In this post, Lauren Anderson, an advocacy and campaigns professional working in conflict and humanitarian response, reflects on the sector’s strategic impasse in the face of aid cuts — and makes the case for a more politically attuned repositioning of conflict prevention efforts.

Since the brutal slash to the UK aid budget was announced in February, there’s been no shortage of conversation and debate over its significance, its outdated frameworks, and its support amongst the public. Various polls are cited on the back and forth swing of the public’s view on overseas support, and the sector is bringing out its receipts to show that the moral argument still lands no matter what.

But that’s not the point.

What matters isn’t what the public thinks — it’s what the government thinks the public thinks. And right now, those perceptions are mis-matched. Even if we agreed that support for aid remains broadly steady, the government is operating under the assumption that it’s a vote-loser. And as long as that remains the political weather, no amount of polling analysis is going to shift the direction of travel. And even less if this commentary on Keir Starmer’s chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney relying on synthetic AI voters is true….

Right now, we’re watching a loud, coordinated, populist narrative that paints overseas aid as wasteful charity and argues instead for the need to invest in defence and national security. This messaging is dominating the airwaves and it’s dictating the terms of public debate. And while most people might still support the principle of helping others, they are bombarded with the existential dread of escalating global conflicts creating a fundamental and unshakeable de-prioritisation of the aid framework.

However, instead of facing that political reality head-on, the sector is digging in. We’re doubling down on the moral message, telling the same story — about how cuts are harmful and unjust — and hoping it sticks. Those arguments are true and we should hold the moral ground, it’s our job, but we also have to admit that message is no longer landing.

We’re making requests shaped in a different time, in a different political climate, and to a government that has already turned the volume down on the NGO channel. The government is not listening to us. We’ve been shut out of the rooms where we would usually collaborate because we are just not speaking their language right now. We’re all still pitching the same asks to significantly shrinking budgets, all competing for dregs of ODA which are only going to keep getting smaller.

We’re not being smart about this. And worse, I think we’re being naive to the political reality.

We’re at a crossroads: aid is cut, public trust is thin, and conflict is escalating globally at its highest level since the Second World War. We’re missing a strategic pivot.

Here’s one place we could start: follow the money.

Much of the funding stripped from ODA hasn’t just disappeared — it’s been redirected into the growing defence budget. That money is unallocated and politically safer for the government to spend. So why aren’t we asking for it?

Just weeks ago, the Conflict Prevention APPG led on the release of an open letter — signed by over 60 parliamentarians, Lords and ex Military folks— calling for renewed funding for conflict prevention. It rightly argued that defence spending alone won’t cut it — diplomacy and prevention are essential pillars of any real security strategy. It was powerful and well-timed with the releases of the Strategic Defence Review and National Security Strategy. Yet the ask remained fixed on ring fencing 4% from the ODA budget for these initiatives, and I just wonder if that is enough.

If we’re saying prevention and peace building is part of a cohesive defence and security strategy, why not go after the significantly more sizeable defence budget? Why not pivot the demand?

It’s not pretty. And yes it is a bitter pill. But we have to start being real about the world around us.

I understand there’s fear that if we shift our demands, we’ll lose the moral high ground — or the aid pot entirely. But the truth is, for now, we’ve already lost it. And it doesn’t have to be an either-or situation: thinking strategically about what could be placed under this umbrella could reduce the competition for the remaining ODA budget, allowing it to keep working where it’s most needed.

We’ve been here before with the Conflict, Security and Stability Fund (CSSF), and Integrated Security Fund (ISF) – which have been praised by the sector for bridging the gap between development initiatives and conflict resolution efforts. I know these funds also have their flaws, with concerns over ISF moving more towards being a national defence tool – but there’s another window for the strategic pivot – position the sector to be part of shaping it.

Rather than just asking the government to do this, why can’t we place ourselves as the strategic partner here? Not just advocate for a cross-departmental body to fill the cracks between FCDO and the Ministry of Defence, but position the sector as the experts who can co-design and deliver it. Why not frame ourselves not as passive recipients of aid to go off and run our programmes, but as strategic allies to a government that’s groping in the dark?

Right now there’s an opening. The UK’s National Security Strategy has just been updated. Conflict escalations in the Middle East has dominated headlines. The recent NATO summit showcased how everyone is gearing up for war with a push to commit 5% spending, and if they can put military pension pots under the NATO umbrella, why can’t we put conflict prevention and peace building programmes?

If we don’t move now, we’ll miss our chance not just to survive, but to reshape the role of conflict prevention and peace building altogether. Defence is the narrative of the day and we need to accept that and shift with it or risk being left behind.