Petrol prices are rising again.

As drivers across Britain watch the numbers climb on forecourt signs, the government has unveiled its latest solution: Google Maps.

This week, ministers celebrated a new feature allowing motorists to compare fuel prices through Google Maps and other apps. The government described it as a way of helping drivers save money by finding cheaper petrol stations. Officials claimed the average motorist could save a whopping £40 a year. That’s almost half a tank of petrol in a standard SUV. Wow!

Want to know how UK motorists took this? Check out the reaction in the comments on Andy Burnham’s own Facebook post: ‘Patronising..’ ‘Out of touch..’ ‘Got to be a joke..’ (And those are the polite ones!)

Petrol is approaching levels not seen for years. Diesel has exceeded £2 per litre in some parts of the country. Household budgets are under pressure. Businesses face rising transport costs. And the government’s answer is essentially: have you tried driving somewhere else?

Are these people serious? Google Maps?!!

This one isn’t about petrol. This is about leadership.

The Short Truth

“Petrol prices are high because of wars and foreign events.”

This is the explanation we hear most often. Choose your excuse from the following:

• The war in Iran.

• Problems in the Middle East.

• Attacks on shipping routes.

• Global oil markets.

• International instability.

All of these are a factor, just as the volatility of foreign markets have always been a factor. Nothing new there. Oil is a global commodity and Britain cannot isolate itself from world events. Recent tensions around the Strait of Hormuz have pushed oil prices higher across the world.

But there’s a problem with this explanation.

The Structural Truth

Look closely at how politicians talk about petrol prices.

The language is remarkably consistent.

Prices are being “driven by global events” (pun clearly not intended).

Motorists are facing “international pressures.”

Costs are rising because of “external factors.”

Notice what’s missing.

Government policy.

The structure of the conversation encourages people to look abroad for causes and solutions. It frames Britain as a passenger rather than a driver.

Politicians discuss petrol prices as if everyone else is to blame. Half the money goes to them. In other words, they are 50% responsible for the price we pay.

Does it sound like that when they talk about it?

The Personal Truth

What about our own part in this, as the UK public?

We complain about petrol prices while at the same time accept - with reluctance - that we can’t do much about it. We buy the excuses.

If a supermarket suddenly doubled the price of milk because half the money was being collected by Westminster, there would be outrage. Yet when it comes to fuel, many people simply shrug and accept it.

Part of the reason is psychological. The tax is hidden.

Drivers see a single number on a forecourt sign. They don’t see a breakdown showing how much goes to oil producers, refiners, transport companies, retailers and the Treasury.

As a result, frustration is often directed at whoever happens to be easiest to blame that week: oil companies, foreign governments, wars or international markets.

Greater transparency, so we can remember who is implicit in this. (But read on. Because there could just be a deeper reason.)

The Long Truth

As I said at the start, the real issue here is not petrol prices.

The real issue is leadership.

Whenever petrol prices rise, governments tell the same story. The causes are external. The pressures are global. The circumstances are difficult. The public is encouraged to understand why things are happening rather than expect them to change.

It’s true that the British prime minister doesn’t control the barrel price of crude oil. No government can single-handedly stop conflicts in the Middle East or stabilise global energy markets.

But leadership is not simply the ability to explain problems. It is the ability to influence outcomes.

Imagine a football manager whose team loses every week. After every defeat he produces a detailed explanation. The referee made mistakes. The weather was poor. The opposition spent more money. Injuries disrupted the squad. Eventually supporters would ask an obvious question: what exactly are you doing about it?

Politics increasingly resembles that manager.

The public is offered explanations instead of solutions.

That is why the Google Maps announcement felt so tone deaf. Nobody objects to price transparency. Being able to find cheaper fuel is useful. But presenting a comparison app as a major response to rising fuel costs risks missing the point entirely (or does it?).

We don’t want excuses for such problems. We want ownership.

Just think of how many times Keir Starmer blamed the Tory Government for every bad policy move. That was fine for the first six months. But after almost two years, it sounded pathetic - one of the clearest illustrators of the weak leadership which led to his demise.

A strong leader cannot control everything.

But a strong leader does not hide behind everything they cannot control. (Or maybe..?)

Long Solution

Let’s start with greater transparency.

When petrol prices rise, governments should be honest about all the factors involved, including the role played by taxation. If over half of the pump price consists of fuel duty and VAT, that should be part of the conversation rather than a detail hidden in Treasury documents.

The second step is accountability.

If ministers believe current fuel taxes are essential, they should explain why and defend them openly. If they believe drivers need relief, they should be prepared to consider reducing the tax burden rather than acting as though global events are the only relevant factor. But - interestingly - we’re not having this conversation.

Which raises a different - perhaps more plausible - explanation. Maybe there is leadership going on here. Maybe there’s a perfectly good reason why instead of cutting tax on fuel the government simply directs us into more spending:

Andy Burnham has been a champion of public transport, promoting buses and (public-owned) trains at every opportunity. Funny how he seems decidedly less of a champion for the motorist.

