The article criticizes the UK government's decision to cut overseas aid spending from 0.5% to 0.3% by 2027, specifically targeting education and gender initiatives. It highlights the contradiction faced by female MPs who attribute their success to education while their government prioritizes health over educational funding for girls in impoverished nations. The author contrasts current austerity measures with the more generous aid climate of 20 years ago, underscoring a loss of commitment to international development as economic conditions worsen in the UK.
'The decision to reduce aid spending from 0.5% to 0.3% of national income by 2027 meant something had to give, and that was money that had hitherto been spent not just on building schools in poor countries but also encouraging girls to attend them.'
'There is no soft landing when you have to implement a 40% cut in your budget. But a slash-and-burn approach to education is indefensible and would have been anathema to previous Labour governments.'
Collection
[
|
...
]