|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2024 1:41:06 GMT
“Let Reform UK and the Tories fight it out for the far-right vote, each inflicting damage on the other. In the meantime, Labour could slide down the middle.” …..down the center right 😂
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jan 4, 2024 13:40:58 GMT
Sunak confirms the election isn’t going to be until later in the year. It is ridiculous that we must put up with this failed administration for an additional 6 months. I wonder how much money they will extract from the general tax paying population to the rich friends and family members of the tory party during that time?
|
|
|
Post by Rose City Potter on Jan 4, 2024 13:46:47 GMT
May it is then 🙄🤣
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Jan 4, 2024 14:09:58 GMT
Sunak confirms the election isn’t going to be until later in the year. It is ridiculous that we must put up with this failed administration for an additional 6 months. I wonder how much money they will extract from the general tax paying population to the rich friends and family members of the tory party during that time? The only policy Sunak now has is hang on and hope something turns up despite the liklihood that will only be more Tory MP scandals, by-election losses and a thumping at the local elections.
|
|
|
Post by muggleton on Jan 4, 2024 17:44:18 GMT
A sad but depressing commentary on UK Politics 2024 where lying without impunity is de rigueur The starting gun for GE campaigning hasn't even been fired yet the most fantastical claims are being spouted as if we exist in a Parallel Universe Statesmen of whatever hue would turn in their graves if they were to hear some of the Bullshit Perhaps Ian is right and the Electorate will simply not engage as an FU or "a plague on all your houses" These Charletans and Scoundrels are testing the very limits of Democracy There's an element of collective embarrassment among people who enthusiastically backed the Tories and Brexit that'll lead to many of them staying home next time. Lots of them will convince themselves of the plague on all your houses line, but in reality it'll be down to embarrassment at getting taken in by such obvious chancers previously. And by staying home they'll be doing the country a favour.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 4, 2024 17:59:25 GMT
Sunak confirms the election isn’t going to be until later in the year. It is ridiculous that we must put up with this failed administration for an additional 6 months. I wonder how much money they will extract from the general tax paying population to the rich friends and family members of the tory party during that time? The only policy Sunak now has is hang on and hope something turns up despite the liklihood that will only be more Tory MP scandals, by-election losses and a thumping at the local elections. Don't think it'll be a case of 'hoping something will turn up' but more a case of hoping he's given himself a few more months to continue plundering the public purse ...
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jan 4, 2024 23:28:56 GMT
Thank you for your response and Christmas greeting. I pleased you agree with much of what I had written but have to take issue with your statement: "the economy had been on the slide for decades before joining EEC. Since joining that slide has been arrested. Relative to most other Countries it has done no better nor worse" I spelt out my views at length on the Brexit thread, page 1,567. oatcakefanzine.proboards.com/post/7952442/threadI pointed out there that from 1955 to 1973 UK GDP per capita grew at 3.68% pa. After joining the EEC from 1973 to 2019, UK GDP per capita grew at 2.1% pa. That is not arresting a slide, it is significantly worse. Even the best performing years from 1992 to 2007 when the economy grew at 2.68% in terms of GDP per capita, it was lower than the period prior to joining the EEC. You correctly point out the UK's poor productivity due to lack of investment in plant and people. The reason is the easy access of cheap labour, originally post WW2 from the Commonwealth and post millennium from Eastern Europe, with many from Southern Europe. The UK capitalist have always looked to the short term return rather than long term investment. Let someone else train people and we will steal their labour by paying a few per cent more. Better to invest in the far east or Eastern Europe where labour and energy is cheap than the UK has long been the case. But then you go and mention Ireland and make my temperature rise. As you say, Ireland joined the EEC at the same time as the UK. From 1973 up to 2018 Ireland was a net recipient of over €40 billion in EU funds and there can be no doubt that Ireland has benefited massively doing the things you describe. The UK on the other hand made a net financial contribution for 47 years equivalent to £1 trillion in today’s value of the £. Good luck to Ireland and others like Spain and Poland that have benefited massively at British tax payers expense, but the party is over and the UK has left the EU and it is up to future UK governments to make the best of it without Brussels. How Brexit will transform the UK is in the hands of the British and Northern Irish people, I do not subscribe to the view that the government is in control of everything. The UK is still a world leading country because of its people, and despite the governments we manage to elect and having been in the EU. Merry Christmas to you also. In the Season that's in it 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'” Acts 20:35 Everything is relative, I'll repeat what I posted before, it's the only statistic that is relevant but one you seem eager to ignore In 1950, UK’s per capita GDP was almost a third larger than the EEC 6 average per capita GDP ; in 1973 on joining EEC it was about 10% below !!!Its irrelevant that UK Economy was doing better/OK in the period before joining the EEC than the period after joining, it was doing considerably worse than EEC 6 before joining EEC and relatively the same as EEC 6 after joining. You're presenting a false equivalence Surely this isn't a difficult equation to grasp Outside EEC UK performed worse than those within EEC. Inside EEC UK performed, as you'd expect, about the same as others. You may be satisfied with the UK Growth in the period 1950 to 1973 and it's certainly better than current but the reality is that the EEC 6 growth in the same period far outperformed the UK Ireland has received €40Bn in Net Contributions Ireland has been a Net Contributor to EU Budget since 2014 In the current EU 7 year budget cycle Ireland will pay on average €3.5Bn per year in Net Contributions so net net it will be in equilibrium soon The point of EU is to raise living and other Standards in lower performing areas which will ultimately benefit the higher performing areas. Its called Leveling Up, a concept UK Government has heard about but has no idea of how to implement I planned to respond to the above post on the Brexit thread, but since a principal reason for the UK's poor economic performance post World War 2 was government incompetence I decided to keep my reply on this thread. In a letter to The Times (1), INET Oxford researchers Professor Sir David Hendry, Professor Doyne Farmer, and Dr Max Roser state that compared "to the UK’s performance during the “glory days” of the Empire from 1872 to 1914. Back then Britain’s per capita growth was only 0.9% per year, in contrast to its robust 2.1% since joining the EU."
If those eminent experts can quote UK GDP per capita growth comparison for different time periods, then so can I and the UK's growth from 1955 to 1973 was 3.68% pa, better than any period during EEC/EU membership, and far more relevant than the UK's performance before the First World War. I agree with making comparable performance and that comparisons should not be based on false grounds. My reviews of the UK's post Brexit economic performance are largely based on how the UK is performing relative to the rest of the G7 and our European neighbours. Although some posters have criticised me for doing that as they are only interested in UK performance. I believe performance has to be put in context. But it is also important to make true comparisons and I therefore avoid comparing the UK with East European countries or developing countries. It is also important when comparing to ensure there are no other major factors at play impacting one country and not another. To claim that the EEC6 growth from 1950 to 1973 was comparably better than the UK's as proof that UK membership of the EEC post 1973 has been a benefit to the UK is a flawed argument for the following reasons: 1. Coricelli and Campos's article "Why did Britain join the EU? A new insight from economic history" published in February 2015 (2) stated that "In 1950, UK’s per capita GDP was almost a third larger than the EEC 6 average per capita GDP ; in 1973 on joining EEC it was about 10% below !!!"
It certainly puts a new insight not previously postulated in the previous decades, and I always mistrust sound bites without the supporting data or reference source, especially when they childishly sensationalise their statement with three exclamation marks. The article gives a version of the history of events during the 1950s and 60s, but no economic reason for the UK's poorer relative performance to the EEC 6 over 23 years and simply ends with the above statement devoid of any analysis of the reasons for those statistics. Interestingly they do make the comment that in 1947 "The French favoured a customs union, the English a free trade area. The differences are substantial: customs unions entail deeper integration". That is one of the fundamental reasons I oppose UK membership of the EU. I favour free trade, oppose protectionism, and believe it is wrong for Britain to be locked in a customs union, subject to ever increasing legislation. I believe the UK should be free to conduct free trade with the whole of the world (so far as is achievable), which represents over 80% of the world economy and in a few years time will represent over 90% of the world economy. So why was the UK's per capita growth lower relative to the EEC 6 prior to joining the EEC? 1.1 Firstly I would point out that the EEC did not actually come into being until 1st January 1958 and that it would be naive to assume that union immediately changed the fortunes of the six economies over night; it obviously took years for them to gain the benefits of forming a free trade area. 1.2 Secondly, reference 2, shows two trends; one for the EEC 6 and one for the EEC 5, excluding Luxembourg, which became a tax haven and generated a huge GDP per capita which distorts the figures. The reference quotes comparison with "the EEC 6", but actuary compares figures with the EEC 5. 1.3 The quotation from reference 2 states "almost a third", but the actual percentage on the graph is 28%, which is significantly less than a third, nearer a quarter. 1.4 The graph in reference 2 shows that the decline in the percentage difference between the UK's GDP per capita and EU founding members [actually EEC 5] falls by 18% to 10% during the 1950s. Consequently over half the decline was before the EEC formation took effect. So the inference that the decline was due to the UK not being in the EEC is at least 50% bunkum. 1.5 Was the UK's poor relative performance due to due to an actual poor performance, or due to an exceptionally good performance by the EEC 5? Reference 3 lists the EEC 5 performances and indicates that from 1950 to 1973 their economies GDP/capita increased by: Netherlands 118%, Belgium 123%, France 148%, Italy 204%, and West Germany 207%. These are very impressive figures and compare well with the UK increase from 1955 when GDP per capita was c. £2,543 to c £4,228 in 1973, an increase of 66.3% over a slightly shorter period. How bad was this? The US growth was 100%, Canada 91% and Australia 79%, New Zealand 73%, all significantly less than the EEC 6. Was the EEC 6's performance significantly better than all other countries? Finland's economy grew by 160% and they did not join the EEC till 1995. Spain's economy grew by 269% and they didn't join the EEC till 1986. Japan's economy grew by an immense 488%, significantly better than the EEC 6; clearly there are other factors involved. 1.6 Since the UK's relative performance improved but actual performance deteriorated on joining the EEC, it follows that the EEC 6 actual performance must have deteriorated even more than the UK's. Comparing GDP/capita growth during 1950 to 1973 above (Period A) with the 23 years growth prior to German unification in 1990, i.e. from 1967 to 1990 (Period B), the EEC growth rates in period B were according to reference 4: Netherlands 70%, Belgium 88%, France 75%, Italy 97%, and West Germany 82%. The UK growth rate in period B was 65%. It is clear there was a very significant slow down in the EEC 5 economies growth rates, which in the case of the three largest economies by over a half. Germany's growth rate of 207% dropped to 82%. Consequently it must be deduced that the UK's relative improvement in GDP/capita compared with the EEC 5 after joining the EEC was due to the significantly greater deterioration in performance of the EEC 5 economies. It cannot be concluded that the UK economy benefited from joining the EEC. (NB Units may vary between different references, but comparisons are made on % change in the relevant units.) 