Public services think tank Reform has called for a radical reset of the way UK government approaches delivering its objectives, with “ruthless focus and prioritisation” replacing the belief that all projects and policies are intertwined and can aid each other.
In a new paper, Reform policy director Joe Hill argues “everythingism” is hampering the UK’s ability to deliver on core goals such as bolstering the nation’s energy security, increasing housing supply and building cost-effective transport infrastructure.
He says everythingism has been a barrier to the delivery of a new nuclear-power station on Anglesey, unless the project also promotes the Welsh language, enhances biodiversity and upskills the local workforce.
Hill also points to planning policy being diverted from the task of “getting high-quality housing near the best jobs” by the need to also create local jobs, hire more apprentices and enhance biodiversity.
Another example is the £100m “bat tunnel” on the under-construction HS2 line from London to Birmingham, proposed “despite no evidence the trains would interfere with bats”.
Everythingism: The pathology holding back the state argues that quangos are also part of the problem – with incremental asks from organisations with vested interests getting in the way of ministers’ ability to provide solutions for the nation.
Hill says everythingism is “deeply rooted”, and a profound problem for the nation.
“It isn’t just that it feels like everything is going wrong, or that everything needs to be fixed,” he says. “The problem is that we’re relying on everything to fix everything else, everywhere, all at once. And so nothing works.”
He adds: “While complexity is helpful as a description of the situation, it is unhelpful as a prescription for action. It might be tempting to believe we can optimise every policy system for every policy objective, all at once, but that is fantasy. It leads to distraction, confusion, and paralysis.
“Ruthless prioritisation can be uncomfortable, but delivering any meaningful change through everythingism is unrealistic.”
Hill says that at best, everythingism is “a distraction” and at worst, it is a “recipe for institutional paralysis” – while usually it involves “a complete denial” of policy trade-offs.
“Often, the messy and interconnected state of everythingism lets policymakers pretend they are tackling a problem by pointing to lots of existing policies which ‘connect’, without actually changing anything,” he says.
The paper argues that it’s often easier for governments to regulate and create extra costs for the rest of the economy than to tackle a problem by allocating public budgets – because the costs of regulation aren’t comprehensively measured, unlike public spending.
Hill says most “inadvertent proponents” of everythingism have good intentions and want to “pull all the levers at their disposal” to try and change things for the better. But he adds that many already realise that the system can’t go on in such a way, and are starting to change their approach.
He concludes: “Defeating everythingism is a crucial step to rewiring the government and building state capacity. And greater state capacity is essential for solving Britain’s problems, given how closely the modern state is intertwined with the levers needed to build a successful future – a growing economy, defence of the nation, and reliable public services.”
Everythingism: The pathology holding back the state can be read here.