The other day I found out who the 37th richest person in the United Kingdom is. After reading this article I was told that Lord Michael Ashcroft has that distinction. Now for those of you who have clicked on that link you will know what I am going to comment about, however, for you lazy ones let me give you a quick outline of what Michael Ashcroft said.
Michael Ashcroft told the British government to stop pandering to St. Bob and Bono. Huh? Who is this St. Bob? I have heard of St. Paul and St. Mary but not St. Bob. Maybe he was talking about a guy named Robert. No. Then I clicked, of course he was talking about Bob Geldof and Bono from the Irish band, U2.
What he is saying is that the British government should not be funding developing countries. Both Bob Geldof and Bono are well known for their humanitarian work and if you were around in 1985 you would remember the Live Aid extravaganza that Bob Geldof organised in London and Philadelphia. Lord Ashcroft is saying that the British government should be looking after their own backyard. Public services are going down the drain and their isn't enough money for people with disabilities and Lord Ashcroft is wondering why Britain is sending a ton of money offshore.
This notion is bound to have caused some controversy in Britain and even around the world as the aforementioned article is from Stuff which is a New Zealand news website.
So, what do I think of what he says? That is a good question.
Does Britain have a responsibility to look after the former colonies that they ruled over for a couple of hundred years?
Can you build democracy on other people's money?
Does aid corrode civil society and encourage conflict and corruption?
This is what I think, I think he is correct. I don't consider myself a conservative on the political spectrum but I think if you want to help someone you have to get your own house in order first. There is no point in giving all of that money away if you have your own people in poverty. What is that saying to your constituents? You give us your tax money but we can't be bothered doing anything for you? That's not going to go down very well.
I did mention before about the former colonies and whether or not Britain has a responsibility to look after them. I think they can offer help but it doesn't just have to be a piggy bank for developing nations very much like Japan is in the world, although that is for another blog post. They can send people to these countries as advisers, as teachers, as medical professionals to help the development of these countries that way. They can offer actual materials and machinery rather than just straight cash in which sometimes the corrupt leaders can do as they like.
I would just like to go back to a question I posed before, "Can you build democracy on other people's money?" This is an interesting question and let me give you my view on democracy. What is democracy? I used to believe it is to be one person, one vote. Well, believe it or not people in North Korea do get to vote. They may only have one candidate to choose from but that is one person, one vote so that doesn't necessarily mean that it is a democracy. To me a democracy is the ability to say anything, anytime about whatever you want and not been chucked in jail for it. Some people might say that the USA is not really a democracy when you read that but lets not go there.
I lived in Japan for fifteen years and I wouldn't say that it is a democracy in the western sense of the word. Corruption is rife in that society and people in power are rarely questioned. My point is that you have to take culture into account before you start bad mouthing somewhere because their democratic processes appear to you to be crap.
So, my advise to Britain. Get your money, allocate it to your expenses and then with the money left over give a little to charity but only if you can afford it. Sounds easy, doesn't it? It is a lot more difficult than that although sometimes I think we do overcomplicate things.
No comments:
Post a Comment