I think one of big problems I notice with the UK is the sheer lack of talent in key areas of anaylisys, notably journalism and the wider social studies influenced jobs such as politics or policy. I assume that these roles don't pay well and are too stressful, so the talent goes into the private sector or into other fields. But this leads to the roles becoming filled by those with vested interests who are willing to take a lower salary - people who want to push a political agenda for example, which is what the country is seeing with culture wars and ethnic politics (i.e. the high number of Muslims in politics). If the data is bad then the results are going to be bad as well.
Recently I've found that the likes of the Economist and the Financial Times write in narratives as well, often completely detached from their capitalist foundations too. Too many journalists with vested interests these days.
I think one of big problems I notice with the UK is the sheer lack of talent in key areas of anaylisys, notably journalism and the wider social studies influenced jobs such as politics or policy. I assume that these roles don't pay well and are too stressful, so the talent goes into the private sector or into other fields. But this leads to the roles becoming filled by those with vested interests who are willing to take a lower salary - people who want to push a political agenda for example, which is what the country is seeing with culture wars and ethnic politics (i.e. the high number of Muslims in politics). If the data is bad then the results are going to be bad as well.
Recently I've found that the likes of the Economist and the Financial Times write in narratives as well, often completely detached from their capitalist foundations too. Too many journalists with vested interests these days.
I think one of big problems I notice with the UK is the sheer lack of talent in key areas of anaylisys, notably journalism and the wider social studies influenced jobs such as politics or policy. I assume that these roles don't pay well and are too stressful, so the talent goes into the private sector or into other fields. But this leads to the roles becoming filled by those with vested interests who are willing to take a lower salary - people who want to push a political agenda for example, which is what the country is seeing with culture wars and ethnic politics (i.e. the high number of Muslims in politics). If the data is bad then the results are going to be bad as well.
Recently I've found that the likes of the Economist and the Financial Times write in narratives as well, often completely detached from their capitalist foundations too. Too many journalists with vested interests these days.
I think one of big problems I notice with the UK is the sheer lack of talent in key areas of anaylisys, notably journalism and the wider social studies influenced jobs such as politics or policy. I assume that these roles don't pay well and are too stressful, so the talent goes into the private sector or into other fields. But this leads to the roles becoming filled by those with vested interests who are willing to take a lower salary - people who want to push a political agenda for example, which is what the country is seeing with culture wars and ethnic politics (i.e. the high number of Muslims in politics). If the data is bad then the results are going to be bad as well.
Recently I've found that the likes of the Economist and the Financial Times write in narratives as well, often completely detached from their capitalist foundations too. Too many journalists with vested interests these days.
I think one of big problems I notice with the UK is the sheer lack of talent in key areas of anaylisys, notably journalism and the wider social studies influenced jobs such as politics or policy. I assume that these roles don't pay well and are too stressful, so the talent goes into the private sector or into other fields. But this leads to the roles becoming filled by those with vested interests who are willing to take a lower salary - people who want to push a political agenda for example, which is what the country is seeing with culture wars and ethnic politics (i.e. the high number of Muslims in politics). If the data is bad then the results are going to be bad as well.
Recently I've found that the likes of the Economist and the Financial Times write in narratives as well, often completely detached from their capitalist foundations too. Too many journalists with vested interests these days.
I think one of big problems I notice with the UK is the sheer lack of talent in key areas of anaylisys, notably journalism and the wider social studies influenced jobs such as politics or policy. I assume that these roles don't pay well and are too stressful, so the talent goes into the private sector or into other fields. But this leads to the roles becoming filled by those with vested interests who are willing to take a lower salary - people who want to push a political agenda for example, which is what the country is seeing with culture wars and ethnic politics (i.e. the high number of Muslims in politics). If the data is bad then the results are going to be bad as well.
Recently I've found that the likes of the Economist and the Financial Times write in narratives as well, often completely detached from their capitalist foundations too. Too many journalists with vested interests these days.
Following your link, the claim that Hinkley Point is a uniquely bad nuclear project doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The "four times" figure refers to South Korea, which is the closest thing to a success story for nuclear outisde China. Flamanville (started much earlier, before costs rose) was only 25 per cent cheaper. And the US AP-1000 fiasco was even worse, with two of the four reactors abandoned after billions of dollars ahad already been spent.
