prosperous developing nations, and axing China's aid outright after 2011. International Development Minister Lord Brett said China received 'only a very small part of our aid budget'. 'It is not about helping the Chinese government, it is about helping poor Chinese people,' he added.I am against continous state aid of any type anyway even with China out of the picture. I believe it should be upto the people (your parents, my parents, the taxpayers) to give aid if they wish and not upto the state to allocate it and with lower taxes (smaller state) that would be possible. To this point/issue; we are in enormous and growing amounts of debt and our NHS cannot afford cancer drugs for British people yet this government still sees it fit to allocate our money to China which is a country that spends billions on a nuclear arsenal, a military and space programmes every year.

When will this madness stop? - Thoughts

[jrh2002]

What a country to donate to lol maybe we donated to their human rights department.......... We need to borrow all this money yet we give away so much :o

Stop ALL foreign aid NOW

If you want to donate your hard earned money to charities here or abroad then so be it but the government donation on our behalf is a disgrace :o When there is a disaster let the charities appeal for our private donations but our government should not get involved. We have seen all these dictators driving around in gold plated Rolls Royces bought from our foreign aid which very rarely gets to the people who its aimed for.

[dbgtz]

Oh no, Africa doesn't need our help does it. They are morons. And what will we get in return? A nuke on london.

[jrh2002]

Africa has had more than enough help but most the money has gone to the wrong people (Dictators living it up). Surely they should have got farming tools and equipment mainly so they could produce their own food and be self sufficient instead of rice etc that once eaten is gone for good. Now they expect the world to give them food for free so lots like to sit there waiting to be looked after instead of trying to improve their country. Look at the white farmers ran out of Zimbabwe and how the blacks who got this land from them have let it become fields of weeds with no attempt to carry on growing what was there before which has seen their farming industry collapse. I am sick of looking after everybody elses problems when we have more than enough of our own needing a huge amount of attention.

[Special]

i feel like screaming, that is just madness

it's like giving a millionaire $100 lol

[GommeInc]

It's one of those moments you just wished the basic idea behind the Robin Hood Tax existed :/

[Special]

It's one of those moments you just wished the basic idea behind the Robin Hood Tax existed :/

it's one of them moments you feel like jumping off a bridge never mind robin hood

[Oleh]

What i wanna know is why are we even giving any amount of money away in the current climate?

[Hitman]

That is just crazy. My Chinese friend knows first hand how corrupt the Chinese Government are, and boy they're very corrupt! I expect that money we gave them will go on weapons or to buy the top dogs new houses and cars. :rolleyes: My friend explained that, for example, if a Chinese council needed £1million to build a new park they would request £10million and they would keep the other £9million to spend on themselves. Not good.

And the other point is China is so rich, why do they need our money? Shouldn't WE be spending it HERE?

[alexxxxx]

ridiculous. china runs up budget surpluses enough to buy billions of dollars worth US treasury bonds in order to keep its yuan artificially low. it could afford to do something about it - it just doesn't. China is very much for the some at the expense of the many.

[Alkaz]

Simply it is a disgrace. Like Dan said in his original post, the NHS can not afford life saving drugs for people as there isn't enough money in the NHS or it would simply be to expensive yet see fit to donate to such a large economy which have more than enough money to sort their issues out in their country but choose not to and our gullible government think that if they donate to them it might help them out. What happened to the saying 'Charity begins at home', in Labours case it obviously doesn't.

[Catzsy]

Simply blaming Labour is scaremongering & electioneering. I am not saying it is right or wrong but all the G7 Countries give overseas aid and how much is agreed at the G7 Conferences - it is nothing new. It has happened for years under both labour and conservative governments. I notice this article doesn't mention that though. Not blaming the conservatives either - just pointing out selective journalism.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Simply blaming Labour is scaremongering & electioneering. I am not saying it is right or wrong but all the G7 Countries give overseas aid and how much is agreed at the G7 Conferences - it is nothing new. It has happened for years under both labour and conservative governments. I notice this article doesn't mention that though. Not blaming the conservatives either - just pointing out selective journalism.

Maybe its because the Labour government are in office now (and have been for the last 13 years) and our economy is sort of down the toilet while people on our NHS cannot afford to pay for life-extending drugs - when another government does this i'll be posting it as well, however we are in 2010 and not 1996 so it is the fault of the Labour government as they are in office and they have given this money to the Communist regime in China.

There is nothing 'scaremongering' about it - they have given £170 million to an immensely rich dictatorship no matter how you try to word it.

[Catzsy]

Maybe its because the Labour government are in office now (and have been for the last 13 years) and our economy is sort of down the toilet while people on our NHS cannot afford to pay for life-extending drugs - when another government does this i'll be posting it as well, however we are in 2010 and not 1996 so it is the fault of the Labour government.

