We still have time to avoid this looming dystopia

Rayner College, Oxford, June 2044
' The characteristic blindness of the 20th century … concerns something about which there is untroubled agreement between Hitler and President Roosevelt or H G Wells and Karl Barth.' (CS Lewis, 1944)
Those of us who came relatively unscathed through the Great Catastrophe of the early years of this decade can now – unlike so many of our countrymen – look back and ask ourselves what went so badly wrong.
Some of it is obvious. Mass immigration transformed our major cities and gradually suffocated our public services. Our casual, unfunded, ill-thought-through defence commitments led to the destruction of most of our Armed Forces and kit in Ukraine a decade ago.
Our failure to enforce the criminal law properly meant the fractious social environment of the 2020s degenerated into flight from the cities, no-go zones, and violence not seen since Northern Ireland in the 1970s.
But these are symptoms. The real cause was our gradually accelerating economic decline and the social tensions that followed, turbo-driven by the psychological Bantustans created by the Equality Act. The middle classes in the private sector saw a future of struggle and genteel poverty, while public 'servants' behaved like pre-Revolutionary French aristocrats defending their privileges.
The rich got out, and so did the young – if they could. The productive part of the economy was overwhelmed by the hangers-on. Conflict became inevitable when those with something to lose said to themselves 'we need a strong man: crack a few heads if you have to, I don't care anymore', and when those who didn't decided to try overthrowing the system as a whole.
What went wrong? Why did we condemn ourselves to economic decline and worse? It's not that we lacked lessons. The Americans avoided it. The Argentines dug themselves out of it. The Eastern Europeans were doing well enough until the 2033-4 war.
Of course we can see the answer clearly now. The economy didn't grow because we didn't want it to grow. On that, our leaders were united.
If I had said, in the days when classical music was still a thing, that I wanted to be a concert pianist, but didn't learn to read music and didn't practice, eventually people would have concluded I might say it, but I didn't really want it.
Similarly both Left and Right said they wanted growth. In practice they put other objectives first. Left and Right may have had different objectives, but they still had one big thing in common: they thought they knew best. No one would trust the market or trust the people. Our characteristic blindness, as C S Lewis put it, was to statism. And if the 20th century should have taught us anything, it was that statism led to economic decline and war.
The big problem areas were obvious. In 2025 Britain was about three to four million houses short. A massive building programme was needed. The Left's solution was new towns and social housing. The Right wanted building in cities and mansion blocks. No one wanted the one thing that might have made a difference: scrap the 1947 Planning Act, protect national parks, and let the market work. That's why young London professionals now live two to a room in south east Esher – and why so many have left for South East Asia.
Similarly, Left and Right blamed different things for the NHS's failure, but no one would let the market in to solve them. They had slightly varying views of the ideal tax burden, but both believed in regulating business. They had slightly different views about how quickly we should decarbonise but neither disputed the goal. That's why – until the government banned them – we all had a private generator in the 2030s.
Both Left and Right wanted growth. Just not as much as other things: electoral success, political convenience, avoiding reality. To be charitable, maybe most of them didn't really understand what was needed.
Certainly very few in the 2020s, let alone later, spoke of the power of the market, the prosperity created by free individuals, the new ideas that came from government getting out of the way. All the talk was of regulation and of social engineering. No one spoke of incentives and of profit.
We can see now that this meant Britain couldn't benefit from the skills and enterprise of all its citizens, only from the dubious skills of its policymakers. AI, which might genuinely have helped every person change their life, in fact only reinforced our leaders' belief that ever more cleverly worked-out policy could solve our problems. That is, after all, why Baroness Rayner founded the college where I now sit, as she said at the time, 'to use my experience to inspire very ordinary people to believe they can run the country'.
How strange it all seems now. If there is one silver lining to these past horrific few months, it is that we can now face reality. Like Adenauer's Germany in the 1950s, we don't have the luxury of deceiving ourselves.
Scrap the controls, free up the markets, get people rebuilding: that has to be the way out of our problems. We have had no end of a lesson. And now we must turn it to use.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Daily Mail​

25 minutes ago

• Daily Mail​

Keir Starmer backs strike by Trump's US on Iran saying its nuclear weapons are 'a grave threat to international security'

Keir Starmer this morning gave British backing to strikes on Iran 's nuclear capabilities by Donald Trump 's America. The Prime Minister said that Tehran's atomic programme was 'a grave threat to international security' after bombers dropped 30,000-pound 'bunker buster' bombs on the Fordow nuclear facility. Sir Keir added that the US had taken action to 'alleviate that threat', having previously urged Trump to use diplomacy instead, warning that military action could cause wider ramifications. Trump last night claimed the attack using B2 steal bombers had been 'a spectacular military success,' something Tehran denied. Reports from the US suggested that the bombers flew direct from the US rather than using the joint UK/US base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. In a statement this morning Sir Keir said: 'Iran's nuclear programme is a grave threat to international security. 'Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the US has taken action to alleviate that threat. 'The situation in the Middle East remains volatile and stability in the region is a priority. 'We call on Iran to return to the negotiating table and reach a diplomatic solution to end this crisis.'

