+

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 39.1k UK voters.

76%
Yes
24%
No
63%
Yes
19%
No
10%
Yes, but only relative to the amount that other countries contribute
3%
No, fund national and local programs instead
3%
Yes, but decrease the amount
1%
No, it has shown to be ineffective
1%
Yes, and increase the amount

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 39.1k UK voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 39.1k UK voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from UK voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @9T6KPQTanswered…4mos4MO

The UK's funding of the WHO seems driven by international relations and security, reflecting the country's commitment to global cooperation and enhancing its standing on the world stage. While the WHO does provide benefits, such as coordinating responses to global health crises, it is far from perfect and often subject to political influences. Given the UK's own health challenges, it can feel like the funding serves the organization and global optics more than direct benefits to UK citizens. This focus on the spectacle of international involvement can appear misaligned with pressing domestic health needs.

 @9KH5D8Kanswered…10mos10MO

Establish a UK World Health Organisation programme that provides helps and medical care for nations in need.

 @9P6LYBDanswered…6mos6MO

Yes, $5 billion is a tiny amount for that kind of responsibility, but like the NHS probably needs a good overhaul to reduce waste

 @9MPPV7Vanswered…7mos7MO

Stuck on this one, as on the one hand they provide a lot of net benefits for the world, but on the other hand I can't forget how they downplayed COVID around January 2020, they could've prevented a lot of deaths yet

 @9F58ZK4answered…1yr1Y

They should contribute to the funding. Not solely fund it, which this question implies.

 @9D6RN5Qanswered…1yr1Y