Interesting how you refer to 'deindustrialisation in the 80s and 90s' which saw manufacturing output rise but don't mention the actual deindustrialisation between 1997 and 2010.
And there was a higher proportion of high-wage manufacturing jobs being lost in that decade than in the 80s and 90s.
My point was about the communities that were devastated by deindustrialisation. It was the decline of heavy industry - which did take place largely between 1980 and 2000 - which saw countless communities ravaged because there was nothing to take its place. If there are no plans in place to replace lost jobs it will happen again.
The evidence says otherwise.
Please share it. I would love to be put right. Cheers.
It was just shared with you in that post, you refused to acknowledge it.
Got it - you are deflecting. The simple fact is that the decline of heavy industry - which largely took place between 1980 and 2000 - led to the break-up of huge numbers of communities. We continue to live with the consequences today. If you wish to dismiss that, so be it.
There was about 1,250,000 miners in 1914, there was about 750,000 miners in 1947, there was about 250,000 miners in 1979.
Yet its only the period from 1979 to 1997 which Labour members are interested in.
Though at least during the 1980s miners were given good redundancy money as opposed to the Wilson era when they were told to get on their bikes to another pit or move to a different part of the country.
That does not mean we should be in a political union with them, but it is foolish to pretend that our prosperity does not depend on a good trading relationship with them.
There are practical consequences to a refusal to countenance any kind of political union.
Where do you want the customs border?
- Between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland - Between Northern Ireland and Great Britain
Between the ROI and the EU.
I don't see why the UK should be forced into a political union because the Irish get angry over a few video cameras and car parks.
Surely what you really mean is you don't see why England should be forced into a political union, in which case you should be in favour of breaking up the UK.
1. Wales also voted Leave; 2. Scotland voted to remain part of the UK; 3. Not voting for the UK to leave does not imply support to Remain outside of the UK.
People keep saying this, but it’s bollocks. There’s a far greater British diaspora in NZ, Australia and Canada, and both nations have or are looking to conclude free trade deals with both the UK and EU.
Further, our security and military cooperation is growing and - as the world economy and geopolitics globalises - that will become ever more important.
Europe is not the future, and the trade proximity argument is a tired and out of date one disproven by even the most cursory look at trade pattern trends.
While Europe - thanks to demographics if nothing else - is not going to be driving export growth for the
That does not mean we should be in a political union with them, but it is foolish to pretend that our prosperity does not depend on a good trading relationship with them.
For heavy machinery and manufacture it
The vast majority of global growthEU trade deals and good shipped through Rotterdam).
So what leave?
Obviously trade will grow faster with developing economies rather than developed ones. But it will take decades, if not centuries, for it to be supplanted as our biggest export destination.
Them’s the facts.
Brexit deal, which is a bit of straw manning on your part.
The
I’m afraid it really isn’t for the fairies. It’s absolutely a reality and happening already.
Assuming both you and I are alive in 20 years, do you want an inflation adjusted bet of £100 on that?
Happily - though I do expect to be dead. However, I'd be more interested to know where you think we'll be trading more with in 2038 than the single market.
I hope you’re very much alive!
See the big picture, Joff. The EU is only 18% of the world economy (without the UK) today and 6% of the population. Let’s be generous and say our current trade is 50/50 EU and Non-EU today.
With 80% of future global growth to come from outside the EU and the huge population growth in Asia and Africa, how could I possibly be wrong?
People keep saying this, but it’s bollocks. There’s a far greater British diaspora in NZ, Australia and Canada, and both nations have or are looking to conclude free trade deals with both the UK and EU.
Further, our security and military cooperation is growing and - as the world economy and geopolitics globalises - that will become ever more important.
Europe is not the future, and the trade proximity argument is a tired and out of date one disproven by even the most cursory look at trade pattern trends.
While Europe - thanks to demographics if nothing else - is not going to be driving export growth for the
That does not mean we should be in a political union with them, but it is foolish to pretend that our prosperity does not depend on a good trading relationship with them.
For heavy machinery and manufacture it
The vast majority of global growthEU trade deals and good shipped through Rotterdam).
So what leave?
Obviously trade will grow faster with developing economies rather than developed ones. But it will take decades, if not centuries, for it to be supplanted as our biggest export destination.
Them’s the facts.
Brexit deal, which is a bit of straw manning on your part.
The
I’m afraid it really isn’t for the fairies. It’s absolutely a reality and happening already.
Assuming both you and I are alive in 20 years, do you want an inflation adjusted bet of £100 on that?
Happily - though I do expect to be dead. However, I'd be more interested to know where you think we'll be trading more with in 2038 than the single market.
I hope you’re very much alive!
See the big picture, Joff. The EU is only 18% of the world economy (without the UK) today and 6% of the population. Let’s be generous and say our current trade is 50/50 EU and Non-EU today.
With 80% of future global growth to come from outside the EU and the huge population growth in Asia and Africa, how could I possibly be wrong?
Most US states' biggest trading partner is either Mexico or Canada. Geography matters.
That does not mean we should be in a political union with them, but it is foolish to pretend that our prosperity does not depend on a good trading relationship with them.
There are practical consequences to a refusal to countenance any kind of political union.
Where do you want the customs border?
- Between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland - Between Northern Ireland and Great Britain
Between the ROI and the EU.
I don't see why the UK should be forced into a political union because the Irish get angry over a few video cameras and car parks.
Surely what you really mean is you don't see why England should be forced into a political union, in which case you should be in favour of breaking up the UK.
1. Wales also voted Leave; 2. Scotland voted to remain part of the UK; 3. Not voting for the UK to leave does not imply support to Remain outside of the UK.
I think Iain Martin's assesment is correct. One of the things that has strengthened the EU's hand is that no member state has had so much of a peep against Barnier. It's not even about getting a second referendum on the matter with this amendment it is that the first deal is going to be poorer than it otherwise would be if Grieve wins his amendment. Whether or not we have a 'people's vote' is not the point thereafter with this, the Gov't needs to be unfettered in their negotiations. This bill fetters them I'm afraid, we 'the people' can cast our verdict on May's Brexit in 2022 - if Corbyn gets in with confidence and supply from the Lib Dems & SNP then a referendum for not leaving/re-entry may well be on the cards. I'd hope the pro european Tory rebels are wise enough to not support this bill.
While Europe - thanks to demographics if nothing else - is not going to be driving export growth for the
That does not mean we should be in a political union with them, but it is foolish to pretend that our prosperity does not depend on a good trading relationship with them.
For decisive.
The vast majority of global growthEU trade deals and good shipped through Rotterdam).
So what leave?
Obviously destination.
Them’s the facts.
I communications.
I countries.
And destination.
Sorry.
And for the record I’m not arguing for a “bad” Brexit deal, which is a bit of straw manning on your part.
The deindustrialisation in the 80s and 90s.
The idea that the single eally do crash out.
Good luck with those services FTAs!
Interesting how you refer to 'deindustrialisation in the 80s and 90s' which saw manufacturing output rise but don't mention the actual deindustrialisation between 1997 and 2010.
And there was a higher proportion of high-wage manufacturing jobs being lost in that decade than in the 80s and 90s.
My point was about the communities that were devastated by deindustrialisation. It was the decline of heavy industry - which did take place largely between 1980 and 2000 - which saw countless communities ravaged because there was nothing to take its place. If there are no plans in place to replace lost jobs it will happen again.
The evidence says otherwise.
Err your chart say more industrial jobs were lost between 1980 and 1997 than after 1997.
Yep, looking at the data supplied, unless I am reading it wrong it says that there were 6.541 million jobs in manufacturing in 1979, 3.959 in 1997 and 2.565 million in 2010. Between 1980 and 2000, 2.637 million jobs were lost. Since then, another 1.166 have gone.
People keep saying this, but it’s bollocks. There’s a far greater British diaspora in NZ, Australia and Canada, and both nations have or are looking to conclude free trade deals with both the UK and EU.
Further, our security and military cooperation is growing and - as the world economy and geopolitics globalises - that will become ever more important.
Europe is not the future, and the trade proximity argument is a tired and out of date one disproven by even the most cursory look at trade pattern trends.
While Europe - thanks to demographics if nothing else - is not going to be driving export growth for the
That does not mean we should be in a political union with them, but it is foolish to pretend that our prosperity does not depend on a good trading relationship with them.
For heavy machinery and manufacture it
The vast majority of global growthEU trade deals and good shipped through Rotterdam).
So what leave?
Obviously trade will grow faster with developing economies rather than developed ones. But it will take decades, if not centuries, for it to be supplanted as our biggest export destination.
Them’s the facts.
Brexit deal, which is a bit of straw manning on your part.
The
I’m afraid it really isn’t for the fairies. It’s absolutely a reality and happening already.
Assuming both you and I are alive in 20 years, do you want an inflation adjusted bet of £100 on that?
Happily - though I do expect to be dead. However, I'd be more interested to know where you think we'll be trading more with in 2038 than the single market.
I hope you’re very much alive!
See the big picture, Joff. The EU is only 18% of the world economy (without the UK) today and 6% of the population. Let’s be generous and say our current trade is 50/50 EU and Non-EU today.
With 80% of future global growth to come from outside the EU and the huge population growth in Asia and Africa, how could I possibly be wrong?
Most US states' biggest trading partner is either Mexico or Canada. Geography matters.
That’s at least your third non-sequitur this morning.
Colour me sceptical on legalising recreational use of cannabis.
Yes, I know the war on it has been lost. Yes, I know it can have some medicinal applications. But it also has some serious mental health side effects for a minority of younger users, I’ve seen it turn friends of mine into absolute paranoid maniacs and I don’t want all our parks, and public areas stinking of ganja, which is a more sickly sweet and pervasive smell even compared to tobacco.
So, I remain to be convinced. Personally, I can’t stand the stuff and think both banning and legalising it has negative social effects, just a different mix on each side.
One of the main issues at the moment is that because the use, sale, growing, keeping etc etc is illegal the only ‘control’ is the capitalist one of ‘what the market says’. And the market says that making stronger and stronger...... ie plants with more active ingredient ....... is more profitable, so that’s what’s available. Secondly, there’s an analogy with driving a motor vehicle. The assumption is that if a policeman stops one, then it’s almost a certainly that an offence has been, wittingly or unwittingly, committed. So the police are not, in that context, seen as ‘friends’. Making cannabis products, even weak ones, legal would mean that people with the remnants of a legal packet of cannabis products would not regard the police as ‘enemies.
I think Iain Martin's assesment is correct. One of the things that has strengthened the EU's hand is that no member state has had so much of a peep against Barnier. It's not even about getting a second referendum on the matter with this amendment it is that the first deal is going to be poorer than it otherwise would be if Grieve wins his amendment.
That may seem intuitively true but in practice it makes absolutely no difference. We already know what the deal is as far as the withdrawal agreement is concerned but some are hoping pressure from the UK can persuade the EU to roll over on aspects of it that have already been agreed in the December joint report. That simply will not happen, Grieve or no Grieve.
Colour me sceptical on legalising recreational use of cannabis.
Yes, I know the war on it has been lost. Yes, I know it can have some medicinal applications. But it also has some serious mental health side effects for a minority of younger users, I’ve seen it turn friends of mine into absolute paranoid maniacs and I don’t want all our parks, and public areas stinking of ganja, which is a more sickly sweet and pervasive smell even compared to tobacco.
So, I remain to be convinced. Personally, I can’t stand the stuff and think both banning and legalising it has negative social effects, just a different mix on each side.
Me too. I don't want to come across as a pound shop de Quincey (or SeanT) but I used the stuff a bit more than occasionally between the 70s and 2010s, and if you don't have any experience of the extent to which the modern varieties blow your tits off you are going to underestimate the dangers. It's difficult to see how it could not cause psychosis in susceptible individuals, and psychosis is such a bad thing that "only a minority of cases" arguments don't really cut it. The libertarian argument fails for want of conviction: either you think we should have unfettered access to assault rifles and heroin and extreme pornography and everything else you can think of, or you are just playing at libertarianism in what you wrongly think is a nice, safe and consequence-free area.
Colour me sceptical on legalising recreational use of cannabis.
Yes, I know the war on it has been lost. Yes, I know it can have some medicinal applications. But it also has some serious mental health side effects for a minority of younger users, I’ve seen it turn friends of mine into absolute paranoid maniacs and I don’t want all our parks, and public areas stinking of ganja, which is a more sickly sweet and pervasive smell even compared to tobacco.
So, I remain to be convinced. Personally, I can’t stand the stuff and think both banning and legalising it has negative social effects, just a different mix on each side.
One of the main issues at the moment is that because the use, sale, growing, keeping etc etc is illegal the only ‘control’ is the capitalist one of ‘what the market says’. And the market says that making stronger and stronger...... ie plants with more active ingredient ....... is more profitable, so that’s what’s available.
The problem is if you make only the 'safe' 'vanilla' weed or whatever the legal ones, then people will still go illegal for the stronger stuff.
Part of the 'attractiveness' of the stronger skunk and other drugs it is the oblivion it gives people, and that stuff should never be available.
See the big picture, Joff. The EU is only 18% of the world economy (without the UK) today and 6% of the population. Let’s be generous and say our current trade is 50/50 EU and Non-EU today.
With 80% of future global growth to come from outside the EU and the huge population growth in Asia and Africa, how could I possibly be wrong?
Most US states' biggest trading partner is either Mexico or Canada. Geography matters.
Indeed US trade with Canada overall is approximately the same as China, despite China being over 7x the economy of Canada.
UK trade with EU is roughly 6.5x that of China. If we assume the Chinese economy grows at 7%, it will be almost 4 times larger in 20 years time.
So I think it's very possible that the EU remains the UK's largest trading partner for the next 20 years.
I would look for services deals with China, Brazil, India, the US, Nigeria and Vietnam, and existing common law countries.
And it won’t take “centuries”, either. It will take about 20-30 years at most. And non-EU countries are already our biggest export destination.
Sorry.
And for the record I’m not arguing for a “bad” Brexit deal, which is a bit of straw manning on your part.
The deindustrialisation in the 80s and 90s.
The idea that the single market will not be our biggest export destination in 20 years is for the fairies - unless we really do crash out.
Good luck with those services FTAs!
Interesting how you refer to 'deindustrialisation in the 80s and 90s' which saw manufacturing output rise but don't mention the actual deindustrialisation between 1997 and 2010.
And there was a higher proportion of high-wage manufacturing jobs being lost in that decade than in the 80s and 90s.
My point was about the communities that were devastated by deindustrialisation. It was the decline of heavy industry - which did take place largely between 1980 and 2000 - which saw countless communities ravaged because there was nothing to take its place. If there are no plans in place to replace lost jobs it will happen again.
The evidence says otherwise.
Err your chart say more industrial jobs were lost between 1980 and 1997 than after 1997.
Although what's striking is that whereas the jobs were lost between 1980-97 during the two recessions, and particularly the first one, Labour oversaw a period of de-industrialisation during sustained economic growth, although oddly, little further loss during 2008-10.
To break the post-1980 period into shorter spans:
1979Q2 to 1983Q2 - loss of 1.529m 1983Q2 to 1989Q3 - loss of 132k 1989Q3 to 1992Q4 - loss of 938k 1992Q4 to 1997Q2 - gain of 181k 1997Q2 to 2010Q2 - loss of 1.714m since 2010Q2 - gain of 122k
Colour me sceptical on legalising recreational use of cannabis.
Yes, I know the war on it has been lost. Yes, I know it can have some medicinal applications. But it also has some serious mental health side effects for a minority of younger users, I’ve seen it turn friends of mine into absolute paranoid maniacs and I don’t want all our parks, and public areas stinking of ganja, which is a more sickly sweet and pervasive smell even compared to tobacco.
So, I remain to be convinced. Personally, I can’t stand the stuff and think both banning and legalising it has negative social effects, just a different mix on each side.
One of the main issues at the moment is that because the use, sale, growing, keeping etc etc is illegal the only ‘control’ is the capitalist one of ‘what the market says’. And the market says that making stronger and stronger...... ie plants with more active ingredient ....... is more profitable, so that’s what’s available. Secondly, there’s an analogy with driving a motor vehicle. The assumption is that if a policeman stops one, then it’s almost a certainly that an offence has been, wittingly or unwittingly, committed. So the police are not, in that context, seen as ‘friends’. Making cannabis products, even weak ones, legal would mean that people with the remnants of a legal packet of cannabis products would not regard the police as ‘enemies.
But cannabis only has value in proportion to its strength; it's not like wine where you in theory have people sipping their 8% abv pinot whatever and saying Ooh this isn't as aggressive as the Chilean 14% stuff but I really like its citrusy afternotes. Good cannabis drives out bad, and people will continue to buy the real thing, illegally, rather than accept the tradeoff that what you get in Boots is about as psychoactive as Woodpecker cider but hey, it's legal.
Time for 500 new Brexit peers. I'm free until October, Theresa.
Quite apart from being undemocratic, I don't think it could be done. The Queen appoints peers on the advice of the PM, and such an obviously political stunt would compromise the impartiality of the crown. I can't see how Her Majesty could agree to it.
George Vth threatened to appoint lots of new Liberal Peers in 1911 if Tory Peers did not back down over opposing the Parliament Act
But only after Asquith had called a second General Election in December 1910.
The vast majority of global growth in future will come from outside the EU.
That argument becomes even more potent if you draw the boundary smaller. Just think how much global growth will be outside the UK. Is that a reason why Yorkshire should want its own trade deals?
So Scotland wont be looking deals then ?
Scotland will use its new-found sovereignty wisely by becoming a full member of the EU.
So when will you let Okney and Shetland go ? Theyll do better outside Scotland.
Not without oil and gas fields - and who's going to subsidise the ferries and air links?
See the big picture, Joff. The EU is only 18% of the world economy (without the UK) today and 6% of the population. Let’s be generous and say our current trade is 50/50 EU and Non-EU today.
With 80% of future global growth to come from outside the EU and the huge population growth in Asia and Africa, how could I possibly be wrong?
Most US states' biggest trading partner is either Mexico or Canada. Geography matters.
Indeed US trade with Canada overall is approximately the same as China, despite China being over 7x the economy of Canada.
UK trade with EU is roughly 6.5x that of China. If we assume the Chinese economy grows at 7%, it will be almost 4 times larger in 20 years time.
So I think it's very possible that the EU remains the UK's largest trading partner for the next 20 years.
Colour me sceptical on legalising recreational use of cannabis.
Yes, I know the war on it has been lost. Yes, I know it can have some medicinal applications. But it also has some serious mental health side effects for a minority of younger users, I’ve seen it turn friends of mine into absolute paranoid maniacs and I don’t want all our parks, and public areas stinking of ganja, which is a more sickly sweet and pervasive smell even compared to tobacco.
So, I remain to be convinced. Personally, I can’t stand the stuff and think both banning and legalising it has negative social effects, just a different mix on each side.
Me too. I don't want to come across as a pound shop de Quincey (or SeanT) but I used the stuff a bit more than occasionally between the 70s and 2010s, and if you don't have any experience of the extent to which the modern varieties blow your tits off you are going to underestimate the dangers. It's difficult to see how it could not cause psychosis in susceptible individuals, and psychosis is such a bad thing that "only a minority of cases" arguments don't really cut it. The libertarian argument fails for want of conviction: either you think we should have unfettered access to assault rifles and heroin and extreme pornography and everything else you can think of, or you are just playing at libertarianism in what you wrongly think is a nice, safe and consequence-free area.
You don't need a libertarian argument. You regulate it, ban advertisements etc. Once the street dealers have been pushed out of business, the legal companies then have to abide by regulations on selling to children etc. This thin segment of the market isn't enough for illegal gangs to cover their fixed costs.
See the big picture, Joff. The EU is only 18% of the world economy (without the UK) today and 6% of the population. Let’s be generous and say our current trade is 50/50 EU and Non-EU today.
With 80% of future global growth to come from outside the EU and the huge population growth in Asia and Africa, how could I possibly be wrong?
Most US states' biggest trading partner is either Mexico or Canada. Geography matters.
Indeed US trade with Canada overall is approximately the same as China, despite China being over 7x the economy of Canada.
