Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[The Minsky Moment]

Well if a primary concern about the UK is not being rich, I would not turn to Nigel Farago, whose principal claim to fame is the policy that knocked about 5% off of the country's trend GDP.

[The Minsky Moment]

Well if a primary concern about the UK is not being rich, I would not turn to Nigel Farago, whose principal claim to fame is the policy that knocked about 5% off of the country's trend GDP.

[Josquius]

Well if a primary concern about the UK is not being rich, I would not turn to Nigel Farago, whose principal claim to fame is the policy that knocked about 5% off of the country's trend GDP.

For many of his supporters they've given up on their own situation becoming any better. If they can just make other people's situation worse though then its worth it.
Zero sum economics plays a part. But also just crabs in bucket spite.

[Tamas]

Well if a primary concern about the UK is not being rich, I would not turn to Nigel Farago, whose principal claim to fame is the policy that knocked about 5% off of the country's trend GDP.

For many of his supporters they've given up on their own situation becoming any better. If they can just make other people's situation worse though then its worth it.
Zero sum economics plays a part. But also just crabs in bucket spite.

Yeah that's a good point I am afraid it explains a lot of what's going on in the world. The left behinds (or the ones feeling left behind, in any case, economically or culturally) just want to drag everyone else back.

Now I don't begrudge a lot of them having valid economic concerns, but I wish they supported a movement that aimed to address them, as opposed to making sure nobody else (coloured people especially) having it any good either.

[Sheilbh]

Not to be mean but could we please prevent ourselves, before it gets too late, to discuss any assumptions that Farage is thinking about anything else but Farage. He is Johnson pushed to the extremes of lazy grifterness. He is bound to be a disaster because governing is more complex than attention-biting snippets of bigotry, he will have no persistence to deal with complex policy and he is surrounded by far-right businessmen and bellends.

I think we need to stop underestimating our opponents and losing.

I also think there is a strange association of moral or political worth with things like being interested in ideas, or being thoughtful, or planning ahead or displaying competence. Which I think is very weird given that many of the worst regimes and ideologies in history had plenty of smart people who were interested in things and intellectually capable, who were thoughtful or competent or thinking ahead. They were doing it in service of bad ideas and beliefs and in some cases I think they were doing evil. But being smart and strategic is no more a guarantee of good politics or morals than enjoying Mendehlson or Shostakovich. And I think states and the tools of state power and the practice of governing is broadly politically neutral. There's exceptions on the extremes (Nazis, Pol Pot) but I think most regime or political types can govern "well" on their own terms.

I should say an awful lot of them are not doing this deeply and are meretricious at best, especially on social media (although perhaps they're more "popularisers") but I think at the current moment, part of the reason the far and radical right in the West have been so successful is precisely because they're interested in ideas - and think they're in a battle of ideas with their opponents. I think a lot of the mainstream parties thought the ideas bit of politics was no longer relevant (the grand narratives had died/been killed) and what mattered was "what works". The scope of their politics narrowed from competing visions of society to technocratic delivery and policy choices because the big issues had been fought and won: liberal democracy, market economics etc. I think we won and engaged in unilateral political disarmament.

I think the consequence of that is that when that order came into a series of significant crises the far and radical right had actually been thinking about alternatives and could make their case as a solution to the crisis (while I think the radical left was basically demoralised and demotivated post-1990 until the crash). While I think that (still) many of the mainstream parties intellectually have "no alternative" (I think in a way Starmer really symbolises this in just thinking that there weren't fundamental problems, it was simply bad management that was the problem). When the conditions changed they've had the intellectual resources and ideas to take advantage in a way that the mainstream parties and the left didn't (I think the left are getting there and the mainstream parties are still browsing airport non-fiction and self-help).

