It is traditional at this point for commentators to offer advice on priorities for the new prime minister. That doesn’t seem necessary this time. The immediate issues facing the country are well known: restoring growth through tax reduction and regulatory reform, energy security and costs, the backlog of the NHS, protecting the Union through the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill and keeping of a strong policy for Ukraine. avoid catastrophic escalation. That would be a formidable agenda for any government. For one with just two years left in his term, a divided party and 10 points behind in the polls, it will be extremely scary. But the task must be undertaken in the same way. As I wrote last month in “Holy Illusions,” my essay for the Policy Exchange think tank, “it makes no sense to invest effort in policies that are politically possible but can’t actually solve our problems.” For Ms. Truss, taking the party and potential voters with her in these extraordinary circumstances will require extraordinary political skills. We don’t yet know for sure that he possesses them: indeed, as we have discovered, it is hard to know who is really ready for the job of prime minister until they actually do it. We’ll know things are starting to go wrong if he avoids tough decisions under pressure to come up with purely crowd-pleasing answers to our problems – say energy price caps or another round of huge taxpayer handouts. I don’t think it’s likely, which means he’ll need to build, if not consensus, at least political momentum and broad support behind policies that will be unwelcome to many. There, I have some advice to give. It’s about being honest about the situation, explaining the options, and seeking to be persuasive about the decisions being made. This is counter-cultural to British governance. Normally, policies and legislation are settled internally in Whitehall. Outsiders don’t have much real say, although controversial policies may be floated in the media, arguably, to test reactions. Key choices are made early, confirmation bias kicks in, and doubts are suppressed. By the time of public announcement, those involved will honestly believe they have the best possible solution to the problem, the perfect balance of all trade-offs, and the only logical way to proceed. That is why, so often, policies are simply driven. Ministers say there is no better way, the policy satisfies all possible targets and deny there are compromises. This heroic style of government sometimes works, but more often its results are simply undermined by real life. We saw this most obviously in Covid, where rational discussion of trade-offs rarely happened and only a clear disconnect between politics and reality finally forced a change. We see it in HS2. And we see it in the Internet Safety Bill, a deeply flawed proposal that must be humanely shot down. All of these are best avoided. Politics is persuasion. In the very difficult decisions to come, it may be better to explain the issues, be honest about the dilemmas and inspire confidence in the government about how it has reached its conclusions. For example, in energy, the underlying problem is not Vladimir Putin (although he made it worse) but bad policy that gives us a grid that cannot reliably provide enough energy when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun shines, leaving us exposed to very high spot prices for natural gas and courtesy of (semi)friends for electricity through the interconnections. The main trade-off is that if we want more renewables, we will have a more unreliable and expensive grid, and possibly rationing. If we want security of supply, we need more and more modern gas-fired power plants and possibly some miners, but that will affect the path to net zero. It doesn’t mean we can have both – that net zero remains the goal, but there will be no rationing. Similarly, in the NHS, the fundamental problem is the lack of capacity and the inability of our semi-Soviet system to effectively use what is there. Either we expand that capacity through incentives and encouragement to use private health care, or we hold up the queues. There is a compromise. When it comes to housing, it’s even simpler. Either we build more houses where people want them, in the south of England, or prices go up and younger people will never get on the ladder. The best way to deal with these dilemmas is not to pretend they don’t exist or that there is some magical solution, but to mention them and explain why the government has chosen as it has. Be open with people. Explain that we can’t have it all. If even the Conservative Party seems to suggest that magic solutions work, the danger is that the electorate will turn to the original purveyor of illusions, the Labor Party. Let’s not go there. The next government should be honest and take the people with them.
