The strange case of Britain’s demise • Hacker News Board

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#71

Post by mytailorisrich » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 4:12 PM UTC

equalsione wrote: post #45

mytailorisrich wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

From the outside looking in, was the opposition worse? On the one hand, labour seem really similar to the Tories - disunited, dogma over common sense and oddly out of touch. Their policies _were_ opposite to Tory policies but they are trying to be an opposition so… Yes Corbin was a leftie (corduroy elbow patches and all) but he’s a leader of a left wing party. It’s like complaining that Thatcher was a bit right-wing.…

Corbyn is a hardcore anticapitalist whose aim is a socialist society (soviet block style). He is in favour of Brexit, too, for this reason. Same goes for McDonnell, a Marxist.

That's very far left and is opposed by most people including in the Labour Party. Basically, those guys were the Communist Party and unsurprisingly people did prefer to keep the Tories...

It was the same in the 80s when Labour was essentially unelectable. Blair saw that the centre left was politically the best bet, and pragmatically that social policies needed the private economy to produce wealth.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#72

Post by dazc » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 4:12 PM UTC

_a_a_a_ wrote: post #53

_a_a_a_ wrote: post #40

For Boris Johnson truth was there when convenient, otherwise just lie. He lied to the british people. That's not the problem. The problem was too many people wanted to hear nice things so swallowed what he told them uncritically. Liz Truss... say no more. But she was chosen (by a small subset of the population I agree) but she was chosen. Some people still think her damn-the-torpedoes policies were a good idea, even…

To the downvoters: please complement your downvotes by explaining where I'm wrong in my analysis. In a democracy people get the leaders they deserve ( https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_de_Maistre slightly misquoted but still valid). If true, how can I not take aim at the electorate for their failure?

Didn't down vote but, on the point of the electorate being responsible, you are correct.

What many observers fail to realise however is that, in our two-party system, we are usually voting for the least worst candidate rather than the ideal.

Next time around we have a rather unique situation where the 'least worst' is going to be hard to pick and many voters will, instead, simply abstain.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#73

Post by skippyboxedhero » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 4:12 PM UTC

paganel wrote: post #61

skippyboxedhero wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't (the indicator for this is that Reeves is saying exactly the same thing). It is hard to be brief but: * Financial services - totally fucked, most of the VC funding in the UK comes from overseas investors because pension and insurance rules (that were largely adopted from Europe) mean that they have to own large amounts of govt bonds...the recent problems indicate how wise that was. Everything isn't working:…

I'm not from the UK, but from a distance (the other side of Europe) it looks like UK's ongoing economic implosion seems to also have been caused by the people over there going all in on "the service industry!" sometime in the late '80s - the '90s, and leaving aside almost anything that involved making physical things, from roads to steel to stuff like that. Imo that might work for a very small country or for a city-s…

Yes, I think this is true.

But it wasn't an active choice. By the early 1980s, most forms of manufacturing had become uneconomic because of union activity. And, amazingly, this is still the case (there is a refinery near me, was bought by Ineos, they had a multi-decade package of investment based on an agreement with the union not to strike, deal closed...union went on strike almost immediately, Ineos never put another pound in, invested heavily in Europe where unions are more co-operative, they are now beginning to shut down the refinery...it is that simple).

The only exception to the places you have listed is Manchester: towards the south of the city, they have built up a really competitive ecomm hub (with the airport, with the port, and with the support of local govt to build warehouses)...inflation has totally destroyed this industry (China subsidizes international shipping, most of these companies fulfilled orders for Europe/US out of the UK...the rise in air freight finished them). Glasgow is largely retail/govt-based, the North-East is seeing very promising investment in the free port but is very troubled, Birmingham muddles through.

The problem with things like manufacturing is that it overlays several areas that are problematic for the UK: planning, infrastructure, labour, labour mobility, energy...none of this stuff works anymore. For example, not many people know that one of the first modern CPU was made in Scotland (this was when Intel were making a similar chip for the first calculator in the early 70s)...but the industry just died in the 80s.

Again, people will talk a lot about deindustrialization but far less about why this happened. In the 60/70s, the govt invested heavily in local production, almost all of these companies failed or were sold to foreign buyers who could manage them properly (Rolls-Royce is the only exception I believe). There was no active choice, all other options were just removed by repeated failure.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#74

Post by petesergeant » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 4:14 PM UTC

equalsione wrote: post #45

mytailorisrich wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

From the outside looking in, was the opposition worse? On the one hand, labour seem really similar to the Tories - disunited, dogma over common sense and oddly out of touch. Their policies _were_ opposite to Tory policies but they are trying to be an opposition so… Yes Corbin was a leftie (corduroy elbow patches and all) but he’s a leader of a left wing party. It’s like complaining that Thatcher was a bit right-wing.…

> Corbyn was a leftie ... but he’s a leader of a left wing party

Corbyn was hard left in a distinctly centrist country whose "Left Wing Party" is (despite its roots) very much left-leaning centrist, and who's only ever seen real success while occupying the middle-ground.