He’d never admit it, of course. But in the same way taxing cigarettes helped reduce their popularity, there is every possibility he sees the same strategy in taxing motorists.

Because when he taunts us with poxy non-solutions like Google Maps, isn’t he really just saying - “I don’t care!"

When drivers are paying more than half the cost of every litre to the state, pointing them towards Google Maps does not look like a solution.

Have your say! Let me know if you agree:

Leave a comment

And if you liked this article, be sure to subscribe to The Long Truth to receive my FREE weekly newsletter. A different life problem solved each week. It’s brilliant!

Subscribe now

A few years ago I realised that I’d got myself into the most almighty rut.

I was single. My social life revolved around the same small group of friends. We did the same thing every week, more or less. Went to the same places. Had the same conversations. Probably had the same thoughts.

The formula had served us well for a number of years, so why change it?
Why? Because I was BORED!

I wanted to meet new people. Do new things. Have new thoughts. Maybe get a new relationship. Have holidays in different places.

I yearned for change. But I also didn’t want to abandon my friends. These were good people. I still liked them. They accepted me for me.

But the reality was - they were holding me back.

Something had to change.

Word of the Week: Comfort

Nice word, comfort.

We all want it. It implies something warm and familiar and safe.

But comfort, would you believe, has a dark side too.

Comfort is the place where ambition goes to die.

Nobody wakes up one morning and decides to abandon their dreams. More often, they gradually exchange challenge for comfort. They spend time with people who reassure them that their current situation is perfectly fine. Their frustrations become jokes. Their disappointments become personality traits.

And before they know it, ten years have passed.

Cliché of the Week: “Your friends accept you for who you are.”

Which goes a long way towards why they’re your friends. But should they?

The modern world worships acceptance. We are constantly told to accept ourselves exactly as we are. ‘You do you!’ as the muppet influencers say.

Yet every meaningful achievement begins with rejecting something about your current situation.

You don’t lose weight because you accepted your fitness.

You don’t change careers because you accepted your work.

You don’t improve your relationships because you accepted how you communicate.

The best influences in your life don’t simply accept you. They challenge you.

They ask difficult questions. They expect more from you. They make excuses harder to believe.

Question of the Week: ‘Are My Friends Holding Me Back?’

As always, let’s run it through the Long Truth Method and put some helpful definitions onto this statement.

1. The Short Truth

My friends are holding me back.

OK, that might be how it feels. But you’ve made some big assumptions there.

Let’s start off by finding out what it is they’re holding you back from.

And having done so, let’s try to find out whether they are, in fact, the cause of you being held back.

And if they are, let’s consider just what you can do about it.

2. The Structural Truth

OK, so they’re holding you back. Holding you back from what?

• More money?

• A better relationship?

• Starting a business?

• Writing a book?

If you can’t define the destination, you can’t identify the obstacle. You need to be way more specific about what you wish was different in your life. Then you can look again at the role your friends might be playing in (unintentionally) keeping you back from that target. If, indeed, they really are.

3. The Personal Truth

The reality is, your friends don’t control your choices.

You choose who you spend time with. You choose what advice you listen to. Ultimately, you choose whether to stay where you are - or change.

And this is the crucial bit.

4. The Long Truth

Most friendships are not malicious. Your friends aren’t secretly plotting your failure. But people do naturally protect the status quo.

How many times did a so-called good friend plant negative thoughts about your new partner, claiming to be ‘just looking out for you’? Only later, on reflection, did you suspect that all along there wasn’t really a problem. They just didn’t want to be the one left on the shelf, without a drinking mate to hang out with.

Most people have what we call Tall Poppy Syndrome. They don’t want to see their contemporaries thrive - in a career, a relationship, or just life in general - if it means they get left behind. So they snip away at the growing friend. Plant seeds of doubt. Question if it’s the right choice. They reinforce the status quo option, in the hope of keeping you back to stay at their level.

Because let’s face it, what happens if you do change? That forces them to think about changing too. That’s uncomfortable. So they may discourage your risks, mock your ambitions, or remind you to “be realistic.”

5. The Long Solution

Stop assuming that your friends are always your best source of advice. Especially where change is concerned.

Start asking whether your friendships are helping you become the person you want to be.

You don’t necessarily need new friends. But you may need different conversations. Different expectations. Different standards.

And perhaps less time seeking approval or endorsement from people who have no intention of following the path you’re trying to walk.

Final Thought

One of the great anomalies of modern life is that we should carefully choose our careers, our partners, our homes and our investments—but never question our friendships.

Why not?

Choose accordingly, my friend!

Leave a comment

It’s been called the most divisive moment in modern British political history, by more people than just me.

It was the moment the British people exercised their democratic right to extrapolate the UK from the European Union. It was decided by a free and fair public vote - the EU Referendum - in June 2016.

It was not what the political Establishment of the nation wanted nor expected. Consequently, it provoked the most bare-assed display of petulant sabotage imaginable. It took a dreary carnival of 3 Prime Ministers and 4 years of Parliamentary prattle before the UK government finally acknowledged the wishes of its people and the UK formally left the EU in January 2020.

