How will Clegg retaliate over the 0.7% aid law?

Cameron's refusal to introduce a bill committing the UK to spending 0.7 per cent of GNI on aid is a breach of the coalition agreement.

It’s official. The government are NOT going to enshrine in law the UK’s commitment to the UN target of spending 0.7 per cent of GNI on international aid. The Foreign Secretary’s comments over the weekend confirmed that the law will not be in today’s Queen’s Speech. And a government source confirmed the reason to the Observer:

It is not about a lack of time but a lack of will on the part of the Prime Minister to engage in a fight with his backbenchers. It was in the Coalition agreement but the Prime Minister has decided it will not be in the Queen’s Speech and basically it will not happen under this government.

I don’t want to say “I told you so”, but regular Staggers readers will know that you read it here first. The Conservative commitment to the electorate was clear: on page 117 of the Conservative manifesto it says:

A new Conservative government will be fully committed to achieving, by 2013, the UN target of spending 0.7% of national income as aid. We will stick to the rules laid down by the OECD about what spending counts as aid. We will legislate in the first session of a new Parliament to lock in this level of spending for every year from 2013.

And the Coalition Agreement, is also clear (page 22):

“We will honour our commitment to spend 0.7% of GNI on overseas aid from 2013, and to enshrine this commitment in law.”

But perhaps most striking is that Tory MPs were literally queuing up to have their photos taken supporting the launch of the ‘IF’ campaign just a few months ago. Let’s pick a few at random: here is George Freeman at the Westminster launch event, here is Mark Lancaster at World Vision HQ in Milton Keynes and here is a picture of David Cameron himself, taken last month by ActionAid campaigners in Witney, just days before last week’s elections.

So what? Well, the number one demand of the ‘IF’ campaign is:

“The UK Government must deliver on its commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on aid from 2013, and introduce legislation on this issue either before or in the Queen's Speech.”

Before last week’s elections they backed the campaign but today, the Queen’s Speech will show that now they don’t. At the weekend William Hague argued that what matters is that they are meeting 0.7% but last year, when the budget was just 0.56%, DFID underspent its budget by a record breaking £500m last year.

So what now? There is still a tiny chance that Mark Hendrick’s private members bill might progress, but without government support it is dead in the water. The UK development NGOs are left licking their wounds and wondering whether they can secure other ‘IF’ objectives in the run up to the G8. While in Westminster, all eyes now shift to the coalition partners.

At party conference last year, newly appointed DIFD Minister Lynne Featherstone said that Lib Dems were committed to 0.7, “no ifs, no buts” and would “put it into law as soon as we can get a legislative slot”. The last time Cameron broke the coalition agreement, withdrawing support for Lords Reform, Clegg retaliated by withdrawing support for boundary changes. He said:

“I cannot permit a situation where Conservative rebels can pick and choose the parts of the contract they like, while Liberal Democrat MPs are bound to the entire agreement."

It seems that the “pick and choose” nature of the contract has again been exposed, with Conservative rebels shaping government decisions again. So what will he do this time? Or perhaps more importantly, what will the big six NGOs behind the ‘IF’ campaign urge him to do?

The last time they were in office, the Conservatives halved the aid budget. Labour trebled it. The reason the Conservatives made the promise they did in 2010 was to achieve all-party consensus and put the issue beyond doubt. But now there is no doubt at all.

At the pre-election hustings event organised by the big six NGOs through BOND, a delegate from Oxfam challenged Andrew Mitchell’s sincerity and said that she did not believe he would keep his promise. Rather than reassure her, to the surprise of the rest of the audience, he questioned her political motives and insisted that, on this issue, there was consensus across all political parties. Now we know. She was right all along. 

Richard Darlington was Special Adviser at DFID 2009-2010 and is now Head of News at IPPR - follow him on twitter: @RDarlo

David Cameron and Nick Clegg attend a press conference at 10 Downing Street to mark the half-way point in the term of the coalition government. Photograph: Getty Images.

Richard Darlington is Head of News at IPPR. Follow him on Twitter @RDarlo.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

How can the left make the case for immigration?

All too often, we drift into telling people we want to convince that they just don't get it.

