The racists have lost: Britain has risen above patronising portrayals of identity

Race, crime and the media: an essay.

Part One: Alan thinks rather too much about David Starkey

On 12 August 2011, Newsnight covered the riots that had swept Britain that month, and invited three guests - the historian David Starkey, the journalist Owen Jones, and the author Dreda Say Mitchell, to discuss them. The exchange would spark outrage from the public, the media and front bench politicians, and would arguably end Starkey's broadcasting career. You can’t view the whole thing on YouTube, but to be honest you're better off watching him lay down some deep bars in this remix.

These were the words which caused such a kerfuffle: "I've just been re-reading Enoch Powell," Starkey said. "His prophecy was absolutely right in one sense. The Tiber didn't foam with blood, but flames lambent wrapped round Tottenham and wrapped round Clapham. But it wasn't inter-community violence. This is where he was absolutely wrong."

Then he gestured towards Owen Jones: "What has happened is that a substantial section of the ‘chavs’ that you wrote about have [sic] become black. The whites have become black. A particular sort of violent, destructive, nihilistic, gangster culture has become the fashion. And black and white, boy and girl, operate in this language together, this language which is wholly false, which is this Jamaican patois that's been intruded in England, and this is why so many of us have this sense of literally a foreign country." I’m not going to analyse whether or not Starkey’s a racist. Most people will have a view either way and mine’s no more interesting. I will argue, however, that he’s guilty of two serious crimes for an academic: poor expression and sloppy thinking. The poor expression is obvious. His words imply a simple dichotomy between black and white, as if the first is "destructive" and serves only to infect the other. In fact, he was trying to describe something he saw as a minority sub-culture - black in origin, but subsequently adopted by a minority across the skin colour spectrum. And this diagnosis is at best simplistic and at worse utter arseclap.

The implication was that this "nihilistic gangster culture" was directly responsible for the scenes we saw on our streets that month. As you've seen, he'd go on to cite gangster rap lyrics, and very unintentionally amusing it was too. Now this is where I do have some insight. I’ve spent a lot of time with kids in gangs, and rap just ain’t that big a deal for many of them. “Who listens to studio gangsters?” one once said to me. Now this is a cheap point (of course there are plenty who do like it), but it leads to a serious question: what, exactly, is the “gangster culture” Starkey’s talking about? Because he doesn't define it in any detail, simply conjoining slang language with violent lyrics. Cultures are often a lot more nebulous that they appear.

Is this about violent films? Is, say, the violence in the latest Die Hard better because that’s a white dude killing terrorists whereas something like Kidulthood’s bad because it’s closer to home, even if it shows violence in a less positive light? Or is it about the music? Is Dizzee Rascal a bad influence when he talks about being a black guy doing street robberies and if so does that cancel out the verses he has about trying to live a positive life? Does Pac count when he’s rapping about his mum? Do kids even listen to Biggie these days? Or maybe this is about slang language - but then there are thousands of kids in London who talk the way Starkey’s describing and don't break the law.

Here’s a theory - maybe the “culture" exists as a subjective intersection of all these things, and because we adults who debate this stuff aren’t the primary consumers, we don’t really understand which of them’s important, and how much influence (if any) they have. But you know what? Let’s cut Starkey a break. Let’s pretend that we do know exactly what he’s talking about: “Weeell…it’s that bling bling and rappers round the back of the Corn Exchange (pace S Lee) and shanks and and Justin Bieber getting tattoos. Stop the negative films and music, stop the violence. (Gordon Ramsay glare). DONE.”

Fine. But now we have to consider this old chestnut: "To what extent can cultural products - art, language etc - be said to influence the behaviour of those who consume them, and to what extent are they merely a reflection of pre-existing behaviour?" On the one hand, you have Model A: The simplification that a bunch of white guys in the Middle Ages read the Bible, went to the Holy Land and killed some less white guys. Model B seems more believable: the fact we were stoving each other's faces in with clubs long before the Anglo Saxon poets started dropping rhymes about it. And if you look at art that concerns itself with violence, it's often saying how much said violence sucks. Certainly true of hip hop, if not Anglo Saxon poetry.

