-
It’s only been a little over a month since Donald Trump’s return to power and already the world feels a lot less safe; our future a lot less secure.
- A large and sustained transfer of resources from wealthy to developing countries – 0.7% of every nation’s GDP was the recommended goal
- Proposed policies to address poverty and political tensions between the North and the South and within the nations worst affected
- An emphasis on the need to reverse economic trends that were failing to provide social and economic equality
- A proposed new global developmental initiative to reduce inflation and unemployment in the North.
His governing style is bluster, bullying, bribery and blackmail. Sidelining Congress in favour of executive fiat, dismantling the US federal structures that threatens the reversal of 80 years of US foreign policy and world order.
Even our right-wing media are rattled.
On Wednesday, the Telegraph editorial (while stating the bleeding obvious) read – Sir Keir Starmer will need to tread carefully today as he sets out to gain Washington’s support in several key policy areas. The Prime Minister cannot be seen to overly concede to Donald Trump, but he also cannot risk angering the leader of the world’s largest economy at a time when Britain is on the brink of recession.
Yesterday, The Mail on Sunday’s headline proclaims (with uncustomary frankness) – Now Stop the State Visit for Bully Trump!
Sadly, once again our government wrong-steps in its response to a crisis.
For Liberals, our political reality is also our nation’s economic and environmental reality – the more we reduce international aid projects that are aimed at enabling people to care for themselves and their environment in their home nations, the greater the burden and misery we place not just on them but on ourselves. We are long past the point when 14 years ago we forced our liberal compassion and global economic good sense on the coalition government compelling it to commit the UK to invest 0.7% of GDP in International Aid with its own Whitehall department and Cabinet post. The Tories, of course, couldn’t wait to dismantle all of that ten years ago and support has fallen steadily away in recent years to the point that practical aid support is now a paltry 0.15%. The result has been catastrophic and it will worsen still. Not just poverty, starvation and misery in the global south and less-developed countries of the world but it will prove an utterly false economic saving here at home.
No one disputes we must spend more on practical defence and our armed forces, but taking the money from the aid budget?! What shortsighted folly!
With people less able to care for themselves and their environments in their own countries, millions are forced to seek refuge elsewhere. A situation that can only worsen as we greedily continue to ignore the ravages of climate change and the deadly hardships and conflicts it is spreading. Rather than curbing immigration and “stopping the boats” government policy will now make it all the more likely. And all that hardship and disruption costs us far more here and across Europe in displaced migrants, than the aid designed to help prevent it and help people live sustainably and peaceably in their own lands. Almost half of what is left of the depleted aid budget is today squandered on paying for temporary accommodation here in Britain for refugees and asylum seekers. Around £3billion in the last financial year – a breathtaking £8+ million every day!
45 years ago The Brandt Report was called A Programme for Survival. Written in 1980 by the Independent Commission on International Development Issues, chaired by Willy Brandt, a former SPD German Chancellor in the 70s, the report’s proposals were altruistic in the very best of senses: noble; philanthropic; humanitarian; and in the best interests of everyone, not just those directly affected.
The key recommendations included:
Almost half a century later, I wonder how this high ideal in liberal thinking is working out…
Triumphant greed and transactionalism is now reaching its zenith and has Trumped Brandt’s survival package to the world’s shame.
I know you’d like to do the right thing and be seen as one of the good guys, but I am afraid Sir Keir that once again you have got it completely wrong. Just as taxing jobs is completely the wrong move if your goal is growth, so destabilising half the world by withdrawing aid is your least best option if your aim is to strengthen defence and security.
Trump’s transactionalism is just one short step from outright bribery and blackmail. As the world watched in stunned disbelief on Friday, Trump and his consigliere Vance fully transformed into the Mafia thugs they always aspired to be. Trump’s appeasement of Putin is not calculated to win his compliance, but simply to gain his admiration – the thing craved above all else by the narcissist. Trump is jealous of Putin, his unbridled power, his longevity, his ability to do just what he likes without fear of retribution or regret. For Putin there have never been rules. And Trump, with dime-store Batman villain Musk, is dismantling the pesky US constitution and rule of law by the day.