2. It is also important to note that the growth rate of the EEC 5 countries was significantly worse following the formation of the EEC. Japan's per capita GDP growth also slowed from 488% in period A to 153% in period B, but still significantly better than the EEC 5. US growth in period B was 62% similar to the UK (65%) and Canada (67%). But as the graph in reference 1 shows. although the UK per capita GDP growth rate deteriorated after joining the EEC, since then the UK has outperformed Germany, the US, and France up to 2015. As for Italy and Japan, I refer the reader to references 5 and 6. 3. It has been demonstrated that there has been no economic benefit from the UK being a member of the EEC/EU, and I refer the reader to my post on the Brexit thread (7), where I presented the damage to the UK attributable to EEC/EU membership. It would be remiss however not to try and explain why the EEC 5 countries performed so well during period A. Why did English speaking countries perform worse post WWII? The clue is in the question. The second world war did untold damage to the countries involved, but some faired better than others. Consequently some had a better base to build from post war. The US had no warfare within its borders, but expended a lot of money supporting the allies initially and then leading the fight against the axis countries, and continued to extend financial support to many nations when peace resumed. Germany at the other extreme was not only engaged in war on all fronts but suffered bombing and warfare within its borders. Other countries faired to greater and lesser degrees in all aspects. Opinions will vary, but I think it is fair to say that the US, France, and Italy came out of the war a lot less damaged than Germany or the UK. Japan was somewhere in between. The UK did not suffer warfare within its borders but suffered huge destruction of its infrastructure, immense loss of its merchant shipping, and ended the war with an incredibly large debt, 250% of GDP. It has faded into history how close the UK and Commonwealth were to defeat in 1940 and 1941 due to the loss of equipment at Dunkirk, rate of loss of fighter aircraft, and the rate of loss of merchant shipping, on which the UK depended for raw materials and food. Consequently it is understandable that France, Italy and some other European countries' economies grew faster than the UK in the 1950 and 60s. What is less obvious is why Germany and Japan did so much better than the UK, or indeed other countries such as the US. Since this thread is principally about government incompetence, I will park the issue of Japan and concentrate on why Germany's economic recovery was so much stronger than the UK's. There have been innumerable papers written on the Germany post war Wirtschaftswunder, or economic miracle, which I don't propose to reiterate here. Germany's economy grew by a huge 8.2% per year during the 1950s, and 4.4% during the 1960s (8). Such rates are generally only achieved by underdeveloped economies or following a major recession. I refer the reader to reference 9 for an extensive description of the reasons for Germany's rapid recovery in a UCL paper drawn from a wide range of sources. I will reserve my comments to where the UK recovery and circumstances differed to Germany. 3.1 After WW2, the Allies were careful not to repeat the errors of WW1 and punish Germany, Italy, and Japan. The objective was to prevent political extremism and establishing a capitalist bulwark against the threat of communism from the east. The German currency was stabilised and a market economy restored following the American market system by promoting competition over monopoly, as shown by the breaking up of German cartels of over 10,000 employees Conversely the UK post war government engaged in wholesale nationalisation on the grounds that the UK's infrastructure was so damaged that it was beyond private investment recovery. During the post war 1940s the UK economy was so poor that rationing actually increased. 3.2 German industry was actually in better shape than many realised, for example only 6.5% of machine tools had been damaged during the war. Furthermore the German labour force was as well trained as before the war. UK industry was in a dire state and some restoration was carried out by reparations from Germany and from aid loaned under the Marshall plan, but it was small beer compared with the war damage the UK suffered. The UK government had massive debt, but Germany had half its debt cancelled in 1953. 3.4 Investment pushed ahead in Germany incentivised by very high depreciation allowances and other tax concessions, whilst in the UK successive governments engaged in Tory denationalisation, Suez, stop-go economics in the 50s and early 60s; Labour renationalisation, devaluation, and stagflation in the late 60s; and Tory sky-rocketing inflation, strikes, power cuts, and states of emergency during the early 70s, as successive incompetent and shambolic Tory and Labour governments came and went. My industry, steel was used as a political football, tossed back and forth between public and private ownership and including a decision by Macmillan not to build one new large efficient steelworks to meet future demand like IJmuiden, but to build two inefficient half works, one in Wales and one in Scotland to ameliorate unemployment; neither works was truly fully developed and both eventually closed. Compare that debacle with Germany's iron and steel industries, with the 12 largest firms being divided into 28 smaller competitive firms. 3.5 A paper by de Long and Summers (1992) reported robust investment in Germany in machinery and equipment as a factor in Germany's post WWII strong growth. This compares with my own experience when I moved to Teesside steelworks in 1975 and was shown round the rolling mills which were mainly German rolling mills from the 1930s that had been moved to the UK after WWII as reparations, and still being used by British Steel; Germany were producing steel with new rolling mills. The Korean War boosted demand for goods that only Germany in Europe having spare capacity was able to produce. 3.6 One of the issues that faces a growing economy is shortage of labour. The UK addressed this with immigration, notably from the Caribbean. Between 1948 and 1971, it is estimated that 500,000 people migrated to Britain from the Caribbean as part of the Windrush generation. West Germany received over 6 million refugees from East Germany between 1946 and 1962, many of whom were well trained and skilled. A surfeit of labour in West Germany meant that unions were weak, whereas the UK was blighted by industrial action for forty years after WWII. The increased West German population plus increasing living standards, drove consumption which increased by 58% between 1953-1960; more than double the UK’s 25% increase. 3.7 During the post WWII years there was a shift in the German unions away from trade/craft/role/rank based unions to industry/service sector unions such as IG Metall. The establishment of Works Councils in Germany effectively weakened the power of unions as they were taking partial responsibility for the future viability of the companies they worked for. West Germany enjoyed relatively good industrial relations, whilst Germany's international competitors faced industrial militancy, with the British coal mining industry alone recording some 2400 strikes in 1954. In the UK a multitude of unions existed in the 1950s, not only resulting in disputes with management but also competition between unions for members. Industry was also bedevilled by restrictive practices. An example I particularly remember in the steelworks I worked in the early 70s was: If you needed to replace a window pain, if the frame was a metal frame you had to call a glazier. But if the frame was a wooden frame , it was a joiner's job to replace the glass. The unions contrived to actually create more work to secure their jobs (they thought) but actually made UK industry uncompetitive. The stories from the docks and car industry of restrictive practices were legion. The satirical comedy film "I'm All Right Jack" went a long way to describing what a lot of British industry was like in the 1950s and 1960s. We are now in 2024 and the UK still has different unions in the rail industry and health industry taking industrial action on different days, crippling the services to the public. 3.8 Another factor was the political scene with the cold war between east and west. West Germany was strongly supported by America. The US had over 200 military installations in West Germany From the 1950s till 1990, the US had typically 300,000 forces personnel serving in West Germany. This presence was in effect a massive tourist trade for West Germany and generated a huge amount of income for the country. This was also the case in Japan, where the US had over a quarter of a million soldiers based. 3.9 From 1950 to 1973 the value of the £ relative to the US$ declined by 12.5%. Compared with the German Mark the £ declined by 32%. This is another reason for the greater growth of the German economy relative to the UK economy, measured in US$. 3.10 It has to be concluded that Germany performed far better than the UK in many aspects. German products earned a justified high reputation. France and Italy had a head start on the UK after WWII and when their economies needed new capital equipment it was Germany that supplied their needs. The UK was the "sick man of Europe" during the 50,s, 60s, and early 70s but it was not failure to join the EEC that was the cause, but the quality of British governments, British management, and British organised labour. To claim the UK's relative performance improved because of joining the EEC is incorrect. 4. So did joining the EEC improve the UK's economic growth? 4.1 The numbers tell us that that GDP/capita growth rate dropped from 3.68% to 2.1% as already stated. The Tory government left power after 4 disastrous years in 1974 and we got a Labour government divided over EEC membership, nationalised industries haemorrhaging tax payers money, even more industrial disputes culminating in the "Winter of Discontent". So the electorate lurched to a right wing Thatcher Tory government adopting monetarist policies and we endured a record long steel strike, then a record long miners strike, and unemployment soared to record levels not seen since the 1930s. It's hard to believe the UK actually improved its relative GDP/capita growth relative to the EEC6. The reason was that growth in the EEC plunged from its level in the 50s and 60s. 4.2 The German economic miracle started to come to an end in the second half of the 60s. The expansion of the market led to a labour shortage, which was initially filled by immigrants, but they were generally poorly trained or qualified relative to the native German population. A recession occurred in 1966, and industrial unrest started to arise towards the end of the decade. None of this seriously impacted on German or EEC growth generally, but their economies were impacted by the OPEC induced oil crisis in 1973. This not only caused inflation, loss of profits, economic slowdown, but most importantly reduced investment. Conversely the UK and Norway were investing heavily in North Sea oil which started production from 1975, greatly assisting the UK economy during the following decades. EEC membership made no net contribution to the UK economy and in fact from after the formation of the EU and the turn of the century the UK started to accumulate a huge trade deficit with the EU. 4.3 Another factor impacting German growth was the much stricter monetary control of the Bundesbank which had an anathema to inflation and prized a strong German Mark. The slowdown of the German economy, the "engine room" of Europe, impacted all the other neighbouring economies. As a consequence the EEC growth slowed to less than the UK's apart from the 91-92 UK recession. References (1) www.inet.ox.ac.uk/news/brexit/(2) cepr.org/voxeu/columns/why-did-britain-join-eu-new-insight-economic-history#:~:text=In%201950%2C%20UK%27s%20per%20capita,%2D%C3%A0%2Dvis%20the%20EU6. (3) www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/GDP-per-capita-in-1950(4) www.demographia.com/db-ppp60+.htm(5) data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=IT(6) data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=JP(7) oatcakefanzine.proboards.com/post/7952442/thread(8) www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economy/National-Accounts-Domestic-Product/gdp-long-term.html#:~:text=For%20simplification%2C%20they%20can%20be,the%20Federal%20Republic%20of%20Germany (9) www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctpa36/west%20germany%20in%20crafts%20toniolo.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 5, 2024 0:54:28 GMT
In answer to his question ... yes, they DO think we are all stupid!
