Voters here turned a question about Britain’s global role into a verdict on the national balance sheet. No won decisively, with the room sounding less hostile to aid in principle than unwilling to restore a target while debt, defence and domestic pressures compete for the same money.
The winning No case was led by the floor’s most-respected argument: “We need to stop paying for our own demise.” Other voices described the country as being “on credit card”, opposed sending cash to states with space programmes or nuclear arsenals, and favoured directing funds to specific projects rather than governments, while some dismissed aid as a “bribe fund” or performative influence.
Yes voters answered that the choice was not necessarily aid or public services: the strongest Yes case said, “we increase the tax the better off pay, remove loopholes that help them”. Others called aid “an investment in Britain’s long-term security” and argued that development could reduce migration, while qualified supporters wanted money tied to effective local projects and warned that aid itself can serve counter-terrorism and defence.
The two sides largely talked past each other. Yes treated poverty, instability and displacement as future security costs; No treated borrowing to fund overseas spending as an immediate breach of fiscal common sense, with one voice insisting that “Our global influence does not pivot on such a small fractional change.” The result belongs to the wider tax-and-spend argument, but its sharper finding is about trust: voters were unconvinced that restoring the target would buy influence, value or control.
For this chamber, the moral case for aid never overcame the suspicion that the state is spending money it does not have.
17 Opinions
Why are we giving money to any country when we must borrow money at very high rates to pay them. Our National debt is already out of control. Get that under control first.
Our global influence does not pivot on such a small fractional change. And a good deal of the money was being spent on virtue signalling for mostly hopeless causes like gay rights in homophobic countries. It's patronising and performative.
No, the bribe fund needs to be stopped in fully except aid for some unseen catastrophes. We are in serious debt, very close to bankruptcy. The money is send to countries with own nuclear arsenals or space programmes. Instead giving us leverage in international politics, it is seen as weakness, i.e. countries refusing to take their deported from UK citizens. Finally the money is very often spend without any control and on silly projects.
Yes- but now may not be the time to. There is other spending priorities but using defense as an example ignores the fact that foreign aid is also used as part of defence, things from intelligence sharing to counter terrorism projects across the world so we tackle it before it reaches our doorsteps.
A qualified 'yes' but only where that spending actually improves local conditions in a way that encourages natives to remain and make their own lives better in place. Subsidising regimes that fail to invest or provide basic humanitarian aid to their own people should stop.
Best to stop all foreign aid until we get rid of our debt! Stupid to borrow, pay interest to give away.
Posturing by this government is prima facie evidence that Ministers & the Civil Service answer to a higher power. When Starmer or Burnham was/is dealing with the electorate we never had/have money for anything & have to tighten our belts for the ‘common’ good. Yet they can find & instantly spend £Billions on Ukraine ‘to protect its borders’ the criminal hoax of NetZero, Foreign Aid, NGOs, & importmillions of illegals borrowing to give to Global Banking Elite. Not about us.
Developing the world means fewer people turning up on our doorstep and draining the welfare state.
The UK should restore aid to 0.7% because foreign aid isn’t simply charity, it’s an investment in Britain’s long-term security, influence and prosperity. Cutting it to fund defence is a false economy: poverty, instability, conflict, disease and displacement create costs and security threats that Britain ultimately has to deal with anyway. At 0.7%, the UK can maintain meaningful global influence while spending far more on defence and domestic priorities.
NO Not only would I not increase spending, I'd consider cutting it further, but also redirecting it to countries that need it. We shouldn't be finding other countries that have space programs for example. I'd also look at the way it distributed & rather than giving cash to countries, I'd consider funding projects by paying the finds directly to companies/organisations carrying out the actual work