Here's my FAQ after having spent a bit of time looking into it over the past day. It includes a template email which you can send to your MP (if you're in the UK).

How high a priority should I make it to campaign on this?

Not as high as last time. Last time, the government needed to put it to a vote of MPs. This isn't needed this time; the government just needs to explain its plan for getting back to 0.7%, so the decision is essentially a fait accompli. Campaigning is almost certain not to change anything immediately.

On the other hand, if the government felt it could make this change and not get any pushback, it may feel no pressure to increase aid again in the future.

Should I bother campaigning at all?

Yes. I would recommend that people with the right to vote in the UK still do some low-effort campaigning. Writing an email to your MP could be done in under 5 mins if you copy a template and tweak it slightly to reflect your circumstances.

Where can I find a template email to send to my MP?

Here is a template you can use. It includes:

wording you can copy and paste
a small number of sections are highlighted in yellow, adjust those to suit your circumstances
a link to a site which can help you find your MP's name and email address

Is it a good idea for me to adjust the letter, or should I stick to the template?

Adjust to your heart's content! It's your letter, so feel free to adjust as you see fit.

Should I still write to my MP, even if I'm sympathetic to the defence spending?

In my view, yes.

The aid cuts are to fund defence spending, and it's true that geopolitical tensions are rising. As you'll see from the draft email template, it also expresses sympathy with the value of defence spending given the current geopolitical situation. It simply argues that there are better ways of funding it.

Bear in mind that the theory of change for this letter writing campaign is less about getting the aid cut decision reversed (this is unlikely) but rather about getting us back to 0.7% (or at least 0.5%) sooner.

Lastly, I deserve much less credit for drafting this than may appear to be the case, so thank you to those who deserve the real credit for putting this together.

66 Reactions

Comments21

Sorted by

New & upvoted

Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 5:24 AM

Toby Tremlett🔹15d15

Unsure how true this is, but on an episode of the rest is politics podcast, Rory Stewart said that when he was an MP, it was much more effective to contact him via letter. He'd get so many emails that they'd just be summarised to him, but so few letters that he'd read them in full. So if someone has more time, it might be worth sending your MP a physical letter. If you have even more time, and some kind of link to expertise, you could also try asking your MP to meet for a coffee- but that's more speculative and has downsides.

Forumite16d15

If you read the news coverage of this carefully, it's clear that the FCDO has got no idea exactly which bits of the aid budget it will cut in order to fit the new spending requirements.

So I think by far the most tractable thing to campaign on would be to ask the government to protect certain areas of aid spending, and cut others instead. This actually has the chance of changing something over the next few days/weeks.

Sanjay16d4

This seems superficially like a great idea, but I think it works better for, say, the centre for effective aid policy (if it still existed).

It's easier to decide which things to prioritise if you've gone through the things that UK aid actually does and worked out which are better and which are less good.
Your ask will be more effective if you have a good handle on which deprioritisation are a no-go politically (eg are you suggesting deprioritising work in Gaza or Ukraine? Would the politics of that work? Does any of your suggestions bump up against anything the politicians have said publicly?)
You're more likely to be effective if you can access the right channels. Simply emailing your MP is a very indirect way of getting through to the right people.

All of the issues look surmountable to me if you're deciding time to this. I don't think I can do a decent job of this in my spare time. Especially since the window is very tight - these decisions will be made quickly, I suspect.

But if you think you can, please do so and share your thinking with the rest of us :-)

Larks16d4

The CGD suggests spending on migrants inside the UK as a currently elevated item that could be reduced significantly.

EDIT: though now I think about it, "drop the Chagos Islands deal" could be a politically viable alternative source of funds, give then $8bn cost of the extremely unpopular deal is sort of like inefficient foreign aid. (Though the $8bn is not an annual figure).

Sanjay16d6

Thanks Larks. Agree, both of those ideas are already in the template

Jakob_J16d2

Another potential source of funds is the UK Government's estimated ~4 billion GBP worth of bitcoin holdings

NickLaing16d2

Love this mobilising team keep it going!

David M13d6

Thank you for this post. I’d like to add some argument for considering this a very high priority, or at least potentially one, since in your post people might not appreciate the scale we are talking about (due to comparison with ‘last time’ and mention of ‘low effort’).

Briefly, the slash to UK foreign aid dwarfs all EA spending on global health and development to date, and it seems like we are at a crucial moment that could influence whether the government feels this is at all accepted by the electorate.

