7 ms·

Remarkable article. 2000-odd words, goes into great detail talking about politics, psycho-analyzing the Tories...it is all because they went to Eton...of cours

Remarkable article. 2000-odd words, goes into great detail talking about politics, psycho-analyzing the Tories...it is all because they went to Eton...of course...the Brexit, the bankers...it is all so simple. A brief sentence is expended on planning, no mention about supply-side problems, the productivity crisis in govt (which is now 50% of the economy)...nothing. I will say this another way, you can measure the intelligence by looking at the gap between how often they talk about Brexit and how often they talk about economic reform. People who talk endlessly about Brexit have nothing to say about any economic reform...beyond reversing Brexit (and then say, without self-awareness, something sniping about the "religion" of Brexit). There is no content. The UK has many problems but the worst is an elite that is almost totally preoccupied with arguing and rutting with other members of that same elite. Recursive, insular, almost no connection with reality. That was the problem from the 20s until Thatcher (with exceptions, there were a few good men on both sides...Labour just totally imploded first). That crept back into the Tories in the early 90s, and crept back into Labour with Brown (I will ask you this: Brown oversaw one of the most catastrophic bailout programs that actually brought down healthy institutions...he is still advising Labour, how...he devised not one but two constitutional programs that imploded...he is STILL advising Labour on a third one, how...the article talks about people leaving politics, if people leave how is this unflushable turd still there). All of the Tories who left after Brexit were some of the worst, most incompetent people in politics. All they did by the end of 2019 was argue with other politicians, they had no connection with reality. The current Cabinet are fine, there are lots of very obviously competent people attempting to deal with massive structural issues (Home Office has gone feral, Justice has gone feral, Health is beyond repair...again, the article mentions not one word about this...why might that be?). Look at Labour...they have Starmer (not wholly competent) and Reeves (who is risking a coup by meeting the Tories on policy)...again, the biggest issue is the profound lack of progress made on massive structural issues and this comes down to a failure of political leadership, not a failure of voters.

