Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The strange case of Britain’s demise

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 584 posts

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#21

Post by mannykannot »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #5
petesergeant wrote: post #4

I feel like the article lays it out pretty well? It’s a government who’s been in power too long, whose talent base was massively thinned by a Brexit Purity witch hunt and the impossibility of delivering the Brexit fairy-tale, and who weren’t simply ejected at the last election because of Corbyn’s overwhelming unpopularity.

It's a deeper problem than simply being in power for too long. They have been in power that long because the alternative offer was worse as you mention.

I agree. In a pattern that seems to be repeated globally and frequently, dissatisfaction drives polarization, which in turn pumps up the dissatisfaction, and also encourages actions which are ideological rather than pragmatic and at least as rash as they are bold - and when they go wrong, it gives objective reasons to be even more dissatisfied.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#22

Post by klelatti »

I’m going to name the English language as one of the suspects.

A common language with the US makes many of the political and business elite focus on the U.S. It also makes them less inclined to put the effort in to engage with Europe politically and culturally.

That in turn helped to fan the flames of Euroscepticism that in turn led to Brexit.

It’s no accident that the focus of trade deals post Brexit has been with English speaking countries of the former Empire.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#23

Post by skippyboxedhero »

mattlondon wrote: post #11
petesergeant wrote: post #4

I feel like the article lays it out pretty well? It’s a government who’s been in power too long, whose talent base was massively thinned by a Brexit Purity witch hunt and the impossibility of delivering the Brexit fairy-tale, and who weren’t simply ejected at the last election because of Corbyn’s overwhelming unpopularity.

The way we elect a prime minister (i.e. we don't) plays a large part here I think. Parties themselves select the leader. Johnson, Corbyn, Truss, Sunak - all voted in by relatively small numbers of people (e.g. 80k in the case of Truss IIRC), yet they are somehow the leader of the party and potentially even PM. This is where labour shat the bed I think with Corbyn - totally obvious that he would be terrible as a PM ye…

No, Labour isn't a popular vote. It is a popular vote AND a union vote (and the PLP, although they have never mattered in practice, they tried to oust Corbyn three times iirc...didn't work).

Corbyn had popular support but, like Miliband, relied relatively heavily on unions...and one union at that: Unite (and btw, his popular support was always overstated hugely...in late 2019, you had a sizeable minority who thought he would walk it, he was massively popular in the Westminster bubble...this is despite him being regarded as a totally odious figure under Blair when he was a backbencher).

The Tories have never had this issue because their electorate is relatively diffuse, and MPs have been quite willing to stab their leader in the back at the first sign of trouble.

Blair (like Thatcher) was an accident. I agree with your point but the Tories have been generally able to produce more effective leaders with their constitution.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#24

Post by petesergeant »

tobylane wrote: post #16
petesergeant wrote: post #4

I feel like the article lays it out pretty well? It’s a government who’s been in power too long, whose talent base was massively thinned by a Brexit Purity witch hunt and the impossibility of delivering the Brexit fairy-tale, and who weren’t simply ejected at the last election because of Corbyn’s overwhelming unpopularity.

I don’t think overwhelming is the right word, his vote share was around Blair’s average. Now that half of Tory MPs have been cabinet members, it’s harder to demand loyalty by dangling a job for votes. Especially the ministerial roles that the public are aware of. The article seems to be avoiding the term "lame duck period". It reads an excessively selective set of opinions, and it's unclear who should be trying harde…

> his vote share was around Blair’s average

Blair got 35% of the vote after 8 years of power and the Iraq war, against a decent challenger and experienced politician.

Corbyn got 32% — as the opposition — against an incumbent who’s approval ratings at the time were underwater and who led an unpopular party who’d been in power far too long already.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#25

Post by shaftoe444 »

skippyboxedhero wrote: post #18

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 int…

> 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.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#27

Post by tobylane »

petesergeant wrote: post #24
tobylane wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think overwhelming is the right word, his vote share was around Blair’s average. Now that half of Tory MPs have been cabinet members, it’s harder to demand loyalty by dangling a job for votes. Especially the ministerial roles that the public are aware of. The article seems to be avoiding the term "lame duck period". It reads an excessively selective set of opinions, and it's unclear who should be trying harde…

> his vote share was around Blair’s average Blair got 35% of the vote after 8 years of power and the Iraq war, against a decent challenger and experienced politician. Corbyn got 32% — as the opposition — against an incumbent who’s approval ratings at the time were underwater and who led an unpopular party who’d been in power far too long already.

Yes, I missed out the bit where that 3% difference in vote lead to a 93 (out of 650) difference in seats.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#28

Post by nailer »

tobylane wrote: post #16
petesergeant wrote: post #4

I feel like the article lays it out pretty well? It’s a government who’s been in power too long, whose talent base was massively thinned by a Brexit Purity witch hunt and the impossibility of delivering the Brexit fairy-tale, and who weren’t simply ejected at the last election because of Corbyn’s overwhelming unpopularity.

I don’t think overwhelming is the right word, his vote share was around Blair’s average. Now that half of Tory MPs have been cabinet members, it’s harder to demand loyalty by dangling a job for votes. Especially the ministerial roles that the public are aware of. The article seems to be avoiding the term "lame duck period". It reads an excessively selective set of opinions, and it's unclear who should be trying harde…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/election-2019-50768605

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#29

Post by rwmj »

shaftoe444 wrote: post #25
skippyboxedhero wrote: post #18

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 int…

> 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.

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... (There was another article about planning in Manchester but I can't find it right now)

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#30

Post by orhmeh09 »

petesergeant wrote: post #24
tobylane wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think overwhelming is the right word, his vote share was around Blair’s average. Now that half of Tory MPs have been cabinet members, it’s harder to demand loyalty by dangling a job for votes. Especially the ministerial roles that the public are aware of. The article seems to be avoiding the term "lame duck period". It reads an excessively selective set of opinions, and it's unclear who should be trying harde…

> his vote share was around Blair’s average Blair got 35% of the vote after 8 years of power and the Iraq war, against a decent challenger and experienced politician. Corbyn got 32% — as the opposition — against an incumbent who’s approval ratings at the time were underwater and who led an unpopular party who’d been in power far too long already.

Blair wasn’t being sabotaged by his own party that bought Facebook ads to sabotage him. I’d say Corbyn did superbly. https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/labour-hq-spent-50...
Post reply on HN