Now if you've got art out there that glorifies and/or justifies violence, of course it's unhelpful – but you’ve got to ask how powerful its impact is, and more importantly, why. As a teen I listened to Warren G non-stop back in Southsea circa 1993, and hardly regulated anyone. Yes, it’s more likely to affect the kid living in an estate full of gunmen, but you know what? I just don’t know if it’s the biggest pressure on him in terms of committing crime. So let’s look at areas where there’s a lot of it.

Part Two: Alan annoys the racist middle-aged white guys who comment on his blogs

There’s always been violence in our cities. It was there before the first black immigrants came here, it was there when their kids were born, and it was there when their kids were born. If you look at crime figures – you’ll see a slow, gradual increase – and big spikes in certain areas - throughout the latter half of the Twentieth Century.

"Aha!" Pipes up the racist middle aged moron who perpetually infests my blog comments. "But those areas have something else in common don't they? A whole bunch of black people living in them. Have you not considered that the biggest factor might be something in their nature?"

And here's the problem. You can't tell this soulless goon he's flat-out wrong, because black people are over-represented in the criminal justice system. But the problem is, he's sliced the statistical cake in a certain way, such that he can see a gooey layer of jam that proves his point, but he can't see the five layers of sponge behind it which don't. We have a problem which affects countries across the developed world where there's been an element of ghettoisation. Over the last 30 years, some of us have got richer and some of us have got left behind, and due to the fact that poverty is self perpetuating, and successive iffy housing policies, the people who got left behind have moved geographically closer.

The areas in which they've been congregated have been areas where the amount of crime has gone up. Now in London, Birmingham and Manchester, many of those areas have tended to be high in immigrants. But here's the really important fact: in those areas of the country where white people got left behind, you see exactly the same crime rates and attendant culture. There's a reason when I was researching youth violence that I spoke to white kids in Grimsby rather than black kids in Oxford, and it wasn't that I like the Transpennine Express.

Exhibit A: have a look at this video. It's about gangs in Wythernshawe, and features the kid who famously made a gun sign at David Cameron. There's been violence here for years. But black people? Not so many. Likewise, you get beaten up in Croxteth, you got your beats from a white dude. Same for Bermondsey, and so on. For what it's worth, if a cap gets popped in your ass around Brick Lane, I'm putting money on the fact a Bengali did it. And if you're going to get killed in the UK, the chances are you got stabbed by a Caucasian, because that’s how most violent murders happen in this country.

But in London almost half of all people in poverty are from BME backgrounds. Our media is Londoncentric. Our crime coverage is Londoncentric. QED. There's a really, really stupid school of thought that says the large number of young white criminals outside the capital is somehow still the fault of "black culture" - that these guys picked up a rap CD or watched The Fresh Prince of Bel Air or whatever the hell its proponents think black culture is and decided to start stabbing each other; but that ignores decades of poverty, unemployment and poor educational standards, and I just struggle to buy it. What I'm saying is David Starkey put the cart before the horse - in fact, he put one of the apples that was in the cart in front of the horse, and expected it to drag the horse, the cart and decades of socioeconomic problems all the way through a Newsnight appearance.

And there's one other thing about all this, which is that over the years the media has messed up our perspective of crime. Look at black gun crime, which we all know is a big deal, right? There were 39 gun homicides – white and black – across the country last year. Now admittedly it’s come down, but that leaves roughly 1.8 million (minus, assuming the distribution’s remained the same, about 20) black people across the country whose biggest worry last year was probably getting Olympic tickets. And what about something really big, like the riots? What do they say about our society? Is it collapsing? Well, there were nearly 2,000 rioters brought before the courts, of which just under half were black. So yeah, there’s over-representation there, but there’s also getting on for a couple mil black people barricading their front door and hiding under their bed just like I didn't.

I'm not pretending violent crime and gangs aren't a huge deal for some people in some areas - after all, I've written a book about it - I'm just saying that it's a geographically specific problem, and if you're going to claim it's entirely due to elements of black culture you may as well start saying that murderous GPs or celebrity paedophiles are the result of elements of white culture: there may be smaller risk and protective factors at play buried away in terms of how people act (absent fathers the one to which the media most often turns), but it's a reductio ad absurdum.

