The pledge to almost double Britain’s international aid budget was made in the boom
years, when the government actually had money. In the bust, there is something deeply strange — almost perverse — about borrowing money from China and giving it to India. It’s time to
reassess Britain’s aid commitment, and The Spectator is having a debate about it tomorrow night. I hope CoffeeHousers will be able to come because it is, I think, a crucial issue.
Alan Duncan is the man to thanks — or blame, depending on your point of view — for the Tories committing to spend 0.7 per cent of economic output on foreign aid. He made the pledge in opposition, and the depressingly brilliant Andrew Mitchell (who succeeded Duncan) persuaded Cameron that his fiscal credibility depended on keeping it. Duncan will be on the panel defending what is, to me, a very statist way of seeing things.
Most popular
Iain Mansfield
Bridget Phillipson wants no alternatives to expose her education mistakes
Isn’t the Big Society about trusting people to do things themselves? Shouldn’t Conservatives actually take heed of the fact that the British public are actually the most generous in Europe and don’t need overseas donations forced out of them via the tax system? I’m in favour of aid, and believe some of it is done best through the tax system.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in