Government needs the can-do mindset I experienced in the Army to push change through fast
I come from a background of delivery. In the Army, working in a 'human intelligence unit' – liaising with agents and special forces – we had to move from first gear to fifth in an instant. Lives depended on it. Getting ahead of the enemy, protecting our people and achieving results was the mission – not talking it to death.
Confirming the location of a high-value target, whilst also ensuring they were alone and targetable, or identifying the precise site of an improvised explosive device factory, required creativity and a determined mindset – a willingness to take calculated risks to save lives and win.
When I worked in counterterrorism at the Ministry of Defence, delivery wasn't optional. We built a culture of 'can-do'; creative, risk-aware and focused on action. It wasn't about perfection. It was about progress.
Government could learn a lot from the mindset of the finest military in the world and the departments that work every day to protect the public from the threat of terrorism. An unstoppable political will must go hand in hand with a mindset of delivery.
I think back to our counterterror planning meetings. The mission? To stop terrorists attacking our great country. No timewasters. Just serious professionals putting ideas on the table, pulling them apart, war-gaming every outcome, then locking in a plan and going all-out to deliver. That mindset – challenge, rigour and rapid execution – is what the system of government has desperately lacked for decades.
Too often, it's delay by design. Endless consultations. Five-year strategies that take ten. Pet projects blocked by internal turf wars. Take the Lower Thames Crossing: more than £1.2 billion spent before a single spade in the ground – all because of drawn-out decision-making and red tape. Or the A9 dualling project in Scotland – promised by 2025, now pushed back to 2035. Ten years of drift.
These delays are not acts of God. They are failures of will.
The truth is, Whitehall needs reform. There are dedicated, brilliant people across the civil service – but too many are trapped in a system built to say 'no'. Risk aversion is often rewarded, not challenged. Delivery is too often deprioritised in favour of process, and meaningful reform is blocked by a sprawling web of arms-length bodies and quangos that diffuse responsibility and stifle urgency.
We need a leaner, more focused state – one that empowers departments to move at pace and is held accountable for outcomes, not paperwork. That means streamlining quangos where appropriate, ending duplication, and changing the mindset within government itself. Ministers must be prepared to challenge officials – not to attack, but to sharpen decision-making and force clarity on delivery.
Wes Streeting 's approach to the NHS offers a blueprint. He's made clear that, as health secretary, he expects faster delivery, more accountability, and a culture that doesn't settle for 'this is just how things are done'. Abolishing NHS England shows a steely commitment to the change he expects. But reforming structures is only half the battle – changing the culture is the real prize. Government must operate with a sense of mission, not maintenance.
The British public doesn't care whether a successful policy comes from Bevan or Thatcher. They care that it works. That it's delivered.
We need to strip out the ideology and face complex problems with a solutions-based mindset. Let the evidence lead. Move fast. Be willing to make mistakes in the name of making progress. And above all, get things done.
Because there's serious work to do.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
13 minutes ago
- The Independent
Solving the asylum question is suddenly even more urgent
What next? As ministers digest the High Court ruling on the use of a hotel in Epping to house asylum seekers, they have very limited options in front of them, none of them good ones. The High Court should not be attacked for making a ruling that takes no account of politics or even practicalities, for that is not its job. It has, though, made a bad situation very much worse. It is hardly helpful to anyone, in such circumstances, for Nigel Farage to exploit a delicate and sometimes combustible situation by calling for more peaceful protests. From bitter experience, we know how such demonstrations can degenerate into minor disorder, or worse. In fact, given the force of the High Court judgment, there is even less need for such protests now. Instead, Mr Farage and his deputy, Richard Tice, as usual, are playing on the fears of people and behaving in a way that is irresponsible at best and dangerous at worst. Mr Farage's interventions in the riots last year only added to the campaign of disinformation underway, and most recently was made to apologise for claiming that the Essex police had 'bussed in' counter-demonstrators in Epping. The Conservatives, mesmerised by the rise of Reform UK, are in a constant losing battle to out-Farage Farage, and they should know better than to propagate myths about asylum seekers living in 'offensively luxurious' conditions, which was today's unhelpful sideswipe from former Tory MP Damian Green. The shadow home secretary Chris Philp and the shadow communities secretary James Cleverly should bear their share of the blame for the mess the asylum system is in, and offer some constructive alternatives and call for calm. They will not recover as a serious alternative party