Why Britain Must Stop Throwing Away Its Biggest Source of Global Power

When we think about global power, the images that most often come to mind are tanks, aircraft carriers, or spreadsheets ranking the world’s largest economies. By these measures, Britain is modest. The United States, China and India boast far larger militaries. Germany, Japan and others outrank us in economic heft. Yet Britain continues to wield a voice on the global stage that is heard and respected far beyond what hard power metrics suggest.

That influence comes from soft power, the ability to persuade, attract and inspire rather than coerce. It is the BBC World Service trusted across continents, the British Council fostering educational and cultural exchange, Shakespeare performed in dozens of languages, Premier League football broadcast in 200 countries, and creative industries that continue to set trends worldwide.

Soft power is not a substitute for hard power, but a multiplier of it. In an age where legitimacy and trust increasingly define international relations, it may be our most valuable national asset. Which is why it is so alarming that Britain is squandering it.

A wasted inheritance

Earlier this year, the Foreign Policy Centre published its report Playing to our strengths: The future of the UK’s soft power in foreign policy. Its conclusion is stark: the UK has the foundations of a soft power superpower but risks complacency and decline. It recommends a dedicated Cabinet Office unit to coordinate soft power strategy, stronger partnerships between government and creative industries, and a properly resourced UK Soft Power Council which was launched in January 2025 to steer policy.

These are welcome ideas. But their urgency cannot be overstated. As other nations expand their soft power portfolios, the UK appears to be retreating. The BBC World Service has announced 130 job cuts. The British Council faces the possibility of withdrawing from up to 60 countries due to funding pressures. And foreign aid budgets are shrinking, often justified as a trade-off for higher defence spending.

This is short-term thinking at its most damaging. Every pound cut from the institutions that build Britain’s reputation abroad represents not only a loss of influence, but an economic own goal.

The economic logic of soft power

Soft power is not just about prestige. It is an investment in the British economy. When foreign audiences watch our films, listen to our music or consume our journalism, they become more inclined to visit as tourists, study in our universities, or invest in our industries.

South Korea understood this when it invested strategically in cultural exports, giving the world K-Pop and Korean drama. These have not only boosted South Korea’s global profile but driven tourism and wider economic growth. Turkey and Russia poured resources into state-backed channels such as TRT and Russia Today, shaping narratives far beyond their borders. Saudi Arabia is now implementing a coordinated soft power strategy to complement its Vision 2030 economic transformation.

Meanwhile, the UK is cutting resources for the very assets that other countries envy. Slashing 2 per cent of British Council funding or weakening the BBC World Service does not save money in the long run, it undercuts Britain’s ability to attract investment, build alliances and maintain trust.

Influence now spreads virally, algorithmically and often unpredictably. Britain needs to be shaping those currents, not drifting in them.

Trusted globally, undervalued at home

In my work advising governments from Ukraine to Japan and Spain to Canada on strategic communications, I have seen how Britain is regarded as a soft power model. Other nations point to our press, our broadcasters, our universities, our theatre and literature, as examples of influence built on trust and creativity. They value them more than we seem to.

It is striking that countries I work with often marvel at Britain’s global media reach and academic reputation while, at home, these institutions are too frequently denigrated by politicians or treated as easy targets for budget cuts. This contradiction is self-defeating. To undermine our soft power institutions is to undermine our international standing.

Supporting the BBC and the British Council, or maintaining a robust aid budget, should not be seen as ideological luxuries. They are patriotic acts. It is cheaper and more effective to build influence through attraction than to enforce it through arms. Every serious assessment of future power trends confirms this.

The new frontier: digital soft power

We must also recognise that the landscape of soft power is changing. Traditional pillars such as print newspapers and terrestrial broadcasters are in decline as social media and AI-driven platforms dominate attention. If the next TikTok or Instagram emerges from the UK, it will do more for our global influence than any number of think-tank reports.

Yet there is little sign of government policy to encourage this. Supporting digital innovation should be a central pillar of a twenty-first-century soft power strategy. That means investment in homegrown content platforms, in AI tools for storytelling, and in digital public diplomacy. Influence now spreads virally, algorithmically and often unpredictably. Britain needs to be shaping those currents, not drifting in them.

A call for strategy, not slogans

So what must be done?

First, as the as the Foreign Policy Centre says, it is vital that the government establishes a central soft power unit in the Cabinet Office, with clear responsibility for strategy and coordination.

Second, the UK Soft Power Council must be properly resourced and empowered to build partnerships across sectors. Soft power is not the preserve of diplomats alone. It involves universities, museums, media outlets, musicians, designers, athletes and entrepreneurs.

Third, cuts to the BBC World Service and the British Council should be reversed. They are not line items to trim, but force multipliers of British influence.

Fourth, digital soft power should be prioritised. Britain’s creative industries are globally admired; with the right support, they could also be globally dominant in the platforms and technologies that define tomorrow’s narratives.

And finally, we need to reframe soft power as a patriotic priority. Backing culture, media and aid is not about sentiment, it is about strategy. It is cheaper than tanks, more durable than aircraft carriers, and more persuasive than coercion.

Backing culture, media and aid is not about sentiment, it is about strategy. It is cheaper than tanks, more durable than aircraft carriers, and more persuasive than coercion.

Britain’s choice

Britain remains a soft power superpower, admired worldwide and imitated by others. But that status is fragile. Without investment, strategy and political will, we risk throwing away our greatest comparative advantage.

We must choose: continue with complacency and cuts, watching others overtake us, or embrace soft power as the cornerstone of Britain’s role in the world.

As someone who has built a career helping governments and organisations harness the strategic management of influence, I know which path I would urge us to take. Soft power and hard power equate to smart power.

Britain’s voice still carries. But only if we stop neglecting the very assets that make it heard.