shaftoe444 4y ago
> A brief sentence is expended on planning This has become my gauge of how serious someone is. Planning reform is both incredibly necessary and incredibly unpopular and if you won't talk about it you are just dancing around the edges of the problem.
- rwmj 4y ago
  The Economist has covered the disfunctional planning system several times recently, so I suppose that's why they only devoted a little to it this week. https://www.economist.com/britain/2022/11/07/the-real-reason-it-takes-so-long-to-build-infrastructure-in-britain https://www.economist.com/britain/2022/11/07/the-real-reason... (There was another article about planning in Manchester but I can't find it right now)
- epistasis 4y ago
  This planning problem, or probably more accurately rent-seeking by those profiting by scarcity, seems endemic to English language countries for the past 50 years. At least with housing, which is the root of many problems, economically. Edit: and I think that the inability to talk about this is highly connected to the lack of other honesty in politics, as well as the perpetual outrage machine that results in things like Brexit.
  - skippyboxedhero 4y ago
    Because those countries have planning systems which put planning authority in the hands of local govt. It is nothing to do with the language they speak but fairly obvious consequences of how the system is designed. All the UK needs to do is un-delegate authority for planning to local govt. I think it is accepted, amongst those advocate for this heresy, that local areas need to retain control over the design of houses (this is something that doesn't work today btw). But the structure of the system needs to change: if you buy land, you can build whatever you want on it. Wherever local govt has had a say on this kind of thing, it has created massive societal costs. The solution is obvious.
    - epistasis 4y ago
      I don't mean that the literal English language is the problem, but rather the entire legal system, cultural norms, and evolving attitudes about housing that spread through English language countries with cross pollination of media.
Havoc 4y ago
"Economic reform" is just the latest soundbite. Half hearted acknowledgement that current tory policies have failed so by necessity the next thing being pushed must be branded as a change. Hence "reform". I have yet to see anything of substance fly under that banner.
- skippyboxedhero 4y ago
  It isn't (the indicator for this is that Reeves is saying exactly the same thing). It is hard to be brief but: * Financial services - totally fucked, most of the VC funding in the UK comes from overseas investors because pension and insurance rules (that were largely adopted from Europe) mean that they have to own large amounts of govt bonds...the recent problems indicate how wise that was. Everything isn't working: retail, savings, banks, it is all not working. * Planning - obviously...lots of countries have versions of this problem but it is becoming very problematic. Iirc, there was a recent infrastructure project that had to do a new environmental assessment (costing tens of millions) for every km of work they did...it isn't just housing, it is everything, it is all fucked. * Healthcare - obviously...not going to say anything more but it is at the point where it is impacting the economy. * Labour - again...do I need to say more? Look at what is happening right now. * Education - again...do I need to say more? We have massive issues producing people with skills that employers require. There are other issues around this that relate to poor management and immigration, but schools are just bad (this is mentioned in the article to be fair but only from the perspective of too many politicians being from Eton...why can't they just...find people from journalism, who work at...the Economist say?). * Housing - separate from just planning, there are specific rules within the housing market that cause distortions above the planning system failing to produce enough supply. For example, rent controls in Scotland...that caused a 40% drop in rental supply in two weeks, this is economic mismanagement on a grand scale. * Local govt - needs fundamental reforms in multiple areas. Social care, planning, a lot of the new environmental rules are very dangerous (if people from outside the UK can believe it, some local councils are introducing rules which mean you will be fined if you exit your neighbourhood in a car to go to another part of the same city). * Transport - almost everything isn't working properly. Road, rail, it is all gone. Almost all due to problems in other areas above but which will now require structural changes. Btw, I don't know what planet you have to live on not to notice this stuff. I am in my mid-30s, every single job I have had things that impacted my ability to produce more output because of govt intervention. Every one. Once you see this stuff, you realise how bad it has become, every level of govt, every institution, it is everywhere.
hermitcrab 4y ago
>not a failure of voters I disagree. That Brexit was a massive con was obvious to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention. But the electorate voted for it anyway.
- tailspin2019 4y ago
  I disagree. I voted against it, but to properly have an informed enough opinion on it really required a good understanding of our economy and how it interacted with that of the EUs. I believe Brexit was such a complex issue that most normal voters could not be expected to be able to be informed enough to actually weigh up the decision by any useful means other than relying on superficial emotional decision making or their historical political leanings. I think there were possibly advantages of leaving had we made the most of them. (Not enough to persuade me, but the outcomes didn’t have to be all bad). Clearly we didn’t make the most of these potential upsides though and we were never going to because the gvnt was clearly not competent enough to see such a complex transition through successfully. Having said that, after some cursory reading on the topic, outside of the normal media spin, I believed that we were better in then out. But I disagree that it was trivially obvious for the average voter to determine this. Especially with the ridiculous campaign promises and misdirection of the leave campaign (and I think the remain campaign didn’t do great either). And even with my background reading, my vote to remain was based largely on a gut instinct rather than a deep conviction or understanding that I was taking the correct side. I think a lot of voters would say the same. And I know many leave voters who almost immediately regretted voting that way. Such was the “coin toss” decision making for so many people. Saying that Brexit was obviously a massive con (and the associated implication that leave voters did not sufficient inform themselves) is to risk drastically oversimplifying it. I will agree that it is very obvious in retrospect that it was a terrible idea.
  - hermitcrab 4y ago
    >I believe Brexit was such a complex issue that most normal voters could not be expected to be able to be informed enough to actually weigh up the decision. I agree with that and a lot else you say. But the crazy promises being made by 'leave' (£350 million per week for the NHS, being only one of many) were just obvious lies (a con) from day 1.
askew 4y ago
> The current Cabinet are fine, there are lots of very obviously competent people Hah!
halo 4y ago
Can you expand on “supply-side problems”, “economic reform” and “structural issues” without filtering it through euphemisms?
- ssabev 4y ago
  Supply side: * We do not have enough houses in economically productive areas - look at the OxCam arc, London. NIMBYs keep sapping every attempt at building more houses. * Terrible childcare - we have to pay about 1-2k per kid for childcare. Go figure out how to have children in a climate where it's cheaper for a parent not to work (if you're on the average income). * Healthcare - as a naturalised brit I will never understand the sacrosanct nature of the NHS. We plough a ton of money into something that is very equitable but is terrible for outcomes. Most folks who have money I know always tend to go private rather than dealing with a 6 month wait for a routine check up. Economic reform * Investment wise - we are funding out deficits by selling our assets to foreign investors. Most of the country's financial assets are seen as safe dividend givers. We have a decent startup ecosystem, but we should invest far more into research, infrastructure to actually ensure there is a boost to the economy. On the structural - few things come to mind, but can't articulate them super clearly. Hope that helps
  - DanBC 4y ago
    > Most folks who have money I know always tend to go private rather than dealing with a 6 month wait for a routine check up. I don't get this - if it's a routine check up you'll have one per year, so your GP will be booking it in for you, and they are paid money to do so. If you're talking about a routine check-up for the worried well who don't have any health problems but who just want a doctor to tell them that they don't have any health problems, well, those checks cause harm and do not prolong life so you'd want to delay them as much as possible.
  - Jochim 4y ago
    > * Healthcare - as a naturalised brit I will never understand the sacrosanct nature of the NHS. We plough a ton of money into something that is very equitable but is terrible for outcomes. Most folks who have money I know always tend to go private rather than dealing with a 6 month wait for a routine check up. The deterioration of the service is intentional and fairly recent. A large part of that "ton of money" is funnelled straight into private hands thanks to the initiatives put in place by our criminal government. "Right to choose": Public money funding private healthcare instead of being put towards expanding the capacity of the NHS in that area. Private consultants: Paying a private company to poach NHS specialists who are then contracted back at a much higher rate. Agency nurses: Paying nurses so poorly that they leave the profession, resulting in a staffing shortage. Then paying a private agency double to triple the wage of a staff nurse. Private providers: Preventing the NHS from providing services under it's remit and instead handing public money over to private enterprises.

