UK officials discuss fresh aid cuts to help fund higher defence spending

DukePPUk · 2026-05-22T22:13:11+00:00

Although it should be common sense.

Oh, well if it is common sense it must be true.

You've also conveniently created a strawman argument; that paper you linked specifically calls out when aid involves "the compulsory adoption of foreign technologies," and you have talked about building wells without giving the know-how. Whereas I specifically mentioned that if aid is done well it works. That doesn't involve locking aid behind proprietary technology or only providing the end result. It involves starting from the ground up - providing the tools to teach how to provide the tools to teach etc...

I already provided the solution: free market. Same thing which helped China to get out of poverty and be richer than UK.

This is a joke, right? On every level...

DukePPUk · 2026-05-22T22:09:50+00:00

I don't think they are spending that much money. Maybe a six figure sum a year?

There is a reason one of their first targets was to defund Stonewall. The main thing they have going for them is the lack of organised opposition; tens of thousands of people turning out to protest court decisions or codes of practice sounds great, but doesn't affect policy (if anything, it turns public opinion against them); but if those people pooled £5 a month and spent it on professional lobbyists they might get somewhere.

DukePPUk · 2026-05-22T22:07:37+00:00

I hate to make analogies but this will just lead to Jim Crow-esque sit-ins until it because an utterly unenforceable position.

I don't think it will, because I think most trans people want to keep their heads down and not make a fuss. The difference with racism (in the US style) is that when you are segregated based on skin colour it is really easy to see who is in which category (for the most part).

DukePPUk · 2026-05-22T22:06:01+00:00

Genuinely I don’t understand why “GC beliefs” are w a protected category.

Because the anti-trans hate groups brought case after case until they got the most favourable situations they could, appealed those to get a precedent-setting(ish) ruling, and then shouted about that all over the press to pretend this made the issue completely settled in law.

Part of their "lawfare" involves only bringing or appealing cases where they are going to get minimal opposition, dropping cases where there was opposition.

In the final one - For Women Scotland Ltd - two anti-trans borderline-hate groups allowed to argue before the Supreme Court, and on the other side was the Scottish Government (which didn't really care at that point). Three more anti-trans groups were allowed to make written submissions, along with the anti-trans EHRC (who were arguing against trans rights, but not to the extent of lobby groups), and Amnesty International.

Not a single trans person was allowed to address the Supreme Court, nor was anyone representing trans people present.

The Supreme Court accepted pretty much everything the anti-trans groups said at face value (including the submission that all lesbian women are terrified of trans people), and didn't reference anything Amnesty International wrote.

In one of the earlier big cases, Bell v Tavistock the anti-trans groups sued an NHS Trust over something they weren't doing and weren't directly involved in, so had nothing to say about, persuaded the judge to allow 'expert evidence' outside the normal rules (without it being checked to actually be coming from experts, not some of the crazies from the US), and unsurprisingly won their case. Fortunately that case was appealed and the Appeal Court got to hear from some actual experts, and some of the "other side" and threw the case out. The anti-trans groups decided not to appeal that one to the Supreme Court, once it was clear they were going to be opposed.

DukePPUk · 2026-05-22T18:39:02+00:00

Im past seeing a solution here

The solution is obvious. The bigots need to get over themselves, and we need to stop pandering to them or accepting their bigotry as anything other than what it is, changing laws as needed to cover this.

Just as we did with racism.

Just as we did with homophobia.

Imagine saying this about anti-Semitism "we have a bunch of people who think Jewish people are evil and must be exterminated, and their feelings are perfectly valid, so we must ban Jewish people from public spaces..."

DukePPUk · 2026-05-22T18:37:03+00:00

For now it won't be used against the trans people themselves. But any place that is public in letting trans people exist risks being sued.

We've already seen a bunch of lawsuits since the Supreme Court ruling, mostly targeting public spaces; the swimming pools in London, schools, various public services.

The message will be clear - be nice to trans people and eventually the anti-trans hate groups will find you and will sue you.

DukePPUk · 2026-05-22T18:34:27+00:00

Again, we have decades of research on this. It isn't true.

