We've been in a slow decline since WW2 and the end of Empire. Your analysis is pretty good; Thatcherism and Blairism were both about selling off all the government assets to cover up this decline, and once the assets are gone (to the extent that the health service no longer owns the hospitals it runs) nor the education service its schools), the sums stop adding up and there is "austerity". I see no prospect or serious plan for recovery, because xenophobia, which has been promoted and exploited by the right wing makes the obvious need for immigration impossibly unpopular.

There is a widespread sense of disaffection where I live, out in the sticks. The prime minister has a negative approval rating. The electoral system gave Labour a landslide, but oddly enough, they got less actual votes in 2024 than in 2019 - 9708mn versus 10269mn - because there was a low turnout (around 60% of the 'electorate' voted, and it's widely believed that a growing proportion of the population don't register to vote).

Quite disturbingly, the new incumbents don't seem to be bringing with them a sense of stability and competence. I am biassed, as a Green Party member of long standing! But the rule of the Conservatives was much more disturbing: wildly inept and very mendacious. They presided over a big increase in immigration yet made that an issue to be fought over by creating 'illegal migration' and stigmatising the poor devils who cross the English Channel in boats, while welcoming the bankers IT gurus and marketeers with open arms.

I don't know how this widespread sense of disaffection might change. The proposed economic policies seem like Blairism without the resources, using private capital that imprisons future revenue in repayment of loans, whether directly or through what un mentions, the disposal of community assets to private companies.

Is it your view that the current Labour party is no longer really a Labour Party (like New Labour before it), just a managerialist, neo-liberal entity which obediently services the status quo?

Thank you @unenlightened and @mcdoodle for your good comments.

But the rule of the Conservatives was much more disturbing: wildly inept and very mendacious. — mcdoodle

How the Conservative party went through Prime Ministers was astounding. The inside bickering of the party was something that I've not seen a major ruling party doing ever.

We've been in a slow decline since WW2 and the end of Empire. Your analysis is pretty good; Thatcherism and Blairism were both about selling off all the government assets to cover up this decline, and once the assets are gone (to the extent that the health service no longer owns the hospitals it runs) nor the education service its schools), the sums stop adding up and there is "austerity". — unenlightened

It really seems so. One is simply the lack of long term investments, which would need simply a vision of what the UK would be. But that hasn't happened. I think this commentator nicely sums up the "short terminism", which does explain a lot:



Yet I think there's more to it than just not looking further. We have to ask just why it is so. Why is there no enthusiasm for "Great Projects" in the UK? It seems that the UK government has lacked plans that would in the be grandiose and risky. The liberalism (Thatcherism) would state that it's the best thing for the government to stay away and let the private market work it's wonders. Many times it simply doesn't go like that. China, South Korea, Taiwan and the US haven't had their governments sitting on the backseat waiting for the "private sector" to do everything. Yet when the government is active, then there has to be a vision (or a threat, which mobilizes the country).

It really has to do with the loss of Empire. I think there's something absolutely fascinating in the UK of how the loss of the Empire has had this kind of deep traumatic experience where country hasn't been able make large long term investments or have grand visions... like the French. What has been great and a gift to the World is how British can laugh at this, starting from Monty Python, but also with one of my favorites of "Yes, Minister" and the follow up "Yes, Prime Minister". Jim Hacker (played by Paul Eddington) and Sir Humphrey (played by Nigel Hawthorne). Yet even this political parody clearly showed how the UK government isn't thinking of grand new designs and huge infrastructure projects. It's just about handling the next crisis that comes in from the door. Yet with it's huge financial sector, the UK could easily done what Germany and France did. Let's just remember that after the war, those two countries were in a far more devastated situation.

This lack of the British government being capable of long term thinking can be seen from many examples. First example (that comes to my mind) is just how differently the UK and Norway approached the North Sea Oil when it was found. The UK basically used the money, the Norwegians put even a philosopher to think about it and made the decision to put the revenues in a Sovereign Wealth Fund and use only the interest of the Fund. Hence all the money is still there with Norway and with this policy, the small country avoided the Dutch Disease, which actually Venezuela is the perfect example. Now Norway produces far more oil and gas than the UK.


But there are other examples.

