The recent federal court order forcing the White House to restore press access for CNN and other outlets is a neat illustration of separated powers doing what they’re supposed to do: an independent judiciary stepping in to check executive overreach, in defence of due process and a free press. Most political systems don’t have that kind of self-correcting mechanism built in. Power tends to concentrate and stay concentrated. No constitution is perfect, but as someone who spent a fair amount of time studying comparative government, I still think the US Constitution holds up remarkably well as a piece of political engineering.
It’s the investment, stupid
There is a powerful polemic from Paul Johnson in the Financial Times today. A taster sentence:
Any serious policy must start to tackle the neglect that has resulted in our backlog of low investment; it must cut through the gridlock caused by chaotic regulation that prevents building and strangles small business; end the discouragement to work and entrepreneurship created by our crazily designed tax and welfare systems; put a stop to the myopia that has failed to provide a long-term and stable fiscal and policy environment; and, yes, it should alleviate the powerlessness created by an overly centralised Whitehall so that more investment decisions are devolved to mayoral authorities.
The focus is on investment, and the barriers to it. A step towards combatting such barriers is the formation of the 2030 Prosperity Alliance, which, to be honest, looks like Looking for Growth without the Gen Z rizz. While a noble cause, I am not sure that harking back to Beveridge’s “Five Giants” model (1942) is the best framing. Still, I wish them, and anyone else promoting British growth, the best of luck.
Optimisation versus resilience
Humans are great optimizers. We look at everything around us, whether a cow, a house, or a share portfolio, and ask ourselves how we can manage it to get the best return. Our modus operandi is to break the things we’re managing down into its component parts and understand how each part functions and what inputs will yield the greatest outputs… [but] the more you optimize elements of a complex system of humans and nature for some specific goal, the more you diminish that system’s resilience. A drive for efficient optimal state outcome has the effect of making the total system more vulnerable to shocks and disturbances.
From Resilience Thinking by David Salt and Brian Walker, as quoted in Team of Teams, by General Stanley McChrystal.
Global trade doesn’t always need global rules
OnCalls for a single global rulebook are appealing. The idea that every country could follow the same set of rules promises simplicity, certainty and efficiency. The reality is more complicated. One of my more controversial views on regulation is that we should tolerate variation or “interoperability”.
Interoperability is when different systems can work together effectively without having identical rules or structures. In trade, it might mean countries recognising each other’s certifications, aligning data formats, or following shared frameworks that allow for local variation. The goal is to keep goods, services and information moving freely while respecting national differences.
Once basic compatibility between systems is achieved, pushing for deeper harmonisation can cost more than it delivers. Governments protect their sovereignty, NGOs push for utopian frameworks, and businesses simply want predictability and cost control.
In some areas the case for harmonisation is overwhelming. Network effects in digital trade and payments mean that uniform standards deliver far greater value. Systemic risks in aviation safety, pandemic preparedness and financial stability require consistent rules across borders. Occasionally, crises such as pandemics or financial shocks create momentum for deeper integration. But these moments are rare, and the progress they bring can fade quickly unless the agreements are locked into lasting frameworks.
Interoperability offers a practical alternative in most cases. It allows countries to tailor rules to local needs while keeping markets open. It can be achieved faster than full harmonisation and can make systems more resilient by avoiding the risks of a single point of failure. It’s also a more humble and experimental approach: avoiding the hubris of having created “one system to rule them all” and allowing evolution, evaluation, and comparison of different systems.
We already have examples of targeted alignment that work. The WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement streamlined customs processes without overhauling domestic laws. The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative created a common disclosure framework while allowing national flexibility. The UK Financial Conduct Authority’s fintech sandbox inspired similar schemes overseas. The EU–US agreement on pharmaceutical manufacturing inspections eliminated costly duplication. The Montreal Protocol set binding environmental targets but left countries free to decide how to meet them.
For corporate affairs teams the challenge is to focus on where international stakeholder interests genuinely converge; to engage early in negotiations; to make sure that resulting rules support commercial goals; and to recognise when to stop before overreaching. The most durable progress will often come from agreements that keep trade and cooperation flowing while leaving space for more ambitious steps when the conditions are right.
Three years in the world of pensions
Note: A shorter version of this post appears on my LinkedIn profile.
Yesterday I attended my last Board meeting for the Trustee of the Imperial Tobacco Pension Fund. I joined the Board three years ago, by employee member nomination. As I leave my employee role at Imperial, I am no longer eligible to serve in this capacity.
