Brandon To: Britain taught Hong Kong efficiency – it’s time to bring it home

Brandon To is a Politics graduate from UCL and a Hong Kong BN(O) immigrant settled in Harrow

British politics has reached an uncomfortable moment of honesty. Taxes are high, public services feel worse, and voters no longer believe that simply spending more money will fix anything. The public mood is not anti-government, but anti-waste — a frustration that Reform is exploiting with populist rhetoric rather than serious solutions.

That is why shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride’s call for “responsible radicalism” matters. It is an admission that Britain’s problem is no longer a lack of good intentions, but a failure of efficiency and control. For the first time in years, a senior Conservative figure is saying openly what many voters already believe: the state itself has become so bloated and complacent, that it is resistant to reform.

This is a truth previous Conservative governments struggled to confront. Too often, we spoke the language of efficiency while practising the politics of avoidance. Programmes survived because cutting them was politically awkward. Bureaucracies expanded because nobody wanted the fight. Waste became normalised, and accountability quietly disappeared. The result was the worst of both worlds: higher taxes and a declining economy.

Stride’s intervention matters because it breaks that pattern. Cutting waste and reforming welfare are not acts of cruelty. They are acts of honesty. Or, to put it simply, it is finally time to recognise that a welfare state that rewards inefficiency and laziness ultimately fails the very people it claims to protect.

I see this as a lived experience.

Two hundred years ago, Britain brought efficiency to Hong Kong, transforming a fishing village into the Pearl of the Orient through small government, low taxes, and clean administration. The colonial government did not promise everything. It focused on doing a few essential things well: infrastructure, security, basic welfare, and a business environment that rewarded work and enterprise.

The result was trust. People paid low taxes willingly because they could see where their money went. Welfare existed as a safety net, not a destination. The civil service was lean and decisive. These were not uniquely “Asian” virtues. They were British ones.

Yet today, Hong Kong still remembers efficiency. Britain, astonishingly, seems to have forgotten them.

As a Hong Kong immigrant who deeply believes in Britain, I now find myself arguing that the country that once exported administrative competence must relearn it at home. That is why Stride’s emphasis on cutting waste and reforming welfare feels not radical, but necessary. In fact, I argue that the Conservatives must be even bolder if we want to prevent an electoral wipeout, by further recognising and targeting the scale of the inefficiency problem.

Voters already know where waste lives. They see councils and city halls swollen with duplicated roles, “consultants” who deliver little measurable value, and politically correct window-dressing funded while potholes go unrepaired and streets go uncleaned. They see an NHS where management layers expand year after year while frontline doctors and nurses drown in paperwork. They see a procurement culture in which failed contracts carry no real consequences, and “lessons learned” quietly replace accountability. Most importantly, they see a welfare system, gamed by both locals and migrants, that allows lazy, selfish individuals to exploit it and draw money funded by the hard-earned taxes of working people.

This is why Stride’s £47 billion plan to cut waste and reform welfare is not just necessary, but far from done.

Responsible radicalism must be visible, not theoretical. Conservative-controlled councils should be used as proof-of-concept. By working with Conservative-controlled councils, the party has to demonstrate how cutting inefficiency and refocusing on core services actually improve everyday life before the next general election. One cleaner street, one faster repair would be more effective than ten empty promises from Reform.

The same principle applies to the NHS. Institutional reform should not be imposed top-down from Whitehall alone. Conservatives should work directly with frontline doctors, nurses, and medical staff to identify where management structures obstruct care. Reducing managerial bloat would free professionals to do what they do best: treat patients.

Government procurement must also be treated with far greater seriousness. When projects spiral out of control, as seen with HS2, failure should not be met with quiet reassignment. Contracts that collapse due to incompetence or malpractice should bar firms from future government work, and where misconduct is proven, legal consequences must follow.

Finally, welfare reform must be more thorough and more honest. A system that is generous to the vulnerable must also be firm with abuse. False claimants should face penalties, and money obtained fraudulently should be forcefully reclaimed. At the same time, Conservatives must be explicit about where the savings go. Money recovered from waste and fraud should be reinvested to support working families, lower the tax burden on low and middle earners, and strengthen incentives to move into work. Voters need to see that welfare reform is about rewarding effort, not “reaping” support from those who genuinely need it.

Britain once taught the world how to govern efficiently. It’s time to bring it home.