Amid all the febrile comment on the budget cuts (the right-wing papers moan that the middle-classes have been hardest hit, the left-wing lot extoll the miseries of the working-class - no doubt in Boris Johnson's view, the nation has become one big Liverpool), one ray of progressive light has been the increase in the international development aid budget. It's tiny in comparison to most other departments yet does immeasurable good in boosting Britain's image and just reminding others we are still around (in countries with nugatory education, don't underestimate that).
One woman interviewed by the BBC in Manchester (typical London metropolitan thinking that anywhere north of the Home Counties must be working class) was found to complain about this rise, even though we are edging towards the United Nations target of 0.7% of GDP, rather than over-achieving, something only Norway and Japan do in this regard. She said "Well, I'm glad it's not goinng to China [well, Singapore does have a significant ethnic Chinese population] or the Indies [not since the subcontinent had a king-emperor has it been referred to as that, unless she was still bitter about the other Indies as to the West Indies' dominance of cricket in the 1980s]. But the reason that Afghanistan is in such a mess in the first place is because we're out there." Yes, we pamper those Afghans with International Development aid of ballistic weaponry donated to their bodies and buildings. Aside, from the complete jump in logic, the reason the lands either side of the Hindu Kush are in a mess (Pakistan is to receive grants too) is not because of aid.