Makes me think what an important point Stephen Bush made in the FT this week when he suggested how wrong the Labour back benches have got the PM’s essential priorities in the foreseeable future.
This interview makes me reevaluate Starmer as a potentially good international statesman and less angry with him for failing (as he is failing - partly because he has such a second-rate team) to grip domestic economic & social policy.
Thanks for sharing this Sam and for such interesting answers from John. And his question at the end re what the future might look like in 20+ years is really prescient and given the difficult problems we will face as a country (e.g. climate/environment, social care, defence, ageing population, AI, trade, defence etc) it’s essential that there’s a serious discussion about possible solutions. But the short term-ism of our political cycles and the need to take unpopular decisions means that none of the parties will be prepared to have these conversations.
Thank you for an excellent discussion. It is revealing, that even though Prof. Bew was a special advisor rather than a permanent civil servant, the rate of civil service churn was such that he was seen as a point of continuity and effectively the fount of in-house knowledge. Henry de Zoete also touched on this tendency in an earlier post. It does highlight one of the institutional flaws of the current civil service that permanent officials feel the need to move from post to post in order to progress, at the cost of any meaningful institutional memory.
Fascinating read. More like this please! Sam & Lawrence maybe a think piece on multipolarity, consequences 4 UK as middle power, wider picture of human (in)securities
"We probably need massive changes in our political economy, and our tax code, and the legal framework, or at least our adherence to the international legal framework."
I agree that we're at the beginning of a transformational period in world history - just look at global temperature charts - and that mainstream political discourse in the UK needs to become more forward-looking and less parochial.
But the opacity of this remark makes me uneasy. What parts of the law and tax code might need to be massively changed? Which bits of the international legal framework should the UK no longer adhere to? The possible answers point to wildly different futures for the UK.
Very interesting conversation; thank you for posting. It did however beg more questions than it answered. Mr Bew was so studiously diplomatic that I long to read the unvarnished version - rather like the extra time in “In Our Time” when the panellists say what they really think. That’s part of what’s wrong with this country - too many good people busily minding their Ps and Qs rather than telling it as it is. The challenges are serious enough, as Mr Bew identifies. A little more Klartext would be helpful.
Interesting but no mention of the Middle East and very little on Europe or NATO or China.
It seems to me that the UK has concentrated too much on finance and banking and not enough attention has been given to building up real assets such as manufacturing and the military.
Makes me think what an important point Stephen Bush made in the FT this week when he suggested how wrong the Labour back benches have got the PM’s essential priorities in the foreseeable future.
This interview makes me reevaluate Starmer as a potentially good international statesman and less angry with him for failing (as he is failing - partly because he has such a second-rate team) to grip domestic economic & social policy.
Fabulous discussion - so much to take in and so many questions to ask.
Thanks for sharing this Sam and for such interesting answers from John. And his question at the end re what the future might look like in 20+ years is really prescient and given the difficult problems we will face as a country (e.g. climate/environment, social care, defence, ageing population, AI, trade, defence etc) it’s essential that there’s a serious discussion about possible solutions. But the short term-ism of our political cycles and the need to take unpopular decisions means that none of the parties will be prepared to have these conversations.
Thank you for an excellent discussion. It is revealing, that even though Prof. Bew was a special advisor rather than a permanent civil servant, the rate of civil service churn was such that he was seen as a point of continuity and effectively the fount of in-house knowledge. Henry de Zoete also touched on this tendency in an earlier post. It does highlight one of the institutional flaws of the current civil service that permanent officials feel the need to move from post to post in order to progress, at the cost of any meaningful institutional memory.
Excellent work- much to process.
“Virtu, which is vigorous action based on learning”.
Severely needed in Venezuela and Greenland.
Fascinating read. More like this please! Sam & Lawrence maybe a think piece on multipolarity, consequences 4 UK as middle power, wider picture of human (in)securities
"We probably need massive changes in our political economy, and our tax code, and the legal framework, or at least our adherence to the international legal framework."
I agree that we're at the beginning of a transformational period in world history - just look at global temperature charts - and that mainstream political discourse in the UK needs to become more forward-looking and less parochial.
But the opacity of this remark makes me uneasy. What parts of the law and tax code might need to be massively changed? Which bits of the international legal framework should the UK no longer adhere to? The possible answers point to wildly different futures for the UK.
To have served 3 Prime Ministers in 5 years, Professor Bew, may be regarded as a misfortune. To have served 4 looks like carelessness.
Very interesting conversation; thank you for posting. It did however beg more questions than it answered. Mr Bew was so studiously diplomatic that I long to read the unvarnished version - rather like the extra time in “In Our Time” when the panellists say what they really think. That’s part of what’s wrong with this country - too many good people busily minding their Ps and Qs rather than telling it as it is. The challenges are serious enough, as Mr Bew identifies. A little more Klartext would be helpful.
Interesting but no mention of the Middle East and very little on Europe or NATO or China.
It seems to me that the UK has concentrated too much on finance and banking and not enough attention has been given to building up real assets such as manufacturing and the military.
Brilliant, as we would expect from the author of "Attlee"