Foreign aid

In the matter of Donald Trump v. Leviathan, let me begin by stipulating that Sir Thomas More was right in A Man for All Seasons when he remonstrated with his future son-in-law William Roper.  Roper was urging More to arrest the scheming Richard Rich, whose machinations would eventually lead to More’s execution. But, More points out, Rich had broken no law.   William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law! Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that! Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?

President Joe Biden signed the foreign aid package, which features $95 billion for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, on Wednesday after the bill swiftly moved through Congress. The breakdown of aid is as follows: $61 billion for Ukraine, $26 billion for Israel and $8 billion for Taiwan.Speaker Mike Johnson infuriated some of his Republican colleagues by even negotiating on the legislation, let alone bringing it to the House floor for a vote; he previously said he would not move any foreign aid until Democrats agreed to give additional funds for border security. Instead, after the Senate rejected the border security bill HR-2 and Johnson rejected the Senate-negotiated immigration package, the speaker made moves to go ahead with sending money abroad anyway.

When the government announced a Commons vote on its decision to cut the foreign aid budget from 0.7 per cent of GNI to 0.5, the expectation was that the vote would be tight. In the end, the government won comfortably: it had a majority of 35. But despite their success, the whips would be wrong to be feeling triumphalist about this, I write in the magazine this week The usual whips’ line — if you keep your nose clean preferment might come your way — is ineffective Twenty-four Tories voted against the government, 14 of which were former ministers. The overwhelming majority of these are either uninterested in returning to ministerial office or are only interested in doing so on their terms.

Things are looking tight this morning for the government’s vote on aid spending. Ministers were hoping that springing the vote on rebels at the last minute might help to peel away some softer MPs, and there's a list doing the rounds this morning of 14 backbenchers who’ve said they are supporting a compromise which would mean the government committing to restoring the 0.7 per cent target when economic conditions improve, using OBR forecasts to gauge when that is.

The vote on the cut to the foreign aid budget, which Jacob Rees-Mogg has just announced in the Commons, will be tight. The government has said that it plans to return to its manifesto commitment of 0.7 per cent but only when the Office for Budget Responsibility's forecasts show the UK is no longer borrowing for day-to-day spending and the debt is in decline. But that may not be enough to edge it given that the rebels want it restored when the economy returns to pre-pandemic levels, which will come much sooner. Reducing the aid budget from 0.7 per cent of GDP to 0.

Normally when a Prime Minister goes on the attack in the Commons, it's the opposition in his sights. Not so today, when Boris Johnson accidentally attacked his own MPs, including former prime minister Theresa May, for being 'lefty' propagandists. He was responding to questions from SNP Westminster leader Ian Blackford about the cuts in foreign aid spending from 0.7 per cent to 0.5 per cent, and said: 'We are in very very difficult financial times but you shouldn't believe the lefty propaganda that you're hearing from the people opposite.' Blackford was amused by this and quipped that he'd never expected to hear May referred to as a leftist.

Update: Commons speaker Lindsay Hoyle has announced that a vote on the aid spending amendment has not been selected. Hoyle says the amendment is out of the scope of the current bill, meaning Boris Johnson will avoid a potentially difficult vote on the issue – for now. Hoyle suggested the government should give MPs an opportunity for a vote at a later date on restoring the foreign aid pledge to 0.7 per cent of gross national income. As preparations get underway in Downing Street for this week's G7 summit, trouble is brewing in the House of Commons. The government is facing a potential defeat on a vote it didn't want to have: the cut to the foreign aid budget.

If a vote is called on the government’s aid cut on Monday, it will be very tight for the government. Andrew Mitchell is a former chief whip as well as a former development secretary and it is hard to believe that he would have put this amendment down if he didn’t have the numbers to defeat the government. This is, in some ways, an odd rebellion. The rebels claim they are not really rebels at all and just trying to uphold the Tory manifesto from the last election. But the size of this rebellion should concern Boris Johnson and the Tory whips. It highlights how many former ministers there now are on the backbenchers who are prepared to defy the government.

The proposed reduction in international aid from 0.7 to 0.5 per cent of GDP has elicited a furious reaction from some quarters. It has been condemned by five former prime ministers, three of whom never met the target when they were in office. What is missing from this debate is the historical context. The rise in development spending was part of the peace dividend that followed the end of the cold war. But the just-concluded defence spending settlement marks a UK recognition that this peace dividend is over — great power competition is back and this country’s military spending now needs to increase. Over the next decade or so, military spend is likely heading back to the level it was when the Berlin Wall fell.