First, there's the strange example of the British space program: the British rocket Black Arrow and the satellite Prospero. The UK government saw as the program as too costly and simply didn't think that launching satellites wouldn't be what it in reality came to be: a very lucrative market. So as the space program was cancelled. The program had a rocket and a satellite ready didn't know what to do, so they launched the satellite in 1971 from Woomerang, Australia. The Black Arrow rocket functioned perfectly as did the satellite, which then was operational until 1973, after which it was contacted annually for over 25 years.

(The launch of the Black Arrow rocket in October 1971, notice that the British rocket's technology is different from American and Russian rockets as it doesn't create the plumes of smoke as they do, hence the technology was actually really British.)


To cancel a totally working space program, leave the field of commercial satellite launches to others and then to use foreign missiles (Trident missiles were made by American Lockheed) show this utter lack of vision. You can really see the effect of the well known mantra that was told in the late 20th Century: "Only the Superpowers can afford a space program". France didn't go this way, it stick with it's space program which totally functioning today. It's submarine launched nuclear weapons are French made, and overall France has a smaller defense budget than the UK, yet has larger armed forces. And btw the US Trident missiles have had problems in test firings. What is left of a British space program, well, there was the Beagle 2 that did manage to get to Mars, but couldn't then contact Earth. The small space probe is a fitting example where the UK is. There would be obviously the talent, but there isn't much investment.




Space programs still even today demand high tech and investment, that a functioning program tells a lot of the economy of the country.

So, what I can infer from the posts by other members and yourself is that conservatives went too far? From what I understand its not the conservatives, per se; but, the third way politicians? Does that seem accurate?

Where is the UK going? — ssu

Down economically, maybe Up in terms of politics (although the latter will not come into meaningful effect anytime soon). I think having a more diverse choice in terms of parties will help matters in the future ... I am talking more long term though.

Note: I do not follow economic growth, trading and such things. My perspective is merely one from a distance based on firsthand experience with a focus on the 'politics' of the country.

So, what I can infer from the posts by other members and yourself is that conservatives went too far? From what I understand its not the conservatives, per se; but, the third way politicians? Does that seem accurate? — Shawn

It's the common way to seek culprits, but I try to go a bit further here than just say that politicians have made lousy decisions. The question is why the lousy decisions. And why as @unenlightened put, has the UK been in slow decline since WW2.

Even if the Conservative Party has dominated the politics of post-war UK, there has been the Attlee administration, Wilson and Callaghan administrations and the fifteen years of Blair and Brown. So the Labor party has had it's share in power here.



It's noteworthy to understand that Labor, basically representing Social Democracy in the UK and the Conservative Party representing the right aren't so far off and different in the end. Present day Social Democracy has totally accepted capitalism and only views to regulate and "curb the excesses" of capitalism. The Conservatives on the other hand have basically accepted all the objectives that the Social Democratic movement pushed for in the 19th Century. And this causes some people to look for alternatives in the extremes as the two major parties have become closer to each other (and the outcome has been disappointing). For example in Sweden the Social Democrat party has practically dominated Swedish politics throughout the 20th Century and the 21st, yet Sweden is still a capitalist country. It may have the welfare state, but it isn't socialist (as let's say Venezuela or Cuba).

Hence if you ask "if the conservatives went too far", the real question is if in the long run would it have been different with more labour governments? The UK has seen it's share of nationalizations and privatizations. The UK was the first industrialized country and was the largest industrialized country in the 19th Century. This creates the situation where modernization is a problem. When the industry and infrastructure is already there, you can lean on the existing industry and infrastructure. Perhaps for far too long.

Take for example the British Rail system, which has been nationalized and then privatized again. This is what the rail system looked like in 1900.



Then in 1963 and 1984:


This is what the British rail system in 2010 (for England and Whales), which is quite similar to present:


When you have already a huge network, then issue isn't building something totally new, it's about modernizing. And a lot of lines have been shut down, even if now more people than ever are using rail. And with modernizing there's always a catch: if it works, why modernize it? You can put forward modernization plans. That the UK doesn't have a high speed rail network (with the exception of the tunnel link to France) as Italy, Spain, France and Germany have is telling.



