"How the UK became one of the poorest countries in Europe"

[user1471452428]

www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/10/uk-economy-disaster-degrowth-brexit/671847/

Article in The Atlantic. When people post about declining living standards, they're often shouted down- but I think it's pretty clear that it is real and here to stay.

Believeitornot,

I do think colonialism has a lot to answer for. I think invading other people's countries is wrong in itself. So you can take that as my answer and stop right there if you like.

I apologise if the rest of my post reads like a bit of a sermon. The point that people tend to make instead of the above is that colonialism is also responsible for any problems that a poorer country may have. Saying that elides a lot of very complicated issues: its truth depends on exactly what was done in which country and how that country responded.

Most successful countries (ie, ones that afford a decent standard of living) tend to have the following things present:

• The rule of law, ie, an independent, non-corrupt judiciary.
• Rulers are easily removed when necessary, and are answerable to the law and the people.
• The state delivers certain basic functions competently.

The reason why I'm making a big deal about corruption is that it undermines all those things. Judges don't hold power to account because they're bribed. Officials who are unfit stay in office for the same reason.

And the state can't deliver services because the money is gone or contracts get obtained by people who have no intention of carrying them out. One of the saddest stories from SA in the last few years was mental health provision. The state outsourced it because it needed to cut costs (guess why?). It granted contracts (again, probably corruption present here) to people who didn't have a clue how to carry them out and didn't intend to. The result was people combined to wheelchairs being locked in garages and left to starve to death. You can try to explain that by reference to colonialism if you like. A simpler explanation is that every country has a proportion of people wicked enough to behave that way, and in certain countries (like SA) they get away with it.

Take the richest countries by GDP per capita right now. Excluding the small economies and tax havens you have:

1. Ireland (colonised by UK).
2. Norway (colonised by Denmark).
3. Switzerland.
4. Singapore (colonised by UK)
5. United States

All those countries have the indicia that I mentioned above, at least to some degree and three of them were colonised. I've excluded the US, even though it was a creation of colonisation itself (a lot of the richest countries fall into this category - in fact I'm from one of them myself).

I suppose my point is this: sometimes people in government and in society just make very bad decisions. If they do, their countries flounder. And while I accept that all decisions are made in a context, that shouldn't obscure that they should have been made differently despite that. South Africa has certain advantages that it inherited from the colonial state: one is an independent judiciary - Zuma for example got committed for contempt of court - and another one was functional, although limited, public service. But successive governments in SA have governed badly, and we now see the result. "But colonialism" is an extremely self-serving argument in the mouths of a lot of people who need to stop stealing from their fellow South Africans. If apartheid can be blamed for this, perhaps it's because it has provided a convenient excuse for a lot of very bad behaviour.

I really detest the way people like Johnson and Cummings (and Trump and Zuma) behave and I don't want them anywhere near power because they believe laws are for the little people. A lot of poorer countries round the world are very good examples of what this can lead to, and in my view it has nothing to do with colonialism and everything to do with self-entitlement.

@BerriesOnTop - one more thing about this comment of yours: “Generally that’s about denying taxes to your country of residence, not (as PP contended) going to another country, ‘raping’ it of resources (a really crude and totally unnecessary way to put it) and leaving.” I think you are failing to acknowledge where tax avoided money comes from - it does come from the human, natural or other resources of the country from which it has been removed, very much to the harm of that country.

Tax evasion and illicit removal of funds through money laundering, which the UK has very much knowingly facilitated through the City of London, property investments, etc, has very much come from the exploitation of the natural resources of countries also (eg Kazakhstan, or South Africa, or Russia, to name a few resource rich, corrupt countries the majority of whose citizens don’t actually benefit as much from the massive resources to be found in their countries as you would expect). This money has enriched the West and also a lot of individuals. Companies likewise being used as vehicles to siphon off wealth. The individuals, unfortunately, are often the leaders of those countries. They are not friends of the West, though, and would very much be dumped once their resources have dwindled and no more profit can be made from them.

In a great many ways, globalisation is a good thing - trade is a good thing - but the fact is, it is not benign, the wealth is not fairly distributed and it has accumulated dangerously in the hands of people more interested in using it to retain or increase their power and wealth and in keeping a stranglehold over others than they are in the fate of the rest of the world around them; or in crushing the competition through fair means or foul so as to maximise corporate and personal profits simply for profits’ sake, again without having any great interest in the wider consequences of this myopic behaviour (unless actually directed to take an interest in it through effective legislation - which is very hard to achieve when companies are global, not local, as they can and do move bases to avoid inconvenient legislation or taxation, thus gradually forcing everything down to the corrupt, lowest denominator of just chasing the money for money and power’s sake, particularly when the natural resources needed are coming out of corrupt countries, so tainting everything from the start).

