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.

[Tamas]

Good video, the second half goes into detail on why the UK especially has become incapable to build infrastructure: https://youtu.be/UtApa3PA0J4?si=MenQCOhnsU_zMPJu&utm_source=ZTQxO

On the jobs: my impression is that firings are happening outside the UK as well (I guess the anti-inflationary process is bearing fruit). But also we have had unexpectedly high inflation at 3.6%. Will we end up with stagflation?

And to think it was just a few years ago that experts argued that globalisation has killed off inflation as a thing.

[Sheilbh]

Good video, the second half goes into detail on why the UK especially has become incapable to build infrastructure: https://youtu.be/UtApa3PA0J4?si=MenQCOhnsU_zMPJu&utm_source=ZTQxO

I hadn't spotted this (saw it picked up by ITV later) but with what sounds like Starmer watering down the planning reform signiicantly, the MP who was pushing that was in fact one of the serial rebels who had the whip suspended.

I have no idea what they're thinking politically here.

And on policy I think that bill was Labour's one big hope for growth. So I suspect we'll enter into a period of declining growth forecasts and an ageing (and sickening) population meaning OBR forecasts that require more spending cuts or tax rises. The spending cuts to current spending are not something this government appears capable of doing (and I mean that technically - I'm not sure they're competent enough). On tax they've boxed themselves into a corner which is likely to mean increasing a narrow range of taxes that might be counter-productive economically (like payroll taxes). I suspect that means that the Treasury's gimlet eye will turn on their capital spending commitments, gutting Labour's other hope for growth (that would very much be reinforced by planning reform) and the cycle will begin again Or I think there is a legit chance of a fiscal crisis.

On the jobs: my impression is that firings are happening outside the UK as well (I guess the anti-inflationary process is bearing fruit). But also we have had unexpectedly high inflation at 3.6%. Will we end up with stagflation?

And to think it was just a few years ago that experts argued that globalisation has killed off inflation as a thing.

The jobs report is really mixed and challenging. Payroll employment is falling (and that's accelerating). The increases in National Living Wage, payroll tax increase and coming workers' rights legislation probably play a role here - especially given the sectors where the fall is most pronounced (like hospitality). But working age inactivity is sharply down and we're not back to pre-pandemic levels, but we're close. And also - which will concern the BofE - wage growth is still very strong (and running above inflation).

On stagflation I think it is probably worth remembering the average annual inflation rate in the UK during the 70s was 12% - so we're still some way away from that and the trend is broadly right.

I think the golobalisation line was actually a little heretical. For twenty years I think the more widespread view was that independent central banks had killed off inflation and that their independence plus the technocratic knowledge and toolkit had ended that as a problem. It was the era of superstar central bankers like Greenspan.

I think since then there has been a correction that perhaps the bigger cause of what Mervyn King called the NICE decade (non-inflationary continuous expansion) was, as you say, globalisation. The opening of Eastern European, Chinese and Indian labour markets were a huge global disinflationary pressure - obviously there were individuals and communities who lost out in that, which I think is part of our politics now. The central bankers were useful and competent but perhaps not the main characters.

But now I think we're also seeing other possible sides of globalisation - whether that's pandemic, supply shocks from geopolitics and climate breakdown all of which have had a huge impact on prices. And I'm not sure central banks are the bodies that can help deal with this, or that they have the toolkit.

So to look at the UK inflation you sort of see both. On the one hand services inflation is "sticky" I suspect that's possibly because of the factors in that jobs report: solid wage growth, increasing employer costs etc. I've said before but the UK looks more American than the rest of Europe on this in there being a risk wage-price spiraling and this is within central bank experience. But the big driver was food costs (up about 20% this year) and the single biggest part of that is beef - apparently also true in Europe and the US and classic supply/demand that herds have been contracting over the last five years and demand increased. But there's other examples like in commodities - so cocoa prices have tripled over the last couple of years because of drought and disease affecting cocoa trees. On the other hand olive oil prices, for example, are starting to fall after doubling - largely because Spain is in a less severe drought so production is recovering. And I'm not sure the BofE is the right body, or is able to (or any central bank is) to deal with some of these supply shocks particularly ones coming from geopolitics (Trump tariffs, China, Russia invading countries) or climate breakdown (droughts in Spain or West Africa exploding the prices of staples).

[Josquius]

The planning stuff does sound quite terrible. And bizare the government just folded on it.
Why would they do that?

This thread on why it's important was interesting.

https://bsky.app/profile/roadscholar.bsky.social/post/3luchuhmhl22t

[Sheilbh]

Regrettably I just think they're not up to it - Starmer and his team particularly.