No matter how useless our political class, this is why Britain still matters
Britain may be struggling with political disillusionment, economic pressures and growing public frustration, but writing off the country would be a serious mistake. Despite the failures of successive governments, the United Kingdom retains advantages that many nations would envy, from world-class universities and a powerful financial sector to a globally significant military, historic institutions and a landscape that remains among the most distinctive in the world.
That is the central argument made by Jonathan Saxty, a British expatriate living in Singapore who has also spent the past three-and-a-half years living in the United States and South Korea. His perspective is shaped by experience of countries that approach public services, infrastructure and economic development in very different ways.
Saxty is not blind to Britain’s shortcomings. Indeed, he acknowledges that there are numerous areas where the UK falls behind other developed nations, particularly when it comes to public safety, transport, administrative efficiency and the management of welfare services.
Yet his argument is that Britain’s present difficulties should not obscure the strengths that continue to make it important on the world stage.
For a country facing questions about its economic direction, its international influence and the competence of its political leadership, that distinction matters. A government can fail to use a country’s advantages effectively without those advantages disappearing altogether.
The challenge for Britain, therefore, is not simply to celebrate its past or insist that everything remains well. It is to recognise what still works, confront what does not and develop a credible plan to turn its remaining strengths into better living standards for the public.
Singapore shows what Britain could do better
Saxty begins by acknowledging the impressive performance of Singapore, a country that frequently attracts admiration for its efficient administration and carefully managed urban environment.
Compared with London, he argues, Singapore is dramatically safer, has a highly effective metro system, cleaner streets and a more streamlined bureaucracy. Its approach to border management and welfare provision also provides a point of comparison for British policymakers.
These are not insignificant differences. When people struggle with unreliable public transport, lengthy administrative processes or concerns about crime, comparisons with better-performing countries can sharpen frustration with domestic institutions.
Singapore’s reputation for efficiency also demonstrates how political choices, administrative discipline and long-term planning can influence everyday life.
However, comparisons between the two countries must account for their different circumstances. Singapore is a compact city-state, while Britain has a much larger population, a more extensive transport network and substantial differences between its regions. Policies that work in one setting cannot necessarily be transferred directly to another.
Stroud, Gloucs… nothing can match UK’s stunning countryside and villages, writes Jonathan Saxty (Image: Shutterstock / chrisatpps)
Saxty’s wider point is not that Britain should simply copy Singapore. It is that the UK should be willing to learn from countries that have delivered better outcomes in areas where Britain continues to struggle.
His experience abroad has also highlighted a limitation of living in a small, densely populated country: even an efficient government cannot control everything that happens beyond its borders.
He points to Singapore’s exposure to severe air pollution associated with land-clearing fires in neighbouring Indonesia. The problem illustrates how environmental conditions and activities in another country can directly affect a nation’s residents, despite its own domestic policies.
For Saxty, this provides a reminder that efficiency alone cannot overcome every geographical or geopolitical constraint.
Britain, by contrast, has more territory, varied landscapes and a different range of natural and strategic advantages. Its challenge is to use those advantages intelligently rather than allowing political and administrative failures to undermine them.
Britain’s countryside remains a national asset
One of Saxty’s strongest arguments concerns something that is often overlooked in debates dominated by economic growth, immigration and public spending: the character of Britain itself.
He argues that the country offers a distinctive combination of beautiful countryside, historic villages, established communities and a major global city in London.
From places such as Stroud in Gloucestershire to villages shaped by centuries of British history, the country possesses a physical and cultural identity that cannot easily be replicated elsewhere.
The value of that landscape extends beyond tourism. It contributes to local identity, quality of life and the sense of continuity that many people associate with Britain.
Historic towns, rural communities, coastlines and countryside create a varied national experience within a relatively compact geographical area. London, meanwhile, offers a concentration of finance, culture, international business and employment opportunities that few cities can match.
Saxty argues that this combination is particularly distinctive. Other English-speaking countries have extraordinary natural attractions, but Britain’s historical depth, urban influence and rural character coexist within a much smaller area.
He also highlights the British tradition of dry, self-deprecating humour and informal banter, suggesting that these characteristics become more noticeable when experienced from abroad.
It is a subjective observation, but one that captures an important dimension of national identity. Cultural habits are often difficult to appreciate fully until people spend time away from the environment in which they developed.
This does not mean that Britain should romanticise its past or ignore the pressures facing rural communities. Housing affordability, access to healthcare, transport connections and declining local services can all undermine the quality of life in smaller towns and villages.
Preserving the country’s appeal requires more than celebrating its landscapes. It also requires investment in communities, responsible planning and policies that allow people to live and work in the places they value.
The countryside is an asset, but it is not immune to political neglect.
Universities give Britain a stake in the next technological revolution
Beyond its cultural attractions, Britain retains significant advantages in education, research and technological development.
