The signal and the noise: global development, aid and the 2024 UK election manifestos

Manifestos  have rarely been the place to go for exciting or bold policy ideas on global development and UK aid.  Labour’s 1983 manifesto (known, perhaps unfairly, as the longest suicide note in history) was something of an exception: committing not only to the 0.7 GNI target for aid, but promising it would work to 1.0%; committing to a separate and independent Ministry for Overseas Development; and pledging aid priorities would be driven by the interests of the “poorest people in the poorest countries” (a much more radical statement, in today’s climate, than it should); and working with International Finance Institutions to ensure loans and support better reflected local contexts and needs. Interestingly, from the perspective of today’s toxic debates about UK universities and international students, it also saw pledged to use UK aid to provide scholarships to poorer students from poorer global regions. A clear, bold and policy-rich set of manifesto commitments which outlined a distinctive vision of global development under a Labour government.

The Labour’s 1997 manifesto, by contrast, gave few indications of the radical transformation of the UK aid landscape that was to come. Its ambitions were set out in opaque language, with nothing to quicken the pulse of those interested in global development policy.

Global development tends to appear in the ‘international’ section, alongside visions for foreign policy and global diplomacy, British international standing and the relationship with the US, and security. But unlike the domestic agenda, parties rarely set out specific policies on global development. There will usually be something on the 0.7% target, on being more efficient, working closely with partners, and perhaps some specific areas (usually uncontroversial: children, health, education) highlighted as being given a particular focus.

What is remarkable, perhaps, is the degree of consensus between the main parties on specific policies over the past 15 years or so. All agree on the 0.7% target for UK aid spending, though few give specifics on when it will return to that. All tend to agree that Britain should play a global leading role, and has great expertise to draw on. Reform has a slightly different vision, but we can get to that later.

Let’s be honest, the number of people who would actually base their vote on commitments to global development ranges from none to a mere handful. Elections are fought and won on domestic agendas. But that’s not really the point of global development in party manifestos. We shouldn’t look to them for innovation, for grappling with complex ideas and debates. What is being offered is a signal, a framing of how parties see Britain’s role on the international stage, and how global development and UK aid fits into that vision. There is perhaps an expectation, too, that a manifesto will at least nod its head at global development and aid issues. And it can also be quite useful, allowing potential prime ministers to use their vision of Britain on the Global Stage to buff up their (actual, potential, non-existent – delete as you think appropriate) authority.

And it is in this framing that we can see important points of difference between Conservative and what we might think of as a more progressive set of parties’ (Labour, Lib Dem, Green, SNP) position global development. The Conservative Party remains very much Britain-first, seeing global development through the narrow prism of British self-interest. Meanwhile, the progressive parties all frame global development and UK aid within a poverty-focus: rejecting the Britain-first position.

So whilst global development may not be an election issue, the signal sent through its inclusion in party manifestos, and how it is framed within their broader international agenda, is important. Lacking in specific actual policies as they tend to be, reliant more on scene setting, they do give some indications as to what will drive decision-making and priorities of the various parties.

With that in mind, let’s take a dive into the 2024 party manifestos and the place of global development within them.

I go into more depth into the specific policies and what it tells us for each party in separate posts to keep it readable. So for a discussion on each manifesto, follow the links provided at the end of each (very brief) summary.

Britain-first: Global Development in the Conservative Party Manifesto

• The main line from the Conservative manifesto is that spending and priorities will be shaped by British national interests first and foremost.
• The manifesto commits to the 0.7% target for aid spending, though only ‘when fiscal circumstances allow’

Click here for a longer discussion of the Conservative Party manifesto commitments to global development and aid.

Reconnecting to the outside world: global development in the Labour Party manifesto

• The party commits to the 0.7% target, with a similarly vague ‘as soon as fiscal circumstances allow’. Perhaps the ‘as soon as’ offers hope for a more definite commitment to raising spending when possible? Labour’s past record suggests this will be a priority, but is unlikely to happen soon.
• Policy will be based around poverty-alleviation rather than British self-interest (and will work with the Independent  Commission for Aid Impact to ensure its polices are effective, transparent and do focus primarily on poverty alleviation.
• Work will be done to restore development expertise, albeit within the FCDO rather than any commitment to re-establishing an independent department.

