Soft Power

The rebels failed to block the government's intention to do something the electorate actually welcomes – slashing the foreign aid budget. When I say ‘the electorate’ I, of course, refer to the majority of the population, those people whose votes put governments into power but whose opinions thereafter are unsolicited and routinely ignored. If governments could do away with elections altogether they probably would.

But there are other people with votes. Many fewer people but with more important votes – they think – than the lowly hoi polloi. These far more worthy, far more moral people often hold views which are incompatible with the masses they rule over. Every few years they court the power-giving votes of the great unwashed; we’re listening, they say, but we won’t remember what you said after we take charge.

And then they spend our collective money without asking whether we want it spent. To justify foreign aid they talk of soft power. We are buying influence, they say, we are standing tall on the world stage, we are oiling the wheels of international trade. Well, if we have something worth trading why do we need to offer bribes? Who are we trying to influence and why? Have they never noticed that those despotic regimes they prop up in return for arms sales actually hate us?

Foreign aid, they say, is a small price to pay to retain our standing, and to assist the poorest people in the world. Well, how about dealing with the poorest people in the UK first? Show us how buying gold-plated Mercedes for corrupt dictators translates into roofs over the heads of our homeless. Show us how, for every cruise missile B.O.G.O.F. token we send abroad exactly how much is poured into UK social care.

Why not be open about it, instead of deciding that we mere voters will never understand how oh-so-clever you all are? You never know, a little bit of honesty could go a long, long way. But what am I saying? Despite all the talk of transparency over the last few decades the machinations of government are as opaque as ever. I get that there must be secrets; I don’t get why we often appear to reward those who despise us before we take care of our own. 

If the politicians can’t see it, the electorate is all too aware of the massive disconnect between power and the people, and foreign aid is just another one of those policies which appears to be a one-way, wrong-way street. We open the door to invasive immigration, we create dependencies we can't afford. We are less safe, not more secure, as a result of some of our foreign policy.

Those worthies who wish to continue funding foreign despots can always throw their money at the innumerable charities founded to do exactly that. They can see the larger part of their personal donations pour into the greedy pockets of the directors, and maybe in doing so they will experience the dismay the rest of us see when the taxes we have no choice about paying are frittered away. For the majority, however, charity must surely begin at home.

Fair Trade?

Mrs May is off on her jollies, demonstrating her natural warmth and empathy... and dancing skills, and basically doing her damnedest to appear unfazed by the entire world view of her, which is dead woman walking. What she is doing, of course, is trying to work out where to deploy the foreign aid bribes most effectively; at which despots to bung British taxpayers’ dosh; where to waste the wonga... everybody expects the same ultimate fate as that of the company of the same name.

Shortly before my recent ‘Twexit’ I engaged in a debate about foreign aid which rested on the affirmation by another party that 'foreign aid isn't wasted money'. No? Try convincing the NHS garment-renders. Ask the young people struggling to get on properly funded apprenticeships. Consult the homeless, the local authorities and the police. Consider actually putting the proposal to maintain the overseas aid budget at current levels to those who actually pay for it.

It all depends on what you think foreign aid is: If it is charity, are the needs of British subjects second to those of the third world which outnumbers them thousands to one and among which the largess may well be spread too thin to make a difference, or else end up channelled into undesirable pockets - gold-plated Bentleys, anyone? And if it is a bribe is it desirable that we are seen to be bribing despots - gold-plated Bentleys, anyone?

And if we do have to offer bribes in order to trade, anywhere, what does that say about both parties to the arrangement? Does it indicate that the trade is not worth it on merit, or is it just a means of paying more than the going rate? To many people, the people who ultimately cough for it as well as those who receive it , foreign aid says one thing loud and clear, it says - look at us - we're rich enough to throw money away. And if this is what we give away overseas, how rich must we be at home?

Britain is not only seen as a rich and generous country, but also as one with rich pickings for the opportunists. Economic migrants cross continents in order to take advantage of us, in the knowledge that once on British soil, there are many ways to milk the system. One, seemingly honest way, is to work for a living; after all, our benefit system is particularly generous towards those who earn minimum wage because we top it up with a variety of benefits, both direct and in kind. The NHS is one example of a ‘free’ benefit in kind; it is free to all who are not net taxpayers.

Maybe we should actually take a leaf from one section of Corbyn’s hymn sheet and not seek trade with despotic regimes? Or do we genuinely believe that only by appeasing and enriching the despots can we open up a dialogue and attempt to improve diminished lives? If foreign aid is effective, don’t we deserve a dialogue of our own; shouldn’t we be trusted to know exactly how it is spent and how this ultimately benefits the UK? Let's not kid ourselves that things like fair trade coffee are anything other than making ourselves feel good by paying over the odds for average coffee?