This is an extract from an essay published on Matt Goodwin’s Substack on 17th August.
In Britain today, more than 1.3 million foreign nationals claim Universal Credit welfare payments, paid for by the British people.
Despite a severe housing crisis, more than one in 10 new social housing lets in England last year went to people who are not British citizens.
And in the last five years, while the number of young British people who were added to UK payrolls increased by only 11,000, the number of young foreign nationals from outside Europe who were added rocketed by nearly 300,000.
What do these facts have in common? They are all symptoms of something I’ve warned about for a while now: the looming collapse of Britain’s social contract.
Nation-states only survive so long as their citizens remain willing to support a social contract, which is based on the idea of reciprocity.
You work hard. You pay your taxes. You obey the law. You contribute to the country. In return, the state prioritises national citizens, looks after them, and protects them.
Britain’s social contract stopped being organised around national solidarity. What was once a national welfare state morphed into an international welfare state.
Under a Reform government, only British citizens will be entitled to receive the vast majority of welfare benefits. Universal credit, housing benefit, most other non-contributory benefits, and taxpayer-funded free childcare will be restricted to British citizens. In other words, the principle of prioritising national citizens, which underpins the entire social contract, will be re-established.
Foreign nationals will retain access to the National Health Service, but only if they pay a higher health surcharge so that British people are not left out of pocket. No child will lose their right to free school meals. And a child of foreign national parents who has become a British citizen will still be able to access child benefit. But the era of providing mass welfare for foreign nationals, including EU nationals, will end.
This policy, I think, is fair. It is reasonable. It is the only way of ensuring that Britain’s social contract remains in place. And it will also save considerable amounts of money that can instead be ploughed into frontline public services for the British people.
By the end of this decade, it’s estimated that a policy like this could save the British people £21 billion every year - equivalent to roughly 1,000 new primary schools, 400 new secondary schools, 15 new hospitals, or more than a dozen new prisons, not to mention going a considerable way towards filling holes in our national defence.
While the precise savings will inevitably be contested, the underlying principle should not be. How is it right, how is it fair, that somebody who only recently arrived in Britain has a similar claim on the welfare state as somebody from Britain who along with their ancestors has spent decades paying into it? It’s not fair. It is absurd.
Subscribe to Matt Goodwin’s Substack here.
In Britain today, more than 1.3 million foreign nationals claim Universal Credit welfare payments, paid for by the British people.
Despite a severe housing crisis, more than one in 10 new social housing lets in England last year went to people who are not British citizens.
And in the last five years, while the number of young British people who were added to UK payrolls increased by only 11,000, the number of young foreign nationals from outside Europe who were added rocketed by nearly 300,000.
What do these facts have in common? They are all symptoms of something I’ve warned about for a while now: the looming collapse of Britain’s social contract.
Nation-states only survive so long as their citizens remain willing to support a social contract, which is based on the idea of reciprocity.
You work hard. You pay your taxes. You obey the law. You contribute to the country. In return, the state prioritises national citizens, looks after them, and protects them.
Britain’s social contract stopped being organised around national solidarity. What was once a national welfare state morphed into an international welfare state.
Under a Reform government, only British citizens will be entitled to receive the vast majority of welfare benefits. Universal credit, housing benefit, most other non-contributory benefits, and taxpayer-funded free childcare will be restricted to British citizens. In other words, the principle of prioritising national citizens, which underpins the entire social contract, will be re-established.
Foreign nationals will retain access to the National Health Service, but only if they pay a higher health surcharge so that British people are not left out of pocket. No child will lose their right to free school meals. And a child of foreign national parents who has become a British citizen will still be able to access child benefit. But the era of providing mass welfare for foreign nationals, including EU nationals, will end.
This policy, I think, is fair. It is reasonable. It is the only way of ensuring that Britain’s social contract remains in place. And it will also save considerable amounts of money that can instead be ploughed into frontline public services for the British people.
By the end of this decade, it’s estimated that a policy like this could save the British people £21 billion every year - equivalent to roughly 1,000 new primary schools, 400 new secondary schools, 15 new hospitals, or more than a dozen new prisons, not to mention going a considerable way towards filling holes in our national defence.
While the precise savings will inevitably be contested, the underlying principle should not be. How is it right, how is it fair, that somebody who only recently arrived in Britain has a similar claim on the welfare state as somebody from Britain who along with their ancestors has spent decades paying into it? It’s not fair. It is absurd.
Subscribe to Matt Goodwin’s Substack here.
