On Friday, the Starmer Government witnessed its first departure on principle as Anneliese Dodds, the Minister for International Development, resigned. With Keir Starmer having announced an increase in defence spending to 2.5% of Gross Domestic Product  by 2027, Dodds criticised the corresponding cut in international development from 0.5% of GDP to 0.3%, saying that it would ‘remove food and healthcare from desperate people – deeply harming the UK’s reputation’.

Starmer has said that there is ‘no driver of migration and poverty like conflict’ and Dodds gave him the benefit of the doubt by stating that he was not ‘ideologically opposed’ to international development. Nevertheless, Labour have broken a manifesto pledge. On page 125 of their 2024 manifesto Change, they pledged to increase the UK’s international development budget to 0.7% of GDP, reversing a cut made by the Conservatives. Reducing Britain’s soft power capacity will likely instigate rather than quell conflict.

As this episode coincides with Keir Starmer’s visit to Washington, it would not be beyond the realms of possibility that his new spending decisions are driven by pandering rather than prudence. Increasing national defence spending would be a sound means of endearing the UK to Donald Trump who has lambasted NATO allies for not spending enough in this regard, and a sound insurance policy considering his scepticism of the alliance and his wide-eyed admiration for strongman authoritarians such as Vladimir Putin.

However, the converse decrease in international development spending is a blatant attempt by Starmer to ingratiate himself with Trump by aping his administration’s actions. The Department of Government Efficiency and Elon Musk in their questionable quest to cut $2 trillion worth of federal spending – or 15% of the total US budget – have endeavoured to shut down the US Agency for International Development. Even the temporary funding freezes, overturned through court challenges, have disturbed vital support for programmes combatting diseases including tuberculosis and HIV.

Unfortunately, Labour is also likely playing to a domestic audience. Reform UK have topped several recent opinion polls albeit in the twenties alongside Labour and the Conservatives. By being generally ‘anti’ and actively playing up their position as an opposition party, Reform is drawing in aggrieved supporters  from both major parties. With the Damoclean threat of Reform winning an outright Commons majority in 2029 with even fewer votes than they did in 2024, Labour have decided that following their populist lead is the best course of action.

We Liberal Democrats like to pride ourselves on having a policy platform that is fair, beneficent, well-crafted and well-thought-out. However, while only one of Achilles’ heels was vulnerable to attack, we sadly have several, namely issues including international development and immigration. They are both issues that are influenced by emotion and self-preservation.

As our 2024 parliamentary candidate for Halifax and as a frequent campaign volunteer for the Calderdale Liberal Democrats, I have heard constituents talk about their scepticism of immigration, inspired by or reflected in online videos ‘that the mainstream media don’t want them to see’. Fertile ground for anti-immigration politics are areas that face chronic social problems such as poor public health and crime, usually because of poor economic prospects and poor public investment – in short, communities that feel abandoned or left behind. Economic migrants and asylum-seekers are wrongfully lumped together as undeserving competitors for scant resources and opportunities meant for British citizens. Even from a place of anti-partyism, people are willing to back Reform for its resonant stances on international development and immigration.

We need to take such matters seriously but not sincerely. Our party should not accompany Labour down the perilous path of paralleling Reform’s populism. We cannot ignore Reform for fear of vindicating their claims to represent ‘forgotten Britain’. We need to stick to our principles but adapt our policy and messaging to effectively challenge Reform’s current narratives. In broad terms, it could be described as ‘Peace Abroad, Peace at Home’.

In a recent More in Common poll, strong majorities of British people supported using international development through the lens of advancing UK interests such as economic growth and national security. In our advocacy of a 0.7% of GDP spending target for international development, we need to stress our calls for efficient investment particularly as they relate to the practical or emotive concerns of UK voters, such as limiting overseas conflict and the need for asylum or boosting UK job opportunities. Moreover, we need to emphasise the importance of reversing the damaging consequences of austerity and investing in UK public services, possibly over but not at the expense of international development spending.

This is indeed a difficult area for our party to discuss but can we seriously contemplate populist right politics triumphing as the price for not doing so?

* Samuel James Jackson is the Chair of the Policy Committee of the Yorkshire and the Humber Liberal Democrats and had served as the Liberal Democratic candidate in Halifax during the 2024 general election.