Part Three: Alan fails to check his privilege; probably pisses everyone else off

I think the saddest thing about the above argument is that a whole bunch of black people have bought a different narrative, and I think a whole bunch of well-meaning white people have helped sell it to them. I want to turn my attention to the baby-faced firebrand sitting opposite Starkey: Mr Owen Jones.

Now, I feel bad picking on a small time journo like Jones who's clearly struggling to make a name for himself, but that guy was sitting in the wrong place at the wrong time, and I speak as someone with a pretty illustrious history in this regard. He'd later admit he was "paralysed" by Starkey's words - in the video you can hear him stammering something about how black people have made a big musical contribution, which isn’t what you’d call a zinging comeback.

In a series of follow up pieces the next year, Jones visited areas that were hit by the riots. It was largely a good series. But I was struck by the way he started it. The first man quoted in his opening piece is a guy called Stafford Scott, "a race advocacy worker and a friend of [Mark Duggan's] family for nearly 30 years.” Scott’s beef is that “We still don’t know what happened” with regard to Duggan. Later on, he talks to Jones about being arrested under Sus laws in the 1980s, and about the persecution black kids feel due to constant stop and searches.

I’ve never met Scott, but I’ve heard him talk: he’s an impressive guy who's had to put up with some terrible shit as a black Londoner living in the period he has. A lot of cops in the 80s were racist thugs. And a minority of them still are, according to friends I have in the force. But if you’re a left wing hack and you go to a guy like that straight off the bat, you’re setting your parameters pretty early.

No doubt Jones was influenced by the findings of the Guardian’s “Reading the Riots” survey. I was always worried about this one. Journalistic ethics and academic ethics just aren’t comfortable bedfellows. A decent sociological report into a huge epidemic wouldn’t usually generate a headline. Yet there it was in 24pt bold: Blame the Police: Why the rioters say they took part. You can’t reduce the cause of the riots to police behaviour. Any fool could tell you that.

Of course anger at bad policing – perceived or real – was a factor. And you don’t have to read far down the front splash before you see – shock horror – the report found it was just one among many. I suppose the Guardian would argue that the extent to which anger at the police was a factor is an important story. But they’re missing the point. Of course there are too many stop and searches, insensitively carried out, often by young officers or the Territorial Support Group, and they’re humiliating and frustrating for those upon whom they’re imposed. But the thing is, there are cops out there who do understand the needs of the communities within which they work – who are, believe it or not, at least respected by the kids. I know it for a fact. The ‘police’ in that report seemed to be one homogeneous, racist, brutal mass – the “biggest gang” (a line which has been used since, ooh, at least 1990).

The rage at the cops that the researchers’ interviewees are talking about was a symptom of a much bigger, less dramatic malaise, one which usually doesn’t manifest itself in smashed shops and burning buildings. During another debate on Newsnight (5th Dec), Nick Herbert MP said it was hardly surprising the rioters didn’t like the cops – 75% of them had committed crime before. This reading likewise skirted round the biggest factor: the dissociation from mainstream society which happens when areas become ghettoised – when high crime, poverty and welfare dependency become clustered.

You see it all the time if you’re involved in any kind of social work in these areas, and whatever colour most people are, it's the same shit in a different bucket. You see it in the mum telling the council social worker to fuck off; in the dad telling his son he should never snitch or bother going to school. You see it everywhere from Brixton to Salford. These people aren’t rioters or even criminals – but they feel hugely distanced from mainstream society. Riots – and gangs for that matter – are just patterns of behaviour which form the deepest shades on that spectrum - a spectrum that doesn’t care for skin tone. Oh, and there’s the other problem: “racist police” is a much easier answer to give than “I just got caught up in the excitement.”

You can do all the research you want, but if you choose to take a simplistic line on something like this, it’ll get the sanctimonious, clueless big mouths on the right a-huffing and a-puffing, it’ll be lapped up by the ratchet-jawed gasbags on the left who see the conclusions they wanted to see, and all you’ve created is a whole load of artificial racial division that doesn't need to be there.

