A week is a long time in politics. A week after Cardew wrote on how Trump’s approach to Ukraine was upending UK politics. It is an amazing sign of how things have changed that a Labour government deciding to cut development spending by half produced barely a murmur in the Prime Minister’s statement to the Commons this week or yesterday’s PMQs.

Commentators have suggested variously that it was Trump or Farage at the dispatch box rather than Starmer, but the serious nature of the times meant that few, beyond Jeremy Corbyn and a smattering of SNP stalwarts, have spoken out against the change.

In fairness, with the end of American security guarantees to Europe, it is hard to argue against the logic for rapidly increasing defence spending, but that it should come at the expense of international development was a choice, and one that deserves scrutiny. At PMQs the only challenge on this came from Diane Abbott - something that will have delighted Number Ten.

When Tony Blair and Gordon Brown launched the mission for UK overseas aid and development spending to be rebranded and focused on International Development, it was part of their “ethical foreign policy” and a shift from UK development aid being used to win business to a long-term commitment to what would become sustainable development goals. It followed scandals in which the Foreign Office had been seen to be involved in corruption to support dodgy British business activities and arms sales. The creation of a separate Department for International Development (DfID) was hailed as the dawn of a new age of British soft power and influence.

David Cameron’s embrace of this policy and determination to take it further was backed by a genuine belief that global education, global responses to the problems of poverty, access to education, climate change and conflict could make us safer at home. Right-wing Conservatives, naturally sceptical of a globalist approach, were won over through exposure to on the ground activity in places like Rwanda and Sierra Leone.

One of the most dramatic conversions was that of Andrew Mitchell, who had been a key critic of DfID spending under Blair but became and remains one of its strongest defenders. By the end of the coalition government the goal of 0.7% of GNI was a rare area of complete consensus between the three main parties.

When DFID was rolled into the FCDO it was criticised as a heartless move and a shortsighted one, a Labour MP said it showed a choice of a “little Britain over a global Britain” and one Rachel Reeves said “this move to unilaterally cut overseas aid is a direct attack on what it means to be global Britain. It is a decision that will reduce our power, reduce our influence in the world and undermine our security here at home.”

When, faced with the unique challenges of the covid pandemic, Rishi Sunak proposed cutting the target for development spending from 0.7% of GDP to 0.5% there was outrage on the left and disquiet among many in his own party. Conservatives were branded heartless or supporters of starving children. They were told they had turned their back on the developing world and that the problems this created would cause greater costs down the line. As recently as November 2022 one Keir Starmer as leader of the opposition criticised Rishi Sunak for failing to honour promises to developing countries at COP27.

When it was proposed that some of the budget should be used for domestic support for refugees or help for Ukraine there was further criticism. Yet today almost a third of the budget is being spent in the UK, Ukraine is the biggest bilateral recipient and almost half of the whole budget has just been abolished. Either the Labour government will have to find other sources for paying the hotel, food and health bills for asylum seekers or it will have ended our support for overseas international development almost entirely.

Just a few weeks ago when the Trump administration called for the abolition of USAID, there was horror on the British left, the commentariat even in right-leaning papers pointed out the gift that this offered to Chinese and Russian influence in the developing world. The UK’s Foreign Secretary said it was “a big strategic mistake” to be cutting USAID which would increase China’s global influence.

This week as the UK follows suit, there is relative silence. A new consensus for a harder, harsher reality or as many on all sides were suggesting just a week ago, a generational strategic mistake?