Processism

Stephen Bush writes about Sir Keir Starmer, the UK Prime Minister: 

Instead Starmer believes that the combination of the right process and hard work is enough to solve more or less any problem, and that mobilising the right amount of institutional memory will result in a better standard of government. This, then, is Starmerism: the belief that process can, in and of itself, lead to better outcomes. The trouble is that this approach is wrong...[t]he job of prime minister isn't to follow process; it is to navigate and advocate for trade-offs. The Mandelson fiasco reveals true nature of Starmerism, Stephen Bush, 'Financial Times', 21 April 2026

In today's policymaking world, the notion of tradeoffs is largely absent from debate. It's a world in which vague promises can be made and nobody dare publicly identify the people who will inevitably lose out from any particular policy. There's no long-term strategy: faith in the legislative process is what passes for strategy and vision. Government bodies, politicians and their paymasters in the large corporations - or their lawyers - are the only people who can understand, follow and manipulate the policymaking process, which they do to their advantage. 

A Social Policy Bond regime would be different: policy would be expressed in terms of long-term outcomes rather than process. This would bring more public participation into the policymaking process - an end in itself as well as generating more of the buy-in that is essential when policy goals have to be prioritised and costed. Goals would be explicit and stable and achieved with maximum efficiency. Discussion would centre on what vision and strategy, rather than process. 

For more about Social Policy Bonds, see here.