Getting Britain off the ground

Britain used to build. Our country laid railways, raised cities, and carved out ports that powered the world. We built the first underground trains. We built new towns, bridges, and power stations. All things that made people's lives better. Today, we struggle to lay a single stretch of tarmac.

The long drift toward this position has been quiet but steady. Well-intentioned rules and regulations were layered on top of each other. Timelines stretched. Permissions multiplied. Infrastructure projects are now a target for challenge, delay, and veto, not just for those who stand to lose out, but for those with no stake at all. We now have a system where doing nothing is safer than doing something, and where process has eclipsed purpose.

This is not sustainable. It is not fair. And it is not how you rebuild a country.

Heathrow is one case, perhaps the clearest case, of this problem in action. A growing economy needs growing infrastructure. More flights departing from and arriving at our biggest airport are good for our economy and a good thing for working people. Even those opposed to Heathrow expansion should reckon with the choice before us. Years of dithering and delay, or a decisive choice made as quickly as possible. It is only the latter which gives people certainty and clarity.

But this isn't just about aviation. It's about whether the British state can still make decisions and carry them through.

We all pay the price when the state avoids hard calls. In high rents, slow commutes, unaffordable energy, and missed opportunities. Communities see wealth, growth, and jobs lost, not in theory, but in practice, because projects that could change this country for the better never make it off a page.

We've created a system where getting approval for a mile of track or tarmac could take over half a decade. Where ambition shrinks to fit the size of the bureaucracy. And where previous Conservative governments seemed unable to say: "this is in the national interest and we're going to make it happen."

We must keep working to change this. A stronger, more confident state is not about centralisation or command and control. It is about leadership. It is about grip. It is about a government that sees its job as delivery, and one that earns back the belief that things can be better, because it proves it.

The report that follows offers one concrete example of how the state could act differently. It makes the case for cutting through delay, changing the process, and making a clear decision. You don't have to agree with every detail to see the broader point: we must build more, and we must do it faster. And crucially, we can. Not recklessly. Not carelessly. But with urgency, confidence, and purpose.

There is a moral case for building. A fairer economy, with better jobs and more secure lives, depends on it. And in the face of growing global challenges, from energy security to climate change, we cannot afford to keep saying "no" by default. The cost of inaction is already being paid.

We need a politics that can choose. A state that can deliver. A government that does what it says.

If we want a future that works for everyday people, we have to build it. Literally. That starts by fixing the system that stops us.