Our opening panel on Thursday evening reiterated the successes of liberalism but examined ways it may need to evolve, particularly considering the rising influence of authoritarian regimes and increasing inequality in developed countries. A key debate centred on whether liberalism is failing, why, and what should be done. Mike Bird argued that the classical liberal model—emphasising global trade, free markets, social freedom, and limited regulation—was fundamentally working and that adding costs to increase a vague notion of resilience could harm Britain’s competitiveness and success overall. Conversely, Samo Burja argued that the old model of liberalism is faltering because it has led to deindustrialisation and stagnation. Both he and Joel Kotkin pointed out that free markets have not in recent years led to growth or improved living standards, and that social liberalism is resulting in hyper grievance, identity politics, the collapse of authority, and broken families and institutions.

The opening panel on Friday delved into the challenge of articulating and prioritising the national interest. Elisabeth Braw stated that businesses no longer see themselves as custodians of their nation’s prosperity and that social decay and fragmentation of modern life has undermined national resilience. Yascha Mounk explained why national identity remains relevant in a globalised world but is coming under attack from identity politics and extremism. Phil Mullan argued that politicians have for too long avoided talking about the national interest, using globalism and loss of sovereignty as an excuse to avoid difficult domestic choices. Benedict Macon-Cooney articulated a vision of the British national interest grounded in the future of technology and Britain’s strengths in services, culture, and research, prioritising growth and innovation. The panel also discussed how technological transformations, especially in AI, could undermine national institutions and cohesion, as well as drive prosperity.

Next, Dominic Cummings and Lord Adonis had an illuminating exchange about their experiences of the machinery of government, sharing different perspectives on how to implement successful reforms (notably in schools and education). Lord Adonis pointed out that the British state has always been in crisis, and that governments did better by focusing on a small number of priorities. Cummings argued that the closed nature of the civil service prevented good ideas and advice in the system. Both agreed on a hawkish approach to judicial review when pushing through disruptive reform.

The economic panel presented a wide range of perspectives on the state’s role in the economy. Hilary Salt argued for an increased role for government but an industrial strategy that does more than simply prop up ailing industries. In contrast, Mark Pennington advocated for the state to reduce its role and pointed to the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 as an example of failed government intervention. Sam Bowman discussed ‘survival bias’, cautioning against only highlighting the success stories of industrial strategy while ignoring its many failures. Professor Richard Jones highlighted the power of government support in research and development. Despite some disagreement about the unintended consequences and perverse incentives of a large state role, there was consensus on the importance of cheap, abundant energy for the entire economy, and the government’s role in driving this.

Participants led over 20 unconference sessions, covering a wide range of topics including:

Trump’s foreign policy, UK/US foreign policy, radical Islam, loser’s consent, net zero, how to prevent unintended consequences, reforming higher education, the armed forces, the relationship between Christianity and progress, and the future of nation states.

The summit concluded with an insightful discussion on China, exploring how China perceives the world, its strategy to become a technological superpower, the mechanisms the Chinese state uses to pursue its interests, and the potential for a future conflict with Taiwan. It was agreed that knowledge of China is relatively low amongst the UK policy elite. Broader and deeper understanding of the regime, society, culture and history is vital if Britain wants to build resilience towards China as a systemic competitor.