[traceroute66]

This reminded me of an article in The Economist published last year, April 2025:

"Zombie politics: how Dead Man dominates British politics"[1]

Two prescient paragraphs related to today's news:

    If British politicians worship voters who are no longer among the living, it is natural that they do the same to a version of the British economy that has long departed. “There are people in this country who love to talk down our manufacturing,” said Sir Keir Starmer, the prime minister, while speaking in Jaguar Land Rover’s (JLR) factory in Birmingham. During the 1970s, one in four people worked in manufacturing, like Sir Keir’s dad, who died in 2018. Now fewer than one in ten do.

    Manufacturing, a small part of the economy, plays a big role in politics everywhere. Britain is no exception. A speech at a JLR plant has become a rite of passage for any leading politician in recent years. Dead Man’s old job comes first for Britain’s politicos. The lives of workers in Britain’s services economy come second. True, manufacturing’s weak performance after the financial crisis is one reason for Britain’s woeful productivity growth. Yet politicians cling on to a primitive vision of it. “He made things with his hands,” said Sir Keir of his father. That modern manufacturing requires oodles of educated workers is ignored. Living graduates play little role in political discourse beyond politicians moaning that there are too many of them. After all, Dead Man did not attend university. Why should his grandchildren bother?

[1] https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/04/09/zombie-politics...

[nialv7]

what a bizarre article, completely disconnected from reality. in what world is manufacturing, a sector that has been neglected for decades at this point, having any sway on politics in Britain.

why does The Economist have so much disdain of manufacturing and people who work in it? look at China, look at their manufacturing industry and what they are able to do with it. then look at the UK, who is struggling to build Hinkley Point C, or HS2 (projected to be the most expensive high-speed rail in the world btw). The Economist is an absolute f*ing joke.

[pjc50]

The point is that manufacturing is a relatively small part of both the economy and the job market; AND the popular view of manufacturing (large plant staffed by a large number of men being the dominant employer of a nearby town or city) doesn't look anything like the reality of modern manufacturing (small run boutique high value stuff like satellites and turbines, highly automated and professionalized, relatively small number of employees).

This leads to stupid decisions like gutting the university sector, which is a major export industry.

[modo_mario]

>The point is that manufacturing is a relatively small part of both the economy and the job market

Yes because the UK is overfinancialised to a ridiculous degree. It has deindustralised in doing so.

>This leads to stupid decisions like gutting the university sector, which is a major export industry.

I'd call it more of a major import industry. At the same time your doctors and such are leaving the country.

Besides, if these are so profitable why are they making the cuts you think? Is it that those degrees aren't exactly paying off in an economy that can't consist of HR departments and other PMC's?

[lysace]

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2026/jul/14/university...

Thousands of university job cuts in humanities and social sciences are creating widespread cold spots for languages, classics and theology degrees, the British Academy has warned.

[...]

The subjects with the biggest staff cuts were social work (-9%), English and classics (both -8%), anthropology (-7%) and linguistics (-6%).

[pjc50]

https://www.centreforcities.org/reader/town-and-gown/univers...

"Universities brought in an estimated £24 billion to the UK economy from abroad in 2022. They provide services (education) to international students who bring money to the institutions from abroad through international fees. These students also bring money to the local economy by spending on goods and services while they are studying"

(presumably there's an attempt to imply that those are bad courses in some way, but you haven't shown your working)

[linksnapzz]

How many destroyer keels has U. Essex laid down this decade?

[t0mpr1c3]

You'll find Colchester lads undeniably tasty around closing time on a Saturday.

[pjc50]

None? That's not really its job?

[RetroTechie]

It's not boutique vs large plant. It's base materials (paper mills, steel smelters, plastic etc) that tend to be low in added value, versus higher up the stack (like your examples) that also tend to be higher in added value.

Most countries didn't care much for the former other than historic reasons, but like the latter for obvious reasons (add £ to GDP).

That's changing due to "sovereignty". You can't build a satellite without metal profiles, wiring, tubes etc. Which requires manufacturing capacity for those. Which requires steel/alu/copper smelters & plastic extruders. Which requires plastic & thus a chemical industry.

This whole 'sovereign movement' is about keeping/bringing back capabilities across the stack which are deemed critical (like steel).

But I suspect there are few (if any) countries that have these dependency chains mapped out in detail.

[gruez]

>in what world is manufacturing, a sector that has been neglected for decades at this point, having any sway on politics in Britain.

Are you confusing the lack of effective interventions with "neglect"? Nearly every administration in the past decade had some sort of an industrial policy, but even though they failed to bring manufacturing back to britain, that doesn't mean "neglect". It just means the forces of globalization is too strong.