title: “Liz Truss Should Stop Our Cake Addiction Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-11-14” author: “Rhea Easter”
It is traditional at this point for commentators to offer advice on priorities for the new prime minister. That doesn’t seem necessary this time. The immediate issues facing the country are well known: restoring growth through tax reduction and regulatory reform, energy security and costs, the backlog of the NHS, protecting the Union through the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill and keeping of a strong policy for Ukraine. avoid catastrophic escalation. That would be a formidable agenda for any government. For one with just two years left in his term, a divided party and 10 points behind in the polls, it will be extremely scary. But the task must be undertaken in the same way. As I wrote last month in “Holy Illusions,” my essay for the Policy Exchange think tank, “it makes no sense to invest effort in policies that are politically possible but can’t actually solve our problems.” For Ms. Truss, taking the party and potential voters with her in these extraordinary circumstances will require extraordinary political skills. We don’t yet know for sure that he possesses them: indeed, as we have discovered, it is hard to know who is really ready for the job of prime minister until they actually do it. We’ll know things are starting to go wrong if he avoids tough decisions under pressure to come up with purely crowd-pleasing answers to our problems – say energy price caps or another round of huge taxpayer handouts. I don’t think it’s likely, which means he’ll need to build, if not consensus, at least political momentum and broad support behind policies that will be unwelcome to many. There, I have some advice to give. It’s about being honest about the situation, explaining the options, and seeking to be persuasive about the decisions being made. This is counter-cultural to British governance. Normally, policies and legislation are settled internally in Whitehall. Outsiders don’t have much real say, although controversial policies may be floated in the media, arguably, to test reactions. Key choices are made early, confirmation bias kicks in, and doubts are suppressed. By the time of public announcement, those involved will honestly believe they have the best possible solution to the problem, the perfect balance of all trade-offs, and the only logical way to proceed. That is why, so often, policies are simply driven. Ministers say there is no better way, the policy satisfies all possible targets and deny there are compromises. This heroic style of government sometimes works, but more often its results are simply undermined by real life. We saw this most obviously in Covid, where rational discussion of trade-offs rarely happened and only a clear disconnect between politics and reality finally forced a change. We see it in HS2. And we see it in the Internet Safety Bill, a deeply flawed proposal that must be humanely shot down. All of these are best avoided. Politics is persuasion. In the very difficult decisions to come, it may be better to explain the issues, be honest about the dilemmas and inspire confidence in the government about how it has reached its conclusions. For example, in energy, the underlying problem is not Vladimir Putin (although he made it worse) but bad policy that gives us a grid that cannot reliably provide enough energy when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun shines, leaving us exposed to very high spot prices for natural gas and courtesy of (semi)friends for electricity through the interconnections. The main trade-off is that if we want more renewables, we will have a more unreliable and expensive grid, and possibly rationing. If we want security of supply, we need more and more modern gas-fired power plants and possibly some miners, but that will affect the path to net zero. It doesn’t mean we can have both – that net zero remains the goal, but there will be no rationing. Similarly, in the NHS, the fundamental problem is the lack of capacity and the inability of our semi-Soviet system to effectively use what is there. Either we expand that capacity through incentives and encouragement to use private health care, or we hold up the queues. There is a compromise. When it comes to housing, it’s even simpler. Either we build more houses where people want them, in the south of England, or prices go up and younger people will never get on the ladder. The best way to deal with these dilemmas is not to pretend they don’t exist or that there is some magical solution, but to mention them and explain why the government has chosen as it has. Be open with people. Explain that we can’t have it all. If even the Conservative Party seems to suggest that magic solutions work, the danger is that the electorate will turn to the original purveyor of illusions, the Labor Party. Let’s not go there. The next government should be honest and take the people with them.
title: “Liz Truss Should Stop Our Cake Addiction Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-12-10” author: “Van Carey”
It is traditional at this point for commentators to offer advice on priorities for the new prime minister. That doesn’t seem necessary this time. The immediate issues facing the country are well known: restoring growth through tax reduction and regulatory reform, energy security and costs, the backlog of the NHS, protecting the Union through the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill and keeping of a strong policy for Ukraine. avoid catastrophic escalation. That would be a formidable agenda for any government. For one with just two years left in his term, a divided party and 10 points behind in the polls, it will be extremely scary. But the task must be undertaken in the same way. As I wrote last month in “Holy Illusions,” my essay for the Policy Exchange think tank, “it makes no sense to invest effort in policies that are politically possible but can’t actually solve our problems.” For Ms. Truss, taking the party and potential voters with her in these extraordinary circumstances will require extraordinary political skills. We don’t yet know for sure that he possesses them: indeed, as we have discovered, it is hard to know who is really ready for the job of prime minister until they actually do it. We’ll know things are starting to go wrong if he avoids tough decisions under pressure to come up with purely crowd-pleasing answers to our problems – say energy price caps or another round of huge taxpayer handouts. I don’t think it’s likely, which means he’ll need to build, if not consensus, at least political momentum and broad support behind policies that will be unwelcome to many. There, I have some advice to give. It’s about being honest about the situation, explaining the options, and seeking to be persuasive about the decisions being made. This is counter-cultural to British governance. Normally, policies and legislation are settled internally in Whitehall. Outsiders don’t have much real say, although controversial policies may be floated in the media, arguably, to test reactions. Key choices are made early, confirmation bias kicks in, and doubts are suppressed. By the time of public announcement, those involved will honestly believe they have the best possible solution to the problem, the perfect balance of all trade-offs, and the only logical way to proceed. That is why, so often, policies are simply driven. Ministers say there is no better way, the policy satisfies all possible targets and deny there are compromises. This heroic style of government sometimes works, but more often its results are simply undermined by real life. We saw this most obviously in Covid, where rational discussion of trade-offs rarely happened and only a clear disconnect between politics and reality finally forced a change. We see it in HS2. And we see it in the Internet Safety Bill, a deeply flawed proposal that must be humanely shot down. All of these are best avoided. Politics is persuasion. In the very difficult decisions to come, it may be better to explain the issues, be honest about the dilemmas and inspire confidence in the government about how it has reached its conclusions. For example, in energy, the underlying problem is not Vladimir Putin (although he made it worse) but bad policy that gives us a grid that cannot reliably provide enough energy when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun shines, leaving us exposed to very high spot prices for natural gas and courtesy of (semi)friends for electricity through the interconnections. The main trade-off is that if we want more renewables, we will have a more unreliable and expensive grid, and possibly rationing. If we want security of supply, we need more and more modern gas-fired power plants and possibly some miners, but that will affect the path to net zero. It doesn’t mean we can have both – that net zero remains the goal, but there will be no rationing. Similarly, in the NHS, the fundamental problem is the lack of capacity and the inability of our semi-Soviet system to effectively use what is there. Either we expand that capacity through incentives and encouragement to use private health care, or we hold up the queues. There is a compromise. When it comes to housing, it’s even simpler. Either we build more houses where people want them, in the south of England, or prices go up and younger people will never get on the ladder. The best way to deal with these dilemmas is not to pretend they don’t exist or that there is some magical solution, but to mention them and explain why the government has chosen as it has. Be open with people. Explain that we can’t have it all. If even the Conservative Party seems to suggest that magic solutions work, the danger is that the electorate will turn to the original purveyor of illusions, the Labor Party. Let’s not go there. The next government should be honest and take the people with them.
