To clarify as early as possible, I am not here to police language. I am here to police mindset. Individuals should use whatever words they feel make them best understood and, as another Wellington Project founder has explained, language is a constantly evolving force. However, individuals should be aware of the implications of using certain words, and what facets of their worldview are revealed in doing so, unwittingly or otherwise.

What I would like to explore here is a trend that I have observed in conversations of a political nature. I have noticed a way in which many that occupy all corners of the political compass state problems that they see, and any solutions that they have come up with. Now that I have seen it, it has become impossible for me to un-see, and I would also like to make it impossible for the reader here to un-see.

Where does responsibility lie?

Here is an example of a common right wing argument:

• Problem: “Immigration has caused our local culture to be decimated, too much competition for jobs, and house prices to go through the roof”
• Proposed Solution: “We need to stop immigration, or at least reduce it to manageable levels”

Looking at the problem here, it is obvious who’s local culture is meant by “our” local culture. The person stating the problem feels that the town or neighbourhood where they personally reside has changed for the worse.

However, who do they mean by “we” in the phrase “We need to stop immigration”? They personally are not going to climb in a boat and turn back dinghies in the channel. They personally are not going to round up their friends, with the aim of pushing illegals onto flights that they are running to Rwanda. What they mean is “The UK Government should stop immigration”.

This is the key point, proposing that “we” should do these things, the things that are actually the purpose of government, is unhelpful. Moreover, it deflects the responsibility away from the people whose job it actually is. In this example, subjects of the crown should petition their representatives in Parliament. Parliament should close the border.

Being precise when proposing solutions is important, as it helps formulate a roadmap to actually enacting it. 

A common left wing argument is as follows

• Problem: “Working people are not being paid enough to cover basic necessities”
• Proposed Solution: “We need a minimum wage, or if there already is one it should be raised higher”

Again, who is “we”? Working people may indeed welcome a higher minimum wage, until their employer cannot afford to keep paying them and they are left with zero income or dependent on state benefits.

Again, being specific in who is meant by “we” helps cut through linguistic confusion, and get to the heart of a proposition, exposing any weaknesses. This is important when attacking an opponent's proposition, but also when formulating your own.

Finally, another common argument from all sides that I see is as follows:

• Problem: “Britain is a modern, 21st century nation and its infrastructure is unimaginative at best, and inferior to it's past glories at worst”
• Proposed Solution: “Britain needs to be bold and ambitious! Build megastructures! Build monuments! Build grand, beautiful cities!”

Who exactly is meant by "Britain" here? It is certainly not the reader or myself, as loyal subjects of the crown as I'm sure we are. There are almost certainly other British subjects out there who are capable of such imagination, and could actually help to transform the nation for the better. 

What is also almost certain, is that these individuals do not work in council planning offices or the treasury, and at present have no incentive to help. Therefore, either these individuals go against their incentives and occupy these jobs en masse, or these dis-incentives are removed by lowering the barrier of entry to becoming involved.

All of the above arguments are straw men of a sort. The point is not to attack these specific arguments, but to provide an avenue of attack whenever a similar, lazily formulated solution is put forward. It also serves to identify individuals responsible for implementing a solution, or those that are hindering one, so that they cannot hide behind the collective.

In the words of the American comedian Sam Hyde:

"The world is not dying, it is being killed. And the people that are killing it have names and addresses"

Individuals can refer to them by name, and write to their addresses, rather than referring to the nebulous "we".

Visions and Objectives

Obviously, "the UK Government should deregulate planning" is not much more helpful than "We should be bold and ambitious" when looking to actually achieve change. Such statements we shall call "visions". 

Visions are "north star" points that allow us to orient ourselves on our road to success. Whenever a relevant decision must be made, a good vision will allow us to distinguish which of the options is best aligned with it. This is why being specific is important, for example it is possible to be bold and ambitious in most decisions, whereas it is easy to see which decision will help or hinder the UK Government in deregulating planning.

Visions do not even have to be achievable, as previously stated they are there simply to inform decision-making. What should be achievable are objectives, which are shorter-term goals aligned with a vision.

As anyone who has held down a corporate job for long will have had drilled into them, objectives should be SMART, i.e.

• Specific - No ambiguity as to what is being attempted
• Measurable - Metrics to determine the success or failure of the objective should be easily identifiable, and their values easily recordable
• Achievable - Within your power to carry out
• Relevant - Aligned with a vision
• Time-bound - Not open-ended. If it is not achieved within this time frame then it is considered a failure and re-evaluated

If an individual is looking to affect change, then they must set themselves these objectives. Considering our planning example some objectives for an individual might be as follows:

1. “I will email my local MP today to ask him to raise this particular issue in parliament. If he/she does not reply within the week, or replies negatively, then I will consider this objective failed.”
2. "By this time next year I will have applied for 5 jobs in the local planning authority, with the aim of achieving 2 interviews."

It should now be clear how much more helpful this is than simply stating that "We need to be bold and ambitious when building". Coming up with a specific vision, SMART objectives, and metrics with which to measure their success should be the aim, rather than adding to the already cluttered landscape of soundbite visions for society.

Power

A final point to highlight is the A in SMART. It should not need to be stated, but objectives should be achievable by whoever is undertaking them. Common British subjects are not going to change laws by themselves, they are not going to influence culture overnight, and "the people" are not going to "wake up", no matter how many tweets, Substack blogs or Wellington Project articles are written.

What is required to make change is power, therefore the amount of change an individual (or group) can affect is in some way proportional to the power they wield. If change is desired, three options are open:

1. Formulate and achieve objectives that are within your power.
2. Influence those in power to achieve more difficult objectives for you.
3. Gain more power yourself.

Obviously, at the end of the day all that can be done is point 1, but points 2 and 3 help increase the scope of what is achievable with future objectives.

An example of this would be the abolitionists in the early 1800s. "We should stop the global slave trade" is not a helpful vision. "The UK parliament should pass a law banning the slave trade, and the royal navy should enforce this by any means necessary" is much more helpful and identifies a list of individuals to influence. Objectives can be formulated to create petitions towards these individuals, and so on.

This, then, is why the Wellington Project pushes the idea of contacting MPs to raise issues around the destruction of British history, the disproportionate taxation of single-income families and all manner of issues relevant to the modern day "culture war".

This is within your power, so until you can grow your power, this is a place to start.