Comment: Labour is still standing up for international development

For Labour, development is not charity – it is the pursuit of social justice and human rights

 

I was deeply proud to be appointed Labour’s shadow secretary of state for International Development in Jeremy Corbyn’s first shadow cabinet this September.

There is no issue that better illustrates the internationalism that is at the core of Labour’s progressive politics than our commitment to international development. And in an era that has seen the rise of toxic xenophobic politics across Europe, it is worth reminding ourselves that an outward looking internationalism is not an ‘add on’ to our democratic socialism; rather it should be at the heart of our democratic socialism.

For Labour, development is not charity – it is the pursuit of social justice and human rights.

Labour in government should be proud of its leadership on international development historically. It was a Labour government which in 1964 set up the first Ministry of Overseas Development.

The very first cabinet level minister of Overseas Development was Barbara Castle. She was followed by illustrious names like Judith Hart and Clare Short (the latter was the International Development minister in 1997 when DFID was first created as an independent department.)

We should also never forget the contribution of Gordon Brown who put development issues at the heart of his government, tripled the aid budget and works tirelessly on these issues to this day. And it was Labour MPs who pushed successfully for the last government to commit to spending the international 0.7 per cent target of national output on international development.

With this in mind, In recent weeks, I have been proud to see that the overwhelming majority of Labour voices have strongly spoken out in defence of the international development budget in response to the false suggestion – originally emanating from UKIP and echoed by Conservative MP Philip Davies in PMQs last week – that we should cut the overseas aid budget in order to spend money on much-needed flood defences here.

Indeed, as shadow chancellor John McDonnell MP has pointed out, this is a totally false ‘choice’ to present in that that much of the spending send to developing countries was targeted at helping them green their economies, this is already playing a role in preventing future flooding and that if we were to cut this funding ‘it would be a short-term saving but a long-term cost.”’

Beyond this immediate debate, we need to continue to be strong in our defence of the international development budget and, as Stephen Twigg MP recently argued, it is vital that Labour remains committed to tackling poverty and inequality abroad as well as at home.’

In a world where global issues like climate change and disease outbreaks affect British lives, tackling international development challenges is not only morally right, it is also in our national interest.

This summer, the United Nations Sustainable Development goals were adopted. They set out 17 goals around which we can further develop our international development policies and improve the lives of the poor globally.

In the coming months myself and the team will be holding this government to account on international development, including (as I have written about in more detail this week here) on the growing concerns that this Tory government is using that budget for a different ‘security’ agenda, not solely for international development.

A Labour government elected in 2020 would restore our reputation as a champion of international development, pushing for ambitious global agreements on international development that seek to tackle inequality and its drivers. Let’s make it happen.

Diane Abbott is Labour’s shadow secretary of state for International Development. You can follow the Labour International Development Team on Twitter 

5 Responses to “Comment: Labour is still standing up for international development”

  1. jj

    .a..as long as it doesn’t get in the hands of corrupt repressive governments…

  2. Cole

    …as long as D Abbott isn’t in charge of handing it out.

  3. Jacko

    I love these titles: ‘Shadow’ this, ‘Shadow’ that, as though these people were in charge of something, or had influence on government policy, or were civil servants, or would somehow step into the role if the real minister should fall sick, like an understudy in the theatre. They’re nobodies. They have no more influence on policy you or I.

  4. Sid

    What a waste of money !!!

  5. John Lowrie

    For “our” little island Saint Helena and its ever-loyal colonial citizens, that has been over-run by DfID and FCO experts for more than a generation, self-sufficiency remains as elusive as ever, and yet the colonial masters persist with their externally-imposed “we know best” solutions. That includes this week’s appointment of a consummate DfID insider as its next Governor. A cursory search of Hansard will show that the same problems go back to 1994 and before. It was only a Labour Government that restored the right of Saint Helenians to be accorded with full British nationality, to take their rightful place in the outside world, one of the first acts of the Blair administration. Now this administration, with its policy to force economic viability on the island, with a new airport and tourism – that is clearly not thoroughly thought-through or costed, to reduce aid dependence, is risking – seriously risking – the destruction of a unique community and culture. One simple “external” decision above others shows this flagrant disregard for Saints’ interests. How could they sever centuries of close trading, commerical and familial links with Cape Town, and a perfect place to start and end a trip to Saint Helena, with….Johannebsurg of all places! Time for Labour, and those Tories in the great tradition of Bernard Braine who spoke sense when it came to Saint Helena, to come to the rescue again? http://anorthumbrianabroad.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-buck-rests-here.html http://anorthumbrianabroad.blogspot.com/2015/06/more-to-saint-helenian-culture-than.html

    One simple recurring question is yet to be answered: “Why to Saints to better off their island than on it?”

Leave a Reply