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jan 5, 2024 1:08:20 GMT
In the Season that's in it 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'” Acts 20:35 Everything is relative, I'll repeat what I posted before, it's the only statistic that is relevant but one you seem eager to ignore In 1950, UK’s per capita GDP was almost a third larger than the EEC 6 average per capita GDP ; in 1973 on joining EEC it was about 10% below !!!Its irrelevant that UK Economy was doing better/OK in the period before joining the EEC than the period after joining, it was doing considerably worse than EEC 6 before joining EEC and relatively the same as EEC 6 after joining. You're presenting a false equivalence Surely this isn't a difficult equation to grasp Outside EEC UK performed worse than those within EEC. Inside EEC UK performed, as you'd expect, about the same as others. You may be satisfied with the UK Growth in the period 1950 to 1973 and it's certainly better than current but the reality is that the EEC 6 growth in the same period far outperformed the UK Ireland has received €40Bn in Net Contributions Ireland has been a Net Contributor to EU Budget since 2014 In the current EU 7 year budget cycle Ireland will pay on average €3.5Bn per year in Net Contributions so net net it will be in equilibrium soon The point of EU is to raise living and other Standards in lower performing areas which will ultimately benefit the higher performing areas. Its called Leveling Up, a concept UK Government has heard about but has no idea of how to implement I planned to respond to the above post on the Brexit thread, but since a principal reason for the UK's poor economic performance post World War 2 was government incompetence I decided to keep my reply on this thread. In a letter to The Times (1), INET Oxford researchers Professor Sir David Hendry, Professor Doyne Farmer, and Dr Max Roser state that compared "to the UK’s performance during the “glory days” of the Empire from 1872 to 1914. Back then Britain’s per capita growth was only 0.9% per year, in contrast to its robust 2.1% since joining the EU."
If those eminent experts can quote UK GDP per capita growth comparison for different time periods, then so can I and the UK's growth from 1955 to 1973 was 3.68% pa, better than any period during EEC/EU membership, and far more relevant than the UK's performance before the First World War. I agree with making comparable performance and that comparisons should not be based on false grounds. My reviews of the UK's post Brexit economic performance are largely based on how the UK is performing relative to the rest of the G7 and our European neighbours. Although some posters have criticised me for doing that as they are only interested in UK performance. I believe performance has to be put in context. But it is also important to make true comparisons and I therefore avoid comparing the UK with East European countries or developing countries. It is also important when comparing to ensure there are no other major factors at play impacting one country and not another. To claim that the EEC6 growth from 1950 to 1973 was comparably better than the UK's as proof that UK membership of the EEC post 1973 has been a benefit to the UK is a flawed argument for the following reasons: 1. Coricelli and Campos's article "Why did Britain join the EU? A new insight from economic history" published in February 2015 (2) stated that "In 1950, UK’s per capita GDP was almost a third larger than the EEC 6 average per capita GDP ; in 1973 on joining EEC it was about 10% below !!!"
It certainly puts a new insight not previously postulated in the previous decades, and I always mistrust sound bites without the supporting data or reference source, especially when they childishly sensationalise their statement with three exclamation marks. The article gives a version of the history of events during the 1950s and 60s, but no economic reason for the UK's poorer relative performance to the EEC 6 over 23 years and simply ends with the above statement devoid of any analysis of the reasons for those statistics. Interestingly they do make the comment that in 1947 "The French favoured a customs union, the English a free trade area. The differences are substantial: customs unions entail deeper integration". That is one of the fundamental reasons I oppose UK membership of the EU. I favour free trade, oppose protectionism, and believe it is wrong for Britain to be locked in a customs union, subject to ever increasing legislation. I believe the UK should be free to conduct free trade with the whole of the world (so far as is achievable), which represents over 80% of the world economy and in a few years time will represent over 90% of the world economy. So why was the UK's per capita growth lower relative to the EEC 6 prior to joining the EEC? 1.1 Firstly I would point out that the EEC did not actually come into being until 1st January 1958 and that it would be naive to assume that union immediately changed the fortunes of the six economies over night; it obviously took years for them to gain the benefits of forming a free trade area. 1.2 Secondly, reference 2, shows two trends; one for the EEC 6 and one for the EEC 5, excluding Luxembourg, which became a tax haven and generated a huge GDP per capita which distorts the figures. The reference quotes comparison with "the EEC 6", but actuary compares figures with the EEC 5. 1.3 The quotation from reference 2 states "almost a third", but the actual percentage on the graph is 28%, which is significantly less than a third, nearer a quarter. 1.4 The graph in reference 2 shows that the decline in the percentage difference between the UK's GDP per capita and EU founding members [actually EEC 5] falls by 18% to 10% during the 1950s. Consequently over half the decline was before the EEC formation took effect. So the inference that the decline was due to the UK not being in the EEC is at least 50% bunkum. 1.5 Was the UK's poor relative performance due to due to an actual poor performance, or due to an exceptionally good performance by the EEC 5? Reference 3 lists the EEC 5 performances and indicates that from 1950 to 1973 their economies GDP/capita increased by: Netherlands 118%, Belgium 123%, France 148%, Italy 204%, and West Germany 207%. These are very impressive figures and compare well with the UK increase from 1955 when GDP per capita was c. £2,543 to c £4,228 in 1973, an increase of 66.3% over a slightly shorter period. How bad was this? The US growth was 100%, Canada 91% and Australia 79%, New Zealand 73%, all significantly less than the EEC 6. Was the EEC 6's performance significantly better than all other countries? Finland's economy grew by 160% and they did not join the EEC till 1995. Spain's economy grew by 269% and they didn't join the EEC till 1986. Japan's economy grew by an immense 488%, significantly better than the EEC 6; clearly there are other factors involved. 1.6 Since the UK's relative performance improved but actual performance deteriorated on joining the EEC, it follows that the EEC 6 actual performance must have deteriorated even more than the UK's. Comparing GDP/capita growth during 1950 to 1973 above (Period A) with the 23 years growth prior to German unification in 1990, i.e. from 1967 to 1990 (Period B), the EEC growth rates in period B were according to reference 4: Netherlands 70%, Belgium 88%, France 75%, Italy 97%, and West Germany 82%. The UK growth rate in period B was 65%. It is clear there was a very significant slow down in the EEC 5 economies growth rates, which in the case of the three largest economies by over a half. Germany's growth rate of 207% dropped to 82%. Consequently it must be deduced that the UK's relative improvement in GDP/capita compared with the EEC 5 after joining the EEC was due to the significantly greater deterioration in performance of the EEC 5 economies. It cannot be concluded that the UK economy benefited from joining the EEC. (NB Units may vary between different references, but comparisons are made on % change in the relevant units.) 2. It is also important to note that the growth rate of the EEC 5 countries was significantly worse following the formation of the EEC. Japan's per capita GDP growth also slowed from 488% in period A to 153% in period B, but still significantly better than the EEC 5. US growth in period B was 62% similar to the UK (65%) and Canada (67%). But as the graph in reference 1 shows. although the UK per capita GDP growth rate deteriorated after joining the EEC, since then the UK has outperformed Germany, the US, and France up to 2015. As for Italy and Japan, I refer the reader to references 5 and 6. 3. It has been demonstrated that there has been no economic benefit from the UK being a member of the EEC/EU, and I refer the reader to my post on the Brexit thread (7), where I presented the damage to the UK attributable to EEC/EU membership. It would be remiss however not to try and explain why the EEC 5 countries performed so well during period A. Why did English speaking countries perform worse post WWII? The clue is in the question. The second world war did untold damage to the countries involved, but some faired better than others. Consequently some had a better base to build from post war. The US had no warfare within its borders, but expended a lot of money supporting the allies initially and then leading the fight against the axis countries, and continued to extend financial support to many nations when peace resumed. Germany at the other extreme was not only engaged in war on all fronts but suffered bombing and warfare within its borders. Other countries faired to greater and lesser degrees in all aspects. Opinions will vary, but I think it is fair to say that the US, France, and Italy came out of the war a lot less damaged than Germany or the UK. Japan was somewhere in between. The UK did not suffer warfare within its borders but suffered huge destruction of its infrastructure, immense loss of its merchant shipping, and ended the war with an incredibly large debt, 250% of GDP. It has faded into history how close the UK and Commonwealth were to defeat in 1940 and 1941 due to the loss of equipment at Dunkirk, rate of loss of fighter aircraft, and the rate of loss of merchant shipping, on which the UK depended for raw materials and food. Consequently it is understandable that France, Italy and some other European countries' economies grew faster than the UK in the 1950 and 60s. What is less obvious is why Germany and Japan did so much better than the UK, or indeed other countries such as the US. Since this thread is principally about government incompetence, I will park the issue of Japan and concentrate on why Germany's economic recovery was so much stronger than the UK's. There have been innumerable papers written on the Germany post war Wirtschaftswunder, or economic miracle, which I don't propose to reiterate here. Germany's economy grew by a huge 8.2% per year during the 1950s, and 4.4% during the 1960s (8). Such rates are generally only achieved by underdeveloped economies or following a major recession. I refer the reader to reference 9 for an extensive description of the reasons for Germany's rapid recovery in a UCL paper drawn from a wide range of sources. I will reserve my comments to where the UK recovery and circumstances differed to Germany. 3.1 After WW2, the Allies were careful not to repeat the errors of WW1 and punish Germany, Italy, and Japan. The objective was to prevent political extremism and establishing a capitalist bulwark against the threat of communism from the east. The German currency was stabilised and a market economy restored following the American market system by promoting competition over monopoly, as shown by the breaking up of German cartels of over 10,000 employees Conversely the UK post war government engaged in wholesale nationalisation on the grounds that the UK's infrastructure was so damaged that it was beyond private investment recovery. During the post war 1940s the UK economy was so poor that rationing actually increased. 3.2 German industry was actually in better shape than many realised, for example only 6.5% of machine tools had been damaged during the war. Furthermore the German labour force was as well trained as before the war. UK industry was in a dire state and some restoration was carried out by reparations from Germany and from aid loaned under the Marshall plan, but it was small beer compared with the war damage the UK suffered. The UK government had massive debt, but Germany had half its debt cancelled in 1953. 3.4 Investment pushed ahead in Germany incentivised by very high depreciation allowances and other tax concessions, whilst in the UK successive governments engaged in Tory denationalisation, Suez, stop-go economics in the 50s and early 60s; Labour renationalisation, devaluation, and stagflation in the late 60s; and Tory sky-rocketing inflation, strikes, power cuts, and states of emergency during the early 70s, as successive incompetent and shambolic Tory and Labour governments came and went. My industry, steel was used as a political football, tossed back and forth between public and private ownership and including a decision by Macmillan not to build one new large efficient steelworks to meet future demand like IJmuiden, but to build two inefficient half works, one in Wales and one in Scotland to ameliorate unemployment; neither works was truly fully developed and both eventually closed. Compare that debacle with Germany's iron and steel industries, with the 12 largest firms being divided into 28 smaller competitive firms. 