Britain has not been this irrelevant in 500 years | Allister Heath responds to readers' comments

Key Concepts

• Starland: A term used to describe the current state of Britain, which the speaker argues aligns with the vision of Keir Starmer, characterized by a focus on human rights law, an international rules-based system, and a reluctance to increase military spending.
• Hard Power: The ability to coerce or influence others through military might or economic strength, contrasted with "soft power."
• Soft Power: The ability to attract and co-opt rather than coerce, through culture, political values, and foreign policies. The speaker argues America disregards this.
• Creative Destruction: A process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, destroying the old one, creating a new one. Essential for economic growth.
• Net Zero: A target to balance greenhouse gas emissions with removals, aiming for no net emissions. The speaker advocates scrapping this immediately.
• Triple Lock: A UK government commitment to increase the state pension by the highest of inflation, average earnings growth, or 2.5%. The speaker argues it's unsustainable.
• Welfarist State: A system where the state plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of its citizens. The speaker argues Britain's attempt at this has led to poverty and lack of influence.
• International Rules-Based System: A framework of international laws, norms, and institutions governing state behavior. The speaker argues this system has withered due to the decline of Western power.
• Sovereign Wealth Fund: A state-owned investment fund composed of money derived from a country's surplus reserves. Discussed in the context of Norway's model.
• GDP per capita: A measure of a country's economic output per person, used to compare relative wealth.

---

Britain's Decline and the Urgent Need for a Reset

Alistair Heath, responding to reader comments on his article "Impotent useless Britain is the weakest it has been for 500 years," argues that Britain is at its lowest point of global influence in half a millennium. He posits that the last time Britain was this "irrelevant" was in the early 1500s, contrasting it with its rise to a world power by the late 1500s (defeating the Spanish, global exploration), the Industrial Revolution, and eventually achieving the highest GDP per capita. Heath asserts that Britain has gone "massively backwards," and while civilizations die slowly, its decline has "suddenly accelerated," reaching a "tipping point" 5-15 years ago. This decline, he claims, has rendered not just Britain but "European civilization" (including France and Germany) "largely irrelevant" on the global stage, where America and China are the dominant powers, with India and Israel as rising forces. This catastrophic trajectory is attributed to a series of "stupid choices" made since the end of the Cold War in 1990.

Three Pillars for Britain's Revival

Heath proposes a fundamental "reset" for Britain, focusing on three critical themes to reverse its decline:

1. Military Strength:
   • Specifics: Heath calls for doubling military spending over the next two to four years, hiring "tens of thousands more military personnel," completely reconstructing the armed forces, and embracing "robotics and drones and technology."
   • Goal: To once again become a "powerful military power," a status lost due to "spending cuts and because of creeping legalism and pacifism" since the 1980s, 90s, and early 2000s.
2. Energy Independence and Abundance:
   • Specifics: The speaker advocates for immediate deregulation of the energy industry, a massive increase in the production of all types of power, and the immediate scrapping of "Net Zero" targets. He proposes launching a "massive nuclear program" and unleashing "fracking and North Sea oil and solar and wind and anything" to produce more energy.
   • Goal: To secure the "cheapest possible and most plentiful and most secure supplies" in a world where energy security is paramount.
3. Economic Growth and Entrepreneurial Revolution:
   • Specifics: Heath emphasizes an "obsessive" focus on economic growth, calling for an "entrepreneurial revolution" to foster new companies and "tech giants," akin to America's success with companies like Nvidia, Apple, Google, Facebook, and SpaceX. He advocates for a process of "creative destruction," which he believes has dwindled in Britain, noting that most FTSE 100 companies are "quite old" compared to recent American giants.
   • Policy: This requires slashing taxes, deregulating, putting the private sector first, encouraging risk-taking, business building, business creation, technological innovation, and prioritizing science and technology over redistribution.