of government until they too come up with a plan for the asylum system. The leader of the opposition, Kemi Badenoch, often talks of such a thing, but it is yet to be seen. Meanwhile, her undeclared rival, Robert Jenrick, appears to be constantly dialling up tensions. The position is serious. Were the Bell Hotel the only place to be affected by the ruling, then it would not be such a challenge to relocate its 140 residents by the date set by the court of 12 September. However, the judgment also sets a clear precedent, albeit largely based in planning law, for the end of the use of hotels to provide emergency housing. It does so with near-immediate effect. That means some 32,000 individuals will need to be rehoused, at absurdly short notice. Already, local authorities controlled by Reform UK and the Conservatives are expected to bring their own cases, which, as the Home Office lawyers warned the High Court, will make the dilemma of finding shelter for them even more acute. In practice, too, it will encourage many more local protests and increase the pressure on police forces to maintain order. One other immediate effect will be to increase the pressure in areas where Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green councils may still try to stick to a 'refugees welcome' policy. This only creates a sense of unfairness that the task of finding shelter for the immigrants is not being properly shared across the country. And, in any case, all, including the refugees and other migrants affected, agree that using hotels is a far from ideal solution in any case. Contrary to some of the anti-refugee propaganda, these hotels, whatever their nominal star ratings, are unsuitable for long-term residence, and are not the lap of luxury. Concierge is not available. Asylum seekers are not allowed to work, they are given shelter and a minimal allowance to stave off destitution, some medical attention and, courtesy of some councils, access to some recreational activities. They are not cosseted in the way some seem to imagine. There is talk of the migrants being placed in flats, which would be relatively expensive, student accommodation, and houses of multiple occupation (HMOs). These create their own problems, particularly because the tendency will be for the irregular immigrants to be moved in disproportionate numbers to parts of the country where rentals are relatively low. The effect there will be to push rents up for the locals, and create more friction in host communities. It may also prompt more action by some local councils to frustrate the strategy, such as using their powers to block the conversion of houses across large areas into HMOs under Article 4 of the town and country planning acts. Even where HMO accommodation is found for families or smaller groups of asylum seekers, they will be more vulnerable to any aggressive demonstrations organised by neighbours alarmed by extremist misinformation about them. Such incidents will be much harder for the police to control. It may be that some form of emergency legislation will be required to delay the implementation of such High Court orders, although that in itself may not be constitutional. The only course then open to government is to redouble its efforts to process the backlog bequeathed to them by the previous administration, speeding up the grant of leave to remain for genuine refugees, or issuing deportation orders in expedited fashion for rejected claimants. It will take too long to build vast detention centres, while the old army barracks that have been commandeered in the past have been found to be completely unsuitable. The High Court has listened to the representatives of the people of Epping Forest and made its decision, and it is right that the judges should do so. Citizens have a right to have their cases heard impartially and have their grievances aired. The courts will no doubt soon be issuing many similar orders. Yet there are other people with a stake in these cases. Perhaps the most lamentable aspect of this latest episode in the migration crisis is that the voices of the immigrants themselves have been so rarely heard, and their plight disregarded. They have their human rights, too, enforceable by law – though many would cheerfully seek to deny them that. Indeed, the tendency in the media has been to demonise these fellow human beings as malevolent monsters determined to wreak crime and havoc in whatever neighbourhood they find themselves bussed to. Whether refugee or economic migrant, they are entitled to be treated properly in a civilised society, and not portrayed, as cynical politicians pretend, as an 'invasion' of 'fighting-age' men. They are not an alien army, but individuals who want a better life. Many would have preferred to stay put, were it not for war, persecution, famine and poverty. In a land such as Britain, with severe labour shortages, they have much to contribute, as have previous waves of immigrants. They could help to fix the 'Broken Britain' we hear so much about, and do the jobs that need doing. Yet they are all too often regarded as terrorists, rapists and murderers. The police at the hotel demos fare hardly any better, berated as 'paedo-defenders' and verbally and physically abused for doing their duty and preserving the King's Peace. The wider challenge for ministers now is to persuade the public that they are doing all they can to restore order to the asylum system – and to rebuild confidence in it. That task just got a lot more urgent.
