Great article Gordon. It would be great if you were wrong but I have been thinking for a few years now that things will have to get a lot worse before the correction takes place. What I don’t understand is why so few people appreciate the crucial role of NetZero in this. How can having the world’s most expensive industrial energy do anything but drag the economy down? It’s almost as if Miliband wants to destroy the country - and by all accounts - he’s one of the most popular ministers within the party!
Collectively, many of us need to have larger goals to believe in, to give meaning to lives that may otherwise seem trivial or out of control. With the loss of faith in historical religious ways of filling those needs, environmental and social goals have become a partial substitute. Especially for those living in dense urban or suburban areas the commitment to such general goals is sufficiently removed that their consequences have no practical impact on daily lives.
They are thus like a promise to follow the cross on crusade, i.e. a rhetorical goal rather than making a huge change to one's life. That is reinforced if you can claim to be virtuous by having your employer buy electric vehicles or putting solar panels on your roof. It is all a world of generic, largely irrelevant, actions that make people feel good about themselves but don't ever address the impacts on those who are directly affected.
Most importantly it is also a world in which, for the most part, it is other people who bear the costs of your virtue-signalling. If every advocate of wind farms had to pay large compensation to those affected by the resulting noise, loss of landscape values, etc, the willingness to insist on renewable energy would be much reduced.
Hi Gordon, it’s as per that old saying about having the wisdom to accept what you can and can’t change. We are facing a major wind farm and BESS proposal here on Rooley Moor Road near Manchester . Do we accept it because all our MPs and the government support it or do we fight it? So far we have decided to fight it tooth and nail, whether this turns out to be wise remains to be seen.
Who knows what Miliband is thinking? He may be acting on orders from above but it’s also possible he really believes that he is in the right and saving the planet? And then again, his brother is doing rather well out of his policies. Of course it could be all of the above, but deliberately destroying our infrastructure seems unlikely to me - even though that’s exactly what he’s achieving.
Agreed. But what is more of a departure from past patterns is that the same messianic beliefs are held equally strongly by people who think of themselves as inheritors of Liberal and Conservative traditions. Part of the reason, I suspect, is that people who would commit to evangelical faiths in the rest of the world seek out a secular expression of the same urge for something to believe in.
We’re thinking along similar lines here! Seems the need to believe in “something” is hard wired into many individuals. As the pull of traditional religion has declined, the void has been filled by secular alternatives.
And since it is faith that is being challenged when others argue that evidence does not (wholly) support the beliefs, it is much harder to persuade believers to change course.
Thank you for this very enlightening piece Gordon. After decades of not really paying much attention, assuming or hoping that those in power knew what they were doing, I have arrived at a non-ideological position of believing that much ill has been done by governments trying to "run" the economy and that we would be much better served by politicians with a little humility, intent on removing obstacles to innovation and enterprise, the wellspring of real economic growth. In picturesque terms, this means the government taking its knee off the economy's neck. The USSR demonstrated the futility of command economies, yet current Labour government ministers seem to think they have to build a road here, a railway there, and all will be well. There is also, I fear, a deeply-ingrained and widespread belief that "the government must do more". I'd be grateful for your view as I am only able to bring simplistic thinking to this vital issue.
It is very difficult for governments to resist the pressure to "do something" when things seem to be going wrong, especially in terms of macroeconomics. Economists have greatly contributed to this pressure by adopting analogies which imply that economies can be managed like machines, even though the majority of what is going on is either not known or outside government control.
In addition, no electorate takes kindly to being told that they are the problem - not saving enough, not investing enough in skills, not being willing to move to get better jobs, expecting services without paying for them, etc. The consequence is continuous evasion of difficult issues combined with constant policy that achieves little but creates uncertainty and complications that businesses have to deal with. In Britain there is also the obsession with gigantism - the belief that large entities are always better than small ones, even though their main advantage is in lobbying for financial support.
While I would emphasise what I/we don't know, the overriding weakness of the UK economy for decades has been the failure to save and invest enough. Life would look completely different if the UK economy had increased investment in everything by 3-5% of GDP over the last 50 years. That does not mean primarily public investment, though higher investment in decentralised health services would have helped. The other great failure was in what economists call human capital - i.e. training in useful skills - rather than formal education. But we have known about both of these failures for 50 years and no government has done anything effective to address the failures.
Thank you for your wise words - I couldn't have asked for better. I read from this that as per Steve Davison's comment, the crisis must become virtually overwhelming before the issues are addressed, even if then.
