.png)
5 hours ago
1
The resignation of Anneliese Dodds, the international development minister, from Labour’s cabinet may not have been entirely unexpected. Sir Keir Starmer’s decision to cut the aid budget to “pay” for increased defence spending was wrong. Making the world’s poorest foot the bill for Britain’s security is reckless and self-defeating. Slashing aid fuels instability – it won’t buy safety. From her perch in government Ms Dodds, who was Sir Keir’s first shadow chancellor, knew this better than most.
The former cabinet minister’s letter is right to warn that the cuts will mean the UK withdrawing from many developing countries and having a diminished role in global institutions like the World Bank, the G7 and climate negotiations. She pointedly argued Britain will find it “impossible” to deliver on its commitment to maintain development spending in Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine with the shrunken budget. Sir Keir rebuffed this charge, but Ms Dodds is right to say his move is being seen as following the Trumpian lead in cutting USAid – a framing that implies the UK is losing its independent foreign policy direction.
Like many others, including this column, she understood that in an increasingly volatile world, defence spending must rise. But rather than a collective discussion on whether the government’s fiscal rules and tax policies remain fit for purpose, the prime minister chose to gut aid budgets to fund defence spending with little debate, as if stability abroad weren’t essential to security at home. Such high-handed treatment left Ms Dodds, a soft-left intellectual politician, with no choice but to resign.
Her departure had been in the air since Sir Keir made his announcement – but she held off until he returned from Washington. Sir Keir now owns the decision, and its consequences will define his leadership. That he was shaped by events rather than shaping them will not be lost on his MPs.
Clive Lewis, a leftwing Labour MP and former soldier, has called for a wealth tax to fund defence. This is a sensible idea that merits wider discussion, as does relaxing borrowing rules – a debate already under way in Europe. The party’s right wing wants to frame Sir Keir’s move as more than fiscal, briefing that Sir Keir has made a deliberate break from the party’s pro-aid stance. It is reported that the Treasury didn’t push this – it was the prime minister’s personal call. Ms Dodds’ rise and fall mirrors his hardening leadership style.
Sir Keir is seizing this crisis to remake his party. His government has embraced militarisation, welfare cuts, climate backtracking and nationalist asylum policies. The political rationale is to ward off attacks from the extreme right and particularly Reform, which has seen its support rise. Why amplify rightwing narratives instead of challenging them? If this is just tactical positioning, fine. If not, he risks losing Labour’s soul – a perilous path as concerns over the lack of good jobs, equality, child poverty and pensioner support are likely to keep growing. Labour voters may turn away if “hard-headed” geopolitics trumps fairness. The reaction from MPs and the electorate will determine whether this gamble pays off – or exposes rifts within Labour’s coalition.