The government response to the Brexit result was tedious, monotonous, spiteful, shameful and the most blatant example of Establishment contempt for the British people this side of King John and the Magna Carta.

Three months into his premiership, Andy Burnham has revealed he wants to open the whole thing up again.

Sacre fucking bleu.

The Short Truth

Four months earlier, electioneering in the Makerfield by-election (Labour’s ruse to shoe-horn the previously rejected Burnham back into the Commons, back-door politics at its very finest) when asked about Brexit, he said:

“My view is that Brexit has been damaging, but I also believe the last thing we should do right now is re-run those arguments. I am not proposing that the UK considers rejoining the EU. I respect the decision that was made at the referendum and it is going to undermine everything I have said about strengthening democracy if we don’t respect that vote.”

Fast forward four months, by-election duly won and now firmly ensconced in Number 10 (North), Burnham could be found happily U-turning like a Keir Starmer tribute act.

‘Fooled you!’ he might well have said. ‘Now what else can I foist on you mugs in the remaining three years of my unelected term of office?’

The Structural Truth

Here it is, in their own words.

UK Prime Minister David Cameron announced the EU Referendum in January 2013 with the following:

“It is time for the British people to have their say. It is time to settle this European question in British politics... When the people have spoken, their decision will be final.”

He reiterated that commitment in October 2015, stating:

“If the British people vote to leave, then we will leave. There is no second chance, no second renegotiation, no second referendum.”

Representing the Labour side, Keir Starmer added in 2017:

"the notion that the referendum was merely a consultation exercise to inform Parliament holds no water. [It is our] duty to respect the outcome."

Even to this day - some ten years after the Referendum result was cast - politicians on both sides of the House, along with mainstream media commentators, economists and generally anyone with a gripe about it, continue to revive Brexit whenever an excuse is needed for anything going wrong.

It has become a political Get Out of Jail card.

The Personal Truth

It is, of course, perfectly possible that a second EU referendum would reverse the earlier decision. For as long as the UK has had General Elections, we have had mid-term polls which hinted at the likelihood of an opposite result.

Political process exists to cement consistency and surety into our system. It is not whimsical, it is stable. We have a parliamentary process which honours at its core the democratic wishes of the electorate.

Brexit was an anomaly. The one that got away. Cameron’s Folly.

It is rare that a democratic decision is made by the public which does not resemble the wishes of the Establishment. Why? Because the system is set up in such a way that significant change must be passed by both the Houses of Commons and Lords before the King’s Royal Approval.

Election manifestos claim to set mandates, but the ultimate direction taken by the country remains at the whim of government. A party can pretty much promise whatever they like. Once elected, sit tight people and hope for the best.

Vote Boris Johnson, get Liz Truss. With added Rishi Sunak.

Vote Keir Starmer, get Andy Burnham.

We vote for the party, not the leader. We get that.

The Long Truth

There are circumstances in which a political U-turn is not only acceptable but necessary. If the economic, security or political circumstances have fundamentally changed, a government should be willing to change course. That could, in principle, include holding a second referendum on a major constitutional decision such as Brexit. Ten years is a long time in politics, and there is nothing inherently undemocratic about asking people to reconsider a decision if the circumstances have genuinely changed.

But that argument has to work both ways.

That is particularly important in 2026. The argument that Brexit has been difficult, disappointing or economically damaging is not, by itself, proof that the 2016 decision has somehow expired.

The Long Solution

Instead of flirting with the Remainers and dangling the possibility of a second EU referendum, Burnham needs to explain what circumstances have changed to justify a new vote.

The Remainers continue to hate Brexit for all the same reasons they argued against it in the first place.

The Establishment told us to vote remain and assumed we would do just that, thus maintaining an endorsement of the status quo in which they were doing very nicely thank you.

The Brexiteers voted to leave because they wanted greater control of their borders, to curb immigration, and to achieve greater sovereignty. Ask them again and they would undoubtedly show disappointment that Brexit did not deliver those hoped-for aims. But that does not mean they no longer yearn for the same.

Immigration did not become a bigger problem in the last ten years because of Brexit. It did so because of the incompetence of the Home Office and the impotence of Government policy, which would have happened Brexit or not. 77% of immigrants into the UK in 2025 were non-EU. In other words, nothing to do with Brexit. It’s a different problem.

Andy Burnham claims to be offering “politics done differently, problem-solving, over point-scoring.”

Brexit was the most divisive, point-scoring exercise in recent political history. First big speech and that’s what he’s talking about. Sounds like the same old politics to me, mate.

Do you agree? Let me know what you think.

Leave a comment

Most people don’t hate their jobs.

Not hate in the sense that they’d like to burn the place down, sitting in the car park, laughing manically.

What they hate is talking and thinking about their jobs.

They hate Monday mornings. Endless meetings. Performance reviews. They hate it when some wanker in HR says the word “journey” and doesn’t go anywhere.