[ifwinterco]

The economist is pravda for the global globalist class.

It's not at all surprising that they're hostile to the idea of a nation doing anything to take its fate into its own hands when it comes to supply chains etc.

[linksnapzz]

The Economist is a mouthpiece for the money power, specifically the banking interests of the Rothschild and Cadbury families. The idea of making money by making things (as opposed to arbitrage) is anathema to them.

[gruez]

>The idea of making money by making things (as opposed to arbitrage) is anathema to them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial_stance_of_The_Econom...

They're pro free trade against government intervention. That's not the same as "making things ... is anathema to them". They're for planning reform in uk, to help build infrastructure and homes, for instance.

[linksnapzz]

They're pro-offshoring of any sort of industrial base. Line-goes-up!

[psd1]

It is candid about the negatives of off-shoring. It certainly does have its back foot in economic orthodoxy, but a mouthpiece for the Rothschilds? Read three editions and see if you still think so.

[linksnapzz]

I've read plenty; even aside from their glazing of finance, the unsigned articles & snotty-brit house style are grating.

[owebmaster]

> They're for planning reform in uk

As long as the reform is to cut taxes for the rich

[gruez]

>As long as the reform is to cut taxes for the rich

Source? Strangely "tax" only has one hit within the wikipedia article, and it's not about tax cuts. If it's really such an important part of their editorial stance, you should update the article.

[Chu4eeno]

You are very naive about the neutrality of Wikipedia.

Maintaining the Wikipedia page is part of what any PR/reputation management agency does.

[traceroute66]

> look at China, look at their manufacturing industry and what they are able to do with it.

"look at China" what ? Have you seen the population size of China ? Have you seen the geographic size of China ?

Remember what is often said when Mr Trump talks about bringing tech manufacturing back to the US ....

Yes great idea Mr Trump. But even with the most generously optimistic figures, due to the lack of available workforce and space the US could only ever provide the capacity equivalent to one Chinese manufacturing town of which the Chinese have dozens.

[pjc50]

> Have you seen the population size of China ? Have you seen the geographic size of China ?

British thinking seems to be that because we won the Opium War we should just expect a country with 20 times our population and a vast land area to be poorer, both per capita and in total, than our island, forever.

[psd1]

I think you're ascribing intent to a stochastic outcome.

China's rise comes because it acquired, from inauspicious beginnings, competence at planning an economy.

Britain's decline relative to China comes because it is a democracy - which is to say, vacillating.

Britain has been particularly callow over the part decade, because we indulged ourselves in a bunfight about Brexit to the exclusion of all other concerns. This created a purge of ministerial talent and a sequence of governments primarily occupied with propping themselves up. Elections have been fought on Get Brexit Done and I Would Have A Pint With That Man, not on policy.

The entire edifice is deeply stupid, but it is a stupidity orthogonal to questions of industrial policy. Ministers haven't been in post long enough to reveal any strategy about such.

In a microcosm, the compulsory land purchases were done for HS2 and it was as on-track as infrastructure projects get, when Sunak cancelled half of it, writing off the sunk costs but crippling the long-term value of the project. Meanwhile, China laid more track than the test of the world combined, because it has the will to make large long-term investments.

[lazide]

It did work for awhile though, eh?

[8note]

the US and china are basically the same size geographically though? and the US federally owns tons of land it can create manufacturing cities out of

[traceroute66]

> and the US federally owns tons of land it can create manufacturing cities out of

Ok, being generous and accepting your point at face value ....

What about the people staffing those manufacturing cities ? Is the state creating them too ?

I seem to recall reading somewhere that – at most – the US could "find" 200,000 people for new manufacturing plants.

Sounds about right to me, no ?

I think even with a generous mind the US would struggle to "find" much more than that, let alone getting to or exceeding 1 million which is the value you would need for seriously thinking about >1 manufacturing city.

[nradov]

The US labor force participation rate is currently at a relatively low level. There is plenty of surplus labor available with the right economic incentives.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART

[gruez]

Isn't that just due to people retiring?

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060

[8note]

as far as people go, the US could grant citizenship to all those people its trying to deport?

and there isnt a lack of people that would accept working in one of said manufacturing towns for 10 years or something to get US citizenship?

If manufacturing was a serious problem, the US could definitely solve that problem too.

[flir]

Fishing holds similar role in the UK and France (at least). Tiny components of the overall economy, giant patriotic feels.

I still think some manufacturing is simply strategic, and you should maintain a capability even at a (financial) loss though.

[traceroute66]

> Fishing holds similar role in the UK

Indeed and ironically most British people refuse to eat the species commonly found in UK waters, e.g. mackerel etc.

