Everyone hates Keir. Here’s why

As we write. the current troubles of UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer are profound. One of the reasons they are so bad is that, almost before he took office, almost no one has warmed to him: many evince active dislike. Meaning this serious, intelligent man can draw on no reserves of public goodwill in the way that a more raffish character like say Boris Johnson could. Why?

We think part of the answer lies in this article by Larry Elliott. For it charts Britain’s fall from manufacturing powerhouse to fragile services-led house of cards in a few punchy paragraphs, while noting China’s almost inverse trajectory to high tech manufacturing superpower. How so? Elliott compares the policies of two politicians who took power at around the same time in their respective nations: Deng Xiaoping and Margaret Thatcher. While the former did everything he could to foster manufacturing, the latter, a true disciple of unfettered free markets, believed:

…… market forces should determine which businesses thrived. If Britain excelled in financial and business services……… That’s what the country should concentrate its efforts on, while other nations made the ships and the machine tools

Underwritten by the short term unearned bonanza of North Sea Oil, this catechism was applied unchecked. With the results we see today. No British Government will ever again have the resources to satisfy the clamours of its citizens-for hospitals, for thriving high streets and clean water, nor create the booming economy they crave. But, used to abundant wealth and easy answers, these citizens still think like spoiled heirs burning through the last remains of the family patrimony. So any sensible family lawyer like Starmer, who tries to utter the self-earned nature of their plight, will pass unheeded, or worse, actively scorned. Such people will always prefer a story teller to a truth teller. And for a way forward? Restore manufacturing, to which end Elliott has some policy recommendations of course . But his real answer is psychological, not economic.

The bottom line is that to rebuild manufacturing Britain has to see the world through the prism of a developing country not a developed one.

In other words -forget its pride.

[1] How can Britain regain its manufacturing power? Start thinking like a developing country | Larry Elliott | The Guardian

#economics #UK #China #Deng Xiaoping #Margaret Thatcher #manufacturing #politics

Narco Warriors: brilliant new podcast on the war that’s shaped two centuries

Photo by Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs on Pexels.com

We’ve always been pretty much against the illegal drugs trade, if that is still a safe thing to say. For its reach and power give it the heft of many a nation. Its turnover is estimated to be between $300-$600 billion per year. If you throw in all the deaths-from assassinations, associated diseases and economic disruption, then these at 500 000 a year are more than many nations’ mortality statistics. And like any State, it has organised armed soldiers, trained and ready to kill. No wonder so much effort has gone in to controlling the sale and distribution of illegal drugs since the nineteenth century. when the Chinese attempted to control the illegal importation of opium. Narco Warriors, a podcast series from highly experienced journalist Lindsay Charlton is the latest attempt to chronicle the long decades of this deadly and interminable war.

Charlton and his team of researchers have assembled hardened veterans of the war-customs officers, investigators, police officers- as well as those who operate in its shadowy intelligence led nooks and corners. The listener is taken on a vast sweep of lands and seas, of shootings, confrontations, agency turf wars and many earnest intelligent brave people trying to do the best jobs they can for their countries. And we salute them, above all for their endless dedication to the public good: for its clear that people of this calibre could have made a lot more money a lot more safely in many other walks of life. And there we might end it. Except for one thought, which that old Devil has just come round and whispered into our ear.

What is a drug anyway? If you say that cannabis, cocaine and heroin are highly dangerous and addictive substances, then you must say the same for alcohol and nicotine. But these are sold openly on the streets in many western countries. Indeed the attempt by the United States to prohibit alcohol from 1919 to 1933 was one of the most unhappy and unsuccessful enterprises which that country ever undertook . For one thing, it was an object lesson in facilitating the rise of violent organised crime, a historical irony not without relevance to present policy. The real problem is that the appetite for cocaine, heroin and alcohol are all driven by human demand. Gangsters are simply those capitalists who supply the illegitimate part and operate according to the same laws of supply and demand as their peers in legal sectors of the economy. As for that demand -there is strong evidence that it is fuelled by rampant economic inequality and the associated poor housing and social and economic insecurity which that entails. In which case the State’s resources would be better spent on building homes, schools and raising the minimum wage rather than on all those flashy speedboats and burly types in uniforms. But: society made its choices long ago, and who are we to call them wrong? If you want to know the consequences of those choices, told by the people who were there, then listen to the first episode [1] And all the subsequent ones of course!