Would this be really different without the Conservatives? Naturally it's an alternative history question, which you cannot answer, but perhaps puts these issues beyond party politics.

Europe, including Britain, is heading for a new dark age, mainly because its political elites are too corrupt and incapable to adjust to a world that is rapidly changing (and not in their favor).

Eventually, the situation will become so dire that change will be imposed from the bottom up in a political (or perhaps an actual) 'revolution'.

At that point, the old structures inherited from the period of US hegemony will be done away with, and something new will take its place that is probably more capable of adapting to the new global state of affairs.

i can't say I yearn for high-visibility symbolic projects, though I do yearn for the lost oil riches of the 80s'. One thing we're not mentioning is the unravelling of Thatcherite reforms from the 80's:

- privatisation of water is now a big issue since the 'owners' keep discharging shit into rivers and beaches while taking their dividends and loading up their companies with debt.
- the 'right to buy' for social housing tenants has distorted the housing market and the British middle class regard their homes as 'assets' which are supposed to keep appreciating
- privatisation of rail (1990s) has long been a mess and the Tories initiated a de facto renationalisation, which Labour are putting on a formal footing
- the UK has become a startlingly corrupt place. E.g., Billions vanished into the pockets of friends-of-Tories during Covid; housebuilding and weapons manufacture are often riddled with bribery; social housing in some areas is largely occupied by illegal sub-tenants. The mood is exemplified by the new PM obviously not realising that accepting freebie clothing and football tickets might be regarded as dodgy.

Even if the Conservative Party has dominated the politics of post-war UK, there has been the Attlee administration, Wilson and Callaghan administrations and the fifteen years of Blair and Brown. So the Labor party has had it's share in power here. — ssu

What has changed though is trade union power. The Wilson era was the last one in which the unions held huge power and influence on policy of either party. Unions were a strong force for raising the living standards of the poor, but also a strong drag on innovation and modernisation. Socialism grows in the big factories the coal mines, steelworks, the docks, shipbuilding where collective solidarity can develop. In agriculture, tourism, catering, everyone is too spread out and isolated for it to happen.

I think you are also right that the waste of oil revenues massively contributed to the decline of manufacturing, but the unions helped too by opposing all change. Until the Winter of Discontent, followed by Thatcherism, and the great sell off.

What has changed though is trade union power. The Wilson era was the last one in which the unions held huge power and influence on policy of either party. Unions were a strong force for raising the living standards of the poor, but also a strong drag on innovation and modernisation. — unenlightened

This is a very good observation. Trade unions have had (and have) both positive and negative effects. Rise of Thatcher has to viewed upon the events of the 1970's and events like "Winter of Discontent". If a trade union (or group of them) gets into the situation that it can literally stop the economy, it will use this power. On the other hand, if the impact of trade unions are minimal or diminishes to being nearly non-existent, things like real wages and workers rights do suffer.

It's totally understandable that it was especially the coal miners that were striking as basically the whole sector simply closed down. Prior to WW2 the coal mines employed over 1 million people and the UK got it's energy from coal. It should be observed that the largest decrease happened in the 1960's and early 1970's, far before the political fight with Thatcher. That the coal mining industry basically went away cannot be just blamed on Thatcher.



Again, this isn't just Thatcherism or something unique to the UK. The drawdown of German and French coal production has been actually similar. In the US the turn out from coal happened only later. (And btw the following graph below puts into perspective the use of fossil fuels when coal is mentioned)

- the 'right to buy' for social housing tenants has distorted the housing market and the British middle class regard their homes as 'assets' which are supposed to keep appreciating — mcdoodle

This is one very British thing: Britons live in very old housing and the production of new housing is very little. Seems to be lot of red tape. Someone could say that one of the objectives is to keep housing prices high in order that there's no trouble to the financial sector. Influx of immigrants won't ease the situation. And the financial sector is the one thing, the last thing that UK has going for it.

Today, the UK banking sector already consists of around 450% of nominal GDP on a residency basis, up from around 100% in 1975. The UK has the largest banking sector, on a residency basis, out of the US, Japan and the 10 largest EU countries.

Hence the last thing that the UK would want to come it's way is a global financial crises (again). It wouldn't just hit the fat cat financiers in the City, it would hit those who are already hit by the current hard times.