A physically diminished Britain shouldn’t simply heed Blair’s words in clinging onto its remaining scale. It must instead rediscover a sense of national self-interest and utility in what remains. If Britain isn’t going to be big, it better figure out how to use it.
The ‘lanyard class’ is pernicious. Not because we reject expertise, but because we resent the idea of a priesthood, whose authority rests on recognition by other members of the priesthood. And the outsourcing of responsibility this cabal enables.
Historical ignorance obscures political choices. It lulls a nation into complacency as it imagines its existence a matter of inevitability, rather than a product of past actions. And it’s something Britain risks in failing to engage with its deep past.
If we call out narcissism in pantomime “strongmen” villains, we must recognise the same in “empathetic” leaders. Both mould the office to their own personalities. The leader becomes the arbiter of truth. Lee’s “iron” provides the obstinacy that separates the two.
Nations are ultimately constructs that require foundations. However distasteful some may find it, it’s what England’s fans look to in their own unique re-telling of Britain’s standing alone narrative. Christianity is another historical bedrock.
That light-touch dispersed approach was how Britain otherwise governed its empire. America was the aberration. And rehashing centralised principles today breeds the same futility. Instead, Britain must take Washington’s realist view and make the best of things as they are. Pragmatism over purity.
Most bizarrely, Brits believe the NHS generates a 34 per cent profit but It is, of course, not profitable in any way. And its sacred nature generates a consensus that anything else would be a moral transgression. That attitude pervades throughout public services.
Britain cannot survive on so-called muscular values if external factors are constantly in flux. Like Singapore, Britain needs a vision of what it looks like to decide what it stands for.
Britain’s current malaise makes Singapore’s problem – the career opportunities are too good to launch a start-up – look like a nice one to have. But there is a deeper link here between political and entrepreneurial cultures.
Britain must make policy based on fairness, within a framework of trade-offs, rather than on abstract moral claims to justice. An easy diagnosis. A harder cure.
Pro-natalists only echo the mistaken belief that the government could and should control fertility rates. His analysis was as wrong as his prescription. Boosting fertility is a bottom-up endeavour. A thriving nation relies upon vigorous communities.
Britain needs a more muscular vision of identity rooted in commitment. Pride cannot reside only in the vestiges of cultural triumphs abroad. It must inspire loyalty at home too.
The Conservatives need to define what they stand for as they go up against Reform as the party of the right. They can be guardians of paternalism or engineers of growth. But it is dishonest to pretend both are possible.
Britain’s housing crisis is not unique amongst developed nations. But alongside an acute supply shortage, it faces weakening demand. If the most talented young people don’t believe there’s a realistic route to buying, they will leave.
Americans feel some control over their financial future. Brits don’t. This breeds a zero-sum approach to money that manifests in pernicious ways.