[1]https://audioboom.com/posts/8855552-narco-terrorism-the-forever-war

#drugs #addiction #narcotrafficers #law enforcement #police #transport #smugglingm #opium wars

Neo Liberalism to National Market Liberalism: is this a Great Global Transformation?

“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.’”

These words of Ronald Reagan were the best and most concise summary ever of the creed of Neoliberalism, which he shared so avidly with Margaret Thatcher. They called themselves Conservatives: but their belief was utterly radical, dominating all public discourse and transforming the world at least until the Great Crash of 2007-2008.

The radical nature of that transformation is laid out by Branko Milanović in The Great Global Transformation. We have two reviews for you, one via the inestimable Nature Briefing [1] and the other by Ivan Radanović for the equally prestigious London Review of Books [2] As ever we won’t spoil these excellent pieces, humbly begging you to read both. However we could not resist this passage from Radanović’s review. For it highlights the contradiction at the heart of the Reagan led project which would ultimately bring it crashing down:

For Branko Milanović and many others, China is at the centre of the current ideological paradigm shift. China’s rise, enabled by global neoliberalism, also made the end of global neoliberalism inevitable, by growing too big to be integrated into a global order whose rules are written by the US and its allies.

The Chinese saw a blindspot which the complacent westerners had missed: if you build an economy where the private sector is good and the state bad, how do you cope when foreign governments act like private companies? In Britain many utilities privatised by Thatcher are owned by foreign governments: is that Socialism or Capitalism? The shrewd rulers of China simply flipped this conundrum: the State and the Communist Party oversee the activities of a thriving private sector. Is that Socialism or Capitalism? In which case, what do words like “Conservative”, “Liberal” and Neo Liberal” really mean?

Milanović worthily joins a list of critics of the Neoliberal project including Wilkinson and Pickett, Thomas Piketty, and Will Hutton. It is easy to see Neoliberalism’s faults now, but it was very popular once. And before we rejoice its final passing, what follows may be very much darker indeed.

[1]“Nationalism grows on the terrain of never-satiated mass plenty and greed,” writes economist Branko Milanovic in his new book, The Great Global Transformation. Milanovic argues that globalization benefited previously poor populations, notably those in China, and the already rich, but left the middle and lower classes in countries such as the United States behind. The result is “the exponential growth of ‘nationalism, greed and property’”, writes sociologist Roberto Patricio Korzeniewicz in his review. “For Milanovic, greed is the iron cage of our times, and our future is bleak.”

Nature | 7 min read

[2] Branko Milanović – is neoliberalism being replaced by something more capitalist? – LSE Review of Books

The Great Global Transformation: National Market Liberalism in a Multipolar World. Branko Milanović. Allen Lane. 2025.

#politics #economics #Ronald Reagan #free markets #capitalism #socialism #communism

Has Donald Trump just brought a World Government much nearer?

Last year we ran a series exploring the pros and cons of a World Government.(LSS 8 1 25 et seq) The general consensus was that it was a nice idea in theory: but utterly unattainable in practice. And the reason our critics gave was very strong: the incredibly firm attachments of people to their national states, which had served them very well up until now. “Sovereignty-it’s all about sovereignty,” they averred, “the right to make our own laws, and defend our own frontiers.”

