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
Show Hide image

If the cuts are necessary, where's Philip Hammond's deficit target gone?

The Chancellor ripped up his predecessor's plans and has no plan to replace them. What's going on?

Remember austerity?

I’m not talking about the cuts to public services, which are very much still ongoing. I’m talking about the economic argument advanced by the Conservatives from the financial crisis in 2007-8 up until the European referendum: that unlesss the British government got hold of its public finances and paid down its debt, the United Kingdom would be thrown into crisis as its creditors would get nervous.

That was the rationale for a programme of cuts well in excess of anything their coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats, campaigned on in the run-up to the 201 election. It was the justification for cuts to everything from English language lessons to library hours. It was the stick used to beat Labour in the 2015 election. Now it justifies cuts to payments to families that lose a parent, to mental health services and much else besides.

Which is odd, because there’s something missing from this election campaign: any timetable from the Tories about when, exactly, they intend to pay all that money back. Neither the government’s day-to-day expenditure nor its existing debt can meaningfully be said to be any closer to being brought into balance than they were in 2010.

To make matters worse, Philip Hammond has scrapped George Osborne’s timetable and plan to secure both a current account surplus and to start paying off Britain’s debts. He has said he will bring forward his own targets, but thus far, none have been forthcoming.

Which is odd, because if the nervousness of Britain’s creditors is really something to worry about, their causes for worry have surely increased since 2015, not decreased. Since then, the country has gone from a byword for political stability to shocking the world with its vote to leave the European Union. The value of its currency has plummetted. Its main opposition party is led by a man who, according to the government at least, is a dangerous leftist, and, more to the point, a dangerous leftist that the government insists is on the brink of taking power thanks to the SNP. Surely the need for a clear timetable from the only party offering “strong and stable” government is greater than ever?

And yet: the government has no serious plan to close the deficit and seems more likely to add further spending commitments, in the shape of new grammar schools, and the possible continuation of the triple lock on pensions.  There seems to be no great clamour for Philip Hammond to lay out his plans to get the deficit under control.

What gives?

Could it all, possibly, have been a con to advance the cause of shrinking the state?

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.

0800 7318496