A new Prime Minister must tackle welfare immediately, say Adam Coutts, Matt Leach and Maria Pravda – here’s where to start
As a member of the COBR operations team in the Cabinet Office early in my civil service career, I got a taste of why it’s important to be resilient in the modern world. Two events in particular, the Icelandic volcanic ash cloud and the Japan earthquake and tsunami, stayed with me. Both, at the time, might have seemed to be distant incidents unfolding thousands of miles away, but for the UK government they rapidly became matters of domestic consequence.
The volcanic ash disruption, for example, soon became more than an aviation issue. The immediate priority for the government was the large number of British nationals stranded overseas as airspace across Europe closed, leaving many unable to return home. But the effects quickly spread far beyond travel. There were concerns about supply chains and the movement of key imports and exports, alongside public health questions relating to air quality, aircraft safety and the impact of volcanic ash on jet engines. And as the disruption coincided with the Easter holidays, many teachers were unable to return to the UK in time for the start of term, creating secondary pressures on schools, parents and local communities. Likewise, following the earthquake, tsunami and Fukushima nuclear incident in Japan, there were urgent concerns about the safety and wellbeing of British nationals in Tokyo, alongside wider questions around travel, food imports, manufacturing supply chains, energy policy and the broader economic implications of disruption in our highly interconnected society. More recently, the Heathrow substation fire in 2025 resulted in more than 1,300 cancelled flights, affecting hundreds of thousands of passengers and creating disruption far beyond the airport itself. What began as a local infrastructure incident quickly became a national issue, with consequences for transport networks, businesses, supply chains and public confidence. It was another reminder that in an interconnected society, the impacts of disruption rarely remain confined to a single organisation or sector.
Fast forward to today and national resilience has taken on a new urgency in a TUNA (Turbulent, Uncertain, Novel and and Ambiguous) and VUCA (Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous) world. Or my own take on it – the unprecedented use of the word unprecedented!
Geopolitical developments in recent years have reinforced just how profoundly the operating environment has changed. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine brought war back to the European continent, with consequences felt far beyond the battlefield through energy security, cyber threats, economic disruption, disinformation and pressure on global supply chains. More recently, the conflict involving Iran has again demonstrated how rapidly instability overseas can affect national security, global markets and domestic resilience on fuel supplies and energy prices.
These developments echo warnings from Anne Keast-Butler, Director of GCHQ, that the UK is increasingly operating in a “grey zone” between peace and war: a space characterised by cyber attacks, hostile state activity, disinformation and persistent pressure below the threshold of conventional conflict. In this environment, the distinction between external security and domestic resilience is becoming increasingly blurred.
Last year’s Strategic Defence Review acknowledged the growing importance of homeland defence and societal preparedness. Resilience is no longer solely about responding to emergencies after they occur (as with the ash cloud and the tsunami), but about ensuring that the UK’s institutions, infrastructure, economy and communities are prepared to withstand sustained periods of disruption and uncertainty.
Crises themselves are changing. They are rarely isolated incidents with clear boundaries and a single lead agency. Instead, they cascade, compound and converge. Acute shocks interact with existing vulnerabilities, creating consequences that spread across sectors and systems in ways that are difficult to predict and increasingly difficult to contain. Many of the most significant vulnerabilities are embedded within systems that most citizens never see. For example, undersea electricity interconnectors now provide around 10% of the UK’s peak power demand. A disruption affecting those connections would not remain an energy issue for long; it would have implications for businesses, public services, supply chains and communities across the country. Understanding and managing these interdependencies is becoming one of the defining challenges of modern resilience.
Too often, however, governments’ resilience strategies are designed around how to deal with isolated incidents, with clear boundaries and defined lead agencies. A modern resilience model, by contrast, needs to anticipate and mitigate interconnected, compounding and cascading risks, operating environments that have become degraded and the cumulative impact of long-term pressures that weaken response capacity before a crisis even begins.