The recent actions of Mr Trump in Venezuela have dealt that concept a heavy blow. We are ignorant of Mr Trump’s reasons, and lack the learning to judge the legality or the policy implications of his deeds. We know even less about Mr Maduro and his fitness to govern. But we do know that it is quite easy for a large power to enter the territory of a supposedly sovereign state. To take that state’s leader and to put him on trial for malfeasance in office, as though he were a provincial governor in an empire. And if this can happen to a country the size of Venezuela , it can happen to any nation. We ask: in such circumstances, what use is the concept of sovereignty as a practical guide to human action For all except the three very largest powers, Russia, China and the United States of America.

Citizens of lands with incomplete sovereignty will notice this difference in practice. If a businessman wants a law changed, will he attempt to influence his local government-or save time and address the real centre of power? Will an ambitious lawyer find her career served best in her native province? Or should she change her dress, language and manners to thrive in the Imperial Capital? The same choices will confront many-soldiers, sports professionals, entertainers…..Each choice will weaken attachments to the local, and strengthen the central. It will be slow at first, but the identity and culture of the old nation state will atrophy. At best they will be like the former City States of Italy, Venice and the others, venerable relics of lost dominion. . At worst, quaint tribal lands, endlessly repeating their plays and dances for the amusement of tourists, and selling quaint fabrics and pottery to make ends meet. No doubt ethnic jealousies and wars will flare between them, as they still do in lesser nations in various parts of the world. But these will be essentially tribal, and should suit the dominant Power. For people fighting among themselves can never unite to threaten its overarching force.. But their days of commanding the unconditional loyalties of the brightest, the most hard working, the most ambitious, will be numbered.

We didn’t really believe our World Government theory much ourselves after we wrote it. . But now the number of objections to our theory has suddenly dropped from 193 to 3. Which of that three finally brings it true remains to be seen; but has just become more likely that one of them will.

#united states of america #donald trump #china #russia #venezuela #sovereignty #international relations

Why taxes are good for you #6: The best thing for an Enterprise Economy

As we approach the end of this series, we could not resist two more arguments which have always irritated the “taxes are evil” lobby. If only because we haven’t met one of them who has come up with a convincing counter argument. And the first should be beloved of all: taxes are a superb way to control inflation. As Britain and the US began to gear up for the Second World War the sheer enormity of the spending needed ran the risk of runaway inflation. It was Keynes in How to Pay for the War who saw the answer. Taxes, he argued would not provide the money; they would suck excess cash from everyones’ wallets , thereby keeping prices on a relatively stable trajectory. The US applied a similar philosophy in its own way [1] The economy grew at unprecedented rate, bringing prosperity to all. And there was a an even more significant side effect, which led to prosperity lasting for decades thereafter.

Because in both Britain and the US, vast defence spending contracts generated an equally vast ecology of institutions, government departments, University research labs and the rest. All beavering away at new discoveries, new ideas and shiny technologies. No wonder the years 1945 -1970 are remembered so fondly as times of progress and prosperity . Names like Rolls Royce, Boeing and McDonnell Douglas are just the tiniest iceberg tips. If you want to know more, trying kicking off from the site of the US’ famous famous DARPA[2] a seed bed for an almost fractal cornucopia of new ideas. Even things we use today like GPS, the internet, and advanced semiconductors are all horses from this stable. By contrast, the economic ascendancy of western countries only really declined after the tax and regulation reforms of the Thatcher-Reagan years when Proud Finance finally crushed Humble Industry.

Why does this all work? Because ultimately the State is able to take a risk which private enterprise capital cannot. We don’t blame them: this is not a moral failing, just a question of numbers and distributed risk. Its true that in some countries private banks have a much more supportive relationship with their local industries: but these tend to be lands where such innovations as Regulations and Industrial Planning are celebrated, and not seen as wicked socialist evils. Leave aside the fact that taxes pay for the roads, hospitals and schools which provide entrepreneurs with a ready supply of able workers. Their real benefit is to create a vast pool of opportunity in which enterprise can afford to reach losses and profits in turn, and keep coming back for more. After all-what use is a football club without a League to play in? We will be revisiting these and other thoughts in the last of our series. Hold on to your seats.