No it isn't Dan - you cannot just renage on a G7 agreement where the amounts to be given are agreed. Lots of economies are down the toilet at the moment. Even during the recessions of the 80s and 90s it was paid. Not saying it is not something that should be looked at by the G7 - I mean should the UK be part of the G7 now, even? It maybe an immensely rich dictatorship but there must be a reason why all G7 countries agreed aid to it. I think you are grasping at straws here to defend a paper and it's selective journalism which doesn't reflect the whole story. :P

[jrh2002]

No it isn't Dan - you cannot just renage on a G7 agreement. Lots of economies are down the toilet at the moment. Even during the recessions of the 80s and 90s it was paid. Not saying it is not something that should be looked at by the G7 - I mean should the UK be part of the G7 now, even? I think you are grasping at straws here to defend a paper and it's selective journalism which doesn't reflect the whole story. :P

This is our country we should look after our own and stuff the other countries of the world. Put our citizens 1st and pay for promised cancer drugs? Lets leave the G7 as its just another sham like the EU. Be nice to see what other countries gave money to them as well as they will have selective donation policies no doubt.

I think this money was really a bill for the MP's dining out in china town.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No it isn't Dan - you cannot just renage on a G7 agreement. Lots of economies are down the toilet at the moment. Even during the recessions of the 80s and 90s it was paid. Not saying it is not something that should be looked at by the G7 - I mean should the UK be part of the G7 now, even? I think you are grasping at straws here to defend a paper and it's selective journalism which doesn't reflect the whole story. :P

Actually in the 1980s I believe Margaret Thatcher slashed foreign aid payments to fund with the restructuring of the economy. As for selective journalism, i'm sorry but its happening - we are giving £170 million to China no matter how you word it, and of course it'd be no use me quoting or using one of the Labour papers (Guardian or Daily Mirror) because they are not going to report on it are they so let us be realistic here. As for foreign aid, i'm sorry but giving £170 million to China is unacceptable and deals such as foreign aid can be cut just like any treaty can be modified or cut.

I read that in some provinces of China, they have hundreds of billions leftover and they dont actually know how to spend it. How can yourself and the Labour Party justify giving £170 million of taxpayer money to an immensely rich and cruel dictatorship while our own people (the taxpayers) are denied life-extending drugs because 'we have no money'.

A government doesnt have money, its taxpayer money and taxpayer money should be used on the taxpayers.

[Catzsy]

This is our country we should look after our own and stuff the other countries of the world. Put our citizens 1st and pay for promised cancer drugs? Lets leave the G7 as its just another sham like the EU. Be nice to see what other countries gave money to them as well as they will have selective donation policies no doubt.

I think this money was really a bill for the MP's dining out in china town.
I think you are right. I do not think that the UK should accept the fact that it is not a world power anymore either politically or econonically and leave the G7.


Actually in the 1980s I believe Margaret Thatcher slashed foreign aid payments to fund with the restructuring of the economy. As for selective journalism, i'm sorry but its happening - we are giving £170 million to China no matter how you word it, and of course it'd be no use me quoting or using one of the Labour papers (Guardian or Daily Mirror) because they are not going to report on it are they so let us be realistic here. As for foreign aid, i'm sorry but giving £170 million to China is unacceptable and deals such as foreign aid can be cut just like any treaty can be modified or cut.

I read that in some provinces of China, they have hundreds of billions leftover and they dont actually know how to spend it. How can yourself and the Labour Party justify giving £170 million of taxpayer money to an immensely rich and cruel dictatorship while our own people (the taxpayers) are denied life-extending drugs because 'we have no money'.

A government doesnt have money, its taxpayer money and taxpayer money should be used on the taxpayers.

I am not disagreeing with you as I said just pointing out the selective journalism. :P

As for the part in bold, Dan belief is no good - just serve up the cold hard facts. :D

[jrh2002]

China give $25 Billion in aid and yet we need to give them money :o

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/opinion/25iht-edwalker.html

[-:Undertaker:-]

As for the part in bold, Dan belief is no good - just serve up the cold hard facts. :D

Well everything I have read (including books) on the subject state she did cut foreign aid, I tried a quick search on Google but nothing came up.

[jrh2002]

We have an undercover reporter on the forums who has found out the reason why we give the money :o

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=637614&p=6401104#post6401104

[MrPinkPanther]

Like I said in the old thread, you'd get some kind of credibility if you started quoting real papers and not tabloids whose main function does tend to be scaremongering or giving the latest gossip. Lets be honest, it sells papers.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Like I said in the old thread, you'd get some kind of credibility if you started quoting real papers and not tabloids whose main function does tend to be scaremongering or giving the latest gossip. Lets be honest, it sells papers.

