Interesting session the other night with the incoming UK Minister for International Development, Anneliese Dodds, and a panel of worthies from across the aid and dev sector, who launched into extended elevator pitches to the new minister (it reminded me a bit of the SDG Christmas Tree, in which every lobbyist insisted on their issue being included during the design phase).
First the vibe: a tangible sense of excitement that the sxxtshow of the last couple of years (the collapse in the budget, chaos at the FCDO, the constant predation of the aid budget by other departments) may be over, part of a return to grown-up, evidence based and progressive government (we can always dream). The Minister won’t get many more sympathetic audiences.
Dodds explained that she has a seat at the cabinet (good), but that she has two portfolios – development, but also Minister for Women and Equalities (which she has shadowed for the last 3 years), based at the Department for Education. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the priority of development on the new government’s agenda. We will have to see if the lure of a big dev budget compared to next to nothing at the DfE means she prioritises the development half of her job, or whether the periodic kerfuffles over trans rights etc achieve the exact opposite.
The mood music was interesting, she stressed humility, partnership, and the panel added a focus on participation and rights. The most pointed panelist was ODI’s boss, Sara Pantuliano, who got stuck in on Gaza, double standards with Ukraine, arms sales, and the challenge for the UK if it is to try and champion international law.
I was sat behind Anneliese when she returned to the audience for the panel, so whiled away the time trying to spot when she was writing stuff down (rather than staring into space – she must be exhausted, I doubt many people in the new government have had a proper sleep for the last couple of weeks). I’ve always thought this is a pretty good indication of when a point lands with a decision maker – they’re bombarded with pitches 18 hours a day, so they tend to zone out for much of the time. One of the highlights of my largely ineffective advocacy career was seeing Gordon Brown (then UK Finance Minister) start scribbling while I was pitching a critique of the UK’s position on the WTO. (In case you’re wondering if he was just doing his shopping list, I overheard him saying to his adviser ‘why are we supporting this?’ shortly afterwards.)
Some speakers, including Sara, earned a scribble, others got the blank stare. Dodds took notes on the international law point, on Chukwu-Emeka Chikezie’s excellent comments about the current ‘Gen Z’ uprisings in Kenya and the failure to include youth in politics and Claire Melamed’s call for UK to lead donors on avoiding bonkers duplication on data systems (different donors often fund parallel systems within the same ministries, apparently).
Conversely, she was not taken by Claire’s carefully polished ‘killer facts’, like $1 of investment in data capacity yields $32 in economic benefit, or (unsurprisingly) Sara’s points on double standards.
There were a few elephants in the room, in addition to the split portfolio (which no-one was impolite enough to mention). The big one is surely what can Dodds do without more money? She is clearly looking for low cost ways to make a difference, from ‘convening and brokering’ various other governments, private sector etc, to signalling a new more consequential approach to politics, and leadership of issues of international legal and moral norms (back to Gaza, though). One source of ‘new’ money will be clawing back the aid currently being bunged to dodgy UK hotel chains owners to house refugees and asylum seekers at inflated rates. If you want to lobby the new government, I suggest you look at these kinds of areas if you possibly can, rather than ask for piles of new money.
Another point to note: she’s an Oxford MP, so Oxfam should have a good point of entry.
Favourite soundbite: ‘carbon cowboys’ – Chukwu-Emeka Chikezie on people seeking to cash in on climate finance, and not in a good way.
And just to stress, I have left Oxfam, so this in no way reflects their views!