A Culture of Fear
Over the last century, British society has shifted, from a brave and risk-taking society, to one relying on a paternalistic state to guarantee success, safety, and mediocrity. After victory in both World Wars, Britons retreated behind the front lines of the state to ensure protection from anything resembling slight discomfort.
Governmental centralisation and expansion during World War Two became necessary to protect the nation from the imminent threat of the Axis Powers; however, after this point the government’s focus shifted to protecting us from ourselves. The temporary measures, ensuring national security, became permanent but a new enemy was needed: uncertainty. As a result, the nation became reliant on the state for the consistent approval of ideas and entrepreneurial endeavours.
Excessive regulation, implemented by the government, based on the fears of the precautionary principle has led to economic stagnation. Since the 2008 crisis, productivity and growth in Britain has been flatlining, unable to revive economic dynamism as government red-tape has hindered individuals' ability to innovate. Society has become allergic to failure, unable to see that risk creates reward: expecting the state to intervene if the outcome of ventures were not guaranteed to be favourable; asking for forgiveness not permission has fled from the British psyche along with our freedom.
Indeed, when the civil service focuses on white papers not policy implementation, it is clear that we have moved to a society that becomes frozen by the fear of mistakes leading to the expansion of bureaucracy. Checks and balances are supposed to protect not paralyse.
Moreover, the Online Safety Act came into force on the 25th July 2025, as the paternalism of the nanny state reached further into the online world and freedoms of citizens. Yes, children should be protected, but has this not always been the job of families, schools, and communities? Bubble wrapping children isn’t ensuring their safety but destroying the anonymity of adults and preventing small companies from growing in the British economy.
One of our biggest successes is the ability to produce some of the most overqualified young adults in the world. Using university as a holding pen for 18 to 23 year olds (which must be the conclusion when looking at some degrees that are awarded) is not a solution to immaturity and a fear of people making mistakes. Building up a tolerance to alcohol and late nights should not be the only achievement for those leaving British universities. Throw people in the deep end, after all we’ve supposedly been teaching them resilience and how to participate in society for their entire lives. Fundamentally, making young people overqualified will not make them immune from the potential to fail. Besides, the assurance of not failing does not automatically mean success, it means depressing productivity, innovation, and the ability to thrive. Mediocrity is the result of excessive fearfulness.
Anna Casey