Britain is stuck. How can we get it moving again?
A National Fellowship programme for a brighter national future
As a shrinking British economy drags itself through a second winter of rail strikes, the parallels with the 1970s have not been missed. For some, Putin’s shock to the energy markets, a cost of living crisis, and widespread disruption to healthcare, transport, and education echo Heath’s Three-Day Week and Wilson’s Winter of Discontent.
But it would be a mistake to think about Britain’s problems in 1970s terms. Not because they’re not as bad – they are – but because Britain is now stuck in a very different way. Britain’s problems today are as much as about its society as its economy.
Say what you will about the trade unions of the ‘70s and the politicians who opposed them, but no one could accuse either group of apathy. Opposing groups fought pitched battles (sometimes literally) for different visions of Britain and its future. People felt a sense of shared responsibility at the local and national level. Membership of social, political, and sporting organisations was widespread.[1] Voter turnout was high, even among the young. In short, Britain’s social fabric remained intact and its people remained engaged in fighting for their own vision of a better future.
Today, Britain is stuck not because we are not wealthy – we are much wealthier than we were in the 70s – but because the erosion of our social fabric has shredded our sense of collective responsibility for Britain’s future.
On every metric - from divorce rates and intergenerational contact to membership of trade unions and organised religion – British society is more fragmented, lonely, and disoriented than it’s ever been. In contrast to the 1970s, British citizens today are much less likely to be actively involved in any form of social, sporting, political, or religious organisation, a trend which predates the pandemic. Without these ‘ties that bind’, British society has become atomised and polarised, fuelling populism and eroding the mutual trust we need for collective action on the most pressing issues of our time.
Nowhere is this issue more apparent than among young British citizens like myself. Raised by social media during the isolation of a pandemic, we (Gen Z) are more socially fragmented than any other age group. Gen Z report the highest levels of loneliness and the lowest levels of civic engagement of any age group, and many suffer from nihilism and hopelessness about the future. Add to this the spiralling cost of home ownership preventing young people from gaining a stake in Britain, and it is no wonder that few British Gen Zers feel rooted in Britain, let alone responsible for improving its future.
With our country in dire need of large-scale solutions and long-term strategy, getting young people to feel a sense of shared responsibility for Britain has never been more important. In particular, we need bright young minds to stay engaged, at the local and national level, in the fight for a better future.
Solving this problem is the prerequisite to tackling every other challenge Britain faces – from the climate crisis and demographic decline to the housing crisis and the productivity gap – since, in a few short years, Britain will be relying on Gen Z to produce the necessary policy innovations and tax revenues.
But we will not achieve this by telling them that Britain is objectively the most prosperous or fair country in the world – it’s not. Rather, we need to get Gen Z to take responsibility for this country’s future by convincing them of something much more intangible but much more important for our individual wellbeing – that Britain is somewhere they can be part of a community; somewhere they can make a difference; somewhere they can belong.
Achieving this would require a radical investment in Britain’s emerging leaders; something to encourage Gen Z to stay here and stay engaged in making Britain better. Practically, this could be achieved by creating a National Fellowship programme combining the best elements from National Civic Services such as France’s new Service National Universel and existing philanthropic leadership programmes such as the Civic Future Fellowship and the Laidlaw Scholarship. I would propose that such a programme be made compulsory for all British citizens attending University in the UK. Starting from their first year, students would participate in the programme part-time, gaining in-person experience of a range of careers in the public and private sectors as well as receiving professional coaching to help them hone in on a career. With a clear vision for their future and a tangible path to personal success in Britain, young people would feel like they have a stake in Britain’s future.
To address the breakdown in social fabric, students would also contribute to a wide range of civil society organisations, community projects, charities, political parties, and sports, fostering a sense of collective responsibility for Britain and giving them a chance to form friendships and connections with their peers. This weekly structure, social interaction, and sense of purpose may also improve student mental health.
In their final year, the student would hone in on a particular career and focus on a single form of civil society contribution. This choice would be supported by a mentor who would usually be a retired member of the chosen profession, increasing intergenerational contact and providing a meaningful way for experienced professionals to pass down their knowledge.
Once graduated, the student would make a further choice. Either they would choose to find work on their own and finish the programme there, or they could choose to continue the programme for an additional year, completing a state-backed internship in the public or private sectors while they continue their civil society contribution part-time. With the tangible experience of contributing to their community and a guaranteed introduction to a fulfilling career, Gen Z would be inspired to see themselves as agents of positive change; optimistic about their future in Britain and confident in their ability to shape it.
Although such a programme would be a significant investment in the younger generation, the projected costs are relatively low. Drawing from similar philanthropically-funded programmes such as the Laidlaw Scholarship and the Leeds Alumni Leadership Mentoring Programme, costs are estimated at £3,849 per student per year.[2] With 695,000 British students enrolling in UK universities every year, the total cost amounts to £2.68 Billion per year – comparable to the amount we spend on the winter fuel allowance and just 0.11% of GDP.[3] Given that this programme would turbo-charge Gen Z’s leadership potential in their careers, the Treasury is likely to see a significant return on this investment through increased productivity and tax revenues.
Britain is stuck and we need to get it moving again. As a small island with a small, top-heavy population, it relies, and will increasingly rely, on the quality of its people and their commitment to building a better future here, in Britain. That is why Britain needs a National Fellowship programme. By inspiring young people to contribute to civic society, it would begin to restitch the social fabric and heal the divides in our society; by giving young people a clear career path and a stake in society, it would encourage us (Gen Z) to feel a sense of collective responsibility for Britain and its future.
This article was written in response to the TxP Progress Prize prompt ‘Britain is Stuck. How can we get it moving again?’
Word count: 1,194
[1] The Conservative Party, for example, maintained over 1 million members throughout the ‘70s. It now stands at 172,000.
[2] This figure includes the cost of means-tested stipends allocated to students that would otherwise have to work part-time during their studies. Following the Laidlaw Scholarship, I have set this at an average of £6,000 per student over the course of the programme, but this would, of course, vary according to need.
[3] Additional costs may occur in cases where the state would not have otherwise employed the student for the optional ‘internship year’, but as a public-private partnership, some costs would be borne by companies who will benefit from the talent being brought to them.