Because the Brits are so fussy, most fish eaten in the UK has always been imported, e.g. Icelandic cod.

And the fact the UK fishermen were die-hard pro-Brexit is odd given they should have been aware that the majority of their regular catch was sold to EU buyers.

[flir]

> most fish eaten in the UK has always been imported, e.g. Icelandic cod.

Not always (Cod Wars). And our herring catch was once its own industry.

> And the fact the UK fishermen were die-hard pro-Brexit is odd given they should have been aware that the majority of their regular catch was sold to EU buyers.

They thought they'd have a monopoly on those fishing grounds post-Brexit.

[nephihaha]

The problem for them wasn't the sales, it was the catches. The EU was good for farmers, not so good for fisheries. The EU fishing rules meant multiple countries could fish the same grounds meaning overfishing. The UK was much stricter on net sizes than Spain was.

[Chu4eeno]

> The EU was good for farmers, not so good for fisheries.

It was good for industrial farming, not the farmers themselves, one of the big reasons for Norway refusing to join was the impact it would have on farmers.

[goobatrooba]

That seems more a feelings than fact based view. The Norwegian referendum had many reasons, but as for Brexit they were not necessarily based on rational analysis. Norway is nominally independent but in every economic sector, including farming, pretty much integrated with the EU countries.

[nephihaha]

I knew plenty of smaller and tenant farmers who benefitted from the EU. There weren't industrial farms around there.

[NopIdoN]

What, these guys?

https://britishseafishing.co.uk/scottish-black-fish-scandal/

> … rigged scales … secret underground [fish] pipes … extra conveyor belt … allowed up to 70 per cent of their catches to go undeclared

> … spent the money they made through the scam on second homes in Spain and France.

[nephihaha]

That is because fishing has multiple other factors. For one, it is a major component of certain towns and villages, so while it isn't important to big cities, it is on the smaller scale in particular areas. It keeps harbours open and is also a draw for tourists, so I would say it has different implications than, say, shoe manufacturing.

The British chocolate industry was a major employer in some places but has been decimated. British chocolate was certainly not the best in the world but it was better than what it has been turned into in the last few years, thanks to palm oil, international take overs etc.

[goobatrooba]

Well since Mondelez night Caburies, Milka, and other major brands across Europe it has slowly been downgrading their quality. So unfortunately not a purely British problem and even more unfortunately an intentional business strategy by a Swiss conglomerate.

Kind of the best European chocolate option, if you want to avoid the Swiss and don't want to buy the premium for pralines is the JD Gross company which is mainly delivering to Lidl.

[flir]

Fishing tourism?

Like... commercial fishing with a net? Not sport fishing?

[nephihaha]

No, more like people going and seeing a harbour with actual fishing boats in it. It is a pretty sight...

But some do sightseeing trips, diving and sports fishing too.

[flir]

Huh. Would be a bit of a busman's holiday for me, but TIL.

[8note]

in canada at least, you can catch a bush plane out to the middle of nowhere up north at a hunting and fishing lodge for a week.

idk if that counts as sport fishing, or sport sexual assault?

[georgeecollins]

In the US that's farming. The "family farm" which is rare ends up being the justification for tons of agribusiness subsidies.

The good news is the USA produces lots of food.

[jmyeet]

The Economist is a neoliberal dish rag.

There is a completely made up number that is an increasingly large portion of GDP in OECD nations and that number is imputed rent [1]. This is a fictional number that owner-occupiers "pay" themselves to live in their own houses. So as housing prices go up, so does imputed rent. House prices have increasingly become the best vehicle for investment funds because the returns are esentially protected. But none of that produces anything.

The UK in particular has been described as buy-to-let economy.

It doesn't have to be this way. If you limit property speculation then capital will find something else productive to do, like manufacturing. Dish rags like The Economist present it as inevitable that Western nations become financialized. It's simply not true. Look at Germany. Also look at the fact that Germany greatly limits the collaterialization and speculation on property. That's not an accident.

[1]: https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2023/02/14/10-or-gdp-is-...

[greyw]

In Switzerland this fictional imputed rent is actually extremly real. We have to pay taxes as if it was earned income.

So you live in your fully owned flat, pretend to rent it to yourself and then pay income taxes on that amount. The point is your government can make this "fake" value very real.

Luckily we recently voted to abolish this tax so it will be gone in some years. This tax was introduced as an emergency measure in ww1.

[derektank]

It’s only possible for Dead Man valorizing politicians to be elected because much of the electorate worships the same. They all have parents too, naturally.

[traceroute66]

> much of the electorate worships the same. They all have parents too, naturally.

Well, yes. But not many of them worship the generation who were mostly responsible for voting in favour of Brexit (60% support among those aged 65 and over at the time of the vote).

