Chickens, eggs, and overseas aid

Tweet

 

A number of different versions of the saying, “There go the people. I must follow them, for I am their leader” have appeared over the years. It’s usually attributed to Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin, although it’s unclear whether he actually said it or not. Its origin isn’t really important, but it does express a particular political issue very well. Is it the job of politicians to follow, or to lead? One of the attributes of populist politicians is that they attempt to discern what people think, and reflect that back to them (albeit frequently in a distorted or exaggerated form) in an attempt to gain and exercise power, which is really their only objective. Politicians who are part of a movement seeking to change society are more inclined to set out their beliefs and try to persuade people of their merits. But parties don’t stay in one place, and the Labour Party is a classic example. Founded to change the world, it has ended up meekly following whatever it believes the latest trend in public opinion to be.

There are few things for which I’d give Blair, Brown, or Cameron any credit, but the move to boost overseas aid to 0.7% - set as a target by Blair/Brown, in accordance with international targets, and achieved and legislated for by Cameron – is one of them. To their shame, both parties have been equally complicit in reversing the decision – Sunak took it down to 0.5%, and Sir Warmonger has further reduced it to 0.3%. And both have diverted significant sums from the overall total to expenditure within the UK on handling refugees and asylum-seekers. Both blamed a ‘lack of money’, and in both cases that was based on the fallacious argument that there is a finite amount of money available, and we have to make choices about how to use it.

Today, a Labour Trade Minister has told us, by way of justification, that the public no longer supports the idea of foreign aid. It’s a chicken-and-egg question, though. Have the public spontaneously turned against the idea of providing foreign aid allowing the politicians an excuse to cut funding, or is the change in public attitudes a result of years of propaganda telling people that the UK ‘cannot afford’ to help others? It’s probably best described as a vicious circle, with the original driver as unclear as whether the chicken came before the egg. The notable thing, though, is the lack of any effort by self-styled ‘progressive’ politicians to attempt to break out of that circle by showing some leadership. Following public opinion is just another excuse.

At least they didn't get it backdated

Tweet

These days, it is (rightly) considered politically incorrect to refer to the nationality of the hapless trade union negotiator who, when he returned from arduous discussions with the employer, told his members, “There’s good news and there’s bad news. The bad news is that I didn’t get us a pay rise; in fact I’ve agreed a pay cut. But the good news is that I got it backdated.” Whatever his nationality, he would clearly have felt fully at home as a rebel MP in the English Conservative Party.

Earlier this week, those brave enough to rebel against the authoritarian nationalists who have taken over their party set out to reverse a wholly unnecessary and mean-spirited cut to overseas aid, a cut which owes more to the fact that it is electorally popular with the section of the electorate whose support the government seeks to retain than to any financial considerations. They ended up not only failing to overturn it, but setting the cut in concrete for the foreseeable future. When it came to the vote, they discovered that many of those who they thought were going to take a principled stand alongside them turned out to be innumerate as well as unprincipled and allowed themselves to be bought off by a promise that the cut was only ‘temporary’, and that the aid would be restored when the government’s budget on day-to-day spending returned to surplus.

Budget surpluses are a regular feature of government spending forecasts, invariably just a few years away, but they are conspicuous only by their absence in the historical records of out-turn. According to this report from the House of Commons Library, “Since 1970/71, the government has had a surplus (spent less than it received in revenues) in only six years. The last budget surplus was in 2000/01.” The prospect of a revenue surplus in the foreseeable future is negligible, which means that the ‘temporary’ cut has now become an indefinite one. If there is any good news at all here, I suppose it is that the rebels proved themselves even more hapless than that trade union negotiator: at least they didn’t manage to get the aid cuts backdated.

Turning minima into maxima

Tweet

 

One of the few good decisions made by the Cameron government was to set a target that the UK would devote at least 0.7% of GDP to overseas aid. There are always going to be arguments about the appropriateness of individual items within that expenditure – as with any other budget line – but the idea that wealthy countries like the UK should set a minimum target for aid to poorer countries was a sound one. By linking it to GDP, the target level of expenditure will inevitably fluctuate: as GDP increases, so too will the amount of aid increase. Conversely, if GDP falls, so too will the target minimum expenditure for aid decrease. That means, in effect, that after an economic shock such as Covid, the amount of expenditure required to meet the target automatically falls, although given that it is a minimum target it doesn’t necessarily follow that the government has to make real terms cuts. Imposing an additional cut, as the current government has done, to 0.5% was an additional and mean-spirited act.

