What decisions could the UK actually take to avoid managed decline?

[yorksrob]

Or, more realistically, have diversity of supply so that no single country can hold them hostage.

To be fair, it wasn't that the bond market killed the PM but rather that the bond market's reaction to the PM's actions killed the PM.

And, as some are just coming to realise, leaving the EU wasn't a solution to them either.

Agree to an extent.

 

[GS250]

The EU makes little difference to any of the major problems facing the UK today.

People imagine that if only we got behind the EU hard enough we could go back to the halcyon nineties, and that it was the evil Brexit that brought the good times to an end.

In reality the 90s were a time of apparent economic growth funded by the eating of the last of society's seedcorn. A huge booming property market that inevitably leads to the catastrophic housing shortages of today, privatisation of public services for a quick buck and a fundamental abandonment of any meaningful energy and industrial policy.

The EU won't make more houses appear, the EU won't fix our catastrophically failed energy policy (indeed in some ways it prevents it being fixed) and it won't make transport systems that haven't been built for 50 years appear from the aether.,

The EU certainly wasn't responsible for every problem in the UK. However, I agree, re joining would NOT solve the current demise. The UK benefited from the original EEC type arrangement. Trading partners with minimal political interference. Once things started to get political things went a bit pear shaped. FOM was great when it only included those countries with a similar economy to the UK. After that though...the blatant short term quick fix mindset put paid to that.

I repeat though, the West, not just the UK has entered this unhappy period of political and cultural instability. The East...is looking at the West and laughing.

 

[Broucek]

To be fair, it wasn't that the bond market killed the PM but rather that the bond market's reaction to the PM's actions killed the PM.

And particularly to her removal of the 45% tax rate. Whilst that was stupid politics and had not been remotely socialised with anyone it was actually one of her less expensive giveaways* which implies that the market's reaction was at least partly to do with politics and credibility rather than £££

* And might even have been self-funding

 

[yorksrob]

Ultimately the biggest thing it could do is arrange for the construction of several million new housing units.

Either it must defeat the anti development vote in numerous council areas to expand existing urban areas, or it must construct a new city suitable to house the many millions of people currently with inadequate housing.

The distortions from the housing market in the UK are now so enormous as to seriously damage overall population prosperity. There is a shortage of some millions of housing units (possibly between 3-5 million).

The benefits to population prosperity of restoring sanity to the housing market would be enormous and long lasting.
[

Well that's true. A sensible housing market is a key.

How much do we have shortage of housing, and how much is owned by speculators ?

Certainly for London, I'd have something along the lines of the Danes and the Australians restricting property purchase to residents.

 

[HSTEd]

Well that's true. A sensible housing market is a key.

How much do we have shortage of housing, and how much is owned by speculators ?

Total number of second homes in the UK is difficult to estimate but probably around half a million.
Total number of long term empty homes is about 257,000.

So together, well less than a million.
As compare to an estimated shortage on the order of 3+ million units.

These categories, even assuming they could actually be abolished by fiat (and they can't be), will not meaningfully solve the problem, at best it would put the clock back a couple of years - as the situation is continuing to deteriorate.

Certainly for London, I'd have something along the lines of the Danes and the Australians restricting property purchase to residents.

The problem is such measures are often used to distract from the necessity of actually solving this problem.

It continues with the idea that there is plenty of housing and it is merely the undesirables who are using too much of it.
The reality is we are short many times more housing than these people could possibly consume.

 

[yorksrob]

Total number of second homes in the UK is difficult to estimate but probably around half a million.
Total number of long term empty homes is about 257,000.

So together, well less than a million.
As compare to an estimated shortage on the order of 3+ million units.

These categories, even assuming they could actually be abolished by fiat (and they can't be), will not meaningfully solve the problem, at best it would put the clock back a couple of years - as the situation is continuing to deteriorate.


The problem is such measures are often used to distract from the necessity of actually solving this problem.

