Starmer’s announcement about boosting defence spending by cutting aid – snap analysis
Although the timing of today’s announcement by Keir Starmer was clearly influenced by the fact that he will be meeting President Trump in Washington on Thursday, it would be a mistake to think that this was entirely about appeasing the US president. Defence experts have been saying for years that the “peace dividend” is over, and that countries like Britain will need to spend more money on defence. Trump’s election has made Nato more precarious, and its European members all accept they need to spend more. If Britan needs to make a long-term peacekeeping commitment to Ukraine, that will have to be funded for. Starmer is not just raising defence spending as a ploy to win over Trump; as the text of his statement suggests, he is doing it because he thinks it is inevitable and right.
Starmer was already committed to raising defence spending to 2.5% of GDP at some point, and an increase by the time of the next election, although not announced, was already priced in. Hitting 2.5% by 2027 was not nailed-on, but it is probably in the mid-range of what was expectated. It is enough of a surprise to cause a jolt (because ministers had been swearing blind until recently that no announcement was coming this week). But it is not a transformational uplift, and it won’t silence calls for defence spending go go higher. We heard quite a few of them in the Commons during the statement (eg, see 2.30pm).
Many MPs, though, were shocked to see that axe taken to the aid budget quite so drastically. By taking aid spending back down to 0.3% of GDP (or GNI, gross national income, to be more accurate – people tend to say GDP instead because it means something similar, and the acronym is better understood) Starmer will be taking British development policy back to the 1990s. The blue line in this chart (from a report from the Tony Blair Institute) illustrates the trend.
In doing this, Starmer is undoing one of the most signifcant achievements of the New Labour government. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were both strongly committed to raising aid spending to the 0.7% UN target, and David Cameron pushed ahead with that, despite leading a party that historically had felt more indifferent about overseas aid, partly because he was using that as a way of showing the Tories had modernised. The chart is from a report published in January 2021, when the 0.7% target had been hit. That’s why the blue line is flat from 2013. Blair’s achievement looked secure. But a few months after the report was out, Boris Johnson slashed aid spending to 0.5%, and now it is going down even more. In his Commons statement Starmer said “we will do everything we can to return to a world where that is not the case”, implying that the aid spending cut was only temporary. But you would have to be brave to put money on it getting back towards 0.7% any time in the foreseeable future.
Starmer would be raising defence spending at some point even if he were meeting President Harris in the White House on Thursday, not President Trump. But this announcement will help soothe relations with Trump. Starmer can say he has listened to his host on defence spending. And he could even claim that, in cutting aid spending, he is also following the lead of the Trump administration (which has closed down its aid department) – although he is unlikely to spell it out that bluntly, given how Labour MPs might react.
But there are Trump-style politics in this. In his speech at the Munich Security Conference, JD Vance, Trump’s vice-president, said that there was no hope for European democracy if politicians tell voters “their thoughts and concerns, their aspirations, their pleas for relief are invalid or unworthy of even being considered”. Vance was referring to immigration policy, but he could have been talking about aid spending too, because polls repeatedly show that people think it is too high. Rightwing voters are more likely to think this than leftwing voters, but even Labour and Lib Dem supporters think in these terms. Many Guardian readers will hate the idea of aid being cut, and the consequences will be real and drastic. (See 3.17pm.) But Starmer may find this the most popular policy he has announced to date.
Key events
‘More people will die’ – charities condemn ‘truly catastrophic’ aid cuts
Aid charities, understandably, are horrified by the cuts to development spending. Here are comments from three more charities that have issued statements condemnding Keir Starmer’s decision.
From Hannah Bond, CEO of ActionAid UK
We are profoundly shocked and disappointed that the government has made the reckless decision to raid the already diminished ODA [official development assistance] budget—reducing it to less than half of our legal obligation. That it has done so to increase military spending only adds insult to injury.
There is no justification for abandoning the world’s most marginalised time and time again to navigate geopolitical developments. This is a political choice—one with devastating consequences. At a time when USAID has been gutted and development initiatives abandoned by one of the world’s largest donors, the UK government appears to be following suit rather than standing against this dangerous trend.
Cuts to UK ODA will hit those who need it most, especially women and girls. Conflicts in Gaza, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Ukraine are already causing immense civilian suffering. At a time when humanitarian crises are at an all-time high, slashing ODA to a record low is indefensible.