They hate all that. But not enough to do anything about it.

Instead, they spend years trapped in a strange no-man’s-land between misery and comfort. Too unhappy to enjoy it. Too comfortable to change it.

Welcome to modern work.

Subscribe now

Word of the Week: Potential

Potential is one of the most dangerous words in the English language.

It’s probably the most positive-sounding word we can use that doesn’t involve actually accomplishing anything.

It sounds hopeful. It’s the sound of success waiting to happen. It’s that feeling of expectation when you get a penalty in the last minute of the game, just before your striker fires it over the bar and into the car park.

A frightening number of people spend their entire lives living on potential.

Potential is all about ‘One day.’ The promotion they’ll go for. The business they’ll start. Eventually. When the time is right.

Potential is just procrastination waving a motivational quote.

Cliché of the Week: “Better the devil you know.”

This phrase has ruined more lives than actual devils.

People say it whenever they’re scared of change.

Bad relationship? Better the devil you know.

Terrible boss? Better the devil you know.

Soul-destroying job? Better the devil you know.

The cliché quietly assumes the purpose of life is avoiding risk rather than creating something worthwhile.

It’s the surest way we know to die disappointed.

Question of the Week

Why am I stuck in an unfulfilling job?

Let’s put it through the Long Truth Method.

1. Short Truth

“My job is unfulfilling.”

Fair enough. But that’s a description, not an explanation.

Saying your job is unfulfilling is like saying your car won’t start.

You’ve identified the symptom. Not the cause.

2. Structural Truth

What exactly is wrong with it?

• The pay?

• The people?

• The work itself?

• The lack of challenge?

• The lack of meaning?

• The lack of progress?

Most people throw all these problems into one giant bucket labelled “my job”.

Then they wonder why they can’t fix it.

If your definition is vague, your solution will be vague.

And vague solutions produce exactly what you’d expect.

Nothing.

3. Personal Truth

Here’s the part everyone loves.

(Just kidding. Nobody likes this part.)

What are you doing to keep yourself stuck?

Not your boss.

Not the economy.

Not the government.

You.

If you take a Long Truth 1:1 session, I’m asking you to check all of these things:

• Have you stopped applying?

• Maybe you’ve convinced yourself you’re too old.

• Maybe you’ve convinced yourself you’re too young.

• Are you waiting until you feel more confident? (When do you expect that to happen?)

• Maybe you’re waiting for certainty.

• Maybe you’re waiting for permission.

The world is full of people waiting for a green light that never arrives.

4. Long Truth

Most people aren’t trapped by their jobs. They’re trapped by their identities.

You’ve spent ten years becoming “the accountant.” Or “the manager.” Or “the teacher.”

Or “the guy who’s worked here forever.”

Then one day you realise you’ve become loyal to a version of yourself you don’t even like.

Changing careers isn’t scary because of the work. It’s scary because it threatens the story you’ve built around who you are.

5. Long Solution

Forget finding your passion. Most passion advice is rubbish.

People don’t usually discover passion. They develop it.

The better question is:

What are you curious enough about to explore further?

What are you interested enough in to spend a Saturday learning more about?

What problem are you willing to struggle with?

Then do something embarrassingly small.

One conversation. One application. One hour. One experiment.

Not because it will change your life. Because it proves you’re still capable of changing direction.

That’s the muscle most people lose first.

Final Thought

The modern workplace has mastered a remarkable trick.

It convinces intelligent adults that spending forty years doing something they don’t enjoy is perfectly normal.

People call it stability. Or security. Or being realistic.

Sometimes it’s those things.

Mostly it’s just surrender.

And on that cheerful note - see you next time!

Leave a comment

Life is often about patience. Few things come to us immediately. Some things never do.

As humans, we are a patient race. We don’t like being patient, but we recognise that it is something required of us, and to descend into impatience seldom improves things.

Enter the world of A&E - the accident and emergency unit in NHS hospitals - and the concept of patience enters a whole new realm.

The Short Truth

As anyone who has had the misfortune to engage with an A&E department in recent times will most certainly testify, the experience is a painful one.

Given that you are entering this place at a low and vulnerable point in your life (either as a patient or an accompanying relative/friend), your tolerance levels are already being tested.

As you arrive - and before you have even entered the system - you are extremely vulnerable. Most likely experiencing some physical pain, you are also under immense psychological and emotional pressure. The uncertainty of how and whether you will emerge from this traumatic situation is foremost in your mind.

This is the point at which your wellbeing is now entrusted to others.

You want this situation to end as soon as possible (and favourably, of course), but you can do nothing about it.

Thankfully, a system is in place which has assumed responsibility to deal competently with this exact scenario. As a taxpayer, this is your system. You have not considered other options. As a UK citizen requiring emergency services, society and the law have decided that you do not have other options. But that’s OK. You have been told that when you are at your most vulnerable, a system is waiting to help you.

Well that moment has arrived. And here you are - experiencing A & E.

And… It… Is… Hell!!!!

And you can do NOTHING about it.