I'm sick of hearing white middle class hacks in the left-wing media talk about the "black community" like it's one of those alien races that turns up at the Federation AGMs in Star Wars with whichever “community leader” is flavour of the week sitting in one of those pods as its representative. I know for damn sure that some of these guys do NOT speak for everyone in their area (memories here of a well-known "leader" who was always on the local news mouthing off about the cops, while his son was a leader of one of the worst gangs in South London: buddy, if you’re the answer, we’ve really got to think about the problem).

The trouble is, it’s pretty attractive, this vision of black Britain. Or is when you consider the media’s alternative - you know, the “bravery” of occasional Millwall forum contributor Rod Liddle, who blubs about the overrepresentation of black people in the criminal justice system but offers no context whatsoever, just a nod and wink as to why all this might be the case.

It’s a nasty little pincer move; stuck between the choice of perpetrators or victims. It means the media portrayal of the black “community’s” concerns have in recent years ended up set by a few vested interests and some middle class white men who know nothing about their lives (remind me how many black journalists are on newsdesks again). In fact, the reality - whether it’s in arts centres, schools or sports clubs, is a lot more positive. The version we see in the left wing media is less a movement and more misery porn for the coffee shops of Crouch End. What’s that - I’m preaching myself? Well, that makes a change. At least I’m admitting it.

Part Four: Hello young people

And all this patronising bullshit causes endless self-flagellation from black teachers and writers: why are black kids struggling at school and ending up in prison? What are the cultural factors? What about absent fathers? Is the education system racist? What IS to be done? Where’s Katharine Birbalsingh when you need her?

Look, I'm not saying we need to ignore these questions. But I'm pretty certain that my first answer is exactly the same as it would be for the rough ends of Liverpool, Portsmouth and Newcastle: society needs to get fairer. Wage differentials need to be decreased and the quality of state education for kids in poor areas needs to improve. All those other questions are worth asking, but if you prioritise them over those two main ones, I worry you're doing the same thing Starkey did with that apple.

You know the funny thing about all this? I’m talking a lot about poverty and misery, but I’m trying to put out a positive message. You realise what’s happening in our society? We’re getting each other, more and more, day by day, making connections at a rate that’s never been seen before, understanding where each of us is coming from a little better - and a big part of that is social media. Day by day the internet’s bringing home to us exactly how much we can multi-task in terms of our identities. If you do want to be a member of the “black community”, it doesn’t stop you being friends with some ponce from the New Statesman in another tab and posting on the Coldplay message board in another. We can be all these people at once, and it pisses off people who for various reasons would rather the differences between us were emphasised.

They loved the riots. They could say: “we were right”. They don’t speak for the face Britain presented to the world at the Olympics, they don’t speak for most young people, and they sure as hell don’t speak for me. Over the course of the next few weeks I’ll be hanging out with a black girl who acts like a diva, some Australian guys who can’t handle their beer, a Polish guy with a tiny dick and any number of other friends I could wind up by describing without naming them. That’s my community. That’s just how it is for most Londoners in this day and age. It’s fine.

And that’s what upsets the racists who love to come to my blog and kick up a stink: the fact they, and their bitter little prejudices, are dying. So if you’re young, black, white, maybe eggshell and cinnamon, grab your friend, whatever colour he or she is, and step out into the sunlight. You are beautiful, and this is water.

 

A woman walks past a broken cafe window in Clapham Junction after the 2011 riots. Photograph: Getty Images

Alan White's work has appeared in the Observer, Times, Private Eye, The National and the TLS. As John Heale, he is the author of One Blood: Inside Britain's Gang Culture.

Getty
Show Hide image

Aid in whose interest?

The government appears to be raiding the aid budget to subsidise big business and the security state.

In March 1988, Scottish aristocrat and Defence Minister to Margaret Thatcher, George Younger visited was part of a controversial offer of £200m of the UK aid budget in exchange for Malaysia signing a £1bn arms deal.

The government promised public money to subsidise UK construction giant Balfour Beatty to build a hydroelectric dam named Pergau in Malaysia’s mountainous north east.

Malaysia’s national utility, the World Bank and auditors at the Overseas Development Administration, the UK aid ministry, questioned the human development value of the project for the middle-income country, finding its costs to be “markedly uneconomic" compared to other options then available.