This is the context in which the UK Resilience Academy (UKRA), launched just over a year ago, has been working with government, local responders, businesses, voluntary organisations and community leaders to equip them and their people to respond and recover from disruption on a national scale. As resilience practitioners often observe, plans alone do not create resilience. Capability is built through exercising, testing assumptions and learning together before a crisis occurs.
What other countries teach us about resilience
Looking internationally, different nations have taken different paths, but common themes emerge. Those that perform well in crises tend to mobilise society as a whole, learn relentlessly from real events, plan for the build up of long-term pressures as well as sudden shocks and invest heavily in people and preparedness.
Mobilising society as a national asset: Finland
Finland’s approach is often cited as world-leading because it treats resilience as a societal endeavour, not a government programme. Under its model of comprehensive security, every sector – from energy and transport to education and media – has clearly defined roles in maintaining national continuity. Hybrid threats and hostile state activity are treated as enduring conditions to be planned for, not exceptional events.
Crucially, Finland actively cultivates public trust through transparent communication and civic education. From a young age the government encourages citizens to understand their role in national preparedness. Businesses, particularly those operating critical infrastructure, are fully integrated into planning and exercising. The result is a system in which preparedness is part of everyday institutional life. Citizens, businesses and public authorities understand that continuity during crises depends on shared responsibility and sustained investment long before disruption occurs.
Learning from real crises: New Zealand
New Zealand demonstrates the power of learning and adaptation. It applies its long-standing ‘4 Rs’ framework – Reduction, Readiness, Response and Recovery – consistently across national and local government.
Following major events such as the Christchurch earthquakes and the Whakaari/White Island eruption, New Zealand invested heavily in structured lessons-learned processes, leadership development and system reform. It is expected that local communities will maintain a degree of self-sufficiency during the early stages of a crisis, thereby reducing pressure on national response mechanisms and enabling resources to be prioritised where they are most needed. Importantly, local autonomy operates within a coherent national framework rather than independently from it.
Planning for the long term: Singapore
Singapore’s strength lies in disciplined long-term planning and institutional clarity. It explicitly treats slow-burn risks such as water scarcity, climate impacts and demographic change as national security concerns. Agencies operate with high interoperability and a shared doctrine, and carry out regular rehearsals.
Public preparedness campaigns are highly practical, focused on ensuring citizens understand what actions to take during disruption and why those actions matter. Singapore demonstrates the value of combining long-term planning, institutional discipline and public engagement within a coherent national resilience strategy.
Youth engagement and long-term preparedness
One area where several international resilience models are particularly strong is in youth engagement and civic preparedness. Countries such as Finland and Singapore recognise that resilience is not built only through institutions, but through public understanding developed over time. Media literacy, civic responsibility and national continuity are introduced early, helping younger generations understand both the risks modern societies face and the role citizens play in responding to them.
The idea of engaging youngsters in the art and practice of government more generally has long mattered to me personally. When I was 16, I learnt about the Civil Service at a school event and invited myself to work experience in the Cabinet Office – which is how I found my way into the Civil Service. After being appointed Schools Champion for the Civil Service by Sir Jeremy Heywood, we worked together on schools outreach and social mobility initiatives designed to broaden young people’s understanding of public service and national leadership. That work was grounded in a shared belief that talent, confidence and civic contribution exist across every community, but opportunity and exposure to those opportunities are not always available to all. Through programmes connecting schools with senior civil servants, we sought to demystify government, raise aspirations and strengthen engagement with public institutions.
That experience continues to shape my thinking as Chief Executive of the UK Resilience Academy, where we have recently introduced a pilot programme with local schools focussed on helping 16–18 year olds understand contemporary risks, crisis leadership, misinformation, community resilience, the role they can play during disruption and possible careers in this field. The aim is to equip a generation that will inherit an increasingly complex risk environment with greater confidence, awareness and civic capability.
Long-term national resilience depends not only on systems and structures, but on whether future generations feel connected to the institutions, responsibilities and collective effort that resilience requires.