Or can you?…

The Structural Truth

Overcrowded?

The NHS standard states that 95% of patients should be admitted, transferred, or discharged within four hours. Visit any A&E department, speak to people who have been in one, read online forums - check out the real-life version, and wait times of 6-12 hours are the norm. For people in pain. Who have paid more for this service than going private (which is not an option, by law) - see below.

Understaffed?

The National Health Executive reports that while official NHS data recorded around 23,046 registered nurse vacancies in England, the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) estimates the actual shortage is closer to 55,000—more than double official counts when factoring in safe care demands and unbudgeted needs.

According to the BMA, as of mid-2026, secondary care medical vacancies in England stand at roughly 9,390 posts (about 5.6% of all medical positions). Nursing workforce investment has lagged behind medical investment since 2009; the RCN estimates the NHS would have over 77,000 additional nurses today if nursing growth had matched the pace of doctor recruitment.

Underfunded?

By contrast, BUPA delivers fully comprehensive annual cover for approximately £990 per patient. Private medical insurance does not cover emergency care. It is estimated (based on US statistics) that to do so would increase premiums to anything up to three times the fully comp level.

In other words, up to £2770. Roughly 10% cheaper than the NHS. For premium, private care.

Underfunded? Doesn’t look like it.

Financially mismanaged on a systemic scale? Looks very much like it.

The Personal Truth

Of course, replacing the NHS with an individually-funded private care program would not happen in the UK for one simple reason - not everyone using the NHS pays for it.

Neither the UK government nor the NHS publish statistics to show what percentage of NHS users are non-UK taxpayers. It should be noted that people entering the UK by a legal visa route pay an NHS surcharge (IHS), and short-term visitors are required to pay for NHS services (except emergency services, which are free).

However, whether as British or non-British born residents, the following non-contributors receive free NHS services without paying for it:

• Around 9.12 million working-age people (aged 16 to 64) in the UK are economically inactive, meaning they are out of work and not looking for a job. An additional 1.78 million people are unemployed and actively looking for work, bringing the total number of working-age people not working to roughly 10.9 million. (Source: House of Commons Library)

• Children under 16 years of age. It would not be a civilised nation if this were otherwise. We may be imperfect but - at the time of writing at least - we remain a civilised nation.

• State pensioners over 67 years of age receive free NHS services. As well they might, having contributed to the system for 40+ years (on the most part).

The Long Truth

Paying and non-paying customers

When a UK taxpayer accesses NHS services, he or she becomes a paying customer.

When a non-taxpayer accesses the services, they do so as a non-paying customer. As a UK citizen, it may be argued that the VAT they pay on goods consumed also contributes to the system along with income tax, but it still falls well short of income tax/NI contributions.

As such, we have a two-tier customer model. In which both sets of customers receive the exact same standard of service. A private provider who delivered their highest paying customers the same basic bog standard of service as their entry-level customers would soon go out of business. Only in a monopoly would such a travesty survive.

The NHS A & E service is, of course, a monopoly.

To complain is not permitted. To complain forcefully may result in complaints against you (show emotion and it’s zero tolerance!). You pay for this service, as a taxpayer/NI contributor, but you do not receive the same status as a normal paying customer elsewhere would.

It may be argued that if you are arriving in the UK without paying and then accessing free health care immediately - the NHS spends an estimated £133,000 per day (roughly £100 million annually) on translation and interpreting services - or if you have never worked and still receive the same service as someone who has contributed for 40 years, you are onto a great deal. Of course you are!

Politically and socially, there are many people who don’t like to hear this. But not all truths are comfortable ones.

Rightly or wrongly, a two-tier level of service would address this immediately. Standard class passengers on an airplane know full well they don’t deserve the same level of service as first class. The same with different room rates in a hotel.

Of course, everyone in a hospital - particularly A & E - should be given a dignified level of service. But if people were disincentivised from treating the NHS as the world’s free hospital - flying in from all corners of the globe to access for free the care they would have to work, earn and pay for in their own country - it would be a good start. And fairer on the people who have actually earned the service, without whom it simply would not exist.

That would reduce waiting lists, but fall well short of solving the bigger problem - mismanagement.

The Long Solution

So what can be done about that?

Firstly, the mindset needs to change.

This is an essential service, costing the British taxpayer frankly obscene amounts of money. It is NOT underpaid for. It is financially mismanaged. Those two things are very different. As a transaction, it is a failure. And it needs to be completely overhauled.

The sources of this mismanagement are systemic and well-known:

• Too much admin. Professionally qualified clinical staff (doctors, nurses, midwives, allied health) make up just 54% (approx. 760,000 FTE) of total NHS staff (Source: NHS England Digital).

• NHS staff have a sickness absence rate of around 5.15%, which is nearly double the UK public sector average (2.9%) and almost three times the private sector average (1.8%). NHS staff take roughly double the amount of sick leave compared to the general UK workforce (Source: National Institutes of Health).

  The NHS offers contractual sick pay (under Agenda for Change) that is significantly more generous than the legal minimum (Statutory Sick Pay).

