Sign in to follow this  
Marauder

£4,000,000,000 Public & £4,000,000,000 Private

Recommended Posts

I can see why the private sector would want to invest 4 Billion pounds into Africa but how would the every day council estate Joey benefit from the 4 billions in tax payers money going there ?

Edited by Marauder
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Marauder said:

but how would the every day council estate Joey benefit from the 4 billions in tax payers money going there ?

He will be able to bask in the reflected riches of JRM, after all there's gold in them there hills!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Article for context -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45325701

Quote

 

In a speech in Cape Town, she pledged £4bn in support for African economies, to create jobs for young people.

She also pledged a "fundamental shift" in aid spending to focus on long-term economic and security challenges rather than short-term poverty reduction.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Oxford said:

He will be able to bask in the reflected riches of JRM, after all there's gold in them there hills!

I wonder if the investors will be using money from their UK bank accounts or the off shore accounts ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Griff9of13 said:

40198855_1496791770422827_3924171379083051008_o.thumb.png.c990d7074cc71aeb1c48f36584078f82.png

Still can't see how our council estates will benefit, the jobs created will be in Africa and any money created by the investments will be going into the elites pockets.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Marauder said:

Still can't see how our council estates will benefit, the jobs created will be in Africa and any money created by the investments will be going into the elites pockets.

Indeed. It's nothing but fluff to try to disguise the on-going disaster that is brexit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Griff9of13 said:

Indeed. It's nothing but fluff to try to disguise the on-going disaster that is brexit.

The EU hasn't been that kind to our council estates either.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a purely economic perspective:  It reinforces the net-loss in trade to those nations by keeping tariffs very low, we sell few high-value items to them and take a lot of their low-value items essentially tariff free.  If you're managing the UK as a discrete economy, it reinforces and adds to the money that flows from the UK to those countries.

From a global development perspective: It gives those developing nations' infrastructures continuity post-Brexit so they know they're getting both an easy trade market and also continuing aid funds.  If you were managing the world as a whole then it's the right thing to do.

From a political and Brexit perspective: It's a naked bribe to those African nations to "allow" their deal with the EU to roll over untouched to the UK on Brexit, it allows the PM to say with honesty that we have a trade deal in place. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Griff9of13 said:

Indeed. It's nothing but fluff to try to disguise the on-going disaster that is brexit.

Partly yes. However, the other element is to buy influence; to get those African nations buying British stuff from private businesses over here and get those countries to invest their cash in the UK. That’s the practical the reason why we have an aid budget; not to reduce poverty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Marauder said:

The EU hasn't been that kind to our council estates either.

I disagree.  The EU development grants go directly to the most needy areas.  Once those grants are in the power of the UK government they become political pawns and we see the naked opportunism of the 1980s where the heavy industry areas were devastated and the government invested nothing because it wasn't going to get many MPs from there.  When the Tories are in, they invest in their own seats, when Labour are in they invest in Tory marginals to try to bribe them to vote Labour.

I'd much rather have a faceless bureaucrat assigning the UK's share of development funds to the most needy places than a politician deciding based on where they need to shore up their votes. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Marauder said:

The EU hasn't been that kind to our council estates either.

It's put way more money back into deprived areas than any of these other markets will. 

I know it comes out of our contributions, but do you think our current government would have made the same choices?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, tim2 said:

It's put way more money back into deprived areas than any of these other markets will. 

I know it comes out of our contributions, but do you think our current government would have made the same choices?

Not a chance, the current government are busy turning the screw and investing OUR taxes into deals that will bring the elite tax avoiding kind hearted souls a nice little earner.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

Partly yes. However, the other element is to buy influence; to get those African nations buying British stuff from private businesses over here and get those countries to invest their cash in the UK. That’s the practical the reason why we have an aid budget; not to reduce poverty.

I have a theory about the aid budget, It goes something like this, we give away 50 billion in aid to country X, they give trade deals back, those nasty people in charge of country X  divide the 50 billion between themselves, our nasty people divide the trade deals between themselves and whilst this is going on us god fearing tax paying people living with the austerity cuts tighten our belts another hole and then the process starts over again.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't gain anything here, the UK already has free trade with these countries via the EU. OK they will roll over but so what?

