Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[alfred russel]

IDK. Give me a single historical example when a closed-in country achieved a long term advantage over open ones. It has never been a good idea.

Madagascar in Pandemic.

[Josquius]

The only way the liberal approach would work if you get rid of the stopper of there being limited land and take a Japanese approach of letting companies build anything anywhere and concreting over the countryside.

Exactly. That's what should be done. Maybe not a complete free for all but definitely easier than it is now. That is liberalising the market. Also, not accidentally, happens to be the solution to better the lot of the common folk.

That would be a horrible idea. Would totally destroy the country. And I miswrote, its not would but rather could. Considering the finite amount of land around London its likely the upper end of the market would still be targeted anywhere within a decent working distance- and with liberalisation and a removal of all rules about having to make some affordable housing...

The key to solving the housing problem, and so many of the UK's problems, lies in moving away from Thatcherism and this idea that the entire economy should be crammed into London. Plus of course the stupid approach that only private companies can build houses.

[Sheilbh]

Is free movement of people and capital really a recent innovation? I was under the impression that we had that during the 19th century for example.
Free trade seems to be the recent innovation as that has never existed before in history. It was always very tightly regulated and cartelized.

My understanding is that free movement of people was total before the First World War I think but it's been restricted ever since then and in terms of Europe there's been a huge shift in 'free movement of labour' to 'free movement of people' especially since Maastricht, which is what I mean by it being relatively recent.

I'm not sure about capital. As with free movement of people it may have been possible for everyone in the nineteenth century in theory but in practice was relatively restricted to the wealthy or the desperate (going to America). There's been a huge emphasis on it as part of a general financial liberalisation program since the 80s. The problem is there's very strong evidence that, especially in developing and emerging economies, it can cause financial crises and make them worse. But there's no clear one way or the other - Chile and Thailand have had successful capital controls, China's done well without. But it was recommended for everyone for a very long time (IMF only came out slightly against it in 2012).

I think with globalisation there's been lots of faith and ideology (in the sense of political choice that are made without being portrayed or seen as political) about liberalising policies. Some have worked, some haven't and some are deeply unpopular. But like in Europe after the war, they were associated with this economically successful and inevitable model. Like Europe after the war I think that's now going to be trimmed in a little. Chances are we'll probably go too far in an another direction and in a few decades time we'll need to change that too.

That would be a horrible idea. Would totally destroy the country. And I miswrote, its not would but rather could. Considering the finite amount of land around London its likely the upper end of the market would still be targeted anywhere within a decent working distance- and with liberalisation and a removal of all rules about having to make some affordable housing...

Density is an issue too. We are shit at high density buildings. And I don't even mean in comparison with big American blocks, just compared to Europe, for example London is a quarter the density of Barcelona.

[Josquius]

Definitely true. Developers keep building houses....yet (older) houses keep being converted into flats as that's what the demand is.

[Admiral Yi]

I'm not saying that closing in is a good thing.

I think as with social democracy after the war, liberalism has gone too far. For example free movement of capital makes ideological sense but the evidence is that it helps cause and make worse financial crises. As I say I'd be astonished if we haven't seen the return of some form of capital controls in the next 10 years - though they'll be called something different, the IMF calls them 'macro-prudential measures'. So we now need to correct that over-reach a bit while keeping the best bits. Just as we've eventually kept most of the really important positive bits of the post-war era even as we've moved in a more market-driven direction.

Edit: To go all post-liberal Blairite, it's not about ideology, it's about what works - or doesn't.

My understanding of macroprudential is it refers to sustainable fiscal and monetary policy.  I don't see how it can have any connection to capital controls.

I have read a great deal about the issues raised by "hot money," which chaises interest rates around the world and leaves the country at the drop of a hat.  I've definitely not read an economic argument against direct foreign investment.

[Valmy]

No, without a doubt its liberalism. There's just a lot less money to be made in building low income housing vs. luxury housing.
The only way the liberal approach would work if you get rid of the stopper of there being limited land and take a Japanese approach of letting companies build anything anywhere and concreting over the countryside.

Funny I thought the whole idea you couldn't build large high rises and high density housing was because of anti-liberal building restrictions. NIMBYism and all that.

And building high rise luxury apartments works just fine, people do that all around the world. That can help with land shortages and all that just as well.

Finally I kind of like that suddenly liberalism gets blamed for the whole 'detached house in the country' deal since that movement was created as a rejection of liberalism and its values in the first place. But now it is liberalism's entire approach supposedly. Yeah right.

[Sheilbh]

Funny I thought the whole idea you couldn't build large high rises and high density housing was because of anti-liberal building restrictions. NIMBYism and all that.

And building high rise luxury apartments works just fine, people do that all around the world. That can help with land shortages and all that just as well.

