We Should Fix Britain First Before Funding the Rest of the World

A Reply To Matt Goodwin

Dear Mr. Goodwin,

I recently read your article, “We Should Fix Britain First Before Funding the Rest of the World,” and I must say, it was a masterclass in populist storytelling—long on emotion, light on facts, and finely tuned to stoke outrage rather than inform. But let’s park the culture war theatrics for a moment and talk about what really matters: the actual numbers, the false choices you present, and the contradictions you’d rather your readers not notice.

Foreign Aid: The Scapegoat That Wasn’t

According to you, foreign aid is the villain in Britain’s decline, sucking up billions that could otherwise be used to fix potholes, fund the NHS, or solve the cost-of-living crisis. But let’s look at the numbers you conveniently left out.

Foreign aid accounts for just 0.58% of the UK’s Gross National Income (GNI)—that’s £15.3 billion a year. Meanwhile, the NHS budget is over £180 billion. Welfare spending is over £310 billion. The UK loses more to tax evasion each year than it spends on foreign aid.

So, remind me again—how exactly is foreign aid bankrupting the country?

Slashing foreign aid wouldn’t fix the NHS, wouldn’t reduce anyone’s energy bill, and wouldn’t revive Britain’s stagnating economy. What it would do is undermine our diplomatic influence, damage trade relationships, and create more instability abroad—instability that Britain will inevitably have to deal with later, at a far greater cost.

Blaming foreign aid for Britain’s problems is like blaming your daily coffee for your mortgage. It’s a good soundbite, but financially illiterate.

The Great Britain vs. The World Illusion

Your article frames foreign aid as an either/or issue: either we help struggling Brits, or we fund projects abroad. This is a textbook false dichotomy—a classic populist trick to direct public anger at an easy target while ignoring actual policy failures.

Here’s the reality.

Foreign aid benefits Britain. A stable world means fewer wars, fewer refugees, and stronger trade partners. Britain’s biggest economic challenges are homegrown. Wages, housing, and public services aren’t struggling because we send less than 1% of GNI abroad—they’re struggling because of domestic policy choices and economic mismanagement year on year.

Isolationism makes Britain weaker, not stronger. Retreating from the global stage doesn’t Make Britain Great Again—it makes us irrelevant.

Britain isn’t in decline because we help others. It’s in decline because we’ve been governed by people who’d rather point at foreign aid than admit their own failures.

Foreign Aid: Investment, Not a Giveaway

You frame foreign aid as some reckless act of charity, but in reality, it’s one of Britain’s smartest investments.

It prevents terrorism, state collapse, and mass migration, reducing the need for far more expensive military interventions later. Developing nations that receive aid often become major future trading partners. Foreign aid opens markets for British businesses—but I guess that’s less interesting than another “woke spending” headline.

Preventing a crisis is far cheaper than dealing with its aftermath. Mass displacement, war, and economic collapse cost far more than strategic intervention. If you think this is a waste of money, I’d love to see your retirement portfolio.

And then there’s the soft power factor. Britain, despite its diminishing geopolitical influence since Brexit, is still respected for its role in international aid. That goodwill translates into economic partnerships, diplomatic leverage, and strategic alliances.

So cutting aid isn’t just bad ethics—it’s bad strategy.

Your Cherry-Picked Outrage Bait: Let’s Add Some Context

You’ve mastered the fine art of outrage farming—listing random aid projects without explaining their purpose, just to rile up your audience. So let’s fill in the blanks.

Women’s rights in Iraq? Political instability fuels extremism. Empowering women boosts economies, strengthens governance, and reduces security threats.

Climate-adaptive farming in Nepal? Climate change is already affecting global food security. Supporting vulnerable farmers reduces future dependence on emergency aid.

Human rights initiatives? In many regions, People face state-sanctioned violence and persecution. Britain has long championed human rights globally—unless you think that’s too “woke” to bother with?

These aren’t indulgences—they are investments in global stability and security.

It’s also amusing that many of the same people who call foreign aid wasteful are the first to demand tougher border controls. The easiest way to reduce forced migration? Address the root causes—poverty, climate change, and political instability.

Pretending foreign aid is some utopian luxury while complaining about immigration isn’t just contradictory, it’s fundamentally self-defeating.

Your Populist Pivot: From Analyst to Agitator

Once upon a time, you were a respected academic analysing populism. Now, you sell it.

Early Goodwin was a political scientist, providing measured analysis of voter behaviour. Current Goodwin is a culture war pundit, recycling Fox News-tier talking points for clicks.

Your foreign aid argument fits neatly into this transformation. Instead of offering a serious discussion on aid effectiveness, you’re pushing the fantasy that cutting aid will magically solve Britain’s economic struggles.

Spoiler: It won’t.

This isn’t about policy—it’s about branding. You’ve positioned yourself as the anti-elite warrior, while sitting on GB News, railing against “elites” while benefiting from the same media ecosystem you claim to oppose.

At some point, the man who analysed populism became a participant in it.

The Real Debate: Reform, Not Retreat

If you actually care about Britain’s future, here’s what the real debate should be about.

We need stronger oversight and transparency—ensuring aid goes where it’s needed. We should be aligning aid with trade and security interests, maximising Britain’s return on investment. We should focus on long-term impact, developing sustainable global partnerships, not chasing short-term populist stunts.

Britain leads when it engages globally—not when it sulks in the corner, blaming the world for its problems.

Final Thoughts: The Populist Playbook in Action

Your article isn’t about fixing Britain—it’s about manufacturing outrage.

Cutting foreign aid won’t fix the NHS. It won’t reduce energy bills. It won’t solve Britain’s economic struggles.

What it will do is weaken Britain’s standing, shrink its global influence, and make the world a more dangerous place.

But, of course, none of that matters when you’re playing the “outsider” while enjoying the privileges of media influence.

If you really want to talk about government waste, let’s start with crony contracts handed to political donors. Let’s talk about tax breaks for billionaires. Let’s talk about economic policies that crush working-class communities.

But that wouldn’t serve the populist narrative quite as well, would it?

Sincerely,
W&B Who Prefer Reality Over Rhetoric

Enjoyed this? Subscribe and never miss a chance to see hypocrisy dismantled in real time. Because reality deserves better than clickbait outrage.