Voices: Government needs the can-do mindset I experienced in the Army to push change through fast
Government moves too slowly. That's not just the fault of the current government or the last one – it's the system. Slowed down by bureaucracy. Paralysed by 'can't-do' figures. Obsessed with process over progress.
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
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US, China seek to extend trade truce with London talks
After a round of talks in Geneva last month, the United States and China will sit down at the negotiating table in London on Monday to attempt to preserve a fragile truce on trade, despite simmering tensions. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer will lead the US delegation, President Donald Trump announced Friday. Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng -- who led Beijing's negotiating team in Geneva -- will also lead the team in London, the foreign ministry announced at the weekend. "The meeting should go very well," Trump said in a post on his Truth Social platform. His press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, told Fox News on Sunday: "We want China and the United States to continue moving forward with the agreement that was struck in Geneva." While the government of UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer reiterated that it was not involved in the content of the discussions in any way, a spokesperson said: "We are a nation that champions free trade." UK authorities "have always been clear that a trade war is in nobody's interests, so we welcome these talks," the spokesperson added. - 'Correcting the course' - The talks in London come just a few days after Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping finally held their first publicly announced telephone talks since the Republican returned to the White House. Trump said that call, which took place on Thursday, had reached a "very positive conclusion." Xi was quoted by state-run news agency Xinhua as saying that "correcting the course of the big ship of Sino-US relations requires us to steer well and set the direction." The call came after tensions between the world's two biggest economies had soared, with Trump accusing Beijing of violating a tariff de-escalation deal reached in Geneva in mid-May. "We need China to comply with their side of the deal. And so that's what the trade team will be discussing tomorrow," Leavitt said Sunday. In April, Trump introduced sweeping worldwide tariffs that targeted China most heavily. At one point the United States hit China with additional levies of 145 percent on its goods as both sides engaged in tit-for-tat escalation. China's countermeasures on US goods reached 125 percent. Then in Switzerland, after two days of talks, the two sides agreed to slash their staggeringly high tariffs for 90 days. But differences have persisted, including over China's restrictions on the export of rare earth minerals used in tech products. - 'Green channel' - Throughout its talks with Washington, China also has launched discussions with other trading partners -- including Japan and South Korea -- in a bid to build a united front to counter Trump's tariffs. On Thursday, Beijing turned to Canada, with the two sides agreeing to regularize their channels of communication after a period of strained ties. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and Chinese Premier Li Qiang also discussed trade and the fentanyl crisis, Ottawa said. Beijing proposed establishing a "green channel" to ease the export of rare earths to the European Union, and fast-tracking approval of some export licenses. That proposal from the commerce ministry in Beijing came after talks on Tuesday between China's Commerce Minister Wang Wentao and EU Trade Commissioner Maros Sefcovic. China is expected to host a summit with the EU in July, marking 50 years since Beijing and Brussels established diplomatic ties. bur-els/sst/aha
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US and China set to meet for trade talks in London
A new round of talks aimed at resolving a trade war between the US and China is set take place in London on Monday. US President Donald Trump announced on Friday that a senior US delegation would meet Chinese representatives. Over the weekend, Beijing confirmed that Vice Premier He Lifeng will attend the talks. The announcements came after Trump and China's leader Xi Jinping had a phone conversation last week, which the US president described as a "very good talk". Last month, the world's two biggest economies agreed a temporary truce to lower import taxes on goods being traded between them, but since then both countries have accused the other of breaching the deal. Writing on his Truth Social platform on Friday, Trump said US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer would meet Chinese officials in London on Monday. On Saturday, China's foreign ministry said Vice Premier He would be in the UK between 8 and 13 June, and that a meeting of the "China-US economic and trade mechanism" would take place. The new round of negotiations came after Trump said his phone conversation with Xi on Thursday mainly focused on trade and had "resulted in a very positive conclusion for both countries". According to Chinese state news agency Xinhua, Xi told Trump that the US should "withdraw the negative measures it has taken against China". The call was the first time the two leaders had spoken since the trade war erupted in February. When Trump announced sweeping tariffs on imports from a number of countries earlier this year, China was the hardest hit. Beijing responded with its own higher rates on US imports, and this triggered tit-for-tat increases that peaked at 145%. In May, talks held in Switzerland led to a temporary truce that Trump called a "total reset". It brought US tariffs on Chinese products down to 30%, while Beijing slashed levies on US imports to 10% and promised to lift barriers on critical mineral exports. The agreement gave both sides a 90-day deadline to try to reach a trade deal. But since then, relations appeared to have soured. Last month, Trump said China had "totally violated its agreement with us", and then a few days later China said the US had "severely violated" the agreement. The US accused China of failing to restart shipments of critical minerals and rare earth magnets vital to car and computer industries. On Saturday, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce said it had approved some applications for rare earth export licences, although it did not provide details of which countries involved. The announcement came after Trump said on Friday that Xi had agreed to restart trade in rare earth materials. Bu speaking on Sunday, White House National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett told CBS News that "those exports of critical minerals have been getting released at a rate that is, you know, higher than it was, but not as high as we believe we agreed to in Geneva". Trump confirms China trip after 'very good' call with Xi China says US has 'severely violated' tariffs truce What does the US-China tariff deal mean?
