UK gov cuts to overseas aid - impact on women

[ArabeIIaScott]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66378364

Complex situation. The huge rise in price of housing refugees in the UK has apparently meant cuts to budget in overseas aid.

'as a result of 76% cuts in aid to Afghanistan, the Foreign Office "will not be able to support critical services for women and girls… reducing funding will potentially leave some of the most vulnerable women and girls in the world without critical services".
Across Africa, it said that reductions to the Women's Integrated Sexual Health Programme would reduce protection for women with "the number of unsafe abortions averted from nearly 300,000 to approximately 115,000; number of maternal deaths averted will drop from 2,531 to just over 1,000".
In Yemen, it said that half a million women and children in Yemen will not receive healthcare and "fewer preventable deaths will be avoided". "It may cause lasting damage to health systems in Yemen, if other donors are unable to fund," it said.
In Somalia, the Foreign Office will have to "delay this year, and potentially stop altogether" a programme to counter female genital mutilation.
And in South Sudan, cuts the humanitarian budget will mean "27,000 children suffering from severe acute malnutrition will go untreated, of which 12% (3,000) could die".'

Budget to be increased next year, apparently.

Heard this on the news but thanks for this more detailed link. It is very disheartening. Of course overseas aid is not an election issue in the way that ULEZ is. Same with social care. Politicians say it just doesn't come up on the doorstep. Whatever happened to political leadership?

It is a blow, nettie.

'The Foreign Office says its budget for low-income countries has been cut in the short-term to hit a savings target, but will then nearly double.'
...
'Many of these reductions were imposed on the Foreign Office after the Treasury allowed the Home Office to spend about a quarter of the aid budget housing refugees in Britain.
This is allowed under international rules for the first year of a refugee's stay in the UK.
But the arrival of so many refugees and asylum seekers in small boats over the Channel has sent the costs of hotel bills soaring.
And that has meant less can be spent on the government's priorities overseas.'

It's a very difficult balancing act. How can any of these things take precedence over the other?

It isn't the price of housing refugees that is the issue, it is the price of housing asylum seekers, and the reason this has risen is government incompetence has caused such a massive back log

This is not a justification for allowing thousands of women to die in child birth

I find it depressing but unsurprising how few privileges western women on this site care a single hoot about the fate of women dying in child birth in other countries.

There is very little hope for a fair sharing of resources around the world when rich people are so determined to hold on to everything for themselves, and class themselves as poor and needy when they are very comfortably sat in the richest and most privileged half of the world's population.

I don't think there is anything that can be done to change that, selfishness and wilful ignorance is so strong. This is a website for mothers, yet almost no concern what-so-ever for the plight of women dying in child birth! If it was us, there would be outrage and demands for immediate financial support to provide medical supplies and training.

Well, suggestions for practical actions and help that women could take are very welcome.

I think contacting our MPs and informing them we want the overseas budget restored is probably the first step.

This is the WISH programme, in Africa:

https://www.ippf.org/about-wish

It looks amazing @ArabeIIaScott

Does anyone have any experience of this organisation who can say anything about its effectiveness and reliability?

One issue is if the politicians go heavy on the message the U.K. is getting poorer, thinking of that Poland quote that got bandied about a fair bit, it will bite you on the butt when it comes to convincing the public they can afford more aid.

If you do want to help there are so many women’s o/s charities, I’d say any would be happy to take funds

I can try, but sadly my MP is an SNP Utterly Useless.

I don't know it - it's part of the International Planned Parenthood group thing, which I believe has done some very dubious stuff in the US. I'll try and poke about a bit more.

Cloudy's point is also worth bearing in mind - there will probably be other organisations, maybe smaller ones that are more effective, even. Some of these NGOs exist as much for their employees as for the people they are supposed to help ..

The government are just going for what they think will get them re elected. Blame immigrants (very popular with the right ). Cut overseas aid (popular with the right.

They can of course afford both but that doesn't fit the agenda

Doesn't most overseas aid go into the pockets of corruption Governments anyway? Has it been the best way to help?

The UKs commitment to overseas aid is (/ was?) an area with cross party consensus so hopefully things will start to improve gradually. I think the handling of costs associated with asylum seekers has been handled dreadfully, looking at what it has done to our overseas aid spending is mind boggling. There was some reporting recently that if the small boats legislation goes through, the UK will no longer be able to classify much of that spending as aid, so it would need to be funded from elsewhere.
If you wonder what you can do, there is a consultation open for evidence submissions to inform the new international development white paper. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-international-development-white-paper-call-for-evidence

And @JamSandle in the most corrupt countries aid money doesn't go to the government, it goes through charities, contractors etc who then deliver whatever aid is being provided. So no, it doesn't tend to end up in the hands of corrupt governments.

This is actually a reason to vote Labour. Blair set up the Department for International Development (DFID) in 1997 - Claire Short was the first Secretary of State there I think - and education for girls in developing countries was (and still is I think) Gordon Brown's obsession. (Girls who are educated to 15 or so are hugely less likely to die in childbirth, be forcibly married off etc and much more likely to have agency in their communities.)

DFID was enormously respected worldwide both for the programmes it ran and the way it insisted on using evidence and data to inform where its money went.

The Tories first underfunded it and then closed it altogether. Sheer vandalism.

Labour are committed to setting it back up again.

In the meantime, money is often best spent with local and national organisations in affected countries.