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

201–210 of 584 posts

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#201

Post by cauch »

makomk wrote: post #127
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 article is part of the problem. UK politics and the media narratives around it have beeen utterly wrecked by the fight over Brexit and the attempts to give its creators the boot. For example, take this claim: "Investment is down and inflation higher than it would have been inside the European Union." The UK's inflation in the year to November 2022 was 10.7%, compared to 10.1% in the Eurozone. It just doesn't seem…

I don't think people who say "UK inflation would have been better in the EU" are basing that on "in UK, it was 10.7% and in EU it was 10.1%", but rather on "since Brexit, wealth generated by export has dropped, wealth generated by import has dropped, wealth generated by EU migration workforce has dropped, ... which obviously means that the crisis can only be worse". It does not mean they are right, but even if UK had a smaller inflation than countries still in EU, you can still say that UK would have been better if you see that all indicators show that the cost of life was at the end globally affected negatively by Brexit.

I always think that comparing inflation or national debt to other countries is meaningless. A big national debt used for good investment is way better than a small national debt while the infrastructures fall apart, and the state and cost of the infrastructure can be very different in each country. And for the same level of inflation, the effects would be very different based on the resources and market characteristics of the country and which measures are taken.

(edit: and indeed, if you re-read the text around the quote you've extracted, this is indeed the reasoning: the author does not justify that with a comparison of the inflation rate, but with a list of where the Brexit made things worse)

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#202

Post by hermitcrab »

midasuni wrote: post #182
petesergeant wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We might have even averted Brexit

Just imagine the chaos we’d have had with Ed Miliband. It’s been strong and stable ever since then.

That bacon sandwich has a lot to answer for.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#203

Post by taffronaut »

skippyboxedhero wrote: post #157
taffronaut wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because pension and insurance rules (that were largely adopted from Europe) mean that they have to own large amounts of govt bonds Let me help you with the brevity - you mean Solvency II. So you're fine with governments bailing out the financial system with our money, but not happy if they put (admittedly heavy-handed) measures in place to stop the casino mentality.

No, I mean Solvency II amongst other rules. There are many others (pension regulations are even worse). Let me help you with complexity (financial regulation doesn't happen to be particularly simple, it won't yield before your mighty intellect because you had a thought, you have to do the work). Er no, the reason Solvency II exists is to bailout govts (and insurance companies, it is a tacit way of decreasing competit…

> ...is that something that European Commissioner tells you to say?

I guess we are diametrically opposed. I can equally ask you if Jacob Rees-Mogg writes your posts.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#204

Post by RandomLensman »

llampx wrote: post #198
nailer wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re wondering too: gerontocracy is rule by the elderly. And that’s indeed a good description of the US right now.

Same in Germany

Not really. German government is young compared to US. No-one in their late 70s anywhere near powerful positions federally.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#205

Post by TapWaterBandit »

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…

I'm astounded people are STILL burying their heads in the sand about Corbyn. But I suppose that is a large part of the reason why labour was losing for so long they kept denying the obvious reality that the electorate just did not like Corbyn but wouldn't get rid of him for internal political/ideological reasons.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#206

Post by [deleted] »

nopenopenopeno wrote: post #196
pharmakom wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The UK's inflation in the year to November 2022 was 10.7%, compared to 10.1% in the Eurozone. It just doesn't seem at all plausible that the UK would somehow have substantially lower inflation if it were in the EU Why not?

Did you even read the rest of their comment?

[deleted]

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#207

Post by wazoox »

euix wrote: post #174
dignick wrote: post #145

Like in the US, democracy in the United Kingdom is faltering. Our first past the post electoral system means the Tories can retain power with a third of the (active) electorate voting for them. Labour believes first past the post serves them well, but it doesn’t, because they would have been leading a coalition government in the last several elections under Proportional Representation. Instead it requires Labour to b…

I believe this is a common trend through the west. Here in Canada the current Federal Liberals won the last two election with about 30% of the vote which when you take into account how many people even vote amounts to something like ~5 million people in a country close to 40 million. The kind of overarching policies and rhetoric coming out of government is widely disproportionate to that level of mandate.

Yup. In France Macron hold total power with less than 30% of voters and less than 30% of good opinion in polls. His "pension reform" has everyone against it, the unions, all political parties but his own, even the employers association, but it will be enforced anyway. Democracy is dead, and it even began to smell.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#208

Post by akiselev »

aidos wrote: post #194
narag wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electoral systems are very difficult to change. The party with enough votes to lead the change isn't going to be interested, because it's the system that put them in that position. Edit: So we're talking electoral systems, referenda have a big caveat. Usually you vote a goal, but you don't vote how it's going to be implemented. The brexit was sold as a measure against Brussels' regulation and taxes...

The Uk had a referendum in 2011 to change the system and voted fairly conclusively to stick with first past the post. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternat...

That referendum was poison pilled with the “alternative vote” and sold to voters as a easy path to the BNP getting elected.

It was just as much party politics as the Brexit vote, not a genuine attempt at direct democracy.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#209

Post by Quarrelsome »

aidos wrote: post #194
narag wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electoral systems are very difficult to change. The party with enough votes to lead the change isn't going to be interested, because it's the system that put them in that position. Edit: So we're talking electoral systems, referenda have a big caveat. Usually you vote a goal, but you don't vote how it's going to be implemented. The brexit was sold as a measure against Brussels' regulation and taxes...

The Uk had a referendum in 2011 to change the system and voted fairly conclusively to stick with first past the post. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternat...

Two points of note to add:

1. regulations around referendums (compared to general elections) are very poor and the "no to AV" campaign exploited this by running an extremely dishonest campaign [1]

2. turnout was [1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/feb/25/no-to-...

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#210

Post by demux »

makomk wrote: post #127
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 article is part of the problem. UK politics and the media narratives around it have beeen utterly wrecked by the fight over Brexit and the attempts to give its creators the boot. For example, take this claim: "Investment is down and inflation higher than it would have been inside the European Union." The UK's inflation in the year to November 2022 was 10.7%, compared to 10.1% in the Eurozone. It just doesn't seem…

Where are you getting the 10.1% figure?
Post reply on HN