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

[birchesgreen]

To answer the original question:

Chuck the entire establishment in the sea and start again. The country is run by an inbred clique who generally went to the same schools, colleges and hang out together. That includes much of the Opposition to be honest.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

To answer the original question:

Chuck the entire establishment in the sea and start again. The country is run by an inbred clique who generally went to the same schools, colleges and hang out together. That includes much of the Opposition to be honest.

Even assuming your accusation about a clique is true: How does that solve the problem? Who do you bring in instead to run the country? What different policies should they enact to prevent a decline/bring about more growth?

 

[al78]

Here is an interesting article (to me anyway) analysing the UK's poor productivity:

Why is the UK So Unproductive Compared to Germany?

Wondering how UK productivity compares with the rest of Europe? The answer's not great, so we decided to take a look at what our neighbours are doing right and why Germany, in particular, outperforms us by so much.

www.agencycentral.co.uk

Suggests factors like lack of investment, instead firms choosing to employ workers on the cheap to do a task instead of investing in more efficient/better methods, poor transport infrastructure increases commuting times and stress, compounded with high house prices forcing long commutes in places, lack of investment in research and development, long working hours and maybe a coontribution from poor health (due to long working hours and long commutes some people can't/don't regularly cook decent nutricious meals from scratch).

I have another theory that the pace of life seems to have been slowing down over the years. The very slow speed many people walk along the pavement (meaning I have to walk in the road to get past), people who won't drive over 40 mph even if their vehicle and the road conditions are suitable for going much faster, they drive as if they have a bomb in their car that will detonate should they exceed 40 mph, the length of time I spend in queues because there is nearly always one of the four people in front taking a age to get something done, so I have to wait 15 minutes to do something that takes 30 seconds, the lack of a sufficient number of staff which can result in very long queues both in person or over the phone, people who just don't think and dawdle in doorways or consume the entire width of a footpath whilst they have a conversation. All of these individually are trivial but collectively eats into potentially productive time and contributes to stress every day.

 

[johncrossley]

people who won't drive over 40 mph even if their vehicle and the road conditions are suitable for going much faster, they drive as if they have a bomb in their car that will detonate should they exceed 40 mph

Yet there is so much tailgating. Almost everybody breaks urban speed limits.

 

[Wynd]

Even assuming your accusation about a clique is true: How does that solve the problem? Who do you bring in instead to run the country? What different policies should they enact to prevent a decline/bring about more growth?

It is true and the answer to our question is people who are firstly, not insanely corrupted or crooked, and secondly, people who are competent economic managers, people who have training in these things and would steward the public finances in a prudent and sensible way.

the different polices are nearly the opposite ones of those that have been used for the last 50 years, which have driven the UK in to its current state.

Its blindingly obvious to most of us that Whitehall and Westminster cant run a bath, let alone an economy.

Massive public debt growth, Stagnant economic growth, falling wages, woeful levels of business investment, massive inflation, rising interest rates and rising rates of poverty is truly the holy grail of poor outcomes.

The state of the UK is breathtakingly bad. Lower growth that Russia this year, a country that is under a multitude of international sanctions. Its barely believable.

Whitehall and Westminster needs totally clearing out, this level of under performance is totally indefensible.

 

[Yew]

Here is an interesting article (to me anyway) analysing the UK's poor productivity:

Why is the UK So Unproductive Compared to Germany?

Wondering how UK productivity compares with the rest of Europe? The answer's not great, so we decided to take a look at what our neighbours are doing right and why Germany, in particular, outperforms us by so much.

www.agencycentral.co.uk

Suggests factors like lack of investment, instead firms choosing to employ workers on the cheap to do a task instead of investing in more efficient/better methods, poor transport infrastructure increases commuting times and stress, compounded with high house prices forcing long commutes in places, lack of investment in research and development, long working hours and maybe a coontribution from poor health (due to long working hours and long commutes some people can't/don't regularly cook decent nutricious meals from scratch).