It continues with the idea that there is plenty of housing and it is merely the undesirables who are using too much of it.
The reality is we are short many times more housing than these people could possibly consume.

Which comes to ordering works and generating wealth, and consequently being able to print money to match that wealth.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Well, the bond market killed the Prime Minister (Truss). Whilst she was evidently out of her depth and few people are in mourning, there's something a little uncomfortable about her being taken down by investors rather than our elected representatives...

I would say that not only does politics have to avoid making the financial sector panic * there is also the small matter of the masses rising up in riot during any summer. Oh and of course those election things.

* Inustry as a whole is probably equally panic stricken but does not react so fast like a stck market does so there is a built in damping effect.

Or, more realistically, have diversity of supply so that no single country can hold them hostage.

To be fair, it wasn't that the bond market killed the PM but rather that the bond market's reaction to the PM's actions killed the PM.

And, as some are just coming to realise, leaving the EU wasn't a solution to them either.

The EU was possibly a sacrificial lamb. The result was too marginal and would have been tainted by those not bothering to vote because they were not unhappy.

The EU certainly wasn't responsible for every problem in the UK. However, I agree, re joining would NOT solve the current demise. The UK benefited from the original EEC type arrangement. Trading partners with minimal political interference. Once things started to get political things went a bit pear shaped. FOM was great when it only included those countries with a similar economy to the UK. After that though...the blatant short term quick fix mindset put paid to that.

I repeat though, the West, not just the UK has entered this unhappy period of political and cultural instability. The East...is looking at the West and laughing.

The East - well China is staring at a declining population which apparently is not healthy for an econmy.

GROWTH - this is what is required to keep an economy going apparently. But since the planet is not getting any bigger that growth is getting harder and harder. Anyone noticed how crowded it is these days ?.

 

[Howardh]

GROWTH - this is what is required to keep an economy going apparently. But since the planet is not getting any bigger that growth is getting harder and harder. Anyone noticed how crowded it is these days ?.

When you see a population map of the earth, there are vast regions with next-to-no-one in, and those are the areas without water. So if more room is needed, the solution's simple, get water to those arid regions. If vegetation grows where there currently is non, would that take C02 out of the air, thus a double benefit?

Mapping Population Density Across the Globe

Explore the detailed geography of population across the globe with interactive mapping and statistics. Identify global megacity regions and the growth and diversity of urban forms. Data is from the Global Human Settlement Layer 2023 by the European Commission JRC.

luminocity3d.org

an interactive population map

Doesn't help the UK though - although there are areas of the coast that could be drained Dutch-style (Wash, Morecambe Bay) if we needed more land.

 

[Yew]

That all sounds dangerously like the thoughts of The Iron Lady.......

She was too busy engaging in her little class war to get round to doing the last sentence in @najaB s post though. Thousands of skilled, motivated workers were squandered on her watch, rather than working with them to create new opportunities.


Ever since, we've been left to the chaotic winds of the free market; perhaps that is fine when we have fair seas and a following wind - but how many times must we bash against the rocks before our leaders decide to stop lining their pockets, and perhaps put a hand to the tiller to guide us.

 

[GS250]

She was too busy engaging in her little class war to get round to doing the last sentence in @najaB s post though. Thousands of skilled, motivated workers were squandered on her watch, rather than working with them to create new opportunities.


Ever since, we've been left to the chaotic winds of the free market; perhaps that is fine when we have fair seas and a following wind - but how many times must we bash against the rocks before our leaders decide to stop lining their pockets, and perhaps put a hand to the tiller to guide us.

To conclude.....treat blue collar workers better!

That's one thing that may improve the UK.

 

[yorksrob]

I've said it before, but we need to replace market conservatism with something more akin to a British version of Gaullism, i.e. a form of Conservatism more centred around maintaining the British way of life, culture and prestige. That means not flogging off the family silver to every Tom, Dick and Harry.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I think what this country needs to change fundamentally what it's thinks this nation is actually for.

