In Britain, there is no greater virtue than to fail honourably, and no greater sin than to succeed indecently. As a nation, we seem to value processes over outcomes, and to focus more on means than ends — chalk it up to the good old fashioned English sense of fair play. 

Nowhere is this instinct expressed more clearly than in politics. Theresa May, for example, has been the subject of post-premiership beatification on the grounds that she was, basically, a decent and hard-working Prime Minister. Nevermind the fact that she failed to navigate the Brexit quagmire, betrayed Troubles veterans and deepened ideological net zero commitments — for a certain sort of commentator, May is worthy of praise because she made all of these mistakes with the very best intentions. Is it just me, or is this starting to look like the road to hell? 

Of course, May isn’t the only beneficiary of this peculiarly British instinct. John Major has enjoyed a post-Brexit renaissance amongst self-identified sensibles as the last decent Conservative Prime Minister. Dominic Cummings, on the other hand, was a subject for scorn in much of the mainstream press, on the grounds that he was sometimes rude about civil servants. Beyond the world of politics, Gareth Southgate continues to get away with criminal mismanagement of the England football team on the grounds that he seems pleasant at press conferences. 

Ultimately, this is a noble but misguided tendency, rooted in Christian ideas about the possibility of universal salvation. Plainly, if we judged people exclusively on performance, many of us would fail to measure up, which invites difficult questions about how we ought to treat those who fall below the expected standard. If instead we choose to assess conduct, redemption is accessible for us all — be polite, work hard, pay your taxes, and you will be vindicated by history. 

… this is a terrible incentive structure to bake into a governance system

But unfortunately, this is a terrible incentive structure to bake into a governance system. Fundamentally at odds with meritocracy, a focus on decency fails to reward capable but thorny political actors. Instead, we promote nice-but-dim mediocrities, who know how to shake the right hands, fake the right smiles, and engage in well-calibrated banter with the opposition.

If we want to get Britain moving again, led by able politicians who can genuinely get things done, we must rediscover a love of outcomes. Most of history’s greatest figures were, in one way or another, quite unpleasant to be around. Winston Churchill was a stubborn alcoholic, Joseph Chamberlain was arrogant and cut-throat, and the Marquess of Salisbury was a pessimistic misanthrope. We admire these figures not for their fundamental decency, but for their ability to achieve great things on behalf of our country – we will not achieve great things again if we continue to deride their modern equivalents for being insufficiently mild-mannered.

That means rewarding politicians, rhetorically and democratically, who actually deliver on their ambitious promises, and punishing those who don’t. As uncomfortable as this might make us, it also means eschewing post hoc hagiographies of failed leaders that we might have liked as individuals. 

This isn’t just a personnel problem, though; we ought also to be sceptical of systems which prize procedural fairness, and instead seek tangible metrics for success which go beyond short-term stakeholder satisfaction. Our national obsession with process also manifests itself in an enormous administrative state, in which decisions are made on the basis of lengthy, all-consuming consultations which aim to produce outcomes which are procedurally fair, rather than substantively desirable. So long as all of the stakeholders are consulted, does it really matter what the results are? This is the anti-growth mindset which has seen our country turn away unfathomable quantities of investment, in order to appease a handful of curmudgeonly pensioners. 

Britain is now too poor, too small, and too besieged to maintain our “participation prizes” political culture. As we face the growing challenges of the 21st century, we must be far more ruthless in judging leaders on the basis of outcomes, rather than fundamental decency or stated intent. Those who deliver material improvements to our lives should be rewarded, and those who fail to do so condemned. No more Mr. Nice Guy.