Farm Attacks

KSM93 said:
Nah there is only one side, Britain broke the agreement unilaterally under Blair and Clare Short and Mugabe had no choice but to take the Land. Educate yourself.
Click to expand...

You're an amazing individual. I've never met somebody either in real life or online, with the ability to gaslight themselves. Well done! :thumbsup:
 
I've said it before.... this KSM93 is all ****ed in its head. This stupid poster will only wake up when everything is ****ed.

What a dreamer for destruction. ****.
 
KSM93 said:
On 5 November 1997, Chalker's successor, Clare Short, described the new Labour government's approach to Zimbabwean land reform. She said that the UK did not accept that Britain had a special responsibility to meet the costs of land purchase in Zimbabwe. Notwithstanding the Lancaster House commitments, Short stated that her government was only prepared to support a programme of land reform that was part of a poverty eradication strategy. She had other questions regarding the way in which land would be acquired and compensation paid, and the transparency of the process. Her government's position was spelt out in a letter to Zimbabwe's Agriculture Minister, Kumbirai Kangai:[36]

I should make it clear that we do not accept that Britain has a special responsibility to meet the costs of land purchase in Zimbabwe. We are a new government from diverse backgrounds without links to former colonial interests. My own origins are Irish and, as you know, we were colonised, not colonisers.
The letter concluded by stating that a programme of rapid land acquisition would be impossible to support, citing concern about the damage which this might do to Zimbabwe's agricultural output and its prospects of attracting investment.[36][37]

Kenneth Kaunda, former president of Zambia, responded dismissively by saying "when Tony Blair took over in 1997, I understand that some young lady in charge of colonial issues within that government simply dropped doing anything about it."[38]

On 10 June 2004, a spokesperson for the British embassy, Sophie Honey, said:[49]

The UK has not reneged on commitments (made) at Lancaster House. At Lancaster House the British Government made clear that the long-term requirements of land reform in Zimbabwe were beyond the capacity of any individual donor country.Since [Zimbabwe's] independence we have provided 44 million pounds for land reform in Zimbabwe and 500 million pounds in bilateral development assistance.The UK remains a strong advocate for effective, well managed and pro-poor land reform. Fast-track land reform has not been implemented in line with these principles and we cannot support it.

So Britain unilaterally ended the programme using a pathetic excuse and a mere 44 million was made available for Land Reform from the promised. Foreign Aid is worthless and tied to funding British Industries so no wonder they loved it. Over real reform.

On SA land reform EWC is the best format.
Click to expand...
Beggars gonna be beggars.
 
KSM93 said:
On 5 November 1997, Chalker's successor, Clare Short, described the new Labour government's approach to Zimbabwean land reform. She said that the UK did not accept that Britain had a special responsibility to meet the costs of land purchase in Zimbabwe. Notwithstanding the Lancaster House commitments, Short stated that her government was only prepared to support a programme of land reform that was part of a poverty eradication strategy. She had other questions regarding the way in which land would be acquired and compensation paid, and the transparency of the process. Her government's position was spelt out in a letter to Zimbabwe's Agriculture Minister, Kumbirai Kangai:[36]

I should make it clear that we do not accept that Britain has a special responsibility to meet the costs of land purchase in Zimbabwe. We are a new government from diverse backgrounds without links to former colonial interests. My own origins are Irish and, as you know, we were colonised, not colonisers.
The letter concluded by stating that a programme of rapid land acquisition would be impossible to support, citing concern about the damage which this might do to Zimbabwe's agricultural output and its prospects of attracting investment.[36][37]

Kenneth Kaunda, former president of Zambia, responded dismissively by saying "when Tony Blair took over in 1997, I understand that some young lady in charge of colonial issues within that government simply dropped doing anything about it."[38]

On 10 June 2004, a spokesperson for the British embassy, Sophie Honey, said:[49]

The UK has not reneged on commitments (made) at Lancaster House. At Lancaster House the British Government made clear that the long-term requirements of land reform in Zimbabwe were beyond the capacity of any individual donor country.Since [Zimbabwe's] independence we have provided 44 million pounds for land reform in Zimbabwe and 500 million pounds in bilateral development assistance.The UK remains a strong advocate for effective, well managed and pro-poor land reform. Fast-track land reform has not been implemented in line with these principles and we cannot support it.

So Britain unilaterally ended the programme using a pathetic excuse and a mere 44 million was made available for Land Reform from the promised. Foreign Aid is worthless and tied to funding British Industries so no wonder they loved it. Over real reform.