What we need now is for countries to recognise we are in such a dire situation that we need to co-operate more effectively, but we are fast heading in the opposite direction - a desperate scramble to shore up dominance, or gain pre-eminence, or desert the sinking ship in the hope we are the ones to escape in the only lifeboat, leaving the others behind.

Really not understanding this romantic pining for the EU.

While wages are generally higher in the EU (often driven by complex industry specific collective agreements), so are taxes, particularly social taxes. Health is free at source (for the most part) but heavily subsidized by employers either through social tax or mandatory health insurance. Employers bear the higher brunt of cost, along with social protections embedded in labour law. There is no ''free pass'' for migrants - unless they are EU migrants, in which case they simply receive the same social protection offered by the member state to nationals. Like it or not education is better in the EU, standards are higher, our population is not as skilled as that of other countries. Employers have to subsidize the state.

The UK is totally different. We historically subsidized low wages for both nationals and migrants (migrants less so now due to changes to immigration legislation). UK employers were able to deepen wage stagnation through relying on ''cheap labour'' from the EU knowing their income would be subsidized. No incentive whatsoever to address depressed wage, only make more profit. Health care is 'free' at source to everyone be it national, migrant, visitor (ok technically not free to visitors but the UK lacks a mechanism to effectively recover costs..), funded by N.I, which conceptually is fine but falls foul of wage stagnation - i.e. the lack of wage group stymies revenue to fund so cost outstrips need, hence the UK has to dip into tax revenues. An aged population, coupled with not insignificant economically inactive population simply compound. Employees have to subsidize the state in the UK.

The 2 were entirely incompatible. Taxes are high because the public purse has to pay for all this therefore relies on a shrinking population to cough up for paying for everyone else. The EU is not as pretty a picture as people might like to believe, they have their own very deep issues which don't show any sign of improving - you only have to look at recent election outcomes to appreciate the sentiments across Europe.

Love or hate Boris, the vision of a Singapore style economy was a good one. There will however be no change while people continue to hark after the EU. The UK's future is not in bed with the EU.

“the vision of a Singapore style economy was a good one.” Absolute bollocks. The UK is not a City state and could and will never therefore be like one.

People choose the examples to quote. So I choose Zimbabwe, because I know quite a few white refugees from Zim. It was, by a country mile, the richest and best run country in Africa with both agricultural and mineral riches in abundance that had everyone employed and fed. But Mugabe's seizure of power drove out the people who knew how to keep it humming along to grab the land and hand it to people who didn't know how to farm or mine, unless they were told what to do. And now, it is a catastrophe: people starve, there's rampant crime and corruption, tourism has gone, the environment and wildlife is being sacificed and the government is led by a dictator. Great result"!

Singapore government also owns 95% of land and therefore can build flats to sell to its citizens. So it is actually very interventionist, it's method of 'welfare' is by subsidizing healthcare, housing for the masses rather than just the poor. The government flats are therefore occupied by the middle classes as well which is why they don't need to invest so much in welfare...

@socialmedia23 thank you for highlighting some of the reasons why I say emulating Singapore wasn't a bad idea. Everyone in the UK talks about levelling the playing field - isn't that precisely what Singapore has achieved and why so many are highly educated etc? Whether it's a framework that could be replicated in the UK is another matter. Either way they are doing something right..

We historically subsidized low wages for both nationals and migrants (migrants less so now due to changes to immigration legislation). UK employers were able to deepen wage stagnation through relying on ''cheap labour'' from the EU knowing their income would be subsidized. No incentive whatsoever to address depressed wage, only make more profit

No actually evidence for that & we have had income support since the early 70s - long before EU migration.

Wages stagnated after the GFC of 2008, they were fine before that.
Then followed 12 years of on going austerity and very low inflation and zero or low public sector wage rises, private industry had no reason to pay more than the public sector did they?

Now we have no EU migration & mass labour shortages, 240k in healthcare alone, yet still, on average less than half the inflation rate wage rises, almost exactly the same as when inflation was 2%, we got 1% wage increases

Govt still making sure wages stay below 4/5% despite inflation being driven by import costs.

