That was the motion I had the (slightly daunting) task of defending this week in a brilliant debate hosted at the UK House of Lords by Zain Hussain and the Hult Prize Foundation team.
Alongside my fellow incredible proposition speakers, Tori. Hanson and Dhruv Sengupta, we made the case that UK founders face systemic challenges - from access to capital, to regulatory hurdles, to cultural barriers. I shared why, despite being proudly British, state school educated, a UK university grad, and a founder who has built her company while living here, I incorporated my company, Clear, in the US... Not because I wanted to, but because I felt I had to.
But the debate wasn’t one-sided. The opposition (Daniel Glazer, Jean de Fougerolles and Teddy Kim) did a fantastic job, making some powerful arguments about the UK’s world-class universities, global reputation, and growing support for innovation. They reminded us of what’s worth preserving and fighting for.
For me, it was a win-win.
If the proposition wins, I win the debate.
If the opposition wins, I win as a British founder.
Because that means the UK is indeed becoming a better place to build. And that’s what we all want.
Thank you to the organisers for putting together such a thoughtful and fiery conversation, to Lord John Bird for hosting us, and to everyone who came ready to engage with nuance, data, and a good dose of deep conversation (Zubair Junjunia, Amardeep Parmar, Cyril Lutterodt, Evie Mulberry, Anastasia Stratulat and many more)!
So… which side do you think won, and why? 😉
Share in the comments below 👇
startups uktech venturecapital founders debate britishtech scaleups ecosystem clear
This post was originally shared by on Linkedin.