Thread by @stand_for_all

THREAD: With growing cross-party support to ensure that the #foreignaid budget is reinstated to 0.7% of GDP it's worth acknowledging that, particularly now, there are reasons people may oppose it, and equally important reasons for funding it. 1/

The reality is that the majority of voters support cutting foreign aid, and it's not hard to see why. The UK has one of the highest levels of income inequality out of OECD countries. About 15 million people in poverty etc. 2/

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1331650556566368258?s=20

The whole "trade not aid" and "charity begin at home" arguments cut through. Of course they do. If you are struggling to buy food then why would you support the government sending money abroad to help other countries? 3/

The thing is that Foreign Aid isn't just a philanthropic act. I can argue all the humanitarian arguments in the world, and it won't make any difference to someone who is struggling right here, right now, but foreign aid helps make and save money though, which might. 4/

There's a reason why China, not exactly known for its dedication to human rights, is investing so heavily into foreign aid, because it helps make money. They're not doing it out the goodness of their heart. They are doing it because it benefits them. 5/
bigissue.com/latest/uk-pove…

I remember years ago seeing an article about the "waste" of foreign aid which highlighted a project which organised dance classes for girls. How does something like that benefit trade and the UK as a whole then? 6/

Gender inequality is inextricably linked to poverty. Even the World Bank recognises in order to tackle inequality you need to ensure women are treated equally. That's a hard task. It means breaking down a lot of obstacle, and that happens in increments 7/
blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttal…

Projects like dance classes help that. They empower women in areas where they have previously been side-lined to start having the confidence to make their own decisions and see themselves and people with a right to participate in society. 8/

So slowly, slowly you start to address gender inequality which then, again slowly slowly, starts to address poverty. Poverty and political instability are inextricably linked, and the last thing you really want in a trading partner is political instability. 9/

So, in order to create long-term, stable and sustainable trade you want to be doing it with countries which are politically stable, and that means tackling poverty. Why though? Why not just trade with "safe countries"? 10/

You may have already seen that part of UK's future plans is to increase the tech sector. That doesn't just mean re-training in coding. It means a range of jobs, including manufacturing. To manufacture tech you need resources, very specific resources. 11/
itproportal.com/features/a-dec…

Where are the majority of the minerals and metals required for constructing new technology located? On the African continent. Now you may be starting to see why China, which has an established focus on tech manufacturing, is investing billions into the region. 12/

So, those dance classes, slowly for sure, help to gradually reduce poverty and as a knock on effect increase stability, which makes it easier to trade with countries and get the resources we need to boost our own domestic jobs market, as well as a decent export market. 13/

It's not just about trade though. What about national security? For all the talk about how money saved could be spent on benefitting people in the UK, the reality is it has already been spent on increased funding for the armed forces. 14/
theguardian.com/politics/2020/…

Great, surely that helps with national security. Yes and no. The armed forces are great if you want to take on a whole country for example, which then incurs other costs, but not so brilliant if you want to combat something like individual terrorists. 15/

I know, I know. We could just increase the £392 million spent on immigration enforcement to prevent terrorists entering the country. Problem is that terrorists aren't masquerading as refugees or something. There are far easier ways for them to operate. 16/
cato.org/policy-analysi…

So, you have to combat the root source. There are a lot of different motivators for people becoming terrorists, but some major ones are a sense of anger at perceived actions against a community, need to be part of a group and a sense of "self-dislocation". 17/

Sending in the armed forces isn't exactly going to, on the whole, send the message to people that they aren't being attacked. In fact, it tends to supply a nice little propaganda and recruitment tool for those who do radicalise disenfranchised individuals. 18/

Supporting communities in being able to take control of their own futures, helping them have a future to start with, can help to reduce these drivers. When you remove the recruitment tools for terrorist groups you remove their ability to operate. 19/

All of these things take time, and people struggling right now may not want to be told that foreign aid can provide a benefit in 10/20 years time, but the money saved on it isn't benefiting them now. The UK has entered a new phase of its position in the world though. 20/

Brexit has changed our positioning, that's just the reality of what happens when you leave a large trading bloc. Now, we want to be "Global Britain", a global Britain which creates jobs, secures trade and is safe. That requires investment. 21/

You know what though, some foreign aid is misused. So make the controls on it more rigorous if you will. I'll tell you what though, it won't be improved by just handing politically unstable governments a wedge of cash, definitely not for the long-term. 22/

By investing in communities, and yes that includes in countries like India and China who already have money of their own which they aren't spending on deprived groups, you do help create that change and with it sustainable trade and security for the UK. 23/