title: “Liz Truss Should Stop Our Cake Addiction Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-10-27” author: “Stephanie Carter”
It is traditional at this point for commentators to offer advice on priorities for the new prime minister. That doesn’t seem necessary this time. The immediate issues facing the country are well known: restoring growth through tax reduction and regulatory reform, energy security and costs, the backlog of the NHS, protecting the Union through the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill and keeping of a strong policy for Ukraine. avoid catastrophic escalation. That would be a formidable agenda for any government. For one with just two years left in his term, a divided party and 10 points behind in the polls, it will be extremely scary. But the task must be undertaken in the same way. As I wrote last month in “Holy Illusions,” my essay for the Policy Exchange think tank, “it makes no sense to invest effort in policies that are politically possible but can’t actually solve our problems.” For Ms. Truss, taking the party and potential voters with her in these extraordinary circumstances will require extraordinary political skills. We don’t yet know for sure that he possesses them: indeed, as we have discovered, it is hard to know who is really ready for the job of prime minister until they actually do it. We’ll know things are starting to go wrong if he avoids tough decisions under pressure to come up with purely crowd-pleasing answers to our problems – say energy price caps or another round of huge taxpayer handouts. I don’t think it’s likely, which means he’ll need to build, if not consensus, at least political momentum and broad support behind policies that will be unwelcome to many. There, I have some advice to give. It’s about being honest about the situation, explaining the options, and seeking to be persuasive about the decisions being made. This is counter-cultural to British governance. Normally, policies and legislation are settled internally in Whitehall. Outsiders don’t have much real say, although controversial policies may be floated in the media, arguably, to test reactions. Key choices are made early, confirmation bias kicks in, and doubts are suppressed. By the time of public announcement, those involved will honestly believe they have the best possible solution to the problem, the perfect balance of all trade-offs, and the only logical way to proceed. That is why, so often, policies are simply driven. Ministers say there is no better way, the policy satisfies all possible targets and deny there are compromises. This heroic style of government sometimes works, but more often its results are simply undermined by real life. We saw this most obviously in Covid, where rational discussion of trade-offs rarely happened and only a clear disconnect between politics and reality finally forced a change. We see it in HS2. And we see it in the Internet Safety Bill, a deeply flawed proposal that must be humanely shot down. All of these are best avoided. Politics is persuasion. In the very difficult decisions to come, it may be better to explain the issues, be honest about the dilemmas and inspire confidence in the government about how it has reached its conclusions. For example, in energy, the underlying problem is not Vladimir Putin (although he made it worse) but bad policy that gives us a grid that cannot reliably provide enough energy when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun shines, leaving us exposed to very high spot prices for natural gas and courtesy of (semi)friends for electricity through the interconnections. The main trade-off is that if we want more renewables, we will have a more unreliable and expensive grid, and possibly rationing. If we want security of supply, we need more and more modern gas-fired power plants and possibly some miners, but that will affect the path to net zero. It doesn’t mean we can have both – that net zero remains the goal, but there will be no rationing. Similarly, in the NHS, the fundamental problem is the lack of capacity and the inability of our semi-Soviet system to effectively use what is there. Either we expand that capacity through incentives and encouragement to use private health care, or we hold up the queues. There is a compromise. When it comes to housing, it’s even simpler. Either we build more houses where people want them, in the south of England, or prices go up and younger people will never get on the ladder. The best way to deal with these dilemmas is not to pretend they don’t exist or that there is some magical solution, but to mention them and explain why the government has chosen as it has. Be open with people. Explain that we can’t have it all. If even the Conservative Party seems to suggest that magic solutions work, the danger is that the electorate will turn to the original purveyor of illusions, the Labor Party. Let’s not go there. The next government should be honest and take the people with them.
