On Tuesday 25 February, Keir Starmer announced a significant policy shift: increasing defence spending to 2.5% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2027. Yet this boost in military expenditure is to be financed by spending cuts to the foreign aid budget – from 0.5% to 0.3% of GDP. Starmer emphasised that this move represents the most substantial rise in defence funding since the end of the Cold War. However, he has also out in place a bigger cut to foreign aid than the Conservative Party ever did.
The decision has sparked considerable outrage. Aid organisations have expressed deep concern, labeling the cuts to overseas development assistance as “truly catastrophic” for vulnerable populations worldwide.
Hannah Bond, CEO of ActionAid UK, criticised the government for “raiding the already diminished ODA budget,” highlighting the severe impact on marginalised communities, especially women and girls in conflict zones.
Similarly, Rose Caldwell, chief executive of Plan International UK, warned that the reduction comes at a time of unprecedented humanitarian need, potentially exacerbating crises in regions like Gaza, Lebanon, and Sudan.
Spending cuts to foreign aid: ‘appalling’
In reaction to the announcement, Romilly Greenhill, CEO of Bond, the UK network for organisations working in international development and humanitarian assistance said:
This is a short-sighted and appalling move by both the PM and Treasury. Slashing the already diminished UK aid budget to fund an uplift in defence is a reckless decision that will have devastating consequences for millions of marginalised people worldwide.
Following in the US’s footsteps will not only undermine the UK’s global commitments and credibility, but also weaken our own national security interests. Instead of stepping up, the UK is turning its back on communities facing poverty, conflict and insecurity, further damaging its credibility on the global stage.
Tragically, this cut is even deeper than the last Conservative government’s and will destroy this Labour government’s reputation, tearing to shreds their previous manifesto commitments to rebuild the UK’s international reputation as a reliable global partner.
Within the political sphere, reactions are mixed. Labour Party MP Sarah Champion, chair of the Commons International Development Committee, urged Starmer to reconsider, arguing that diverting funds from aid to defence is a “false economy” that could undermine global security and stability.
Economists from the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) have weighed in, suggesting that even with the proposed cuts to foreign aid, achieving the 2.5% GDP target for defence spending will necessitate additional financial measures. These could include either raising taxes or implementing cuts in other government sectors to accommodate the increased military budget.
Campaign groups have also hit back.
Making the threat of war more likely
After Starmer also said the goal was to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP, Stop the War convenor Lindsey German said:
The prime minister’s announcement of a rapid increase in ‘defence’ spending to 2.6% by 2027 and to 3% in the next parliament was designed to appease Donald Trump and the right wing in Britain. It will take the money from overseas development budgets, consigning some of the poorest people in the world to become even poorer. But no worry – Britain will develop more arms and more weapons to facilitate the increasing wars taking place throughout the world.
There is something grotesquely awful about a Labour government denying the WASPI women around £10 billion in one off compensation but then immediately committing to £13 billion a year for this increased spending. Starmer lauded the previous generations who have fought in wars but is prepared for them to be cold and hungry to promote his imperial ambitions.
She continued:
This decision will make the threat of war more likely. It will tie the ailing British economy even more to military production (and indeed to US arms companies) with the consequent threats to public spending in other areas. The claim that it will help British jobs is one that no one should be fooled by. Any big increase in spending – on housing and health for example – would have the same effect. Many of the jobs in ‘defence’ are in the US and elsewhere. As number of studies have shown, defence expenditure is one of the least efficient ways of creating jobs.
The trade unions who welcome this are deluding themselves: it will do little for their members in those industries and will worsen the social security of housing, health and education that millions of workers in this country desperately need.
The beneficiaries will be the warmongers and the arms companies, whose profits are assured. They want wars to continue. It is not in any of our interests to do anything but oppose them.
Featured image via the House of Commons
