Charity must not stop at home

The International Development Secretary, Andrew Mitchell, defends the decision to ring-fence oversea

Andrew Mitchell may seem an unlikely Secretary of State for International Development. A supporter of William Hague for the Conservative Party leadership in 1997 and a friend of the maverick MP David Davis, Mitchell has long been seen as firmly on the right of his party. But look closely at this well-groomed Tory and you will see that he is wearing two coloured wristbands, one for Darfur and one for Rwanda, the latter marked: "Genocide: never again". The bands hint at the passions of a politician who is emerging as one of the most thoughtful members of the coalition.

Speaking to the New Statesman in his new office at the Department for International Development (DfID), Mitchell is impatient to make progress. "There's nothing to be said for opposition," he says. "You can only talk about things and you can lay your plans. You can't ­actually achieve very much; you have to be in government for that."

Now finally in office, Mitchell finds himself in the eye of a political storm, thanks to the decision of Tory high command to ring-fence ­development spending - a move aimed at aiding the "modernisation" of the once-toxic Tory brand. Despite the deficit, DfID's budget is set to rise by 63 per cent by 2013, and some commentators on the right have objected, citing the "age of austerity" and arguing that "charity starts at home".

Mitchell defends the funding pledge. "My ­argument is that charity does indeed start at home, but it doesn't stop there," he says. As well as reducing adminstration costs by a third, the new UK Aid Transparency Guarantee, he points out, will ensure independent assessment of development spending: "The ring-fencing imposes on all of us a double duty to make sure that for every pound that is spent on the development budget from hard-pressed taxpayers, we really get 100 pence of value."

But, surprisingly, he also concedes that the promise has not made his life easy: "It is quite a testing pledge - it's the sort of thing you make in opposition, then rather regret in government. But we've made it absolutely clear that that is what we are going to do." Given the obligation, he points to the "moral" case for increased aid, mentioning the 4,000 people who die from malaria each day, of whom 75 per cent are children under five.

Miracle worker

Mitchell also argues that development "is in our national interest". He cites Paul Collier, the Oxford University economist and author of The Bottom Billion, as he describes how the world's poorest people are "often trapped in conflict-ridden, insecure, badly governed states". Here he is at his most animated: "These are countries that export people . . . who put themselves into the hands of the modern-day equivalent of the slave trader, into a leaky boat, and cross hundreds of miles of ocean in the hope of tipping up on a European shore - these are not feckless benefit seekers . . . They are often the brightest and the best in those societies, who are seeking a better life for themselves and their families. How much better to persuade them, with international ­development and international support [for] their own country, that there's a future for them there?"

In addition, "the fact is that aid, where it is spent well, achieves miracles," says Mitchell. For him, there is one key statistic that demonstrates the aid budget's efficiency: "Britain, today, educates 4.8 million primary school children in Britain. And we educate five million primary school children around the developing world, at a cost of 2.5 per cent of what we spend on British children."

However, there are further controversies, including the coalition's decision to increase aid to Afghanistan by up to 40 per cent despite the well-documented corruption of Hamid Karzai's regime. Mitchell recalls a recent visit to a village near Kabul where he witnessed DfID accountability projects, and emphasises that "much of our money goes through the World Bank Trust Funds, which means it is only paid out on the basis of reimbursable receipts", giving the British taxpayer "some confidence that the money is being properly spent".

Then, there is the question of why the government is giving the tiny South Atlantic island of St Helena, populated by 4,000 people, a new airport - a project championed by Michael Ashcroft, the Tory donor. "We are doing it, first, because we have an obligation to the people of St Helena and, second, because it is in the interests of the British taxpayer," Mitchell says. Asked about Labour whispers that he was leant on by Ashcroft, he says: "Lord Ashcroft is a sort of Lord Voldemort [from Harry Potter] figure for the Labour Party - they think he is ­behind everything. He's got nothing to do with the decision on St Helena."

Compared to some of his colleagues, Mitchell - who describes himself as not "a particularly tribal beast" - is generous to his predecessors. He pays tribute to two former secretaries of state, Clare Short and Hilary Benn, while mysteriously omitting the most recent, Douglas Alexander. Short was a "brilliant development minister [who] advanced the cause of development", while Benn "was an absolute nightmare to shadow because he was extremely good at the job and a very nice guy".

He even adds, unprompted, that what Gordon Brown said at the AU summit in Kampala recently, about smart aid and IT investment, "was extremely sensible". However, he notes that the UN-endorsed pledge to spend 0.7 per cent of GDP enjoys cross-party support, which "takes development out of party politics".

Break with China

Under Mitchell, DfID is going back to the drawing board and considering the necessity of its presence in every country. The government has already announced that it will stop aid to China and to Russia. Aside from this, he presents two priorities. The first is the pledge to spend £500m a year on tackling malaria, though critics argue this is disproportionate in an overall health aid budget of less than £1bn. The second is improving access to contraception, which Mitchell has spoken about at the UN: "We will embed greater choice for women over whether and when they have children."

Overall, Mitchell appears at home at DfID, a department he forcefully defends, and where civil servants seem to have unusually high morale. Some senior Tories, including John Major and Douglas Hurd, have argued that it should be merged with the Foreign Office. Mitchell says the two departments should work closely together but adds: "It is sensible that development should be done by the development specialists and there is a very, very powerful argument for keeping the two departments separate - it's part of the reason why DfID has an excellent reputation around the world."

Mitchell slogged round 38 countries, working out a plan for government. Now, he is eager to get on with the job: "We've hit the ground running . . . and the lights have been burning late here as we implement our agenda."