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Terry Moran Insulted Stephen Miller? That's None of the Government's Business.
Terry Moran is a senior national correspondent for ABC News. Over the weekend, his employer suspended him over a statement he posted (and subsequently deleted) on X. In it, Moran described Stephen Miller, deputy White House chief of staff, as "richly endowed with the capacity for hatred." "You can see this just by looking at him because you can see that his hatreds are his spiritual nourishment," wrote Moran. "He eats his hate." The tweet drew a fierce rebuke from Vice President J.D. Vance, who described it as an "absolutely vile smear." Vance, of course, is entitled to that opinion. But White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt went a step further, declaring that "we"—i.e., the federal government—would be inquiring with ABC about disciplinary action. This is a textbook example of "jawboning"—when the government tries to accomplish some censorship by threatening improper government action. It is exactly the sort of thing that conservatives rightly hated about the previous administration: President Joe Biden, his senior advisors, and various federal employees browbeat social media companies into taking down content that the feds deemed wrong, hateful, or dangerous. They didn't just say that they disagreed with major platform moderation policies: They raised the possibility of punitive legislation against Facebook, Google, and Twitter unless they complied. Leavitt is free to complain about Moran's comment, as Vance did. But her insinuation that she would be speaking with Moran's manager reads like a threat, and thus like an attempt at censorship. As Jenin Younes, a civil liberties attorney, noted in a reply to Leavitt, the Trump administration issued an executive order to prevent the kind of jawboning that took place under the previous White House. To turn around and do the same thing is obviously hypocritical. "Journalists and everyone else can say what they want about members of the Administration (and anything else) without having to fear reprisal from the government," wrote Younes. "You should delete this tweet and apologize for your attempted act of tyranny and also failure to understand basic constitutional concepts." As for Moran's post: It probably was unwise for a straight news reporter to share his spicy speculations about Miller's motivations. Mainstream media organizations have different rules for news reporters and opinion commentators, and it's possible that Moran violated his company's social media policy. He has a First Amendment right vis a vis the U.S. government, not with respect to ABC. That said, these prohibitions on reporters sharing their own opinions on social media seem increasingly outdated. Does anyone harbor doubts that virtually all straight-news journalists possess deeply held ideological convictions, perspectives, and biases? Isn't it better to know what they actually think? Large numbers of Americans now get their news from independent writers, content creators, and influencers on social media, Substack, YouTube, and other places—and the most successful voices tend to be upfront about their opinions. Expecting journalists to conceal their perspectives seems quaint and not exactly useful. Moran's statement that Miller derives "spiritual nourishment" from feasting on pure hate is a tad dramatic. (Emperor Palpatine, anyone?) But Miller is, in fact, a fanatical supporter of deporting not just violent or gang-connected illegal immigrants but everyone who may be in the country illegally. He recently reportedly yelled at representatives of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) because they were prioritizing deportations of violent criminals; Miller reportedly wanted ICE agents to patrol Home Depots and 7-Elevens and arrest anybody who looked like they might not be here legally. Insults like "fascist" and "Nazi" are frequently overused to describe prominent Republican figures. But it's not exactly insane to say that Miller comes off as kind of hateful. The post Terry Moran Insulted Stephen Miller? That's None of the Government's Business. appeared first on