Britain at a Turning Point: Can Radical Reform Really Put British Citizens First?

For more than a decade, British politics has been dominated by the same uneasy rhythm: taxes rise, services decline, and working families are told—yet again—that “tough decisions must be made”. Successive governments, Conservative and Labour alike, have repeated this mantra so often that it has lost all meaning. What has not changed, however, is the feeling held by millions of voters that the sacrifices demanded of them are never demanded of anyone else.

Into this frustration steps Reform UK, offering a package of proposals that claims to reverse the equation entirely. Their pitch is simple but explosive: if the government truly prioritised British citizens first, it could generate or save £25 billion in a single year—enough to plug the fiscal hole without imposing further tax hikes on a population already squeezed to breaking point.

Whether one agrees with their diagnosis or not, the party has undeniably tapped into a sense of national exhaustion. As mortgages rise, energy bills remain high, and public services creak under strain, many feel Britain has become a country that constantly asks more from its own people—while writing increasingly large cheques to foreign nationals and international programmes.

Reform’s argument is that this model is not only unsustainable, but morally inverted. The state, they contend, should serve its own citizens first. Everything else comes second.

What follows is a breakdown of the five proposals Reform says could reset that balance—and the p0litical earthquake they are already beginning to trigger.

1. Ending Universal Credit for Foreign Nationals

The centrepiece of Reform’s economic case is the claim that Britain spends billions each year providing Universal Credit to individuals who are not British citizens. According to their calculations, this figure sits at around £8 billion annually—an astonishing sum considering that many British households struggling with food, rent, and heating receive nothing close to that level of support themselves.

Reform argues that even with a fair transition period of three months, the UK could save £6 billion this year alone by ending UC for foreign nationals, including those with EU settled status. Their justification is rooted in a long-standing grievance: that the UK’s welfare relationship with many European states has been comically one-sided.

They point to data from 2015 showing that four times as many EU citizens claimed benefits in Britain as Britons did in all EU countries combined. Since then, they argue, the imbalance has grown dramatically.

Reform’s solution is what they call a “British-first welfare system”: benefits reserved for citizens, with international arrangements renegotiated under a future Farage premiership.

2. Raising the Immigration Health Surcharge

The second major revenue generator is the proposal to dramatically raise the Immigration Health Surcharge (IHS). The NHS budget has nearly doubled in real terms since 2010—from £110 billion to £205 billion—while the population increase has come overwhelmingly from immigration. Yet bed capacity, astonishingly, has fallen.

Reform argues this proves the system is overwhelmed and that the IHS, designed to compensate for health care usage by visa holders, was set irresponsibly low by successive Conservative governments.

At £1,035 per year, the current charge covers only 38% of the real cost of NHS services per person. Reform’s plan would raise it to the government’s own calculated figure of £2,718 while closing loopholes that exempt thousands of migrants from paying at all.

With Labour forecasting continued high migration, Reform says this policy alone would generate £5 billion in the current fiscal year.

3. Refocusing PIP on Severe Disabilities

Few areas of public spending have grown faster than Personal Independence Payment. Reform argues that PIP has drifted from its original purpose and now extends to conditions they describe as “mild, temporary, or non-debilitating”—such as light anxiety, temporary discomfort, or treatable mobility issues.

Their plan is to restrict PIP to individuals with severe, life-impacting disabilities, while redirecting others to tailored back-to-work programmes. Critics call this harsh; supporters say it is necessary to protect long-term sustainability.

Reform predicts £3.5 billion in savings this year and up to £37 billion over five years, with nearly £9 billion annually by 2030.

4. Capping Foreign Aid at £1 Billion

Foreign aid has long stirred strong emotions in British politics. Reform places it at the heart of their argument that British priorities have been inverted. They cite examples ranging from a £52 million “road to nowhere” in Guyana to tens of millions sent to Pakistan for programmes tackling child exploitation and family planning—at a time, they argue, when British children cannot find NHS dentists and pensioners wait weeks for GP appointments.

Reform’s position is blunt: charity begins at home. Their proposal caps foreign aid at £1 billion—enough, they say, to meet UN obligations, support Ukraine, fund emergency relief, and pursue British interests abroad. Everything else is labelled a luxury the UK can no longer afford.

This measure alone produces £10 billion in savings.

5. Deporting Foreign National Offenders

With Britain’s prisons overcrowded and both major parties considering early release schemes, Reform proposes an alternative: deportation. Roughly 12% of inmates—around 10,800 individuals—are foreign nationals, costing the state £643 million a year.

Under Reform’s plan, foreign offenders would be prioritised for deportation, or transferred to serve sentences in their home countries through bilateral agreements. Even after logistical and legal costs, they estimate net savings of £580 million a year.

The proposal is p0litical ly explosive but taps into a long-standing public frustration about criminals remaining in the UK at public expense.

A New p0litical Divide?

In total, Reform argues that these five policies would save or raise £25 billion this year—enough to stabilise the Treasury without raising taxes, cutting frontline services, or placing further burdens on British households.

The deeper message is not purely economic. It is ideological: a call to restore the principle that the state’s first duty is to its own citizens. For Reform and its supporters, the current system represents not generosity but neglect—of the people who fund the country through their work, taxes, and contributions.

Labour argues these proposals are unworkable, unfair, or legally dubious. Reform insists they are the only alternative to a future of permanent tax increases and declining public services.

The Question Ahead

Whether Rachel Reeves embraces any of these proposals remains unlikely. Labour is cautious, internationalist, and wary of reforms that could trigger legal battles or diplomatic tensions. But p0litical pressure is growing, and voters are increasingly intolerant of the idea that only they must endure sacrifice.

Reform believes the solution is right in front of her. Their supporters are equally convinced.

For now, the only certainty is that Britain stands at a crossroads—one defined by economic urgency, p0litical disillusionment, and a growing demand for a government that puts the British people first.