Tory Shadow Chancellor, Mel Stride, wants to slash the UK's overseas aid to 0.1% of national income. That's not just cruel, it's racism and fascism dressed up as fiscal prudence. Cutting aid means condemning millions to poverty, fuelling migration, and destroying economic stability. This is the politics of contempt in action, when Britain should lead the world by helping it, not punishing it for existing.
This is the transcript:
Tory Chancellor Mel Stride says he's going to cut the UK's overseas aid budget to 0.1% of UK national income. I've heard of some stupid policies that have been proposed by governments before now, but this one ranks right up there with the very worst.
This whole idea that somehow or other, we don't need to make a contribution to the world, just because we happen to be the sixth-largest economy within it, is absolutely ridiculous.
It is small-mindedness, gone mad.
It is fascism taking over the Conservative Party.
It is racism writ large over everything that it does, and it is actually trying to compound almost every problem that we face.
Our overseas aid budget is, in part, reparations for the damage that we did to the world during the course of our period of empire and colonialism.
We ripped the wealth out of the world.
We ripped people out of the world.
We have a duty to make good the damage we created.
More than that, this policy is one about creating economic stability for the world at large. That is why we should be spending at least 0.7% of our national GDP on overseas development, which we achieved during the era of David Cameron, unbelievably, only a decade or so ago. But now we have Tories saying, "We can't afford this", because they believe that we are a poor, broke country, and they don't ask the question, "Who made us a poor, broke country?" when very clearly it was them who did so over 14 years of austerity started by George Osborne.
So what are the consequences of 0.1% spent on overseas development, much of it, by the way, which will be actually spent in the UK, because spending on migrants comes out of this budget? Well, the answer is obvious. There will quite simply be more people wanting to come to this country, because the countries in which they live will be worse off.
It will not be possible to get an education in those places.
It will not be possible to sustain lives in those places because there won't be the economic support to let that happen.
It will not be possible for people to manage the consequences of climate change because we won't be helping them do so, and therefore, climate migration will grow.
All of this is literally Mel Stride picking up the nearest available gun that he can find and shooting himself in the foot. We are making the world worse, but in a way that makes coming to the UK more attractive, and if he really is so obsessed about migration, this policy is economic madness.
But it fails at a moral level as well, because we are a rich country. We have a duty to redistribute our wealth to those who are quite simply poor in comparison to ourselves. We have a duty to do so unconditionally. We do not need to spend this money on paying for migrants in this country. We need to spend it in the countries where they came from, so they don't have the incentive to leave those places because they have the opportunities there, which are otherwise denied to them.
But we're not going to do that. Instead, we are going to punish people for simply being. This is what the economics and politics of conceit, of utter contempt, of racism and of fascism look like. And I'm accusing Mel Stride of all these things because he is seeking to discriminate against the people of the world on the basis they're not British, just as we did when we were a colonial power.
We should hang our heads in shame that we have a leader in the opposition who can put forward a policy like this. We have a duty to support people. But it's also a practical responsibility because if we really want to help people to stay in the countries from which they're coming, then the only way to do that is to make life possible there, and at present, we are not doing that. So we're actually harming ourselves with this policy, so stupid is it.
What on earth is Mel Stride thinking about? Or should we be asking the other question, is Mel Stride capable of thinking, because there's no evidence that he can?
Taking further action
If you want to write a letter to your MP on the issues raised in this blog post, there is a ChatGPT prompt to assist you in doing so, with full instructions, here.
One word of warning, though: please ensure you have the correct MP. ChatGPT can get it wrong.
Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
This is false I’m afraid.
Cutting UK government foreign aid to 0.1% of national income would mean overall that UK foreign aid reduces to around 2.0% of national income compared to 2.4% (source World Bank).
I wonder if you come from a school of thought that what the non-government sector of the economy delivers doesn’t count.
Show your workings please, because your claim look very dubious to me.
And my claim is not wrong: I was discussing government policy.
Stride is a politician and typical of nearly all of them. He has very few morals and probably no conviction about very much.
