The Ashes invites the oldest sporting question: who holds their nerve over five days, session after session, when the pitch changes and the easy runs disappear? The League of Nations asks the same question of states.
The League of Nations scores grand strategy across seven Smart Power leagues — think of them as the seven disciplines you must win to take a Test series. Each one carries a fixed weighting, just like runs off the bat matter more than style points on the boundary:
- Economy (40) – the big run-scorer, your top order
- Military (20) – the strike bowlers who keep you in the game
- State (10) – the captaincy and fielding discipline
- People (10) – the depth of the batting order
- Culture (10) – crowd control, confidence and reputation
- Energy (5) – stamina over a five-day match
- Diplomacy (5) – how well you work with allies at the crease
Within each league, the scoreboard is set by hard numbers, not vibes. Take the Economy League. Most of the runs come from GDP nominal at current $ (45%) and GDP PPP (35%) — the equivalent of boundary-hitting capacity and time spent at the crease. GDP per capita (10%) and R&D as a share of GDP (5%) add the finesse: footwork, shot selection, long-term technique. But there’s also a no-nonsense penalty: high government debt (–5%), the economic equivalent of throwing away your wicket with a reckless slog.
The logic is simple and very Test-match: big scores matter, staying power matters, and indiscipline costs you dearly. The Index is built to reward sides that can bat long and bat properly — and to mark down those that look fluent early but can’t see out the innings.
Across the full Smart Power Index, the latest scoreline is unambiguous: the UK finishes ahead of Australia by 2025 (UK 4314 vs Australia 3695). The drama is how they got there — and what it implies for the next innings.
RULE 1: IS THERE A PLAN BEHIND WHAT HAS HAPPENED?
The shapes of the lines suggest two very different “game plans”.
Australia’s story reads like a classic middle-overs acceleration: a long period where the country benefits from (and leans into) a favourable external pitch — Australia’s resource-driven boom through the 2000s. On the Economy League chart, Australia climbs strongly into the late-2000s/early-2010s before flattening and drifting. That is not random. It looks like a coherent phase of national performance aligned to a global cycle.
The UK’s story is less about one boom and more about a late recovery surge followed by steady accumulation. Britain sees a meaningful upturn between 2012 and 2016 — but it is a recovery, not a boom, and it is not evenly rooted in productivity and investment. In the League of Nations charts, that shows up as a decisive step-change in the UK’s trajectory around the mid-2010s, especially in the Economy League, and then continued gains afterwards.
A plan can be implicit. The scoreboard suggests Australia rode a cycle; the UK ground out a turnaround after a lost period.
RULE 2: IS THE LEADER AND ELITE BEHIND THE PLAN?
Here the State League is the crucial tell — because the State League is explicitly built on governance and cohesion: Government effectiveness (30%), Strong institutions (25%), Global Democracy Index (20%), with penalties via Factionalised Elite Index (15%) and GINI Index (10%).
On that chart, Australia stays consistently above the UK across the period and ends substantially higher. The UK line deteriorates sharply in the later years, while Australia declines more gently. In Ashes terms: Australia’s dressing room looks more stable; Britain looks like it’s played through a period of internal disruption.
That matters because the League of Nations doesn’t treat “politics” as theatre; it treats it as capacity. If your elite is fragmented, policy delivery weakens — and the State League scores you down.
RULE 3: ARE THEY APPLYING THEIR 7 POWERS WELL?
This is where the seven leagues prevent a country “winning the narrative” while losing the match.
Economy League: the UK ends clearly ahead by 2025, after overtaking in the mid-2010s. Australia’s earlier lead aligns with its boom years; Britain’s late surge aligns with the 2012–16 recovery phase.
Military League (20): on the Military chart the UK sits far above Australia throughout, even though both drift. The UK’s lead is structurally large (the line is not close). In index terms: Britain still brings heavyweight capability relative to Australia.
State League (10): Australia wins — comfortably — and the gap widens late. This is Britain’s most serious weakness on the comparative dashboard because state capacity is the platform for every other power.
People League (10): this is effectively a draw, with the two lines tracking each other closely across decades and the UK finishing marginally higher by the end. The People League is dominated by Population (60%) plus Life expectancy (25%) and Human capital (10%), with a small penalty for youth not in education/employment/training (5%) — so “small differences” here often mean “broad similarity”.
Energy League (5): Australia wins. The Australian line trends up over time while the UK trends down, ending with Australia clearly above. Given Energy is built on production (40%), consumption (40%), with a CO₂ penalty (20%), Australia’s position looks like a structural advantage.
Culture League (10): the UK wins — consistently. The gap is large and persistent. Given Culture is led by Cultural output index (45%) and International tourist trips (25%) (with contributions from journals, tertiary enrolment, patents and QS rankings), Britain’s cultural and knowledge ecosystem remains a long-run strength.
Diplomacy League (5): the UK wins by a wide margin. And because your Diplomacy League is dominated by Diplomatic League 1991–2022 (95%), this is essentially an index verdict that Britain remains far more embedded and active diplomatically.
Net-net: the UK’s victory is driven by Economy + Culture + Diplomacy + a large Military edge, while Australia’s counter-punch is State + Energy and near-parity in People.
RULE 4: ARE THEIR POLICIES (METRICS) WORKING?
The Economy metrics are instructive because they show what’s doing the heavy lifting.
Australia’s earlier rise is consistent with a period when GDP nominal and GDP PPP (the two biggest economy weights) were propelled by the resource cycle — the “easy boundaries” era. Britain’s mid-2010s acceleration, is consistent with a recovery driven by jobs, consumption, housing and low rates rather than a deep productivity renaissance — which is precisely the kind of recovery that can lift the scoreboard while leaving a nagging question about technique.
On the State metrics, the UK’s late decline strongly implies that policy outcomes on government effectiveness / institutional strength / elite cohesion have not been “working” as well as Australia’s, at least as captured by your chosen indices.
This is where the League of Nations is most unforgiving: it doesn’t care whether a policy is well-sold — it cares whether the indicators move.
RULE 5: ARE THEY LEADING THE 7 POWER REVOLUTIONS?
R&D % GDP (Economy), patents, scientific journals, and QS universities (Culture): Britain’s persistent Culture lead suggests stronger “innovation ecosystem” signals than Australia’s overall, even though Australia has clear structural advantages elsewhere (Energy, State).
Put simply: Britain looks more like a state that wins on networks, knowledge, institutions of influence, and cultural output; Australia looks more like a state that wins on resource position, energy advantage, and steadier governance.
RULE 6: ARE THEY BEATING THEIR RIVALS?
Yes — the UK beats Australia overall by 2025. But the league-by-league split matters because it tells you how secure the lead is.
In Ashes terms: Britain has built a lead by piling up runs in Economy, Culture and Diplomacy, with a big Military cushion — but it is vulnerable to a collapse in State (and has an ongoing weakness in Energy). Australia, meanwhile, has lost the overall lead but retains the sort of strengths that can flip a series when conditions change.
RULE 7: ARE THEY SUCCEEDING?
On the League of Nations definition — the one that matters — success is balanced, sustained Smart Power. The UK finishes higher and has more “soft-power and system-power” (Culture, Diplomacy) while still carrying hard-power weight (Military, Economy). Australia’s profile is more compact but resilient: better State performance, stronger Energy, and a long legacy of economic momentum that plateaued rather than crashed.
The Ashes lesson is straightforward: Britain has won the match on aggregate — but Australia still has the more stable dressing room. And in long contests, that can be the difference between a one-off victory and an era.