From Rose Caldwell, chief executive of Plan International UK
This is a truly catastrophic blow to an aid budget that has already been cut to shreds. It also comes at the worst possible time: humanitarian needs are at unprecedented levels, record numbers are suffering without enough to eat, and cuts to USAID are having a devastating impact on communities around the world. The UK should be stepping up and showing its commitment to overseas aid. Instead, it is adding to the suffering.
Today’s cut will divert funding from some of the most devastating humanitarian crises in the world. It will mean less support for the vast numbers of people suffering in Gaza and Lebanon. It will mean less for the millions stricken by conflict and hunger in Sudan. And it will mean less for girls affected by poverty, violence, and crises around the world.
From Christine Allen, CEO of CAFOD (Catholic Agency for Overseas Development
This decision by the British government to reduce ODA from 0.5% to 0.3% means that in some of the most vulnerable places on earth, more people will die and many more will lose their livelihoods.
Coming so soon after the USAID freeze, this is another lifeline being pulled away from those in desperate need, at a time when the world feels increasingly precarious.
Sarah Champion, the Labour MP who chairs the Commons international development committee, says Keir Starmer should reconsider the aid cuts. In a statement she says:
I urge the prime minister to rethink today’s announcement. Cutting the aid budget to fund defence spending is a false economy that will only make the world less safe.
Conflict is often an outcome of desperation, climate and insecurity; our finances should be spent on preventing this, not the deadly consequences.
In 2023, Ukraine received £250m in UK aid, more than any other country. We simply cannot afford to undermine this investment by putting more into a war chest.
Cuts to aid budget won’t be enough to get defence spending to 3% of GDP, says IFS thinktank
The Institute for Fiscal Studies thinktank says that, if Keir Starmer wants to get defence spending to 3% of GDP, cuts to overseas aid won’t be enough. It has issued this statement from Ben Zaranko, an IFS associate director.
If the UK needs to spend more on defence on a structural and permanent basis, that is not something that can be sustainably borrowed for. The prime minister has recognised this, and has signalled that higher defence spending will be offset, at least in the short term, by lower spending on overseas aid. If defence spending needs to go higher than 2.5% of GDP, cuts to aid won’t be enough. Getting towards 3% of GDP will eventually mean more tough choices and sacrifices elsewhere – whether higher taxes, or cuts to other bits of government. The world has changed, and one question is whether the government’s pre-existing promises on tax and spend might need to change as well.
But, in his statement, Zaranko also says one of the figures quoted by the PM in his statement (see 1.45pm) is misleading. Zaranko explains:
As a minor note to what is a major announcement, the prime minister followed in the steps of the last government by announcing a misleadingly large figure for the “extra” defence spending this announcement entails. An extra 0.2% of GDP is around £6bn, and this is the size of the cut to the aid budget. Yet he trumpeted a £13bn increase in defence spending. It’s hard to be certain without more detail from the Treasury, but this figure only seems to make sense if one thinks the defence budget would otherwise have been frozen in cash terms. This is of course dwarfed by the significance of today’s announcement but is frustrating none the less.
Back in the Commons, Jeremy Corbyn, Starmer’s predecessor as Labour leader, says this statement will have a bad impact on the poorest people in the world. He asks what impact it will have on the poorest people in the UK, suggesting that higher defence spending will mean more welfare cuts.
Starmer replies:
It is the first duty of government to keep our country safe and secure. It’s a duty I take extremely importantly and the poorest people in this country would be the first to suffer if the security and safety of our country was put in peril.
Richard Tice, the Reform UK deputy leader, claims Keir Starmer is copying proposals form his party. He has posted this on social media.
Labour copy more @reformparty_uk policies
We said increase defence spend to 3% in 6 yrs
We said slash foreign aid budget
Starmer agrees with Reform
We are the real opposition
Starmer claims defence spending for security helps world’s poor, because they are ‘hit hardest’ by war
The Labour MP Torcuil Crichton says higher defence spending implies conflict is getting closer. He has posted this on social media.
This is quite a grave moment in the Commons, people will understand an increase in defence spending is necessary but it also feels like another step closer to conflict.
Starmer, presumably, would argue that higher defence spending is needed to avoid conflict. (See 1.41pm.)
In the Commons Starmer has just restated this point. In response to a question from the SNP’s Dave Doogan, who said that women and children would suffer most as a result of the aid cuts, and that some of them might die as a result, Starmer says:
Wherever there are war and conflict, it is the poor and the poorest who are hit hardest. There is no easy way through this, but we have to ensure that we win peace through strength, because anything other than peace will hit the very people [Doogan’s] identified harder than anybody else on the planet.
