Editorial Analysis
Sting in the Tail
By William Collinson
August 8, 2026
9 min read
Image: independent.co.uk
There has been a persistent theme in British politics of late. From overcrowded prisons to raging wildfires across southern France, decades of policy neglect are coming back to bite. One must hope this is a wake-up moment. It is time for a mature debate about short-termism, and how this damaging tendency is instilled largely by democratic incentives. An ancient Greek proverb suggests that ‘a society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in’. It grows increasingly difficult to square this with modern British politics. 'A society remains mediocre when old politicians won’t plant trees, knowing they will never sit in its political shade’. I wonder why this more accurate version never caught on.
How then, do democratic incentives inhibit the metaphorical and material planting of slow-growing trees? There are many aspects of short-termism in the UK. Firstly, the 5-year election cycle ensures that parties prioritise policy that will yield visible results before the next election, to bolster chances of remaining in power. Low-hanging fruit is conquered, while deeper, structural issues are largely swept under the rug. Long-term investments usually involve short-term costs; developing preventative healthcare, prioritising Net Zero, or reforming the prison or social care systems are all expensive policies that will only produce results years down the line. Yet you can only keep ducking these challenges for so long. As we have seen of late, such avoidance provides policy makers a sting in the tail.
Equally, as the effects of short-termism have bubbled up in recent weeks, is expanding democratic pressure through devolution the right direction for the country? Devolution can yield great benefits. Manchester, as you are likely sick of hearing by now, is a perfect example of this. Yet, its potential to further short-termism in governance must be debated. Perhaps policy scrutiny that comes along with election campaigns serves a useful purpose. Who would have thought?
Not Another One!
Ministerial turnover is a central element of this short-termism. Beyond our 7 Prime Ministers in a decade – always a shocking stat, no matter how often it is repeated – between 2010-2024 there were 16 housing secretaries, 11 health secretaries, and 14 prisons ministers (across each distinct iteration of the prison brief). The latter example is something Rory Stewart aims at in his 2023 book 'Politics on the Edge', suggesting no prisons minister in recent years has been in post long enough to truly tackle issues such as overcrowding, rates of reoffence and breach of parole.
A further accurate criticism Stewart directed at the state of our politics is how announcements are rewarded more than implementation. Headline chasing, something politics incentivises to contribute to electoral victory, is often how to progress through a party or a government. Consistent and detailed policy debate, proposal or implementation over several years yield less personal or political rewards, meaning governance time-and-again fails to deliver long-term reform. By his own admission, Stewart was only just getting to grips with the real issues in the prison system, and had begun to reduce violence and improve conditions within prisons when he was promoted to Secretary of State for International Development. Furthermore, the House of Lords has concluded upon review that the ‘churn’ of prison ministers constituted a significant obstacle to consistent reform.
Hot Potato Policy
As we have seen, planting trees for our younger generations to enjoy is crucial for a well functioning society and government. While originally a metaphorical suggestion, this now has a physical dimension; how perceptive those ancient Greeks were! Interestingly, New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani has ambitiously pledged to expand canopy cover of the concrete jungle to 30% by 2040. Yet the original, metaphorical meaning of the proverb brings us specifically to credit-claiming, a phenomenon where governments avoid pursuing reforms that will yield results years later. Firstly, this is a defeatist mindset; if you are confident in your political project, you should govern with confidence that you will be in office following the next election. Governments that fail to grapple with significant, long-term issues due to fears that they will pay short-term political costs for long-term benefits for the nation typify state failure. Why this is done is certainly understandable. Nevertheless, it is still a dereliction of duty.
A perfect example of this is social care, something that has returned to the forefront of discourse in the UK in recent weeks. Arguably, reform of the social care system is the unfinished business of the post-war welfare settlement. Indeed, at present, our social care system is means-tested, incurring huge costs for many families looking to take care of their elderly. This forces many individuals to pay substantial fees they can seldom afford; individuals with assets worth more than £23,250, a relatively low bar, must pay the full cost of their social care. This unfair model must be revised, with Burnham suggesting the future of the NHS is inexorably tied to fixing the social care issue.
Social care must receive greater funding in order to make it cheaper, to possibly adopt a model similar to the NHS model, and, more broadly, to improve the service. While critical, and increasingly so due to an ageing population, this reform would be incredibly expensive. To meet rising demand, and to improve access, an additional £6-8 billion annually must be found, according to research conducted by The Health Foundation. This cost would balloon if a free at the point of use – similar to the NHS – system was implemented in a possible National Care Service. This would most certainly require substantial tax increases, something subsequent administrations have been unable and unwilling to do. The idea that short-term political costs will be absorbed by a party that will likely not reap the rewards of a better functioning care system plays a significant role here. Prime minister after prime minister has promised reform, yet ultimately ducked the challenge. Will Burnham step up? In a sense, by tying the future of social care to the continued existence of the NHS, Burnham has equally tied his premiership to the social care issue. Will he join the growing list of discarded Prime Ministers who have failed to effectively reform social care, or will he finally extend the post-war welfare settlement to its full and natural close?
