In the year ending December 2025, an estimated 246,000 British nationals left the UK.
That is not, by itself, a verdict on Britain. People leave countries for many reasons: work, family, adventure, retirement, relationships, climate, opportunity.
But when large numbers of citizens choose to build their lives elsewhere, it is worth asking what they are leaving — and what they believe they can find elsewhere.
The pressures are familiar.
For many people, wages have struggled to keep pace with the cost of living. Housing has become increasingly difficult to afford. Rents absorb a large share of income. Buying a home is beyond the reach of many younger people. Public services, including the NHS, face intense pressure. Infrastructure and local services can feel increasingly strained.
And for some, the calculation is brutally simple:
Is there a better life somewhere else?
For a growing number of British citizens, the answer appears to be yes.
These are economic and social facts.
They are also political facts.
Because housing costs, taxation, infrastructure, public services, transport, land use, economic development and the organisation of work are not acts of nature.
They are shaped by decisions.
And that raises a more fundamental question:
Who gets to make those decisions?
Exit when voice feels ineffective
There are two broad ways people can respond when the conditions around them no longer work.
They can try to change them.
Or they can leave.
The political scientist Albert O. Hirschman famously described these possibilities as “exit” and “voice.”
Exit means withdrawing from the system.
Voice means attempting to change it from within.
In a democracy, we like to imagine that citizens possess enormous political power.
But what happens when people do not feel that power?
Gordon Brown’s recent Carnegie UK Lecture highlighted some striking figures about civic disconnection in Britain: according to research cited in the lecture, 45% of people are not part of any civic organisation, only 17% do any form of volunteering, around 1 in 50 belong to a political party, and only 15% believe they have a say locally and 7% nationally.
These measures describe different things. They should not be treated as interchangeable.
But taken together, they point towards an important question:
How much influence do people actually feel they have over the societies in which they live?
When people believe they have little meaningful influence over the conditions of their lives, leaving can become one of the few forms of agency still immediately available.
You cannot easily change the housing market.
You cannot personally redesign the tax system.
You cannot rebuild your local transport network.
You cannot reorganise the NHS.
But you can move.
And increasingly, some people are.
The problem is not simply that Britain is expensive
It is tempting to respond to emigration by asking how Britain can become cheaper.
How do we reduce rents?
How do we increase wages?
How do we improve public services?
How do we build more homes?
These are important questions.
But they remain questions about outcomes.
There is another question underneath them:
Who decides what Britain is for?
Representative democracy gives citizens an important form of power: we elect people to make decisions on our behalf.
That system can work.
But it also creates distance.
Citizens choose representatives, and representatives make most of the major decisions between elections. Policy is developed through political parties, governments, civil services, institutions, markets and other powerful organisations.
The ordinary citizen often encounters the consequences at the end of that chain.
They pay the rent.
They pay the tax.
They wait for the train.
They wait for the doctor.
They try to buy the house.
They try to find meaningful work.
And then they are asked to vote again.
The problem is not that representative democracy has no value.
The problem is that voting every few years is not the same thing as having meaningful power over the conditions of everyday life.
What changes when citizens have real decision-making power?
This is where direct democracy offers a fundamentally different possibility.
Direct democracy does not mean that every citizen suddenly becomes an expert in everything.
Nor does it mean that citizens will always make wise decisions.
It means creating structured mechanisms through which people can learn, deliberate, propose, decide, monitor and revise the decisions that govern their lives.
The difference is profound.
Instead of asking only:
Which politicians should govern us?
we can also ask:
What should we govern together?
If a community believes housing is unaffordable, it can have a meaningful role in deciding how land, planning, housing and community assets should be governed.
If people believe local infrastructure is failing, they can have a meaningful role in deciding priorities and budgets.
If citizens believe taxation is distributing resources unfairly, they can participate in deliberating and deciding alternative approaches.
If a community wants more care, food production, education, transport or green space, it can decide that these are priorities and allocate resources accordingly.
None of this guarantees a particular result.
That is not the promise of direct democracy.
The promise is something more fundamental:
people gain greater power over the decisions that shape the conditions of their lives.
And when people have that power, the choices they make can be different.
From consumers of the economy to co-creators of our communities
Much of modern life trains us to behave as consumers.
We choose between houses.
We choose between employers.
We choose between schools.
We choose between healthcare providers.
We choose where to shop.
We choose where to live.
And when the available choices become unacceptable, we move somewhere else.
But there is another possibility.
What if citizens were not merely consumers of places and services, but participants in creating them?
What if communities could decide that land should serve long-term social needs as well as short-term financial returns?
What if housing policy were shaped around the needs of the people who actually live there?
What if local economies were designed not only around what markets happen to reward, but around what communities actually need — care, food, education, repair, housing, culture and connection?
What if people could participate in deciding how their local resources were used, rather than simply accepting the consequences of decisions made elsewhere?
That does not require nostalgia for some imaginary past.
It requires something much more practical:
giving people meaningful mechanisms to shape the future they will have to live in.
Perhaps the real question is not why people leave
We should be careful not to romanticise staying.
Leaving can be liberating.
Moving abroad can open doors, create opportunity and allow people to build lives that would not otherwise have been possible.
A healthy society should not imprison its citizens by making departure impossible or undesirable.
The question is different.
Why do so many people feel that their best option is to leave rather than to change the place they already call home?
And what would Britain look like if citizens had much more power to answer that question for themselves?
Perhaps some would still leave.
Perhaps many would not.
Perhaps the places they left would become more attractive.
Perhaps local communities would become stronger because people could see a connection between participation and the conditions of their own lives.
And perhaps the greatest change would be psychological.
People would no longer experience society simply as something that happens to them.
They would experience it as something they have a meaningful role in creating.
A country worth staying for
The 246,000 British nationals who left the UK in the year ending December 2025 are not 246,000 political protesters.
We cannot know why each individual left.
But their movement raises a political question that deserves much more attention:
What happens when people no longer feel they have enough stake in the society they live in — or enough voice to change it?
A country does not become stronger simply by persuading people to stay.
It becomes stronger when people believe they have a meaningful stake in its future.
And a meaningful stake is about more than income.
It is about belonging.
It is about opportunity.
It is about community.
It is about being able to influence the conditions under which you live.
It is about knowing that when something is not working, you are not merely waiting for someone else to fix it.
You have a voice.
And your voice can lead to a decision.
That is the deeper promise of democracy.
Not simply the right to choose who governs.
The right to participate in governing the conditions of our lives.
Perhaps the question is therefore not:
How do we stop people leaving Britain?
It is:
How do we build a Britain in which people have enough voice, enough stake and enough power to want to stay — while remaining free to leave if they choose?
Until we ask that question seriously, more people may continue to answer with a plane ticket.
Exit is a form of agency. Direct democracy is an attempt to make voice one too.
Add comment
Comments