John McDonnell, the former Labour shadow chancellor, says the decision to cut the aid budget shows why the government’s fiscal rules are flawed. He posted this on social media.
People will understand an increase in defence spending to pay for peacekeeping in Ukraine but to cut spending on tackling famine & poverty in the poorest areas of the world will cost lives. The Chancellor’s fiscal rules are undermining this government’s moral standing & purpose.
Bernard Jenkin (Con) says he does not think 2.5% or even 3% of GDP would be enough for defence spending. He says he is saying that, not as a criticism, but because he thinks the nation must get used to the idea it will have to spend more.
Starmer acknowledges that Jenkin has for many years been an advocate for higher defence spending.
Back in the Commons the DUP’s Sammy Wilson welcomes the announcement, but asks how the UK will be able to protect Ukraine, given the fact that the defence budget is not rising for another two years.
Starmer says “intense discussions” are going on about how the UK could contribute to peace keeping force for Ukraine. He says he cannot give details. But he goes on: “I’m confident that we can and we will play our full part in whatever security guarantees may be needed.”
This is from Ellie Chowns, a Green MP.
It is unbelievably counterproductive to fund increased defence spending by cutting aid to the most fragile countries, or by squeezing stretched departmental budgets. Why does the PM not fund this by increasing taxes on the most wealthy rather than further burdening the poorest?
Stop the War has condemned the Starmer announcement. In a statement, its 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.
Liz Saville Roberts, the Plaid Cymru leader at Westminster, says national security requires money spent on building peace. Quoting David Lammy, she suggests this is a “massive strategic mistake”.
Starmer says he agrees what what she says about the value of aid. But he says he needed a credible plan to raise defence spending.
Julian Lewis (Con) asks Starmer if he will tell Trump that the division of Germany worked after the war because it was not demilitarised. He says the lesson is that Ukraine must get military protection for the section of the country not occupied by Russia.
Starmer accepts the point. He says he wants any peace in Ukraine to be lasting.
Stephen Flynn, the SNP leader at Westminster, says, apart from a few of “Putin’s poodles” who are not in the Commons (he is referring to Reform UK), MPs are united in opposing Russia.
But he says the SNP cannot support the decision to cut aid. He says David Lammy, the foreign secretary, recently said the US decision to cut its aid budget was a mistake. (He is referring to what Lammy said in this Guardian interview.) Why is Lammy wrong and the PM right?
Starmer says governing involves having to make “grown-up choices”.
This is from the Romilly Greenhill, CEO of Bond, a network organisation representing aid charities, on the government’s announcement.
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.
Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, says his party supports the decision to raise defence spending. He says frozen Russian assets should be used to help pay for extra support for Ukraine, and he urges Starmer to work with European partners on a plan to enable this to happen.
He says he hopes Starmer will persuade President Trump to back Ukraine when they meet.
But, if he fails, will Starmer be clear that the UK will stick with Ukraine.
Starmer says he wants to support Ukraine with US help. He wants there to be a lasting peace. And that will require a US backstop, he says.
On the proposal to use Russian assets, he says the £3bn interest is already being used to help Ukraine. He says the UK and its allies are looking at what more they can do.
Save the Children says cuts to aid budget ‘betrayal of world’s most vulnerable children’
Save the Children UK has issued a statement on social media criticising the aid spending cut. It is from its CEO, Moazzam Malik. Here is an extract.
We are stunned by this decision to cut the aid budget in order to increase military spending. It is a betrayal of the world’s most vulnerable children and the UK’s national interest.
By jeopardising the UK’s partnership with countries across the world and international organisations, it signals a withdrawal from efforts to tackle climate change, global poverty and inequality, and conflict and humanitarian needs. It will damage efforts to tackle global health needs and pandemics. It will add to economic instability internationally. The impacts will have direct consequences for children and families in the UK as well as around the world.
Starmer is responding to Badenoch.
He thanks her for her support in relation to today’s anouncement, and for her support over Ukraine.
He says he hopes the Commons retains its unity in relation to Ukraine.
On intelligence and the security agencies, Starmer says there was new money for them in the budget.
He says he mentioned them in his statement because, given the threat has changed, those agencies now play an important role in defence.
Referring to Badenoch’s claim that the Tories had a plan to raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, he says the Institute for Government thinktank said the numbers in the plan did not add up and the Institute for Fiscal Studies thinktank said the plan was misleading and opaque.