This matters because the correct lesson isn't: do better next time (with Sizewell C, or vaporware SMRs). It's stop wasting scarce public funds on super-expensive nuclear power.
Yes and no. Yes public services and tbh those who deliver them are failing appallingly, agreed. But markets wont solve anything. Free markets dont and never have existed. Capitalism is not only dead - it was never alive. It was only ever a mechanism to allow a few powerful families to parasitise the productive efforts of the British people.
The UK like many other countries is devolving into a “second world” state that is not only much worse than a proper first world nation, but indeed worse than a third-world one. Third-world countries are corrupt, but there are reasonably efficient workarounds ands affordances that permit people to maintain a functional if relatively impoverished existence. Second-world nations retain some of the wealth generated by the high-trust first-world version of the culture that once existed, but everything breaks down and grinds to a halt due to sheer spiritual bankruptcy. This is a sad fate for a once-great nation.
Yes, we are indeed the 6th biggest economy in GDP terms, but the reason we feel broke is that measured by GDP per capita, we're really middle of the table, and being overtaken by one nation after another. We are, in fact, broke.
Our decline and the relentless decay of our public spaces will continue until we prioritise economic growth, and I don't have any sense the public is ready for the costs of that.
"The RAF still doesn’t have any of these new helicopters".
Isn't it lucky that the RAF has no need for helicopters, or fighters, or bombers, or transports. Just as the army and navy have no need for weapons, because no one is threatening us and we shouldn't be threatening (or actually attacking) anyone.
Whereas of course Sir Keir and his moronic government are trying to provoke a war with Russia which, if the Russians ever took it seriously, would end in about 20 minutes with Britain becoming uninhabitable.
Not educated at all on this, but my guess is the underlying challenge is the refusal to 'decay' or 'slide backward' in national standards.
Once you've put a standard in place, no one will willingly 'walk it back' on any aspect.
This creates unrealistic and expensive constraints for everyone. The net result is high expense and the 'semblance' of quality that does nothing to adapt to the constraints and meet local needs. The expectation that everyone is 'treated the same' does nothing to help.
30% of children with genetic disorders are born to Pakistanis, who make up only 4% of births, due to their proclivity for first cousins marriage. I suspect there are a lot of little things like this that filter through mechanisms like spiralling special needs educational costs to a pervading “we’re completely broke” feeling.
I was also intuitively shocked at the effect size as well when I first saw it, but on reflection I think it makes sense rationally. The effect is directly and principally caused by an activity the population engages in a lot, it’s like if you had a population that loved smoking, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear they had an 8 times increase in incidence of lung cancer. I attribute my surprise to the ideology I was brought up in - everyone is the same, it’s impolite and low status to notice group differences, the whole liberalism shtick.
Isn't your call to arms, that tax reform has to be paired with major public sector reform, an example of your "escalators"? It reminds me of how everytime major spending reform of the NHS is paired with a "reform" that at best makes no difference or makes things worse.
I don’t think you can meaningfully separate the two though. At some point if I got to a board of investors and ask for more cash, I need to come with a credible business plan for how I’m going to spend that cash, otherwise why would they contribute?
Speaking as a chartered accountant and economist there are many tax reforms we can make that aren't just asks for more cash (if you want to find out more, have a look at Dan Niedle's work). Many of these could easily be designed to be revenue neutral (if that's a real sticking point). The problem we have is that governments pair these tax changes with political issues. This means they make multiple little changes to the tax code that means, year after year, it gets more complex, bloated and creates bad incentives. These have a real cost to the economy
I think one of big problems I notice with the UK is the sheer lack of talent in key areas of anaylisys, notably journalism and the wider social studies influenced jobs such as politics or policy. I assume that these roles don't pay well and are too stressful, so the talent goes into the private sector or into other fields. But this leads to the roles becoming filled by those with vested interests who are willing to take a lower salary - people who want to push a political agenda for example, which is what the country is seeing with culture wars and ethnic politics (i.e. the high number of Muslims in politics). If the data is bad then the results are going to be bad as well.