British business left Africa decades ago as there's little trade there. British politicians gave up free trade with the Commonwealth and EFTA as there was little trade and joined the Common Market now the EU.

Bringing in trade tariffs and barriers against the richest continent in the world,Europe, then talking up free trade with the poorest continent in the world, Africa. 

Can only be good business in the crackpot world of Brexit fantasists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Marauder said:

The EU hasn't been that kind to our council estates either.

Very true 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Marauder said:

I have a theory about the aid budget, It goes something like this, we give away 50 billion in aid to country X, they give trade deals back, those nasty people in charge of country X  divide the 50 billion between themselves, our nasty people divide the trade deals between themselves and whilst this is going on us god fearing tax paying people living with the austerity cuts tighten our belts another hole and then the process starts over again.

 

I can agree with the sentiment, but even with the best will in the world the aid budget isn't going to go away. I'd rather it was used to buy influence by investing structurally in these countries (just as China is) rather than just being doled out to lets be honest dubious regimes at best. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you say structurally do you mean rip the earth apart as major roads , mines etc etc are built . 

Local people displaced , lands lost , water supplies restricted .

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The report was about the UK investing in these countries, not about these countries investing in the UK.  China has invested a lot in African nations of late, picking up on the lack of investment there from the UK and other European nations that have not been able to see beyond the borders of the EU in recent years.  Linking aid and investment and trade is good thinking and is way overdue where African nations are concerned IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends what we invest in - when you look at the figures on the bbc you can see the biggest export for Nigeria is crude oil and their biggest import is refined oil - now that means at present they are paying others to refine their crude (hopefully us) if we build them a refinery yes the company running that plant make profit but suddenly their exports crude drop and their imports of refined drop, we as a country are worse off (less tax take form refinery in the UK and no import tariff/tax), they as a country are better off, the company running the refinery are better off and some of that profit might make it's way into our pensions/pockets via shares etc but as a country we are likely way down on the deal.

Offering high tech medical equipment would be better as it increases the health of their country and it is good we make and they don't plus it would allow their meical staff to know the latest techniques etc which would be useful if they come to the NHS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SSoutherner said:

It depends what we invest in - when you look at the figures on the bbc you can see the biggest export for Nigeria is crude oil and their biggest import is refined oil - now that means at present they are paying others to refine their crude (hopefully us) if we build them a refinery yes the company running that plant make profit but suddenly their exports crude drop and their imports of refined drop, we as a country are worse off (less tax take form refinery in the UK and no import tariff/tax), they as a country are better off, the company running the refinery are better off and some of that profit might make it's way into our pensions/pockets via shares etc but as a country we are likely way down on the deal.

Offering high tech medical equipment would be better as it increases the health of their country and it is good we make and they don't plus it would allow their meical staff to know the latest techniques etc which would be useful if they come to the NHS

I have no idea what we propose to invest in - the only reference was to I think 29 company representatives who have accompanied May on her visit - but if we are linking aid to the investment then I would imagine your second example is more likely than your first.  However, as I say, I've no idea.  It would be foolish of May to promote investment which undermines our employment but then where May is concerned I wouldn't rule anything out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Saintslass said:

The report was about the UK investing in these countries, not about these countries investing in the UK.  China has invested a lot in African nations of late, picking up on the lack of investment there from the UK and other European nations that have not been able to see beyond the borders of the EU in recent years.  Linking aid and investment and trade is good thinking and is way overdue where African nations are concerned IMO.

Is good thinking for whom ? I can't see the general public gaining a penny from these investments but I can see the floodgates of cheap African labour coming into this country to undermine the BRITISH in the work place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Marauder said:

Is good thinking for whom ? I can't see the general public gaining a penny from these investments but I can see the floodgates of cheap African labour coming into this country to undermine the BRITISH in the work place.

I think it more likely our companies will invest there to manufacture there rather than import the labour here - same end effect really (less work for low skilled UK workers)  but also I can see believe it or not us trying to tie up the Sub Saharan financial services market - sort of City-on-Niger, because they were our colonies in the past their legal/finance systems tend to mirror ours and they have none of those pesky hangups re regulation - a great new market for the financiers when they lose EU passporting rights 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


League Express Yearbook 2018/19 - Order Now


Rugby League World - Nov 2018

Rugby League World - Nov 2018



League Express - Online Now

League Express - Every Monday