Ian Mitchell
@ianmitchell1.bsky.social
Economist working on international development, climate and trade
Co-Director, Europe programme at the Center for Global Development.
Co-Director, Europe programme at the Center for Global Development.
Wait till the court learns that not only have we calculated liabilities for climate change damage but that we've also added an adjustment for differentiated responsibilities!
www.cgdev.org/publication/...
www.cgdev.org/publication/...
Valuing Climate Liabilities: Calculating the Cost of Countries’ Historical Damage from Carbon Emissions to Inform Future Climate Finance Commitments
A central commitment of action on climate is the promise of “developed countries” to jointly mobilize $100 billion of climate finance per year by 2020 (and through to 2025), formalised at the UN climate change conference in 2010 (COP16). Five years later, the Paris Agreement reaffirmed this commitment and promised a new goal after 2025 “from a floor of USD 100 billion per year.”
www.cgdev.org
July 23, 2025 at 9:11 PM
Wait till the court learns that not only have we calculated liabilities for climate change damage but that we've also added an adjustment for differentiated responsibilities!
www.cgdev.org/publication/...
www.cgdev.org/publication/...
Indeed. Plus, the OBR is only so important because the Govt is choosing to meet its own rules so narrowly. If there was $100bn of headroom, no-one would care about forecast tweaks.
April 3, 2025 at 8:20 AM
Indeed. Plus, the OBR is only so important because the Govt is choosing to meet its own rules so narrowly. If there was $100bn of headroom, no-one would care about forecast tweaks.
Great that you're getting your kids involved in drawing your infographics ;-)
March 27, 2025 at 3:33 PM
Great that you're getting your kids involved in drawing your infographics ;-)
5. Overall, these are a brutal set of spending plans for aid with the vast majority of the cuts happening a year earlier than expected.
March 26, 2025 at 7:41 PM
5. Overall, these are a brutal set of spending plans for aid with the vast majority of the cuts happening a year earlier than expected.
4. The Government is presumably hoping that savings in around £3bn of refugee costs will reduce the size of these impacts - but there's no specific commitment to get them down. Perhaps that will come in the spending review.
March 26, 2025 at 7:41 PM
4. The Government is presumably hoping that savings in around £3bn of refugee costs will reduce the size of these impacts - but there's no specific commitment to get them down. Perhaps that will come in the spending review.
3. The Govt has also confirmed it will no longer adjust th aid budget based on GNI -
So, if GDP/ national income rises more quickly than expected, the aid budget will not; and if it falls then the aid budget will stay flat.
Some stability at least.
So, if GDP/ national income rises more quickly than expected, the aid budget will not; and if it falls then the aid budget will stay flat.
Some stability at least.
March 26, 2025 at 7:41 PM
3. The Govt has also confirmed it will no longer adjust th aid budget based on GNI -
So, if GDP/ national income rises more quickly than expected, the aid budget will not; and if it falls then the aid budget will stay flat.
Some stability at least.
So, if GDP/ national income rises more quickly than expected, the aid budget will not; and if it falls then the aid budget will stay flat.
Some stability at least.
2. Between 25/26 and 26/27 the aid budget will fall by around £3.7bn, which is 27%. This is extremely steep for any area of public spend.
Boris Johnson's cut in 2021 was £3.1bn, which was a 21% reduction.
Boris Johnson's cut in 2021 was £3.1bn, which was a 21% reduction.
March 26, 2025 at 7:41 PM
2. Between 25/26 and 26/27 the aid budget will fall by around £3.7bn, which is 27%. This is extremely steep for any area of public spend.
Boris Johnson's cut in 2021 was £3.1bn, which was a 21% reduction.
Boris Johnson's cut in 2021 was £3.1bn, which was a 21% reduction.
1. Almost three quarters of the cuts will happen in 26/27.
The spring statement confirmed aid cuts of
- £0.5bn in 2025/26
- £4.8bn in 2026/27
- £6.5bn in 2027/28
This is relative to what aid would have been; and so most (74%) will have taken effect in 2026.
The spring statement confirmed aid cuts of
- £0.5bn in 2025/26
- £4.8bn in 2026/27
- £6.5bn in 2027/28
This is relative to what aid would have been; and so most (74%) will have taken effect in 2026.
