Everywhere you turn, the world feels on the brink. Armed conflicts are multiplying at a pace unseen since the Second World War, humanitarian crises are deepening, and climate-driven displacement is accelerating. Energy shocks have driven household bills to historic highs, global tariffs are pushing up living costs, and market volatility is weighing on interest rates and growth. Global turbulence is felt in every community.
In moments like this, Britain's role has never been more important. We know this from working under the previous Labour government during the global financial crisis. In the Treasury and the Department for International Development (DfID), we witnessed how international cooperation was the difference between recovery and collapse. The world weathered that storm because it acted together.
In the years that followed, that understanding was too quickly forgotten. Brexit and Covid exposed, painfully, what happens when nations turn inward: economies weaken, disease crosses borders unchecked, and global shocks hit harder. In an interconnected world, retreat is not resilience.
When the Conservative government slashed the aid budget and abolished DfID in 2021 with reckless haste, they did so without strategy. Vital programmes were axed mid-cycle, partners were left scrambling, and Britain's reputation took a serious hit. Communities in the poorest countries watched as clinics closed, schools shut, and sanitation projects collapsed in disrepair. The lesson was clear: development cannot be managed through political expediency. It requires foresight, careful planning, and the courage to think long-term.
When the Prime Minister announced a further temporary reduction in aid spending this year, many of us who hoped for a steady return to 0.7 per cent were disappointed. The need to bolster our defence is clear, but it is a mistake to erode the soft power our development assistance delivers.
This is not the only challenge. Around one-fifth of the aid budget is now consumed by in-donor refugee costs, predominantly asylum hotels, rather than reaching the world's poorest. Next year, that proportion is projected to rise to one-third.
These hotels are expensive and unsuitable: families are left in isolating conditions for months, often years, while public confidence in the system erodes. As the government works to end the use of asylum hotels, the savings should be returned to the FCDO. We need bold action that addresses the root causes of displacement, rather than indefinite management of its consequences.
Britain has long punched above its weight in institutions such as the United Nations, the World Bank, and the World Health Organisation. These multilateral platforms allow us to work collectively on global health, conflict resolution, and climate adaptation, achieving far more than we could alone. When Britain acts consistently, alongside partners committed to human dignity, we strengthen development that empowers rather than exploits.
Yet our influence relies on predictability. When commitments fluctuate or aid is redirected at short notice, progress slows, and Britain's voice at the table is weakened. Stability in our international engagement is not a bureaucratic nicety; it is the foundation of meaningful change.
If we need reminding of the value of long-term planning, we need only look at home. Our world-class universities, pharmaceutical innovators, and research institutions are at the forefront of addressing global challenges. Our scientific research thrives precisely because of patient, strategic investment. These partnerships save lives overseas while creating jobs, attracting investment, and fuelling economic growth here. Our development funding should follow the same logic: sustained planning that maximises long-term impact and protects public money.
That is why a clear, phased roadmap to return to 0.7 per cent of GNI is urgently needed from the Chancellor. Not an overnight leap, but a transparent and responsible trajectory that allows us to plan effectively. It would protect taxpayer money by avoiding the waste of abrupt reductions. It would enable careful management without jeopardising the poorest communities. And it would send a signal – to allies, competitors, and future generations – that Britain is once again prepared to lead with principle and foresight.
The British people have long understood the interconnected world we live in and responded with generosity. When donations are matched by the government through Aid-Match, we double our impact and act with public support behind us.
But development assistance is not charity. It is an investment in a safer, stable, and prosperous world: one that serves Britain's interests and reflects our values. At this moment of historic instability, we have the opportunity to choose credibility over expediency, strategy over short-termism, and principle over political convenience. This decision will define us.
Emily Darlington is the MP for Milton Keynes Central and former adviser to Alistair Darling as chancellor, and Gareth Thomas is the MP for Harrow West and a former minister.
This article has been produced as part of The Independent’s Rethinking Global Aid project
Taz Khan: At Cop30, food waste must be put back on the climate agenda
Sorry, Donald, but there is no Nobel Peace Prize for appeasement
‘I never looked back’: Readers on why Britons are choosing life abroad after Brexit
Andy Burnham may be King of the North, but could he rule No 10?
The Nazis on trial: The enduring lessons of Nuremberg, 80 years on
Have we truly become a country that patrols its borders with large nets?
