Starmer's foreign aid cuts will lead to extra 365,000 deaths, campaigners warn
Sir Keir Starmer 's foreign aid cuts have led to a huge reduction in overseas vaccine funding that could lead to an extra 365,000 deaths by the end of the decade, campaigners have warned.
Britain's contribution to the Gavi international vaccine alliance has been cut by a quarter after the prime minister slashed the international development budget to fund a defence spending hike.
Aid charity, the ONE Campaign, said the 'harsh impact' of Sir Keir's cuts will lead to almost 400,000 additional deaths, less money to educate girls and an increase in deadly conflicts around the world.
David Lammy on Wednesday confirmed the UK would plough £1.25bn into Gavi between now and 2030, which officials said would protect up to 500 million children from deadly diseases including meningitis, cholera and measles.
'Our ongoing partnership with Gavi will give millions of children a better start, save lives and protect us all from the spread of deadly diseases,' the foreign secretary said.
But the £1.25bn investment marks a 25 per cent fall from the amount Britain offered between 2021 and 2025, even as a previous round of foreign aid cuts was being implemented.
Campaigners had called on the government to at least match that sum for the 2026 to 2030 period. Calculations by the ONE Campaign showed that the £400m cut could lead to 365,000 extra deaths in the next five years and 23 million fewer children receiving vaccinations.
ONE Campaign executive director Adrian Lovett said: 'We are seeing the harsh impact of the prime minister's deep cut to overall aid levels.
'The UK's contribution to Gavi could have saved almost 400,000 more lives if it had been maintained at the same level as before.
'And further impossible choices are looming. A reduced but still strong investment in Gavi, as welcome as it is, means less money to educate girls, fight for climate justice, and prevent deadly conflict around the world.'
International development committee chair and senior Labour MP Sarah Champion said: 'With the US stepping back, I had hoped the UK would step up - not least as we are one of the founders of Gavi.
'Whilst I welcome the £1.25 billion pledge over five years, this funding is a 25% cut in cash terms – and more than 40% in real terms which will inevitably cost lives.'
The prime minister slashed development spending from 0.5 per cent of GDP to 0.3 per cent - a reduction of around £6bn - earlier this year to fund plans to hike Britain's defence spending to 2.5 per cent of national income.
The major cut to funding for the Gavi vaccine alliance is the first stark evidence of the implications of the reduction in funding.
Development minister Jenny Chapman, who took over from Anneliese Dodds when she resigned over the cuts, said Britain was now taking a 'modern approach to development' and 'focusing on where we can have the biggest impact'.
'Our partnership with Gavi does just that. It will save the lives of millions of children around the world, to grow up safe from deadly diseases like cholera and measles. And it will make the world and the UK healthier and safer, helping prevent future pandemics,' Baroness Chapman said.
Gavi chief executive Dr Sania Nishtar said: 'The United Kingdom is one of Gavi's longest and most committed partners.
'This pledge for our next strategic period reaffirms its status as a leader in global health and I am delighted that we will be able to count on its support in our next strategic period, working together and leveraging some of the best in British science and innovation as we save lives and fight outbreaks around the world.'
As well as funding hundreds of millions of vaccine doses, officials said the UK's support would boost jobs at home due to partnerships with health giants such as GSK.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
24 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Palestine Action are not terrorists. The RAF is just grossly incompetent
One can see why the Government is proposing to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation. That anyone could enter the RAF base at Brize Norton, one of the most significant we have, and smear red paint on planes was deeply humiliating. Once, the commanding officer of the base would have resigned immediately; the security officer would have been moved to the cookhouse, if he was lucky; and the Defence Secretary would have offered his resignation. But no-one resigns these days, so branding the intruders 'terrorists', as if they were some ruthless group trained to outwit military professionals, with death and destruction their aim, makes them sound all the more formidable, and their victims all the more helpless. It is an unconvincing cover for the sort of grotesque incompetence that characterises our public sector and public services. That was the RAF; the next day it was the Metropolitan Police unable to prevent an epidemic of daylight robbery on the streets of the West End; the next NHS maternity services that humiliate and degrade women giving birth. What Palestine Action, however organised and bonkers and loathsome they are, did was not terrorism: it was vandalism. You might as well call football hooligans terrorists, or the groups of louts who on hot summer evenings riot because they are bored and the police upset them by seeking to restore order. Terrorism is a truly abhorrent, lethal, wicked and repulsive thing: chucking paint over planes and ridiculing the RAF and the Government in the process does not even begin to compare with it. This devaluation of a word with a precise meaning is highly dangerous. Lord (Toby) Young, in his excellent work for the Free Speech Union, has disclosed that Prevent – the increasingly preposterous, Left-leaning body that tries to stop terrorism at its roots – has done research that suggests 'red flags' for spotting potential far-right terrorists are people who like, among other things, Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, GK Chesterton's poems, The Bridge On the River Kwai, The Dam Busters and Yes, Minister. Where do I give myself up? Many of us remember real terrorism, perpetrated by real terrorists: the Birmingham and Guildford Bombings; the