3.5 A paper by de Long and Summers (1992) reported robust investment in Germany in machinery and equipment as a factor in Germany's post WWII strong growth. This compares with my own experience when I moved to Teesside steelworks in 1975 and was shown round the rolling mills which were mainly German rolling mills from the 1930s that had been moved to the UK after WWII as reparations, and still being used by British Steel; Germany were producing steel with new rolling mills. The Korean War boosted demand for goods that only Germany in Europe having spare capacity was able to produce. 3.6 One of the issues that faces a growing economy is shortage of labour. The UK addressed this with immigration, notably from the Caribbean. Between 1948 and 1971, it is estimated that 500,000 people migrated to Britain from the Caribbean as part of the Windrush generation. West Germany received over 6 million refugees from East Germany between 1946 and 1962, many of whom were well trained and skilled. A surfeit of labour in West Germany meant that unions were weak, whereas the UK was blighted by industrial action for forty years after WWII. The increased West German population plus increasing living standards, drove consumption which increased by 58% between 1953-1960; more than double the UK’s 25% increase. 3.7 During the post WWII years there was a shift in the German unions away from trade/craft/role/rank based unions to industry/service sector unions such as IG Metall. The establishment of Works Councils in Germany effectively weakened the power of unions as they were taking partial responsibility for the future viability of the companies they worked for. West Germany enjoyed relatively good industrial relations, whilst Germany's international competitors faced industrial militancy, with the British coal mining industry alone recording some 2400 strikes in 1954. In the UK a multitude of unions existed in the 1950s, not only resulting in disputes with management but also competition between unions for members. Industry was also bedevilled by restrictive practices. An example I particularly remember in the steelworks I worked in the early 70s was: If you needed to replace a window pain, if the frame was a metal frame you had to call a glazier. But if the frame was a wooden frame , it was a joiner's job to replace the glass. The unions contrived to actually create more work to secure their jobs (they thought) but actually made UK industry uncompetitive. The stories from the docks and car industry of restrictive practices were legion. The satirical comedy film "I'm All Right Jack" went a long way to describing what a lot of British industry was like in the 1950s and 1960s. We are now in 2024 and the UK still has different unions in the rail industry and health industry taking industrial action on different days, crippling the services to the public. 3.8 Another factor was the political scene with the cold war between east and west. West Germany was strongly supported by America. The US had over 200 military installations in West Germany From the 1950s till 1990, the US had typically 300,000 forces personnel serving in West Germany. This presence was in effect a massive tourist trade for West Germany and generated a huge amount of income for the country. This was also the case in Japan, where the US had over a quarter of a million soldiers based. 3.9 From 1950 to 1973 the value of the £ relative to the US$ declined by 12.5%. Compared with the German Mark the £ declined by 32%. This is another reason for the greater growth of the German economy relative to the UK economy, measured in US$. 3.10 It has to be concluded that Germany performed far better than the UK in many aspects. German products earned a justified high reputation. France and Italy had a head start on the UK after WWII and when their economies needed new capital equipment it was Germany that supplied their needs. The UK was the "sick man of Europe" during the 50,s, 60s, and early 70s but it was not failure to join the EEC that was the cause, but the quality of British governments, British management, and British organised labour. To claim the UK's relative performance improved because of joining the EEC is incorrect. 4. So did joining the EEC improve the UK's economic growth? 4.1 The numbers tell us that that GDP/capita growth rate dropped from 3.68% to 2.1% as already stated. The Tory government left power after 4 disastrous years in 1974 and we got a Labour government divided over EEC membership, nationalised industries haemorrhaging tax payers money, even more industrial disputes culminating in the "Winter of Discontent". So the electorate lurched to a right wing Thatcher Tory government adopting monetarist policies and we endured a record long steel strike, then a record long miners strike, and unemployment soared to record levels not seen since the 1930s. It's hard to believe the UK actually improved its relative GDP/capita growth relative to the EEC6. The reason was that growth in the EEC plunged from its level in the 50s and 60s. 4.2 The German economic miracle started to come to an end in the second half of the 60s. The expansion of the market led to a labour shortage, which was initially filled by immigrants, but they were generally poorly trained or qualified relative to the native German population. A recession occurred in 1966, and industrial unrest started to arise towards the end of the decade. None of this seriously impacted on German or EEC growth generally, but their economies were impacted by the OPEC induced oil crisis in 1973. This not only caused inflation, loss of profits, economic slowdown, but most importantly reduced investment. Conversely the UK and Norway were investing heavily in North Sea oil which started production from 1975, greatly assisting the UK economy during the following decades. EEC membership made no net contribution to the UK economy and in fact from after the formation of the EU and the turn of the century the UK started to accumulate a huge trade deficit with the EU. 4.3 Another factor impacting German growth was the much stricter monetary control of the Bundesbank which had an anathema to inflation and prized a strong German Mark. The slowdown of the German economy, the "engine room" of Europe, impacted all the other neighbouring economies. As a consequence the EEC growth slowed to less than the UK's apart from the 91-92 UK recession. References (1) www.inet.ox.ac.uk/news/brexit/(2) cepr.org/voxeu/columns/why-did-britain-join-eu-new-insight-economic-history#:~:text=In%201950%2C%20UK%27s%20per%20capita,%2D%C3%A0%2Dvis%20the%20EU6. (3) www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/GDP-per-capita-in-1950(4) www.demographia.com/db-ppp60+.htm(5) data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=IT(6) data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=JP(7) oatcakefanzine.proboards.com/post/7952442/thread(8) www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economy/National-Accounts-Domestic-Product/gdp-long-term.html#:~:text=For%20simplification%2C%20they%20can%20be,the%20Federal%20Republic%20of%20Germany (9) www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctpa36/west%20germany%20in%20crafts%20toniolo.pdfAs I'm on my second generously poured Single Malt I only skim read your post and I'm not entirely sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me. Your original point was that UK GDP grew at a faster GDP rate outside EEC than after joining. I don't disagree with this but all things being relative and subject to outside influence In the period from when EEC was formed up to the point UK at third time of asking was allowed to join, the EEC Economies greatly outperformed the UK Economy. Subsequent to joining the EEC the relative decline of UK Economy relative to the EEC was arrested and subsequently performed at par with the EEC Economies. Therefore QED outside the EEC UK Economy was in decline, within EEC/EU the UK Economy kept pace at par and was no longer in relative decline and to expand the point since leaving EU the UK Economy has performed better than some of the original EEC6 and worse than others There's a whole plethora of reasons to explain this and I agree with some of your previous comments that it's too early to draw definitive conclusions on the Economic outcome of Brexit but it's undeniable that when asked no Brexiteer can point to any tangible Economic Benefit of Brexit, that outcome, if any, will only manifest in some years to come. At opening you highlighted the difficulty in seperating the actions of Government good/bad with Brexit because they are inextricably mixed It is fraudulent to say people that voted for Brexit knew exactly what they were Voting for because there were more varieties than even Heinz could envisage. Likewise while this current Administration struggles on and if/when it will be replaced by a different Administration the relationship with EU could be closer or more distant. Brexit will still have occurred but the operations and workings will be based on Political expediency not on an ideological set of Brexit rules and principles Brexit is an intangible concept, it's meaning abstract, it include ideas, feelings, relationships, values, and beliefs. Some intangible meanings are universal concepts to which everyone can relate but no two people will see Brexit exactly the same way. I'll reply to your post specifically later when I've had an opportunity to read properly
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jan 5, 2024 6:44:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Jan 5, 2024 7:09:03 GMT
In the Season that's in it 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'” Acts 20:35 Everything is relative, I'll repeat what I posted before, it's the only statistic that is relevant but one you seem eager to ignore In 1950, UK’s per capita GDP was almost a third larger than the EEC 6 average per capita GDP ; in 1973 on joining EEC it was about 10% below !!!Its irrelevant that UK Economy was doing better/OK in the period before joining the EEC than the period after joining, it was doing considerably worse than EEC 6 before joining EEC and relatively the same as EEC 6 after joining. You're presenting a false equivalence Surely this isn't a difficult equation to grasp Outside EEC UK performed worse than those within EEC. Inside EEC UK performed, as you'd expect, about the same as others. You may be satisfied with the UK Growth in the period 1950 to 1973 and it's certainly better than current but the reality is that the EEC 6 growth in the same period far outperformed the UK Ireland has received €40Bn in Net Contributions Ireland has been a Net Contributor to EU Budget since 2014 In the current EU 7 year budget cycle Ireland will pay on average €3.5Bn per year in Net Contributions so net net it will be in equilibrium soon The point of EU is to raise living and other Standards in lower performing areas which will ultimately benefit the higher performing areas. Its called Leveling Up, a concept UK Government has heard about but has no idea of how to implement I planned to respond to the above post on the Brexit thread, but since a principal reason for the UK's poor economic performance post World War 2 was government incompetence I decided to keep my reply on this thread. In a letter to The Times (1), INET Oxford researchers Professor Sir David Hendry, Professor Doyne Farmer, and Dr Max Roser state that compared "to the UK’s performance during the “glory days” of the Empire from 1872 to 1914. Back then Britain’s per capita growth was only 0.9% per year, in contrast to its robust 2.1% since joining the EU."
If those eminent experts can quote UK GDP per capita growth comparison for different time periods, then so can I and the UK's growth from 1955 to 1973 was 3.68% pa, better than any period during EEC/EU membership, and far more relevant than the UK's performance before the First World War. I agree with making comparable performance and that comparisons should not be based on false grounds. My reviews of the UK's post Brexit economic performance are largely based on how the UK is performing relative to the rest of the G7 and our European neighbours. Although some posters have criticised me for doing that as they are only interested in UK performance. I believe performance has to be put in context. But it is also important to make true comparisons and I therefore avoid comparing the UK with East European countries or developing countries. It is also important when comparing to ensure there are no other major factors at play impacting one country and not another. To claim that the EEC6 growth from 1950 to 1973 was comparably better than the UK's as proof that UK membership of the EEC post 1973 has been a benefit to the UK is a flawed argument for the following reasons: 1. Coricelli and Campos's article "Why did Britain join the EU? A new insight from economic history" published in February 2015 (2) stated that "In 1950, UK’s per capita GDP was almost a third larger than the EEC 6 average per capita GDP ; in 1973 on joining EEC it was about 10% below !!!"