But these warnings were summarily dismissed.

Thatcher, who I believe saw aid not as a vehicle for eradicating poverty but as a means to advance Britain's commercial and geostrategic interests, wanted the arms deal.

In Malaysia, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad wanted an infrastructure project in Kelantan state, which was held by a rival party, which he wanted to wrest votes from.

But the National Audit Office soon got wind of the deal and parliamentary committees started to ask awkward questions of those involved.

The press published dozens of articles and the Pergau scandal was born.

Newspapers soon unearthed other white elephant development  projects resulting from the tying of aid to private British interests that did little for reducing poverty but were a boon for the contractors involved.

The Permanent Secretary to the ODA (Overseas Development Administration, now Dfid – the Department for International Development), Tim Lankester, said that Pergau was “unequivocally a bad buy”, “an abuse of the aid system” and “not a sound development project”.

The World Development Movement (renamed Global Justice Now) won a judicial review in 1994 against the government in the High Court which ruled the payment of aid “for unsound development purposes” illegal.

The Tories reacted, not by untying aid from UK vested interests, but by slashing the aid budget as punishment for the bad press – it seems that Thatcher saw little use for aid that could not be used to subsidise private interests.

Labour came to power in 1997 with an agenda to reform how Britain did development. It established a better-funded and politically-stronger aid department, the Department for International Development (DFID), with a seat in cabinet.

It scrapped the Aid and Trade Provision, the official mechanism by which aid was used to subsidise British company contracts, and in 2001 untied aid from UK commercial interests. The International Development Act of 2002 for the first time legally committed the UK to spending aid only on poverty reduction.

But since the Conservatives won a clear majority in last year’s general election, the government has been wilfully unlearning the lessons of Pergau.

Out of the hobbling coalition with the Liberal Democrats, Prime Minister David Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne have unpicked Labour’s reforms by effectively retying aid to the interests of the private sector and its perceived security interests.

They appear to have deprioritised poverty reduction as the principal purpose of the aid budget. “There is a real risk of the budget being recaptured by commercial interests as it was in the 1980s,” Sir Tim Lankester told me recently. “[International Development Secretary] Justine Greening has been making sure British commercial interests get more and more of the cake.

“What’s remarkable these days is the huge contracts going to the big consultancies to advise government and manage projects – The Adam Smith Internationals. The Crown Agents and others.”

November’s aid strategy “tackling global challenges in the national interest”, written largely by the Treasury rather than by Dfid, announced that aid would be a tool to “strengthen UK trade and investment opportunities around the world”.

The retying of aid spend is sold in the strategy in the same way the Conservatives sell austerity and privatisation at home.

Using the language of “prosperity” and “economic opportunity” (“inequality” was not mentioned once in the 22-page document), the government spins the dubious argument that communities in the world’s poorest nations share the interests of both UK business and the UK security state.

This “what’s good for us is good for you” aid strategy’s promotion of the UK interest over those of the poor grossly undermines the government’s legal duty under the International Development Act.

The aid strategy leaves it to the concurrently published National Security Strategy to enumerate what these imaginative interests are: to “protect our people”, to “project our global influence” and to “promote our prosperity”.

To achieve these ends, the government has allotted half of the aid budget to conflict-hit states, which are expected to be the states Britain has helped destabilise in recent years: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya Syria and Yemen.

The government also successfully lobbied the OECD to widen the official definition of “Official Development Assistance” (aid) to include military spend on counter-terrorism and expand the use of aid subsidies for private – and inevitably British – projects in the developing world.

Over the course of this Parliament, the Tories will triple to around £5bn the amount of aid to be spent outside of Dfid. The main beneficiaries of this diversion of aid are the Ministry of Defence (MoD), the foreign office (FCO) and the business department (BIS). These departments are considerably less transparent than Dfid and, according to the National Audit office, spend most of their aid on middle income countries, rather than low-income countries.

This slide towards using aid to subsidise British business and as a slush fund top up its military and security budgets means that development projects devoted to public health, education and countering the agricultural and ecological destruction wrought by climate change, will suffer.

***

Take the growing spend by Dfid on private consultants and accountancy firms.