In 2016 it was, “If you elect a clown, expect a circus.” Today it’s “If you elect a criminal, expect crime!!”
There is no time to waste, but the reaction (of what remains) of the free world cannot falter – we must be swift; we must be just; and the peace of Ukraine, Palestine, Sudan and the world must be sustainable. Trump, and indeed Starmer, might do well to heed the words of an earlier Republican President, Theodore Roosevelt, “Speak softly, and carry a big stick.”
* Roger Hayes has been an active Liberal for 45 years. He was candidate for Kingston in 1983 and 87 and a past Leader of Kingston Council.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1360
Free clinics for families affected by dementia
The Women of Mumbles Head
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
John Grout
Peter Martin
Jennie
Jenny Barnes
Mark
19 Comments
Well said. See my comment on the other Oped “Peace abroad, peace at home” in which I also refer to Fair Trade with poor countries.
I agree that defence spending needs to increase, and also that Aid should not be cut to pay for it. I also agree that increasing taxes on jobs any further should not be considered as we need economic growth to increase our ability to pay for public services we value.
So what do we propose? Taxing spending by increasing VAT will just hurt those who are already struggling with the cost of living. So, Borrowing even more when we pay over £100Bn per year on interest on the National Debt? Or hammering more income taxes on those who work for a living? No easy options I’m afraid…
‘No one disputes we must spend more on practical defence and our armed forces…’
Agreed, but where can we find the money to do so?
Cutting aid is deeply regrettable and as you say, likely counter-productive. But when every domestic budget is already stretched to breaking, and public services are desperate for more funding, not less…
“But when every domestic budget is already stretched to breaking………”
EVERY domestic budget? Have the seriously wealthy been having problems…?
Have Mary Fulton and Cassie been reading what Ed and other LibDem spokes have been saying? Put up the digital services tax and tax the banks’ ludicrous profits more.
And my old friend Peter is absolutely right when he suggests the seriously wealthy should pay more tax instead of avoiding and evading paying their fair share.
It is a myth that taxing the rich more will stop them investing and act as a disincentive. That is what their mouthpieces – the press, the media and right wing politicians like Trump, Farage, Le Pen et al – want you to believe.
It is scandalous that Starmer and Reeves kowtow to the rich and powerful this way. It is up to us the raise the standard against this self serving nonsense.
‘EVERY domestic budget’ = means health, education, transport, welfare, policing, justice, the environment…
‘The seriously wealthy’ are not a budget.
I do think some of the comments on this site over the last few days has shown how out of touch some people are with the electorate.
Even Liberal Democrat voters by 62% to 25% support the aid cut to increase defence spending.
All those in favour of foreign aid need to make their case much better.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2025/mar/03/peter-mandelson-ukraine-donald-trump-volodymyr-zelenskyy-keir-starmer-uk-politics-live?CMP=share_btn_url&page=with%3Ablock-67c5a1fb8f0837a340205d83#block-67c5a1fb8f0837a340205d83
Slamdac, that’s a classic duff opinion poll question. Everybody who wanted to support increased defence spending will have felt compelled to vote “support” rather than “oppose”, whether or not they thought the aid budget was the best budget to hit. Ignore the “result”.
If you asked people if the money should come from
People richer than me
People poorer than me
Me
You would probably get a significant majority keeping that order of preference.
@Mick Taylor
Banks based in the UK contribute almost a tenth of the UK’s GDP, employ over a million people and contribute billions in tax. Let’s just remember that international banks don’t have to be based in London when we decide how much we wish to tax them.
Might the military threat of Russia be exaggerated?
As Russia has failed to conquer Ukraine since 2022, how likely is it that Russian troops will march into Downing Street?
Please read this article on Craig Murray’s blog.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2025/03/ukraine-diplomacy-and-war/
Might our military being weaker be a result of the socio-economic policy of Neo-liberalism?
Army in 1985 – 334,000
Army in 2020 – 153,000
If the wealthy, tax favoured are going to leave if a transparent and equitable, and so effective taxation system, were to be introduced, is it wise to imagine that they would stay in the event of an armed conflict harming us?
Well said, Roger! However, I’d add two important points.
