Why Britain Must Turn Inward By Ending International Aid And Prioritising Domestic Problems

With essential services strained and living standards in decline, Britain’s commitment to foreign aid has become a symbol of a political class that refuses to put the nation first.

GABRIEL MCKEOWN

Against a backdrop of domestic decay, Britain’s international aid budget now represents an untenable contradiction in the social contract, fuelling a belief that politicians are willing to continually prioritise global needs over those of their own country. As a consequence, its utility as a foreign policy instrument is becoming harder to justify, instead morphing into a symbol of a government that has lost sight of its primary duty. In the past, proponents of foreign aid have reiterated the need for the UK to be a leader in overseas development, with this funding playing a crucial role in levelling the global playing field and addressing inequities at their source. Yet, these ambitions ring hollow when domestic institutions are in a state of managed decline, and the population feels unable to rely on the government for support. A nation that is continually unable to provide well-funded national healthcare, address a critical housing shortage, or provide the resources necessary to deliver a high-quality education for its children should not be prioritising foolish and insecure ambitions of global influence. Its elimination, therefore, should be viewed as an attempt to rectify this current political dissonance that has allowed overseas problems to supersede local crises.

First and foremost, this will require addressing the Disney-like fiction surrounding foreign aid, whose reputation as an omnipotent vehicle for good has been shaped by decades of positive media coverage. Consequently, any previous cuts to this aid have been met with outright fury and hostility, driven by misguided visions of empty Sub-Saharan wells, depleted food stations, and a teary-eyed Bob Geldof shaking his head in disappointment. Yet, the reality, following an objective audit of current international aid funding, reveals a budget that has been progressively diminished in ambition, hollowed out by domestic pressures, and thus repeatedly acts against its own stated objectives. For instance, a sizable and ever-increasing proportion of the budget is being diverted from overseas development projects to instead act as a contingency fund for the Home Office. As the department continued to face unbudgeted overspends on UK asylum accommodation, reaching £4.7 billion between 2023 and 2024, this reallocation tactic allowed the government to address these costs using Official Development Assistance (ODA), equating to 28% of the entire aid budget. Worse still, because the overall ODA budget is capped, this surge in domestic spending has forced deep cuts to overseas programmes, including those designed to actually address the root causes of migration.

However, not all hope is lost, as despite the United Nations setting a target for the UK to spend 0.7% of its Gross National Income (GNI) on international aid, a precedent has already been established that this budget can be treated with flexibility in times of emergency. In the aftermath of the coronavirus in 2021, the government reduced foreign aid spending to 0.5% of GNI to address the severe economic impact of the pandemic, and more recently, it has been announced that this aid budget will be temporarily reduced to 0.3% to fund an increase in defence spending from 2027. This downward progression is, of course, a step in the right direction, but it is still only one-half of the policy battle, as these newly freed-up funds should instead be diverted back to address domestic concerns. This process of reallocation should be pitched as a first step towards a form of economic nationalism, accompanied by an unwavering commitment that, going forward, fiscal policy will serve the strategic goals of the nation above all others. An initiative that is symbolic as much as it is economic, with the purpose of turning the corner on public services seemingly abandoned and underresourced.

The creation of a dedicated National Reconstruction Fund would differentiate this policy change from the previous temporary cuts to foreign aid, which have seen surplus funds disappear into the wider budgetary accounting machine, untraceable to those outside of Westminster. In 2024 alone, this fund could be seeded with just over £14bn, enough to clear the current NHS waiting list estimated at £13.8bn, or close the £4.3bn local council funding deficit, end homelessness with £1.9 billion of funding, or even go a long way towards clearing the entire £16.8bn backlog of UK road repairs. Yet most importantly, the power of this policy goes beyond just the number of billions it frees up every year, by sending a clear message that the era of prioritising abstract global concerns over the concrete, urgent needs of the British people is over. It can be framed as an emergency wartime-style measure that transcends bitter partisan concerns and unites people around a single priority: to rebuild Britain by delivering tangible, everyday improvements.

This act alone could begin to repair the fractured trust between the electorate and the political class by addressing the immense damage that has been done to the national psyche through a system that has repeatedly neglected the concerns of ordinary people, while remaining eager to increase their tax contribution at any opportunity. Now more than ever, many in society feel stuck in a financially abusive relationship with the government, expected to pay endlessly with no reward for their contribution, eroding any remaining belief in a functioning social contract. Polling consistently shows that the public prioritises funding for healthcare, education, and welfare, with spending on overseas aid coming last in the budget. So while those domestic services are visibly struggling, the continuation of a multi-billion-pound foreign aid programme represents a fundamental breach of the government’s core duty to its own citizens.

Yet, despite the clear support this initiative would receive from many in Britain, it would undoubtedly be met with fierce opposition from the political establishment, which views foreign aid spending as the fulfilment of a moral obligation and a vehicle for maintaining global influence. These are valid concerns on the surface and could justify future periods of targeted international aid, but in the immediate future, there needs to be a sensible reconsideration of political ambitions. The government cannot continue to relegate the needs and concerns of its own population, via ever-increasing NHS waiting lists, an underfunded education system, or a lack of housing, in favour of a loosely defined humanitarian project for citizens of another country. Furthermore, concerns about global influence often stem from a place of political vanity and could be far better achieved through maintaining a prosperous and well-governed society that other nations would actually seek to emulate, rather than the current form of hypocritical, ‘do as I say but not as I do,’ international patronage.

This is even more relevant following the decision made in the United States to dismantle the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and terminate 83% of existing projects after identifying massive amounts of wasteful spending. Shifting the Overton window on foreign aid policy and underlining its incompatibility with the current administration’s ‘America First’ agenda. It has also set a precedent for the discretionary reality of this aid budget, removing the oft-used excuse that it is necessary to maintain trade deals and global relations. Instead, the US has demonstrated that it can be treated as a valuable humanitarian tool to be used when, and if, national budgets allow. However, it should never be treated as a binding obligation that comes before a nation’s local concerns, as the more money spent abroad, the less there is available to address domestic problems.

The moment has arrived to make bold heterodoxical political decisions that can deliver immediate societal improvements and signal to the electorate that better times are on the horizon. As it stands, the existence of foreign aid is having the opposite effect, emblematic of a political system with misplaced priorities, a significant fiscal drain at a time of extreme domestic hardship, and a death knell for the already weakened social contract. Critics will argue that disbanding international aid is heartless and that a National Reconstruction Fund won’t address all of the existing funding deficits plaguing public services, and they may be right on both accounts. But that’s not the point; this is a policy designed to act as definitive proof that the people of this country will be put first, helping to snap Britain out of its slow march towards further stagnation and societal decline. After years of feeling abandoned by a government willing to take with one hand, and give to someone else with the other, now is the time for politicians to take decisive action to put this nation first.

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.