• NHS becoming over-reliant on expensive consultants (Source: LowDownNHS)

• The NHS is simply too big. Systems are widely scattered, do not communicate well, and have not been updated with the times.

• Too many people are accessing a service (see above) founded in 1948 which is now costed at a fraction of the actual running price.

The British public should demand this change. It is not good enough for consecutive governments to each blame the failings of the NHS and its A&E departments on their predecessors. Permanent collective responsibility should be taken by the UK Government - as a legacy which passes from one government to the next, not as a policy but as a legal requirement, owed by them to the British electorate.

A Different Kind of Patience

Historically, the British public have been known as a patient race. We queue politely at airports whilst everyone else rushes past. We wait to be served at bars - we don’t need queues, we can do this in a dignified, time-served way.

This institutionalised patience is why anger levels shown in A & E departments have tended to be considerably lower than those most likely deserved. We suffer - quite literally - in silence.

But this needs to change. We need to stop tolerating (another celebrated British value) being treated as third-class citizens in a service for which we pay over the odds.

We need to inform our powers-that-be - our patience is wearing thin.

Action is required. Reports need to be commissioned to restructure the entire NHS, starting with the most urgent - A & E. Why not ask the people running successful (private and state) health services around the world how they do it? Get strict and enforce change like people’s lives depend on it - because they do.

Change the laws on absenteeism. Cull the unnecessary admin. Develop more efficient processes and systems. (Being ferried through A&E is a series of small tasks, each of them with a long wait. Bundle them together! Inter-staff communication is shocking: sit there - as I did recently - and see it for yourself.)

Failure is not an option. We are no longer applauding the NHS like obedient trained dogs. We are demanding to be treated (that’s the verb for what you do to patients, isn’t it) with the respect we deserve.

Stop abusing our long-exhausted goodwill and tolerance. The waiting is over.

One of the strangest things about money is that the amount itself doesn’t really matter. There’s no magic income number guaranteed to satisfy everyone. People on low incomes can feel financially secure, whilst people on six figures but addicted to spending will always feel cash-strapped. We tend to assume that money problems are caused by a lack of money, but it’s simply not the case.

The uncomfortable truth is that most of us just don’t know what “enough” looks like.

We know what “more” looks like. We know what “better” looks like. We know what other people have. But we rarely stop to define the point at which we’d actually be satisfied. Without that definition, you’re set to earn more every year - and still feel permanently behind.

Word of the Week: “Enough”

“Enough” is one of the most important words in the English language, and one of the least examined.

Think about how much time people spend pursuing success, money, recognition or possessions. Now think about how rarely they stop and ask themselves a simple question: how much is enough?

For many people, enough is always somewhere in the future. They tell themselves they’ll relax when they reach a certain salary, buy a certain house or hit a certain milestone. Then they get there, move the goalposts, and start the chase all over again.

The problem isn’t ambition. The problem is that without a definition of enough, every achievement feels temporary. No matter how much progress you make, the finish line remains just out of reach.

The Long Truth question is this: if you don’t know what enough looks like, how will you ever know when you’ve arrived?

Cliché of the Week: “Money can’t buy happiness.”

Really? If certainly would be nice to test that sometime!

Money can clearly buy things that make life easier. Comfort, convenience, freedom and security for a start. Who in their right mind would choose financial stress over financial stability?

But if money is certain to get you satisfaction, why do miserable rich people exist?

Satisfaction depends on comparison. If your sense of success comes from having more than the people around you, you’ll always be vulnerable to somebody with a bigger house, a newer car or a more impressive lifestyle. There will always be somebody ahead.

If the money feels enough, happiness will be possible in that part of your life. But what about the million of other ways you can be unhappy? Money doesn’t touch those.

Question of the Week: Who would I be trying to impress if nobody could see my life?

Imagine nobody knew what car you drove. Nobody knew where you went on holiday. Nobody saw your clothes, your house, your social media posts or your job title.

How many of your financial decisions would stay exactly the same?

Most of us like to think we’re completely independent thinkers, but human beings are social creatures. We take our cues from the people around us. We compare. We imitate. We compete. We signal.

There’s nothing unusual about that. The interesting question is whether we’re aware of it.

Many purchases are not really about the thing being purchased. They’re about belonging, status, identity or approval. The money leaves your bank account, but the thing you’re actually buying is often emotional rather than practical.

Spending more than you need to in order to impress others is a mug’s game. Yet so many people fall into that trap.

The Long Truth Method

Short Truth

“I’m spending money to keep up with my friends.”

Structural Truth

The first thing to notice is the phrase itself.

What exactly does “keeping up” mean? Keeping up financially? Socially?Professionally? Lifestyle-wise?

More importantly, who decided that keeping up was necessary in the first place?

The phrase contains a hidden assumption: that life is a race and your friends are the competition. Before solving the problem, it’s worth questioning whether that assumption is true.

Personal Truth

It’s easy to blame external pressure, but the harder question is what role we are playing ourselves.

