Pete's Blog

I wonder if Andy Burnham and I agree on what the big things actually are.

Let's have some fun acting as armchair PM.

I would argue the big problems facing the UK economy are:

Cost of property

Cost of living

Low GDP growth per capita 

(These affect everyone - from the person on minimum wage who can't afford to rent their first flat to the business employing 50 staff who has to close a shop, because the landlord is demanding more rent.)

I would do the following:

1. Cost of property

Build more houses (Labour promised entire new towns) + continue to bring net migration down

Continue to squeeze landlords but also build affordable council houses for people to rent (rents rise as more people buy their homes and deplete the rental stock). In the short term freeze rents.

2. Cost of living

Invest in domestic energy, primarily solar and nuclear. But also non-renewable energy if, in the short term, it helps us become energy independent and brings costs down.

Reduce government spending, so the government can stop borrowing money which contributes to inflation.

There’s no silver bullet with government spending reduction: it would be a line by line kind of check needed. I’d start by looking at the benefit system: no one who is able to go abroad on holiday is so anxious we should subsidise their life. 

3. Low GDP growth per capita

Deregulation. (Not lowering of standards, but reducing red tape.) Just look at the tax code. It’s insanely long and complicated. Why can’t it just be “companies pay 20% on profits up to £x, then 25%”. Simplify without lowering. Regulations are just as needlessly complicated. People sitting around in parliament like making rules - real people in the real world do need laws, but the current system is bloated and complex.

When discussing immigration in the UK, terms are incorrectly conflated.

We have a housing shortage, so we need to balance supply and demand. Part of the demand side is limiting migration.

"But we need migrants for the NHS".

Yes, but not as many as we currently allow to come here.

My wife is pregnant - we are seen by doctors who are clearly not British. I am glad they are here. They are clearly a net gain for the UK. I hope they are living in some of the limited housing we have.

But asking if a person should come here has to factor in everything. Do we want to build 1 more house on the green belt to let them in? We do for a doctor or a carer, we don’t for just anyone.

--

"Don't be unkind about illegal immigrants, they are really just asyulum seekers".

There is clearly a measurable difference between:

- Someone feeling a conflict - for example, the Ukrainians who now describe the UK as the "greatest friend" of Ukraine.

- Somone who has claimed asylum in France but decides they prefer the UK because the benefit system is more generous, enters illegally, and once they are here despises the western, liberal way of life.

--

US + China account for 41% of global emissions.

UK emissions if you also count energy we import from other countries = 1.04%

My argument for energy is: For the sake of the economy, make energy domestic, even if we emit more CO2.

Either way, we will have to deal with the climate emergency which is already happening (including installing aircon to deal with the warm summer we are experiencing).

This is such a good article, especially as it was written by the very liberal John Gruber.

I sometimes fear that any criticism of the left means the critic is branded a conservative. Or worse, that the critic lacks critical-thinking skills and is regurgitating conservative arguments.

In Britain, there is a second, more toxic layer to public debate: EU membership.

The more I study EU membership, the more I find it peculiar that "not being in the EU" is considered a radical¹, right-wing position².

Everyone understands why policies that are "too right-wing" are a bad idea, or that "too little regulation" is a bad idea. But it's difficult to explain the opposite, without someone writing you off as "a conservative" and promptly ignoring you.

That John Gruber, a liberal, points out nonsense from Bernie Sanders without being branded conservative... that makes me hopeful that we (liberal Brexiteers) can point out the problems of EU membership, without someone writing us off as "a Brexiteer" and promptly ignoring us.

¹ My logic for why Brexit is not radical is this: Of the 193 members of the UN, only 27 are in the EU. By not being in the EU, the UK is now in the majority of countries who are not in the EU nor anything like it. (Nothing else like the EU exists.)

Canada relies more on goods trade with the US than the UK does the EU, and Canada has decided against even a Canada-US Customs Union, let alone asking the US to legislate on its behalf. Customs borders are perfectly ordinary; an almost non-issue.

Service station Taco Bell 🔔

There is something I find so cosy about travelling at night, music/podcast on, stopping somewhere late for dinner.

The UK housing market is our version of the US healthcare market.

High rents and house prices could be controlled in the short term with rent controls, and stopping people owning multiple properties.

But by far the biggest issue, which is uncomfortable to talk about, is supply and demand.

UK population per square mile is 749

France population per square mile is 330

Ireland population per square mile 203

In areas with low population density, UK houses are still affordable on a single income.

For example, houses in South Wales go for about £100k. Minimum wage is the same across the country. You'd need to earn something like £50/hour in London to have the house buying power of someone in South Wales on minimum wage.

We need to have a serious, non partisan, discussion about:

Regulation: Make it easier to build new houses and tilt the market in favour of owner-occupiers.

House building: Actually fund the damn things

Population density: Low net migration for key skills only (I get the NHS needs doctors. But in 2023 net migration was 700,000, there are only 125,000 vacancies in the NHS).

Compare the introduction of Apple Watch with the introduction of FaceTime:

A: "Were bringing video calling to the world," - Jobs B: It's like Skype, but on your iPhone (it only works on WiFi).

The narrative in the press converges around A.

A: "You can make calls on your watch," - Cook B: It's just a wrist-speaker that requires an iPhone.

The narrative in the press converges around B.

People would reminisce over Steve Jobs keynotes like the iPad 2 introduction, while criticising Tim Cook with comments like "thinner and faster is not innovation" and "a new colour is not a new feature".

It felt like Apple Watch lacked a "wow" factor in 2014.

At the time I naively hoped they would leapfrog competitors by launching a wrist-worn device which would be as fun as the iPod touch, ship loaded with health sensors and somehow get 5 days of battery life.

Is Apple missing substance, post-Jobs? Would Steve Jobs have demanded the Watch team make the product "more magical"? 

Or was the missing "wow" factor just the lack of a Steve Jobs keynote?

My dining room 21/03/26

The sunlight reminded me of how my childhood feels.

Reassuring to know that world still exists - it was right in front of me. It's only my perspective that has changed.