Some quick figures from the Center for Global Development:

> In cash terms, the OBR projections of national income suggest this means an official development assistance (ODA) budget of £9.2 billion in 2027. The UK spent £15.3 billion on ODA in 2023

https://www.cgdev.org/blog/breaking-down-prime-minister-starmers-aid-cut

In total, EA is spending less than a billion on global health/dev each year (which makes up the majority of all EA spending). So this feels like a big lever to me, even given that not all UK aid spending will be as effective as Open Phil aid spending is.

Another lever to consider, rather than ‘punish government for cutting aid’, is ‘telling the government that effectiveness matters to me when they decide what to cut’. Don’t know how to compare those.

Sanjay8d2

Good point here:

Another lever to consider, rather than ‘punish government for cutting aid’, is ‘telling the government that effectiveness matters to me when they decide what to cut’. Don’t know how to compare those.

If I'd given more thought to the draft letter, I might have said more on this.

I'm conscious that Jenny Chapman (who is taking over from Anneliese Dodds as Development minister) doesn't seem to have much background in development.

If someone wrote an email which conveyed acceptance of the reality (cuts are going to happen, whether I like it or not), and which suggested that effectiveness matters, this might be viewed as a much more constructive email, which might land better and be more influential.

David M13d6

Is it a good idea for me to adjust the letter, or should I stick to the template?

The AIM charity UK Voters for Animals appears to think (based on when I attended a work party they ran) that letters/emails count for more when they are not obviously copied and pasted, to the extent it’s worth customising letters. I don’t know their epistemic basis for this, but I trust them to have one (I suspect they know people who have worked for MPs). But it might still make sense to give less-motivated friends a template to copy if that’s all you think they’ll be willing to do, since a templated letter is better than none at all. Though NB writetothem.com does block copy-and-pasted messages.

Amber Dawn11d4

Maybe this is weird but I prefer sending more customised emails from the point of view of authenticity or self-expression or something. Like it feels weird to send people things that are not my words. But then again, this squeamishness is in fact a big barrier to political action, as I don't usually have time and energy to form nuanced, informed takes on issues, so I just don't write even when I have a strong opinion about the issue.

Sanjay8d2

Sorry I didn't see this sooner. Yes, I do believe that an email will be more likely to be effective if it looks like it's not copied and pasted. My basis for this is that when I supported a group of people to campaign on ODA about 4 years ago, I asked several people, including veteran campaigners and people who have worked for an MP replying to emails for them. Those people explained that if the email looks like a copy-and-paste/boilerplate email, they will assume that it was driven by a campaign group, which carries less weight than if you do it yourself.

I'd also bear in mind that this email is unlikely to be a particularly impactful action. (but also not a zero-impact action either). So I'd be sympathetic to people putting in less effort on this email (and saving their efforts for other effective ways of making the world a better place :-))

David M13d2

I've written to my MP, James Asser, with something very similar to Sanjay's linked template.

tobycrisford 🔸15d6

I'm feeling inspired by Anneliese Dodds' decision to resign as a government minister over this issue, which is grabbing the headlines today! Before that I'd been feeling very disappointed about the lack of pushback I was seeing in news coverage.

I haven't written my letter to my MP yet, but I've remembered that I am actually a member of the Labour party. Would a letter to my local Labour MP have even more impact if I also cancelled my Labour membership in protest? Ok, I might not be a government minister, I'm just an ordinary party member who hasn't attended a party event in years, but still, they get some money from me at the moment!

Or would cancelling the membership mean I have less influence on future issues, and so ultimately be counter-productive? Any thoughts?

Sanjay8d7

Good question, I'm sorry nobody has replied yet. I don't feel like I'm much of an expert on this, so others may be better positioned than me.

My sense is that yes, this may well be impactful, especially if it is clearly communicated. This is a meaningful move, and one that the party will feel -- all parties need financing.

To maximise effectiveness, you likely need to inform the right people. By all means, do tell your MP (assuming your MP is a Labour MP). Saying that you're willing to leave the Labour party makes you less likely to vote for them in future, and they will care about this. In fact, if it's true that it would make you less likely to vote for them in future, do tell them this explicitly, as that's probably what your MP cares about.

Cancelling your Labour membership matters to the people responsible for the finances of the party. I believe those people are probably the Treasurer and General Secretary of the party. I don't know how you would reach out to them, but if there were some way of communicating this to the right people, you could increase your impact.

OllieBase15d5

Thanks for this. I was about to contact my MP (Anneliese Dodds), but she seems to share my view here and has resigned as Minister for International Development and for Women and Equalities in protest (not confident that's the best call but I respect it).

