Public's priorities for aid post-cuts

Following the government’s decision to cut the UK’s foreign aid budget, More in Common has been conducting polling and focus group research to understand what voters want to prioritise from the remaining aid budget. 

Using nationally representative polling and focus groups in Wolverhampton, Bristol and Ilford, several key insights emerge. 

The key national interest test 

In conversations with voters in the last few months, it’s become clear that they want to see an approach to aid which more clearly benefits the UK than previous approaches. As the government decides what to cut and not cut as part of the broader reduction in aid spending, participant after participant told us of the importance of prioritising things that most clearly benefit Britain’s national interest. 

This is also reflected in the polling where support for aid which contributes to economic growth, strengthens national security and improves public health is one which better commands public support. 

In focus groups - including in the Health Secretary’s Wes Streeting Ilford North constituency - some voters shared concerns about the effects of aid cuts on both pandemic preparedness and public health in Britain, as well as lost opportunities for British companies and British trade.   

Priorities for the aid budget 

When asked about what should and should not be protected from cuts, programmes which focus on safety for women and girls, and health programmes are those which more than half the public would like to protect. 

Support for protecting child vaccination programmes spans the political spectrum. Even half of the most aid-sceptic voter group (Reform UK voters) think child vaccination programmes should be protected from cuts. 

This tallies with what we heard in a focus group of Labour-Reform switchers in Wolverhampton South East (the constituency of Pat McFadden MP, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster). Support for protecting vaccines programmes as the aid budget was cut came down to two main reasons for these voters: vaccination abroad keeps disease out of the UK and vaccinations are a tried and tested model and cutting funding now would undermine the progress made in disease eradication. This is what some of those voters in Wolverhampton told us. 

When asked specifically about cuts to the GAVI vaccination programme, three in five voters (61 per cent) and almost half of Reform UK voters (46 per cent) say that the programme shouldn’t be cut. 

Public back decision to increase the defence budget through aid cuts 

In general, the public backed the government’s decision to increase the defence budget through aid cuts by a margin of more than two to one.

When judged against other policy decisions by the government, the decision is about as popular as junior doctor pay rises, but significantly less popular than some of the government’s other decisions such as the negotiations about the war in Ukraine, the minimum wage increase and the sewage bill.  

The cut to aid was most popular among Reform and Conservative voters. However, Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green voters think alternative revenue raisers for the defence spending uplift such as a wealth tax or tax rises on large corporations would have been the best ways of funding the increase in defence spending. 

Research conducted ahead of the cuts also found that voter groups more supportive of aid (Labour and Green Party voters in particular) were more likely to place higher importance on the amount of aid the UK spends than those groups who were less supportive (such as Reform and Conservative voters). 

Methodology 

More in Common conducted three focus groups at the end of April 2025. The polling for this research has been conducted across various omnibus polls between February 2025 and May 2025. This research was commissioned by Future Advocacy and the Aid Impact campaign. More in Common retained full editorial control. Data Tables available are available here.