Overall it seems like a large part of it is that we have been focusing on short term gains for too long, and bearing the fruit of a lack of strategic investment. Whether in industry or government, for too long a quick payment to your voters or shareholders has been more important than a strategic vision and setting up for long term success.

 

[RT4038]

It is true and the answer to our question is people who are firstly, not insanely corrupted or crooked, and secondly, people who are competent economic managers, people who have training in these things and would steward the public finances in a prudent and sensible way.

Whilst you may well be right, they also have to be elected, which requires a certain type of person who may or may not have anything in common with all or any of your requirements.

 

[ainsworth74]

I have to say that I'm increasingly of the view that, in reality, whilst there might be decisions that could be taken to try and reverse the decline that's occurred most acutely recently but arguably over the last few decades and seems set to continue there's very little chance of anyone actually taking those decisions. Our politicians lack the will to take difficult decisions. The electorate don't appear to want to reward difficult decisions being taken and instead reward being told what they want to hear (not that I really blame them for that!). Those are the pinnacle of business and finance appear to be locked into a doom spiral of short-termism and won't do anything that could negatively impact next quarters earnings and if they can sell the business for a quick buck so much the better. Frankly I don't see anyway out of that spiral. There's been quite a few good ideas in this thread. But I'm not sure there's any chance of anyone actually implementing even part of them.

 

[RT4038]

I have to say that I'm increasingly of the view that, in reality, whilst there might be decisions that could be taken to try and reverse the decline that's occurred most acutely recently but arguably over the last few decades and seems set to continue there's very little chance of anyone actually taking those decisions. Our politicians lack the will to take difficult decisions. The electorate don't appear to want to reward difficult decisions being taken and instead reward being told what they want to hear (not that I really blame them for that!).

The politicians won't be taking the difficult decisions if the electorate don't want them to!

Those are the pinnacle of business and finance appear to be locked into a doom spiral of short-termism and won't do anything that could negatively impact next quarters earnings

Because the electorate doesn't want the value of its pension funds and insurance policies etc (the major investors) to go adverse

if they can sell the business for a quick buck so much the better

Because that will make the pension funds etc even more happy, which the electorate will be pleased with.

 

[ainsworth74]

The politicians won't be taking the difficult decisions if the electorate don't want them to!


Because the electorate doesn't want the value of its pension funds and insurance policies etc (the major investors) to go adverse


Because that will make the pension funds etc even more happy, which the electorate will be pleased with.

In which case we are doomed to continue to decline, perhaps now more accelerated, as I said I suspected.

 

[yorksrob]

I have to say that I'm increasingly of the view that, in reality, whilst there might be decisions that could be taken to try and reverse the decline that's occurred most acutely recently but arguably over the last few decades and seems set to continue there's very little chance of anyone actually taking those decisions. Our politicians lack the will to take difficult decisions. The electorate don't appear to want to reward difficult decisions being taken and instead reward being told what they want to hear (not that I really blame them for that!). Those are the pinnacle of business and finance appear to be locked into a doom spiral of short-termism and won't do anything that could negatively impact next quarters earnings and if they can sell the business for a quick buck so much the better. Frankly I don't see anyway out of that spiral. There's been quite a few good ideas in this thread. But I'm not sure there's any chance of anyone actually implementing even part of them.

The silence on energy market reform has been deafening.

The problem is we get nothing but "difficult decisions" but its always the public that face the difficulties, rather than those at the pinnacle of finance.

 

[RT4038]

The problem is we get nothing but "difficult decisions" but its always the public that face the difficulties, rather than those at the pinnacle of finance.