Ian, there's a good book by Michael Meyer called "The Year that Changed the world" about the run up and the following to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 but it also covers the other east European States. I think it's quite accurate and it agrees with Gordon about the Economic causes. I found it engrossing, even exciting.
I hope you enjoy it as much as I did. I just have to mention one event. The days running up to and the day of the fall of the wall. You realise just how close it came to catastrophe. It was just random lucky events and misunderstandings that helped it happen.
Congratulations again on driving right to the heart of the issue, and having the knowledge of history to back up your analysis. However, I’m afraid most of us reading your work know full well that there is very little chance of getting any UK administration to actually listen to your advice, and then act on it. Mention is made of Net Zero as a major cause and symptom of the decline of the UK. As you and I know only too well, the Scottish Government is doing everything it can to speed up consents for more renewable generation — and of course also drive through the totally wasteful upgrades to the grid structure. But please keep writing!! Best, John
Your conclusion is spot on: “Britain has a bureaucracy and governments overwhelmed by forces outside their control”. That’s because so many key policies are set by globalist overlords who they cravenly dare not defy: Net Zero and the wars on industry, farming, cars and even morality, mass immigration of aliens, unsafe mRNA vaccines, proxy war on Russia and censorship of free speech.
Thankfully the USA has an anti-globalist president in Donald Trump who is setting a shining example to the rest of the world by dismantling these pernicious agendas in his own country.
"..in office but not in power." Quite. I was told this week (tbc), that there is the construction of a high-security fence underway for Westminster in its entirety. Funny that.
An excellent article, thank you. The malaise in Britain is almost deliberate as the current Prime Minister and many of his cohorts in both Parliament and the governmental civil service appendages are vassals to the WEF and the Davos group. The intent is to radically change the erstwhile United Kingdom from its believes, traditions and culture to something different based on a hotchpotch of different ethnicities and their cultures, as a beacon to the rest of the world. At the root is universal government ownership and the destruction of personal wealth and freedoms. Overlying is a belief that the nation can exist on unreliable wind and solar generated electricity to power the nation’s productivity and wealth creation. Sustainability is its watchword, without a thought of what that word actually means.
Sometimes, the picture I have of the current so-called leadership is that of a nineteenth century general engaged in the Afghan wars of the period who, when confronted with decision-making under conditions of duress, would retire to his thunder-box until conditions abated.
I think that things are more complicated than you suggest. Yes, there is a misplaced (and self-serving) faith in what we call globalisation - open borders, highly complicated trade arrangements, etc. However, I think that many politicians and bureaucrats know very well that governments and bureaucracies are pretty useless at doing things. Their problem is that they lack imagination. They face constant pressure to do something but have no idea what, so the response is to pass laws, set up regulators and other agencies, etc without being willing to examine whether past interventions have worked or new ones are ever likely to work.
I suspect that the only way to change this is a wholehearted, unvarnished, attack on government that says, without being polite in any way, that all government bodies and bureaucracies are useless, parasitic, .... That is not true, but attempts at being subtle and balanced rarely work in political terms. The death of previous administrations was to buy into the delusion that they could manage the public sector by relying on technocratic means. They couldn't and no one can in future.
Thank you, and I fully accept that things are more complex than I inferred. It is a fact that ever increasing complexity is a feature of the modern world, aided by the rapidity and diversity of communications means. As some would say, there is now no time to think, especially pertinent to the world of politics which is spinning like never before. That said there are few individuals who are able to transcend and be effective. Theirs is a world where focus and clear achievable priorities rule. They are able to discern, and to ignore most of the spin and churn that bureaucracies live with. More importantly they have well-developed leadership qualities that can pull together supportive and loyal teams that are effective in the delivery of policy. These people are great communicators regardless of the personal opinions of the ordinary people.
You are right about the need for a wholehearted attack on those responsible and their legacy for the ruination of our country for the reasons you give. There is even now underlying movement within certain western nations wanting to see that fundamental change. It can be felt in the UK. But the beacon is where it is happening, rapidly, is in the USA where decades of socialist dogma built into the state is being ruthlessly exterminated, apart for leaving soft edges to satisfy the beliefs of ordinary people. Those who supported the previous administrations, a political party plus its NGO cheerleaders, in their enslavement policies are being totally ignored and relegated to impotence. Again, there are signs of this in the UK as well.
Great article Gordon. It would be great if you were wrong but I have been thinking for a few years now that things will have to get a lot worse before the correction takes place. What I don’t understand is why so few people appreciate the crucial role of NetZero in this. How can having the world’s most expensive industrial energy do anything but drag the economy down? It’s almost as if Miliband wants to destroy the country - and by all accounts - he’s one of the most popular ministers within the party!
