Keir Starmer’s plan to boost defence spending by slashing international aid is a reckless gamble with lives and global stability — a decision that endangers not only the world’s most vulnerable, but ultimately our own security.
I have spent years working in international development. I have lived in an active conflict zone. I have seen, first-hand, how extreme poverty, political instability, and lack of opportunity create the conditions for violence and war. And I know that cutting aid will only make those problems worse.
I do recognise the need to invest in the UK’s defences. We live in an unstable world, and we must be prepared for the threats we face. But it is utterly perverse to fund that by turning our back on the very people who are most vulnerable to that instability. A strong defence isn’t just about how much we spend on the military; it’s about preventing conflict in the first place.
When people have no food, no clean water, no healthcare, and no hope, they become desperate. And desperation fuels conflict. When entire regions are left to struggle in extreme poverty, they can become breeding grounds for extremism, violence, and war. That is not merely a tragedy for the people who live there—it has direct consequences for global security, including here in the UK.
Isle of Man poised to pass assisted dying legislation
New Natural Environment Bill places “unacceptable burden” on Scotland’s deer managers
British aid has repeatedly proven its worth by saving millions of lives, stabilising regions on the brink of collapse, and averting conflicts that would otherwise demand far more costly military interventions. After devastating cuts under Conservative rule reduced our aid budget from 0.7% of GDP to a mere 0.5%, Labour’s planned reduction of the aid budget to 0.3% of GDP is not only cruel; it is a false economy.
What is even more appalling is that this proposal fails to consider a far fairer alternative. Instead of burdening the poorest with cuts that jeopardise their very survival, why aren’t we tapping into a more just source of funding—the wealthiest among us?
Our super-rich have long reaped the benefits of our national prosperity and should be expected to contribute their fair share toward our collective security. Taxing wealth is a solution that addresses two pressing issues at once. It allows us to secure our nation by investing in modern defence capabilities, while also maintaining our commitment to international aid that prevents conflicts from taking root. By ensuring that those who have benefitted disproportionately from our economy pay their fair share, we uphold the principles of fairness and solidarity that have long been hallmarks of our national identity.
Yet Starmer’s plan shifts the burden onto the world’s most vulnerable; a cynical manoeuvre that treats aid as an optional extra rather than recognising it as a fundamental pillar of lasting peace. This decision seems designed to placate right-wing critics who have long attacked aid spending, despite its representing only a tiny fraction of the UK’s overall budget. Labour’s plan is touted as “credible” and “costed.” But there is nothing credible about a policy that destabilises communities and exacerbates global insecurity. Cutting the programmes that prevent crises from spiralling into war is not cost-effective; it is a short-term move that sows the seeds for future conflict.
Britain has long been a global leader in international development, playing a crucial role in fighting poverty, tackling disease, and supporting fragile democracies. That leadership has always been more than a reflection of our values; it has been a cornerstone of our national interest. When we provide aid, we build partnerships. We create goodwill. We strengthen our standing on the global stage. And we reduce the need for future military interventions that cost far more in both money and human lives.
I want to see a strong, secure UK defence policy. But I want it to be built on smart, long-term thinking, not short-sighted cuts that will only make the world more dangerous. Our security should be financed not by stripping away the support that vulnerable nations desperately need but by ensuring that those who have amassed great wealth contribute proportionately. By stabilising regions in crisis and addressing the root causes of conflict, we reduce the risk of instability spilling over into our borders while upholding the principles of fairness and solidarity that define us.
Rejecting this false economy of cutting international aid means choosing a path that is as compassionate as it is strategic — a path that recognises true national strength arises from protecting the most vulnerable. It is time for a bold policy shift that refuses to sacrifice our humanity for short-term political gain, and instead builds a future where our security rests on justice, opportunity, and genuine global stability.
Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.
