Reconnecting to the outside world: global development in the Labour Party 2024 Election Manifesto

The Labour Party 2024 manifesto has been maligned for its caution-above-all approach. Wounded by its past failures, the campaign has sought to persuade the electorate of no-great shocks and surprises: competence rather than revolutionary convulsion. In terms of its approach to the outside world, however, it feels very different from the world-is-a-scary-place Conservative Party offering.

Underpinning Labour’s vision is a far more positive embrace of the world stage. Global development is framed within the need to connect, to build global partnerships and alliances, to work in cooperation rather than conflict in addressing global challenges.

Perhaps the most important part of the Labour Party’s approach is in this revival of internationalisation (again, something that feels more radical than it should in the context of current debates). It commits to establishing relationships ‘based on genuine respect and partnership with the global South to support our common interests’. Labour’s global development policy will be driven by a commitment ‘to create a world free from poverty on a liveable planet’, doing so through ‘greater multilateral action’ as well as reviving British leadership in global development.

Assertions of ‘common interest’ are problematic: what happens when there are conflicting interests? Whose should take priority – those of the poorest and most vulnerable, or the UK’s? Who gets to define them? Still the framing here feels more than a platitude. It is a confident assertion of solidarity and move away from a narrow Britain-first agenda. It points to a meaningful difference from the current and promised Conservative approach, and one that returns poverty-alleviation to UK aid and global development policies.

Specific policy commitments are certainly lacking. Yes, there is the expected commitment to 0.7% target for aid, though as with the Conservatives, this will only be ‘as soon as fiscal circumstances allow’. It commits to working with the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) to ensure aid policy is effective and transparent. That is already the role of ICAI, but there is an important signal being sent. It is a commitment to ensuring aid is spent according to official and legal expectations for aid spending; and that it will adhere to independent scrutiny in meeting its obligations in this area (a rebuke to the Conservative government’s dismissal of independent oversight).

Importantly, whilst there is no pledge to re-establish a separate Department for International Development, there is a commitment to strengthening global development work ‘within’ the FCDO, and restoring its expertise and global reputation. Certainly there has been much debate about whether a new Labour government should restore DFID or a new version of it. This suggests it is unlikely, at least in the short-term. A more likely outcome may be for the Minister for International Development to be given a seat within Cabinet, to act as a separate and independent voice for global development alongside the Foreign Secretary. This is the model for the widely-respected Norwegian agency for development cooperation, which is seen as a way for balancing global development and domestic foreign policy interests within the same ministry. This will disappoint those wanting to restore DFID to its glory, but may be considered an acceptable compromise.

There are the commitments to focusing on debt relief (a recognition of a growing crisis), on empowerment of women and girls, supporting conflict prevention, and on climate finance. These aren’t meaningless or empty words (though again, who is going to object). But nothing in the way of actual, tangible policy against which a future government’s record could be measured.

So is it disappointing? From the perspective of someone working in global development, probably. But as we know, this is largely about the framing. And here it does feel substantially different from the current government’s approach and Conservative promises for a future one should it be elected. Putting poverty alleviation and climate back to the centre for guiding policy and priorities is really important and significant. The focus on positive engagement, multilateralism, respecting international laws are important points of difference between the two parties. And there is enough of a signal about structural change within the FCDO to give heart that global development will be given a higher profile and place in the heart of government.

Experience shows Labour governments tend to deliver more in office than they promise in their manifesto, so expect some significant movement in UK global development architecture, even if not articulated in the manifesto. The commitment to 0.7% may be as vaguely worded as its Tory counterpart, but still it is far more likely to be achieved sooner under a Labour government than a Conservative one.