We don’t give the public enough credit. You’ll often hear their views dismissed with sighs in intellectual circles. In fact on most issues the public are broadly sensible, most are these days supportive of cutting the deficit and dubious about political giveaways, but in favor of protecting spending on the NHS and education. Yet there is one issue where most, “knowledgeable” folks will tell you the public are well out of step: immigration. 

With [today’s] net migration figures showing yet another record high, it is an ever more salient issue. On a lot of measures ‘too much immigration’ ranks highest as the number one concern (see Ipossmori). The ongoing rise of right wing political parties across Europe demonstrates that simply enough. But concerns about immigration don’t just sit with those with more extreme views, they’re also shared across the mainstream of public opinion. Yet unlike thinking on cutting the deficit or funding the NHS the public consensus that immigration is bad for Britain, flies flat in the face of the intellectual consensus, and by that I mean the economics. 

Given the intense public debate many a study has tried to spell out the economic impact of immigration, most find that it is positive. Immigration boosts the nation’s GDP. As the theory goes this is because immigrants bring with them entrepreneurialism and new ideas to the economy. This means firstly that they help start new ventures that in turn create more wealth and jobs for natives. They also help the supply chains to keep ticking. A example being British agriculture, where seasonal workers are are needed, for example, to pick the strawberries which help keeps the farms, the truckers and the sellers in business. 

Most studies also find little evidence of British jobs being lost (or displaced) due to immigrants, certainly when the economy is growing. Indeed economists refer to such “ “they’re” taking our jobs” arguments as the “lump of labour fallacy’. On top of all that the average migrant is younger than the native population and less likely to rely on welfare, so their net contribution to the state coffers are more likely to be positive than natives as they don’t draw as much state spending from pensions or the NHS. 

So why haven't the public cottoned on? Many progressive types dismiss such views as racist or xenophobic. But it turns out this is to misunderstand the public just as much as the public ‘misunderstand’ immigration. When you study people’s views on immigration more closely it becomes clear why. Far from being racist most people asked by focus groups cite practical concerns with immigration. Indeed if you go by the British Social Attitudes Survey a much smaller number of people express racist view than say they are concerned about migration.  

The think tank British Future broadly set out that while a quarter of people are opposed to immigration in principle and another quarter are positive about it the majority are concerned for practical reasons - concerns about whether the NHS can cope, whether there are enough social houses, whether our border controls are up to scratch and whether we know how many people are coming here in the first place (we don’t since exit checks were scrapped, they only came back a few months ago). But more than anything else they also have very little confidence that government can or wants to do anything about it. 

This truth, which is to often ignored, begets two things. Firstly, we go about making the argument in the wrong way. Telling someone “you don’t understand immigration is good for our economy etc etc” is going to get a reaction which says “this person just doesn't get my concerns”. Despite the moans of progressives, this is precisely why you won't hear left leaning politicians with any nous ‘preaching’ the the unconditional benefits of immigration.

More importantly, the economic arguments miss the central issue that those concerned with immigration have, that the benefits and effects of it are not shared fairly. Firstly migrants don’t settle homogeneously across the country, some areas have heavy influxes other have very little. So while the net effect of immigration may be positive on the national tax take that doesn't mean that public services in certain areas don’t loose out. Now there isn't clear evidence of this being the case, but that could just as well be because we don’t record the usage of public services by citizenship status. 

The effects are also not equal on the income scale, because while those of us with higher incomes scale tend to benefit from cheep labour in construction, care or agriculture (where many lower skilled migrants go) the lower paid British minority who work in those sectors do see small downward pressure on their wages. 

It’s these senses of unfairness of how migration has been managed (or not) that leads to the sense of concern and resentment. And any arguments about the benefit to the UK economy fail to answer the question of what about my local economy or my bit of the labour market. 

Its worth saying that most of these concerns are over-egged and misused by opponents of immigration. Its only a small factor in stagnating wages, and few local areas are really overrun. But the narrative is all important, if you want to win this argument you have to understand the concerns of the people you are trying to convince. That means the right way to make the argument about immigration is to start by acknowledging your opponents concerns - we do need better border controls and to manage demands on public services. Then persuade them that if we did pull up the drawbridge there is much we’d loose in smart entrepreneurs and in cultural diversity. 

Just whatever you do, don’t call them racist, they’re probably not.

Steve O'Neill was deputy head of policy for the Liberal Democrats until the election.