It certainly puts a new insight not previously postulated in the previous decades, and I always mistrust sound bites without the supporting data or reference source, especially when they childishly sensationalise their statement with three exclamation marks. The article gives a version of the history of events during the 1950s and 60s, but no economic reason for the UK's poorer relative performance to the EEC 6 over 23 years and simply ends with the above statement devoid of any analysis of the reasons for those statistics. Interestingly they do make the comment that in 1947 "The French favoured a customs union, the English a free trade area. The differences are substantial: customs unions entail deeper integration". That is one of the fundamental reasons I oppose UK membership of the EU. I favour free trade, oppose protectionism, and believe it is wrong for Britain to be locked in a customs union, subject to ever increasing legislation. I believe the UK should be free to conduct free trade with the whole of the world (so far as is achievable), which represents over 80% of the world economy and in a few years time will represent over 90% of the world economy. So why was the UK's per capita growth lower relative to the EEC 6 prior to joining the EEC? 1.1 Firstly I would point out that the EEC did not actually come into being until 1st January 1958 and that it would be naive to assume that union immediately changed the fortunes of the six economies over night; it obviously took years for them to gain the benefits of forming a free trade area. 1.2 Secondly, reference 2, shows two trends; one for the EEC 6 and one for the EEC 5, excluding Luxembourg, which became a tax haven and generated a huge GDP per capita which distorts the figures. The reference quotes comparison with "the EEC 6", but actuary compares figures with the EEC 5. 1.3 The quotation from reference 2 states "almost a third", but the actual percentage on the graph is 28%, which is significantly less than a third, nearer a quarter. 1.4 The graph in reference 2 shows that the decline in the percentage difference between the UK's GDP per capita and EU founding members [actually EEC 5] falls by 18% to 10% during the 1950s. Consequently over half the decline was before the EEC formation took effect. So the inference that the decline was due to the UK not being in the EEC is at least 50% bunkum. 1.5 Was the UK's poor relative performance due to due to an actual poor performance, or due to an exceptionally good performance by the EEC 5? Reference 3 lists the EEC 5 performances and indicates that from 1950 to 1973 their economies GDP/capita increased by: Netherlands 118%, Belgium 123%, France 148%, Italy 204%, and West Germany 207%. These are very impressive figures and compare well with the UK increase from 1955 when GDP per capita was c. £2,543 to c £4,228 in 1973, an increase of 66.3% over a slightly shorter period. How bad was this? The US growth was 100%, Canada 91% and Australia 79%, New Zealand 73%, all significantly less than the EEC 6. Was the EEC 6's performance significantly better than all other countries? Finland's economy grew by 160% and they did not join the EEC till 1995. Spain's economy grew by 269% and they didn't join the EEC till 1986. Japan's economy grew by an immense 488%, significantly better than the EEC 6; clearly there are other factors involved. 1.6 Since the UK's relative performance improved but actual performance deteriorated on joining the EEC, it follows that the EEC 6 actual performance must have deteriorated even more than the UK's. Comparing GDP/capita growth during 1950 to 1973 above (Period A) with the 23 years growth prior to German unification in 1990, i.e. from 1967 to 1990 (Period B), the EEC growth rates in period B were according to reference 4: Netherlands 70%, Belgium 88%, France 75%, Italy 97%, and West Germany 82%. The UK growth rate in period B was 65%. It is clear there was a very significant slow down in the EEC 5 economies growth rates, which in the case of the three largest economies by over a half. Germany's growth rate of 207% dropped to 82%. Consequently it must be deduced that the UK's relative improvement in GDP/capita compared with the EEC 5 after joining the EEC was due to the significantly greater deterioration in performance of the EEC 5 economies. It cannot be concluded that the UK economy benefited from joining the EEC. (NB Units may vary between different references, but comparisons are made on % change in the relevant units.) 2. It is also important to note that the growth rate of the EEC 5 countries was significantly worse following the formation of the EEC. Japan's per capita GDP growth also slowed from 488% in period A to 153% in period B, but still significantly better than the EEC 5. US growth in period B was 62% similar to the UK (65%) and Canada (67%). But as the graph in reference 1 shows. although the UK per capita GDP growth rate deteriorated after joining the EEC, since then the UK has outperformed Germany, the US, and France up to 2015. As for Italy and Japan, I refer the reader to references 5 and 6. 3. It has been demonstrated that there has been no economic benefit from the UK being a member of the EEC/EU, and I refer the reader to my post on the Brexit thread (7), where I presented the damage to the UK attributable to EEC/EU membership. It would be remiss however not to try and explain why the EEC 5 countries performed so well during period A. Why did English speaking countries perform worse post WWII? The clue is in the question. The second world war did untold damage to the countries involved, but some faired better than others. Consequently some had a better base to build from post war. The US had no warfare within its borders, but expended a lot of money supporting the allies initially and then leading the fight against the axis countries, and continued to extend financial support to many nations when peace resumed. Germany at the other extreme was not only engaged in war on all fronts but suffered bombing and warfare within its borders. Other countries faired to greater and lesser degrees in all aspects. Opinions will vary, but I think it is fair to say that the US, France, and Italy came out of the war a lot less damaged than Germany or the UK. Japan was somewhere in between. The UK did not suffer warfare within its borders but suffered huge destruction of its infrastructure, immense loss of its merchant shipping, and ended the war with an incredibly large debt, 250% of GDP. It has faded into history how close the UK and Commonwealth were to defeat in 1940 and 1941 due to the loss of equipment at Dunkirk, rate of loss of fighter aircraft, and the rate of loss of merchant shipping, on which the UK depended for raw materials and food. Consequently it is understandable that France, Italy and some other European countries' economies grew faster than the UK in the 1950 and 60s. What is less obvious is why Germany and Japan did so much better than the UK, or indeed other countries such as the US. Since this thread is principally about government incompetence, I will park the issue of Japan and concentrate on why Germany's economic recovery was so much stronger than the UK's. There have been innumerable papers written on the Germany post war Wirtschaftswunder, or economic miracle, which I don't propose to reiterate here. Germany's economy grew by a huge 8.2% per year during the 1950s, and 4.4% during the 1960s (8). Such rates are generally only achieved by underdeveloped economies or following a major recession. I refer the reader to reference 9 for an extensive description of the reasons for Germany's rapid recovery in a UCL paper drawn from a wide range of sources. I will reserve my comments to where the UK recovery and circumstances differed to Germany. 3.1 After WW2, the Allies were careful not to repeat the errors of WW1 and punish Germany, Italy, and Japan. The objective was to prevent political extremism and establishing a capitalist bulwark against the threat of communism from the east. The German currency was stabilised and a market economy restored following the American market system by promoting competition over monopoly, as shown by the breaking up of German cartels of over 10,000 employees Conversely the UK post war government engaged in wholesale nationalisation on the grounds that the UK's infrastructure was so damaged that it was beyond private investment recovery. During the post war 1940s the UK economy was so poor that rationing actually increased. 3.2 German industry was actually in better shape than many realised, for example only 6.5% of machine tools had been damaged during the war. Furthermore the German labour force was as well trained as before the war. UK industry was in a dire state and some restoration was carried out by reparations from Germany and from aid loaned under the Marshall plan, but it was small beer compared with the war damage the UK suffered. The UK government had massive debt, but Germany had half its debt cancelled in 1953. 3.4 Investment pushed ahead in Germany incentivised by very high depreciation allowances and other tax concessions, whilst in the UK successive governments engaged in Tory denationalisation, Suez, stop-go economics in the 50s and early 60s; Labour renationalisation, devaluation, and stagflation in the late 60s; and Tory sky-rocketing inflation, strikes, power cuts, and states of emergency during the early 70s, as successive incompetent and shambolic Tory and Labour governments came and went. My industry, steel was used as a political football, tossed back and forth between public and private ownership and including a decision by Macmillan not to build one new large efficient steelworks to meet future demand like IJmuiden, but to build two inefficient half works, one in Wales and one in Scotland to ameliorate unemployment; neither works was truly fully developed and both eventually closed. Compare that debacle with Germany's iron and steel industries, with the 12 largest firms being divided into 28 smaller competitive firms. 3.5 A paper by de Long and Summers (1992) reported robust investment in Germany in machinery and equipment as a factor in Germany's post WWII strong growth. This compares with my own experience when I moved to Teesside steelworks in 1975 and was shown round the rolling mills which were mainly German rolling mills from the 1930s that had been moved to the UK after WWII as reparations, and still being used by British Steel; Germany were producing steel with new rolling mills. The Korean War boosted demand for goods that only Germany in Europe having spare capacity was able to produce. 3.6 One of the issues that faces a growing economy is shortage of labour. The UK addressed this with immigration, notably from the Caribbean. Between 1948 and 1971, it is estimated that 500,000 people migrated to Britain from the Caribbean as part of the Windrush generation. West Germany received over 6 million refugees from East Germany between 1946 and 1962, many of whom were well trained and skilled. A surfeit of labour in West Germany meant that unions were weak, whereas the UK was blighted by industrial action for forty years after WWII. The increased West German population plus increasing living standards, drove consumption which increased by 58% between 1953-1960; more than double the UK’s 25% increase. 3.7 During the post WWII years there was a shift in the German unions away from trade/craft/role/rank based unions to industry/service sector unions such as IG Metall. The establishment of Works Councils in Germany effectively weakened the power of unions as they were taking partial responsibility for the future viability of the companies they worked for. West Germany enjoyed relatively good industrial relations, whilst Germany's international competitors faced industrial militancy, with the British coal mining industry alone recording some 2400 strikes in 1954. In the UK a multitude of unions existed in the 1950s, not only resulting in disputes with management but also competition between unions for members. Industry was also bedevilled by restrictive practices. An example I particularly remember in the steelworks I worked in the early 70s was: If you needed to replace a window pain, if the frame was a metal frame you had to call a glazier. But if the frame was a wooden frame , it was a joiner's job to replace the glass. The unions contrived to actually create more work to secure their jobs (they thought) but actually made UK industry uncompetitive. The stories from the docks and car industry of restrictive practices were legion. The satirical comedy film "I'm All Right Jack" went a long way to describing what a lot of British industry was like in the 1950s and 1960s. We are now in 2024 and the UK still has different unions in the rail industry and health industry taking industrial action on different days, crippling the services to the public. 3.8 Another factor was the political scene with the cold war between east and west. West Germany was strongly supported by America. The US had over 200 military installations in West Germany From the 1950s till 1990, the US had typically 300,000 forces personnel serving in West Germany. This presence was in effect a massive tourist trade for West Germany and generated a huge amount of income for the country. This was also the case in Japan, where the US had over a quarter of a million soldiers based. 3.9 From 1950 to 1973 the value of the £ relative to the US$ declined by 12.5%. Compared with the German Mark the £ declined by 32%. This is another reason for the greater growth of the German economy relative to the UK economy, measured in US$. 3.10 It has to be concluded that Germany performed far better than the UK in many aspects. German products earned a justified high reputation. France and Italy had a head start on the UK after WWII and when their economies needed new capital equipment it was Germany that supplied their needs. The UK was the "sick man of Europe" during the 50,s, 60s, and early 70s but it was not failure to join the EEC that was the cause, but the quality of British governments, British management, and British organised labour. To claim the UK's relative performance improved because of joining the EEC is incorrect. 4. So did joining the EEC improve the UK's economic growth? 4.1 The numbers tell us that that GDP/capita growth rate dropped from 3.68% to 2.1% as already stated. The Tory government left power after 4 disastrous years in 1974 and we got a Labour government divided over EEC membership, nationalised industries haemorrhaging tax payers money, even more industrial disputes culminating in the "Winter of Discontent". So the electorate lurched to a right wing Thatcher Tory government adopting monetarist policies and we endured a record long steel strike, then a record long miners strike, and unemployment soared to record levels not seen since the 1930s. It's hard to believe the UK actually improved its relative GDP/capita growth relative to the EEC6. The reason was that growth in the EEC plunged from its level in the 50s and 60s. 4.2 The German economic miracle started to come to an end in the second half of the 60s. The expansion of the market led to a labour shortage, which was initially filled by immigrants, but they were generally poorly trained or qualified relative to the native German population. A recession occurred in 1966, and industrial unrest started to arise towards the end of the decade. None of this seriously impacted on German or EEC growth generally, but their economies were impacted by the OPEC induced oil crisis in 1973. This not only caused inflation, loss of profits, economic slowdown, but most importantly reduced investment. Conversely the UK and Norway were investing heavily in North Sea oil which started production from 1975, greatly assisting the UK economy during the following decades. EEC membership made no net contribution to the UK economy and in fact from after the formation of the EU and the turn of the century the UK started to accumulate a huge trade deficit with the EU. 4.3 Another factor impacting German growth was the much stricter monetary control of the Bundesbank which had an anathema to inflation and prized a strong German Mark. The slowdown of the German economy, the "engine room" of Europe, impacted all the other neighbouring economies. As a consequence the EEC growth slowed to less than the UK's apart from the 91-92 UK recession. References (1) www.inet.ox.ac.uk/news/brexit/(2) cepr.org/voxeu/columns/why-did-britain-join-eu-new-insight-economic-history#:~:text=In%201950%2C%20UK%27s%20per%20capita,%2D%C3%A0%2Dvis%20the%20EU6. (3) www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/GDP-per-capita-in-1950(4) www.demographia.com/db-ppp60+.htm(5) data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=IT(6) data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=JP(7) oatcakefanzine.proboards.com/post/7952442/thread(8) www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economy/National-Accounts-Domestic-Product/gdp-long-term.html#:~:text=For%20simplification%2C%20they%20can%20be,the%20Federal%20Republic%20of%20Germany (9) www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctpa36/west%20germany%20in%20crafts%20toniolo.pdfWell referenced sir. In light of the recent scandal involving Claudine Gay and the evidence of her dubious approach to this it's refreshing to see sources quoted so thoroughly to support an argument on here for a change. Kudos for making the effort to be so transparent.