Collectively, many of us need to have larger goals to believe in, to give meaning to lives that may otherwise seem trivial or out of control. With the loss of faith in historical religious ways of filling those needs, environmental and social goals have become a partial substitute. Especially for those living in dense urban or suburban areas the commitment to such general goals is sufficiently removed that their consequences have no practical impact on daily lives.
They are thus like a promise to follow the cross on crusade, i.e. a rhetorical goal rather than making a huge change to one's life. That is reinforced if you can claim to be virtuous by having your employer buy electric vehicles or putting solar panels on your roof. It is all a world of generic, largely irrelevant, actions that make people feel good about themselves but don't ever address the impacts on those who are directly affected.
Most importantly it is also a world in which, for the most part, it is other people who bear the costs of your virtue-signalling. If every advocate of wind farms had to pay large compensation to those affected by the resulting noise, loss of landscape values, etc, the willingness to insist on renewable energy would be much reduced.
Hi Gordon, it’s as per that old saying about having the wisdom to accept what you can and can’t change. We are facing a major wind farm and BESS proposal here on Rooley Moor Road near Manchester . Do we accept it because all our MPs and the government support it or do we fight it? So far we have decided to fight it tooth and nail, whether this turns out to be wise remains to be seen.
You have to wonder if the Uniparty plan is to deliberately wreck our energy infrastructure and deindustrialise the economy. After all, the current incumbent Miliband is only “obeying the orders” of the unelected, unaccountable UN: (MSM link rather than paywalled Guardian) https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/national/criminalise-fossil-fuel-disinformation-and-ban-its-lobbying-says-un-expert/ar-AA1HGQ5d.
Who knows what Miliband is thinking? He may be acting on orders from above but it’s also possible he really believes that he is in the right and saving the planet? And then again, his brother is doing rather well out of his policies. Of course it could be all of the above, but deliberately destroying our infrastructure seems unlikely to me - even though that’s exactly what he’s achieving.
There has always been a messianic component to the Labour Party-Milliband is merely articulating its current iteration.
Agreed. But what is more of a departure from past patterns is that the same messianic beliefs are held equally strongly by people who think of themselves as inheritors of Liberal and Conservative traditions. Part of the reason, I suspect, is that people who would commit to evangelical faiths in the rest of the world seek out a secular expression of the same urge for something to believe in.
We’re thinking along similar lines here! Seems the need to believe in “something” is hard wired into many individuals. As the pull of traditional religion has declined, the void has been filled by secular alternatives.
And since it is faith that is being challenged when others argue that evidence does not (wholly) support the beliefs, it is much harder to persuade believers to change course.
Incredible isn't it? Outside the party, Miliband's popularity rating is somewhere between anthrax and bubonic plague.
Thank you for this very enlightening piece Gordon. After decades of not really paying much attention, assuming or hoping that those in power knew what they were doing, I have arrived at a non-ideological position of believing that much ill has been done by governments trying to "run" the economy and that we would be much better served by politicians with a little humility, intent on removing obstacles to innovation and enterprise, the wellspring of real economic growth. In picturesque terms, this means the government taking its knee off the economy's neck. The USSR demonstrated the futility of command economies, yet current Labour government ministers seem to think they have to build a road here, a railway there, and all will be well. There is also, I fear, a deeply-ingrained and widespread belief that "the government must do more". I'd be grateful for your view as I am only able to bring simplistic thinking to this vital issue.
It is very difficult for governments to resist the pressure to "do something" when things seem to be going wrong, especially in terms of macroeconomics. Economists have greatly contributed to this pressure by adopting analogies which imply that economies can be managed like machines, even though the majority of what is going on is either not known or outside government control.
In addition, no electorate takes kindly to being told that they are the problem - not saving enough, not investing enough in skills, not being willing to move to get better jobs, expecting services without paying for them, etc. The consequence is continuous evasion of difficult issues combined with constant policy that achieves little but creates uncertainty and complications that businesses have to deal with. In Britain there is also the obsession with gigantism - the belief that large entities are always better than small ones, even though their main advantage is in lobbying for financial support.
While I would emphasise what I/we don't know, the overriding weakness of the UK economy for decades has been the failure to save and invest enough. Life would look completely different if the UK economy had increased investment in everything by 3-5% of GDP over the last 50 years. That does not mean primarily public investment, though higher investment in decentralised health services would have helped. The other great failure was in what economists call human capital - i.e. training in useful skills - rather than formal education. But we have known about both of these failures for 50 years and no government has done anything effective to address the failures.
