A lot more, the Online Safety Act is just a symptom of the structural problems (Lack of de-facto governance, A hopelessly out of touch political class, Voting systems that intentionally don't represent the voting results, etc).
Argentina has had nearly 100 years of decline, Japan is onto its third lost decade. The only other party in the UK that has a chance of being elected (because of the voting system) is lead by someone who thinks sandwiches are not real [1]. It's entirely possible the UK doesn't become a serious country in our lifetimes.
> “I’m not a sandwich person, I don’t think sandwiches are a real food, it’s what you have for breakfast.” The Tory leader went on to confirm that she “will not touch bread if it’s moist.
The headline is clickbait. She didn't say that sandwiches are not real. She is saying that she doesn't believe it is a proper lunch/meal.
For all the deliberate rage-baiting that Kemi Badenoch and other present-day Tories engage in, the 'controversy' about sandwiches is entirely constructed by journalists. The Politico article that parent linked to even says as much:
"The Spectator asked the Tory leader — elected to the head of the U.K. opposition party in November — if she ever took a lunch break."
The Spectator are using their press privileges to ask party leaders about their personal lifestyle rather than asking about anything relevant to policy - and although the Spectator might be forgiven for that, it is indefensible for 'serious' newspapers such as the Guardian and the Telegraph to be giving this story front-page status.
There are lots of politicians for us to be embarrassed about, but perhaps even more journalists.
The person that I replied to tried to pretend that Kemi Badenoch had seriously disputed the existence of a sandwiches. I am not sure we deserve better politicians and journalists.
I am of the opinion that the vast majority of journalists are simply stenographers. I wouldn't expect them to do their job. Unfortunately you have do piece together the truth for yourself.
Orwell pointed this out in England your England which was written during the Blitz. Many of the problems he described have only got worse in the decades since he wrote about them in my opinion. While the essay is a bit dated now (it predates the post-war era of globalisation for example which created new axes in UK politics) I still think it's essential background reading for people who want to know what's wrong with the UK, and it's an excellent example of political writing in general.
She doesn't think sandwiches aren't real. It was just a point about not liking them.
The current actual leader of the UK decided to politicise this, in a real moist bread response:
> Prime Minister Keir Starmer — who leads a country grappling with a stagnant economy, straining public services and multiple crises abroad — in turn accused Badenoch of talking down a “Great British institution.”
Argentina is a great analog for the UK, time shifted by century. Both former first-class economies doomed to a long decline by bad policies that elites refuse to change.
Argentina was a rich country but never a rich industrialized country. At the time we were rich, we were exporting beef and importing everything that came from a factory. Later attempts at industrialization, after global protectionism and domestic infighting had already plunged us into relative poverty, were based on the flawed paradigm of import-substitution industrialization, whereas the UK was transitioning from mercantilism to Smithian liberalism when they industrialized, both of which put the highest possible priority on exports. London is the world's second biggest financial hub, a fact that accounts for a significant part of the English economy, while Buenos Aires was never a financial hub for anyone but Argentines, and even we bank in London, Omaha, or Montevideo whenever we have the choice.
Industrialization was somewhat successful; I am eating off an Argentine plate, on an Argentine table, with Argentine utensils (ironically made of stainless steel rather than, as would be appropriate for Argentina, silver) while Argentine-made buses roar by outside. A century ago, when we were rich, all those would have been imported from Europe or the US, except the table. My neighborhood today is full of machine shops and heavy machinery repair shops to support the industrial park across the street. Even the TV showing football news purports to be Argentine, but actually it's almost certainly assembled in the Tierra del Fuego duty-free zone from a Korean or Chinese kit.
As a curious occasional geoguessr player, whereabouts in Tierra del Fuego one might find industry, manufacturing and assembly? I thought it was fishing, tourism and shipping focused.
Import substitution is not an alternative to basic industrialization. It's a policy advocated as a means to achieve basic industrialization. I regret that my comment was so misleading.
The usual alternative to import substitution industrialization is export-focused industrialization. Argentina and Brazil exemplify the former; Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and now the PRC exemplify the latter. The line between them is whether the country's manufactures are widely exported.
Hard disagree. Argentina is only similar to the UK insofar as they both deindustrialized starting in the 80s. Besides that, I have no idea why it would be a "great analog".
a hundreds year ago Argentine had a population of less than 8million people and the 8º biggest territory of highly fertile land. That's not even 20% of the current population. Argentina was never a developed country.
Argentina has had nearly 100 years of decline, Japan is onto its third lost decade. The only other party in the UK that has a chance of being elected (because of the voting system) is lead by someone who thinks sandwiches are not real [1]. It's entirely possible the UK doesn't become a serious country in our lifetimes.
[1] https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-tory-leader-sandwiches-no...