That is because the longer we put the difficult decisions off, the more difficult they become. Possibly the reason they are difficult is because the 'public' have got used to they/the country living beyond its means and have expectations beyond what can be afforded. So they kick the can down the road. Nobody wants to be worse off, so any reduction needs to be dressed as unavoidable, rather than the difficult truth. Quite likely that those at the pinnacle of finance have plenty of difficult decisions to be made; but at the end of the day they will affect the public as much if not more as them (They'll take less profit if you're happy to get less pension?)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Feb 2023 ==

In which case we are doomed to continue to decline, perhaps now more accelerated, as I said I suspected.

Not necessarily. The Iron Lady turned a pretty hopeless economic and productivity situation around, not without some collateral damage however. But you don't make omelettes without breaking eggs - nobody is perfect, and no turnaround is going to be without collateral damage. Nor is there seemingly anyone remotely like that on the horizon, but that could change.

 

[yorksrob]

That is because the longer we put the difficult decisions off, the more difficult they become. Possibly the reason they are difficult is because the 'public' have got used to they/the country living beyond its means and have expectations beyond what can be afforded. So they kick the can down the road. Nobody wants to be worse off, so any reduction needs to be dressed as unavoidable, rather than the difficult truth. Quite likely that those at the pinnacle of finance have plenty of difficult decisions to be made; but at the end of the day they will affect the public as much if not more as them (They'll take less profit if you're happy to get less pension?)

Trashing the economy to supposedly reduce inflation is a difficult decision that has frequently been taken over the years to the detriment of the population.

Becoming self-sufficient in our basic needs is a difficult decision that the Establishment won't make because it would go against their deeply held free market beliefs. That is something that genuinely help the country to live more within its means.

 

[RT4038]

Trashing the economy to supposedly reduce inflation is a difficult decision that has frequently been taken over the years to the detriment of the population.

If it wasn't to the detriment of the population it wouldn't be a difficult decision! The economy can't have been much good if it needs trashing to reduce inflation! Inflation is precisely an indicator of living beyond our means!

Becoming self-sufficient in our basic needs is a difficult decision that the Establishment won't make because it would go against their deeply held free market beliefs. That is something that genuinely help the country to live more within its means.

Not necessarily, because becoming self sufficient may be far more expensive / inefficient than us making something/providing a service and selling in exchange for some of our basic needs imported from elsewhere. The sort of thing that has served our country well since the 16th century.

 

[yorksrob]

If it wasn't to the detriment of the population it wouldn't be a difficult decision! The economy can't have been much good if it needs trashing to reduce inflation! Inflation is precisely an indicator of living beyond our means!


Not necessarily, because becoming self sufficient may be far more expensive / inefficient than us making something/providing a service and selling in exchange for some of our basic needs imported from elsewhere. The sort of thing that has served our country well since the 16th century.

It's resilience that's needed. There's no point whatsoever in having a wonderfully efficient economy (if that's what is - I'm not convinced) if it collapses every five to ten years because of external shocks.

We've had everything globalised and sold off for decades, and you've said so yourself, the economy is hardly in good health.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's resilience that's needed. There's no point whatsoever in having a wonderfully efficient economy (if that's what is - I'm not convinced) if it collapses every five to ten years because of external shocks.

We've had everything globalised and sold off for decades, and you've said so yourself, the economy is hardly in good health.

I think the trade-off is that we should be self-sufficient for essentials and should trade in luxuries.

Esssentials to me means:

• Electricity generation (not that we won't import if things go wrong, but we should have capacity for our peak load). This ideally means as much renewable generation as possible, obviously we do need to import uranium but we can take a very conservative approach to having enough!
• Water supply
• Basic food supply (i.e. we should grow enough staples like wheat and corn for domestic consumption, same with milk and butter etc, and the aim should be that most meat eaten in the UK is produced in the UK, as locally as possible as food miles are bad, same with other foods we can grow here e.g. apples). It's fine to import luxury foods, and of course to sell some of ours to other countries; the key is that if a war occurred that fully closed our borders (or for that matter a pandemic) for an indefinite period, we would not have a famine on our hands.
• Transport - roads and public transport (and I'm concerned about the reliance on Chinese EVs for bus services; get the wires up on busy routes and avoid the need for all that lithium, about which future wars will be fought).
• Healthcare provision (though for obvious reasons not medical supplies themselves, though we may want to licence UK production of as many "staple" medications as possible)

