Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Oexmelin]

Again, I think that contempt for politics is part of the profound problem of people who came to political maturity in the neoliberal consensus of the 90s. As if just being reasonable could stand in for principles, or even be up to the current challenges. The right has moved on much more quickly. They have no contempt for politics, only contempt for the deliberative aspect of it.

[HVC]

Thanks sheilbh. I guess Truss's second term will go much better. Worked for trump

[Sheilbh]

I think there's something to that. I also think it helps explain, for want of a better way of putting it, the lightness of politicians of that generation - certainly thinking of the British examples.

There's also a really striking paradox at the heart of it (particularly on the liberal/left side of things) that there is often a proposed technocratic answer. What you need is reasonable people to examine issues and come up with optimal policy solutions like speak your weight machines. But that idea of technocracy - of empowering expert technique or knowledge (like central bankers, say) seems to appreciate technical knowledge in every area except politics which is the exact area they propose to solve. As you say it's held in contempt or seen as the obstacle rather than the tool that requires learning.

There's no interest in the stuff of politics and its learned application - I think it's why so often their technique and style is just a continuation of what Clinton perfected in the 90s despite a radically different media environment and way of consuming politics. On that specific point I think it's less right v left than establishment v outsiders.

But I agree on the right. I think one of the biggest problems is that basically everyone seems to agree that the neoliberal consensus is on its way out - certainly as a consensus. But the only people even imagining a possible future or an alternative seem to be on the right (and it's bad). I think that's a lot of what is giving them their energy at this moment - especially as it so often casts the left and liberal side of politics into the conservative defenders of a discredited status quo ante. I think to an extent - I can't remember who said it (maybe HVC) or where - there is something to the idea that the mainstream liberal left parties successfully got rid of most of their weirdos and prophets which means the imaginative possibility within those parties is narrower.

But also I think to an extent maybe the very idea of making the case for something has slightly atrophied. Things became just the way things are - and, I'd argue, increasingly formal rather than substantive. So instead of arguing for a thing it often seems that the argument is more institutionlist, pearl clutchy and small-c conservative that this is the way we do things. Again I think often arguing in defence of a form that is no longer delivering the substance. I agree with the Economist's UK columnist that quite possibly the shock of Trump my revivify "basic bitch liberalism". That maybe on the liberal side people will stop arguing from a defensive crouch but re-discover that great 19th century fire on things like free trade, rule of law, reform, independent judiciary and effective government. And maybe perhaps the left will start dreaming utopias again.

[HVC]

I can't remember who said it (maybe HVC) or where - there is something to the idea that the mainstream liberal left parties successfully got rid of most of their weirdos and prophets which means the imaginative possibility within those parties is narrower.

It was indeed me well the jist of it

[HVC]

Politicians suck, and many are bad at their job and purpose. But we've had those situations before (seems to come in waves ) for example the American political machine. Harding is like an old school trump, as far as selling and corruption. Could just be that looking at it from amidst the storm makes it seem worse, or maybe it is worse. I'm not smart enough to know

The main difference, I think, is that while the electorate has always been dumb, now social media makes it a lot easier to spread the dumb around and get a mass following.

[Sheilbh]

Slightly concerned on the Planning Bill. All the YIMBY people seem absolutely aghast at the amendments coming through the House of Lords, especially on the environment and nature. Basically under pressure it looks like the government has folded pretty significantly. I'm not sure on impact but YIMBY types seem to think it will be serious.

The story on this is particularly striking because I think it comes up a lot in our modern political culture. The government worked with environmental and nature groups on drafting the bill. When it first came out those groups were broadly on-board with the government's reforms. There was then a lot of pushback from their membership, activists and lots of "Campaigners say..." articles in the Guardian and BBC. All of those groups who had previously been supportive turned and started having serious concerns about the bill, working with Labour rebels opposing it.

By the sounds of it the government's now climbed down. The YIMBYs are really worried that the bill is now significantly weaker (a step in the right direction but still complex and more power to quangos), while those same pressure groups are now saying it's a good start but the government has not addressed their concerns and need to concede more.

I think for a government "laser focused on growth", planning reform was really the last big roll of the dice they had - and if they concede on this, especially given that it's manifesto legislation and core to their entire project, I'm not really sure what the point is any more.

I'd add that this is part of the lack of joining up government (which I'd suggest is the job of cabinet, but particularly the PM). Earlier this week we had the Chancellor talking about regulatory changes since the crash making Britain too economically risk averse, too wedded to the precautionary principle on everything etc (very much in line with the Draghi Report, which I thought was interesting) and regulation needed to be changed and cut to allow for growth. In the same week it sounds like the government is conceding on its big growth legislation (as well as the core to delivering their 300,000 homes per year pledge).

It's a bit like the situation with employment - the jobs report recently is complicated and a little contradictory. But it definitely looks like there is a recruitment recession and payrolls are falling consistently now. Low paid sectors (like hospitality) and graduate recruitment/entry level jobs seem particularly badly hit. The number one factor being cited by employers (particularly in hospitality) is the government increasing payroll taxes. At the same time the government's really pretty gung-ho on AI adoption and is proposing a very significant expansion of workers' rights. I think any one of these policies on their own may well be right, could be defensible etc - but cumulatively, it feels like the inevitable outcome will be higher unemployment and lower employment rates.

As I say if only we'd invented a system of government based on different departments representing different interests and aspects of policy could decide policy collectively with the most power resting with a chair who doesn't represent any individual department but is able to assess the trade-offs

[mongers]

Visiting Oxford next week and trying to remember details of a museum*, which I've not visited, that has an Egyptian collection. Anyone knows what it might be or am I confusing it with the Petrie at UCL? 



* Yes I know the Ashmoleon quite well.

[Sheilbh]

Maybe Pitt-Rivers? It's the only other museum I can think of in Oxford.

[mongers]

Maybe Pitt-Rivers? It's the only other museum I can think of in Oxford.

Thanks, Shelf.

Yes, I should have also excluded Pitt-Rivers, I've even myself handled some of his collection.

So if you can't think of another, it is likely the Petrie that I've never visited.