Read an extended transcript of the Andrew Mitchell interview here.

Relations with Rwanda

It is telling that Andrew Mitchell was wearing a Rwanda wristband. The UK is Rwanda's largest bilateral donor, giving around £380m since the genocide in 1994. In the two countries' "memorandum of understanding", support is concentrated on three areas: public financial management, human rights and international obligations, and poverty reduction.

For DfID, Rwanda has become a key success story. The country has achieved the second-highest growth rates in Africa, averaging 10 per cent from 1994 to 2000, and 6 per cent since then. In tandem, poverty has decreased, from 70 per cent in 1994 to 57 per cent
in 2007.

But despite this progress, there are serious and growing concerns about the nature of the Rwandan government - led by the soldier-president Paul Kagame, an ethnic Tutsi.

Kagame has become increasingly autocratic, closing down newspapers and preventing the registration of opposition parties. Journalists and political activists have been murdered.

Rwanda will go to the polls on 9 August and Kagame will win, remaining in power for another seven years. The question, then, is whether he will change the rules that limit Rwandan presidents to two terms in order to hold on to power beyond 2017.

Sophie Elmhirst.

James Macintyre is political correspondent for the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 02 August 2010 issue of the New Statesman, Politics and comedy

Getty
Show Hide image

The New Times: Brexit, globalisation, the crisis in Labour and the future of the left

With essays by David Miliband, Paul Mason, John Harris, Lisa Nandy, Vince Cable and more.

Once again the “new times” are associated with the ascendancy of the right. The financial crash of 2007-2008 – and the Great Recession and sovereign debt crises that were a consequence of it – were meant to have marked the end of an era of runaway “turbocapitalism”. It never came close to happening. The crash was a crisis of capitalism but not the crisis of capitalism. As Lenin observed, there is “no such thing as an absolutely hopeless situation” for capitalism, and so we discovered again. Instead, the greatest burden of the period of fiscal retrenchment that followed the crash was carried by the poorest in society, those most directly affected by austerity, and this in turn has contributed to a deepening distrust of elites and a wider crisis of governance.

Where are we now and in which direction are we heading?

Some of the contributors to this special issue believe that we have reached the end of the “neoliberal” era. I am more sceptical. In any event, the end of neoliberalism, however you define it, will not lead to a social-democratic revival: it looks as if, in many Western countries, we are entering an age in which centre-left parties cannot form ruling majorities, having leaked support to nationalists, populists and more radical alternatives.

Certainly the British Labour Party, riven by a war between its parliamentary representatives and much of its membership, is in a critical condition. At the same time, Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership has inspired a remarkable re-engagement with left-wing politics, even as his party slumps in the polls. His own views may seem frozen in time, but hundreds of thousands of people, many of them young graduates, have responded to his anti-austerity rhetoric, his candour and his shambolic, unspun style.

The EU referendum, in which as much as one-third of Labour supporters voted for Brexit, exposed another chasm in Labour – this time between educated metropolitan liberals and the more socially conservative white working class on whose loyalty the party has long depended. This no longer looks like a viable election-winning coalition, especially after the collapse of Labour in Scotland and the concomitant rise of nationalism in England.

In Marxism Today’s “New Times” issue of October 1988, Stuart Hall wrote: “The left seems not just displaced by Thatcherism, but disabled, flattened, becalmed by the very prospect of change; afraid of rooting itself in ‘the new’ and unable to make the leap of imagination required to engage the future.” Something similar could be said of the left today as it confronts Brexit, the disunities within the United Kingdom, and, in Theresa May, a prime minister who has indicated that she might be prepared to break with the orthodoxies of the past three decades.

The Labour leadership contest between Corbyn and Owen Smith was largely an exercise in nostalgia, both candidates seeking to revive policies that defined an era of mass production and working-class solidarity when Labour was strong. On matters such as immigration, digital disruption, the new gig economy or the power of networks, they had little to say. They proposed a politics of opposition – against austerity, against grammar schools. But what were they for? Neither man seemed capable of embracing the “leading edge of change” or of making the imaginative leap necessary to engage the future.

So is there a politics of the left that will allow us to ride with the currents of these turbulent “new times” and thus shape rather than be flattened by them? Over the next 34 pages 18 writers, offering many perspectives, attempt to answer this and related questions as they analyse the forces shaping a world in which power is shifting to the East, wars rage unchecked in the Middle East, refugees drown en masse in the Mediterranean, technology is outstripping our capacity to understand it, and globalisation begins to fragment.

— Jason Cowley, Editor 

Tom Kibasi on what the left fails to see

Philip Collins on why it's time for Labour to end its crisis

John Harris on why Labour is losing its heartland

Lisa Nandy on how Labour has been halted and hollowed out

David Runciman on networks and the digital revolution

John Gray on why the right, not the left, has grasped the new times

Mariana Mazzucato on why it's time for progressives to rethink capitalism

Robert Ford on why the left must reckon with the anger of those left behind

Ros Wynne-Jones on the people who need a Labour government most

Gary Gerstle on Corbyn, Sanders and the populist surge

Nick Pearce on why the left is haunted by the ghosts of the 1930s

Paul Mason on why the left must be ready to cause a commotion

Neal Lawson on what the new, 21st-century left needs now

Charles Leadbeater explains why we are all existentialists now

John Bew mourns the lost left

Marc Stears on why democracy is a long, hard, slow business

Vince Cable on how a financial crisis empowered the right

David Miliband on why the left needs to move forward, not back

This article first appeared in the 22 September 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The New Times