Keir Starmer clocked up another achievement on foreign affairs this week after he and fellow European leaders persuaded Donald Trump to offer US security guarantees to Ukraine.
Trump’s change of tack was a vindication of Starmer’s “softly, softly” approach towards the US president. At White House talks, the prime minister did not press Trump on the need for a ceasefire in Ukraine, as France’s and Germany’s leaders did, after the US president cooled on the idea. Other leaders, including Volodymyr Zelensky, have come to realise that with Trump, flattery will get you everywhere.
Ominously, Vladimir Putin is stalling on peace talks (again), but Starmer’s plan for a “reassurance force” to be based in Ukraine, drawn up with France, is at least back on the table.
Its death has often been predicted – even senior Whitehall figures were privately sceptical. “We knew it wouldn’t fly without US backup, but it’s still alive,” one government insider told me.
However, there is one area of foreign policy where Starmer has a less than impressive record – his government’s decision to reduce its foreign aid budget from 0.5 per cent to 0.3 per cent of gross national income by 2027.
The £6.2bn cut has not had the attention it deserves, and at Westminster, it’s the dog that didn’t bark. There was no rebellion by Labour MPs after the 40 per cent reduction was announced in February, partly because the savings were switched to the defence budget – vital in Trumpworld.
Some Labour backbenchers say “a great unknown” is whether there would have been a revolt if the aid decision had been announced after rebellious Labour MPs had defeated £5bn of welfare cuts. But the higher defence spending was a clever political manoeuvre which shielded Starmer from internal criticism.
The PM promised the UK would continue to play a key role in “supporting international efforts on global health challenges.” That is in danger of becoming empty rhetoric because, so far, the reduction has not been well handled.
Jenny Chapman, the Labour peer who became international development minister when Anneliese Dodds resigned over the cuts, is the ultimate Starmer loyalist; his campaign to succeed Jeremy Corbyn was plotted at her north London home and began before the 2019 general election. Chapman has repeatedly promised transparency over the impact of the cuts, but, for now, it remains opaque.
Last month, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s annual report disclosed the areas to be affected – such as health, education, gender and equality – but, crucially, declined to reveal the 13 projects facing the axe or the 50 women’s rights organisations that will lose support.
To make matters worse, £2.8bn (20 per cent) of the aid budget was spent on supporting refugees in the UK last year – a trick begun under the previous Conservative government. The share of the aid budget spent this way rose from 9 per cent in 2021 to 28 per cent two years later. Although allowed under international definitions of aid, it could mean the level of aid spent abroad falls to 0.24 per cent of national income in 2027 – even lower than the advertised 0.3 per cent.
When I ask ministers whether the cuts will dilute the UK’s influence around the world, they insist the move is in line with a global trend. Indeed, the UK’s regrettable retreat has been overshadowed by the Trump administration’s demolition of USAID.
Ministers hope the UK will “build back” to 0.7 per cent of national income being spent on aid, but admit it will take time. I doubt it will ever happen.
Sadly, the cross-party consensus for 0.7 per cent has disappeared; the Tories and Reform UK are not going to champion it. Indeed, even some Labour figures point to public opposition to aid spending – no surprise given the campaigns against it in right-wing newspapers.
UK ministers seem delusional about the role the UK can play on aid with a diminished budget. David Lammy, the foreign secretary, insists the UK can still be a leader, but dismayed aid organisations by not attending an important aid conference in Seville.
In April, Lammy announced the UK would host a global conference on the future of aid. “It should be held here in London, because we have always led on these issues,” he said. It was supposed to happen this autumn, but seems to have quietly been pushed into next year. I hear it might now be co-hosted with a low-income country or aid group to answer criticism of Western governments setting the terms of the debate.
There is brave talk about a switch from “old aid to new aid” as poor countries stand on their own two feet and provide services to their own people rather than depend on foreign handouts seen by some nations as a form of economic colonialism. Perhaps, in a dream world – but not the real one.
The impact of the UK cuts in the world’s poorest countries will be bad enough. But they could also rebound on the UK – through a reduction in its soft power in a dangerous world and, in a nightmare scenario, if cuts to vital health projects including the Gavi international vaccine alliance contribute to another pandemic. The way the UK chose to fund higher defence spending would not look so clever then.
Will Rachel Reeves realise that by clobbering the wealthy, she hurts working people?
Trump’s ceasefire deal is dead – and Ukraine should count its blessings
Has Donald Trump lost interest in bringing peace to Ukraine?
Does Denmark hold the key to Britain’s asylum problem?
Why Prince Andrew might not be the problem some people think he is
I’m glad I’m not policing this ‘bank holiday weekend of discontent’