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Jan 5, 2024 7:25:06 GMT
If we were in a country with a free press nit one owned by the tories all this corruption would be front-page
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Jan 5, 2024 8:19:09 GMT
I planned to respond to the above post on the Brexit thread, but since a principal reason for the UK's poor economic performance post World War 2 was government incompetence I decided to keep my reply on this thread. In a letter to The Times (1), INET Oxford researchers Professor Sir David Hendry, Professor Doyne Farmer, and Dr Max Roser state that compared "to the UK’s performance during the “glory days” of the Empire from 1872 to 1914. Back then Britain’s per capita growth was only 0.9% per year, in contrast to its robust 2.1% since joining the EU."
If those eminent experts can quote UK GDP per capita growth comparison for different time periods, then so can I and the UK's growth from 1955 to 1973 was 3.68% pa, better than any period during EEC/EU membership, and far more relevant than the UK's performance before the First World War. I agree with making comparable performance and that comparisons should not be based on false grounds. My reviews of the UK's post Brexit economic performance are largely based on how the UK is performing relative to the rest of the G7 and our European neighbours. Although some posters have criticised me for doing that as they are only interested in UK performance. I believe performance has to be put in context. But it is also important to make true comparisons and I therefore avoid comparing the UK with East European countries or developing countries. It is also important when comparing to ensure there are no other major factors at play impacting one country and not another. To claim that the EEC6 growth from 1950 to 1973 was comparably better than the UK's as proof that UK membership of the EEC post 1973 has been a benefit to the UK is a flawed argument for the following reasons: 1. Coricelli and Campos's article "Why did Britain join the EU? A new insight from economic history" published in February 2015 (2) stated that "In 1950, UK’s per capita GDP was almost a third larger than the EEC 6 average per capita GDP ; in 1973 on joining EEC it was about 10% below !!!"
It certainly puts a new insight not previously postulated in the previous decades, and I always mistrust sound bites without the supporting data or reference source, especially when they childishly sensationalise their statement with three exclamation marks. The article gives a version of the history of events during the 1950s and 60s, but no economic reason for the UK's poorer relative performance to the EEC 6 over 23 years and simply ends with the above statement devoid of any analysis of the reasons for those statistics. Interestingly they do make the comment that in 1947 "The French favoured a customs union, the English a free trade area. The differences are substantial: customs unions entail deeper integration". That is one of the fundamental reasons I oppose UK membership of the EU. I favour free trade, oppose protectionism, and believe it is wrong for Britain to be locked in a customs union, subject to ever increasing legislation. I believe the UK should be free to conduct free trade with the whole of the world (so far as is achievable), which represents over 80% of the world economy and in a few years time will represent over 90% of the world economy. So why was the UK's per capita growth lower relative to the EEC 6 prior to joining the EEC? 1.1 Firstly I would point out that the EEC did not actually come into being until 1st January 1958 and that it would be naive to assume that union immediately changed the fortunes of the six economies over night; it obviously took years for them to gain the benefits of forming a free trade area. 1.2 Secondly, reference 2, shows two trends; one for the EEC 6 and one for the EEC 5, excluding Luxembourg, which became a tax haven and generated a huge GDP per capita which distorts the figures. The reference quotes comparison with "the EEC 6", but actuary compares figures with the EEC 5. 1.3 The quotation from reference 2 states "almost a third", but the actual percentage on the graph is 28%, which is significantly less than a third, nearer a quarter. 1.4 The graph in reference 2 shows that the decline in the percentage difference between the UK's GDP per capita and EU founding members [actually EEC 5] falls by 18% to 10% during the 1950s. Consequently over half the decline was before the EEC formation took effect. So the inference that the decline was due to the UK not being in the EEC is at least 50% bunkum. 1.5 Was the UK's poor relative performance due to due to an actual poor performance, or due to an exceptionally good performance by the EEC 5? Reference 3 lists the EEC 5 performances and indicates that from 1950 to 1973 their economies GDP/capita increased by: Netherlands 118%, Belgium 123%, France 148%, Italy 204%, and West Germany 207%. These are very impressive figures and compare well with the UK increase from 1955 when GDP per capita was c. £2,543 to c £4,228 in 1973, an increase of 66.3% over a slightly shorter period. How bad was this? The US growth was 100%, Canada 91% and Australia 79%, New Zealand 73%, all significantly less than the EEC 6. Was the EEC 6's performance significantly better than all other countries? Finland's economy grew by 160% and they did not join the EEC till 1995. Spain's economy grew by 269% and they didn't join the EEC till 1986. Japan's economy grew by an immense 488%, significantly better than the EEC 6; clearly there are other factors involved. 1.6 Since the UK's relative performance improved but actual performance deteriorated on joining the EEC, it follows that the EEC 6 actual performance must have deteriorated even more than the UK's. Comparing GDP/capita growth during 1950 to 1973 above (Period A) with the 23 years growth prior to German unification in 1990, i.e. from 1967 to 1990 (Period B), the EEC growth rates in period B were according to reference 4: Netherlands 70%, Belgium 88%, France 75%, Italy 97%, and West Germany 82%. The UK growth rate in period B was 65%. It is clear there was a very significant slow down in the EEC 5 economies growth rates, which in the case of the three largest economies by over a half. Germany's growth rate of 207% dropped to 82%. Consequently it must be deduced that the UK's relative improvement in GDP/capita compared with the EEC 5 after joining the EEC was due to the significantly greater deterioration in performance of the EEC 5 economies. It cannot be concluded that the UK economy benefited from joining the EEC. (NB Units may vary between different references, but comparisons are made on % change in the relevant units.) 2. It is also important to note that the growth rate of the EEC 5 countries was significantly worse following the formation of the EEC. Japan's per capita GDP growth also slowed from 488% in period A to 153% in period B, but still significantly better than the EEC 5. US growth in period B was 62% similar to the UK (65%) and Canada (67%). But as the graph in reference 1 shows. although the UK per capita GDP growth rate deteriorated after joining the EEC, since then the UK has outperformed Germany, the US, and France up to 2015. As for Italy and Japan, I refer the reader to references 5 and 6. 3. It has been demonstrated that there has been no economic benefit from the UK being a member of the EEC/EU, and I refer the reader to my post on the Brexit thread (7), where I presented the damage to the UK attributable to EEC/EU membership. It would be remiss however not to try and explain why the EEC 5 countries performed so well during period A. Why did English speaking countries perform worse post WWII? The clue is in the question. The second world war did untold damage to the countries involved, but some faired better than others. Consequently some had a better base to build from post war. The US had no warfare within its borders, but expended a lot of money supporting the allies initially and then leading the fight against the axis countries, and continued to extend financial support to many nations when peace resumed. Germany at the other extreme was not only engaged in war on all fronts but suffered bombing and warfare within its borders. Other countries faired to greater and lesser degrees in all aspects. Opinions will vary, but I think it is fair to say that the US, France, and Italy came out of the war a lot less damaged than Germany or the UK. Japan was somewhere in between. The UK did not suffer warfare within its borders but suffered huge destruction of its infrastructure, immense loss of its merchant shipping, and ended the war with an incredibly large debt, 250% of GDP. It has faded into history how close the UK and Commonwealth were to defeat in 1940 and 1941 due to the loss of equipment at Dunkirk, rate of loss of fighter aircraft, and the rate of loss of merchant shipping, on which the UK depended for raw materials and food. Consequently it is understandable that France, Italy and some other European countries' economies grew faster than the UK in the 1950 and 60s. What is less obvious is why Germany and Japan did so much better than the UK, or indeed other countries such as the US. Since this thread is principally about government incompetence, I will park the issue of Japan and concentrate on why Germany's economic recovery was so much stronger than the UK's. There have been innumerable papers written on the Germany post war Wirtschaftswunder, or economic miracle, which I don't propose to reiterate here. Germany's economy grew by a huge 8.2% per year during the 1950s, and 4.4% during the 1960s (8). Such rates are generally only achieved by underdeveloped economies or following a major recession. I refer the reader to reference 9 for an extensive description of the reasons for Germany's rapid recovery in a UCL paper drawn from a wide range of sources. I will reserve my comments to where the UK recovery and circumstances differed to Germany. 3.1 After WW2, the Allies were careful not to repeat the errors of WW1 and punish Germany, Italy, and Japan. The objective was to prevent political extremism and establishing a capitalist bulwark against the threat of communism from the east. The German currency was stabilised and a market economy restored following the American market system by promoting competition over monopoly, as shown by the breaking up of German cartels of over 10,000 employees Conversely the UK post war government engaged in wholesale nationalisation on the grounds that the UK's infrastructure was so damaged that it was beyond private investment recovery. During the post war 1940s the UK economy was so poor that rationing actually increased. 3.2 German industry was actually in better shape than many realised, for example only 6.5% of machine tools had been damaged during the war. Furthermore the German labour force was as well trained as before the war. UK industry was in a dire state and some restoration was carried out by reparations from Germany and from aid loaned under the Marshall plan, but it was small beer compared with the war damage the UK suffered. The UK government had massive debt, but Germany had half its debt cancelled in 1953. 3.4 Investment pushed ahead in Germany incentivised by very high depreciation allowances and other tax concessions, whilst in the UK successive governments engaged in Tory denationalisation, Suez, stop-go economics in the 50s and early 60s; Labour renationalisation, devaluation, and stagflation in the late 60s; and Tory sky-rocketing inflation, strikes, power cuts, and states of emergency during the early 70s, as successive incompetent and shambolic Tory and Labour governments came and went. My industry, steel was used as a political football, tossed back and forth between public and private ownership and including a decision by Macmillan not to build one new large efficient steelworks to meet future demand like IJmuiden, but to build two inefficient half works, one in Wales and one in Scotland to ameliorate unemployment; neither works was truly fully developed and both eventually closed. Compare that debacle with Germany's iron and steel industries, with the 12 largest firms being divided into 28 smaller competitive firms. 