BBC News

27 minutes ago

• BBC News

North Shields social hub helps care-experienced people gain skills

A care-experienced woman says volunteering at a new social supermarket has helped her develop her communication Fairless is part of a team running the new pantry at the Riverside Family Hub in North Shields, helping families who are struggling with the cost of living and rocketing food costs. North Tyneside Council said the pantry, which opens once a week, offers a bag of store-cupboard, frozen and fresh goods for £ Fairless said the work had "inspired her to cook" from scratch and she now wanted to pursue a culinary career. The 25-year-old, who was referred to the project by the council's carer leavers team, said: "The pantry has not only given me really useful skills and experience, but it keeps me busy doing something that feels good."I've picked up so many skills for my CV, from cooking to budgeting to communicating with people. "I've learned to make meals from scratch - curries, pies, my own pizza dough." The venture is a joint project between North Tyneside Council, Future Foundations Health Information and Advice Virtual School (HIVE), a specialist teaching and youth service based at the Mayor of North Tyneside Council, Karen Clark, said: "Not only does it support our residents to access more affordable food, it provides a space for our care-experienced people to build skills for life. "The community spirit is palpable and it's evident that it's bringing people together in a really positive way." Follow BBC North East on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram.

Telegraph

30 minutes ago

• Telegraph

Britain's defeatist attitude ‘has led to reliance on foreign labour'

A 'defeatist' attitude to getting young people into work has left Britain over-reliant on foreign labour, the Business Secretary has said. Jonathan Reynolds hits out at the 'casual' approach taken to packing key sectors such as healthcare, construction and manufacturing with imported workers. In an interview with The Telegraph, he says the UK is 'vulnerable' to global events because 'tremendous skills gaps' have opened up in the domestic workforce. His intervention comes as Labour prepares to publish plans on Monday on how to boost the number of young Britons taking up jobs in areas like defence. Mr Reynolds will publish a 10-year blueprint to train up thousands more school leavers and 'end the over-reliance on foreign labour' in the economy. It comes after new analysis from Oxford University's Migration Observatory showed the proportion of migrant employees in the UK has risen from 12 per cent a decade ago to just under one in five now. At the same time, the number of young Britons who are not in employment, education or training (Neet) has risen sharply to one in seven. The Business Secretary said that the Neet statistic was 'appalling' and that people too often felt that skilled jobs had 'not been available to them and their children'. 'If on key areas the argument is 'we just have to import talent in that sector, we can't train people, we haven't got the money, we haven't got the capacity', I think that's too defeatist and we've got to address that,' he said. 'We cannot have a vibrant, diverse economy, we cannot have a very strong manufacturing base, unless we've got the skills for it and that's why we can't be casual about just importing that.' Monday's industrial strategy announcement will include plans to open a new generation of technical colleges and fund 'cutting-edge' courses in defence and engineering. It will also set out how the Government plans to be more interventionist, 'rather than leaving industry to fend for itself and let the markets decide'. Mr Reynolds said it will help 'ensure British workers can secure good, well-paid jobs in the industries of tomorrow'. He acknowledged that the historically high level of net migration over recent years 'doesn't have public consent' and has created a 'lot of anger'. It was important to remain 'very pro talent coming to the UK' but also ensure migration was 'not the only way we're meeting those skills needs', he added. 'If you think about the tremendous gaps we've got in the skills pipeline in construction, in engineering, defence, that's the reason why the wider sectors that we've picked for the strategy have these packages in there. 'We are vulnerable when the whole world wants these things. I feel previous governments have assumed it doesn't matter if we make anything in the UK – I think that's wrong.' Mr Reynolds said that 'the country has failed' the almost one million 16 to 24-year-olds who are currently classed as Neet. There is 'not just an economic argument' but 'a moral one as well', he said, adding that 'it's a tragedy' if people aren't getting the right opportunities. He backed the proposed £5 billion cuts to benefits, over which No 10 is facing a big Labour rebellion, arguing that 'we've got to be addressing these issues'. 'No young person, unless they obviously have a significant disability or are genuinely not in a position to work, should be choosing or [be] in a position where they're not going into employment or education or training,' he said. 'I go around, it doesn't matter whether it's creative industries, advanced manufacturing, services, energy, and think I'd love my kids to work in any of these sectors. 'I think the number of young people who are Neet is appalling. I don't know how we've allowed that to happen.' Mr Reynolds said the industrial strategy should be judged on whether it helps school leavers 'understand that there are major careers, good jobs for British people'. 'The skills are about new careers for thousands of British people. Business needs that, I think the country needs that,' he said. 'Part of the conversation this week has been about the number of people on disability benefits in the UK, some of whom are in work, I do recognise that. 'But we've we've got to be addressing these issues for business, and we've got to be addressing them for people's lives themselves.' He also insisted that, whilst defending UK industry, the strategy will not represent 'nostalgia for the past' or a 'protectionist and 1970s orientated' approach. The Business Secretary, who has recently struck landmark trade deals with the US and India, said he would take a more cautious approach with China. He said that he has repeatedly brought up the dumping of steel on the global market at below production value in 'candid' discussions with Beijing. 'Whatever people think of the US administration, they have a point on the reciprocity of trade, if one part of the world is producing a lot of what the world makes and doesn't consume itself a reflective share of that,' he said. 'These big global imbalances, this isn't really how the global economy is supposed to function. 'So an obvious thing for us would be, is a country like China willing to let our brilliant service industries operate freely as we allow some countries to operate in the UK? That's a question for China.'