Labour's aid cuts are wrong morally - and economically, too

Get right down to it and there are two reasons for thinking that cuts to Britain's aid budget to pay for defence are a seriously bad idea.

- Larry Elliott

The first is that people will die as a result. There will be less money to respond to humanitarian crises and less money for vaccination programmes and hospitals. Realpolitik is being blamed for the decision, but realpolitik doesn’t make it right.

But there are also economic arguments for rich countries providing financial support to less well-off nations, which were summed up succinctly in last year’s Labour party manifesto. This document could not have been clearer. International assistance, it said, helps make “the world a safer, more prosperous place”.

That remains as true as it was when Labour came to power last summer, and indeed it was still the party’s stated belief a month ago. When, as one of his first decisions, Donald Trump gutted the US aid budget, the foreign secretary, David Lammy, said it could be a “big strategic mistake”. Now that the UK has followed suit and reduced aid spending from 0.5% to 0.3% of national output, Lammy says it was a difficult but pragmatic decision. He was right before and is wrong now.