Critique of Current Policies and the "Starland" Model

Heath critically examines current political and economic approaches, arguing they are detrimental to Britain's future:

• Abandonment of Pragmatism and Misplaced Priorities: Responding to Tony Greenfield's comment, Heath agrees that Britain has lost the ability to do the right thing for the long term, chasing short-term profit and debasing itself on the "altar of political correctness and the tyranny of the minority." He broadens this to a fundamental lack of "correct priorities," stating that Britain's attempt to be a "welfarist version of Switzerland" has resulted in poverty and a "complete lack of influence," unlike Switzerland.
• The "Starland" Model and Its Failure: Addressing Mrs. Wright's question about Keir Starmer, Heath asserts, "We are living in Starland. The Britain of today is what Starmer wants." He characterizes Starmer as a "human rights lawyer" who is reluctant to increase military spending and favors an "international rules-based system." Heath argues that this system has "withered away" because Britain's and other European countries' power has "faded into insignificance." He emphatically states, "You need power. There's no substitute for hard power. There's no substitute for hard cash. There's no substitute for having a large military. There's no substitute for having a booming economy." He concludes that the "welfare state Starmer wants" and the "happy clappy international legal order" have "failed disastrously," leading to Britain's lack of influence (e.g., with Trump, or needing to "beg Trump for a bit of money... over Ukraine"). He attributes this failure to the model itself, implemented by previous Labour and Conservative governments.
• Unsustainable Public Spending and Welfare: In response to Amanda Malass's concern about the "triple lock" pension and spending on "illegal immigrants," Heath states that Britain "just do not have enough funds available." He calls for an immediate slash in public spending by "probably the biggest amount we've ever been able to cut public spending before," suggesting "2 and a half% of GDP immediately and then probably several percentage points over the next few years." He insists there "cannot be any sacred cows" in current spending, advocating for more military spending and "a lot less on welfare and on current spending." While agreeing that spending on illegal immigration "has to give," he maintains that the "triple lock" is unsustainable. He also agrees with LR Jones that small bureaucracies like "Gift Aid" should be scrapped, but emphasizes focusing on the "large changes."

Addressing Counterarguments and Misconceptions

Heath also tackles common counterarguments to his proposed solutions:

• Norway's Sovereign Wealth Fund: Responding to Marcus Adams' suggestion to follow Norway's example, Heath rejects the idea of a sovereign wealth fund as a solution. He argues that Norway's fund is being "politicizing it and weaponizing it in many ways in an anti-western way," which he believes "contributes to the West's decline." Instead, he advocates for a "domestic revolution in Britain."
• Britain's Small Size: Jeremy Owen's comment about Britain being a "medium-sized island" with limited resources is acknowledged by Heath as true, but he argues it "doesn't explain why we were much richer relatively speaking... or in terms of military power in the past in the 80s and 90s." He cites Britain's ability to retake the Falkland Islands and its role as the "second biggest contributor to the Iraq war" as evidence of its capacity to "punch quite strongly above that weight." He concludes that "small doesn't mean very much. You can be small and very powerful. You can be small and very rich," aiming for Britain to be "rich and influential," not just rich like Switzerland.
• Becoming the 51st US State: Mike Wit's provocative suggestion is firmly rejected by Heath, who insists Britain "should be an independent, self-governing sovereign state." He believes Britain can become "much more successful and could actually become influential again and could actually stand up to America again" by adopting his proposed policies. He notes that "America only is interested in its own self-interest. And America only respects strength. They respect hard military and hard cash," ignoring "soft power or human rights laws or the United Nations." He concludes that Britain "need[s] to play that game, too, if we want to be influential in the 21st century."

Conclusion: The Catastrophic Path and Call for Reversal

Alistair Heath concludes by reiterating that Britain's current strategy—characterized by "falling down the GDP per capita leagues, falling down the military spending leagues, not having any military, not having any soldiers, not having any hard power, being effectively bankrupt, spending all our money on welfare and redistribution, chasing away entrepreneurs and millionaires"—is "disastrous, utterly catastrophic." He asserts that this path "needs to be reversed immediately" to ensure Britain can regain its influence in the world.