Here’s a thoughtful article from Nick Cohen in the Observer/Guardian, citing the analysis a Harvard scholar. When liberals were in power, they abused economic management and squandered on social policies – this includes the UK’s Labour Party and the Democratic Party in the US. Because of grievances, we have the populism of both the Far Left and the Far Right. Let’s face, the Labour Party is now more Far-Left than socialist and the Conservatives supporting Brexit have swung to Far Right politics. Populist parties ignore the truth – for them the end justifies the means. But surely there is no social and economic justification for liberals to champion the grievances of the ‘left-behind’? Meanwhile, conservatives argue that the left-behind are lazy and not prepared to chase opportunities. Being a one-nation conservative, I believe passionately in self-help, albeit with proper social safety nets for the genuinely needy. Surely, there’s a political imperative to remove laziness from post-Brexit Britain? In the great post-Brexit utopia, the right will expect inherited wealth to come to the rescue and the left will demand social handouts. Surely, governments of populist leaders of both left and right must turn to revolution because the ‘end justifies the means’? Thoughts?
This article by top strategy consultancy, BCG was rather disappointing. Perhaps it will encourage more UK government departments to spend GBP5,000 a day for the services of consultants? My observations are simple. The business administration literature contains enormous top quality analysis on ‘turnarounds’ and ‘business strategy‘. Sadly, these terms get over-used by unemployed executives, who want to sprinkle their CVs with buzz words to gain ‘hits’ on automated recruitment analytics. Like always, look to the evidence. People like John Gelmini and myself have decades of experience in delivering effective strategic change, including turnarounds. Thoughts?