It is a shame to leave such a committed and passionate bunch of colleagues, with whom I have worked to deliver pension security for other ex-Imperial employees. I am also grateful for the work of our exceptional expert advisors. It is a tribute to them that the fund is in such a strong position. I am particularly thankful for the support of Helen Clatworthy (our Chair until earlier this year), Jan Killick (previous UK Pensions Manager), and Tim Panter and Lorna Johns, past a present Scheme Actuaries.
Over the past three years we have seen some uncharacteristic turmoil in the world of pensions. The Truss mini-budget, just after my appointment, was something of a trial by fire. Yet I leave ITPF both in safe hands and in a strong position. I am proud of our stewardship through this period.
I am particularly happy to have used my time in role to evaluate and change the investment options for (typically younger) defined contribution (“DC”) pension savers. While much focus among pension trustees is the hands-on world of defined benefit pensions, where the risk is held by the fund, its sponsor firms, and ultimately the Pension Protection Fund backstop, this is not the future. In the private sector at least there will be an inversion in which pensions paid like this will become very rare. Income in old age will instead be the result of a cumulation of contribution and investment decisions through your life.
So if you are early or mid-career, and particularly if you have a defined contribution pension, please schedule some time to review your pension arrangements. Pensions UK research shows 82% of savers don’t know how much they’ll need in retirement, with only a third (33%) claiming to have carried out a “great deal” or “fair amount” of retirement planning. Only 48% of people had ever reviewed whether they are putting enough money into their pension. A moderate lifestyle in retirement will cost you £31,700 per year (£43,900 for a couple), assuming that you already own your home. If you don’t know how you will fund this, you should make a plan. If you need a prompt to act: the median pension pot value of 55 to 64 year olds with a private pension £189,700 (ONS, 2025). Average life expectancy is 79 (male) / 83 (female) (ONS). Do the maths: it is not comfortable.
In praise of unsexy innovation
This post is adapted from a post on my LinkedIn profile.
A month after leaving California, the hotel and car hire still haven’t finalised the charge on my credit card. Both are still sitting as pending authorisations.
This is normal in the US, but it’s astonishing when you’re used to the UK and Europe, where card payments settle in a day or two at most, and instant payment notifications are quite common.
It also captures a paradox of Californian tech. I could ride in a Waymo with no driver through steep, messy streets in San Franciso. Yet the payments infrastructure struggles to do something as basic as clearing a bill.
We talk a lot about learning from Silicon Valley. But sometimes the lesson runs the other way. Britain’s payments and fintech infrastructure is an order of magnitude faster, cleaner and more reliable. That’s an asset we rarely celebrate.
Are we too quick to idolise visible innovation while undervaluing the invisible systems that already work?
The formula for success
As part of my project to work through my backlog of books, I’ve recently finished The Formula by Albert-László Barabási, subtitled “The five laws behind why we succeed or fail”.
This isn’t a how-to book, it’s a why-it-works book. It’s about what separates success from mere high performance. It’s clearly written, easy to follow, and refreshingly blunt. Unlike most books in the success genre, it doesn’t offer tips or routines. Instead, it outlines five laws that, together, describe the mechanics of how and when performance translates into success.
Barabási deliberately avoids prescriptive advice—but the framework invites reflection. I won’t repeat the five laws here, as I think they are the key selling point of the book, and that doesn’t seem fair. Yet here’s how I think the five laws could translate into action:
- You need to nail the measurable stuff. But if your work is hard to measure, you must also make sure that you are investing in your network, and letting social measurement do its work. Find the people who shape reputations and stay on their radar.
- Position yourself. Don’t just be competent—be seen as the one to call. And yes, that might mean telling your story louder than feels comfortable.
- Stack visible wins. Say yes to opportunities that put you on stage. And keep your skills sharp—momentum without substance fizzles fast. Don’t just know the new trends, master them.
- Lead. Form good teams, absolutely. But step up when it’s time to speak for them. Be the person others credit when things go right.
- Play long-term. Keep going. Most people quit too soon.
Barabási’s point is simple, and slightly uncomfortable: performance matters—but recognition matters more. Managing that second part is a skill worth cultivating.
Two separate hobbies
There is a saying that “book buying and book reading are two separate hobbies”. I agree with this. I find it hard to resist buying or borrowing an interesting-looking book, especially when they are going cheaply at charity shops, which is my preferred method of acquisition. As a result, my shelves overflow, and the stack on my bedside table is constantly on the verge of landslide. My saving grace is that I do clear out books when I’ve read them; normally back to charity shops—so that others can indulge their bargain bibliomania too.