You and I have convictions about how we want wealth to be fairly distributed. I don’t doubt our conviction, but Mel Stride is liable to change his stance according to how many votes he thinks it might win, or how it might please his boss, Kimi Badenoch. We’ll probably never know what any of these present crop of politicians really think behind their masks of vote grabbing and sycophancy.
Cutting overseas aid is clearly wrong for all the reasons you state. Anyone with any thought for human beings worse off than themselves would see that. I suspect even Mel Stride might see it, but he cannot admit it because he’s a politician. No surprise that the voters are switching off.
Id like to know how and why such vile, regressive thinking seems to be lauded as some sort of idea thats worth celebrating?
Stride in best patronishing fashion said ‘we need to have a grown up conversation about welfare’ as in, time to stop it or lets give everyone vouchers so we know what the unemoyed are spending it on.
Who, exactly, is this person appealing to!?
What on earth is Mel Stride thinking about?
Possibly this: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/oct/06/conservative-party-misspell-britain-conference-chocolate-bar
Message to Mr Stride – can I have one of your chocolate bars … for framing natch.
If you can’t even spell Britian… ooops Britain…….what hope for getting your numbers write – right – you can spell.. oops count can’t you? or perhaps not, waving? downing? sinking?
do tell. Send me a postcard.
Tories: illiterate, innumerate &…………irrelevant (last one leaving tory HQ please turn off the lights and the gas).
This (USA-based but still mostly applicable) paper explains the Job Guarantee in detail as well as types of Job Guarantee jobs – https://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_902.pdf
Care for the Environment:
“The jobs will tackle: soil erosion, flood control, environmental surveys, species monitoring, park maintenance and renewal, removal of invasive species, sustainable agriculture practices to address the “food desert”2 problems in the United States, support for local fisheries, community supported agriculture (CSA) farms, community and rooftop gardens, tree planting, fire and other disaster prevention measures, weatherization of homes, and composting.”
Care for the Community:
“Jobs can include: cleanup of vacant properties, reclamation of materials, restoration of public spaces, and other small infrastructure investments; establishment of school gardens, urban farms, co-working spaces, solar arrays, tool lending libraries, classes and programs, and community theaters; construction of playgrounds; restoration of historical sites; organization of carpooling programs, as well as recycling, reuse, and water-collection initiatives, food waste programs, and oral histories projects.”
Care for the People:
“The JG aims to support individuals and families, filling the particular need gaps they may be facing. Projects would include: elderly care; afterschool programs; and special programs for children, new mothers, at-risk youth, veterans, former inmates, and people with disabilities. One advantage of the JG is that it also provides job opportunities to the very people benefiting from these programs. In other words, the program gives them agency. For example, the at-risk youth themselves participate in the execution of the afterschool activities that aim to benefit them. The veterans themselves can work for and benefit from different veterans’ outreach programs. Jobs in these projects can include: organizing afterschool activities or adult skill classes in schools or local libraries; facilitating extended-day programs for school children; shadowing teachers, coaches, hospice workers and librarians to learn new skills and assist them in their duties; organizing nutrition surveys in schools; and coordinating health awareness programs for young mothers. Other examples include organizing urban campuses, co-ops, classes and training, and apprenticeships in sustainable agriculture, and all of the above-mentioned community care jobs, which could produce a new generation of urban teachers, artists and artisans, makers, and inventors.”
Those jobs need doing anyway.
It is insulting to treat them as the ‘catch all’.
This is terrible political framing
You might like to read this report that bill mitchell published in 2008 – https://www.fullemployment.net/publications/reports/2008/CofFEE_JA/CofFEE_JA_final_report_November_2008.pdf
It shows there are hundreds of thousands of suitable jobs.
Jobs on jg are nice to have jobs.
Also what do you suppose the unemployed do? Under NAIRU 4-5% unemployment control inflation. We HAVE to have JG or those people are systemically unemployed. If you support something like basic income please say. How do you address Idleness?
I avoid anything written by Bill. Most of it is nonsense, and I am not the only person who knows a lot about MMT to say so.
What is your view on the MMT Job Guarantee idea? Remember private sector only has to offer slightly better pay than JG wage/living wage to hire workers off JG since it’s a job like any other job.
