111–120 of 344 posts
"But it remains doubtful that [Labour] will be any better at delivering on those ambitions than the Conservatives were." This one sentence in the introduction belies an article not entirely based on factual evidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think people care what school you went to, but the fact remains that the UK has one of the lowest rates of social mobility in Europe.
I don't think that's actually a fact. I don't know what figures you're using, but eyeballing the Global Social Mobility Index puts the UK as pretty middling in Europe. Less mobile than France or Germany, more so than Italy, Spain, or Poland.
My source was the Sutton Trust and Oxera.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quack medicine products used to be sold (and sometimes still are) by asking in adverts "do you feel vaguely unwell?" and promising to vaguely cure the condition. Similarly, it's easy to sell the public on a vague sense of national decline, and this is a long-standing key part of populist politics.
British GDP per capita has been flat since 2008 while the US’ has gone from $49K to $81K. The UK has declined in relative terms compared to what used to be a near peer.
On a tangent, what is astonishing to me as an outsider is the cultural stagnation. Even in times of economic decline Britain was a cultural powerhouse. Modern music, theater, cinema, tv, literature, sports, etc. were permanently shaped by post-war Britain (especially in Europe). Whatever the cultural norm dictated by the behemoth that is the USA, Britain always had something new, something fresh to give. There's no p…
See eg. BritPop, a vacuous derivate outpouring of jumped-up pub rock relying on waving the flag to justify it's existence.
Some areas have still produced decent stuff, eg comedy (The Office, Borat, Peep Show), etc. Our twists on black American music (eg grime, drill) seem ok.
But it's a real struggle to think of much that is vital and original as a culture from Britain in the last 30 years I'd say.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US has a more robust system for supplying infrastructure through private investment - including in the energy sector.
You say that but the UK has not experienced the kind of energy disruptions that, for example, the Texans have since the 1970s. Let’s also not forget the railroad problems you face. You’re probably the only country that makes Britain look good for its rail infrastructure. Having driven on both American roads and British roads, I’d say UK rural roads are to a much higher standard. However that I can give America a pass…
You give the US a pass on roads due to great distances, but not on rail? Rail is even more expensive than roads.
On the subject of roads, it is important to remember that US roads vary greatly in quality based on geography, weather, and economic conditions. Every state gets some federal money and fuel taxes to pay for roads.
>Internet access in rural communities is much better in the UK.
The US had plans to subsidize Starlink for rural communities but the current administration interfered with it for petty political reasons. Again with this, the distances involved matter a lot.
>And let’s not even get started on the sorry state of US healthcare. The NHS might have its problems but at least it’s not leaving people choosing between medical treatments and bankruptcy.
NHS has problems like, you might not get treatment in a timely manner despite the high taxes you pay for that service. The US has issues with cost. We pay more than practically any other country including on medication. I think that is due to corruption. The issue is not that the state does not pay for it. It often does end up paying exorbitant prices for people without insurance, or on government benefits, to be treated. A majority of elderly people in the US are collecting government benefits and healthcare. It's not much but it does cover a significant amount of stuff.
>The problem is, whenever the US government tries to step in to improve things, the ultra conservatives and libertarians then compare those policies to communism. Which is absurd.
It is true that government can invest in worthwhile things sometimes, but when the government messes things up on a regular basis then you instinctively reject whatever it proposes. Neither the UK nor the US can afford our existing social programs. Yet here you are proposing that we here in the US spend even more so we can be like the UK. No thanks, we have enough problems as it is without higher taxes and more government scams.
On a tangent, what is astonishing to me as an outsider is the cultural stagnation. Even in times of economic decline Britain was a cultural powerhouse. Modern music, theater, cinema, tv, literature, sports, etc. were permanently shaped by post-war Britain (especially in Europe). Whatever the cultural norm dictated by the behemoth that is the USA, Britain always had something new, something fresh to give. There's no p…
I've only observed English culture from abroad, but my sense since the late 1990s is that the English have become somehow ashamed to be openly proud of their culture. I don't have a feeling for what brought this about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Even if you round up to 1,000 the number of ICS officers and dectuple to 10,000 you get a trivial number of returnees to the UK. Why are we obsessed with restricting discussion to ICS? The bureaucracy is not just that, but extends throughout the entire service sector these people rely on, such as banking, schooling, transportation, manufacturing management and so on. There is real denial going on here as to the ext…
> Why are we obsessed with restricting discussion to ICS? The bureaucracy is not just that, but extends throughout the entire service sector these people rely on, such as banking, schooling, transportation, manufacturing management and There is no plausible mechanism by which these people could have effected a radical change in the general British culture or the culture of the British civil service. The culture of th…
These people were somehow capable of running India and yet at the same time could not cause a change in the UK if they returned en masse?
> They weren’t different enough from the British population to have any noticeable effect
You have a very odd view of life in the UK if you believe this.
On a tangent, what is astonishing to me as an outsider is the cultural stagnation. Even in times of economic decline Britain was a cultural powerhouse. Modern music, theater, cinema, tv, literature, sports, etc. were permanently shaped by post-war Britain (especially in Europe). Whatever the cultural norm dictated by the behemoth that is the USA, Britain always had something new, something fresh to give. There's no p…
I'm not sure 15 years is enough to look back. I'm struggling to think of a time since the 80s that some formerly strong areas of British culture were vibrant and interesting. See eg. BritPop, a vacuous derivate outpouring of jumped-up pub rock relying on waving the flag to justify it's existence. Some areas have still produced decent stuff, eg comedy (The Office, Borat, Peep Show), etc. Our twists on black American m…
I’ll need to sit down and read this properly, but I would say there is a real stench of decline in England at the moment and pretty much everyone here would agree. It’s readily apparent the new government won’t save us already. Public services in particular: 2 weeks to see a Dr, a year for an operation, unlikely for the police to attend your call out, stagnant economy, high cost of living and low wages. And all whils…
I've been to my GP half a dozen times in the last year, always same day. Last time I went I was sent for a chest x-ray, which wasn't done at the GP, I had to drive to the place and wait 40 minutes for that, bit of a pain. Main problem I see is housing. It drags the entire economy -- people are living in overcrowded, people in their 30s living with parents etc. Anyone living on their own sees all their income drained…
Good for you, but I think that is absolutely not the typical UK experience.
My main question/challenge would be: if the problems have been constant since the 1950s-1980s - e.g. planning and failure to build - then how come we were doing so well until 2008? Why did problems only start biting then?