It’s not just Worcester Woman and Mondeo Man who have a stake in the outcome of the election – the political choices made here will undoubtedly impact millions of voiceless people abroad.

How could it not? We’re the world’s fifth biggest economy, fourth biggest provider of aid, and a key member of the EU, G8, G20, UN Security Council and Eurovision Song Contest. We’re the second biggest exporter of arms, and the second biggest per capita drinker of tea.

Hence the push from UK NGOs to promote climate and development issues to candidates through the Vote Global campaign, complete with manifesto, analysis and organised hustings.

Global poverty may not be a deal clincher in everyone’s minds, and there may not be crowds gathered round TVs across Africa watching our leaders’ debates, but as a projection of values it matters to many. Tory plans to ringfence aid spending in the face of the opposition from its members and press says as much.

According to a recent department for international development study, 74 per cent of Britons said they were concerned about poverty in developing countries, while millions regularly put their money where their mouth is. And in the run up to the last election, four million people wore white bands to support the Make Poverty History campaign.

So what do the manifestos offer these supporters? There is some consensus on the basics, with some credit to all. All sign up to legislating the commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of GNI on aid by 2013. All tick boxes on highlighting a range of important social issues (though Labour’s financial pledges are more specific). All agree with the need for reform of global institutions, and a pro-development trade deal, though with such things the devil will always be in the detail.

Disappointingly however, neither main party grasped the opportunity to simultaneously tackle financial volatility and raise money for fighting poverty at home and abroad, by supporting the Robin Hood Tax – though credit to the Lib Dems for backing it. Labour and the Tories did both leave the door open by talking about bank levies in unspecified terms, but this could have been a policy that captured the mood, broke through the white noise, and brought something radical to the table.

There do also remain genuine points of difference between the parties, and causes for concern in the Tory approach, as outlined in my previous article for Progress. They still make no pledge not to use aid money for climate change adaptation, prompting fears the kitty will be raided, while Labour at least will cap this at 10 per cent of the aid budget (better, but still too much). They are more likely to prioritise private solutions over state capacity building, and by omitting to mention the International Arms Trade Treaty – even though they are officially supportive – one might question their passion for it. Labour promises to lead on this.

In terms of ability to deliver, Labour is right to claim that Tory isolation in Europe leaves them “helpless to shape change or defend our interests”. In this ever more complex world we only have real power in multilateralism, cooperation and solidarity. And in development we can do so much more by working with others.

But as ever, manifestos may not always capture the big issues and questions that arise over a parliament. Sometimes the best guide of how a party will fare is their values, priority, record and gut instinct. On that Labour will feel extremely confident. Would a voter in the Global South risk their vote on anyone else?

Judge for yourself with analysis of party positions, and dates of Vote Global hustings at www.voteglobal.org.uk. You can also see videos of party leaders speaking about development issues, courtesy of the ONE Campaign, at http://onevote2010.one.org/on-the-record/

Photo: catface3 2009