Has Labour delivered for the world's poor?

Joel Edwards and Douglas Alexander weigh up how successful the government has been on international development.

Dear Douglas

At last year’s Conservative Party conference, David Cameron castigated Labour for abandoning the UK poor.  It’s therefore reasonable to ask whether Labour has actually delivered on its promises for the world’s poor.

It’s hard to deny Labour’s international reputation on global poverty.  In 2008, at the culmination of a Walk of Witness hosted by Micah Challenge and the Lambeth Conference, the Prime Minister made an impressive, passionate speech in support of the Millennium Development Goals.  In the run up to the G8 meetings in London, both Brown and Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd made a joint public commitment at St Paul’s Cathedral to maintain aid levels despite the financial crisis.  

But it hasn’t all been talk.  In the run-up to Jubilee 2000, I was around in Gordon Brown’s quarterly breakfast meetings in which he and International Development Secretary Clare Short met in open court with a battery of faith leaders and relief and development experts.  Blair’s Commission on Africa was a serious attempt to respond to the world’s poor.  I have made two visits to meet with you, Douglas, and was left in no doubt that, as an old Christian Aid hand, you are looking for real partnership in poverty reduction.

So has labour delivered for the poor?  No. No one has. 

Following a major consultation last year, DfID has accelerated its commitment to work with faith-based projects on the ground.  But while Britain is comfortably in the top five nations in contributing net ODA, it is still in the middle order in terms of its percentage.  Britain falls well below the 0.7% GNI advocates and is only ninth in the league of quality adjusted aid nations.

Britain could do more.  As one pro-Labour specialist suggested, Labour has done well but it could look at its trading laws.  It should also take steps to fight corruption that damages the MDGs, by prosecuting companies under the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business.

No one nation can unilaterally deliver for the global poor.  Like everyone else, Labour has not yet delivered – even if you are delivering.

Joel

Dear Joel

Let me begin by expressing my praise for the work of Micah Challenge, and the wider efforts of Christian churches.  When I recently spoke at St Paul’s Cathedral, I pointed out that many people underestimate just how much Make Poverty History and Jubilee 2000 were made up of people of faith.

Through our response to these campaigns, we have helped to get 40 million more children into school, and to increase the number of people with access to AIDS treatment from just 100,000 at the turn of the century to over 4 million today.  These are real lives changed for the better.

I would be the first to recognise that the world is well off-track in efforts to meet the Millennium Development Goals.  But we must also recognise the successes, both because of the progress they demonstrate, but also because of the hope that they represent for future progress.

Although Britain is yet to meet the 0.7% GNI aid target, we are well on track to do so by 2013.  To make this promise irreversible, we have committed to enshrine it in law.  On trade, we remain both committed to securing a pro-poor deal in the Doha world trade talks, and to promoting action at an individual level, such as through supporting fair-trade.  And we are working hard to prevent the misuse of our aid money.

But you are right that we cannot do this alone.  We can make the biggest difference for the world’s poor if we work together through institutions like the UN, the World Bank and the European Union.

I welcome your recognition that Labour is delivering.  But a Conservative government would put all this at risk.  While we have been working to secure a climate change deal that works for poor people, they would risk re-badging the aid budget as climate finance, rather than provide additional resources.  They would export privatisation and assisted places to the health and education services of poor countries.  And in contrast to Labour’s position, 96% of Tory candidates admit that they would not prioritise keeping the aid budget.

There remains a world of difference between our two approaches.

Douglas