Unfortunately, now, we are heading for low wages and reduced worker benefits and protections plus higher inflation and shortages, part driven by Brexit.

Wanting the UK economy to be like Singapore is silly, you may as well say the UK should be like Monaco.

Being in the SM is like having 4 USA trade deals but without the transport costs, only an idiot wouldn't want this and yes i inc Labour in that too.

@Pinkyxx you can 'level' the playing field in a city like London by simply investing a lot of money in state schools. It's why there are more Oxbridge acceptances in 1 tower Hamlets school full of kids from deprived backgrounds (Brampton Manor) than Eton. It's because those kids could have access to the same universities and jobs as long as you invest the cash, they get the grades/work experience and the employers are willing to hire them; my DH worked in the City while living with his mum in the first few years for example. It was the same in singapore- the government invested a lot in education and public transport infrastructure as well as secure homes for the masses.

How is a poor kid from the north supposed to get a job in the City? He would have to move to London and pay high rent. And once he leaves, it's a brain drain. Singapore is not really a country, it's a big city like London. If London was a country, it would be very wealthy and have far better public services and more money to invest in its poor as London would not need to subsidize the regions. We could probably pay less tax.

@Believeitornot

Fully agree. Student accommodation is another. Lots of blocks being built backed by financiers, with the Govt paying rents via student loans that the Govt will end up covering in lots of cases for low earners. Another nice little earner for the financiers.

Just going back to this one as you appear to suggest that British colonisation of Ireland helped Ireland?

Ireland was always a very self contained land. It never had poverty. What do you believe British colonisation of Ireland achieved for the Irish people?

Ireland was invaded by many people. The only ones who didn't invade really were the Romans. Interestingly the only country that the Romans invaded but didn't conquer is Scotland.

This is who has invaded Ireland.

The term Invasion of Ireland can refer to several attempted invasions of the island of Ireland including:
Lebor Gabála Érenn, The Book of Invasions, describing mythological conquests of Ireland, anonymously compiled in the late 11th century.
Viking invasions of Ireland (8th–11th century).
Norman invasion of Ireland led by the Earl of Pembroke, supported by King of Leinster, Dermot McMurrough (12th century).
Scottish invasion by Edward Bruce (1315–18).
English invasion of Ireland (1399), invasion by Richard II following which he was deposed by Henry IV
Tudor conquest of Ireland, invasion begun by Henry VIII of England after he was declared King of Ireland (16th century).
Spanish Landing in Ireland by Habsburg Spain During the Nine Years' War (October 1601)
Cromwellian conquest of Ireland, invasion of Ireland by English Parliamentarians during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms (1649–53).
The Expédition d'Irlande by the French First Republic (December 1796).
The French invasion of Ireland during the Irish Rebellion of 1798.
Operation Green, planned but ultimately postponed and then cancelled invasion by Nazi Germany during World War II.

The ones who we got on best with were the Spanish, the Vikings and the Danes.

You'd be very silly to discount the fortitude of spirit of the Irish people.

The Irish and Scottish are predominantly Celts.

Not one British invader treated the Irish with dignity. They raped, pillaged, murdered, tortured and plundered. That history remains in every Irish person's soul. It passes down subtly in what is not mentioned from your parents.

800 years of subjugation and now Ireland is a world-renowned safe and stable economy. For the people who lost their lives during 8 centuries, it's not much consolation.

Mind you. the Danes and the Vikings weren't the best either, though they did remain and marry with the beautiful Irish lasses so we have excellent genes and a warrior soul.

The Spanish Armada helped the Irish out too which is why some of us have colouring that isn't Celtic.

The Irish have a very clear identity. If you don't know what that is, ask me.

I didn’t actually read anything in TomPinch’s post that suggested Ireland had benefited from British colonisation - in fact the opposite. The post points out that Ireland became a successful, independent country despite colonisation, not that previous colonisation helped it in any way. The post does, however, imply that South Africa benefited from colonisation by inheriting “advantages” created by its colonisers, but that it has squandered these through corrupt leadership. I do detect a humongous hint of racism in that, as it doesn’t actually address the huge differences in the way different countries were colonised; or how, when, how quickly and on what terms they achieved independence; or in the histories and economic and social structures of the countries prior to and during colonisation. To imply that one colonisation was pretty much like another and thus attempt to make sweeping statements about previously colonised countries in general, and whose fault any subsequent post-colonial events are, is somewhat obtuse. Yes, of course South Africa’s current leadership is to blame for a lot of its current problems, but it is equally self-serving to imply it’s effectively all their fault because they inherited a lot of “advantages” from their colonial overlords.