It gets worse though: as this report indicates, what was a minimum target has been turned into a maximum cap. Thus, the Treasury delayed offering surplus PPE to India – some of which has apparently been binned instead after the delay resulted in expiry dates being passed – because the cost of it would have to be accounted for under the aid budget, leading to cuts elsewhere to remain within the limit which the Chancellor has imposed. What sort of country has the UK become when useable PPE for which we have no need can be allowed to go out of date and be destroyed rather than donated to countries in desperate straits because of an accounting requirement? According to the Independent’s version of the story, “Many Tories proclaim that slashing billions from aid is popular with the British public”. I wish that I could deny the truth of that, but I can only ask how on earth we have been ‘led’ to a position where so many consider it reasonable for one of the richest countries to cut aid to the poorest because it is ‘popular’. The sooner that any state acting thus is dismantled and consigned to history the better.

Cunning subterfuge - or perhaps not

Tweet

According to reports earlier this week, the UK Government is considering making aid payments to some of the poorer members of the EU, such as Poland, Hungary and the Baltic states in the hope that those countries will be more supportive of giving the UK a better deal over Brexit.  All of these independent countries are poorer than Wales of course which is why they're net recipients of EU funding.  But being independent states, they have more say than Wales does when it comes to the terms of Brexit.  Their votes count for more than anything Carwyn Jones says or does, and need to be bought.  Those who want to pursue this line are suggesting that the money should be diverted from the poorer countries in Asia and Africa where it is currently being spent as part of the overseas aid budget.

There is a ‘slight’ problem in that it would no longer count as foreign aid under OECD rules, so that the UK would then be failing to meet the international target of 0.7% of GDP, but I suppose that the Brexiteers would simply see that as another example of ‘taking back control’ from those foreign johnnies when it comes to spending ‘our’ money.  That seems to be the only obstacle that they perceive, but it isn’t the only one that strikes me.

Firstly, however such a proposal is dressed up, it’s a blatant piece of attempted bribery which in the commercial field would lead to politicians demanding an enquiry, a few rolled heads, and some lengthy terms of imprisonment.  I don't recall that bribery was one of those special 'British' values which the Prime Minister is always banging on about.  Perhaps it's one of those cases where some values are so obvious that they don't need to be spelled out.  It's also worthy of note, in passing at least, that one of the arguments of the Brexiteers was that we should opt out of being a net contributor to the EU, which can only mean ending those payments which find their way to the poorer parts of Europe.  I don't remember them saying that what they really meant was taking money away from even poorer countries in order to continue paying the poorer parts of Europe.

However the biggest problem that I foresee is that the politicians in the affected countries (and the rest of the EU) will be completely aware of what is being attempted.  Even if it weren’t being discussed in the media, any such move would be too obvious for them not to be.  But then, assuming that the other 27 members are stupid seems to be the basis of the UK’s whole negotiating position.  On the other hand, I suppose, they are foreigners after all…

I agree with Dave (well, sort of...)

Tweet The fact that Cameron has received so much positive coverage for proposing such a small change in response to the refugee crisis, and that the other parties all seem to be talking about broadly similar numbers, says a lot about the prevailing climate of opinion in the UK towards the troubles of others.  It’s hard to disagree with Cameron’s statement that the UK should take its ‘fair share’ of refugees, but the word ‘fair’ is not one which is amenable to a simple and straightforward definition.  800,000 to Germany and some 10,000 – 15,000 for the UK doesn’t chime with any definition of the word ‘fair’ that I can devise.

It’s also worth noting that, despite the positive coverage being given to the Prime Minister, the gesture by the UK government, directed as it is at those who have not yet started migrating from refugee camps in the Middle East rather than at those already in transit, does absolutely nothing to assist our fellow Europeans in handling the immediate problems that they are facing.  (I suppose, though, one might argue that it speaks to one of those great British values that he’s always banging on about – after all, we all hate queue jumpers, don’t we?  But it’s not much of an excuse.)

Something else that Cameron said with which I agree is that the problem really needs to be solved in the countries from which the refugees are migrating.  I agree with the principle; it’s just that we have a different view about what that actually means.  I think it means helping those countries at war to achieve peace, and those countries whose ‘only’ problem is poverty and hunger by sharing the world’s resources more fairly.  He seems to think that it means dropping more bombs.

And there’s yet a third thing on which I agree with Cameron.  One of the better decisions that his government has taken was to protect the foreign aid budget, and to promise to give 0.7% of GNI as aid.  As with my other points of agreement, the problem is not with the principle, but with the practice.  The proposal to channel part of the foreign aid budget to local authorities in the UK to help with the cost of resettling refugees doesn’t fit with any reasonable person’s definition of overseas aid.  That’s not to say that the councils don’t need financial assistance – merely that it cannot honestly be called foreign aid.

The crises which have led so many people to risk so much to seek out a better future are not ones for which there are any simple or quick solutions.  They require a long term commitment of resources and effort.  But the UK government does not only not have a coherent and viable response to the long term problem – it isn’t even willing to do very much to respond to the immediate needs of those affected.  And it’s being aided and abetted by opposition parties whose response is little better – high on critical rhetoric, but short on willingness to talk about the significantly higher numbers of people who need safe havens now.