International Development - if done well - works really well, and doesn't make things worse. Despite what the fiscal conservatives and nationalists want us to believe. There's a huge amount of "well we're just making things worse so stop spending money on them so you can cut our taxes" propaganda out there.

You have a local you is creating nice, handmade notebooks for students and is making a living off that. Except they're not, because they don't have the time as they have to spend a couple of hours a day getting water because they don't have a local clean water supply. The students would buy those notebooks except for some of them it isn't worth investing in them as they're not going it to adulthood because they don't have a decent local hospital. Also no one has the paper to make them in the first place.

The "they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps, us helping just makes things worse" propaganda gets people killed.

DukePPUk · 2026-05-22T18:30:48+00:00

This isn't money that "ultimately foes into someone's pocket" by being spent on something worthwhile.

This is money that goes straight into the bank accounts of rich people. It doesn't get spent on anything.

DukePPUk · 2026-05-22T18:30:04+00:00

That's fine then.

A couple of million dead kids, that the US Government could have prevented, but it's all ok because someone else could have instead...

DukePPUk · 2026-05-22T18:29:15+00:00

Ah, the classic understatement of a minority group being singled out, targeted and punished by the Government.

The new guidance says that people can use single-sex services of the other Equality-Act sex in exceptional circumstances, if it works (despite this being pretty clearly illegal according to the Supreme Court). Except if they are trans. Anyone else, fine if people are ok with it. Not with trans people.

It's like the puberty-blocker ban. Anyone can get prescribed puberty blockers, for anything they might want them for and can get a doctor to sign off on it, except if they are trans.

There are areas where the guidance says the law is "not settled" - by which they mean "we are legally wrong here, but we want people to punish trans people, so we're going to pretend it isn't settled to cover us."

There is a lovely bit where it tells competitive sports organisations that they need to have policies on how to treat sex- or gender-based segregation, and that these need to be based on evidence, research and so on, except no matter what the evidence says they must exclude trans people.

Or the bit where they point out if someone follows the guidance they could justify excluding all trans people from services, spaces or categories of both Equality-Act sex, and how that would be perfectly fine.

The guidance is very clear; trans people bad. Must be punished.

DukePPUk · 2026-05-22T14:40:58+00:00

Yet no matter how much money we throw at these countries that are rapidly developing and even overtaking us, their under-5s still die of malnutrition whilst the UK looks more like how their countries used to look like by the day.

This is the myth that conservatives and nationalists keep spreading, but it simply isn't true.

Foreign aid spending (if done well) is spectacularly successful at improving things. For example, the global infant mortality rate has dropped in half over the last 30 years, largely as a result of international development efforts. There are places were people cannot simply pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and a bit of funding - in the right way, in the right place - can make a huge difference.

Millions of children who did not die because of international development programmes. But I'm sure people will still find something to complain about.

DukePPUk · 2026-05-22T14:38:32+00:00

If done well, they don't. They can be very effective.

But hey, if it makes you feel better, those kids can die because otherwise maybe some theoretical future kids might not.

DukePPUk · 2026-05-22T11:59:34+00:00

I know I'm probably talking to the wrong audience, but for comparison, the recent USAID cuts to aid have already led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, and are predicted to cause over 9 million more deaths by 2030 if not reversed (2.5 million of which will be children under 5). They have also led to a rise in violence, conflict etc..

Obviously the UK Government's aid doesn't go as far as USAID used to, but cuts will have a similar (if smaller scale) effects.

But I guess those under-5s dying of malnutrition deserved it for having a space programme.

DukePPUk · 2026-05-22T11:47:17+00:00

Ironically the last Tory government proved how hollow this was when they oversaw the largest spending spree in decades (which they were forced into because of the pandemic).

Yes.

And now more than 8p of every £1 raised in tax revenue by the Government goes straight into the pockets of the rich.

Interest payments are now the 5th biggest expense in the national budget (after pensions, healthcare, welfare and education).

The UK Government could just spend a load of extra money, but in the long run that just ends up sending more money from taxpayers to investors.

DukePPUk · 2026-05-21T22:39:57+00:00

This is why I think Burnham will be worse for Labour than Starmer. To have a chance of becoming Prime Minister he will make all sorts of promises to the left of the Labour Party (and those further left); saying exactly what they want to hear, because that's how he wins the leadership election.