Under the Tory austerity programme Dfid’s staff has been slashed, which means there is less public capacity to allocate, monitor aid projects.

To compensate for this under capacity the government has farmed out the aid budget in bigger and bigger parcels to private contractors and accountancy firms to do the work for a profit.

Dfid spends some £1.4bn directly through private contractors and several times more than that through its payments to multilateral development banks that recycle British aid back through the private sector.

In 2014, Dfid said 90 per cent of its contracts are awarded to British companies, strange for a department that claims to have untied aid. Almost no contracts are signed directly with NGOs or contractors in the Global South.

In 2014 alone, it spent £90m through a single private consultancy, Adam Smith International (ASI), which that year declared £14m in profits, a profit that doubled in two years on the back of Dfid and British taxpayers.

ASI, which was spun off from the neoliberal think tank Adam Smith Institute, is in the business of privatising public works in the Global South from Nigeria to Afghanistan and deregulating the Nigerian economy under its “Business Environment” stream of Dfid’s £180m Growth and Empowerment in States scheme.

In 2014, Dfid spent £42.9m on the services of one accountancy firm alone (PwC), in spite of its part in the LuxLeaks tax avoidance scandal. It is this tacitly sanctioned flight of wealth that costs poor nations (non-OECD) three times more each year in tax avoidance to tax havens than they receive in aid from rich nations (OECD) according to the OECD itself.

Contrary to the public perception, aid is for the most part not “given” to poor countries. At present, only 0.2 per cent of the world’s humanitarian aid goes directly to local and national non-government agencies and civil society organisations. This is despite a consensus that these groups are the most effective engines for development.

The increasing use of private contractors and large bilateral financial institutions to get aid out of the door constitutes nothing less than a capture of the aid budget by corporate interests, which also advise the government on where to direct future aid flows.

Under this government, aid has become less a tool for development but a rent for a veritable industry that concentrates the knowledge, skills and finance in the companies and institutions of rich nations.

***

Take the amount of British aid that subsidises the fossil fuel industry and therefore promotes global warming, which affects the poor considerably more than the rich because they lack the resources to adapt.

The effects of climate change are already biting. The rising frequency of drought on the world’s semi-arid regions of the world, including the Middle East constitutes, to borrow a term from Professor Rob Nixon, a “slow violence” enacted by industrialised nations on the poor.

Our refusal to take commensurate action on climate change means that water stress is rising across the world, which impairs development and has even been linked to conflict in Nigeria and Syria.

In April, I visited Somaliland, which is experiencing the worst drought in living memory along with the rest of east and southern Africa. Agriculture has collapsed, the animals are dying and migration is rising fast.

Many of these climate refugees are washing up on the shores of Italy and Greece. Survivors in are being sent back to Turkey because there is no international protection available to a subsistence farmer without water or a parent who cannot afford to feed their children.

In 2009, the UK pledged at the G20 to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies but instead it has been using public funds to increase them, according to the Overseas Development Institute.

Using aid money to give the fossil fuel industry a leg up and imperil us all to the onslaught of global warming entrenches inequality and hampers sustainable development.

***

Last year the EU signed a €1.8bn aid package with the governments of 20 African nations, including Eritrea, a totalitarian state financed by slave labour, to keep Eritreans in their country and to accept planes filled with their citizens who are denied asylum in Europe.

Clearly, this aid money is being spent principally the interests of the donors and not the world’s poor.

But aside from using aid to forcibly return people at risk of human rights abuses, this aid holds development back in other ways. Migration is the biggest driver of development because economic migrants from poor countries who work in rich countries back remittances that amount to three times the international aid spend.

“Migrants are the original agents of development,” William Lacy Swing, director of the International Organization for Migration, told the World Humanitarian Summit in May.

In effect we are spending public money legally allocated for reducing poverty on keeping the world’s poor mired in it.

***

Take the UK’s “preventing violent extremism” agenda – borrowed, of course, from the Americans – under whose banner projects can be now funded with UK aid.

Britain’s successful lobbying of the OECD – in opposition to other large donor states, including Sweden – to include some counter-terrorism military spend in the definition of aid is of deep concern.

The OECD already allowed for the provision of aid to prevent conflict and promote peace but this new extremist lens, as opposed to the purely conflict lens, allows the aid spend to become politicised.