Saxty argues that the UK’s leading universities belong in the same broad league as the best American institutions and are capable of competing in industries likely to shape the global economy over the coming decades.
That matters because future prosperity will depend heavily on innovation in areas such as artificial intelligence, biotechnology, advanced computing, clean energy and other high-growth technologies.
British universities contribute to this ecosystem through research, specialist training, international partnerships and the development of highly skilled graduates.
The country also benefits from established research institutions, a strong scientific tradition and access to international talent. These strengths can help Britain attract investment and develop new industries rather than relying exclusively on mature sectors.
But world-class universities are not enough on their own.
A major challenge for the UK is ensuring that research excellence translates into successful companies, well-paid jobs and products that can compete internationally. Innovative businesses need access to capital, skilled workers, reliable infrastructure and a regulatory environment that supports responsible growth.
There is also a need to retain talented graduates and researchers who might otherwise move abroad for better-funded opportunities.
The United States demonstrates the scale of what can happen when leading universities operate alongside deep capital markets, major technology companies and a culture of commercialisation. Britain cannot reproduce that entire system overnight, but it can improve the connections between research, business and investment.
The opportunity remains substantial. The question is whether political leaders can create the conditions in which British innovation becomes a lasting source of national prosperity.
A defence industry Britain cannot afford to neglect
Saxty also identifies defence as one of Britain’s enduring strategic strengths.
The UK has a significant defence industrial base, including expertise in complex engineering, military equipment, naval systems and other technologies essential to national security.
In an increasingly uncertain international environment, such capabilities can become more valuable. Defence production supports skilled employment, contributes to technological development and gives governments a degree of control over equipment and systems on which their armed forces depend.
Britain’s defence relationships also provide international influence. Cooperation with allies, participation in security partnerships and the ability to contribute military capabilities can strengthen its diplomatic position.
However, maintaining those advantages requires sustained investment, a clear procurement strategy and an industrial base capable of delivering equipment on time and within budget.
A country cannot assume that a historically strong defence sector will remain competitive without long-term planning. Skills shortages, fragmented procurement decisions and delays can weaken the capacity to produce equipment when it is needed.
The wider issue is whether Britain can match its international responsibilities with the resources required to fulfil them.
Saxty argues that the country may be increasingly grateful for its defence capabilities in the years ahead. While the precise course of future international events cannot be predicted, the underlying point is clear: strategic capabilities are difficult to rebuild quickly after they have been allowed to deteriorate.
That makes defence another area where Britain’s remaining strengths need to be actively maintained rather than treated as guaranteed.
Britain still has considerable global influence
The UK’s international position remains unusual for a country of its size.
It is one of the world’s largest economies, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and a recognised nuclear-armed state. London remains one of the world’s leading financial centres, while Britain maintains a navy capable of operating far beyond its immediate waters.
These attributes give the UK influence in diplomacy, international finance, security cooperation and global decision-making.
London’s role is particularly important. Its financial services sector supports employment, international investment and professional services while connecting British businesses to global markets.
The city also attracts international firms, entrepreneurs, students and cultural institutions. Its continued success provides economic benefits that extend beyond the capital, although those benefits are not distributed evenly across the country.
Britain’s diplomatic position similarly gives it a voice in discussions on security, trade, sanctions and international crises.
Yet formal status does not automatically translate into effective influence. A permanent seat on the Security Council cannot compensate for weak domestic policy, and a nuclear deterrent does not eliminate the need for conventional military readiness.
Likewise, being a major financial centre does not guarantee that every region will enjoy strong economic growth.
The challenge is to convert Britain’s international standing into practical benefits for its population. That means using diplomatic relationships to support trade, investing in defence capabilities, maintaining competitive financial services and ensuring that the country’s institutions remain credible.
Saxty’s argument is that Britain still possesses the tools to matter. The danger is that poor political choices could gradually diminish their value.
Migration, crime and debt are serious but not uniquely British
The article also addresses three of the most contentious issues in British politics: migration, crime and public debt.
Saxty argues that these problems are not unique to the UK and suggests that France and the United States face significant challenges in these areas too.
The comparison is a useful reminder that Britain should not interpret every domestic difficulty as evidence that the country is uniquely dysfunctional. Many developed economies are dealing with pressures on public services, debates over immigration, concerns about crime and difficult fiscal choices.
However, comparisons must be made carefully. The severity of each problem depends on the measure used, the period examined and the differences between national systems. It would be too simplistic to declare one country worse than another across all three issues without specifying the evidence.
The practical question is what Britain can do to improve its own performance.
On migration, that involves maintaining an orderly and credible system, enforcing immigration rules fairly and ensuring that public services and housing provision can respond to population changes.
On crime, it requires effective policing, a functioning court system, appropriate sentencing and measures to prevent repeat offending.
On public debt, governments face the difficult task of balancing spending commitments with the need to maintain public services, invest for the future and avoid placing unsustainable burdens on taxpayers.