shaftoe444 4y ago

> A brief sentence is expended on planning This has become my gauge of how serious someone is. Planning reform is both incredibly necessary and incredibly unpopular and if you won't talk about it you are just dancing around the edges of the problem.

rwmj 4y ago
The Economist has covered the disfunctional planning system several times recently, so I suppose that's why they only devoted a little to it this week. https://www.economist.com/britain/2022/11/07/the-real-reason-it-takes-so-long-to-build-infrastructure-in-britain https://www.economist.com/britain/2022/11/07/the-real-reason... (There was another article about planning in Manchester but I can't find it right now)
epistasis 4y ago
This planning problem, or probably more accurately rent-seeking by those profiting by scarcity, seems endemic to English language countries for the past 50 years. At least with housing, which is the root of many problems, economically. Edit: and I think that the inability to talk about this is highly connected to the lack of other honesty in politics, as well as the perpetual outrage machine that results in things like Brexit.
- skippyboxedhero 4y ago
  Because those countries have planning systems which put planning authority in the hands of local govt. It is nothing to do with the language they speak but fairly obvious consequences of how the system is designed. All the UK needs to do is un-delegate authority for planning to local govt. I think it is accepted, amongst those advocate for this heresy, that local areas need to retain control over the design of houses (this is something that doesn't work today btw). But the structure of the system needs to change: if you buy land, you can build whatever you want on it. Wherever local govt has had a say on this kind of thing, it has created massive societal costs. The solution is obvious.
  - epistasis 4y ago
    I don't mean that the literal English language is the problem, but rather the entire legal system, cultural norms, and evolving attitudes about housing that spread through English language countries with cross pollination of media.

Havoc 4y ago

"Economic reform" is just the latest soundbite. Half hearted acknowledgement that current tory policies have failed so by necessity the next thing being pushed must be branded as a change. Hence "reform". I have yet to see anything of substance fly under that banner.

skippyboxedhero 4y ago
It isn't (the indicator for this is that Reeves is saying exactly the same thing). It is hard to be brief but: * Financial services - totally fucked, most of the VC funding in the UK comes from overseas investors because pension and insurance rules (that were largely adopted from Europe) mean that they have to own large amounts of govt bonds...the recent problems indicate how wise that was. Everything isn't working: retail, savings, banks, it is all not working. * Planning - obviously...lots of countries have versions of this problem but it is becoming very problematic. Iirc, there was a recent infrastructure project that had to do a new environmental assessment (costing tens of millions) for every km of work they did...it isn't just housing, it is everything, it is all fucked. * Healthcare - obviously...not going to say anything more but it is at the point where it is impacting the economy. * Labour - again...do I need to say more? Look at what is happening right now. * Education - again...do I need to say more? We have massive issues producing people with skills that employers require. There are other issues around this that relate to poor management and immigration, but schools are just bad (this is mentioned in the article to be fair but only from the perspective of too many politicians being from Eton...why can't they just...find people from journalism, who work at...the Economist say?). * Housing - separate from just planning, there are specific rules within the housing market that cause distortions above the planning system failing to produce enough supply. For example, rent controls in Scotland...that caused a 40% drop in rental supply in two weeks, this is economic mismanagement on a grand scale. * Local govt - needs fundamental reforms in multiple areas. Social care, planning, a lot of the new environmental rules are very dangerous (if people from outside the UK can believe it, some local councils are introducing rules which mean you will be fined if you exit your neighbourhood in a car to go to another part of the same city). * Transport - almost everything isn't working properly. Road, rail, it is all gone. Almost all due to problems in other areas above but which will now require structural changes. Btw, I don't know what planet you have to live on not to notice this stuff. I am in my mid-30s, every single job I have had things that impacted my ability to produce more output because of govt intervention. Every one. Once you see this stuff, you realise how bad it has become, every level of govt, every institution, it is everywhere.