Hyde Park Bombings; murders in Manchester, both by the IRA in 1992 and 1996 and, a generation later, an Islamic extremist who killed 22 at the city's Arena in 2017; the massacre on 7/7, which killed 52 innocent people in 2005; and if that's not enough, Lockerbie. I could go on. Does all that utter horror compare with exposing the pitiful security at Brize Norton and slapping paint on planes? Of course not. This seemed to start in 2016, after the abominable murder of Jo Cox, the Labour MP, by Thomas Mair, a recluse and weirdo unknown to the authorities. He was rapidly branded a 'terrorist' by politicians when it became clear he had a deeply unhealthy obsession with the far-right and its doctrines. He was a member of no terrorist organisation. What he did was appalling, but he was no more a terrorist than any politically-motivated psychopath acting alone. Ms Cox's murder came days before the Brexit vote. Those who branded Mair a 'terrorist' (and the authorities rapidly followed suit) were surely not trying to associate him with the Brexit movement – were they? On Friday, four people were arrested over the Brize Norton incident. If convicted, they must suffer exemplary punishment. However, I hope the Government accepts its responsibilities for such pathetic security. And I also hope that in future it reserves the term 'terrorist' for those who really merit it, rather than diluting it for idiotic troublemakers or lethal misfits.
The Guardian
27 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘Are we safe, if nuclear weapons are here?': trepidation in Norfolk village over new jets
The genteel west Norfolk village of Marham does not seem to be at the forefront of Britain's military might. A dance class is about to start in the village hall, a game of crown green bowls is under way and swallows are swooping around the medieval church tower as wood pigeons coo. 'It's a lovely, quiet little village,' says Nona Bourne as she watches another end of bowls in a match between Marham and nearby Massingham. Like many, Bourne is troubled by the news that this week thrust Marham to the frontline of UK's nuclear arsenal, in the biggest expansion of the programme for a generation. Without consultation, RAF Marham is to be equipped with new F-35A jets capable of carrying warheads with three times the explosive power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Bourne said: 'When they spread it all over the news that these planes are going to come here from America with these bombs, it makes you think we're going to be targeted. My bungalow is five minutes from the base.' The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is planning a protest in Marham on Saturday. Bourne, whose son-in-law used to work at the base, is tempted to take part. 'I might join in,' she says. 'My daughter says we've always been a target here, but I am concerned. If I was younger I'd think about moving, but I'm 83, I'm not going anywhere.' Sisters Becky, 29, and Katherine Blakie, 31, are heading to a friend's house for a plunge in their hot tub. 'I read about the weapons on Facebook,' says Becky. 'It's strange to think they'll be here in little old Marham.' Becky, who works in fundraising, is annoyed that the village was not consulted about the decision. She says: 'Marham and the RAF base are intertwined so we should definitely have had a say.' Katherine, a medical student, says: 'It makes you think, 'Are we safe, if people know nuclear weapons are here?'' At this stage it is unclear where the nuclear warheads will be housed, but new jets to be based at Marham have the capacity to drop them. Wherever they are stored, the fear Marham will be a target is widespread in the village. 'Look what happened at Pearl Harbor,' says Patricia Gordon after finishing her bowls match. 'We'd be obliterated here.' She adds: 'And with Donald Trump's finger on the button, does it matter that we've got nuclear weapons or not?' But her partner, Bruce Townsend, 77, a retired lorry driver, thinks the nuclear deterrent works. He says: 'You can't give up nuclear weapons. Iran, and those countries, know damn well that if they start anything, they'll just get wiped out.' He adds: 'I feel the same about the protest as I did about people who tried to ban the bomb. It's stupid. They can't change it.' It is the men in Marham who seem more relaxed about the prospect of nuclear-armed planes on their doorstep. Chris Joice, a carer who used to work at the base, says: 'We've had F-35s for so many years, and having the next model isn't going to make much difference.' Joice is out walking a friend's dog, Millie, who has an RAF roundel pendant strapped to her collar. He is concerned about the lack of consultation: 'I'm just annoyed that all these decisions go ahead and the common man doesn't have a single word in.' He adds: 'No one needs that kind of firepower. I'd rather people rolled dice to settle their beefs.' Others are more full-throated in their support. Jim Smith, 79, a retired construction worker, remembers nuclear weapons at the base in the 1950s. 'They had them up there in 1958 or 59 when they had the V bombers. It stopped a world war then. And it's no different now.' A man on a bike who would only give his name as John recently retired as a grounds maintenance worker at the base. He says: 'They're never going to attack us. It would be Armageddon if it comes to that. So it doesn't make a shite's worth of difference worrying about it.' He adds: 'I don't mind protest, I'm a biker so I'm all about freedom, but I've got better things to do. People protesting here don't live in the real world, they should worry instead about people sleeping on the streets in King's Lynn.' Colin Callaby, 64, is out picking cherries from a tree in the middle of the village. The cherries, which he plans to turn into wine, are the sweetest he has ever known. 'We're right in the firing line,' he says, 'but if there's going to be a nuclear bomb we're all done for so I'd rather be right underneath it and die instantly than be 50 miles away and take weeks to die from radiation.' He adds: 'It's very sad that mankind has got to spend billions of pounds on mass destruction and we can't do something better with that money. But what can you do?'