I mean seriously, what's the point of Britain? We've been told endlessly its to promote free trade, enterprise and freedom around the world. Boring, boring ideas that mean nothing to the third man in the bus queue. Britain is an island, fundamentally. I think we at first need to think much more inwardly, and how the 60 odd million people on this crowded island (and its surrounding islands) can actually live with each other, have the best quality of life and share our own distinct local identities without it pulling the nation apart.

I favour moving the capital to somewhere like Birmingham. Symbolically closer to the rest of the UK, the heart of England and will give British governance a change from the old, established powerbases in London

Oh and for God sake, reindustrialise the economy. You are never going to replace mass traditional industries with mass high-tech industries across the Welsh Valleys, Northern England and Scotland. Not going to happen. It's manufacturing or warehouses and retail. And I'd know which one I'd rather work in.

 

[najaB]

I think we at first need to think much more inwardly, and how the 60 odd million people on this crowded island

The south east is crowded, Great Britain is not.

Oh and for God sake, reindustrialise the economy. You are never going to replace mass traditional industries with mass high-tech industries across the Welsh Valleys, Northern England and Scotland. Not going to happen.

But manufacturing for the sake of it isn't practical either. Unless we can make things that people want at a price they will buy it at then there's no point.

 

[Parjon]

Phh. If you all want to imagine "decline" upon yourselves so be it. Just be aware, the alternative to developing a bit of self pride in the UK ends with totalitarian occupation or annihilation.

Democracy and freedom is under, and has been under for years, attack by dictators who have bided their time and strategised how to use our values against us. A case in point, a Russian linked creep inflaming religious outrage in order to disrupt Sweden's defence plans. Or the buying of German politicians.

A secret war has been waged against us, and that is the sole cause of our malaise. Prosperity resumed relies simply on accepting that and in turn taking the hard decisions necessary to thwart their war.

What's the point of Britain?? Well you're part of it, and if we truly have no point then that includes you. So. What's the point of you? is the question.

 

[yorksrob]

The south east is crowded, Great Britain is not.

But manufacturing for the sake of it isn't practical either. Unless we can make things that people want at a price they will buy it at then there's no point.

The Italians and the French could have concluded that it's impractical to manufacture cars because you could probably import them more cheaply. Yet they have their Fiat and Renault which add to their respective countries prestige. This is about more than just the price of cars.

 

[najaB]

Yet they have their Fiat and Renault which add to their respective countries prestige. This is about more than just the price of cars.

Which people want and buy at a price they are happy to pay. Not sure how that contradicts my point.

 

[yorksrob]

Which people want and buy at a price they are happy to pay. Not sure how that contradicts my point.

And that situation hasn't happened by chance or been left to the market.

It takes investment, development and not allowing your companies to be carpet-bagged by venture capitalists.

 

[najaB]

And that situation hasn't happened by chance or been left to the market.

It takes investment, development and not allowing your companies to be carpet-bagged by venture capitalists.

Still not seeing how that contradicts my point:

At this point there are two hard decisions that need to be made: what are we actually good at and can lead the world with, and what can others do better than us?

If others can make products better than we can at a lower price that we can and we can't compete with a product that people want at a price they're willing to pay then why should we spend the country's treasure supporting that industry?

 

[duncanp]

Certainly for London, I'd have something along the lines of the Danes and the Australians restricting property purchase to residents.

How does that work for someone who wants to move to London for work or personal reasons?

"You can't buy this flat because you don't live in London"

"Well of course I don't live in London at the moment, that's why I want to buy the flat, so that I can move in and start my job in the City"

 

[birchesgreen]

How does that work for someone who wants to move to London for work or personal reasons?

"You can't buy this flat because you don't live in London"

"Well of course I don't live in London at the moment, that's why I want to buy the flat, so that I can move in and start my job in the City"

I assume by "resident" they mean British resident. In many countries you can't own property unless you are a citizen or a permanent resident.