[1]https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/wwii-and-its-aftermath

[2]https://www.darpa.mil/research

#fiscal #tax #financialisation #keynes #second world war #inflation #research and development #history #economics

World Government: Great Idea or daft fantasy?

We’ve passed a little time this year discussing the idea of a World Government. In our series which began back in January[1] we looked at the basic idea. Many of the world’s problems, we opined, were transnational: mass migration, climate change and pandemics are only a few. Nation states were no longer big enough to solve these on their own, we said. Or rather, their existence precluded the solutions, in any reasonable time frame, which would permit human survival. We also noted the terrible danger of a World State[2] : that it could quickly engender an tyranny even more terrible than those of Robespierre or Stalin: and this time with no where to escape to at all.

We spent some time discussing the idea both in these pages and with friends and acquaintances. We received some surprising responses. Even some quite hardened nationalists and Europe-bashers thought we had a good idea, but that it was utterly unfeasible in any meaningful time frame. We think that they are probably right. For another trope of these pages has been the depressing tendency of humankind to divide itself in to mutually loathing groups, over issues both large and small. We have looked at the work of thinkers Like Amy Chua , Eric Kaufman and David Ronfeldt{3.4] We looked at studies like the Robbers Cave Experiment [5] which seem to provide the essential psychological underpinning to these writers’ ideas. All of the foregoing made us feel that our sceptics had the point, and that our Big Idea was, if not wrong, then at least hopelessly impracticable.

It is the to the credit of Great Big Ideas that even when wrong, they can point the way to fertile new investigations, if they are catchy enough. No one thinks Henri Pirenne said the last word on Medieval Economics, not Freud on psychiatry. But it was the achievement of these scholars to make their ideas so strong that they challenged further studies, if only because some were so eager to prove them wrong. It is in this spirit that we shall turn to looking at some questions we have raised. Is the Nation State, which has served us so well so far, really constrained ? Can people from different groups and identities not only sink them into a common cause but actually achieve something thereby? These will be some of the the in the months ahead. And while you are waiting, don’t forget: problems like antibiotic resistance, climate change and mass migration will be getting worse.

[1]LSS 1 8 25, 14 1 25 et al

[2] LSS 22 1 25

3 LSS 16 8 20

4 LSS 10 3 21

[5]LSS 1 4 25

#world government #nation state #economics #politics #tribalism #amy chua

Why Taxes are good for you #3: look what happened to China

One of the great disadvantages of low taxes is that you end up getting conquered. As China learned at terrible cost. In the eighteenth century Qing China had been one of the greatest states in the world:, rich and populous, with booming trade, advanced techniques in agriculture, and envied craftsmanship Taxes were low, less than 5% of GDP it is estimated. So was military spending. And there was the problem. For nations in the west, like Britain for example, ran at much higher tax burdens, perhaps 15-20% GDP. With the result that they could pay for vast armies and fleets which captured all the world’s sea lanes and trade routes. It’s true that the most advanced western thinkers were classic Liberals like Ricardo and John Stuart Mill, who loudly proclaimed the virtues of low taxes and a minimal state. It was just that no one serious paid any attention to them. The result that these fleets and armies were eventually flung against China. The resulting Opium Wars were not only one of the most terrible crimes in History, they disgraced and destabilised China until 1949.[1] [2]

It was a lesson the British themselves had to relearn after the rise of Hitler forced them into frantic re-armament after 1937. After nearly two decades of orthodox economics like the Gold Standard and low taxes, suddenly the latter began to rise. Fast. All those Spitfires and cruisers and radar had to come from somewhere. So in 1938 the standard rate of income tax was raised to 27.5% (5s 6d in the pound) to help fund rearmament. A 41% surtax applied to very high incomes (over £50,000 annually), targeting the wealthiest. Other hated impositions like death duties and PAYE *were imposed. And -despite what it says in the Daily Mail-it worked. Not only was just enough done to survive the perilous summer of 1940, by 1944 Britain was the most fully mobilised of all the wartime economies. Pride indeed.