Recently I've found that the likes of the Economist and the Financial Times write in narratives as well, often completely detached from their capitalist foundations too. Too many journalists with vested interests these days.
I think one of big problems I notice with the UK is the sheer lack of talent in key areas of anaylisys, notably journalism and the wider social studies influenced jobs such as politics or policy. I assume that these roles don't pay well and are too stressful, so the talent goes into the private sector or into other fields. But this leads to the roles becoming filled by those with vested interests who are willing to take a lower salary - people who want to push a political agenda for example, which is what the country is seeing with culture wars and ethnic politics (i.e. the high number of Muslims in politics). If the data is bad then the results are going to be bad as well.
Recently I've found that the likes of the Economist and the Financial Times write in narratives as well, often completely detached from their capitalist foundations too. Too many journalists with vested interests these days.
I think one of big problems I notice with the UK is the sheer lack of talent in key areas of anaylisys, notably journalism and the wider social studies influenced jobs such as politics or policy. I assume that these roles don't pay well and are too stressful, so the talent goes into the private sector or into other fields. But this leads to the roles becoming filled by those with vested interests who are willing to take a lower salary - people who want to push a political agenda for example, which is what the country is seeing with culture wars and ethnic politics (i.e. the high number of Muslims in politics). If the data is bad then the results are going to be bad as well.
Recently I've found that the likes of the Economist and the Financial Times write in narratives as well, often completely detached from their capitalist foundations too. Too many journalists with vested interests these days.
I think one of big problems I notice with the UK is the sheer lack of talent in key areas of anaylisys, notably journalism and the wider social studies influenced jobs such as politics or policy. I assume that these roles don't pay well and are too stressful, so the talent goes into the private sector or into other fields. But this leads to the roles becoming filled by those with vested interests who are willing to take a lower salary - people who want to push a political agenda for example, which is what the country is seeing with culture wars and ethnic politics (i.e. the high number of Muslims in politics). If the data is bad then the results are going to be bad as well.
Recently I've found that the likes of the Economist and the Financial Times write in narratives as well, often completely detached from their capitalist foundations too. Too many journalists with vested interests these days.
I think one of big problems I notice with the UK is the sheer lack of talent in key areas of anaylisys, notably journalism and the wider social studies influenced jobs such as politics or policy. I assume that these roles don't pay well and are too stressful, so the talent goes into the private sector or into other fields. But this leads to the roles becoming filled by those with vested interests who are willing to take a lower salary - people who want to push a political agenda for example, which is what the country is seeing with culture wars and ethnic politics (i.e. the high number of Muslims in politics). If the data is bad then the results are going to be bad as well.
Recently I've found that the likes of the Economist and the Financial Times write in narratives as well, often completely detached from their capitalist foundations too. Too many journalists with vested interests these days.
I think one of big problems I notice with the UK is the sheer lack of talent in key areas of anaylisys, notably journalism and the wider social studies influenced jobs such as politics or policy. I assume that these roles don't pay well and are too stressful, so the talent goes into the private sector or into other fields. But this leads to the roles becoming filled by those with vested interests who are willing to take a lower salary - people who want to push a political agenda for example, which is what the country is seeing with culture wars and ethnic politics (i.e. the high number of Muslims in politics). If the data is bad then the results are going to be bad as well.
Recently I've found that the likes of the Economist and the Financial Times write in narratives as well, often completely detached from their capitalist foundations too. Too many journalists with vested interests these days.
Following your link, the claim that Hinkley Point is a uniquely bad nuclear project doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The "four times" figure refers to South Korea, which is the closest thing to a success story for nuclear outisde China. Flamanville (started much earlier, before costs rose) was only 25 per cent cheaper. And the US AP-1000 fiasco was even worse, with two of the four reactors abandoned after billions of dollars ahad already been spent.
This matters because the correct lesson isn't: do better next time (with Sizewell C, or vaporware SMRs). It's stop wasting scarce public funds on super-expensive nuclear power.
Yes and no. Yes public services and tbh those who deliver them are failing appallingly, agreed. But markets wont solve anything. Free markets dont and never have existed. Capitalism is not only dead - it was never alive. It was only ever a mechanism to allow a few powerful families to parasitise the productive efforts of the British people.