If you oppose the JG auto stabiliser that replace interest rate changes what replace with?
Might you Google that? I have explained my opinion on this man6 times.
Hello
If the Tories’ policies are racist, does this mean the Tories’ party leader, Kemi Badenoch (the daughter of African-Nigerian immigrant parents) – is racist, or supports racism/racist policies?
Am watching-reading from oversas, so am not sure what ‘race’ and ‘racism’ are defined to mean in Britain/ in the British context?
Many thanks.
Yes.
Racism is not reserved for white people.
Lots of publicity is given to Farage and Conservative anti-immigrant rants.
In contrast, there has been little reporting of the recent Green Party Conference. There, Zack Polanski, the new leader asserted “Migrants and refugees are welcome here”. He was hugely applauded.
When Polanski was first elected a few weeks ago, the BBC was invited to interview him. The request was declined. ‘He’ll be interviewed during the Party Conferences.’
Then Laura Kuenssberg interviewed all the major Party Leaders – but not Zack. OK, there was the horrible attack at the Manchester synagogue but Polanski is both Jewish and from Manchester (as well being proud of his Polish ancestry).
Could there be prejudice against the Greens and their policies at the BBC?
Yes, in a word.
Badenoch has, as far as I can tell, chosen to turn her back on her heritage to fit in with an organisation that is structurally racist. It happens.
Tom B.
Just wondering, what is Kemi Badenoch’s “heritage” (that you say she is turning her back on)?
Do you mean her parents’ “Nigerian heritage”, and her early years in Nigeria, so do you mean she is turning her back on Nigeria?
(Is Kemi Badenoch presently a Nigerian citizen or British citizen?)
Not only racist but also stupid and counter productive.
Again, the trope is ‘less for them means more for you’.
Whilst still carrying out austerity, no less.
End to the lies please.
Thank you for Prof Murphy
Your opinion helps readers ( like this one 🙂 ) to see the situation more clearly from different sides and angles.
Thanks again for your blog and your discussion/engagement.
Thanks
The moral argument for UK having a significant overseas aid budget is powerful.
I remember setting up diplay boards each with its own tape cassette in an envelope, back in the 70s and 80s, on behalf of TEAR Fund, arguing for the 0.7% target, finally granted by David Cameron. No powerpoints or computers in those days, it was articles cut out and pinned to boards!
But leaving morality on one side, as politicians do nowadays, pragmatic common sense, realism, perhaps even self-interested fear, should convince even the most amoral politician, that cutting overseas aid to 0.1% is lunacy.
What has overseas aid ever done for us?
The benefits of soft power for the UK’s reputation.
The reduction in radicalisation and terrorist attacks targeting UK citizens.
The benefits of education disempowering the attraction of local militias.
The reduction in global conflict.
The reduction in forced migration. (Stopping the boats…)
But Mel Stride can’t see past his own short-term electoral oblivion. He won’t be an MP for long. But he is, in the meantime, legitimising the fascism of Fa***e’s Reform UK Ltd corporate destruction of our country.
So much to agree with.
Including on pinboard memories.
@MMS
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2025/10/06/tory-plans-to-cut-aid-are-racism-in-action/comment-page-1/#comment-1046812
She explains herself here:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c24z77yg16eo
The birthright UK citizenship she acquired by being born in London was abolished by Margaret Thatcher. Kemi only just made it in time. She wants to haul up any remaining ladders as fast as she can behind her, to stop anyone else climbing up after her.
RobertJ
Thanks for the links.
It seems Kemi Badenoch grew up in Nigeria and America, and before birthright citizenship was abolished, she took out British citizenship.
There are other articles querying if her mother travelled from Nigeria to the UK deliberately, just to give birth, so her daughter would qualify automatically for citizenship?
This conjecture seems to be denied by Badenoch.
Irrespective of these factors, even if she wasn’t born in London, but was born in Nigeria, and still sought British citizenship as a teenager and dropped Nigerian citizenship – is there a law
requiring her to identify and call herself “Nigerian”?