What a lamentable misreading of my posts. Pretty disappointing as I took some time to make them.

I was responding to the claim that colonialism keeps countries poor. I said no, poor governance - chiefly through corruption - keeps countries poor.

I pointed out as proof that countries that have the institutions that ensure good governance - ie, rule of law, answerable rulers and decent public administration, are all prosperous, even though some of them were previously colonised.

Ireland is a rich country because it has been governed well for decades. South Africa is becoming poorer because it is poorly governed and increasingly does not have those things.

I should probably stop here given that the above responses don't suggest people were concentrating very hard before they responded, but I will continue. I did say that post-apartheid South Africa did inherit certain advantages, like an independent judiciary. My point is not that South Africa benefitted from colonialism in that or any sense. The point is that it had those advantages and increasingly does not because it's wrecking them. It's just no good accusing me of making sweeping comments about colonialism. I was the one who said that colonialism differed from place to place and that you can't make sweeping statements about its effects. In contrast, you can make more generalisations about the standard of a country's governance and that is my point. I don't see any racism in that and to describe the points I make as obtuse or racist is, frankly, not engaging in what I said.

Similarly I could point out that Ireland's political system uses a parliamentary model derived from the UK and also uses common law. The point is that those things work for Ireland, not that its colonial masters graciously bestowed them on Ireland.

I could talk a great deal about how apartheid did (entirely negatively) affect South Africa but that is a separate point and one entirely irrelevant to this thread.

@TomPinch - any lamentable interpretations come from the lamentable post. I can see what you meant to say, but tbh, whilst you made a few comments which paid lip service to the fact that every country is different, you then went on to list several countries with massively different colonial histories and resources as a general point that having been colonised doesn’t prohibit a country from becoming rich (no point mentioning their colonial past otherwise…) - a bit odd when you say you were not generalising (and surely completely irrelevant unless you were generalising). You also said about corruption in poorer countries, “in my view it has nothing to do with colonialism and everything to do with self-entitlement.” That is also a massive generalisation and an all or nothing claim, what’s more. Corruption does not just require the bad actors, it also requires the right circumstances for the bad actors to gain pre-eminence. Trump, Johnson, Hitler, Bolsonaro, Putin, etc, are representative of their times. Opportunists like this need certain circumstances to be able to gain a foothold, or worse, a stranglehold, over a country. So if you cannot see that a colonial past can very much have had a role in the development of the corrupt present, then I can only conclude that you are indeed generalising, rather than looking at specifics.

The British seem to find immigrants to be something of a problem. They however, were immigrants in half of the world they violated for centuries. And not hardworking ones either!

Nobody wants anything to do with the British anymore. There's no goodwill left. There never was. Don't mistake slavery and tortured obedience to cruelty as loyalty to the Crown.

What has colonialism ever added to anywhere?

Colonialism appears to have two results for the chatterati in Britain.

1. if a country that it colonised turns out to be very successful, there is envy and often a desire for revenge. See Ireland and the ease with which for example, the Northern Ireland Protocol is being abandoned for the sake of a few Unionist votes to the detriment of both NI and ROI.
2. If a country it colonised turns out to be a basket case, it is criticised with derision and a fair sprinkling of racism. The natives couldn't possibly rule properly without us kind of thing.

Ireland is a mystery to most British. Probably because very little of Irish/British past and recent history is on the curriculum. But the WAR... oh yeah bring it on and carry on.

Quite a lot to the country doing the colonising 😉. To be fair, colonisation was not a British invention, @TheNosehasit - you listed a lot of colonisers of Ireland, for example. And tbh, I can’t help thinking of the Monty Python Life of Brian question, “What have the Romans ever done for us?”

I totally agree with this. In the town where I live, the area with the grand Victorian houses was built by industrialists that owned large manufacturing businesses and employed lots of people.
Those same houses are now lived in by doctors, head teachers, solicitors and we'll paid public servants.
This is not sustainable and is a window into the UK's national debt.

Invaded. Most fucked off and didn't outstay their welcome! 😂

There's a difference.