thanks! I was expecting to find quite a big gulf between wealthy London spend and the rest of the country - but the degree of difference still surprised me. As you say, it explains a lot politically
You're absolutely right about North Sea Oil. It was amazingly lucky, helping plug the fiscal gap caused by the early 80s recession and thus buying off opposition to the Thatcher reforms. There's clearly not much left (though some) in the North Sea. Who knows about fracking - though it's interesting the ones who talk loudest about there being nothing commercially viable there are the same ones determined to block any attempts to find out!
The problem with fracking is the same issue facing building more nuclear plants, onshore wind turbines, plyons homes, and prisons... that is the planning system and NIMBYism.
The problem with British populism is that is backed primarily by the same sorts of people who are NIMBYs: older people.
For me the fundemental problem is the cost of energy. This is the main reason why the UK is a price taker on most things - and this is also something that effects the competitiveness of the UK and its attractivity.
Thatcher and the other Tory govts afrer her owed their succes to the North sea drills more than anything else. The right and left won't admit it for ideological reasons (the right because it makes her success exogenous to her policies of privatization, and the left because it will never admit Thatcher was a success and because it is ideologically now opposed to drilling).
However, given the challenges the UK faces, drilling and fracking seem to be the right thing to do now - and also because - fossil fuels are KEY to the energy transition. Their exploitation cannot just stop when energy consumption is critical to the building of the infrastructure of the reneweable type.
This is excellent. You've basically set out what is wrong with our politics and why people loathe the legacy parties. They haven't a clue. We need an all out war on the cost of non-London essentials + a zero tolerance approach on crime + massively reduce migration levels (returnng to pre-1997 levels).
All of which require trade offs the politicians don't want to bring towards the electorate. Cheaper energy, cheaper homes, and cracking down on crime require building stuff. All of which is anathema to a large share of voters (including most of the voters who back reform).
As for lower migration, to sustainably lower it we'd have to reverse our aging population or slash the size of the state. Given how even Hungary and Japan have embraced higher rates of net migration in recent decades, its a harder trade off than the populists consider.
"Enormous investment is required in the grid, which may end up on household and business’ bills".
All government spending, without exception, ends up being paid for by taxpayers - corporate or individual. And all corporate expenses are eventually paid for by individual citizens too. Just saying.
The cited £65-odd cost of a week's food for a household strikes me as incredibly low. That's less than £10 a day! Decent meat costs, at the very least, £10/kilo - and usually much more. A kilo of meat yields about 1100 calories - about half the daily energy a single adult needs. Divide by two, or more, and meat becomes almost unaffordable. But most common diseases are largely due to nutritional deficiencies - especially protein deficiency.
To get a fully adequate and healthy diet in Britain today would cost at least twice that £65/week. Because most people cannot afford that, the NHS ends up spending extra tens of billions trying to cure the incurable. Astonishing folly!
Note: If anyone has been confused by the way I keep editing this comment, apologies! I got mixed up with weekly and monthly, and the number of people per household.
Your reference to the policies of the present government implies that they have been in power long enough to undo the past 14 years of Conservative led government, which caused and or failed to resolve many of the issues you referenced.
As for Brexit, tweaking intellectual property law isn't going to offset the impact of losing access to one of the world's largest markets (which is famously hardline on anti-trust issues) on our doorstep. Of course that assumes we would have the stomach to significantly diverge from Brussels on regulations (which notable brexiteers Johnson, Truss, Sunak refrained from), owing the fact that the size of the European market means businesses prefer greater alignment with the EU.
thanks! I was expecting to find quite a big gulf between wealthy London spend and the rest of the country - but the degree of difference still surprised me. As you say, it explains a lot politically
You're absolutely right about North Sea Oil. It was amazingly lucky, helping plug the fiscal gap caused by the early 80s recession and thus buying off opposition to the Thatcher reforms. There's clearly not much left (though some) in the North Sea. Who knows about fracking - though it's interesting the ones who talk loudest about there being nothing commercially viable there are the same ones determined to block any attempts to find out!
The problem with fracking is the same issue facing building more nuclear plants, onshore wind turbines, plyons homes, and prisons... that is the planning system and NIMBYism.
The problem with British populism is that is backed primarily by the same sorts of people who are NIMBYs: older people.
thanks Francois!
For me the fundemental problem is the cost of energy. This is the main reason why the UK is a price taker on most things - and this is also something that effects the competitiveness of the UK and its attractivity.
Thatcher and the other Tory govts afrer her owed their succes to the North sea drills more than anything else. The right and left won't admit it for ideological reasons (the right because it makes her success exogenous to her policies of privatization, and the left because it will never admit Thatcher was a success and because it is ideologically now opposed to drilling).
However, given the challenges the UK faces, drilling and fracking seem to be the right thing to do now - and also because - fossil fuels are KEY to the energy transition. Their exploitation cannot just stop when energy consumption is critical to the building of the infrastructure of the reneweable type.
So many spelling mistakes in my comment due to my freezing fingers ! Sorry !
105.70 housing per week? Is that for a parking space or a tent? No way you can pay that in a major city.
This is excellent. You've basically set out what is wrong with our politics and why people loathe the legacy parties. They haven't a clue. We need an all out war on the cost of non-London essentials + a zero tolerance approach on crime + massively reduce migration levels (returnng to pre-1997 levels).
All of which require trade offs the politicians don't want to bring towards the electorate. Cheaper energy, cheaper homes, and cracking down on crime require building stuff. All of which is anathema to a large share of voters (including most of the voters who back reform).
As for lower migration, to sustainably lower it we'd have to reverse our aging population or slash the size of the state. Given how even Hungary and Japan have embraced higher rates of net migration in recent decades, its a harder trade off than the populists consider.
So after 30 years of mass immigration the answer is mass Immigration, millions of foreigners here not working deport.
"Enormous investment is required in the grid, which may end up on household and business’ bills".
All government spending, without exception, ends up being paid for by taxpayers - corporate or individual. And all corporate expenses are eventually paid for by individual citizens too. Just saying.
The cited £65-odd cost of a week's food for a household strikes me as incredibly low. That's less than £10 a day! Decent meat costs, at the very least, £10/kilo - and usually much more. A kilo of meat yields about 1100 calories - about half the daily energy a single adult needs. Divide by two, or more, and meat becomes almost unaffordable. But most common diseases are largely due to nutritional deficiencies - especially protein deficiency.
To get a fully adequate and healthy diet in Britain today would cost at least twice that £65/week. Because most people cannot afford that, the NHS ends up spending extra tens of billions trying to cure the incurable. Astonishing folly!
Note: If anyone has been confused by the way I keep editing this comment, apologies! I got mixed up with weekly and monthly, and the number of people per household.
Your reference to the policies of the present government implies that they have been in power long enough to undo the past 14 years of Conservative led government, which caused and or failed to resolve many of the issues you referenced.
As for Brexit, tweaking intellectual property law isn't going to offset the impact of losing access to one of the world's largest markets (which is famously hardline on anti-trust issues) on our doorstep. Of course that assumes we would have the stomach to significantly diverge from Brussels on regulations (which notable brexiteers Johnson, Truss, Sunak refrained from), owing the fact that the size of the European market means businesses prefer greater alignment with the EU.
Very insightful as always !