This also highlights the role of communities in building resilience. Resilience is woven through our neighbourhoods, workplaces, schools and, above all, the partnerships that connect them. There is a simple truth at the heart of resilience. The first person to respond to an emergency is rarely a uniformed responder; more often it is a neighbour, friend, colleague or passer-by. The strength of those local relationships can often determine how effectively communities withstand and recover from disruption.
International experience reinforces this point. Research following both the Japan Earthquake and Hurricane Katrina in the US, found that communities with strong social networks and high levels of trust recovered more quickly than those without them. More recent research by the National Consortium for Societal Resilience (UK+) demonstrates the economic argument, showing that every £1 invested in societal resilience generates an estimated £35.12 in public value and savings.
What this means for the UK – and for you
Taken together, the international examples illustrate that high-performing resilience systems have to be built over time through sustained investment, institutional clarity and public participation. The UK Government Resilience Action Plan signals a clearer focus on system-wide risk, cross-government coordination and strengthened preparedness. As a country we now need to reframe how we talk about risk and preparedness, recognising that resilience is a practical capability that drives better decisions under pressure. Preparedness should sit alongside good policy design and effective delivery as a routine part of how government operates, rather than being treated as a specialist or exceptional concern.
For those shaping policy, strategy and delivery across Whitehall, this has direct implications. Resilience considerations should inform policy development from the outset rather than being introduced retrospectively after systems fail under pressure.
Decisions about procurement, workforce design, digital transformation, infrastructure investment and service delivery all shape the UK’s ability to absorb and recover from disruption.
For example, the recently established National Energy System Operator (NESO) has a unique statutory duty to provide independent advice and guidance to build the security and resilience across Great Britain’s energy system. This reflects a broader shift in thinking with resilience as a core consideration in long-term planning, system design and investment decisions. As the UK’s energy system becomes increasingly interconnected and reliant on digital technologies, renewable generation and cross-border infrastructure, NESO’s role demonstrates how public bodies are beginning to embed resilience into strategic decision-making. Similarly, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s Stronger Local Resilience Forum Trailblazers Programme is exploring how mayors, council leaders and Local Resilience Forums can work more closely together to strengthen local leadership, accountability and preparedness.
A call to action for leaders
The UK stands at an inflection point. The threats we face, whether state-sponsored, natural, technological, economic or social, will continue to evolve. Our response must evolve faster.
Resilience, ultimately, is the work of a whole nation. It is shaped every day by decisions made across government, local authorities, emergency services, businesses and communities. Whether developing policy, delivering public services, managing critical infrastructure or leading organisations through change, choices made long before a crisis occurs often determine how effectively we respond when it does. Resilience is built through how risks are understood, how partnerships are formed, how resources are prioritised and how honestly uncertainty is addressed. It is not the product of a single plan or institution, but the cumulative effect of decisions that strengthen our capacity to anticipate, adapt and recover.
For leaders across Whitehall and beyond, this raises a number of important questions. Has resilience featured as a regular discussion at your executive committee or senior leadership team? Have you considered not only your own organisational vulnerabilities, but also those of your critical suppliers and delivery partners? In an interconnected world, organisations are often only as resilient as the weakest link in the systems on which they depend.
Who else needs a seat at your table when considering preparedness and response? Are relationships with local responders, infrastructure providers, voluntary organisations and neighbouring organisations strong enough before a crisis occurs? What are the critical services your organisation must continue to deliver during disruption and have you identified the people, skills and resources needed to sustain them? Just as importantly, have those individuals been trained, exercised and equipped to operate effectively under pressure?
The central question is no longer whether disruption will occur, but whether the UK’s businesses, government departments, communities and other institutions are sufficiently prepared, adaptable and coordinated to manage it effectively when it does. That challenge belongs to all of us. Building a more resilient United Kingdom will require not only stronger systems and institutions, but the leadership, partnerships and civic participation needed to sustain them.
Rosehanna Chowdhury is CEO of the UK Resilience Academy.