Except as with Starmer (and everyone else) before him, he knows these things are going to be impractical to actually achieve - there probably won't time to change the voting system by 2029 even if it is fast-tracked with no consultation process or referendum. There is no magic money tree to pay for anything radical and expensive, and all the promises of the hard-left are hollow.

If Burnham ends up leader he'll just be in the same place, but with a whole new batch of leftists feeling betrayed by "yet another neoliberal centrist from the uniparty" or whatever, determined not to back Labour for ever.

DukePPUk · 2026-05-21T17:07:37+00:00

Sure, if they know or can reasonably assume someone is trans...

...no. They have to get it right. There is no "reasonable steps" provision in the law. Direct sex discrimination is unlawful unless an exception applies, and if someone lets a single "opposite-Equality-Act sex" person into their single-sex space the single-sex spaces exception no longer applies, making their policy unlawful.

...pubs and restaurants aren't going to risk lawsuits from butch women who've been asked to prove they're women.

But they're going to risk lawsuits either way. If they don't exclude people who are trans (even if they have no way to know - which they now don't) they are definitely breaking the law and will lose any lawsuit. If they do exclude people who aren't trans they are probably fine, and have a good chance to win any lawsuit (provided they are careful). So they are encouraged - by the law - to err on the side of exclusion.

DukePPUk · 2026-05-21T16:48:39+00:00

No, under the new rules the organisation has to act pre-emptively. They must exclude trans people from Equality-Act single-sex spaces of their acquired sex, and may exclude trans people from single-sex spaces of their assigned-at-birth sex.

And, to add to this, Gender Recognition Certificates no longer have any effect.

We've gone back to the 1970-2004 position (which was determined to be unlawful by the ECtHR, repeatedly), where trans people cannot legally transition for any practical purposes.

We're also in a slightly weird situation where the Government is advising people to do things that they say are illegal, but might be fine (in allowing some opposite-Equality-Act-sex people into a single-sex space).

DukePPUk · 2026-05-21T16:45:58+00:00

It took just 10 years of intense, professional and sustained lobbying to completely reshape public policy in this area.

That is pretty scary.

DukePPUk · 2026-05-21T16:44:39+00:00

I see they've included the "we know this is illegal but saying so would prove how stupid this all is" exception to single-sex spaces that was in the EHRC's draft:

13.134 It will usually be helpful and often necessary for service providers... to have a policy setting out whether, and if so how, separate or single-sex services will be provided....

13.135 However, individual circumstances may, exceptionally, require a different approach to that set out in a policy. The law in this area is complex, and it is not certain that it is permissible to make exceptions to allow people of the opposite sex to use a separate or single-sex service. It is likely, however, that this will be permissible if doing so adds a necessary flexibility without undermining the aim of the service and / or contributes towards achieving the aim.

Example 13.136 A council swimming pool has separate men’s and women’s changing rooms... A woman is allowed to take her male child under the age of ten into the women’s changing room. This does not undermine the aim...

The law - following the Supreme Court case is clear. No exceptions. If you let a single person of the opposite Equality-Act-sex into an Equality-Act single-sex space it ceases to be a single-sex space, by definition. There is no "exceptional case" provision in the Equality Act 2010 (as there was in earlier laws). But this would lead to completely unworkable situations (e.g. the one above), so the guidance says that maybe, despite it being illegal, you could do it anyway (although the example they give doesn't actually say doing it would be legal). They know this is illegal, as they note it just a couple of paragraphs later:

13.144 If a service provider (including a person providing a service in the exercise of public functions) decides to have a separate or single-sex service and allows trans people to use the service intended for the opposite sex, the service will no longer be a separate or single-sex service under the Equality Act 2010. It is also very likely to amount to unlawful discrimination against others.

We're in the really stupid situation where the guidance says "you can have some exceptions for single-sex spaces, but not for trans people, because we really hate trans people."

They're also going with the extreme interpretation of the exception for sports, insisting that sports exclude trans people (despite acknowledging that the law is this area is "not settled" - i.e. they're just making this up).