Yeah. I mean I think the luxury flats thing is oversold but it is a (minor) problem that a lot of development in London is expensive flats that are actually advertised all over the world before London as an asset.

There's also been changes. Councils generally only grant planning permission to luxury flats if developers take the hit of x amount being 'affordable'. Until 2010 'affordable' was defined in relation to average income in an area. Since then it's 80% of average market value, so you can develop loads of affordable housing in, say, Westminster that actually gets sold for £500k

The density issue is more complicated. As I say it's not about high rises - which anyway have a dreadful reputation in this country after the ones that were built in 60s and 70s, I think they're seen a bit like the projects in the US. Nice high rise blocks are relatively new. But actually high rises in the UK historically have been shit at density because once you take into account the landscaped crappy bit of grass around them and car parking etc you're left with lower density housing than the old four storey terrace in Brixton which can house, say, four families in a tiny space. I think it's that stuff we need to get better at and bring back - the sort-of old fashioned British and continental multi-storey terraced housing.

Part of it is needing enough supply to make prices fall - which is an oversupply that I don't think the market is going to voluntarily do. Some of that is planning restrictions but I think a lot of it is whether developers can or would want to build enough housing to match population growth. Part of the problem is this old chart:

Finally I kind of like that suddenly liberalism gets blamed for the whole 'detached house in the country' deal since that movement was created as a rejection of liberalism and its values in the first place. But now it is liberalism's entire approach supposedly. Yeah right.

I don't entirely follow this.

[Valmy]

I don't entirely follow this.

Hey I was told this by your buddy Jonathan Meades when I watched his videos on the back to the land reaction in the late victorian era. We do the suburb thing out of a nostalgia for each man being manfully independent on his own manly farm.

[Sheilbh]

I don't entirely follow this.

Hey I was told this by your buddy Jonathan Meades when I watched his videos on the back to the land reaction in the late victorian era. We do the suburb thing out of a nostalgia for each man being manfully independent on his own manly farm.

I'll re-watch and have a think. Initially my view is that 30 suburbia, Metroland, was a reaction against inner cities and to new public transport options. Aesthetically it was kitsch and backwards looking and a nonsense idealisation of some sort of 'socialist yeomanry'. But we're lucky in this country that sort of volkisch awfulness just produced fake Tudor houses in Epping, elsewhere it led to Fascism.

[Valmy]

I'll re-watch and have a think. Initially my view is that 30 suburbia, Metroland, was a reaction against inner cities and to new public transport options. Aesthetically it was kitsch and backwards looking and a nonsense idealisation of some sort of 'socialist yeomanry'. But we're lucky in this country that sort of volkisch awfulness just produced fake Tudor houses in Epping, elsewhere it led to Fascism.

I like the idea of your terraces, they are a distinctly British way of building and living. Do they still even get built? They kind of are synonymous with 19th century industrial towns.

One of my great shames is that I love fake Tudor revival and neo-neo-Gothic revival revival so much. It is very prevalent, the gothic thing anyway, in central Texas since stone is the traditional building material.

[Admiral Yi]

Terrace is just the British word for townhouse, isn't it?

[Valmy]

Terrace is just the British word for townhouse, isn't it?

Yep. They seem different somehow in a way I cannot put my finger on.

I mean when you see something like this:



It just seems to say Britain all over it. Maybe if each one was also a castle with a butler.

[Sheilbh]

I like the idea of your terraces, they are a distinctly British way of building and living. Do they still even get built? They kind of are synonymous with 19th century industrial towns.

Some do. There's a big campaigning grouop I can't remember the name of that go on about them. Basically people are far more pro-building in their area if they look like buildings they recognise and fit. So the old tower block - even the posh glass ones with a gym and pool etc - is almost always hated while people are far more relaxed with terraced housing. Unfortunately developers and architects aren't so keen on building it.

This is what I mean by the London type (in Brixton 1940s) where you've got about four levels probably each with a separate flat now:

One of my great shames is that I love fake Tudor revival and neo-neo-Gothic revival revival so much. It is very prevalent, the gothic thing anyway, in central Texas since stone is the traditional building material.

Nothing wrong with that. I kind of love it in Metroland where it's been garnished with mad individualism like gnomes or Corinthian pillars. It's great.

Though I hate Gothic revival because of its cultural appropriation of the Catholic heritage this state destroyed and then sacralised in Parliament

[Sheilbh]

Terrace is just the British word for townhouse, isn't it?

To British ears townhouse is a little grander. Something you get in the nice bits of West and North London like this in Maida Vale:

Nowadays still probably split into flats

[Zanza]

Is there any particular reason why you can't build townhouses with 6 to 8 floors in London?