None of these problems has a simple solution. Yet their difficulty should not become an excuse for political paralysis.
Saxty’s central criticism is directed at politicians who, in his view, have failed to use the powers available to them to address longstanding problems.
That criticism resonates with a broader public frustration: voters may accept that governments face constraints, but they expect leaders to set priorities, explain trade-offs and demonstrate measurable progress.
Brexit and CANZUK remain unrealised opportunities
Saxty also argues that Britain has not fully explored the potential benefits of Brexit or the idea of closer cooperation among Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, often described as CANZUK.
Supporters of Brexit maintain that leaving the European Union gave Britain greater freedom to set its own policies on trade, regulation, migration and international cooperation. They argue that this flexibility could be used to develop arrangements better suited to the UK’s economic interests.
Critics counter that leaving the EU also created new barriers for some businesses, complicated trade and reduced certain forms of economic integration. They argue that the benefits promised by Brexit have not consistently outweighed the costs.
The outcome depends in part on the policies adopted after departure. Regulatory freedom has little economic value if it is not used effectively, while new international agreements take time to negotiate and may offer benefits that are smaller or slower to materialise than supporters anticipate.
CANZUK presents a separate set of opportunities and challenges. The four countries share historical connections, use English as a major language and have existing diplomatic and economic relationships.
Closer cooperation could potentially support trade, research, defence collaboration and mobility. But they have different economic priorities, domestic policies and geographical circumstances. A formal union or sweeping freedom-of-movement arrangement would require substantial political agreement and detailed negotiation.
Neither Brexit nor CANZUK should be treated as an automatic route to prosperity. Both depend on choices made by governments and businesses.
For Saxty, however, they represent examples of opportunities that Britain could pursue more effectively if its political class adopted a clearer sense of direction.
Saxty turns his criticism on the Conservatives
Despite his criticism of the current political establishment, Saxty also warns against allowing frustration with Labour to rehabilitate the Conservatives.
He argues that the Conservatives failed the country during their 14 years in government and should not be rewarded simply because voters have become disillusioned with their successors.
This is a significant part of his argument. His position is not that Britain can be restored to strength merely by replacing one party with another. It is that political leadership must be judged by performance rather than promises or party loyalty.
Governments have to be assessed on the outcomes they deliver: economic growth, public service standards, housing availability, infrastructure, national security and the management of public finances.
If a party has held power for a prolonged period and failed to resolve major structural problems, voters have reason to demand an explanation before trusting it with another mandate.
The same standard should apply to any governing party. Political opponents may highlight the mistakes of their rivals, but criticism is not a substitute for a credible programme of reform.
Saxty’s broader frustration is with what he sees as a political class that has allowed manageable problems to become entrenched.
That is an argument about accountability as much as ideology. Britain has considerable resources, but their value depends on whether governments can establish priorities and deliver results.
Why Britain still matters — and why giving up would be a mistake
Saxty’s final message is a rejection of national defeatism.
He has not abandoned his British citizenship and says he has applied for a British passport for his newborn child. Despite his criticism of the country, he believes Britain retains a genuine chance to turn its fortunes around.
That personal decision gives his argument a more practical dimension. His confidence is not based on a claim that Britain is already performing well in every area. It rests on the belief that the country still possesses enough institutional, economic, cultural and strategic strengths to recover.
There are real obstacles. The UK must address weak productivity, pressure on public services, housing shortages, infrastructure constraints and concerns over public finances. It must also navigate a changing international environment in which economic competition and security risks are becoming more complex.
But none of these challenges proves that decline is inevitable.
Britain can improve its planning system, build more homes, strengthen transport links, support innovation, improve public administration and pursue a more disciplined approach to public spending. Each requires difficult choices, investment and political consistency.
The country’s natural beauty and cultural identity cannot replace economic reform, just as its universities and financial sector cannot excuse failures in public services. Its international influence must be supported by credible domestic institutions and a willingness to invest in the capabilities that sustain it.
The strongest version of Saxty’s argument is therefore not that Britain should be satisfied with what it has. It is that the country should recognise its remaining advantages and use them more effectively.
Political leaders will inevitably come and go. Their decisions can damage institutions, waste resources and weaken public confidence, but they do not erase the country’s underlying potential overnight.
Britain still has globally respected universities, a major financial centre, a substantial defence industry, diplomatic influence, cultural depth and a landscape that remains a source of national pride.
Those strengths are not a guarantee of success. They are an opportunity that must be earned.
For a country facing widespread frustration with its political class, that is the essential message: Britain may be struggling, but it is not powerless. Its problems demand serious solutions, not denial or nostalgia.
The task now is to turn the country’s remaining advantages into tangible improvements in everyday life. If political leaders can do that, Britain has a credible path forward. If they cannot, the greatest danger may not be that the country lacks the resources to succeed, but that it continues to waste them.