What are we getting from the spending?

Perhaps it creates a sense of belonging. Or maybe it prevents feelings of embarrassment. Does it help us feel successful or accepted? Perhaps it protects us from feeling left behind.

The spending may look like a money problem on the surface, but the reward is often emotional rather than financial.

Long Truth

Most people do not spend money simply to acquire things.

They spend to acquire feelings.

The feeling of being included. Or being successful. Or being admired. Or simply not being the odd one out.

The problem is that these feelings are temporary. A purchase can create a momentary sense of status or belonging, but it rarely lasts. Soon there is another meal out, another holiday, another upgrade, another opportunity to compare yourself with someone else.

What looks like a spending problem is often a comparison problem.

Long Solution

Instead of asking how to keep up with your friends, ask a different question: what kind of life am I actually trying to build?

The answer may have very little to do with what your friends are doing.

Define what enough means for you. Define what success means for you. Define what financial security means for you.

Once those definitions become clear, many spending decisions become easier. You stop asking whether a purchase helps you keep up, and start asking whether it helps you move towards the life you’ve chosen.

The two questions often lead to very different answers.

Final Thought

One of the most expensive assumptions people make is that everybody else is paying close attention to their lives.

Most people aren’t.

They’re too busy worrying about their own finances, their own careers and their own insecurities.

That means a surprising amount of spending is performed for an audience that isn’t really watching.

The Long Truth isn’t that you’ll never have enough money.

It’s that you’ll never feel like you have enough money until you’ve decided what enough actually means.

Spoiler alert - I’m bursting your balloon here. Quite literally.

It’s no exaggeration to say that millions of people have had their lives changed by fast-track weight loss meds (Mounjaro and Ozempic jabs, and now Voy pills). Having struggled to lose weight, they now experience before-and-after transformations within months, sometimes weeks. Appetite suppressants trick the brain into thinking the stomach is full and the weight drops off like gravy off a spoon. It’s a great wheeze, and with the most obese accessing prescriptions on the NHS and the rest forking out privately, it’s already a multi-billion pound industry.

But let’s just stop for a minute and think about what this really is.

The Short Truth

Great!

What’s not to like about something which can make people more healthy, remove the misery of negative self-esteem, and save the NHS millions as heart rate, diabetes and other weight-related diseases fall?

Actually, quite a lot.

The Structural Truth

The latter delves into the reasons behind why a person overindulges, whether in food, drink or other excesses. It recognises that transformation needs to be as a result of changing those habits, firstly by understanding where those habits come from. Once the mind is in the right place, the dedication and long, hard pain of diet and exercise can be undertaken and maintained until results are achieved.

It’s a 2-step process, and both steps need to be there.

Mounjaro and Ozempic are replacing the diet/exercise component. They’re fast-tracking the weight loss by replicating the impact on the body previously achieved through a change of diet and a course of fat-busting physicality.

But what about the other part? The psychological process. Getting in the right frame of mind.

The Personal Truth

Some will say it’s a genetic thing. Their parents were overweight and they’ve inherited those genes. Or, more likely, those eating habits.

Others will cite life circumstances. For women, child birth is a frequently cited factor. For men, settling down into married life. It might be pressure of work. Drinking culture or unwinding after work with a wine or a beer. The joys of comfort-eating to give a kick to an otherwise mundane life.

Age often comes into it. ‘I could eat whatever I wanted when I was 20. Never put on a pound’. It’s true that the metabolism slows as we age. But not all old people get fat, so it’s not as clearcut as that.

In any case, nutritionists will start with a new patient by delving into their past. Asking questions to locate the likeliest individual reasons for gaining weight.

Like any addiction, the use of excess food and drink would frequently be acting as a comfort for something else fundamentally lacking in that person’s life.

In order to change a person’s eating habits, the person themselves need to change.

A change of mindset is necessary as well as a change of diet. Otherwise, once the pounds drop off and the diet stops, old habits return and the yoyo bounces back up again.

The Long Truth

We’re still in the early stages of the miracle weight-loss generation. It’s less than five years since injections became widely available, and barely two years for pills. Sceptics fear that the fullest side-effects have yet to be recorded.

But this Long Truth deep dive is less about physical side effects, and more about the psychological ones.

The old adage that ‘there’s no gain without pain’ is seemingly obliterated by weight-loss meds. The idea that the journey is more important and rewarding than the destination. As with anything designed to be fast-track, there is no journey.

Weight loss meds are all about the destination. The journey is a zoom-through. All those mini victories as you step on the scales after the discipline of a strict diet and see that you’ve lost half a stone, or sweated it out after twice-weekly sessions down the gym - gone. Feeling great about yourself? Realising that you’ve got qualities you never thought possible - determination, drive, self-discipline, self-belief? Not here.

The state is happy to encourage you in this. In 2026, over 1.2 million people were being prescribed weight-loss meds by the NHS. Ads for privately-sourced medication run openly as a burgeoning source of revenue for both social and mainstream media.