The Independent
13 minutes ago
- The Independent
BBC ‘not institutionally antisemitic', editor says after row over Gaza coverage
The BBC is 'not institutionally antisemitic', a newspaper editor has said following a row over the broadcaster's coverage of the conflict in Gaza. James Harding, The Observer 's editor-in-chief said the perception of a 'political presence looming over the BBC' is a problem and the broadcaster needs to be 'beyond the reach of politicians'. The BBC has been criticised for a number of incidents in recent months which include breaching its own accuracy editorial guidelines and livestreaming the Bob Vylan Glastonbury set, where there were chants of 'Death, death to the IDF (Israel Defence Forces)'. Following the incident, UK Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said ministers expect 'accountability at the highest levels' for the BBC's decision to screen the performance. Mr Harding discussed the difficulties of covering the Gaza conflict when he delivered this year's James MacTaggart Memorial Lecture at the Edinburgh TV Festival on Wednesday. He described how 'newsrooms are in a furious argument with ourselves over the coverage of Israel and Gaza', with the situation 'very hard to view dispassionately'. The Observer chief said this is true for all media organisations, particularly the BBC, and it is 'about as difficult as it gets in news'. Mr Harding said: 'This summer, Lisa Nandy has weighed in.' He said the Culture Secretary's office insists she did not explicitly ask Samir Shah, the BBC chairman, to 'deliver up' director-general Tim Davie 's resignation following the Bob Vylan incident, but 'people inside the BBC were left in no doubt that was the message'. Mr Harding said: 'The place became paranoid about how the BBC itself would cover the story; people around him thought the political pressure would be too much. 'Whatever your view of the hate speech vs freedom of speech issues, an overbearing government minister doesn't help anyone. 'The hiring and firing of the editor-in-chief of the country's leading newsroom and cultural organisation should not be the job of a politician. It's chilling. 'Political interference – and the perception of a political presence looming over the BBC – is a problem, one that we've got too accustomed to. 'It looks likely to get worse. We need to get on with putting the country's most important editorial and creative organisation beyond the reach of politicians now.' The broadcaster is also facing an Ofcom investigation into its documentary Gaza: How To Survive A Warzone after a review found it had breached the corporation's editorial guidelines on accuracy. The programme was removed from BBC iPlayer in February after it emerged the child narrator, Abdullah, is the son of Ayman Alyazouri, who has worked as Hamas's deputy minister of agriculture. Mr Harding said the BBC is not antisemitic. 'I am Jewish, proudly so,' he said. 'I'm proud, too, to have worked for the most important news organisation in the world. 'The BBC is not institutionally antisemitic. It's untrue to say it is. 'It's also unhelpful – much better to correct the mistakes and address the judgment calls that have been wrong, than smear the institution, impugn the character of all the people who work there and, potentially, undermine journalists in the field working in the most difficult and dangerous of conditions.' The UK Government and the BBC have been asked for comment. Mr Harding is co-founder of Tortoise Media, which acquired broadsheet newspaper The Observer in April. Before he co-founded Tortoise Media, Mr Harding was editor of The Times from 2007 to 2012 and was in charge of the BBC's news and current affairs programming from 2013 up until the beginning of 2018. He also co-presented On Background on the BBC World Service and wrote the book Alpha Dogs: How Political Spin Became A Global Business. A spokesperson for the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport said: 'The Culture Secretary has been repeatedly clear that the role of the director-general is a matter for the BBC board. Any suggestion to the contrary is untrue. 'The BBC has itself acknowledged a number of serious failings in recent months, including the broadcasting of the Bob Vylan set at Glastonbury. 'It is entirely right that the Culture Secretary raised these issues with the BBC leadership on behalf of licence fee payers.'
STV News
14 minutes ago
- STV News
Scotland lacking emergency response to drug deaths crisis, expert says
Scotland is lacking an emergency response to the country's drug deaths crisis, despite the Scottish Government describing it as an emergency, an expert said. Kirsten Horsburgh, chief executive of the Scottish Drugs Forum (SDF), said public policy was heading in the right direction. But she warned that 'intent without action' was the 'major problem' facing the country. Speaking during an event at the Festival of Politics at Holyrood chaired by SNP MSP Audrey Nicoll, Ms Horsburgh said drug legalisation should be 'on the table' as part of the solutions to the crisis. And she said safer drug consumption rooms, such as the one in Glasgow, should be rolled out 'at scale'. Ms Horsburgh told an audience at the Scottish Parliament: 'There are things we are doing well in Scotland and there are obviously things we are not doing well. 'The things we are doing well is finally reaching a point where we have the right policy direction. 'But policy intent without action, the implementation gap and pace are the major issues here.' She added: 'All these things require urgency. 'We've described the issue in Scotland as a public health emergency but what we've done so far is far from a public health emergency response – it's lacking in pace and attention that the issue really needs.' Ms Horsburgh said pilots such as the safer drug consumption room in Glasgow, the first of its kind in the UK, should be done 'at scale'. The SDF chief executive said policies such as drug legalisation should also be 'on the table', but admitted it was something unlikely to be looked at by the UK Government, which controls drug laws. Catriona Matheson, professor of substance use at the University of Stirling, also appeared on the panel. She said poly-drug use, the use of more than one drug by a person, was now common in Scotland. Prof Matheson said the Government had to adapt and respond quickly to a drug market that 'changes all the time'. The academic stressed the importance of 'psycho-social' support for people with addiction that could help get to the root of the issue, which the panel said included issues such as trauma, poverty and mental wellbeing. But she warned that 'previous negative experiences' from people seeking rehabilitation services acted as a 'barrier' in the support offered to those in need. 'That's something that needs to be overcome,' Prof Matheson said, 'and it's not easy to fix.' Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