Thank you for your wise words - I couldn't have asked for better. I read from this that as per Steve Davison's comment, the crisis must become virtually overwhelming before the issues are addressed, even if then.
Ian, there's a good book by Michael Meyer called "The Year that Changed the world" about the run up and the following to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 but it also covers the other east European States. I think it's quite accurate and it agrees with Gordon about the Economic causes. I found it engrossing, even exciting.
Thank you Steve, I've bought it to add it to my Kindle reading list.
I hope you enjoy it as much as I did. I just have to mention one event. The days running up to and the day of the fall of the wall. You realise just how close it came to catastrophe. It was just random lucky events and misunderstandings that helped it happen.
Gordon,
Congratulations again on driving right to the heart of the issue, and having the knowledge of history to back up your analysis. However, I’m afraid most of us reading your work know full well that there is very little chance of getting any UK administration to actually listen to your advice, and then act on it. Mention is made of Net Zero as a major cause and symptom of the decline of the UK. As you and I know only too well, the Scottish Government is doing everything it can to speed up consents for more renewable generation — and of course also drive through the totally wasteful upgrades to the grid structure. But please keep writing!! Best, John
Your conclusion is spot on: “Britain has a bureaucracy and governments overwhelmed by forces outside their control”. That’s because so many key policies are set by globalist overlords who they cravenly dare not defy: Net Zero and the wars on industry, farming, cars and even morality, mass immigration of aliens, unsafe mRNA vaccines, proxy war on Russia and censorship of free speech.
Thankfully the USA has an anti-globalist president in Donald Trump who is setting a shining example to the rest of the world by dismantling these pernicious agendas in his own country.
"..in office but not in power." Quite. I was told this week (tbc), that there is the construction of a high-security fence underway for Westminster in its entirety. Funny that.
An excellent article, thank you. The malaise in Britain is almost deliberate as the current Prime Minister and many of his cohorts in both Parliament and the governmental civil service appendages are vassals to the WEF and the Davos group. The intent is to radically change the erstwhile United Kingdom from its believes, traditions and culture to something different based on a hotchpotch of different ethnicities and their cultures, as a beacon to the rest of the world. At the root is universal government ownership and the destruction of personal wealth and freedoms. Overlying is a belief that the nation can exist on unreliable wind and solar generated electricity to power the nation’s productivity and wealth creation. Sustainability is its watchword, without a thought of what that word actually means.
Sometimes, the picture I have of the current so-called leadership is that of a nineteenth century general engaged in the Afghan wars of the period who, when confronted with decision-making under conditions of duress, would retire to his thunder-box until conditions abated.
I think that things are more complicated than you suggest. Yes, there is a misplaced (and self-serving) faith in what we call globalisation - open borders, highly complicated trade arrangements, etc. However, I think that many politicians and bureaucrats know very well that governments and bureaucracies are pretty useless at doing things. Their problem is that they lack imagination. They face constant pressure to do something but have no idea what, so the response is to pass laws, set up regulators and other agencies, etc without being willing to examine whether past interventions have worked or new ones are ever likely to work.
I suspect that the only way to change this is a wholehearted, unvarnished, attack on government that says, without being polite in any way, that all government bodies and bureaucracies are useless, parasitic, .... That is not true, but attempts at being subtle and balanced rarely work in political terms. The death of previous administrations was to buy into the delusion that they could manage the public sector by relying on technocratic means. They couldn't and no one can in future.
Thank you, and I fully accept that things are more complex than I inferred. It is a fact that ever increasing complexity is a feature of the modern world, aided by the rapidity and diversity of communications means. As some would say, there is now no time to think, especially pertinent to the world of politics which is spinning like never before. That said there are few individuals who are able to transcend and be effective. Theirs is a world where focus and clear achievable priorities rule. They are able to discern, and to ignore most of the spin and churn that bureaucracies live with. More importantly they have well-developed leadership qualities that can pull together supportive and loyal teams that are effective in the delivery of policy. These people are great communicators regardless of the personal opinions of the ordinary people.
You are right about the need for a wholehearted attack on those responsible and their legacy for the ruination of our country for the reasons you give. There is even now underlying movement within certain western nations wanting to see that fundamental change. It can be felt in the UK. But the beacon is where it is happening, rapidly, is in the USA where decades of socialist dogma built into the state is being ruthlessly exterminated, apart for leaving soft edges to satisfy the beliefs of ordinary people. Those who supported the previous administrations, a political party plus its NGO cheerleaders, in their enslavement policies are being totally ignored and relegated to impotence. Again, there are signs of this in the UK as well.