IT Support on "The "Economist" and Britain’s future"

IT Support — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:02:48 +0000

I notice that <a href="http://www.wavex.co.uk">IT Support</a> is becoming a big thing.

m.k.jones on "The "Economist" and Britain’s future"

m.k.jones — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 14:15:25 +0000

Just read Christopher Harvie's article. It might be more persausive if he tried to, well, *persuade* us. Take this sentence:

"But the United Kingdom depends on the international financial disorder that wrecks other polities to colonise London, aided by chancellor Gordon Brown as "useful idiot"."

What does this gibberish mean? *What* financial disorder? Where? Which "polities" is he referring to? How can "financial disorder" colonise anywhere? Is he referring to banks? In what sense is the UK dependent on this disorder? Why is Gordon Brown a useful idiot?

The whole article reads like this. A mish- mash of half understood slogans underpinned by trendy "anti- capitalism" but no real argument. The Economist may be wrong but it deserves better arguments.

alfredo.bremont on "The "Economist" and Britain’s future"

alfredo.bremont — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 23:26:21 +0000

the problem globalization has is that it is misunderstood. the fact is the system needs mending, the problem is the same system is indicating what to do to mend it. the result is 99% of politicians individuals and the lot are plain idiots. therefore they do not perceive anything they are just blind. global warming is one example, wars are another. it is not the capitalist system that is at fault it is the humans that are running it. those inept politicians and CEO worldwide. a change of consciousness is a must but the brand new billionaires and their slaves have perverted everything we know from arts to philosophy everything has become a commerce, they have destroyed art created icons that are worth millions but has no essence and are useless. they have put aside the real philosophers writers and thinkers and have replace them by mere idiots. they have brainwash citizens so they do not think they just react to publicity, news and the political dictum. people do not even know any longer who they are they have become IPODS themselves. cellular phone addicts, and brainless.

all this as they say is progress. Britain looks more like a middle age nation were slaves work 11 hours a day to have ends meet, while bankers get millions as bonuses. this admirable society of newly idiotic royalties without names whiteout culture and whiteout sens.

the capitalist system is dieing because this idiots have destroy it.

the change is simple change this golden boys and put in place the real men. destroy this animal farm created by wall street and its cronies and life will evolve at least Britain will join in the 21 century gracefully.

The "Economist" and Britain's future, Isabel Hilton

Fri, 02 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0000

Imagine the scene: the CEO is setting off on a business trip to a country of which he (or, rarely, she) knows little. In the hand-luggage is a briefing for the flight, selected reading that is likely to include the most recent report on that country from the Economist magazine, the weekly vade mecum of the global business classes. For the magazine (or "newspaper", as it styles itself), such special reports are a hybrid exercise - partly a service to the reader, partly bait for advertisers. The visiting businessman is likely to judge them at face value - as the comprehensive, thoroughly researched and judiciously presented material that the editors claim.

Isabel Hilton is editor of openDemocracy

The Economist report, "Britannia redux", is published on 2 February 2007

The Economist's self-declared aim since its founding in 1843 has been to take part in "a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress"

The Economist rarely produces such reports on Britain, technically its home base, despite the fact that a majority of its readers are based outside the United Kingdom and might be judged in need of the magazine's briefing on the arcane habits and political prospects of the British. "Britannia Redux", an account of the state of Britain after a generation of globalisation and on the brink of a change in political leadership, is therefore an event sufficiently rare that openDemocracy is prompted to ask: how accurate and comprehensive a picture does it present? We invited openDemocracy's writers to comment and we shall be publishing their responses.

First, though, a brief summary of the Economist's findings.

Britain, the magazine argues, has done well out of globalisation because the twenty-five years of profound policy changes that began under the government of Margaret Thatcher have produced a flexible and competitive economy, albeit in a more unequal society.

Britain was well placed to take advantage of globalisation because it has one of the world's most open and flexible economies, scores high on both inward and outward investment, embraced outsourcing and off-shoring and benefited from thriving and deregulated financial markets. Early restructuring eliminated much of the manufacturing base, but the manufacturing that survived - much of it in aerospace, pharmaceuticals and other high-tech sectors - was able to withstand the competitive pressures that globalisation brought.

But is that early success sustainable? The Economist points to a number of weak points:

a trend towards increasing red tape and rising taxes

an education and skills deficit, along with underfunded universities and underperforming schools

an increasing challenge from Indian and Chinese graduates

a growing social malaise that reflects a lack of social cohesion, insecure employment, a widening wealth gap and dislocation caused by inward migration.

In addition, the report argues, Britain's relative economic prosperity under Labour has been helped by three factors that will not continue indefinitely - a debt-propelled consumer boom sustained by rising house prices, the influx of migrant workers, and government spending that is running well above the rate of economic growth. In addition, the UK continues to perform poorly in productivity (which the Economist reluctantly concludes is largely a management failure) and is running a current-account deficit that could become a problem.

The report sees little to worry about in the performance of the financial and services sector, but warns that four trends could make globalisation falter: a surge in terrorism, concern about global warming, worldwide resource nationalism and a domestic backlash by people in rich countries. It offers little prescription for these potential ills, preferring to speculate on any future change of direction under prime minister Gordon Brown - little change is anticipated - and on the continuing deficiencies of the British education system. This fails, the Economist says, in the following respects:

it does not achieve a balance between technical and academic skills

it does not have a valued system of vocational training, and therefore does not produce people with mid-level skills

one-third of pupils leave school with no formal qualifications, and an alarming one-sixth leave functionally illiterate.

In all these respects, Britain is outperformed by countries as diverse as Ireland and South Korea, despite a doubling of spending per head under the Labour government. The report notes the wide performance gap between private and public education, again with no prescription, and concludes that the ostensible improvement in grades may derive from the rising preference for easier subjects.

There are two surprising omissions from the report, and two neglected themes. There is little discussion of the continuing political and economic effects of the war in Iraq, and no mention of the impacts of climate change and the possible impacts of mitigation or adaptation. The report's consideration of continuing pressures for constitutional change is perfunctory, and the growing disillusionment of British voters with Britain's electoral and political system - reflected in falling participation and increasing indifference to politicians of any party - is unmentioned.

Is this a comprehensive, accurate or useful picture of today's Britain? What would openDemocracy's readers and writers highlight in their own Britannia Redux reports?

Look at the report, read what our writers think - and join the discussion.

Average rating

(3 votes)

open Democracy News Analysis - The "Economist" and Britain's future, Isabel Hilton - Comments

IT Support on "The "Economist" and Britain’s future"

m.k.jones on "The "Economist" and Britain’s future"

alfredo.bremont on "The "Economist" and Britain’s future"

The "Economist" and Britain's future, Isabel Hilton