The UK like many other countries is devolving into a “second world” state that is not only much worse than a proper first world nation, but indeed worse than a third-world one. Third-world countries are corrupt, but there are reasonably efficient workarounds ands affordances that permit people to maintain a functional if relatively impoverished existence. Second-world nations retain some of the wealth generated by the high-trust first-world version of the culture that once existed, but everything breaks down and grinds to a halt due to sheer spiritual bankruptcy. This is a sad fate for a once-great nation.
Yes, we are indeed the 6th biggest economy in GDP terms, but the reason we feel broke is that measured by GDP per capita, we're really middle of the table, and being overtaken by one nation after another. We are, in fact, broke.
Our decline and the relentless decay of our public spaces will continue until we prioritise economic growth, and I don't have any sense the public is ready for the costs of that.
"The RAF still doesn’t have any of these new helicopters".
Isn't it lucky that the RAF has no need for helicopters, or fighters, or bombers, or transports. Just as the army and navy have no need for weapons, because no one is threatening us and we shouldn't be threatening (or actually attacking) anyone.
Whereas of course Sir Keir and his moronic government are trying to provoke a war with Russia which, if the Russians ever took it seriously, would end in about 20 minutes with Britain becoming uninhabitable.
Too many layers of subcontractors and too many useless wastes of money like mckinsey consultants also bleeds the state and businesses.
Any analysis of the UK's tax/spending issues which doesn't include remigration as a solution is fundamentally unserious.
Not educated at all on this, but my guess is the underlying challenge is the refusal to 'decay' or 'slide backward' in national standards.
Once you've put a standard in place, no one will willingly 'walk it back' on any aspect.
This creates unrealistic and expensive constraints for everyone. The net result is high expense and the 'semblance' of quality that does nothing to adapt to the constraints and meet local needs. The expectation that everyone is 'treated the same' does nothing to help.
30% of children with genetic disorders are born to Pakistanis, who make up only 4% of births, due to their proclivity for first cousins marriage. I suspect there are a lot of little things like this that filter through mechanisms like spiralling special needs educational costs to a pervading “we’re completely broke” feeling.
Citation please? That's a wild statistic.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4567984/#:~:text=Autosomal%20recessive%20disorders%20are%20also,(Modell%20and%20Darr%202002).
Hopefully the deep link works, if not it’s the middle of the second paragraph of the introduction to this report: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4567984/
The whole report is pretty sober reading for proponents of mass immigration to be honest.
Wow, that's a dramatically larger effect than I would have imagined. Makes me even gladder I married someone from a different continent!
How nice to see someone ask for a citation, the original writer provide two, and the discussion to continue civilly (if not even warmly).
Civilised discourse - how I miss it. Most of the time.
I was also intuitively shocked at the effect size as well when I first saw it, but on reflection I think it makes sense rationally. The effect is directly and principally caused by an activity the population engages in a lot, it’s like if you had a population that loved smoking, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear they had an 8 times increase in incidence of lung cancer. I attribute my surprise to the ideology I was brought up in - everyone is the same, it’s impolite and low status to notice group differences, the whole liberalism shtick.
Isn't your call to arms, that tax reform has to be paired with major public sector reform, an example of your "escalators"? It reminds me of how everytime major spending reform of the NHS is paired with a "reform" that at best makes no difference or makes things worse.
Food for thought.
Sorry; I can't resist.
"When Dr Johnson defined patriotism as the last refuge of a scoundrel, he ignored the enormous possibilities of the word reform".
- Senator Roscoe Conkling, 1876 (cited by Gore Vidal in his essay “Theodore Roosevelt”).
I don’t think you can meaningfully separate the two though. At some point if I got to a board of investors and ask for more cash, I need to come with a credible business plan for how I’m going to spend that cash, otherwise why would they contribute?
Speaking as a chartered accountant and economist there are many tax reforms we can make that aren't just asks for more cash (if you want to find out more, have a look at Dan Niedle's work). Many of these could easily be designed to be revenue neutral (if that's a real sticking point). The problem we have is that governments pair these tax changes with political issues. This means they make multiple little changes to the tax code that means, year after year, it gets more complex, bloated and creates bad incentives. These have a real cost to the economy