Early this Spring, I forced myself not to buy any more books until I’d made a dent in the piles that I had. It’s been tough. I haven’t limited my audiobook consumption, which represents around half of the books I read each year. Partly that is because audiobooks don’t take up space, and partly because I use them in different way: they are the soundtracks to my drives, my runs, and my more monotonous chores. The challenge was simply not to buy more tempting physical hardbacks that would languish on the stack for years.
Aside from the practical benefits, there is a broader psychological workout here. Neophilia tempts me to start every shiny new title. The endowment effect guilts me into finishing books I’m not enjoying. Both are distractions from the discipline of reading with purpose. I’m also trying to force myself to ditch books that aren’t delivering, rather than pushing through to the end. There is one book that’s been on my bedside stack for more than a year, as others have disappeared above and below it. I need to accept that this one may just not be for me: if there hasn’t been a good time to read it by now, when will there be? I haven’t quite let go of that unread volume yet—but I’m closer. And maybe that’s what this little experiment is really about: not just decluttering the shelf, but clearing some space in the mind.
Automatically delete old emails from Gmail
I am fastidious about keeping my systems tidy, but until recently I had been unable to solve one particular issue: removing old messages from Google’s email platform, Gmail.
I have been a heavy Gmail user for decades. Because of that, the archive is as useful as the inbox to me. It is often the first place I go to answer everyday questions, such as “When did we go on holiday to…?” or “When did I buy that pair of jeans?” As almost everything in my personal life goes through that archive, the answer is normally there, in receipts, in booking confirmations, or similar.
Yet there is also other stuff there. Things I don’t need. The bulk of this is notification or update email that is useful at the time, but useless months after the event. For example, I have an email alert for new property for sale in my area. That’s very useful when I receive it, but it’s not so useful a few months later, when that property has been sold. Now I can use Gmail’s “Rules” feature to tag these messages and auto-archive them. But I was frustrated that I couldn’t “expire” them after a few months without manually filtering them and hitting delete.
However, with some online suggestions and some coding help from AI, I have come up with a solution that stacks two great Google features:
- The awesome search and filter labels in Gmail, particularly being able to search for messages
older_than:1m(older than one month). - Google’s Apps Script, which lets you script with access to your Google Account and the apps and data therein.
With the help of these tools, some internet inspiration and some AI coding, I created a new “project” in Apps Script called Gmail Cleaner, and replaced the boilerplate code in the main file (code.gs) with the following:
function GmailCleaner() {
// Define an array of criteria
var criteriaList = [
"label:property older_than:2m",
"label:career older_than:1m from:\"LinkedIn Job Alerts\""
];
// Process each criteria using a helper function
criteriaList.forEach(processCriteria);
}
function processCriteria(criteria) {
var conversations = GmailApp.search(criteria);
conversations.forEach(function(thread) {
thread.moveToTrash();
});
}
In this code you should be able to see that I am deleting email that meets any of the following criteria:
- Emails that I have auto-tagged “property” (and which already skip the inbox) and which are more than two months old
- Emails that I have auto-tagged “career”, which are older than one month, and which come from “LinkedIn Job Alerts”.
You can add more criteria, just be sure to put a comma between them.
Note that I have escaped the speech marks above – you may need to do this too.
Once you’ve got the code right for you (and I suggest you test the filters in Gmail search first, before adding them to the script) you need to save the file, and set it up to “deploy”. To do this you can set a “time trigger”. Absurdly, you need to select the option to deploy from the “Head”. I don’t know what that means, but I don’t care, because it works.
When I tried to run this the first time, I needed to authorise Apps Script to access my Gmail account, and, amusingly, my Google browser did issue a security alert about letting this Google service access my other Google service. However, once I’d jumped that hurdle, the script has been running perfectly for weeks.
I now have this running every 6 hours, making my Gmail archive a lighter, cleaner, happier place. If you’re the sort of person who likes an inbox that earns its keep, I recommend giving this a try. The future shouldn’t be full of stale job alerts and sold properties.
Terry Smith’s 2024 Letter: Three Sharp Ideas
I always read Smith’s annual letters—they’re rare examples of plain-spoken investment thinking. This year, three things stood out:
- He expects weight-loss drugs to reshape consumer spending, particularly reducing alcohol consumption and potentially becoming tools in treating alcoholism.
- He remains bullish on tobacco harm reduction. Not necessarily a surprise, but worth noting for its consistency.
- Most interestingly, he argues that passive investing via index funds “is in fact a momentum strategy”—an underappreciated point.
Read the full letter here.