In a way I think that interview was sort of an example of that - in other respects it wasn't good for Farage who was patronising. But the Bloomberg reporter saying (at the end of the interview on lighter stuff) she'd heard that he reads a lot and asking what he was reading at the minute. He then said Mr Balfour's Poodle which was written by Roy Jenkins (one of my favourite politicians), I think in the 60s, about the clash between the Liberal majority in the Commons wanting to pass Lloyd-George's "People's Budget" for which they had a democratic mandate, being blocked by the Tory Lords (or as Lloyd-George called them "Mr Balfour's Poodle") which resulted in the Parliament Acts and the principle that the unelected Lords cannot block legislation from the democratically elected Commons if it was in the government's manifesto. A deliberately suggestive choice that Farage is thinking about what winning might look like (I'm not sure it'd help him). I think the interviewer's slightly incredulous response was telling of the same point: "[from] the early twentieth century? Why were you interested in that? You're going back a hundred years to try and find the answers?" (As someone who occasionally enjoys history from before 1911 also felt a little attacked by that Separately also think this goes to the problems in higher education and public broadcasting of "relevance" and presentism.)

Also just as an aside I think Farage and Johnson are very, very different. The first party Farage voted for was the Greens because they were the only party committed to leaving the EEC (as it then was). He's then spent his entire political life basically taking over or setting up new parties on the fringes of politics. There have been many, many right-wing Tories who basically thought he was one of them and have tried to get him to just defect and become a Tory. His entire political project is to destroy and supplant the Tory party. I think that's an entirely different mindset and trajectory than someone like Johnson (or Cameron for that matter) who envisioned and rose in politics by attaching their career to the Tory party, which is historically one of the most electorally successful political parties in the free world and a "natural party of government".

Well if a primary concern about the UK is not being rich, I would not turn to Nigel Farago, whose principal claim to fame is the policy that knocked about 5+% off of the country's trend GDP.

I think my argument is actually that a lot of the problems (from a policy perspective) in Britain is because we're not rich and we're not growing, but that a lot of our political dysfunctions comes from a (mistaken) complacency that we basically are. To an extent I think Farage's success is part of that.

Although I think this is a bit like Trump in that we're slightly in the "fuck around and don't find out" world. With Brexit the impact was broadly as you say and in line with Bank of England projections. It was not the what George Osborne in the Treasury and the Remain campaign were saying would happen. They said there'd be a recession, hundreds of thousands of jobs lost, house prices collapsing b up to 20% etc - which didn't happen. Similarly Trump's tariffs are bad but so far the impact is less than I'd anticipated or the worst predictions of the impact and, so far (according to Goldman Sachs), US companies are eating over 50% of the cost (I suspect this varies by market/susceptibility to political pressure). In both I think catastrophe didn't follow, the markets didn't act as avenging furies - they adapted, perhaps more robustly than anticipated. Despite all of that, for example, the UK still has an economy that's growing faster than the Eurozone or most other big European countries - which I think should be embarassing for everyone.

But I think it's why we need to go back to making the argument for the thing we want and against what we don't because there is no external punishing force for violations of liberal norms and politics isn't a morality play where the bad are punished and the virtuous rewarded. Or to the extent there is (as I think these are often bad policies/ideas) the impact is too slow motion and gradual for politics to just sort of thermostatically respond.

For many of his supporters they've given up on their own situation becoming any better. If they can just make other people's situation worse though then its worth it.
Zero sum economics plays a part. But also just crabs in bucket spite.

Also, to Duncan Weldon's point, and not just the UK (maybe more for the population decline thread) but I don't know what democratic politics looks like with an ageing population who are effectively post-economic. They often have fixed steady incomes but don't really care abou growth or unemployment - what matters are asset prices (particularly of homes, their biggest asset) and low inflation. They prioritise short-term spending on immediate needs like pensions, healthcare, social care over longer term spending like education, childcare, infrastructure. And they turn out more than any other group. I can't help but look at Europe in general and think there is something of the politics of the retirement home about it. Just leave us alone with our pensions and our holidays and our recyclying our way to net zero while the rest of the world is engaged in transformative projects of muscular state capitalism.

Again it's why, for all of his flaws and failures, I still sort of admire Macron for trying to break Europe out of that.

