Read on Twitter
Some thoughts on the death of DFID: I suspect that without a clear champion in Cabinet the cut will be effectively more than that announced, because that will disrpoportionately fall on core aid activity and not on CSSF spending, which supports Aid/FCO/MOD activity. 1/15
I also really hope that expertise is being preserved. DFID - for example - had very consistent and thorough evaluation methodologies that Defence could benefit from learning how to use as it moves into more capacity buildilng/defence engagement. 2/15
At present there& #39;s a lot of marking our own homework in defence, and it& #39;s hard to compare the value of lines of effort because there is little consistency in how outcomes are measured or recorded. DFID were good at this. 3/15
But while I saw some impressive DFID officials brieifng on process I draw a blank on outcomes. I can think of some defence outcomes - for better or worse - from the territorial defeat of Islamic State to the destruction of Libya. I can& #39;t think of any outcomes from DFID. 4/15
That isn& #39;t to say that DFID didn& #39;t achieve anything. A lot of government wins are necessarily low key. But I also can& #39;t think of a single strategy that was deemed to have produced the desired result. That says a lot because I really ought to have... 5/15
I travel a lot, and will meet HM Ambassador, the Defence team, allied diplomats, ministers and generals of the country, and usually stay near a lot of aid/development types. I don& #39;t say this to suggest I& #39;m important, just that I have a privileged view of what& #39;s going on. 6/15
I can think of some tactical DFID blunders, and some very comendible programmes, but if I can& #39;t think of any major achievements, given my vantage point, then I really struggle to see how the British public can have any clear notion of what the money they put in has delivered 7/15
This suggests that DFID was terrible at explaining what it does. I think the reason for that goes a lot wider than the department. A lot of the sector seems to take the view that they are so self evidently doing good that they don& #39;t have to justify themselves to anyone. 8/15
I see the same thing among Human Rights orgs a lot. They are so passionate in highlighting breaches of human rights, but often fail to articulate clearly why a lot of the rights matter and are worth preserving. They just assume everyone will be on side. 9/15
In that sense I& #39;m not very surprised that DFID& #39;s demise won& #39;t see much political blowback. But I am also confident - as many colleagues who are experts in the field testify to its effectiveness - that the department did deliver some results. 10/15
I therefore really wish we were able to capture what it achieved, what worked, what didn& #39;t, how it could be done better, and actually develop a public debate about what our aid spending delivers in terms of tangible outcomes. 11/15
I& #39;d actually really welcome an independent review of DFID& #39;s work. Reviews are usually prompted by some disaster or other and turn out to be an expensive way of confirming things we already knew. But in this case I actually think it would be genuinely valuable. 12/15
Valuable because of the substantive debate it would provoke. Valuable because it would ensure that DFID& #39;s expertise were preserved for the rest of HMG. Valuable because it would provide a framework for justifying aid spending to those who finance it. 13/15
I& #39;m not hugely attached to the 0.7%, because its an arbitrary figure. But I am struck that lots of experts in this field are saying we& #39;re losing something, and yet I can& #39;t quite quantify what is being lost. That& #39;s concerning. And I wish we had a better answer. 14/15.
And if any colleagues from the sector want to point me towards clear achievements from UK Aid in terms of strategic outcomes then I& #39;m genuinely very interested. 15/15.