[0x3f]

I think they do, actually. They just have a disconnect about it. But e.g. removing the triple lock is unpopular not just among those of an age to be affected by it.

[pjc50]

The triple lock actually benefits everyone not currently retired, just .. not until they actually retire.

[0x3f]

Only if you assume it's sustainable until you personally die. But that seems in constant question even now.

[pjc50]

This is true, but .. for all retirement planning, you kind of have to assume no-collapse. It's also incoherent to say "the government pays too much attention to retirees" and "I expect to be defrauded by the government when I retire, along with my entire generation, and to be powerless to stop this" at the same time.

[raverbashing]

This sounds good until you run out of steel and out of sellers as well

[mr_toad]

Half of all steel in the UK is imported anyway, and there are many places to obtain it. Unless the UK goes to war with most of the world at the same time, it’s not going to have trouble getting steel.

[pydry]

If there is a large war, those countries will prioritize domestic consumption and the UK will immediately stop being able to produce weapons.

Domestic steel production is an essential element of being sovereign, as opposed to being the handpuppet of a larger power (like the US).

[pjc50]

Now check where the inputs to steel production come from.

The UK built a lot of refining to use local iron ore and coal deposits. It used those deposits. They are now substantially used up. Subsurface mining is uneconomic, and open mining is politically unthinkable.

There is actually a really high quality government review of the whole subject: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/690b868714b04...

Lots of discussion of moving to EAF/DRI from traditional blast furnaces.

[timcobb]

When there's a war and you need sovereignty how would open mining be unthinkable

[RandomLensman]

I don't see how the UK could generally be self-sufficient in any large war.

[nradov]

It certainly wasn't self-sufficient in the last two large wars.

[t0mpr1c3]

Britain's last two territorial conflicts involved the Falklands, and Icelandic fishing ships in the neighborhood of Rockall. I don't recall that third party assistance was required in either dispute, thank you very much.

The US the other hand is always asking for other countries to bail it out of some mess or other.

[illliillll]

The UK has nuclear weapons.

[t0mpr1c3]

The command and control systems are American. The intelligence network is American. The last time the British military acted without US support was Suez. The UK went in on NATO 100%.

France took an entirely different set of conclusions from Suez.

[0x3f]

> If there is a large war, those countries will prioritize domestic consumption and the UK will immediately stop being able to produce weapons.

Same with the iron we'd need to make our own steel.

And a current glut just makes it even cheaper for us to stockpile, vs spending on votes by propping up a failing industry.

[15155]

> Domestic steel production is an essential element of being sovereign, as opposed to being the handpuppet of a larger power (like the US).

How did self-sufficiency shake out for Europe as a whole during WWII?

[georgeecollins]

Really? There is a large war going on right now and the key material is chips. Drone don't use a lot of steel, neither do missiles or modern airplanes.

Yes you need artillery and particularly shells. But you are so much more limited by the capacity of your munition factories that how much steel you have would not be an issue. One of the main things you would need for a new munitions factory is trained workers.

The World Wars were wars of mass mobilization and industrial capacity. People went into the first thinking cavalry was important, the second thinking battleships still mattered. My point is I have no idea what the next great war might be like, but thinking the winner will be who chugs out the most tanks in five years may be looking in the rear view mirror.

[hylaride]

You can't occupy territory with drones (yet). You will need people and moving people in a drone-infested environment will mean protecting them with armoured vehicles. Yes, these vehicles will need enhancements and other new tech to counter drones, but armoured vehicles aren't going away (MAYBE the tank's days are numbered, though).

If you are really interested in this, I highly recommend subscribing to war on the rocks. Their articles and paid podcasts have legit defense industry people publishing studies on this subject. https://warontherocks.com

[georgeecollins]

Thanks, I subscribe.

I am not saying drones are everything. My point is, where is the war in which steel is critical ?

[nradov]

It's a myth that battleships didn't matter in WWII. They ended up being critically important in the Pacific Theater for carrier escort and amphibious fire support. They didn't stop mattering until the widespread deployment of guided missiles and other precision munitions.

[georgeecollins]

They found a use for them but no reason to build anymore.

[timcobb]

Drones are only part of the equation you need to be able to forge things

[KaiserPro]

I mean yes, that makes sense.

But, the issue is about capacity. Steel and metals generally are a core part of the UK economy. Yes we could just buy it all in from outside, but when geopoltics intervenes it leaves us high and dry (see natural gas, chemical production, wire making, transformer making, etc etc)

If we end up in a war, which seems fairly reasonable, then we need to have access to a manufacturing, not only prototypes, but large scale manufacturing. we need not only the machines, but the people, experience and pipelines to keep that working.