Toxic issue of foreign aid and an astonishing remark by the Chancellor
SURvEyING a half-empty auditorium, David Cameron smiled, took a deep breath and launched into a passionate defence of one of his most controversial policies. It was July 2007, and he was in Africa making the case for protecting the overseas aid budget, a pledge despised by many in his party.
From the start, his trip had been so controversial there had been speculation he would pull out.
Now, hardly anyone had turned up for his keynote speech, and spin doctors were panicking about embarrassing Tv footage of empty seats. Then the lights went out.
As a symbol of Cameron’s fortunes, the scene in the Rwandan Parliament in Kigali could hardly have been more apt.
Back home, his Witney constituency in Oxfordshire was under water following weeks of heavy rain. Hundreds of homes had to be evacuated and there was anger that he was 4,000 miles away pontificating about global poverty.
Among Conservative MPs and activists who had never understood or supported the so- called ‘ modernisation agenda’, the trip to Rwanda was perceived as yet another empty PR stunt.
To the dismay of many in the party, Cameron and shadow Chancellor George Osborne had adopted a UN target — set in the Seventies but never met in the UK — to spend 0.7 per cent of GDP on foreign aid. It became the centrepiece of their policy on international aid, and the focus of much discontent among both Tory MPs and the wider party.
When a family friend confronted Osborne about it over lunch in 2008, she was taken aback by his reaction.
‘It’s to keep the aid agencies off my back,’ he shrugged — hardly a ringing endorsement of the cause (though he may just have been placating a critic at a social gathering).
When the financial crash struck in late 2007, opponents of the 0.7 per cent pledge became far more vocal. Cameron came under intense pressure from colleagues, including shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox, to abandon the ring-fence.
MEANWHILE, Gordon Brown raised the stakes. Fearing Cameron was getting too much kudos for his stance on the 0.7 per cent target after ‘stealing’ the issue from Labour, the Labour Prime Minister pledged to go one better and enshrine the commitment in law.
It prompted a panicked meeting between Cameron, Osborne and shadow International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell, during which Mitchell argued that they should not try to match Brown’s pledge.
‘Listen, we have said we will spend 0.7 per cent. That is good enough,’ he said. ‘ We don’t need to pass a law. We are proper politicians, and will do what we say. Parliament shouldn’t pass this kind of legislation — it’s ridiculous.’
However, the party leader and shadow Chancellor feared Brown’s move would open up a damaging ‘dividing line’ on overseas aid. ‘We need to close it down. We’ll have to offer the same,’ Osborne said. Cameron agreed.
It was a decision that Cameron had cause to regret. In 2010, as Prime Minister in a coalition whose raison d’être was economic recovery, he could not see how to honour the pledge.
Early on in the coalition, Cameron called Mitchell to No. 10 to discuss their options. ‘I said: “We’ve got to do what we said. We’ve got to pass the law,”’ Mitchell recalls.
Cameron demurred. ‘Uh, well, it’s all very difficult,’ he said. ‘I can’t see how we can do it.’
Nonetheless, in 2013, the 0.7 per cent target was finally hit. A backbench Bill sponsored by the Liberal Democrat MP Michael Moore enshrining it in law passed through Parliament.
Cameron’s stance on this issue in the bleakest economic circumstances has been a longrunning sore within the Tory Party, denting his popularity among some of the more robust traditionalists.
Amid widespread austerity measures, it would have been relatively easy to drop the 0.7 per cent pledge. David Cameron deserves credit for the courage of his convictions in this case.
The policy had the dual attraction of showcasing ‘modern, compassionate Conservatism’ and fitting comfortably with the Prime Minister’s patrician view of his role in Britain and the world.
He has no difficulty with the concept of noblesse oblige. To his critics, it is another illustration of a de haut en bas attitude.
Cameron would simply say it’s ‘the right thing to do’.