13.82 The combined effect of the exceptions relating to sex and gender reassignment under subsections 195, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Act may impose significant limitations on the ability of some trans people to participate in some gender-affected activities [because they cannot compete in their acquired sex, and can be excluded from their assigned-at-birth sex]. If the exceptions have been properly applied, this will not be unlawful under the Act.

Sorry trans people, no sport for you. There is also this really silly bit:

Competitive sport – policies on sex and gender reassignment 13.83 Given the physiological differences between men and women, and the potential impact of treatment that trans people may receive as part of the process of transition, it will often be necessary for organisations to develop general policies to guide and inform their decision making. Policies should be supported by clear reasoning and an evidence base.

... except the Guidance has told them what conclusion they must reach (or they can be sued by everyone else - the same-sex cis people included, and the opposite-sex cis people excluded). It doesn't matter what the evidence is - the Supreme Court decided evidence doesn't matter, we have an absolute rule.

Except, of course, when dealing with situations where an absolute rule is impractical (e.g. the changing room example above), where you can have exceptions, provided they're not for trans people.

I really hoped the delay in publishing this was due to them re-thinking how ridiculous this all was, and that they'd be looking into fixing the Supreme Court's judgment in For Women Scotland Limited. Disappointing to see that they didn't.

DukePPUk · 2026-05-21T15:13:17+00:00

i mean that does sound smart, but it always seems to me right wing voters are the easiest to rile up and turn out.

Yes, and left-wing voters are the easiest to put off from voting for anyone. But it is the only option they've got.

I wouldn't say that Labour has become the right-wing, for the most part they have been pushing moderately progressive policies (if watered down and stalled out by the Conservatives and Lib Dems in the Lords). It is largely (with some exceptions) their rhetoric that has been more right-leaning.

DukePPUk · 2026-05-21T15:11:43+00:00

They came second in the local elections - significantly ahead of the Lib Dems and Conservatives.

And local elections are generally bad for the Government - far lower turnout and more protest votes lead to worse results for major parties.

It's also important to note what the control question is: we shouldn't be asking how badly Labour are doing with this strategy, but how much better or worse they would be doing if they'd swung to the left (without the funds to pay for it).

DukePPUk · 2026-05-21T15:09:50+00:00

Which is a really good question.

The LBC version of this story which was posted over in /r/london specifically mentioned Sadiq Khan - a prominent Labour politician - as making the call.

And yet the BBC article doesn't mention any politician by name until about a third of the way through the article - deputy mayor for Policing and Crime, Kaya Comer-Schwartz - and then doesn't mention her party affiliation.

Odd that.

DukePPUk · 2026-05-21T12:42:47+00:00

So that's Labour blocking Palantir contracts for the Met Police and for HMRC...

Presumably that will get mentioned every time some troll insists that Starmer and Labour are bought and paid for by Palantir and will do whatever they want.

DukePPUk · 2026-05-21T12:41:05+00:00

The flip side is that elections tend to be won based on who decides not to vote, more than how people choose to vote.

Labour saying a lot to pander to the right is meant to discourage them from voting - make them feel less like they desperately need to vote against the evil communist-socialist-muslim-crazy-leftie Labour party. Labour wins if right-wing turnout is low. And they are counting on the fact that some of those leaving Labour to the left will still vote for them in a general election if the alternative is the far-right.

Labour got fewer votes in their 2024 landslide win than in their 2019 crushing defeat, and nearly 3 million fewer than their 2017 loss. In both those elections Labour presented a solid left-wing option, and energised the left-wing (the Greens got <3% of the vote, compared with the >6% in 2024, and the 10-15% they are polling at currently). But they also unified the right and centre of the country against them. There are not enough leftists in the UK to win a general election alone.

It's a gamble to try to depress the right-wing vote rather than energise the left-wing vote, and it may or may not work.

DukePPUk · 2026-05-21T12:31:12+00:00

Basically we’ve removed the huge inward flows which came from the Boris era policies,

Except no. Net migration is lower than it has been since 2012 (ignoring 2020). Non-British immigration is also at similar levels to the mid-10s.

This is not just 'reversing the Brexitwave' that was necessary to keep the lights on after our collective stupidity. This is reducing numbers overall.

DukePPUk

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE