Referendum finale: Immigration vs Economy

[Chagos]

However, leaving aside that Peter Jay (under labour) was going to try some of Freidman's ideas and would not have been given the chance by the Labour party paymasters, the end results took the UK from being a basket case to a stronger economy.

Initially yes. In fact even with lasting results. What is overlooked often enough though is the structural vulnerability it subsequently entailed. And I agree that the Friedmann road was thought at already under Callahan. Didn't come to fruition though because that lot went out. They might well have implemented it, had they stayed in but that would have taken nothing from the imprudence.

The change from manufacture of low quality goods to a financial and insurance services sector sees the UK at the front of specialised manufacture right now. We still have a manufacture base - I've argued its existed ad mauseum with peteEu several times.

Even where their economic contribution must remain undisputed, services are a manufacture base? I think not.

There you are simply wrong. Instead of churning out poor quality products, the UK manufacture sector has largely specialised in the highest quality engineering and components production.

I was speaking of times past in response to you having raised those

Worthy of a thread all of its own, in fact I've had several similar discussions with Andy about whose version of history reflects events in the 70's and 80's. I will admit being the sole "Europe poster" who thinks we did better economically and that manufacturing events in the UK are a horror story.

Again going back in time, my personal horror story lay in attempting to push British manufactured goods into the foreign markets that were not foreign to me. Before and after the Thatcher admin. took over. Anecdotal for sure but laughs were (embarassingly for me) all around.

I find it hard to lay the blame on Thatcher alone as there had been several govts who had the power in the 15 years since to change rules, policy and regulatory practice.

I happen to totally agree on the lethargy of administrations that came afterwards. I blame the initiation of the whole thing on Thatcher (respectively her supposed thinkers), that takes nothing away from the successors.

Anyhow, policy across the seas left us exposed beyond simple deregulation. You forget the huge rise in oil prices as China boomed,

No I don't. I also don't forget the effect that deregulation had on North Sea oil


..........next page........

 

[Chagos]

........continued........

the collapse of Lehman brothers

already addressed that

and yes at home our banks tried to become city corporations rather than the traditional banks we used to know which left them over exposed to the housing market bubble and credit crunch.

Well, that's what I've been saying.

I repeat again - the crunch hit nearly everyone and we learn more from looking at those economies which survived than by blaming Thatcher over 30 years ago.

Looking at those that survived and coincidentally did not impose the measures of the Thatcher admin., I don't see how one can come to any conclusion other than aforesaid measures were highly imprudent, not to mention myopic. Not much point in crying over 30 year old spilled mils, I agree, but not much point in not learning lessons from the spill either.

Ha. Nicely put and I won't respond in kind.

That's mighty grand of you :mrgreen:

Anyhow, I was finishing my school years before university / joining the military but I trained academically to go into manufacturing industry

yeah, my curriculum was similar, just preceding yours by some years. I was, by the time Thatcher's lot came in, already working the export markets

and saw and experienced first hand old practices and thinking which meant we were doomed. British engineering designers were highly prized overseas (including in my field of automotive where my colleagues and superiors were working wonders for German, American and other companies while being derided and demeaned in the UK.

I saw the same and never held British engineering staff in anything but (deserved) high esteem. I also saw the management and shudder even today. Long stories of personal experience with incompetence that was enhanced by pompouness
would fill a whole book.

No, deregulation was hugely important and fundamental. Where I can point a finger of blame is that (like the housing policy of council house home ownership) a great idea should have gone hand in hand with replenishment of stock (in housing) and a serious attempt at redeveloping and real investment in new industry.

On that we're completely on the same page.

Those things have happened though far slower than Thatcher originally thought.

More importantly they didn't all happen in her time. Because too little was done to make them happen in that time. The intermittent bloodletting was disastrous and you must surely have seen it as well.

Dundee, Middlesbrough and Newcastle etc have lost their traditional industries but have become centres for new industries in games and digital media production. We have world class companies up here and although competition for jobs is global and we have Japanese, Canadians etc here we also have many locals who get into these industries.

Yeah, meanwhile. But ok, better late than never and the clocks can't be turned back anyway.

Going back to London, there is huge growth in production and the design industries again as creatives are all working in close proximity and opportunities are very real.

And you don't see the lopsided structures?

Well done... but I wasn't?

I wasn't implying that YOU were, I was referring to MY digressions into economic history.

That was our talking past each other.

I don't think we were. We were disagreeing and still are but remaining in the same framework in that process.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

~ Even where their economic contribution must remain undisputed, services are a manufacture base? I think not

No, services were never postulated as a part of our manufacturing base. I was talking about how manufacturing has shrunk here but the main core is very highly specialised products and components.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...the-UK-an-economic-analysis-of-the-sector.pdf

~ my personal horror story lay in attempting to push British manufactured goods into the foreign markets that were not foreign to me ~

Nice to know I am not the only one who remembers the extremely shoddy goods we were infamous for. That golden age of 1970's British manufacture is a non-existent fallacy.

~ I happen to totally agree on the lethargy of administrations that came afterwards. I blame the initiation of the whole thing on Thatcher (respectively her supposed thinkers), that takes nothing away from the successors. No I don't. I also don't forget the effect that deregulation had on North Sea oil

It'll be no surprise to you that I disagree and having lived in countries where I saw how slowly structural readjustment progressed, I'm actually pleasantly surprised how fast this has gone in the UK. Within 40 years some dangerous and highly inefficient industries are being replaced with more modern industry.

~ Looking at those that survived and coincidentally did not impose the measures of the Thatcher admin., I don't see how one can come to any conclusion other than aforesaid measures were highly imprudent, not to mention myopic. Not much point in crying over 30 year old spilled mils, I agree, but not much point in not learning lessons from the spill either.

Well, Australia's survival and growth had nothing to do with exposure to banks - it was simply being able to make the most of its role as minerals and foodstuff supplier to the Chinese engine. As for China itself, her policies had nothing to do with economic freedoms but an old style centrally planned economy when her leaders finally decided that they needed to industrialise and develop the nation. (Not ignoring Hong Kong's energising role in the change to China)

~That's mighty grand of you :mrgreen:

I'm just a nice guy but hey, let's move on.

~ I also saw the management and shudder even today. Long stories of personal experience with incompetence that was enhanced by pompouness
would fill a whole book.

I don't know what causes it, possibly the public school system because some of those same people go into the higher ranks in the military - many join as part of a cultural process which seems part of the "old boys club" process. The sole reason I couldn't stay in the army - I hate incompetent leadership with an absolute passion and my mouth would have gotten me in serious trouble. I had the chance for a scholarship into leadership but I preferred to be an honest grunt.

~ And you don't see the lopsided structures?

For the sake of clarity, you'll need to point out which ones?

 

[Chagos]

No, services were never postulated as a part of our manufacturing base. I was talking about how manufacturing has shrunk here but the main core is very highly specialised products and components.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...the-UK-an-economic-analysis-of-the-sector.pdf

Thanks

~It'll be no surprise to you that I disagree and having lived in countries where I saw how slowly structural readjustment progressed, I'm actually pleasantly surprised how fast this has gone in the UK. Within 40 years some dangerous and highly inefficient industries are being replaced with more modern industry.

Well, I'll disagree myself then in not holding a restructuring in a country of the potential and clout of UK to be particularly speedy if, given the conditions, it's taken 40 years.

~Well, Australia's survival and growth had nothing to do with exposure to banks -~

Didn't say it had. What I did refer was that it hadn't done what Britain had years before. What's more, it never put itself into the zone of financial vulnerability that many others had allowed themselves (not just UK) by the time 2008 struck.

I don't know what causes it, possibly the public school system because some of those same people go into the higher ranks in the military - many join as part of a cultural process which seems part of the "old boys club" process.~

That seemed to me the predominant factor. "Right school tie colours", membership in the proper clubs, ability to choose the right claret and knowing plenty of others in similar positions with similar "qualifications". Not product savvy, not market savvy, not production savvy and no idea on how to run anything when it entailed being proficient in all those fields.

For the sake of clarity, you'll need to point out which ones?

I believe I already (at least) sketched it in my forebodings on too heavy a reliance on being a financial centre. Not a mono-culture, seeing how UK consists of more than that, but an unhealthy balancing nevertheless.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

~ Well, I'll disagree myself then in not holding a restructuring in a country of the potential and clout of UK to be particularly speedy if, given the conditions, it's taken 40 years.

What I did refer was that it hadn't done what Britain had years before. What's more, it never put itself into the zone of financial vulnerability that many others had allowed themselves (not just UK) by the time 2008 struck.

The only thing that speeds that process up is cultural acceptance or subservience as in the case of China. Actually I'm forgetting Australia - Australia abandoned by the UK as we were wooed by the EEC looked for new partners and after major recession found one in China.

This may sound like I am Brexit but I am still neutral: I'm looking at all the negatives to weigh up which is the least worst to vote for.

 

[Chagos]

~This may sound like I am Brexit but I am still neutral: I'm looking at all the negatives to weigh up which is the least worst to vote for.

Actually I see neither side, immigration paranoics and economy "warners", providing anything of meat in support of their respective stances.

In the absence of robust facts (not just on those two issues), looks like any decision will wind up based on gut feeling more than anything else.

I'm actually for Bremain and on account of both the UK and Europe. Not because I share into the fear mongering of what Brexit will do to both if UK leaves, staying just still makes more sense to me. Even where I don't have much to weigh either.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Actually I see neither side, immigration paranoics and economy "warners", providing anything of meat in support of their respective stances.

In the absence of robust facts (not just on those two issues), looks like any decision will wind up based on gut feeling more than anything else.

I'm actually for Bremain and on account of both the UK and Europe. Not because I share into the fear mongering of what Brexit will do to both if UK leaves, staying just still makes more sense to me. Even where I don't have much to weigh either.

That's pretty much how I've felt throughout the campaigns - most people will vote (if they do) on gut feeling.

 

[Andalublue]

That's pretty much how I've felt throughout the campaigns - most people will vote (if they do) on gut feeling.

So, when are you going to decide where to put your cross?

 

[Infinite Chaos]

So, when are you going to decide where to put your cross?

Probably on the day of the vote Andy. One thing I'm not liking about some Brexit voters is how close to despicable the views are if not beyond the pale. There are elements of the old National Front and worse posting on some of the discussion websites and their views are unchallenged when they go beyond simple "regain control of the borders" to "kick all immigrants out."

Pretty much forgetting or ignorant that most of the UK is made up from migrant invaders over the centuries.

 

[Andalublue]

Probably on the day of the vote Andy. One thing I'm not liking about some Brexit voters is how close to despicable the views are if not beyond the pale. There are elements of the old National Front and worse posting on some of the discussion websites and their views are unchallenged when they go beyond simple "regain control of the borders" to "kick all immigrants out."

Pretty much forgetting or ignorant that most of the UK is made up from migrant invaders over the centuries.

True, but honestly, those types would always have been Brexiters. The fact that it seems so closely balanced means that most people declaring to be voting out are normal, non-fascist voters, but who are weighing up the arguments. There are plenty of good reasons to be EU-sceptic, I'm just pretty clear that with the economy of the UK and the EU on a knife-edge, it's madness to take such a huge step into the unknown.

 

[Archer]

Pretty much forgetting or ignorant that most of the UK is made up from migrant invaders over the centuries.

There is absolutely no comparison between, for example, the Anglo-Saxons who invaded and settled England and built up the country, creating its legal infrastructure and so on, to recent immigrants to the UK with whom the government has been collaborating.

Furthermore, the "invaders" who've come to the UK have all been Northern European, and genetically speaking most Scots and Welshmen are overwhelmingly Celtic, and the English are mostly Anglo-Saxon. They're not diverse genetically as you're implying. There has been, in fact, entirely European genetic continuity on the British Isles for the last ten thousand years.

The constituent nations in the British Isles are each an objective ethnic group of their own. Foreigners who go to the UK do not become English, Welsh, or Scottish, they remain whatever ethnicity they were born.

The English plot together genetically, and as such are a nation who have the right to ensure their own posterity. The Scots have their own language and culture, and they share the same blood. They have the right to remain Scottish, just as the Kurds have a right to remain Kurdish, and all other groups have a right to fight for their existence.

 

[Archer]

There are plenty of good reasons to be EU-sceptic, I'm just pretty clear that with the economy of the UK and the EU on a knife-edge, it's madness to take such a huge step into the unknown.

What about the old-fashioned socialist appeal that the EU is a capitalist superstate with delusions of its own geopolitical will, conquest and so on? It's the most uniform conglomeration of the modern, late-capitalism bourgeoisie on the globe.

The EU remains intact to the detriment of the working class, right comrade?

 

[Andalublue]

What about the old-fashioned socialist appeal that the EU is a capitalist superstate with delusions of its own geopolitical will, conquest and so on? It's the most uniform conglomeration of the modern, late-capitalism bourgeoisie on the globe.

The EU remains intact to the detriment of the working class, right comrade?

And the British establishment is the friend of the working classes, right? What with its unelected monarchy, unelected second chamber and rigged electoral system. This debate isn't about capitalism vs. socialism. As you've demonstrated in your response to IC, for people like those he was discussing, and clearly with you, it's about ethnic nationalism. Fortunately, those people constitute a tiny minority of voters. The vast majority of those voting out will not be voting for your white, Anglo-saxon club.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

There is absolutely no comparison between, for example, the Anglo-Saxons who invaded and settled England and built up the country, creating its legal infrastructure and so on, to recent immigrants to the UK with whom the government has been collaborating.

Furthermore, the "invaders" who've come to the UK have all been Northern European, and genetically speaking most Scots and Welshmen are overwhelmingly Celtic, and the English are mostly Anglo-Saxon. They're not diverse genetically as you're implying. There has been, in fact, entirely European genetic continuity on the British Isles for the last ten thousand years.

The constituent nations in the British Isles are each an objective ethnic group of their own. Foreigners who go to the UK do not become English, Welsh, or Scottish, they remain whatever ethnicity they were born.

The English plot together genetically, and as such are a nation who have the right to ensure their own posterity. The Scots have their own language and culture, and they share the same blood. They have the right to remain Scottish, just as the Kurds have a right to remain Kurdish, and all other groups have a right to fight for their existence.

It's a countdown to "Enoch Powell was right......"

 

[gunner]

EU referendum: Gove and Johnson challenge PM on immigration - EU referendum: Gove and Johnson challenge PM on immigration - BBC News

The government policy (if you can call it that) has definitely failed. Did they get immigration down to the tens of thousands, no where near. The reason? The economy The UK compared to the rest of Europe looks to good to pass over. Then the only figures that should matter are immigration from outside the EU, which was 188,000 so they failed here also. For me, this is the strongest argument yet that immigration will increase whether we're in, or out, of the EU. I'm for Bremain.

 

[PeteEU]

EU referendum: Gove and Johnson challenge PM on immigration - EU referendum: Gove and Johnson challenge PM on immigration - BBC News

The government policy (if you can call it that) has definitely failed. Did they get immigration down to the tens of thousands, no where near. The reason? The economy The UK compared to the rest of Europe looks to good to pass over. Then the only figures that should matter are immigration from outside the EU, which was 188,000 so they failed here also. For me, this is the strongest argument yet that immigration will increase whether we're in, or out, of the EU. I'm for Bremain.

Yes and the immigration from outside the EU is under full control of the UK.

And there is no logic in the Brexit immigration policies. They want control over their borders and replace Poles with workers from the Philippines and India. Unless they want to pressure wages even more down, then I dont understand how getting even more uneducated (relatively speaking) and alien (culture wise) people into the UK and kicking out people that have far more in-common (culturally) with "Brits". The only reason I can see, is as I have stated, to bring in people who are willing to work for even less and live in even ****tier conditions.. and if that is so, then the Brexit people are basically proxies for big business...

 

[Andalublue]

Sometimes it takes a non-politician to verbalise what we're all feeling. I reckon that both Brexiters and Remainers can find truth in this cri du coeur.

Why elected leaders ought to make the big decisions | David Mitchell | Opinion | The Guardian

I couldn't agree more with Mitchell's angry sense of frustration at the inability of the so-called leaders of the country to do their effing job. He quotes Richard Dawkins. I'm not a big fan, but still I recognise impeccable logic in his undoubted logic:

It is an outrage that people as ignorant as me are being asked to vote. This is a complicated matter of economics, politics, history, and we live in a representative democracy not a plebiscite democracy. You could make a case for having plebiscites on certain issues – I could imagine somebody arguing for one on fox hunting, for example – but not on something as involved as the European Union. This should be a matter for parliament.

This EU decision is without doubt the most important political decision the UK will have made in half a century, yet when the political establishment is called on to do its job it ducks out. If there's one sentiment that both sides can agree on, which we hear on every single debate on the topic on TV, radio and online, is that ordinary voters cannot get their heads around the facts of the matter. No one knows what the consequences of Brexit might be, not the public, not the politicians. If they can't decide, why the hell should they expect that the general public can?

 

[gunner]

Sometimes it takes a non-politician to verbalise what we're all feeling. I reckon that both Brexiters and Remainers can find truth in this cri du coeur.

Why elected leaders ought to make the big decisions | David Mitchell | Opinion | The Guardian

I couldn't agree more with Mitchell's angry sense of frustration at the inability of the so-called leaders of the country to do their effing job. He quotes Richard Dawkins. I'm not a big fan, but still I recognise impeccable logic in his undoubted logic:



This EU decision is without doubt the most important political decision the UK will have made in half a century, yet when the political establishment is called on to do its job it ducks out. If there's one sentiment that both sides can agree on, which we hear on every single debate on the topic on TV, radio and online, is that ordinary voters cannot get their heads around the facts of the matter. No one knows what the consequences of Brexit might be, not the public, not the politicians. If they can't decide, why the hell should they expect that the general public can?

I'm pretty convinced I've said as much, from the outset. I'd go as far as saying I've turned off, from the debate. The whole debate has descended to the gutter!

 

[Infinite Chaos]

~ Gove and Johnson challenge PM on immigration ~

Funny how by the time of the next election they might all be best friends and pretending none of this was said - either that or we're looking at them all shoeing Labour in.

Last time the Conservatives were this divided and in open civil war was the 90's before Blair won a huge majority and brought Labour back to power.

 

[gunner]

Funny how by the time of the next election they might all be best friends and pretending none of this was said - either that or we're looking at them all shoeing Labour in.

Last time the Conservatives were this divided and in open civil war was the 90's before Blair won a huge majority and brought Labour back to power.

I can understand the concern, from your perspective (a Conservative voter) but I would not be unduly concerned. As you say above, Labour got in on the back of Conservative in-fighting but in addition to that 'the Blair factor' of appealing to everyone, was paramount. THIS time round, Corbyn is for a niche market of voters; non centralist if you will, thus, I doubt there will be a repeat. Furthermore, the present record of government has been mixed to say the least, and Corbyn is unable to grasp the upper hand. To the big questions, all we get is: "Mrs Jones knitting club membership has declined by 50% over the last 2yrs because of rising transport costs" (you get the picture :lol So what is the government doing about it? Cameron is able to bat off such trivial issues, with one hand behind his back wearing a blindfold. As such, from what I can intercept from reading a wide breadth of sources, we still have the issue of many ordinary 'working class' (if there's still such a thing?) voters, feeling alienated from traditional Labour. I see fringe party appeal lasting for sometime to come.

I think Blair is correct here: Tony Blair warns 'very dangerous experiment' to give Jeremy Corbyn power

 

[Andalublue]

I can understand the concern, from your perspective (a Conservative voter) but I would not be unduly concerned. As you say above, Labour got in on the back of Conservative in-fighting but in addition to that 'the Blair factor' of appealing to everyone, was paramount. THIS time round, Corbyn is for a niche market of voters; non centralist if you will, thus, I doubt there will be a repeat. Furthermore, the present record of government has been mixed to say the least, and Corbyn is unable to grasp the upper hand. To the big questions, all we get is: "Mrs Jones knitting club membership has declined by 50% over the last 2yrs because of rising transport costs" (you get the picture :lol So what is the government doing about it? Cameron is able to bat off such trivial issues, with one hand behind his back wearing a blindfold. As such, from what I can intercept from reading a wide breadth of sources, we still have the issue of many ordinary 'working class' (if there's still such a thing?) voters, feeling alienated from traditional Labour. I see fringe party appeal lasting for sometime to come.

I think Blair is correct here: Tony Blair warns 'very dangerous experiment' to give Jeremy Corbyn power

Except he insists he wasn't talking about Corbyn.

 

[gunner]

Except he insists he wasn't talking about Corbyn.

I think the title gives it away :roll:

 

[Andalublue]

I think the title gives it away :roll:

Well those definitely weren't his words, but those of the spin the Torygraph put on it. :roll: indeed.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Well those definitely weren't his words, but those of the spin the Torygraph put on it. :roll: indeed.

You really can read that section in many ways and I think he's careful with his words to be fair Andy in the last section of the interview on this link (at 3.23 seconds onwards); he was only asked about how he felt about attacks on him and it moves onto Corbyn.

 

[gunner]

Well those definitely weren't his words, but those of the spin the Torygraph put on it. :roll: indeed.

Source away. They're all saying the same :lol:

Tony Blair: Corbyn in power would be a 'dangerous experiment' - BBC News