What you may class as a real paper such as the Guardian will not report on Labours wasteful spending, i'd suggest that your comments may gain some credibility if you started actually replying to the topic rather than ranting on about its source.

[Jordy]

While I'm not totally against aid, I am totally against aid to the likes of China. What really astounds me though is that the UK Government have stopped giving anything to Haiti unlike all the other major nations. Fair enough if you don't want to give aid to any country, but wouldn't you rather Haiti got the money than China? They can't even waste our money properly.

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=5520
(Apologies for posting a link to a heavily biased socialist website, but it must be saying something if they're criticizing Labour)

[Catzsy]

What you may class as a real paper such as the Guardian will not report on Labours wasteful spending, i'd suggest that your comments may gain some credibility if you started actually replying to the topic rather than ranting on about its source.

You know this is a bit Pot Kettle Black. You are very happy to quote from right wing papers and defend them to the hilt but when it comes to a leftish wing one you rubbish it too! None of the papers are worth relying on completely. We should all know 'it's what they don't say that counts'. Tbf though I don't think the mail or express is classed as a tabloid whereas the Sun and star are otherwise I would have to move it to the tabloid section:P

@ Jordy I think you are a bit mixed up here. What has that website which actually advertises the Morning Star got to do with the Labour party? - they don't like new Labour and have never done so? That's like saying the It must be something if the National Front are criticising the Conservative party. There is a huge spectrum between Marxism and Facism and all the main parties are in the middle of this spectrum - some slightly right and some slightly left.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You know this is a bit Pot Kettle Black. You are very happy to quote from right wing papers and defend them to the hilt but when it comes to a leftish wing one you rubbish it too! None of the papers are worth relying on completely. We should all know 'it's what they don't say that counts'. Tbf though I don't think the mail or express is classed as a tabloid whereas the Sun and star are otherwise I would have to move it to the tabloid section:P If it was significient then you would find a source. @ Jordy I think you are a bit mixed up here. What has that website which actually advertises the Morning Star got to do with the Labour party? - they don't like new Labour and have never done so? That's like saying the I should excuse the National Front from criticising the Conservative party. There is a huge spectrum between Marxism and Facism and all the main parties are in the middle of this spectrum - some slightly right and some slightly left.

I do not rubbish what left wing papers say because they are rarely quoted/used as sources on this forum, yourself and others never seem to quote the Guardian and when you do so(?) - I dont simply dismiss it as you all do but I argue my side of the debate. It seems more and more apparent nowadays in this forum that rather than wanting to comment on wasteful spending you are all so much more keen to carry with the usual 'well I knew you'd post from the Daily Mail/Telegraph/Express' - instead of having a go at the paper (which I couldnt give a toss what any of you read anyway and i'm sure the same goes for myself) maybe have a go at debating against my point of the argument [provided you disagree with me] which is that this is an unacceptable waste of public finances at a time when our debt is ballooning in size.

I must say on the point of papers themselves (which the topic has now been dragged onto when it shouldnt be because they are totally irrelvant) the Telegraph, Mail and Express while obviously being biased do tend to criticise the Conservative Party more, whereas the Daily Mirror never criticises the Labour Party and the Guardian is the same, although it must be noted the Guardian has become more balanced in recent years over the Iraq issue and so forth. The country could be on fire and the Daily Mirror would still be telling us to vote Labour.

[Catzsy]

I do not rubbish what left wing papers say because they are rarely quoted/used as sources on this forum, yourself and others never seem to quote the Guardian and when you do so(?) - I dont simply dismiss it as you all do but I argue my side of the debate. It seems more and more apparent nowadays in this forum that rather than wanting to comment on wasteful spending you are all so much more keen to carry with the usual 'well I knew you'd post from the Daily Mail/Telegraph/Express' - instead of having a go at the paper (which I couldnt give a toss what any of you read anyway and i'm sure the same goes for myself) maybe have a go at debating against my point of the argument [provided you disagree with me] which is that this is an unacceptable waste of public finances at a time when our debt is ballooning in size.

I must say on the point of papers themselves (which the topic has now been dragged onto when it shouldnt be because they are totally irrelvant) the Telegraph, Mail and Express while obviously being biased do tend to criticise the Conservative Party more, whereas the Daily Mirror never criticises the Labour Party and the Guardian is the same, although it must be noted the Guardian has become more balanced in recent years over the Iraq issue and so forth. The country could be on fire and the Daily Mirror would still be telling us to vote Labour.