With regard to housing, it should not be legal for anyone who does not have British citizenship or indefinite leave to remain to own residential property in the UK either directly or indirectly (again extended to EU equivalents if we rejoin). I don't give a monkey's what happens to business property - that can be invested in if the Chinese etc like. Similarly a business which is directly or indirectly non-UK-owned should not be able to own residential property or its freehold in the UK. Such companies should be allowed to construct it but only on the condition of full sale to a UK owner. People who do not have the permanent right to live in the UK can rent property if they wish to have somewhere to live, and there's not enough UK residential property on the sales market for us to be in a position to allow outside investors to buy it for let.

These should either be nationalised, or be operated by companies which legally cannot be in overseas ownership, either directly or indirectly (other than EU companies if we rejoin).

The key is that it should be impossible for any other country to hold us at ransom for things we NEED.

We've been in that position before, there's no reason we could not be again. Plenty of other countries do have measures like these in place.

 

[HSTEd]

Not necessarily. The Iron Lady turned a pretty hopeless economic and productivity situation around, not without some collateral damage however. But you don't make omelettes without breaking eggs - nobody is perfect, and no turnaround is going to be without collateral damage. Nor is there seemingly anyone remotely like that on the horizon, but that could change.

She bought 30 years of artificial growth at the cost of eating all the remaining societal seedcorn, including a once in history oil boom.

She made a generation rich based on wealth stolen from future generations - but now that looted wealth is gone and the party is over.

And I'd argue that the "hopeless economic situation" was still much better than it is now.
The 1970s only look like stagnation compared to the enormous growth of the 50s and 60s.

Leaving aside anything else, Thatcher is the reason we have insane runaway gas and electricity prices! She created the insanity that is the modern energy "market" so she could get a quick buck selling off the electricity and gas systems to pay for another couple of years of artificially low taxation - just like all the other privatisations.

 

[yorksrob]

I think the trade-off is that we should be self-sufficient for essentials and should trade in luxuries.

Esssentials to me means:

• Electricity generation (not that we won't import if things go wrong, but we should have capacity for our peak load). This ideally means as much renewable generation as possible, obviously we do need to import uranium but we can take a very conservative approach to having enough!
• Water supply
• Basic food supply (i.e. we should grow enough staples like wheat and corn for domestic consumption, same with milk and butter etc, and the aim should be that most meat eaten in the UK is produced in the UK, as locally as possible as food miles are bad, same with other foods we can grow here e.g. apples). It's fine to import luxury foods, and of course to sell some of ours to other countries; the key is that if a war occurred that fully closed our borders (or for that matter a pandemic) for an indefinite period, we would not have a famine on our hands.
• Transport - roads and public transport (and I'm concerned about the reliance on Chinese EVs for bus services; get the wires up on busy routes and avoid the need for all that lithium, about which future wars will be fought).
• Healthcare provision (though for obvious reasons not medical supplies themselves, though we may want to licence UK production of as many "staple" medications as possible)

With regard to housing, it should not be legal for anyone who does not have British citizenship or indefinite leave to remain to own residential property in the UK either directly or indirectly (again extended to EU equivalents if we rejoin). I don't give a monkey's what happens to business property - that can be invested in if the Chinese etc like. Similarly a business which is directly or indirectly non-UK-owned should not be able to own residential property or its freehold in the UK. Such companies should be allowed to construct it but only on the condition of full sale to a UK owner. People who do not have the permanent right to live in the UK can rent property if they wish to have somewhere to live, and there's not enough UK residential property on the sales market for us to be in a position to allow outside investors to buy it for let.