1. There is general agreement that we need urgently to raise the amount spent on defence. Sadly, our expectation falling the collapse of the Soviet Union that there was a “peace dividend” which could be spent on domestic services like health, education and welfare has proved drastically and catastophicaly over-optimistic (I share with my fellow- Liberals in the guilt we should feel over this wrong appraisal of the situation). We need now to look back at the economics, and the UK budgets, of the 1930s to see where that got us – forced to go to a wartime economy where 50% of our GDP went on fighting the war. That was because – as Churchill vociferously said – we left re-armament too late.
2. However, this does not need to be at the expense of foreign aid or of the public services we need for the less-well-off members of our society. Richard Murphy’s “The Taxing Wealth Report 2024” (published in these pages a couple of weeks ago) shows where the money required could come from by equalising the rate of tax relief rather than subsidising the savings of the wealthy, aligning the capital gains tax rate with the income tax rate, and increase the rates of corporation tax for larger companies to the rates which are commonplace throughout the world. Not only could we massively boost the cash available for defence, but much more could be provided to our domestic public services. Please go back and read your Maynard Keynes – surely compulsory reading for all Liberals.
3. Finally, please remember that, notwithstanding Trump’s victory last November, there are millions of Americans (many of whom are our long-term friends) who do not share his views and are appalled at the developments of the last few weeks.R
@Steve Trevethan – there is very little chance of Russian troops marching into Downing Street. That is not the risk.
Russia failed to conquer Ukraine due to the incredible bravery of the Ukrainian people coupled with supplies of weapons and ammunition from US stockpiles, topped up to a smaller extent by other countries. The UK and other European NATO countries had allowed stockpiles to drop to very low levels – a situation that is being remedied, but far too slowly.
Russia has meanwhile transitioned to a war economy footing and a 2-3 year pause in fighting would allow them to re-arm and re-generate their forces significantly. The risk of invasion is then to Moldova, Georgia and the Baltic States. Moldova and Georgia aren’t NATO members so we would have a choice of how to respond, but the Baltics are. If we were drawn into conflict with Russia then the UK wouldn’t be physically invaded, but we could expect attacks on our infrastructure at home.
I’d rather deter that risk by working with European allies to present a collectively credible opposing military force that would make Putin think again.
A letter, organised by one of the Labour new intake’s biggest rebels, Scottish Labour MP Brian Leishman, has been circulating among MPs. It calls for defence budget increases to be funded by a wealth tax instead of “turning its back on communities facing poverty, conflict and insecurity”.
Why isn’t that what Ed Davey and the Lib Dem’s are proposing?
In 2014 Russia annexed Crimea.
In 2016 the UK left the E. U. despite this Russian annexation.
Why no apparent concerns about a Russian threat then by our ruling “elite”?
Might there be a difference between spending and taxing consistently to pay for a proportionally sized and equipped military force and sudden (over) reaction to possibly predictable problems?
As always, an essential set of questions is:
1) Who gains from the spending?
2) Who pays for the spending?
3) Who really knows what is happening behind the scenes?
4) Who doesn’t know and why?
As seems to be the case, will the not-wealthy end up paying and the wealthy being largely immune?
Might such be a purpose/consequence of Neoliberalism which, with deindustrialisation, has so damaged our country economically, socially and militarily?
Might there currently be an opportunity for the development a coherently connected Europe, as it is now obvious, possibly even to our U S A subservient leaders, that the U S A is not a reliable ally?
If we want a genuinely and equitably stronger Britain,, might we adopt Social Liberalism or thé like with its practicality of a mixed market?
P. S.What proportion of the spending of Moldova etc. put into defence?
Do they have effective, equitable and so more efficient socio-economic set ups?
@Brigid Gardner: the LDs have opposed the cut in foreign aid and are in favour of various taxes on banks, tech companies etc to raise money for increased military spending.
@MaryFulton. We already tax banks excessive profits (introduced by the Tories!). We think the tax is too low and should be increased.
One consequence of Trump’s way of conducting politics is that our media outlets need to become more nimble in their pursuit of a good story. When today’s news is likely out of date by tomorrow, it is essential that sufficient context is provided, however compelling the story line.