Rafe Fletcher is the founder of CWG.
Horatio Nelson is on my mind as I read Britannia’s God of War, Andrew Lambert’s biography of him.
In the 1790s, Lambert casts the Admiral as part of a pact of doers against the ditherers. He is inspired by his mentor Sir John Jervis who prefers to base his fleet at isolated anchorages, far from the dockyards that breed excuses for delay. Nelson is described as a man of concrete knowledge who presses advantages as they come. Meanwhile the ditherers in the British establishment hinder that aggressive approach, particularly around the capture of Corsica, which might have stymied the French Republic’s advance much earlier.
Such hesitation and inaction stems from convoluted styles of reasoning Nelson so abhorred. I’m reminded of the trite Start with Why philosophy of modern business guru Simon Sinek. He argues that Why is primary to the How and the What. Define your beliefs before you do anything. Sinek earnestly espouses his concept in viral social media clips, which won him a devoted following amongst didactic executives. After all, values demand patience and spare one the cruel objectivity of results.
That approach is finally losing favour in business.
CSR, DEI and ESG all promised profits and piety but didn’t turn out to be such win-win propositions. Investors have, for instance, welcomed British Petroleum’s pivot back to petroleum after its brief identity crisis. But UK politicians are yet to learn the same lesson. Take Net Zero. Oxford Economics Professor Dieter Helm – hardly a climate change sceptic – offers a damning assessment of the UK’s hasty race to carbon neutrality.
Enshrined in law by a Conservative government under Theresa May, it has left the UK with some of the world’s highest energy prices and a collapsing industrial base. The legislation is animated by the Why of “climate leadership”. But Helm emphasises its futility in simply outsourcing the UK’s emissions.
Similarly vapid virtue-signalling is evident in Labour’s forthcoming budget plans. As I wrote recently, Rachel Reeves’ rhetoric about “broad shoulders” and “fair share” ignores that the UK’s wealthiest already constitute a substantial portion of the tax base. Instructions to “pay up or leave” may sound good but ignore the practical implications of the rich choosing the latter.
Too often, the Conservatives debate Labour on the same Why terms. Celebrating “wealth creators” comes unstuck when your opponent can point to a few undeserving trust-fund kids. Why shouldn’t we raise inheritance tax in the name of meritocracy? Instead, speak to the What, the realm of fact. That it is human nature to want to pass on wealth. That people will leave if we stop them. And that the fiscal situation will get a whole lot worse.
A 2024 YouGov poll found 88 percent of the public believe the Conservatives primarily care about rich people and 24 percent still associate it with being “nasty”. Their image hasn’t softened but they don’t have anything to show for that perceived ruthlessness. Harsh Why politics and soft What policies mean they are still tarred with the austerity brand despite increasing public spending and taking the UK to its highest post-1948 tax burden.
As the Conservatives look for fresh inspiration, Kemi Badenoch identified Javier Milei as her template for government. But that means learning the right lessons from the Argentinian President’s recent thumping victory in midterm elections. Argentinians didn’t grant him a surprisingly large, renewed mandate because they’re all suddenly Friedrich Hayek devotees. It’s not an endorsement of his free-market philosophy but a judgement on tangible actions. He promised to restore fiscal prudence in a desperate economic situation. By eliminating its deficit for the first time in 123 years, voters see a man of action.
By contrast, Why in the UK is an excuse for dithering. On a recent episode of Question Time, a woman talked about the trauma of anxiety that left her unable to work. Why should she lose access to Personal Independence Payments? And Labour accedes to such politics of the personal, failing to make any cuts, because there is always a reason not to.
I wonder what Singapore’s founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew would make of such pleas. In his memoir, From Third World to First, he says there will always be “the irresponsible or the incapable, some five percent of our population.” The government can do no more than arrange help “in such a way that only those who have no other choice will seek it.” It’s an attitude rooted in the What. It confronts unfortunate facts rather than drawing ever malleable lines on who can demand entitlements. Lee recognised that the potential “explosion of welfare costs” would destroy the country’s commitment to budget surpluses.
While Singapore’s welfare policy fits neatly within right-wing ideology, it’s not constrained by dogma elsewhere. Left-wing Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz praises its approach to housing, where the government Housing and Development Board (HDB) builds upon state-owned land and sells these flats at subsidised rates. Even popular conceptions of the city-state as an international finance centre are deceptive. Local entrepreneur Hian Goh argues that once you add up the state’s corporate ties, 40 percent of GDP is controlled by government owned enterprises. Singapore relentlessly focuses on what works, rather than indulging in the navel-gazing of the Why.
When I started my business, I found Richard Branson’s “screw it, just do it” to be rather more helpful than Sinek’s search for meaning.
Because deciding what you’re going to do is more effective than a lengthy mission statement. Many of the UK’s political failures of the last 15 years stem from giving too much thought to branding and too little to a plan.
Not everyone in Singapore is enamoured with the ruling People’s Action Party but most respect its competence. Gerrymandering accusations shouldn’t obscure the fact it is continually elected with a large majority of the popular vote.
Singapore chose the approach of Jervis and Nelson, while its neighbours waited in the dockyards. Now the Conservatives need to do the same, to offer a prescription and be judged on results rather than soundbites. As Nelson said, “if a man consults whether he is to fight, when he has the power in his own hands, it is certain that his opinion is against fighting.” So, let’s have a little less consultation and a little more action, please.
Start With What.
conservativehome.com (Article Sourced Website)
#Rafe #Fletcher #bold #dont #start #Start #Conservative #Home