These should either be nationalised, or be operated by companies which legally cannot be in overseas ownership, either directly or indirectly (other than EU companies if we rejoin).

The key is that it should be impossible for any other country to hold us at ransom for things we NEED.

We've been in that position before, there's no reason we could not be again. Plenty of other countries do have measures like these in place.

Yes, I agree regarding essential verses luxuries.

I think we also need to be more careful about ownership of companies. Where do all the profits go.

 

[RT4038]

• Basic food supply (i.e. we should grow enough staples like wheat and corn for domestic consumption, same with milk and butter etc, and the aim should be that most meat eaten in the UK is produced in the UK, as locally as possible as food miles are bad, same with other foods we can grow here e.g. apples). It's fine to import luxury foods, and of course to sell some of ours to other countries; the key is that if a war occurred that fully closed our borders (or for that matter a pandemic) for an indefinite period, we would not have a famine on our hands.

We've been in that position before, there's no reason we could not be again. Plenty of other countries do have measures like these in place.

Is that really possible? We really struggled during WW2 and the population is much bigger now, with less land available. I know farming methods have become more intense, but using artificial fertiliser and where does the chemicals for that come from?

 

[HSTEd]

Is that really possible? We really struggled during WW2 and the population is much bigger now, with less land available. I know farming methods have become more intense, but using artificial fertiliser and where does the chemicals for that come from?

Well we have large supplies of potassium in the UK (and ultimately seawater can provide if required), nitrogen is in the air and energy is plentiful (in extremis).

The only possible limitation on fertiliser production in phosphorous, and there are some alternatives for sourcing phosphate rock if the situation truly becomes dire enough for it to matter. The vast majority of the phosphate we spread on the fields actually ends up bound to the soil and not available for plant use, only a few tens of kilotons actually runs off into the sea.

 

[duncanp]

She bought 30 years of artificial growth at the cost of eating all the remaining societal seedcorn, including a once in history oil boom.

She made a generation rich based on wealth stolen from future generations - but now that looted wealth is gone and the party is over.

And I'd argue that the "hopeless economic situation" was still much better than it is now.
The 1970s only look like stagnation compared to the enormous growth of the 50s and 60s.

Leaving aside anything else, Thatcher is the reason we have insane runaway gas and electricity prices! She created the insanity that is the modern energy "market" so she could get a quick buck selling off the electricity and gas systems to pay for another couple of years of artificially low taxation - just like all the other privatisations.

I can't see how Margaret Thatcher can be blamed for the current state of the energy market, given that she has been dead for nearly 10 years, and out of office for more than 32 years.

In the intervening period, we have had a Labour government for 13 years, who could have renationalised the energy suppliers if they wanted, or otherwise instituted reforms whilst keeping ownership private.

But she is a convenient scapegoat for many people, as it saves them having to take responsibility for their mistakes and misjudgements.

 

[HSTEd]

I can't see how Margaret Thatcher can be blamed for the current state of the energy market, given that she has been dead for nearly 10 years, and out of office for more than 32 years.

Her policies are the ideological basis for all governments since her rule. Without her the politics of all subsequent governments would have been very different indeed.

In the intervening period, we have had a Labour government for 13 years, who could have renationalised the energy suppliers if they wanted, or otherwise instituted reforms whilst keeping ownership private.

But she is a convenient scapegoat for many people, as it saves them having to take responsibility for their mistakes and misjudgements.

Ultimately her proteges and ideological students continue to rule and have done so continuously since she left government.
But she is the source of the insanity, and because she is revered as something akin to a demi-god by a large portion of the political class and the (oldeR) parts of the electorate, her beliefs are untouchable.

Even as reality pulls the Government away from her beliefs, it must always be couched as a minor reform to avoid admitting her policies were a disaster.

Even the New Labour governments continued with Thatcherism, simply believing that all the problems could be covered up by a huge hose of public money on social spending.