3.5 A paper by de Long and Summers (1992) reported robust investment in Germany in machinery and equipment as a factor in Germany's post WWII strong growth. This compares with my own experience when I moved to Teesside steelworks in 1975 and was shown round the rolling mills which were mainly German rolling mills from the 1930s that had been moved to the UK after WWII as reparations, and still being used by British Steel; Germany were producing steel with new rolling mills. The Korean War boosted demand for goods that only Germany in Europe having spare capacity was able to produce. 3.6 One of the issues that faces a growing economy is shortage of labour. The UK addressed this with immigration, notably from the Caribbean. Between 1948 and 1971, it is estimated that 500,000 people migrated to Britain from the Caribbean as part of the Windrush generation. West Germany received over 6 million refugees from East Germany between 1946 and 1962, many of whom were well trained and skilled. A surfeit of labour in West Germany meant that unions were weak, whereas the UK was blighted by industrial action for forty years after WWII. The increased West German population plus increasing living standards, drove consumption which increased by 58% between 1953-1960; more than double the UK’s 25% increase. 3.7 During the post WWII years there was a shift in the German unions away from trade/craft/role/rank based unions to industry/service sector unions such as IG Metall. The establishment of Works Councils in Germany effectively weakened the power of unions as they were taking partial responsibility for the future viability of the companies they worked for. West Germany enjoyed relatively good industrial relations, whilst Germany's international competitors faced industrial militancy, with the British coal mining industry alone recording some 2400 strikes in 1954. In the UK a multitude of unions existed in the 1950s, not only resulting in disputes with management but also competition between unions for members. Industry was also bedevilled by restrictive practices. An example I particularly remember in the steelworks I worked in the early 70s was: If you needed to replace a window pain, if the frame was a metal frame you had to call a glazier. But if the frame was a wooden frame , it was a joiner's job to replace the glass. The unions contrived to actually create more work to secure their jobs (they thought) but actually made UK industry uncompetitive. The stories from the docks and car industry of restrictive practices were legion. The satirical comedy film "I'm All Right Jack" went a long way to describing what a lot of British industry was like in the 1950s and 1960s. We are now in 2024 and the UK still has different unions in the rail industry and health industry taking industrial action on different days, crippling the services to the public. 3.8 Another factor was the political scene with the cold war between east and west. West Germany was strongly supported by America. The US had over 200 military installations in West Germany From the 1950s till 1990, the US had typically 300,000 forces personnel serving in West Germany. This presence was in effect a massive tourist trade for West Germany and generated a huge amount of income for the country. This was also the case in Japan, where the US had over a quarter of a million soldiers based. 3.9 From 1950 to 1973 the value of the £ relative to the US$ declined by 12.5%. Compared with the German Mark the £ declined by 32%. This is another reason for the greater growth of the German economy relative to the UK economy, measured in US$. 3.10 It has to be concluded that Germany performed far better than the UK in many aspects. German products earned a justified high reputation. France and Italy had a head start on the UK after WWII and when their economies needed new capital equipment it was Germany that supplied their needs. The UK was the "sick man of Europe" during the 50,s, 60s, and early 70s but it was not failure to join the EEC that was the cause, but the quality of British governments, British management, and British organised labour. To claim the UK's relative performance improved because of joining the EEC is incorrect. 4. So did joining the EEC improve the UK's economic growth? 4.1 The numbers tell us that that GDP/capita growth rate dropped from 3.68% to 2.1% as already stated. The Tory government left power after 4 disastrous years in 1974 and we got a Labour government divided over EEC membership, nationalised industries haemorrhaging tax payers money, even more industrial disputes culminating in the "Winter of Discontent". So the electorate lurched to a right wing Thatcher Tory government adopting monetarist policies and we endured a record long steel strike, then a record long miners strike, and unemployment soared to record levels not seen since the 1930s. It's hard to believe the UK actually improved its relative GDP/capita growth relative to the EEC6. The reason was that growth in the EEC plunged from its level in the 50s and 60s. 4.2 The German economic miracle started to come to an end in the second half of the 60s. The expansion of the market led to a labour shortage, which was initially filled by immigrants, but they were generally poorly trained or qualified relative to the native German population. A recession occurred in 1966, and industrial unrest started to arise towards the end of the decade. None of this seriously impacted on German or EEC growth generally, but their economies were impacted by the OPEC induced oil crisis in 1973. This not only caused inflation, loss of profits, economic slowdown, but most importantly reduced investment. Conversely the UK and Norway were investing heavily in North Sea oil which started production from 1975, greatly assisting the UK economy during the following decades. EEC membership made no net contribution to the UK economy and in fact from after the formation of the EU and the turn of the century the UK started to accumulate a huge trade deficit with the EU. 4.3 Another factor impacting German growth was the much stricter monetary control of the Bundesbank which had an anathema to inflation and prized a strong German Mark. The slowdown of the German economy, the "engine room" of Europe, impacted all the other neighbouring economies. As a consequence the EEC growth slowed to less than the UK's apart from the 91-92 UK recession. References (1) www.inet.ox.ac.uk/news/brexit/(2) cepr.org/voxeu/columns/why-did-britain-join-eu-new-insight-economic-history#:~:text=In%201950%2C%20UK%27s%20per%20capita,%2D%C3%A0%2Dvis%20the%20EU6. (3) www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/GDP-per-capita-in-1950(4) www.demographia.com/db-ppp60+.htm(5) data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=IT(6) data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=JP(7) oatcakefanzine.proboards.com/post/7952442/thread(8) www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economy/National-Accounts-Domestic-Product/gdp-long-term.html#:~:text=For%20simplification%2C%20they%20can%20be,the%20Federal%20Republic%20of%20Germany (9) www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctpa36/west%20germany%20in%20crafts%20toniolo.pdfWell referenced sir. In light of the recent scandal involving Claudine Gay and the evidence of her dubious approach to this it's refreshing to see sources quoted so thoroughly to support an argument on here for a change. Kudos for making the effort to be so transparent. If we keep this discussion going we could be up to page 2000 by the end of the day. Bravo for the efforts Mr Coke and Wannabee
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jan 5, 2024 8:24:06 GMT
Shaun Baileys comments in the bbc article are laughable. www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67880584Instead of apologising for his misogyny he's double downed on it by suggesting Carol is a bully. The irony is the last 4 years all we here about is woke snowflake cancel culture. And yet again we have right wing politicians being woke snowflakes trying to cancel people who hold them to account.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 5, 2024 9:47:34 GMT
A sad but depressing commentary on UK Politics 2024 where lying without impunity is de rigueur The starting gun for GE campaigning hasn't even been fired yet the most fantastical claims are being spouted as if we exist in a Parallel Universe Statesmen of whatever hue would turn in their graves if they were to hear some of the Bullshit Perhaps Ian is right and the Electorate will simply not engage as an FU or "a plague on all your houses" These Charletans and Scoundrels are testing the very limits of Democracy There's an element of collective embarrassment among people who enthusiastically backed the Tories and Brexit that'll lead to many of them staying home next time. Lots of them will convince themselves of the plague on all your houses line, but in reality it'll be down to embarrassment at getting taken in by such obvious chancers previously. And by staying home they'll be doing the country a favour. So 17,410,742 voters, largely traditional working class voters, not at all embarrassed, but frustrated(as most people on the Oatcake seem to be), should stay at home and leave it to the others who of course know best. That will help and sums up the new arrogant lefties or rather those who think they are on the left.....but don't actually listen any more, just judge and preach.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jan 5, 2024 9:56:48 GMT
There's an element of collective embarrassment among people who enthusiastically backed the Tories and Brexit that'll lead to many of them staying home next time. Lots of them will convince themselves of the plague on all your houses line, but in reality it'll be down to embarrassment at getting taken in by such obvious chancers previously. And by staying home they'll be doing the country a favour. So 17,410,742 voters, largely traditional working class voters, not at all embarrassed, but frustrated(as most people on the Oatcake seem to be), should stay at home and leave it to the others who of course know best. That will help and sums up the new arrogant lefties or rather those who think they are on the left.....but don't actually listen any more, just judge and preach. spot on John this constant persecution of brexit voters is embarrassing. I believe its because the remainers are embarrassed they lost, have sour grapes so this is the best excuse to explain their defeat
|
|
|
Post by maxplonk on Jan 5, 2024 11:55:33 GMT
Just when I was starting to think they couldn't become any more loathsome...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2024 12:20:45 GMT
Shaun Baileys comments in the bbc article are laughable. www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67880584Instead of apologising for his misogyny he's double downed on it by suggesting Carol is a bully. The irony is the last 4 years all we here about is woke snowflake cancel culture. And yet again we have right wing politicians being woke snowflakes trying to cancel people who hold them to account. All that made me want to do was look at her IG acccount. I think it’s kind of sad when you go on IG and the only pictures on someone’s profile are pictures of themselves and none of friends/family. It is mostly just pictures of her bum and boobs to be fair.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jan 5, 2024 12:36:24 GMT
Just when I was starting to think they couldn't become any more loathsome... nothing wrong at all with that sentiment. lets see if her actions speak louder than words
|
|
|
Post by maxplonk on Jan 5, 2024 12:40:28 GMT
Shaun Baileys comments in the bbc article are laughable. www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67880584Instead of apologising for his misogyny he's double downed on it by suggesting Carol is a bully. The irony is the last 4 years all we here about is woke snowflake cancel culture. And yet again we have right wing politicians being woke snowflakes trying to cancel people who hold them to account. All that made me want to do was look at her IG acccount. I think it’s kind of sad when you go on IG and the only pictures on someone’s profile are pictures of themselves and none of friends/family. It is mostly just pictures of her bum and boobs to be fair. There is no shortage of massive tits in this world.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jan 5, 2024 13:56:22 GMT