 

[yorksrob]

Still not seeing how that contradicts my point:

If others can make products better than we can at a lower price that we can and we can't compete with a product that people want at a price they're willing to pay then why should we spend the country's treasure supporting that industry?

Apologies if it doesn't. It contradicts the way things operate at present.

I assume by "resident" they mean British resident. In many countries you can't own property unless you are a citizen or a permanent resident.

Quite. I'm not for reinventing the wheel - do what's tried and tested elsewhere

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I assume by "resident" they mean British resident. In many countries you can't own property unless you are a citizen or a permanent resident.

I can see the attraction of that, and it does sound sensible in some ways, but I wonder how much difference it would make in practice to solving the housing crisis? The only situation in which enacting that kind of law would make a material difference to how many houses are available for people to live in is if a foreigner/non-resident buys a property and leaves it empty (or uses it only for short periods, for example when visiting the UK), since it would stop those people from doing that. But how many foreign-owned empty houses are there? I would guess, a small number, but almost insignificant in comparison to how many more houses the UK needs.

 

[birchesgreen]

I can see the attraction of that, and it does sound sensible in some ways, but I wonder how much difference it would make in practice to solving the housing crisis? The only situation in which enacting that kind of law would make a material difference to how many houses are available for people to live in is if a foreigner/non-resident buys a property and leaves it empty (or uses it only for short periods, for example when visiting the UK), since it would stop those people from doing that. But how many foreign-owned empty houses are there? I would guess, a small number, but almost insignificant in comparison to how many more houses the UK needs.

Probably not a lot, it'd mostly affect apartments/houses bought by foreigners as investments in London i guess.

There are ways around it anyway.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Phh. If you all want to imagine "decline" upon yourselves so be it. Just be aware, the alternative to developing a bit of self pride in the UK ends with totalitarian occupation or annihilation.

Democracy and freedom is under, and has been under for years, attack by dictators who have bided their time and strategised how to use our values against us. A case in point, a Russian linked creep inflaming religious outrage in order to disrupt Sweden's defence plans. Or the buying of German politicians.

A secret war has been waged against us, and that is the sole cause of our malaise. Prosperity resumed relies simply on accepting that and in turn taking the hard decisions necessary to thwart their war.

What's the point of Britain?? Well you're part of it, and if we truly have no point then that includes you. So. What's the point of you? is the question.

Makes me think "know thy enemy".

The Italians and the French could have concluded that it's impractical to manufacture cars because you could probably import them more cheaply. Yet they have their Fiat and Renault which add to their respective countries prestige. This is about more than just the price of cars.

But Fiats and Renaults are rubbish.

And that situation hasn't happened by chance or been left to the market.

It takes investment, development and not allowing your companies to be carpet-bagged by venture capitalists.

Short term profit vs a long term investment.

Still not seeing how that contradicts my point:

If others can make products better than we can at a lower price that we can and we can't compete with a product that people want at a price they're willing to pay then why should we spend the country's treasure supporting that industry?

For instance the UK car industry in the British Leyland days was a dysfunctional drain on the countries resources producing some rubbish cars. Why did Ford have to compete with that ?. Now replaced by companies like Honda, Nissan etc - better cars and the jobs are still in the UK.

How does that work for someone who wants to move to London for work or personal reasons?

"You can't buy this flat because you don't live in London"

"Well of course I don't live in London at the moment, that's why I want to buy the flat, so that I can move in and start my job in the City"

I am worried about foreigners buying up the UK. But someone has to buy the houses that people want to rent and not buy for themselves. Councils used to do that but that bit of family silver was flogged off. Also it has been pointed out to me that if a development is of mixed types of dwelling the expensive houses/flats help pay for the cheaper house/flats. If true then we need to avoid throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Lastly - how many people try to buy British ?.

 

[CeeJ]

1) Build, build, build. We need post-war levels of construction to deal with our chronic housing shortage. We pay (as a country) too much on rent and mortgages.