The hype around these meds has made them almost fashionable. Celebrities who previously declared themselves happy with their excess weight, even ‘celebrating’ it as body-positivity, are now racing to shed the quick-loss, sweat-free pounds.

With validation on such a grand scale, anyone doubting the Mounjaro Mantra comes across as a big fat party pooper. Jealous that last year’s fatties are this year’s hotties.

The Long Solution

There’s a strong case for weight-loss meds to be moderated. Instead of losing stones in weeks, a more gradual rate of loss would reintroduce the journey process. Maybe only partial weight-loss should be enabled through medication, with the rest only possible through the more traditional diet and exercise methods.

Allowing morbidly obese people to reduce their weight to a size which allowed them to access the gym less self-consciously seems a perfectly fair and decent way to help people to help themselves.

It’s unlikely that anyone who is overweight with a history of failed diets would turn down the opportunity to lose weight through medication. But how about regulation to say that you can only use it once? After that, it’s down to you.

It would be massively unpopular, uncommercial and arguably unfair.

Leave a comment

Ever noticed how some arguments seem to come back like a bad sequel?

You think you’ve dealt with them. You think you’ve won them. You might even think you’ve resolved them. Then three weeks later, there they are again, sitting on your sofa and helping themselves to your biscuits.

The problem is often not that the argument hasn’t been solved. It’s that it hasn’t been defined properly.

This week’s theme is simple: Define your argument better.

Word of the Week

Definition

A definition tells us what something is. But it also tells us what it isn’t. That’s why definitions matter so much.

Take the word success.

Is success making lots of money? Having freedom? Being respected? Having time for your family? Doing something you enjoy? Not having to answer emails at 11pm?

There’s no one correct answer.

But if you don’t know which definition you’re working with, you can spend years chasing someone else’s version.

The same thing happens with words like ambition, freedom, respect, happiness, failure, confidence and love.

Big abstract words. Small definitions.

“You don’t have any ambition!” usually means, “You don’t have the same ambitions as me.” It’s not fair, and it won’t do.

Take the time to agree on the definitions and maybe the argument never happens.

Cliché of the Week

“Let’s agree to disagree.”

Sometimes it feels like the only way to end a cyclical argument that’s spiralled out of control.

But it’s really just the coward’s way out. That argument is now parked, waiting to re-emerge at the earliest opportunity.

How about let’s not agree to disagree? How about let’s agree to think about this and come back to it when we’ve got a clear head and a bit of perspective?

Cliches are empty expressions. Placeholders where original thought should be.

If you must say ‘let’s agree to disagree’, at least inject some honesty into it and say, “Let’s agree to disagree for now, like the big, uninformed procrastinators we are. We’ll do better with this next time.”

Question of the Week

What problem am I actually trying to solve?

Probably one of the most useful questions I know. Because your first stab at defining a problem is often just the headline.

A business owner says:

“I need more customers.”

Maybe. Or maybe they need better pricing. Or better retention. Or a better product.

Or fewer customers who never pay on time.

A student says:

“I’m bad at exams.”

Perhaps. Or are they just bad at revision. Or planning. Or sleep.

Or good at messing about on TikTok when they should be working.

The first description of a problem is often like clickbait. Catchy. But incomplete.

The Long Truth starts when we get specific. And honest.

The Long Truth Method

Short Truth

“Why do we keep having the same argument about money?”

Structural Truth

What exactly does “money” mean? Define it better.

Income? Spending? Saving? Financial risk? Control? Security?

Different people often use the same word while talking about completely different things.

Look at the context of the argument. What sparked it? That’s your definition of money for now.

Personal Truth

What part of this problem am I contributing to?

• Am I making assumptions?

• Am I avoiding difficult conversations?

• Am I expressing frustration instead of explaining my concerns?

• Have I clearly explained what I actually want?

Long Truth

The argument may not be about money at all.

One partner may be worried about security. The other may want freedom.

One may feel ignored. The other may feel controlled.

The visible argument concerns spending, but the underlying disagreement concerns values, priorities and expectations.

The word “money” becomes shorthand for a much larger conversation.

Long Solution

Stop debating the symptom. Define the problem more accurately.

Instead of:

“We keep arguing about money.”

Try:

“We’re struggling to agree on how much financial risk we’re comfortable taking.”

Or:

“We have different ideas about what financial security means.”

Or:

“We’re arguing about who should make major financial decisions.”

The more precisely the problem is defined, the easier it becomes to solve.

Final Thought

Most people spend a lot of time trying to win arguments.

The Long Truth asks a different question:

Have you defined the argument properly in the first place?

Because when the definition improves, the solution often gets a lot closer.

And sometimes the argument you thought you were having turns out not to be the argument at all.

See you next week.

Leave a comment

Every week I’ll give you a word, a cliché, and a question. I’ll also apply the Long Truth Method to a real-life problem.

Relationships, money, workplace and career, self-improvement.

Five minutes a week.

Enter your email below to register for FREE. Cancel at any time.

I can’t promise it’ll change your life, but it probably will.