Never read The Mirror so I wouldn't know. It's usually the times or independent for me although I do browse the mail and express online. I will come back with some of your quotes about left wing papers.

[Catzsy]

Extra info - as promised some of your recent comments about The Guardian which are not too compliemtary.:P

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=636699&p=6393029#post6393029


I am sorry but it is the English Channel and not a pond which is there for unelected and unwanted eurocrats to rename whatever they wish. You will not find this on any European Union sites/the Guardian because it makes them look like the pathetic little Hitlers they are who cannot stand it if they dont get their own way. As a federalist yourself though, you must be very happy this 'cultural exchange' is taking place despite the fact both the majority of the French and British people do not want any of it. We need a Prime Minister who will tell this lot where to go.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=632195&p=6347136#post6347136

How about you actually find some evidence then on Mr Wilders rather than presuming because the Guardian, the Labour Party and the UAF do not like him? - nothing he says there actually offends anyone other than radical extremists (as shown by the picture) so why on earth should he and others be prevented from airing their view because some islamic extremists dont like it and hate the notion of freedom. The muslims who do want to intergrate into this country would support & understand Wilders because most of them will have a first-hand view on radical Islam;- and the same for the ones wishing to intergrate properly into the Netherlands because as he says himself; they are welcome to. If they wish to live in a democratic and free country (as many must hence why wanting to intergrate) then they have obviously seen what parts of Islam cannot work in the western world and henceforth thats the whole reason why they dont practise those beliefs and want to intergrate.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=632560&p=6349993#post6349993


Oh get over the Daily Mail now because you dont seem to be able to debate your point without mentioning the papers, I could go on about the Guardian all day long if I wanted to but we'd still be none the wiser. The issue at hand; the issue is not that, the issue is that people who come to Britain pretty much instantly will be able and viable to claim on the benefits system meaning people can just come in, not have to work at all and simply claim benefits.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=622551&p=6236954#post6236954


Here we go on the newspaper stories again, if you don't like it post some Guardian stories about how Gordon Brown saved the worlds financial banking system and saved us all at Copenhagen - afterall in his own words he 'saved the world'. Meanwhile, i'd rather stick to the real world and post stories such as this which highlights and prompts debate on how our country spends its money, and even more so prompts debate about care for the elderly.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Extra info - as promised some of your recent comments about The Guardian which are not too compliemtary.:P

If you actually read those sources properly, you'd see i'm using it as an example to get the topic away from the newspaper issue. Somebody goes 'uhh uhh Daily Mail' so I reply with one of those in which I state very clearly 'I do not bang on about the Guardian'. If you posted a topic with the main source as the Guardian I wouldnt not comment on the Guardian being your source because most of the time the source matters very little when prompting a debate about a subject and I would comment on the topic itself, not the newspaper which bears no relevance in most subjects/discussions. You yourself dont tend to go on about the papers all that often and most of the time comment on the actual topic, FlyDuo on the other hand does not and nor did you in this topic.

For example;


Oh get over the Daily Mail now because you dont seem to be able to debate your point without mentioning the papers, I could go on about the Guardian all day long if I wanted to but we'd still be none the wiser. - I posted that because somebody (like FlyDuo and yourself) decided to have a go at the source of the thread, not the subject of the thread.

I'm not complimentary about the Guardian no, and i've never claimed to be nor ever will be because I dont agree with it. However the difference is, I dont bang on about selective journalism/the media whereas many of you (when I post a Labour-themed story) seem to only have a comment for the Daily Mail/Express or Telegraph and not the topic itself which is why many of these threads turn into a media slanting war.

[Catzsy]

If you actually read those sources properly, you'd see i'm using it as an example to get the topic away from the newspaper issue. Somebody goes 'uhh uhh Daily Mail' so I reply with one of those in which I state very clearly 'I do not bang on about the Guardian'. If you posted a topic with the main source as the Guardian I wouldnt not comment on the Guardian being your source because most of the time the source matters very little when prompting a debate about a subject. You yourself dont tend to go on about the papers and often comment on the actual topic, FlyDuo on the other hand does not and nor did you in this topic.

For example;
- I posted that because somebody (like FlyDuo and yourself) decided to have a go at the source of the thread, not the subject of the thread.

I'm not complimentary about the Guardian no, and i've never claimed to be nor ever will be because I dont agree with it. However the difference is, I dont bang on about selective journalism/the media whereas many of you (when I post a Labour-themed story) seem to only have a comment for the Daily Mail/Express or Telegraph and not the topic itself which is why many of these threads turn into a media slanting war.

Well I see your point of view but if you keep posting the right wing stories it is bound to be challenged by us because it doesn't have any balance. It would be no different if I just posted the guardian.