> voters want something like Tory-lite. Blair did that and no one wants to go back to it

If nobody wanted to go back to it then we'd have Rebecca Long-Bailey as Leader of His Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition, not another centrist.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#75

Post by eduction » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 4:16 PM UTC

There is a really interesting and seemingly important conversation going on about how globalization will evolve. This touches everything from trade agreements and financial unions like the one Britain exited to restrictions on technology export (e.g. to China) and data harvesting (e.g. EU server requirements) to new thinking about immigration (usually restricted) and labor (expanding benefits and improving wages, more often promised than delivered).

There are credible arguments for clear answers on aspects of this debate, for example that fear of immigrants is almost all xenophobia, as opposed to genuine protection for labor and the poor. (I’m not saying this, but in corners of the broader conversation, you can credibly make these sort of arguments.)

But I don’t think there’s a credible argument that this whole global conversation has some pat clear answer and this article seems to just be simplistically saying we need to go back to a wholesale embrace of globalization. It’s pretty polarizing, for example calling Jeremy Corbyn (a heroic figure to some in the left) an example of Labour losing its mind. It treats Brexit as unalloyed bad. No acknowledgement I can see of why so many people felt compelled to support it.

It feels to me a hard conservative opinion presented as The Truth. Compelling I guess if you agree but given how under siege globalization is right now feels odd to read something so unabashedly one sided. Even in The Economist.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#76

Post by klelatti » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 4:17 PM UTC

skippyboxedhero wrote: post #66

klelatti wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't really think immediately of anyone with strong links to the US in the current govt > he went to Stanford, and his wife's family has a house there

Again, what is connection? So if I go to Bocconi then I am Italian? And if someone in my family has a holiday house in France then I am French? The craziest part is that I believe this actually makes sense to you. How sad.

Did I say Rishi Sunak was American? No, rather that he has strong connections with the US.

If I have a house in France and went to a French University does that mean I have strong connections with France. Of course. Likewise with the US.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#77

Post by rthalr » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 4:22 PM UTC

revertmean wrote: post #55

There was a previous comment about the "native population" that is now marked dead that I wanted to respond to. The commentator really needs to read Defoe's "True Born Englishman". I offer a quote that is a little longer than the usual given: The silent nations undistinguished fall, And Englishman's the common name for all. Fate jumbled them together, God knows how; Whate'er they were, they're true-born English now.…

This poem from 1701 defends a foreign born king:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True-Born_Englishman

It has nothing to do with multiple large ethnic groups that tend to cause tension in the long run, see Israel and Donbas for example.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#78

Post by _a_a_a_ » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 4:22 PM UTC

dazc wrote: post #72

_a_a_a_ wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To the downvoters: please complement your downvotes by explaining where I'm wrong in my analysis. In a democracy people get the leaders they deserve ( https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_de_Maistre slightly misquoted but still valid). If true, how can I not take aim at the electorate for their failure?

Didn't down vote but, on the point of the electorate being responsible, you are correct. What many observers fail to realise however is that, in our two-party system, we are usually voting for the least worst candidate rather than the ideal. Next time around we have a rather unique situation where the 'least worst' is going to be hard to pick and many voters will, instead, simply abstain.

Thanks. I'd rebut by saying the two party condition actually isn't - there are several inc. middle-ground lib-dems for example. That they are a small party is - I think - because of the tribalism of the electorate who self-polarise. So that's still a problem with the electorate I'd say.

About 'ideal' there's no such thing for everyone. To some Truss was ideal, to others, Corbyn. They're not my ideal.

BTW I'd say Truss was clearly going to blow things badly cos she was plain stupid, but she got picked anyway. There were less-worse candidates available.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#79

Post by mytailorisrich » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 4:28 PM UTC

skippyboxedhero wrote: post #23

mattlondon wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Corbyn and McDonnell were essentially communists and therefore unelectable.

Blair took the realistic route: Socialism does not work, let's have a market economy create wealth that can then be used to finance social programs. A flavour a social democracy.

I think a reason Corbyn was so popular among the young is that enough time has passed so that this generation has no idea what socialist countries in Europe were actually like.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#80

Post by dazc » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 4:29 PM UTC

_a_a_a_ wrote: post #78

dazc wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't down vote but, on the point of the electorate being responsible, you are correct. What many observers fail to realise however is that, in our two-party system, we are usually voting for the least worst candidate rather than the ideal. Next time around we have a rather unique situation where the 'least worst' is going to be hard to pick and many voters will, instead, simply abstain.

Thanks. I'd rebut by saying the two party condition actually isn't - there are several inc. middle-ground lib-dems for example. That they are a small party is - I think - because of the tribalism of the electorate who self-polarise. So that's still a problem with the electorate I'd say. About 'ideal' there's no such thing for everyone. To some Truss was ideal, to others, Corbyn. They're not my ideal. BTW I'd say Trus…

Yes, there are other parties, but, aside from tactical voting, most people accept you're going to get a labour or conservative government no matter what.

A recent exception may have have been the Con/Lib coalition but it was a union of unequal partners at the best of times.