2) Investment in public sector and ending austerity-era politics - We cannot have a functioning society if the infrastructure holding it up is collapsing.

3) Going green - more solar, more wind, more nuclear, active travel, public transport investment. Creates jobs, skills, and will save money in the long-run.

Edit: As a 4th - investing in our people. The unaffordablility of childcare is a massive driver behind economic inactivity.

 

[yorksrob]

Makes me think "know thy enemy".

But Fiats and Renaults are rubbish.

Short term profit vs a long term investment.

For instance the UK car industry in the British Leyland days was a dysfunctional drain on the countries resources producing some rubbish cars. Why did Ford have to compete with that ?. Now replaced by companies like Honda, Nissan etc - better cars and the jobs are still in the UK.

I am worried about foreigners buying up the UK. But someone has to buy the houses that people want to rent and not buy for themselves. Councils used to do that but that bit of family silver was flogged off. Also it has been pointed out to me that if a development is of mixed types of dwelling the expensive houses/flats help pay for the cheaper house/flats. If true then we need to avoid throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Lastly - how many people try to buy British ?.

Well whatever your views of Renaults and Fiats, they are popular and purchased.

I buy British where possible, but give up where not (for example a visit to Sainsburys for a toilet brush where every one was made in China.

 

[Peter Sarf]

1) Build, build, build. We need post-war levels of construction to deal with our chronic housing shortage. We pay (as a country) too much on rent and mortgages.

2) Investment in public sector and ending austerity-era politics - We cannot have a functioning society if the infrastructure holding it up is collapsing.

3) Going green - more solar, more wind, more nuclear, active travel, public transport investment. Creates jobs, skills, and will save money in the long-run.

Edit: As a 4th - investing in our people. The unaffordablility of childcare is a massive driver behind economic inactivity.

5th Save energy and costs to the whole UK by insulating (and probably educate people) - not subsidise the waste of expensive energy which does not produce long term results.

 

[alex397]

1) Build, build, build. We need post-war levels of construction to deal with our chronic housing shortage. We pay (as a country) too much on rent and mortgages.
.

I agree, to some extent. I’d be more in favour of these housing developments if they were better planned. In East Kent, we are seeing highly productive farm-land being sold for housing (such as in Thanet). When these housing developments are built, they are far from ‘affordable’ and seem to be built with very little planning in terms of the local infrastructure. Thinking of developments around Faversham and Ashford and various other places - they give little or no additions to the local infrastructure. Pavements becoming a rareity, no improvements to local bus services (and not even improving nearby bus stops), no cycling infrastructure. And thinking environmentally, they tend to have fake plastic grass everywhere as well as lots of other things detrimental to the local environment, but I guess ‘fake’ reflects today’s society.
And when you look at the houses themselves, many seem built to poor quality and crammed in to fit in as many houses as possible.

I’d love to see new housing developments that are actually planned properly for an overall benefit for the local environment. They could be SO much better!

 

[CeeJ]

5th Save energy and costs to the whole UK by insulating (and probably educate people) - not subsidise the waste of expensive energy which does not produce long term results.

Agree! I'd probably say it's part of point 3, but anything we can do to reduce energy consumption (while increasing domestic energy production) will help.

I’d love to see new housing developments that are actually planned properly for an overall benefit for the local environment. They could be SO much better!

I definitely think there needs to be a degree of coordination (at national, regional and local-levels) for this. Councils should be producing more frequent local plans to include infrastructure upgrades as part of new developments. Then so long as new housing is compliant with that local plan it will do the things you say. It's a weird balance - we need to reduce a lot of a the regulatory burden on housebuilding (to bring new providers into the market) while also making sure what is built is high quality housing that supports local infrastructure. Also a chance to think creatively - our local GP surgeries are full, so could you use a housing project to double the size of the surgery and fund that expansion by putting flats above?

 

[yorksrob]

We need to have more housing development, but we need to largely preserve the countryside. The house building needs to mainly be in urban areas.