Nick Kautz16d3

Is there an argument to be made for altruistic aid being constrained to matters that serve the country of origin, and otherwise being a matter of privately organized contribution? Perhaps such that political changes don't toggle the supply on and off, and so that self-interest motivates closer tabs being kept on proper use and efficiency?

Sanjay8d2

I've upvoted this comment and disagree-voted it. I was initially prone to be dubious of the suggestion. I think lots of us are motivated by important outcomes like children not dying, and linking aid to national self-interest seemed problematic, because children not dying (or other good outcomes) are not the same as national self-interest. Optimising for one is likely to lead to different aid interventions than optimising for the other.

However I've warmed somewhat to the suggestion.

Nick rightly pointed out that politics risks toggling the supply up and down. (or rather down!) A clearer link to self-interest does indeed help.
For those of a GiveWellian mindset, part of the reason for believing that some interventions are more effective than others is a "sceptical prior" - ie a default assumption that interventions don't work in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Aid which has a hard-nosed link to self-interest (eg better enabling markets for donor country exports) might be more likely to have the evidence needed.

On balance, I still think I disagree with the suggestion, mostly because a hardnosed link to self-interest probably won't be compelling for those who are politically opposed to aid. But I appreciate the prompt to give this some thought.

Vasco Grilo🔸16d-2

Thanks for sharing, Sanjay. I would be curious to know your thoughts on how the meat-eating problem affects the cost-effectiveness of campaigning against aid cuts. For example, would it matter to you if the countries whose funding was decreased had more or less farmed animals with negative lives per capita?

Sanjay15d11

Thanks for the question. Happy to set out how I think about this, but note that I haven't researched this deeply, and for several parts of this argument, I could imagine myself changing my mind with a bit more research.

Firstly, we’re not considering the aid spend in isolation. Rather, the impact of our actions may be to redirect spend from one usage to another, so we're comparing to some counterfactual spend, which is typically likely to be some sort of spend which leads to (probably) some sort of economic activity in a developed economy.
Secondly, I think it’s useful to consider three levels of impact

		Aid spend: effect on animals	Counterfactual spend: effect on animals
First order	Direct effect on people: presumably some sort of economic benefit	None (directly)	None (directly)
Second order	Indirect effect: the economic benefit means people eat more meat	Moderate negative	Smaller negative
Third order	Very indirect effect: moral circle expansion	Potentially large positive	Minimal positive

Part of the reason why I consider the meat-eater problem to be only a "moderate negative" (as per "second order" row) is because I'm inclined to believe it's not always bad for animals. If the aid targets the poorest of the poor (which doesn't always happen) these are likely to be rural poor, who live in areas where land is cheap, and animals have lots of space to peck around, graze, and seem, from what I've seen, to have a nice time (source: hanging around in poor parts of sub-Saharan Africa, not that I'm an expert at judging animal welfare just from looking at an animal, so my judgement may be off). These animal lives appear (to me) to be net positive. On the other hand, I do expect the effect of aid will be to accelerate the rate at which people become middle class. This is more likely to lead to consumption of factory farmed animals, which is a negative.

The third order effects are much more speculative. To what extent does greater economic development spur moral circle expansion? There's lots to say on this, and I don't want to lengthen this comment further.

To my mind, the second order effects are very speculative, and the third order effects even more so. But they are potentially more important in the long term.

Putting together all the second order and third order considerations, I don't think it's clear which outcome leads to be better outcomes for animals, so I'm inclined to treat the effects on animals as a neutral factor.

If I spent more time looking into this, I may still change my mind.

Vasco Grilo🔸15d3

Thanks, Sanjay! Great points.

Putting together all the second order and third order considerations, I don't think it's clear which outcome leads to be better outcomes for animals, so I'm inclined to treat the effects on animals as a neutral factor.

I agree it is unclear whether campaigning against aid cuts is beneficial or harmful to animals. However, treating the effects on animals as neutral requires the effects on animals to be much smaller in magnitude than the effects on humans. I can easily see the effects on animals being negative and larger in magnitude. So I do not know whether campaigning against aid cuts is beneficial or harmful.

To clarify, I distinguish between these 2 possibilities for "effect on animals" + "effect on humans" = "overall effect":

"Small positive/negative number" (effect on animals) + "medium positive number" (effect on humans) = "medium positive number" (overall effect). One can neglect the effects on animals.
"Medium/Large positive/negative number" + "medium positive number" = "medium/large positive/negative number". One cannot neglect the effects on animals.

I think the 2nd bullet corresponds to the actual situation.