hermitcrab 4y ago

>not a failure of voters I disagree. That Brexit was a massive con was obvious to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention. But the electorate voted for it anyway.

tailspin2019 4y ago
I disagree. I voted against it, but to properly have an informed enough opinion on it really required a good understanding of our economy and how it interacted with that of the EUs. I believe Brexit was such a complex issue that most normal voters could not be expected to be able to be informed enough to actually weigh up the decision by any useful means other than relying on superficial emotional decision making or their historical political leanings. I think there were possibly advantages of leaving had we made the most of them. (Not enough to persuade me, but the outcomes didn’t have to be all bad). Clearly we didn’t make the most of these potential upsides though and we were never going to because the gvnt was clearly not competent enough to see such a complex transition through successfully. Having said that, after some cursory reading on the topic, outside of the normal media spin, I believed that we were better in then out. But I disagree that it was trivially obvious for the average voter to determine this. Especially with the ridiculous campaign promises and misdirection of the leave campaign (and I think the remain campaign didn’t do great either). And even with my background reading, my vote to remain was based largely on a gut instinct rather than a deep conviction or understanding that I was taking the correct side. I think a lot of voters would say the same. And I know many leave voters who almost immediately regretted voting that way. Such was the “coin toss” decision making for so many people. Saying that Brexit was obviously a massive con (and the associated implication that leave voters did not sufficient inform themselves) is to risk drastically oversimplifying it. I will agree that it is very obvious in retrospect that it was a terrible idea.
- hermitcrab 4y ago
  >I believe Brexit was such a complex issue that most normal voters could not be expected to be able to be informed enough to actually weigh up the decision. I agree with that and a lot else you say. But the crazy promises being made by 'leave' (£350 million per week for the NHS, being only one of many) were just obvious lies (a con) from day 1.

askew 4y ago

> The current Cabinet are fine, there are lots of very obviously competent people Hah!

halo 4y ago

Can you expand on “supply-side problems”, “economic reform” and “structural issues” without filtering it through euphemisms?

ssabev 4y ago
Supply side: * We do not have enough houses in economically productive areas - look at the OxCam arc, London. NIMBYs keep sapping every attempt at building more houses. * Terrible childcare - we have to pay about 1-2k per kid for childcare. Go figure out how to have children in a climate where it's cheaper for a parent not to work (if you're on the average income). * Healthcare - as a naturalised brit I will never understand the sacrosanct nature of the NHS. We plough a ton of money into something that is very equitable but is terrible for outcomes. Most folks who have money I know always tend to go private rather than dealing with a 6 month wait for a routine check up. Economic reform * Investment wise - we are funding out deficits by selling our assets to foreign investors. Most of the country's financial assets are seen as safe dividend givers. We have a decent startup ecosystem, but we should invest far more into research, infrastructure to actually ensure there is a boost to the economy. On the structural - few things come to mind, but can't articulate them super clearly. Hope that helps
- DanBC 4y ago
  > Most folks who have money I know always tend to go private rather than dealing with a 6 month wait for a routine check up. I don't get this - if it's a routine check up you'll have one per year, so your GP will be booking it in for you, and they are paid money to do so. If you're talking about a routine check-up for the worried well who don't have any health problems but who just want a doctor to tell them that they don't have any health problems, well, those checks cause harm and do not prolong life so you'd want to delay them as much as possible.
- Jochim 4y ago
  > * Healthcare - as a naturalised brit I will never understand the sacrosanct nature of the NHS. We plough a ton of money into something that is very equitable but is terrible for outcomes. Most folks who have money I know always tend to go private rather than dealing with a 6 month wait for a routine check up. The deterioration of the service is intentional and fairly recent. A large part of that "ton of money" is funnelled straight into private hands thanks to the initiatives put in place by our criminal government. "Right to choose": Public money funding private healthcare instead of being put towards expanding the capacity of the NHS in that area. Private consultants: Paying a private company to poach NHS specialists who are then contracted back at a much higher rate. Agency nurses: Paying nurses so poorly that they leave the profession, resulting in a staffing shortage. Then paying a private agency double to triple the wage of a staff nurse. Private providers: Preventing the NHS from providing services under it's remit and instead handing public money over to private enterprises.