Few thoughts on the UK's overseas aid budget & public opinion:

1. When I ask in focus groups what characteristics are distinctly British, participants invariably say, "we're generous" and "we play by the rules". There's always been fertile ground for aid to be a source of pride.

2. Knowledge about the UK's foreign aid activities is extremely limited. The investments the British people support are seen to be 'bread and butter' (ie. food, water, sanitation, vaccinations) & are those that have received the most political, media and celebrity attention.

3. Other nations have sought to actively tackle the knowledge gap about international development spending head on, but we have been reluctant to even talk about it - I suppose the political calculation is, aid is tabloid catnip so we are better to not draw attention.

4. In times of financial insecurity, competition between citizens and around governments' expenditure choices reaches a fever pitch. This competition facilitates 'in' and 'out' groups, and notions of the 'deserving' & 'undeserving'. This naturally applies to foreign spending too.

5. There have been many missed communications opportunities. Not least of all, to explain that the 0.7% of GNI was designed to be resilient during times of economic pain. And that investment in aid/development is a huge source of soft power, diplomatic strength & global security.

6. It is also true that making these links between aid, development & foreign policy has the potential to improve support for our humanitarian work. This was a potential dividend of the foreign policy integration agenda. It will be a shame if this is not able to be realised now.

7. If the target is reduced, HMG should use this opportunity to reset its approach to comms & education on aid & development. Evidence from our allies suggests that when the British people feel they have a stake in this mission, they will defend it as a part of their identity.