Many British people have left Britain for Australia. They abandoned British citizenship, adopted an Aussie accent and cut all ties to Britain. They don’t identify as British, they barrack for Australia in the cricket etc. 🙂
Mary Donaldson (born and raised in Tasmania) married the Prince of Denmark, dropped Australian citizenship, became a Dane, changed her religion – and now speaks mostly Danish. She barracks for Denmark at the Olympics. She is now literally, the Queen Consort of Denmark.
No-one expects nor criticises her (or those British turned Aussies) for turning any backs on heritage?
So, is the Tory immigration policy about “race”?
Or is this about “class”?
Especially if Britain is still welcoming affluent/middle class immigrants of all races? (Badenoch’s parents were upper middle class it seems, so even today, they probably wouldn’t need a “ladder”? They would likely be welcomed with open arms?)
Have you read the 2024 book, “This Is Not America: Why We Need A British Conversation About Race” by Tomiwa Owolade?
It seems race minorities in Britain/the UK – aren’t necessarily happy about the way “race” and race issues in Britain, might be defined, discussed or characterised as they are in America?
I’m not criticising Kemi B for where she was born or what sort of family she was born into. Nor that her parents wanted a decent life for her and took their chance to get it.
It’s what she’s done since as a typical contemporary member of the STP-Austerity-Party (Blue wing) that bothers me.
I do critise her for supporting a racist immigration policy designed to get votes ftom racists.
I do criticise her for demonising the poor, the disabled, those with Special Educational Needs, the chronically sick, those needing refuge and seeking asylum, those without work, those entitled to, needing and drawing state benefits.
I do criticise her for her incomptence and her arrogance.
As for race and class, IMHO, they are impossible to separate. Discriminated-against minorities tend to figure disproportionately in poverty stats compared with their overall prevalence in the population. Why? (racial minorities, disabled minorities, health minorities, non-white minorities).
I write from one of the poorest wards in the country, traditionally a white working class neighbourhood, so I am not unaware of their own very valid stories of disadvantage, and I regularly advocate for them to get a better hearing than they do, especially from the intellectual left.
But Kemi Badenoch isn’t interested in my neighbours, black OR white. I’m not really interested in her. She has nothing useful to say at all. She is a clapped-out political irrelevance at the head of a party of clapped-out political irrelevancies.
She blows racist dogwhistles to try and drown out the ones blown by Reform UK Ltd and the ones blown by Keir Starmer’s Labour. DisHonest Bob Jenrick wants to pinch her dogwhistle and blow it even louder than her. He will be worse.
Thank you
book is 2024
RobertJ
Thanks for sharing more of your thought rationale.
Why are “race” and “class” – “impossible to separate”?
Genuinely curious as it has implications for political economic policy.
Many thanks for this blog
🙂
I thought that my previous post contained an answer to that question. The problems caused by class and race discrimination overlap considerably. People can be white, or black (or other), working class or middle/upper class, human beings are complex, as is life and so are problems. A black working class male may share some problems with a white upper class female, if they both have sewage in their tap water. Their outcomes may vary if one is immunosuppressed due to chemotherapy for terminal cancer, and one has sickle cell disease.
Academics need to do discrete analysis on different groups, granted, but we cannot put people into neat race or class-based pigeonholes and I am suspicious of attempts to do so, especially if they are ideologically based.
RobertJ
Thanks for the clarification.
Your thoughts and examples above, illustrate well that race and class are indeed distinct and separable, and that no assumptions, expectations nor stereotypes can be made about any individual person’s life conditions, their personal views or social or economic position in a society – due to another person’s perceptions of “race”.
Thank you 🙂
Given the interpretation you have placed on my words, I don’t seem to have clarified anything. So I’ll stop now.
“… we cannot put people into neat race or class based pigeonholes…”
That’s seems a clear opinion, no interpretation needed.
Whether it’s Kemi Badenoch or anyone else across the political-economic spectrum, we seem to agree that no-one can be “pigeonholed” and that one might be “…suspicious of attempts to do so…”
Thanks for this helpful discussion.
Signing off also
🙂