UK trade with EU is roughly 6.5x that of China. If we assume the Chinese economy grows at 7%, it will be almost 4 times larger in 20 years time.
So I think it's very possible that the EU remains the UK's largest trading partner for the next 20 years.
But the trade-off isn't EU vs one other trading partner. It's the EU vs many different trading partners.
But also, losing one trading partner does not help gain another. It is not like dating!
It is perfectly possible to trade with both the EU and with emerging economies, and trading with the EU need not inhibit trading with others. Indeed by dropping out of the EU FTAs, we may well be worsening terms of trade with a lot of the non-EU world post Brexit.
Interesting how you refer to 'deindustrialisation in the 80s and 90s' which saw manufacturing output rise but don't mention the actual deindustrialisation between 1997 and 2010.
And there was a higher proportion of high-wage manufacturing jobs being lost in that decade than in the 80s and 90s.
My point was about the communities that were devastated by deindustrialisation. It was the decline of heavy industry - which did take place largely between 1980 and 2000 - which saw countless communities ravaged because there was nothing to take its place. If there are no plans in place to replace lost jobs it will happen again.
The evidence says otherwise.
Err your chart say more industrial jobs were lost between 1980 and 1997 than after 1997.
Yep, looking at the data supplied, unless I am reading it wrong it says that there were 6.541 million jobs in manufacturing in 1979, 3.959 in 1997 and 2.565 million in 2010. Between 1980 and 2000, 2.637 million jobs were lost. Since then, another 1.166 have gone.
Comments
Yet its only the period from 1979 to 1997 which Labour members are interested in.
Though at least during the 1980s miners were given good redundancy money as opposed to the Wilson era when they were told to get on their bikes to another pit or move to a different part of the country.
2. Scotland voted to remain part of the UK;
3. Not voting for the UK to leave does not imply support to Remain outside of the UK.
See the big picture, Joff. The EU is only 18% of the world economy (without the UK) today and 6% of the population. Let’s be generous and say our current trade is 50/50 EU and Non-EU today.
With 80% of future global growth to come from outside the EU and the huge population growth in Asia and Africa, how could I possibly be wrong?
This bill fetters them I'm afraid, we 'the people' can cast our verdict on May's Brexit in 2022 - if Corbyn gets in with confidence and supply from the Lib Dems & SNP then a referendum for not leaving/re-entry may well be on the cards. I'd hope the pro european Tory rebels are wise enough to not support this bill.
Sad.
I’m sure Sammy Wilson will win over Catholic waverers.
Secondly, there’s an analogy with driving a motor vehicle. The assumption is that if a policeman stops one, then it’s almost a certainly that an offence has been, wittingly or unwittingly, committed. So the police are not, in that context, seen as ‘friends’. Making cannabis products, even weak ones, legal would mean that people with the remnants of a legal packet of cannabis products would not regard the police as ‘enemies.
Part of the 'attractiveness' of the stronger skunk and other drugs it is the oblivion it gives people, and that stuff should never be available.
NEW THREAD
UK trade with EU is roughly 6.5x that of China. If we assume the Chinese economy grows at 7%, it will be almost 4 times larger in 20 years time.
So I think it's very possible that the EU remains the UK's largest trading partner for the next 20 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_United_Kingdom
To break the post-1980 period into shorter spans:
1979Q2 to 1983Q2 - loss of 1.529m
1983Q2 to 1989Q3 - loss of 132k
1989Q3 to 1992Q4 - loss of 938k
1992Q4 to 1997Q2 - gain of 181k
1997Q2 to 2010Q2 - loss of 1.714m
since 2010Q2 - gain of 122k
It is perfectly possible to trade with both the EU and with emerging economies, and trading with the EU need not inhibit trading with others. Indeed by dropping out of the EU FTAs, we may well be worsening terms of trade with a lot of the non-EU world post Brexit.
The numbers are:
1979 6.704m (and falling)
1997 4.286m (and rising)
2010 2.572m (and falling)
2017 2.676m (and rising)
Manufacturing employment reduced by 36% between 1979 and 1997 but by 40% between 1997 and 2010.