After all, governments across the world call their political enemies “extremists” or “terrorists”, but the term is rarely ascribed to governments themselves, even when they brutalise their populations.

The government seems ready to exploit to this change, having set up its new £1bn aid-funded Conflict Stability and Security Fund (rising to £1.3bn in 2020), of which 90p of every pound is spent by the FCO and the MoD.

The stage has been set for Britain’s security state to raid the aid budget to pursue the ill-conceived and expensive military strategy du jour.

The government’s agenda to spend aid in conflict-hit and fragile states on counter-terrorism projects has a bad precedent. The US development agency USAID spent billions in post-2001 Afghanistan, which was embezzled or spirited out of the country.

Even worse, the aid was destabilising. “Instead of rescuing the [political] transition process, aid contributed to its failings,” said the NGO Saferworld in a report this year on the lessons learned from the American state-building strategy in Afghanistan. “Large aid volumes overwhelmed local absorptive capacity and sustained a rentier state . . . The influx of aid funds and the competition over the illegal economy strengthened predatory and opportunistic elites that the US and its allies tried to reform.”

The British government risks falling into the American trap of using counter-terrorism aid to remake conflict-hit fragile states into democracies.

The Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI), the government’s own aid watchdog, has criticized the government’s failure to learn lessons from the past, adding that its security initiatives are “naïve” and perform “poorly” in terms of both effectiveness and value for money.

***

In another dangerous case of aid not being used in the interests of development, the Tories are using it to establish private healthcare and education across the Global South.

Publically provided, free and universal health and education of the type we enjoy in Britain should be pursued across the Global South because it reduces inequality and strengthens democratic accountability.

Private provision of these services in the words of turns these basic needs into commodities whose price variable and unaffordable to poor and marginalised sections of society.

In Britain we should be internationalising the principle of free-at-the-point-of-use health and education, a privilege hard fought for by a generation of Labour politicians interested in social justice and the condition of the poor.

Instead, Dfid’s Education Position Paper calls for “developing new partnerships across the public-private spectrum” and commits Dfid to promoting low-cost private schools “in at least four countries”.

Its flagship education programme of the Department of International Development, in partnership with Coca Cola and PwC, is the £355m Girl’s Education Challenge, which rolls out private education across 18 countries, including 15 African nations.

In signing up to last year’s Sustainable Development Goals last year, Britain committed to “achieve universal health coverage”, which is directly undermined by a development agenda which favours fees.

***

The privatisation of our aid budget alongside its entrapment by enormous multilateral financial institutions is symptomatic of the wider erosion neoliberalism is enacting on the British – and global – economy.

In 2016, aid should be about empowering the losers of neoliberalism across the Global South to cut poverty and reduce inequality. This means placing more emphasis on working directly with the poor, colonised and, more-often, the women of the Global South.

Aid should not be spent on the five and often six figure salaries of the global financial elite, nor should it be tied to Britain’s commercial interests to provide public subsidy for private interests. If we wish to subsidise our private sector, that’s fine, but should do it using export credit and not disguise it as aid.

I can already hear the outcry from development experts that spending money at the grassroots is harder to track and the shrill headlines that taxpayers’ money is being wasted on bee-keepers in Kyrgyzstan or on a Somali radio drama that gave tips to illegal immigrants (all real headlines from the Murdoch press).

But I would accept more “waste” by employing more Dfid civil servants to monitor a greater number of smaller grassroots aid projects on a trial-and-error basis than I would accept the other now ubiquitous form of waste that we do not call waste: the subsidising poverty barons, who enrich themselves off the aid ‘industry’.

This is not a particularly radical agenda. Aid under Labour’s Clare Short, Dfid’s first head, targeted the grassroots and there is a growing consensus among the establishment that we must return to this model to make development more effective and give poor people ownership over projects rather than imposing them from above.

More power and capital needs to go into the hands of grassroots groups.

We must recall the lessons of Pergau and redesign our aid system so that it is not captured by industry or distant elites for their own profitability but a means by which the poor can bring about transformative social change for themselves. 

Diane Abbott is Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, and shadow secretary of state for international development.