March 26, 2025 at 7:41 PM
1. Almost three quarters of the cuts will happen in 26/27.
The spring statement confirmed aid cuts of
- £0.5bn in 2025/26
- £4.8bn in 2026/27
- £6.5bn in 2027/28
This is relative to what aid would have been; and so most (74%) will have taken effect in 2026.
The spring statement confirmed aid cuts of
- £0.5bn in 2025/26
- £4.8bn in 2026/27
- £6.5bn in 2027/28
This is relative to what aid would have been; and so most (74%) will have taken effect in 2026.
The Prime Minister told Parliament the aid cut was in 2027. If he meant 2026, he should have said so.
Defence spend needs to increase; but not at the expense of the UK's international credibility.
Full blog here:
www.cgdev.org/blog/why-cli...
Defence spend needs to increase; but not at the expense of the UK's international credibility.
Full blog here:
www.cgdev.org/blog/why-cli...
Why a Cliff Edge Is Better than a Glide Path for the UK’s Aid Cut
Would a steep cut to the UK’s aid budget in 2027, rather than a gradual reduction, better preserve flexibility, protect international commitments, and minimise project disruptions?
www.cgdev.org
March 13, 2025 at 2:59 PM
The Prime Minister told Parliament the aid cut was in 2027. If he meant 2026, he should have said so.
Defence spend needs to increase; but not at the expense of the UK's international credibility.
Full blog here:
www.cgdev.org/blog/why-cli...
Defence spend needs to increase; but not at the expense of the UK's international credibility.
Full blog here:
www.cgdev.org/blog/why-cli...
3) The UK's commitment to the World Bank last November wasn't historically generous and should remain a priority.
Even as a share of the reduced aid budget in 2027, it's still under 8% of ODA, in line with previous shares
Even as a share of the reduced aid budget in 2027, it's still under 8% of ODA, in line with previous shares
March 13, 2025 at 2:59 PM
3) The UK's commitment to the World Bank last November wasn't historically generous and should remain a priority.
Even as a share of the reduced aid budget in 2027, it's still under 8% of ODA, in line with previous shares
Even as a share of the reduced aid budget in 2027, it's still under 8% of ODA, in line with previous shares
2) These are extremely steep cuts of ~34% by 2027.
Trying to do 15-20% in a year is even more challenging.
During austerity, the largest annual resource budget cut was under 10%.
Trying to do 15-20% in a year is even more challenging.
During austerity, the largest annual resource budget cut was under 10%.
March 13, 2025 at 2:59 PM
2) These are extremely steep cuts of ~34% by 2027.
Trying to do 15-20% in a year is even more challenging.
During austerity, the largest annual resource budget cut was under 10%.
Trying to do 15-20% in a year is even more challenging.
During austerity, the largest annual resource budget cut was under 10%.
I actually think this decision will galvanize them (or us, if you count me!).
If we live in a more basic world; then we should make the basic arguments again and stop apologising for doing so.
If we live in a more basic world; then we should make the basic arguments again and stop apologising for doing so.
February 28, 2025 at 2:44 PM
I actually think this decision will galvanize them (or us, if you count me!).
If we live in a more basic world; then we should make the basic arguments again and stop apologising for doing so.
If we live in a more basic world; then we should make the basic arguments again and stop apologising for doing so.
Good question - others have said they've been too focussed on their own silos (vaccines, nutrition, climate, education etc).
Some have weakened reputations from staff scandals.
There's also been admirable desire for aid to more 'local'. But recipients can't really advocate to UK taxpayers.
Some have weakened reputations from staff scandals.
There's also been admirable desire for aid to more 'local'. But recipients can't really advocate to UK taxpayers.
February 28, 2025 at 2:42 PM
Good question - others have said they've been too focussed on their own silos (vaccines, nutrition, climate, education etc).
Some have weakened reputations from staff scandals.
There's also been admirable desire for aid to more 'local'. But recipients can't really advocate to UK taxpayers.
Some have weakened reputations from staff scandals.
There's also been admirable desire for aid to more 'local'. But recipients can't really advocate to UK taxpayers.