So 17,410,742 voters, largely traditional working class voters, not at all embarrassed, but frustrated(as most people on the Oatcake seem to be), should stay at home and leave it to the others who of course know best. That will help and sums up the new arrogant lefties or rather those who think they are on the left.....but don't actually listen any more, just judge and preach. spot on John this constant persecution of brexit voters is embarrassing. I believe its because the remainers are embarrassed they lost, have sour grapes so this is the best excuse to explain their defeat You are right. I am embarrassed. How can you not be after vote leave won based on lies which have since been totally exposed. It makes our nation a joke and it is embarrassing. Like Americans are often embarrassed that Trump was President (and may be once more again). The fact not one person on here has yet named a tangible benefit of brexit 7 years on is conclusive of how much of a mistake it was. It doesn’t mean those who voted for Brexit should be persecuted.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jan 5, 2024 13:59:01 GMT
spot on John this constant persecution of brexit voters is embarrassing. I believe its because the remainers are embarrassed they lost, have sour grapes so this is the best excuse to explain their defeat You are right. I am embarrassed. How can you not be after vote leave won based on lies which have since been totally exposed. It makes our nation a joke and it is embarrassing. Like Americans are often embarrassed that Trump was President (and may be once more again). The fact not one person on here has yet named a tangible benefit of brexit 7 years on is conclusive of how much of a mistake it was. It doesn’t mean those who voted for Brexit should be persecuted. there is no benefits of brexit because parliment dragged its feet and fucked it up. That has nothing to do with the electorate remember when all the vote leave people continually told us be careful how you vote. out means out and we will honour it please dont try and tell me only one side was lying
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 5, 2024 14:01:20 GMT
Just when I was starting to think they couldn't become any more loathsome... nothing wrong at all with that sentiment. lets see if her actions speak louder than words Absolutely nothing wrong with the sentiment but the timing of it stinks to high heaven. How many times did she raise the matter in the house when she was Home Sec.? Erm ... not once. Do you really think if the ITV programme hadn't been made, she'd give the slightest shit about any sub-postmasters? Of course she wouldn't. This is the most vulgar form of virtue signalling available. The Tories have identified a potential vote winner, on the back of a TV show that has stirred the public consciousness and they're going to grab it with both hands (see the current minister for the Post Ofiice yesterday on Breakfast TV, suggesting they were going to go after Paula Venells). She's about to become a sacrificial lamb in an attempt to grab some grubby votes. And don't forget she was awarded her CBE for services to the Post Office AFTER she left the PO, not sure whether it was May or Johnson who greenlighted it but where was Patel with her objections then? Well she was actually ...
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jan 5, 2024 14:09:02 GMT
nothing wrong at all with that sentiment. lets see if her actions speak louder than words Absolutely nothing wrong with the sentiment but the timing of it stinks to high heaven. How many times did she raise the matter in the house when she was Home Sec.? Erm ... not once. Do you really think if the ITV programme hadn't been made, she'd give the slightest shit about any sub-postmasters? Of course she wouldn't. This is the most vulgar form of virtue signalling available. The Tories have identified a potential vote winner, on the back of a TV show that has stirred the public consciousness and they're going to grab it with both hands (see the current minister for the Post Ofiice yesterday on Breakfast TV, suggesting they were going to go after Paula Venells). She's about to become a sacrificial lamb in an attempt to grab some grubby votes. And don't forget she was awarded her CBE for services to the Post Office AFTER she left the PO, not sure whether it was May or Johnson who greenlighted it but where was Patel with her objections then? Well she was actually ... im no fan of pritti but despite the timelines if its taken an itv drama to get justice then so be it words will mean nothing if they dont go after the real criminals what ever the timeline
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jan 5, 2024 14:10:34 GMT
You are right. I am embarrassed. How can you not be after vote leave won based on lies which have since been totally exposed. It makes our nation a joke and it is embarrassing. Like Americans are often embarrassed that Trump was President (and may be once more again). The fact not one person on here has yet named a tangible benefit of brexit 7 years on is conclusive of how much of a mistake it was. It doesn’t mean those who voted for Brexit should be persecuted. there is no benefits of brexit because parliment dragged its feet and fucked it up. That has nothing to do with the electorate remember when all the vote leave people continually told us be careful how you vote. out means out and we will honour it please dont try and tell me only one side was lying Lying (more money for the NHS for example) is not the same as over estimating how bad it would be (negative economic consequences were right, just not to the extent that the remain campaign said they would be - at least they got the trend right). Both campaigns were awful though. The vote leave leaders were in government and got to implement brexit. They utterly failed. They had a big majority and total power to seize the mythical brexit opportunities. Then reality hit because there aren’t really any. The biggest irony is that the leave vote won because of immigration. Since the vote, the numbers of migrants coming here is off the scale.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jan 5, 2024 14:16:41 GMT
there is no benefits of brexit because parliment dragged its feet and fucked it up. That has nothing to do with the electorate remember when all the vote leave people continually told us be careful how you vote. out means out and we will honour it please dont try and tell me only one side was lying Lying (more money for the NHS for example) is not the same as over estimating how bad it would be (negative economic consequences were right, just not to the extent that the remain campaign said they would be - at least they got the trend right). Both campaigns were awful though. The vote leave leaders were in government and got to implement brexit. They utterly failed. They had a big majority and total power to seize the mythical brexit opportunities. Then reality hit because there aren’t really any. The biggest irony is that the leave vote won because of immigration. Since the vote, the numbers of migrants coming here is off the scale. lying is lying the electorate is not responsible for the failure of government or parliment. The majority government were hampered by a majority remain mentality of parliment collectively doing its best to thwart it. there was no real effort to get brexit done
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 5, 2024 14:37:24 GMT
Lying (more money for the NHS for example) is not the same as over estimating how bad it would be (negative economic consequences were right, just not to the extent that the remain campaign said they would be - at least they got the trend right). Both campaigns were awful though. The vote leave leaders were in government and got to implement brexit. They utterly failed. They had a big majority and total power to seize the mythical brexit opportunities. Then reality hit because there aren’t really any. The biggest irony is that the leave vote won because of immigration. Since the vote, the numbers of migrants coming here is off the scale. lying is lying the electorate is not responsible for the failure of government or parliment. The majority government were hampered by a majority remain mentality of parliment collectively doing its best to thwart it. there was no real effort to get brexit done Whilst I absolutely agree that people who voted to leave should not be blamed/chastised/ridiculed etc. that will help nobody, I do find the notion that Brexit isn't working, is due to it not being implemented correctly, to be a rather lame (and somewhat embarrassing) excuse. When we left the EU the chief protagonists for the campaign were running the country for Pete's sake and the poster boy in chief for Leaving, was the Prime Minister of the country. Really, in terms of getting Brexit done, if the people who were championing Leave were the chief negotiators, whilst also being in the most prominent positions of power in the country but they still couldn't make it work, then maybe, just maybe there was something fundamentally wrong with the actual concept in the first place? Anyhow this probably isn't the right thread for this discussion. Admin please feel free to delete if we're taking this thread off piste.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jan 5, 2024 15:21:26 GMT
Lying (more money for the NHS for example) is not the same as over estimating how bad it would be (negative economic consequences were right, just not to the extent that the remain campaign said they would be - at least they got the trend right). Both campaigns were awful though. The vote leave leaders were in government and got to implement brexit. They utterly failed. They had a big majority and total power to seize the mythical brexit opportunities. Then reality hit because there aren’t really any. The biggest irony is that the leave vote won because of immigration. Since the vote, the numbers of migrants coming here is off the scale. lying is lying the electorate is not responsible for the failure of government or parliment. The majority government were hampered by a majority remain mentality of parliment collectively doing its best to thwart it. there was no real effort to get brexit done Lying is lying. Turkey have never been about to join the EU and flood the EU with Turks. Predictions are not lies, unless when the remain campaign predicted project fear they didn’t really believe in their own prediction. Project fear largely became reality just not to the extent of the negative’s consequences predicted. And what about when the leader of vote leave was elected with a big majority, with his top team all taken from vote leave, and his cabinet of leavers. Why couldn’t they seize the brexit benefits they lied about to win the vote? What’s your excuse for them not making brexit work?
|
|
|
Post by cdf on Jan 5, 2024 15:27:37 GMT
Tom Hingley (ex Inspiral Carpets) just posted that he can not leave Keele because they are not let anyone on or off due to Rishi Sunak is going around the service station as if hes the man of the people
|
|
|
Post by foghornsgleghorn on Jan 5, 2024 18:33:44 GMT
You are right. I am embarrassed. How can you not be after vote leave won based on lies which have since been totally exposed. It makes our nation a joke and it is embarrassing. Like Americans are often embarrassed that Trump was President (and may be once more again). The fact not one person on here has yet named a tangible benefit of brexit 7 years on is conclusive of how much of a mistake it was. It doesn’t mean those who voted for Brexit should be persecuted. there is no benefits of brexit because parliment dragged its feet and fucked it up. That has nothing to do with the electorate remember when all the vote leave people continually told us be careful how you vote. out means out and we will honour it please dont try and tell me only one side was lying The idea that had Brexit happened sooner it would have been reaping benefits is perhaps the biggest delusion in the whole sorry story. There was no plan for life after Brexit, other than vague promises. The ragtag bunch of incompetent schemers had extra time to put a plan together, diverted huge resources to look for potential benefits and, four years after the vote, had absolutely fuck all to show for it. Are they now putting their grand project in place having had 4 years to get their ducks in a row? No-they are trying to get closer to the EU to undo the damage they have done. If Brexit had happened sooner the hole we are trying to get out of now would have been much deeper. Yes there is a separate thread for Brexit, but the Tories embraced it, and it's their shitshow.
|
|