Yet there is a little irony at work here . It is our lived experience that those who most loudly proclaim the greatest patriotism are also those who would avoid paying taxes wherever and when ever possible. It is their right to say such things. But ours also to at least doubt the sincerity of a patriotism which will not pay to uphold that which it professes to adore.

_{*Pay as You Earn}

[1] Thomas Piketty Capital and Ideology

[2] David Ricardo Principles of Political Economy and Taxation

#taxation #economics #liberalism #free markets #imperialism #opium wars #china #britain

Depressing Diptych for November #2:Falling vaccine rates

As the sun sets on the Americas, politically and economically, a new and insidious trend is only going to add to their problems. Read this from the ineffable Nature Briefing: Canada loses measles elimination status

Canada no longer holds measles elimination status after experiencing a cross-country outbreak that has persisted for more than 12 months. By default, this means that the entire Americas region has also lost its status. Infections took hold in undervaccinated Mennonite communities where the COVID-19 pandemic eroded already-shaky trust in the healthcare system — a shared source of recent measles outbreaks in the United States. The number of new cases is going down, but the loss is “a giant wake-up call that we have gaps in our public health infrastructure”, says physician-scientist Isaac Bogoch.CBC | 6 min read

If only it were just them! But it’s now a world-wide trend. According to a recent report by the WHO,[1] Measles cases rose to 10.3 million in 2023, a 20% increase from 2022, with outbreaks intensifying into 2024 and 2025. No less than 138 countries reported measles cases in the past year, with 61 facing large or disruptive outbreaks—the highest since 2019. Meningitis and diphtheria (horrid afflictions) are also re-emerging, particularly in regions with strained health systems and declining immunization coverage. And the causes? Funding cuts and humanitarian crises for one thing Access barriers, especially in marginalized communities, for another But the prime one, and most baffling to us, is our old bugbear: Misinformation and vaccine hesitancy, A fact well illustrated by a similar study from Europe which showed that vaccine hesitancy among adolescents and parents ranges from 12% to over 30%. We invite you to research more, gentle readers.

And so combining with the previous part of our Dreary Depressing Diptych of dispatches (that’s enough D’s-ed) we get a truly dismal picture of this species which has the barefaced cheek to call itself “sapiens.” If an tiger came to you an announced it was was giving up its stripes, you would counsel “don’t do it-if you throw away your principle evolutionary advantage, you will get no dinner!” Similarly if a spider monkey were to forego the use of its tail, or a real spider its web. But humanity seems determined to forego the use of its principal evolutionary advantage, its brain. Palaeontology will record what comes next.

[1]https://www.who.int/news/item/24-04-2025-increases-in-vaccine-preventable-disease-outbreaks-threaten-years-of-progress–warn-who–unicef–gavi

#vaccine #measles #diptheria #medicine #health #childhood disease

Fear, despair and loathing as the last drops of 20th Century Politics drain away

If ever there was a journalist whom we have learned to take seriously, it is John Harris of the Guardian. He it was, along with film-maker John Domokos , who first went round the people in the heartlands of Britain in the 2010s. And thereby revealed the depths of bewilderment, rage and despair that now lurk ubiquitously just below the surface of our national life. “Anywhere but Westminster” they called their work, revealing the deep cleavage between the formal politics of governance and the real feelings of most voters. His article which we riff on for you today, gentle readers is a neuralgically painful contrast between the increasingly empty rituals of the nation’s leaders and an ever more bloody-minded and fractious populace. [1]

Being a thoughtful sort of chap, Harris goes deeper. suggesting that this explains the sudden rise in the fortunes of formerly small parties such as the Greens, Reform, Plaid Cymru and the others. And the agonising decline in the fortunes of those two stalwarts of 20th Century British politics, the Conservative and Labour Parties. He cites the obvious causes- a stagnated economy, changing identities and “the failures of the various administrations that have run the UK since 2008” And this:

The essential point was made a few days before Reeves’s speech by Luke Tryl, the UK director of the thinktank and research organisation More In Common, and someone with an incisive understanding of where we have arrived. “I still don’t think enough people realise how much traditional mainstream politics is in the last chance saloon, in no small part because it can’t be trusted to deliver what it promises,” he said on X.

