The Great British strategy deluge…

why more means less

The UK Government has produced a staggering array of strategies in recent months. But – and it’s a big BUT – without central coordination and implementation, we risk creating a beautiful library of documents that gather dust while real problems remain unsolved.

The strategy avalanche

The past year has witnessed an unprecedented outpouring of strategic documents from Whitehall. In rapid succession, we’ve seen:

• The Strategic Defence Review (June 2025): A 144-page document with 62 recommendations following 11 months of work
• The UK Industrial Strategy (June 2025): A 10-year plan for eight growth-driving sectors spanning nearly 160 pages
• The National Security Strategy 2025 (June 2025): Setting out a new Strategic Framework covering all aspects of national security
• The UK Innovation Strategy
• Drone, AI, Cyber and Space Strategies.

Each document is substantial, well-researched, and contains worthy objectives. The Industrial Strategy alone has been described by eminent experts as  “well written, clearly structured, and offers commendable clarity and detail”. The Strategic Defence Review represents the first such review carried out by a Labour government since 2003. The snag is, there’s a…

Lack of coordination

For all their individual merit, these strategies suffer from a fundamental flaw: they exist in splendid isolation. There is no visible mechanism to ensure coherence between them, no overarching implementation framework, and no single authority accountable for delivering the collective vision they represent.

Academic research has already identified this as a persistent weakness in British governance. Studies of previous UK economic strategies have found “lack of consistency has long been noted as a weakness in government policy-making” and revealed “linguistic discontinuity” indicating “the absence of policy co-ordination” between government documents.

The scale of the challenge is immense. These strategies collectively involve:

• Multiple government departments
• Hundreds of thousands of civil servants
• Billions in spending commitments (The National Security Strategy alone commits to spending 5% of GDP on national security by 2035)
• Overlapping timelines and objectives.

The implementation black hole

Most tellingly, none of these strategies include detailed implementation plans. The Strategic Defence Review, despite its 62 recommendations, offers no roadmap for delivery. Defence officials have acknowledged that “it  will need to be translated into a set of specific investment decisions in individual capabilities and projects. That will be work for later in the summer and into the autumn”. Why must it take so long?

This pattern repeats across strategies. Grand visions proliferate, but the unglamorous work of turning strategy into reality is deferred or delegated to departments already struggling with competing priorities.

The KISS principle

The current government approach violates every principle of effective, simplistic, programme management:

• Clarity of purpose: With multiple strategies pursuing overlapping objectives, it’s unclear which takes priority when conflicts arise.
• Unified leadership: No single person or body has authority to coordinate delivery across strategies.
• Resource allocation: Without integration, departments may find themselves competing for the same funding or personnel.
• Progress monitoring: How can government track progress when success metrics aren’t aligned across strategies?

Historical lessons ignored

The UK has been here before. The Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit operated from 2002-2010 specifically to provide “strategic thinking and evidenced-based policymaking” and tackle the problem of “joining up” government. When it was disbanded in 2010, experts warned that “the demise of the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit risks leaving a hole at the heart of government which may be felt in years to come”.

That hole is now glaringly apparent. Without central strategic capacity, each department has produced its own strategy in isolation, creating a need for what I call a “Strategy tree to hang all of these strategies on.”

The path forward

The solution requires immediate action across five areas:

1. Strategic integration Establish a cross-government body with authority to reconcile conflicts between strategies and ensure coherent implementation.
2. Implementation planning Mandate that every strategy must include:

• Detailed delivery timelines
• Resource requirements
• Accountable, experienced leaders, drawn from outside of the Civil Service
• Success metrics
• Risk mitigation plans.
• Programme Management Office Create a central PMO with real authority to monitor progress, identify blockages, and drive delivery across departments.
• Accountability framework Assign senior officials with proven delivery track records to lead implementation of each major strategic objective.
• Regular review and adjustment Establish quarterly reviews to assess progress and adapt plans based on changing circumstances.

Conclusion

The UK’s current approach to strategy resembles a magnificent orchestra where every musician plays beautifully – but to totally different sheets of music. The result is cacophony rather than symphony.

But what is the fundamental reason for this discord and lack of ‘joined up’ thinking? Well – you’ve probably guessed it – money.

Funding is one of the principal reasons why there is an absence of collective thinking and action. Working in unison demands a pooling of resources and, most worrying of all, a sharing of budgets. Discrete funding allocations for individual departments would inevitably be eroded – blurred across a common endeavour. Heads of Departments will fight tenaciously against any move to emasculate their annual appropriations – even if it is for the greater cross-government good. They fear – not without good reason – their budgets and spheres of influence will be diminished. 

The fundamental system of government funding is the basic systemic issue. Discrete departmental funding is militating against combined efficiencies in strategic planning and implementation.

We need an integrated, coherent, and sensibly funded programme of change. Without urgent action, we risk the worst of all outcomes: the appearance of strategic purpose without the substance of strategic delivery. The nation deserves better than worthy documents that promise transformation but shortchange on delivery.