Take Your Foot Off the Gas
You wake up in a sweltering room, open the window and see dying grass and dried streams, and proceed to scroll through harrowing images of French wildfires over your morning coffee. Badenoch can experience this and still support a drill, baby drill agenda with a straight face. Burnham must not, lest he lose grand swathes of progressive voters who have thus far been willing to lend him their tentative support. While it is wholly unfair to attribute the French wildfires to failures from the British government over climate, it must act as a warning for what may happen if we fail to take climate change seriously again. The UK has been a leader on climate policy, yet what signal does it send if Burnham opens either the Jackdaw or Rosebank fields to negligible domestic benefits? Any oil, or more importantly gas, produced domestically would be sold at international market prices, meaning Labour would only pursue this policy to curry favour with Washington, or pander to voters to the right. How well that worked for Sir Kier Starmer.
While the UK government cannot be accused of unreasonable short-termism when it comes to climate policy to international standards, Burnham could start his premiership with a strong dose of this deeply damaging and short-sighted quick-fix policy by pursuing further drilling in Rosebank and Jackdaw. This, he must avoid. Regardless of how well the UK has done regarding Net-Zero, past successes should not allow for regression. The real bite of the climate crisis will grow sharper still. Simply because the first iterations of it are occurring over the channel does not mean that Britain should take its foot off the gas regarding Net-Zero. Yet, ironically, that is exactly what must be done. Check out our article on North Sea oil and gas, and Britain's energy crisis, linked below.
Desperate for Employment, Education or Training
The NEET (not in employment, education or training) crisis is a more powerful example of long-term government neglect, specific to shortcomings from the UK government, rather than our wider civilisation. For a more detailed review of Alan Milburn's ‘Young People and Work’ and Britain’s seismic NEET crisis, have a look at our article ‘Swiping the Ladder’ linked below. NEET levels have been consistently above 10% for decades, breaching the 1 million mark in January 2026. This has profound impacts on individuals, alongside constituting a dramatic economic drain of around £125 billion annually, in terms of unearned income and costs on the taxpayer, for example, reliance upon the NHS for mental health treatment.
Persistent neglect has exaggerated this issue. Britain pumps out qualifications for its young, yet the transitional link into employment is weakening. Mental health is treated in the UK without the incorporation of a participatory aspect, where support is provided for those treated for mental health conditions to economically participate in their lives after leaving care. Indeed, one of Milburn's key findings is that disengagement is rooted in childhood, through issues such as poor attendance, exclusion, family and housing instability and more broadly, poverty. Robotic application processes make it harder for candidates to stand out, and as AI-generated applications face AI application screenings, increasingly what will be relied upon is a system of nepotism that any aspiring meritocratic society and economy must avoid like the plague. This will exaggerate the central issue Milburn cited as being behind the NEET crisis: social disadvantage. Those from less privileged backgrounds do not have access to professional networks to help propel them into employment, and recent shifts in the labour market for entry-level roles could deepen this problem.
A further issue Milburn highlighted was the link between underinvestment in rural transport and economic disengagement. Where you live can often determine your access to employment, education and training, due to infrequent or expensive public transport. Failure to invest in effective transport outside of major urban areas has limited the ability for many to participate economically, a further example of a problem requiring a long-term solution, yet one which has been neglected due to short-termism incentivised by the game of politics in Britain.
A Crisis of Patience?
From the outside, it is easy to criticise. Short-termism is caused by real democratic pressures, ones which are perhaps irreconcilable with an increasingly participatory democracy. As devolution advances, and more localities and mayoralties are founded, the very democratic incentives to pursue quick fixes over long-term projects are strengthened. Indeed, the weary voters of Makerfield have been forced to trudge to their local polling station four times since July 2024 (including the Wigan local elections). The more executive bodies there are looking down the road to a future election, and the more powerful these organisations become, the greater the incentive to pursue short-term, quick and easy political wins. If this is where local politics is going, Westminster must change culturally to focus largely upon long-term politics.
Perhaps we simply face a crisis of patience. Understandably, the public has lost patience with our politics, and trust in politics and politicians can only be rebuilt slowly. What is required is a consistent and mapped-out direction – distinct from stagnant Starmerite politics – with long-term policy set out from Westminster. Burnham’s fledgling government has taken on a great array of structural issues that require persistent, long-term policy to tackle. This includes regional inequality and social care, and, moving forward, should certainly include the NEET crisis. The climate crisis and Net-Zero equally must have a central role in a truly successful Burnham government, yet persistent rumblings about the prospect of expanding North Sea drilling, and watering down Milliban's Net-Zero policies suggest this is unlikely. There have been a multitude of warning signs recently for the UK. From climate change to fears of a ‘lost generation’, the damage of short-termism is growing ever more visceral.
How can we safeguard against this issue in both Westminster and throughout the increasingly devolved powers? As Westminster has proven its reluctance to plant metaphorical and material trees for the next generation, how will the devolved powers differ? As our democracy grows more participatory, and the scrutiny of the electorate grows increasingly powerful – through mayoral and local elections, not solely general elections – these democratic pressures that incentivise short-termism could be seen to grow. This must be considered and guarded against if devolution is to be expanded. The amalgamation of such varied wake-up calls highlights short-termism as a key challenge facing British democracy, perhaps one that should be confronted before expanding devolution to such an extent. We cannot expect our society to grow great if we fail to plant trees for fear of another basking in their shade.