Why has every single administration failed to deliver the things people want? Governments in the last century used to deliver quite acceptable levels of health, defence, housing and so on.. Here we move beyond Harris (we never put words in others’ mouths) to our own speculations, touched on in our blog Pity poor Rachel Reeves, LSS 23 10 25, and earlier ones in this vein. Remember how we said every nation state, even the richest, are plagued with such debts and poor economies that they no longer have any room to seriously mitigate the lives of their citizens? That the combined weight of investment capital, expressing its power in things like bond and currency markets, could stymie the efforts of any finance minister? Could it therefore be that the Nation State, which has hitherto served us so successfully, is no longer an effective vehicle to manage the the lives of its citizens? It is a terrifying conjecture: for we have no idea of what may replace it. But one thing we do remember: read everything you can lay your hands on about the collapse of Yugoslavia, and what followed.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/09/21st-century-politics-labour-tories-turbulence-green-party-reform

#nation #country #politics #governance #finance #currency market #bond market #populism

Nobel Prize for Economics shows this blog was right all along

Back in the dark days of January 2021, when the world economy was reeling from the savage hit of the COVID-19 pandemic, we published a short blog called How to Get some Free Money(LSS 2 1 21) Everyone at that time was worried about the colossal debts their governments had run up to pay for the catastrophe-were we all to be bankrupt for ever? Our point was that Science and Technology were the key to economic success. Encourage them. and you will grow your way out of debt. However hard a medieval peasant worked and saved he could never hope to achieve the productive levels of a man with a steam driven plough.

How comforting then, to find that better, more profound minds have demonstrated this truth at a Nobel level. By incredibly detailed studies Joel Mokyr, Phillipe Aghion and Peter Howitt [1] have looked at archives, crunched the numbers, weaved out feedback loops and carried out any number of other careful ratiocinations to prove the point. You can read more here [2] if you like graphs and words and things. But for us three things stand out.

There has to be abstract learning first. Many of the ideas and processes that drove the industrial revolution had appeared a hundred years before as the abstruse discoveries of thinkers like Newton and Hooke, which the average man in the street would have called “bonkers!”. There has to be a social ecology of skilled and trained workers, able to quickly deploy and develop the new ideas. In the eighteenth century this meant craftsmen like watchmakers and weavers. Now it means experts in AI and biotechnology. Finally a society must be open to rapid change: and welcome it where possible. For if you do not, someone will rapidly steal your markets with a new idea you could have developed but didn’t, because the old ways were tied and tested(think Kodak and digital cameras) [3]

All of which has relevance now, especially in the United States of America and the UK. In both those countries there is a growing movement to throw over renewable energy technologies and move back to coal and oil as soon as possible. We understand the fears and share some of the nostalgia for a bygone age which the proponents of this U turn so plainly demonstrate, Yet we also recognise that other countries will not. They will adapt clean green technologies rather fast. Not only will this leave the Anglo-Saxon economies hopelessly far behind. Their pollution will also make them a dangerous threat to other places in the world. Places which may seek to shut down that danger by whatever means necessary.

[1]https://www.nobelprize.org/all-nobel-prizes-2025/

[2]https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2025/10/advanced-economicsciencesprize2025.pdf

[3]https://www.forbes.com/sites/chunkamui/2012/01/18/how-kodak-failed/

#science #technology #growth #innovation #digital cameras #renewable energy