In 1986, Ronald Reagan quipped that the nine most terrifying words in the English language were: ‘I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.’ Today, I’d argue we have a new contender. ‘New policies and procedures have been put in place.’
Much has been written about the causes of Britain’s stagnation. Some blame mass immigration. Others highlight our paralysed planning system or the chronic housing shortage – which CapX has covered in detail. But I would argue that the root cause lies deeper: in our overreliance on policies and procedures – and, more crucially, the culture that creates and reinforces them.
Too often, we’ve built systems where initiative is stifled, risk-taking is discouraged and outcomes come second to whether every box has been ticked. The result is a culture of cover-your-back compliance, where bureaucracy trumps proactivity and initiative.
For employees, ticking boxes provides safety. For managers, inventing new boxes provides control. As long as everyone sticks to the ever growing web of procedures, no one can be blamed when things go wrong – even if nothing meaningful gets done. It’s the same logic behind the endless stream of back-covering emails anyone who works in an office will be familiar with, as everyone tries to shield themselves by documenting every decision, no matter how trivial.
And so, we’re stuck in a mire of bureaucratic sludge – buried under risk assessments, audits, and feedback loops – where progress grinds to a halt, and workers lose the freedom to act decisively.
Rather than challenge this culture, many political leaders have embraced it. They fear that bold moves could spark backlash, judicial review or a public inquiry. As such, they hide behind consultants, reports and committees – layers of insulation designed to deflect responsibility. It brings to mind the old business saying: ‘no one ever got fired for hiring IBM’.
How refreshing it would be if, when confronted with a departmental mistake, a minister simply said: ‘I empower my team to act decisively. Mistakes are sometimes the price of progress.’
I once heard Kate Bingham describe her experience leading the UK’s Covid vaccine taskforce. With a background in venture capital, she brought a radically different mindset into government. She made early investments in many different vaccine candidates, fully aware that many would fail. But that willingness to take calculated risks during a major crisis meant the UK was at the front of the queue when the successful vaccines were ready. It worked – and we should be grateful for how well it was handled.
Of course, many of today’s procedures didn’t appear from nowhere. They were often born from genuine failures, magnified by media pressure. In an age of 24/7 scrutiny, any error can be instantly weaponised – with civil servants and ministers condemned in headlines and Twitter threads long before the full story is known. No wonder so many retreat into bureaucracy for protection.
At the heart of this risk-aversion is fear. In the digital era, mistakes linger forever. Someone dismissed for misconduct can’t simply move to a new town and start over – their past follows them. That can prevent repeat offenders from resurfacing, but it also means honest mistakes can haunt people indefinitely.
Add to that the high cost of living and unaffordable housing, and the fear of job loss becomes existential. A recent survey found 31% of UK adults have less than £1,000 in savings – meaning most people simply can’t afford to lose their job. So workers find comfort and security in following procedures, even when they know that they may not produce the best outcome.
To be clear, some sectors do require strict protocols. No one wants a heart surgeon or nuclear engineer winging it. And many regulations have real value – ensuring safety, protecting consumers, or creating a fair playing field.
But far too many rules today serve only to shield decision-makers from risk and blame. They are defensive, not constructive.
One option – yet admittedly controversial – is to review the scope and frequency of public inquiries. These have ballooned in number, from eight inquiries running in 1998 to 22 taking place as of February this year. While transparency is often important, endless retrospective investigations create a chilling effect. If every decision may be dissected years later, timidity becomes rational. Another approach could be hold some inquiries in private and on a ‘no-blame’ basis so as to allow them to focus on deep structural problems rather than individual decisions.
Closely related to this – and likely to be just as contentious – is the idea of limiting the scope and frequency of judicial inquiries. These reviews are increasingly being used by a minority to obstruct the actions of democratically elected officials, often on technical grounds, even when those actions would benefit the broader public.
Public sector organisations should allow more discretion and experimentation. Performance should be judged by effectiveness and positive outcomes and not just compliance and avoiding mistakes. Civil servants should be empowered to solve problems directly, not just escalate them.
We might also benefit from bringing more real-world experience into the system – people like Kate Bingham who are comfortable with risk, make fast decisions, and are backed when things don’t go to plan.
More broadly, we need a rethink of political leadership. A good leader doesn’t avoid every mistake – they just get more right than wrong. But our politics has become a kind of rodeo contest, where the winner is whoever clings on the longest without slipping up. Wouldn’t it be better to judge leaders on what they achieve, not how long they survive?
And perhaps most importantly, we as a society must get better at tolerating imperfect outcomes. Because while poor decisions can do damage, the greater danger lies in allowing broken systems to stumble on, unchallenged and unchanged.
If we want to escape the paralysis of over-regulation, we must start rewarding courage and delivery, not just caution. The real risk isn’t making the wrong decision – it’s never daring to decide at all.
It’s been a wild summer already. Britain’s onto its seventh prime minister in a decade, with Andy Burnham wasting no time rearranging the furniture – and, for part of the week, the postcode – of No 10. Outside Westminster, England gave us their best World Cup run in 60 years, though the trophy itself will […]
The media headlines all tell a consistent story about AI and employment: We’re doomed! ‘Robots may shatter the global economic order within a decade,’ says The Telegraph. ‘A World Without Work’ is coming, The Atlantic predicts. ‘The brave new world of robots and lost jobs’ is upon us, The Washington Post says. Most gloomily, Forbes […]
As Andy Burnham stood outside Downing Street on Monday to launch his new regime, our new Prime Minister did his best to prove to his 349 parliamentary backers that they had made the right decision. Much of his speech was rhetorical filler. ‘I will put the care of people at the heart of everything I […]
