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's a lot of marking our own homework in defence, and it'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't think of any outcomes from DFID. 4/15

That isn't to say that DFID didn't achieve anything. A lot of government wins are necessarily low key. But I also can'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't say this to suggest I'm important, just that I have a privileged view of what's going on. 6/15

I can think of some tactical DFID blunders, and some very comendible programmes, but if I can'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'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'm not very surprised that DFID's demise won'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'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'd actually really welcome an independent review of DFID'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'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'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're losing something, and yet I can't quite quantify what is being lost. That'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'm genuinely very interested. 15/15.