 

[johncrossley]

I think we also need to be more careful about ownership of companies. Where do all the profits go.

To shareholders as dividends. In the case of listed companies, that includes most of us reading this thread.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is that really possible? We really struggled during WW2 and the population is much bigger now, with less land available. I know farming methods have become more intense, but using artificial fertiliser and where does the chemicals for that come from?

One way to achieve self-sufficiency is move away from meat and towards vegetable production, it makes much more efficient use of land. Of course some land isn't suitable for that, but meat I suppose is a sort of luxury. Plus there's plenty of unused land including the way people mostly no longer grow their own veg at home and could do again if they have a garden.

Of course perfection is the enemy of the good, so even if 100% isn't achievable a move closer to that as a matter of policy is a positive.

 

[yorksrob]

To shareholders as dividends. In the case of listed companies, that includes most of us reading this thread.

Does that not rather depend on where it's listed or who ownes the shares ?

If the companies owned by an off shore venture capital fund or a foreign sovereign wealth fund, we don't. Also a company owned by a multinational listed overseas, how many of those shares go to UK shareholders ?

 

[Wynd]

Does that not rather depend on where it's listed or who ownes the shares ?

If the companies owned by an off shore venture capital fund or a foreign sovereign wealth fund, we don't. Also a company owned by a multinational listed overseas, how many of those shares go to UK shareholders ?

The elephant in this is beneficial ownership, which often resides in offshore trusts in Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of man, Or the British Virgin Islands, or Cayman Islands. Or Bermuda.

You get the point.

Half the reason we are out of the EU is to ensure these methods of concealing ownership remain intact, when the EU wanted to regulate them.

 

[yorksrob]

The elephant in this is beneficial ownership, which often resides in offshore trusts in Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of man, Or the British Virgin Islands, or Cayman Islands. Or Bermuda.

You get the point.

Half the reason we are out of the EU is to ensure these methods of concealing ownership remain intact, when the EU wanted to regulate them.

People have discussed "difficult decisions". Regulating these tax havens would be a "difficult decision" most people could get along with.

 

[johncrossley]

Also a company owned by a multinational listed overseas, how many of those shares go to UK shareholders ?

UK citizens can buy shares listed on other stock markets, either directly or through funds.

It probably should be noted that the UK stock market is large in relation to its economy. For example, the UK is a smaller economy than Germany but the German stock market is smaller as a lot of German companies are family/privately owned. A lot of the big companies on the UK stock market earn a small proportion of their income from the UK.

Judging by your questioning, you have little awareness of stock markets and investing. For your own future wealth I'd recommend getting better acquainted with such matters. Take your own part in the global economy, instead of complaining about it!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I can't see how Margaret Thatcher can be blamed for the current state of the energy market, given that she has been dead for nearly 10 years, and out of office for more than 32 years.

Her policies are the ideological basis for all governments since her rule. Without her the politics of all subsequent governments would have been very different indeed.

Did all the various Governments in the 32 years since Mrs. Thatcher left office not have their own ability to make decisions? Was there some unrepealable law that said they had to follow Mrs. Thatcher's policies whether they wanted to or not, and therefore that they had no responsibility for their decisions?

 

[yorksrob]

UK citizens can buy shares listed on other stock markets, either directly or through funds.

It probably should be noted that the UK stock market is large in relation to its economy. For example, the UK is a smaller economy than Germany but the German stock market is smaller as a lot of German companies are family/privately owned. A lot of the big companies on the UK stock market earn a small proportion of their income from the UK.

Judging by your questioning, you have little awareness of stock markets and investing. For your own future wealth I'd recommend getting better acquainted with such matters. Take your own part in the global economy, instead of complaining about it!

You note that the German economy is larger and it's stock market is smaller. It's also worth noting that the German economy usually does better than ours in comparisons such as the IMF one published recently. Could it be that the German model of privately owned mittel-strand businesses does better for their wider economy than our fast buck City for our own !