Also I think economics is increasingly zero sum both domestically if you're a society with relatively low growth - it is socialism as the language of priorities taken to an extreme. But also I think globally when you're returnin to great power politics, external shocks to supply chains to finance etc. I think an example is Europe suddenly moving into the LNG market after Russia's invasion of Ukraine when we literally paid so much money for gas that tankers that were on their way to their original buyers (particularly Asia, and particularly Pakistan) turning around to come to Europe leading to gas shortages and an even more severe cost of living crisis in some of those parts of the world than Europe. That's an example in Europe but we saw similar in covid, we've seen the US banning tech exports to China, China now restricting exports of processed rare earths. I think we're in more of a zero sum world and where things are made, where they come from, who makes them and who controls them matters more than it did in the past (or, arguably, it always mattered we just stopped caring/paying attention).

I also think all democratic politics is ultimately zero sum. I have a set of beliefs and a view of society that is similar to some people's and different to others. If we win, they will lose and vice-versa.

[Sheilbh]

Incidentally on the "we think we're richer than we are" point - this has been getting a lot of bullying online (rightly) as a new public art requirement from Cambridge City Council. And while it's a little more complicated than it sounds the threshold is insanely low (10 or more dwellings :blink) and I just don't think we build enough to justify adding in this extra cost:

5. Eligibility
The requirement to meet the public art policy will apply to all developments meeting the following criteria:
Residential developments comprising 10 or more dwellings (or a site area of 0.5 ha or more)
Other developments where the floor space to be built is 1000m2 gross or more (or where the site area is 0.5ha or more), including office, manufacturing, warehousing and retail developments

On smaller developments encouragement will be given to developers to seek to include Public Art within their scheme as a means of enhancing the quality of their development.

6. Cost
The value of public art within the development should be equal to 1% of the construction cost of a capital project. The precise amount will be determined either by the developer providing a detailed written estimate of the building costs or by the application of a nationally recognised building price index.

Expenditure on public art can cover the following:
• Artists fees and fabrication
• Specialist advice and project management
• Linked education programmes

If it is not feasible to spend the allocation on the development site the Council will accept a commuted sum equivalent to 1% of the construction costs via a planning obligation. The use of commuted sums will be considered and allocated by the Council in accordance with the priorities set out in the Public Art Plan of 2002 and updated by the Council from time to time.

In this eventuality the Council will inform the developers of the end use of the sum and will credit the developer appropriately.

Developers may be able to secure external funding to enhance their contribution, for example by applying for grant aid. Details of possible grant sources can be obtained from the Council.

I say that as someone who like art and public art (though quality can vary). Although part of me thinks if you're doing this, that it might even be better spent on landscaping, planting in the area

[Josquius]

Also I think economics is increasingly zero sum both domestically if you're a society with relatively low growth - it is socialism as the language of priorities taken to an extreme. But also I think globally when you're returnin to great power politics, external shocks to supply chains to finance etc. I think an example is Europe suddenly moving into the LNG market after Russia's invasion of Ukraine when we literally paid so much money for gas that tankers that were on their way to their original buyers (particularly Asia, and particularly Pakistan) turning around to come to Europe leading to gas shortages and an even more severe cost of living crisis in some of those parts of the world than Europe. That's an example in Europe but we saw similar in covid, we've seen the US banning tech exports to China, China now restricting exports of processed rare earths. I think we're in more of a zero sum world and where things are made, where they come from, who makes them and who controls them matters more than it did in the past (or, arguably, it always mattered we just stopped caring/paying attention).

I don't agree that this is what a zero sum world means.
A zero sum world is about the idea that someone else being poorer automatically means you become richer. This just isn't true however. A rising tide can lift all boats. Its not automatic, especially not if you want it to be equitable, but we very much can live in a world where becoming richer doesn't mean others becoming poorer.

Gas is an example of this. It shouldn't matter who controls gas as we should shift over to renewables. Oh yes there you've then the issue of the Chinese solar industry vs. others.... but making and selling solar panels is on quite a different scale to keeping the oil flowing.

We shouldn't be afraid of spending money to make money. Austerity clearly hasn't worked. And though yes times are now harder than when it started, that doesn't mean its now the sensible choice.