The Sun
39 minutes ago
- The Sun
PM snubs call to axe powerful No10 chief Morgan McSweeney after welfare backlash
THE PM'S powerful chief of staff Morgan McSweeney is 'not going anywhere' No10 declared - despite calls for him to be sacked over the welfare fiasco. Keir Starmer is battling to shore up his grip on power after being forced to massively water down benefits cuts in the latest screeching U-turn. 4 4 4 Rebel Labour MPs blame Mr McSweeney for the row and had demanded the PM sack the senior aide as part of a 'regime change' in No10. One rumour circulating among a small and well connected group of Labour figures suggested Mr McSweeney was fed up with No10 and wanted to leave. He was planning to return to Labour HQ to lead the party's campaigns and elections team - heading up the fight to beat Reform in 2029, according to a source close to No10. But last night Downing Street insisted the PM's Svengali is going nowhere. A No10 source said: 'Tittle tattle about a change to chief of staff is uninformed nonsense. 'He isn't going anywhere.' Ministers are confident they will get their benefits legislation over the line on Tuesday after 126 Labour MPs tried to derail plans. But they are braced for a significant rebellion with lefty MPs plotting a fresh bid to try and kill the bill. 'It's a mutinous atmosphere,' one Labour MP said. 'There could be 70 of us still against this legislation.' 4 One Government insider said: 'MPs are furious because they feel like they weren't being listened to. The question is, can No10 put that anger back in the box?' The climbdown over benefits and a U-turn on winter fuel means Chancellor Rachel Reeves must find £4.5billion. A Labour MP fumed: 'We can't keep making these U-turns every time we make a big decision. It's so expensive.' Helen Whately Shadow Pensions Secretary Every day it becomes clearer that this is a government without a plan and without any idea about how to run the country. Welfare is one of the most important challenges facing Britain. But still, Keir Starmer has no answers. The chickens of his deeply incompetent time in office are coming home to roost. He is being held hostage in Number 10 by the Parliamentary Labour Party. Having been forced into yet another humiliating U-turn, it is clear he is no longer in control. His authority is completely shot. That's because socialist Labour MPs don't believe in lower spending. Ever since Labour took office, they have been itching to spend more. From day one, they handed out billion-pound bungs to the union barons who bankroll their party. But that is not what the situation requires. After the pandemic, there has been a drastic expansion of people dependent on the welfare state, and it is set to reach boiling point. With 2,000 people being signed off work for good a day, spending on sickness benefits is set to rise to £100 billion by 2030. We cannot afford to support a country the size of Panama on benefits. But even so, this week's omnishambles makes clear Labour MPs are not comfortable with the tighter spending this desperate situation requires. Labour's changes would have seen this dented by £5 billion. It sounds like a lot, but in the context of £100 billion it is a drop in the ocean. We need our government to be a lot more ambitious on welfare spending, not less. What we need is a focus on getting young people into work. Labour has made that harder too, by destroying jobs and opportunities for people across the country. If they can't even deliver this paltry plan paltry for savings from a spiralling welfare bill, we don't have a chance. Britain deserves better. Diane Abbott said Sir Keir should be more like Tony Blair and take the left seriously. In a sign of more rows to come, she told BBC Radio 4: 'Starmer and his people thought they could dismiss Labour MPs, well they know differently now.' In a speech to Welsh Labour on Saturday the PM said fixing the 'broken' welfare system must be done in a 'Labour way'.
