Read on Twitter
These are the papers that think Britain is a mighty nation that will have greater global influence after #Brexit.
Such a great international power that we can't afford 70p in every £100 to help the poorest in the world
#ForeignAid
h/t @JulianPetley
(1/?)
Such a great international power that we can't afford 70p in every £100 to help the poorest in the world
#ForeignAid
h/t @JulianPetley
(1/?)
They will have been thrilled by Sunak's cut. Over the years, they have wanted the cash diverted to the NHS, the elderly, to flood relief, to fight terrorism, to deter migrants. #Covid was a natural.
(2/?)
(2/?)
Their heroine @pritipatel wanted to use aid as a bargaining chip to strike deals with developing nations. In some parts of the world they have a word for this sort of approach:
baksheesh.
And in some parts of the world baksheesh is regarded as bribery and corruption.
(3/?)
baksheesh.
And in some parts of the world baksheesh is regarded as bribery and corruption.
(3/?)
Thankfully, she was put right on that. But here's an interesting between-editions rethink in the Mail on what she had to say about aid when she was the minister in December 2016.
(4/?)
(4/?)
In the first story, aid was an important contribution by "global britain" to help the poor and tackle floods and famine.
In the second, she was writing to all contractors demanding a detailed breakdown of how our money was spent.
(5/?)
In the second, she was writing to all contractors demanding a detailed breakdown of how our money was spent.
(5/?)
It does make sense to make sure you give money to the right people. Like making sure you direct state cash at home to the poor rather than to your cronies.
But once you've given the gift, it's theirs - not yours - to spend as they see fit.
(6/7)
But once you've given the gift, it's theirs - not yours - to spend as they see fit.
(6/7)
The Tories hate the "nanny state", but it's surprising how many think they should stop giving money to poor people who spend it on cigs rather than cabbage. It's the same with fgn aid.
And the saddest thing is that 66% of the country and 92% of Tory voters approve of the cut.
And the saddest thing is that 66% of the country and 92% of Tory voters approve of the cut.
There is, of course, a glorious symmetry in the fact that the amount being cut - £4bn - is the same as the amount being set aside for "levelling up" bits of northern England.
Appropriate really, since stockbroker-belt Tories seem to regard the North as a foreign country.
Appropriate really, since stockbroker-belt Tories seem to regard the North as a foreign country.
The question is, will the locals be trusted to spend the money themselves? Or at least get a say? Or will it all be directed by the masters in London?