On SA land reform EWC is the best format.
Click to expand...

From the wikipedia article:
, and a fund was established to operate from 1980 to 1990.[citation needed]
Click to expand...

So if they ended it in 1997, then the agreement had run it's course, had it not?
44million GBP is also quite a bit, especially back then. They also gave them 500 million in development assistance, again GBP, and back then it was a lot of money.

WRT SA you say EWC, so take the land from people who have paid for it? That just not sound like justice to me.

And, once the government expropriates the land, then what does it do with it? How do they ensure that we don't suffer the same agricultural decline that hit Zim?
 
Barbarian Conan said:
From the wikipedia article:


So if they ended it in 1997, then the agreement had run it's course, had it not?
44million GBP is also quite a bit, especially back then. They also gave them 500 million in development assistance, again GBP, and back then it was a lot of money.

WRT SA you say EWC, so take the land from people who have paid for it? That just not sound like justice to me.

And, once the government expropriates the land, then what does it do with it? How do they ensure that we don't suffer the same agricultural decline that hit Zim?
Click to expand...
No it had not, Land reform wasn't even funded. On that 500 million development aid you keep harping on about, it was tied aid and the funds could only be used to buy goods from the donor country Untied Aid. All aid is basically a scam.

It wasn't just when they took the land during imperialism so it's equal. ANC is worthless but it's time is coming to an end.
 
KSM93 said:
The UK has not reneged on commitments (made) at Lancaster House. At Lancaster House the British Government made clear that the long-term requirements of land reform in Zimbabwe were beyond the capacity of any individual donor country.Since [Zimbabwe's] independence we have provided 44 million pounds for land reform in Zimbabwe and 500 million pounds in bilateral development assistance.The UK remains a strong advocate for effective, well managed and pro-poor land reform. Fast-track land reform has not been implemented in line with these principles and we cannot support it.
Click to expand...


KSM93 said:
No it had not, Land reform wasn't even funded. On that 500 million development aid you keep harping on about, it was tied aid and the funds could only be used to buy goods from the donor country Untied Aid. All aid is basically a scam.

It wasn't just when they took the land during imperialism so it's equal. ANC is worthless but it's time is coming to an end.
Click to expand...

The piece that you quoted said that the UK did provide 44 mil for land reform?
From your link it states that tied aid can inflate the costs up to 30%. so they then received about $380million worth of aid for free.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but OK, I'm not trying to convince anyone, just trying to see things from your perspective. So you don't want to be better than imperialists, and I suppose that's a valid perspective.

You still haven't answered the big question though, how will the ANC (or whoever) prevent the country from going the way Zim did after that specific brand of land reform?
 
Barbarian Conan said:
The piece that you quoted said that the UK did provide 44 mil for land reform?
From your link it states that tied aid can inflate the costs up to 30%. so they then received about $380million worth of aid for free.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but OK, I'm not trying to convince anyone, just trying to see things from your perspective. So you don't want to be better than imperialists, and I suppose that's a valid perspective.

You still haven't answered the big question though, how will the ANC (or whoever) prevent the country from going the way Zim did after that specific brand of land reform?
Click to expand...
44 million barely scratched the surface of meaningful reform. Simply because South Africa is not Zimbabwe, it's geography and population are vastly different.
 
ponder said:
The ndebele bob genocided, he really looked out for their interests.
Click to expand...
Yet he was not the first. If it was it not for some okes landing in the south ... who would have thought.
 
ponder said:
The ndebele bob genocided, he really looked out for their interests.
Click to expand...
Rubbish he was knighted after it by Queen Elizabeth. It only became a genocide when he took back the land. Always hypocritical from your kind.
 
@KSM93

Why do people entertain this little EFF supporter? Put him on ignore and move on.
There is no reason, or no way anyone will change his mind or any functional brain cell...

Was going to give many reasons, but he is not worth my time!
 
KSM93 said:
44 million barely scratched the surface of meaningful reform. Simply because South Africa is not Zimbabwe, it's geography and population are vastly different.
Click to expand...

Surely you don't think just because we're different people with different geography that we will have better outcomes?
Why do you think that the average black South African who will get a farm will be any better at farming than the average black Zimbabwean?

Or is the whole reason you think EWC will work just wishful thinking without any real reason behind it?

As for the GBP 44 million, (about R880 000 000 at today's exchange rate), which can buy a whole lot of farms, but that's less important. The more important part is why you think the same that happened to Zim will not happen to SA.
You have to admit farms handed over as part of land reform has performed dismally, and most of the beneficiaries have failed to make a success of farming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X