Click here for a longer discussion of the Labour Party manifesto commitments to global development and aid.

A considered approach? global development in the Lib Dem Party manifesto

• As in previous years, the Lib Dem pledges in its manifesto are more comprehensive than other parties, with actual polices rather than more vague aspirations and ambitions.
• It promises to reverse cuts to aid budgets (no time-frame, as with Labour and Conservative, but avoids the weasel-words of ‘fiscal circumstances’)
• A commitment to ensuring aid spending meets international rules and guidelines and operates within UK legislation; and to embedding the SDGs at the heart of policy
• A much stronger language on poverty-focused partnerships

Click here for a longer discussion of the Lib Demo Party manifesto commitments to global development and aid.

Grand plans, limited visions and no vision: the Greens, Plaid Cymru, SNP and Reform

• The Greens have a very short section on global development, but commit to increasing aid spending to 1.0% GNI; and (presumably separate and in addition) 1.5% on climate finance by 2033. Strong commitments, and especially good to see climate finance separated from the aid budget.
• Plaid Cymru have very little: a commitment to the 0.7% target which should be used in accordance with international definitions of aid spending. It doesn’t give the impression of much thought being given to what the global development policy of an independent Wales might look like, and is ultimately rather disappointing.
• SNP has even less on global development (though this is bulked out with a commitment to boost the climate action global loss and damage fund). Scotland does have its own (albeit very small-scale) pot for development and humanitarian aid spending, and has been more vocal in the past on global development issues. So its silence in this election is more surprising than Plaid Cymru’s. An indication, perhaps, of the distractions and disruptions caused by its internal battles?
• Reform promises exactly what you would expect given previous iterations of the UKIP and Brexit parties: it would cut aid spending in half, and undertake a ‘major review’ into UK aid effectiveness (presumably saying it isn’t very and should be restricted).

Click here for a longer discussion of the smaller party manifesto commitments to global development and aid.

So where does this leave us?

There is a narrative amongst some that come July 5^th, not much will change given the policies put forward by the Conservative and Labour parties. Whilst I don’t buy that analysis in general, it certainly isn’t the case in terms of global development. It’s true that the two main parties vying for power are lacking in specific policies, and vague (especially in setting out a mechanism and time frame for returning to the 0.7% target) in the specific pledges they do make. But the framing of their offerings does offer real points of difference and approach.

There can be little doubt that global development will look radically different depending on who wins the election. Moving the focus from Britain-first to poverty-alleviation first may not feel radical or significant, but it really is. And despite a lack of a clear promise on what the development part of the FCDO will look like under a Labour government, the discussions that have been taking place, and the signals the party has been giving, suggest there will be some kind of significant change to structure, authority and independence, even if it remains within the same ministry (and if there isn’t, this will be a major disappointment to those working in global development).

But it also points to the likely emergence of a more polarised public debate on aid spending over the next parliamentary period. The consensus over the past 15 years or so on the 0.7% target is likely to be broken if the Conservative party lose heavily, as is expected at this point of the campaign. A rightward shift would almost certainly see that commitment dropped, something that would receive support from the Conservative-supporting media. Meanwhile, a progressive alliance of Labour, Lib Dems, Green, Plaid Cymru and the SNP will continue their support for 0.7% and a less self-interested approach to global development. This divide may give global development a higher prominence in parliamentary and wider political debates under a new government. But turning UK aid into a political football will bring its own challenges, and require a much stronger case to be put forward by proponents of 0.7% as to why it is important and necessary, even in the face of significant media criticism.

Global development may not be central to elections and voting decisions, but the way events on and post-July 4^th play out will shape not only UK engagement in this area, but the lives and futures of millions across the world.