I also think all democratic politics is ultimately zero sum. I have a set of beliefs and a view of society that is similar to some people's and different to others. If we win, they will lose and vice-versa.

Part of me here says if only it were so.
But more rationally...I don't think this is true.  If my enemies are those who come to power...then I'm just fucked aren't I? We all are. The economy is gone. My family has to leave the country. The country becomes a considerably worse place (despite me not being here, that was a net win obviously).

If 'my side' comes to power.... then that's grand. We've no interest in throwing those who supported the other side into the sea. Rather we want to improve their situation.
Oh sure. They might be upset about all the men holding hands with each other, having to treat black people as equals, and so on... But that's just hurty feelings. Its not the actual negative impact on their lives that they want to force onto others.

[The Minsky Moment]

Sheibh

Re the US tariffs, the critics who knew what they were talking about, like Krugman, basically got it right. Upward pressure on pricing that contributes to inflation staying a tick or two above target, profit compression in some key industries, mild output declines in certain impacted markets. Over the months, the policy that has emerged is a rough 10% rate across the board, for anyone that smiles and makes the right deal noises. That's considerably higher than what came before, but not anywhere in the ballpark of causing huge economic disruption.

Probably more serious than the tariffs themselves has been the policy instability and the idiotic implementation - including the higher sectoral rates.  We don't have Q3 GDP numbers yet but the data appears to show negative impact on investment.  The US economy has carried on, because the down trends have been patched over by the massive AI related investment boom. 

For Brexit, as you say it is similar - the critics who knew what they were taking about pretty much got it right, the politicians looking to scare voters didn't, because they weren't really trying to.  The difference is that whereas the fallout from Trumpnomics has been partially covered up by offsetting economic trends, the Brexit hit in the UK was exacerbated by a reinforcing trend of crashed productivity.  Double whammy.

I get that the Leave proponents have largely succeeded in political insulation by entrenching the idea that Brexit is done and no point debating it now.  But it was a failed policy at least in the economic sphere and a policy whose failure was entirely predictable because Leavers divided into 3 contradictory camps: those that wanted to exit to create Albion Singapore, those that wanted a socialist paradise, and those that wanted to return to some past imagined utopia that never existed.  It was a farago.  In a properly functioning democracy, such policy failure should bear consequences, but it seems like properly functioning democracies are becoming increasingly scarce in the English-speaking world. 

[Sheilbh]

I totally agree.

My point is that doesn't happen external of politics. It is through the political process and the argument you make that you pin policy failures on the culprits (I think of Michael Foot's Guilty Men polemic) and make them bear the costs.

I think part of the problem is the expectation of external factors to cause political results in a sort of politically frictionless way. Or that too many people in the mainstream traditional view politics as a branch of technocratic management not convincing and argument-building. Having failed at the technical management but the bond markets or the currency traders or whatever else will do what they are no longer able/willing to do which is make the case of the political failure. It can happen (Truss and her budget, John Major and ERM) but over a shock, not a slowly deflating balloon.

And if you want to unwind it, then I think the slowly deflating balloon is too undramatic in most people's experience to be self-evident. You need to make the argument relentlessly - not just expecting deliverance that is not coming plus talking about "grown-ups in the room" and having at best a patronising attitude to the voters who let you down. Link the failures to the consequences and have an alternative.

Europe has never been settled in British politics and I don't think it ever will (for that reason I think the EU should just veto us forever). So there was an audience for an anti Europe message, but honestly if you're someone who really believes we need to re-join then there's no politician you should study more than Farage who spent twenty plus years, much of it as a joke but took his idee fixe from the fringes to victory.

Although I would add that I think there's an element of the harlot's prerogative about this. As Farage became an MP for the first time in 2024 - the Tories were in government over managing Brexit and it's fair to say that they have been roundly punished by voters. I think you'd see something similar with Scottish independence - the SNP would suffer the consequences of having to do it, while other parties (like the Greens) who back the principle would, I suspect, be fine and possibly even do better as they wouldn't be affected by the grubby compromises of power.

[Tamas]

I am not underestimateling Farage. Winning an election and being able to govern are two entirely separate things.