|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 20, 2023 11:41:21 GMT
Well you were citing Thatcherism as the correct path to follow - sorry but I dont agree. With regards to my second point - in the 25 years prior to joining the single market in 1992 the UK had an average growth rate of 2.4% - in the 25 years since it has averaged 2.2%. I'm struggling to see the benefit. I did not Pacifico. I MENTION3D her as someone who moved the UK off the road of competing with low wage economies and ONTO a high tech, high wage group of countries. By your reckoning if I mention Mein Kampf you would think I am a Nazi. Thatcher had the dream, not me. But it was implemented when the UK was integrated into the EU and could freely share projects, research, costs ofcdevelopment such as Horizon, which the UK now has to pay into or spend utterly unnecessary billions trying to copy. Why is the UK launching military satellites when sharing the cost of the EU's would be so much cheaper? The "new" agricultural regulations trumpeted as the UK's Brexit benefit were already in or nearly in place in 2020. Why reinvent the wheel? Now the UK is detached from the easy exchange of expertise in an economy that depends on expertise to grow, why would investors choose the UK to support? The only areas the UK attracts dfi is in off shore green energy and genomic research. Other places are developing hydrogen energy, battery development, materials for space travel, AI, computer chip technology, high tech medical research and tecnhique, and more. The UK voted itself to be on the outside looking in. And then wonders why its growth is slow. I am happy if we finally get some policies that put British workers first - you desire for an economy built on the importation of cheap labour is not mine I have seen no benefit to the average british worker from the introduction of mass migration when Tony Blair threw open the doors to anyone in Europe who wished to come and undercut the domestic workforce. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Feb 20, 2023 12:02:18 GMT
View Attachment Is it not time we actually had a sensible, grown up conversation about Brexit and its consequences, instead of burying our heads in the sand and ignoring what is the every day reality of it. When are you intending to start? When are you intending to start posting obeying the rules you as a moderator should adhere to? Rule 3 first line, it's hardly a hard read. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Feb 20, 2023 12:44:02 GMT
I did not Pacifico. I MENTION3D her as someone who moved the UK off the road of competing with low wage economies and ONTO a high tech, high wage group of countries. By your reckoning if I mention Mein Kampf you would think I am a Nazi. Thatcher had the dream, not me. But it was implemented when the UK was integrated into the EU and could freely share projects, research, costs ofcdevelopment such as Horizon, which the UK now has to pay into or spend utterly unnecessary billions trying to copy. Why is the UK launching military satellites when sharing the cost of the EU's would be so much cheaper? The "new" agricultural regulations trumpeted as the UK's Brexit benefit were already in or nearly in place in 2020. Why reinvent the wheel? Now the UK is detached from the easy exchange of expertise in an economy that depends on expertise to grow, why would investors choose the UK to support? The only areas the UK attracts dfi is in off shore green energy and genomic research. Other places are developing hydrogen energy, battery development, materials for space travel, AI, computer chip technology, high tech medical research and tecnhique, and more. The UK voted itself to be on the outside looking in. And then wonders why its growth is slow. I am happy if we finally get some policies that put British workers first - you desire for an economy built on the importation of cheap labour is not mine I have seen no benefit to the average british worker from the introduction of mass migration when Tony Blair threw open the doors to anyone in Europe who wished to come and undercut the domestic workforce. The idea was to free up the average British worker to spend more time in furthercsstudies to allow them to earn more. The change of tech colleges too unis (often superficial on a piece of paper) was part of this. Unfortunately the STANDARD of course content didn't produce competitive levels that measured against standards achieved elsewhere so those who did achieve levels demanding better pay went abroad. Which meant that there aren't enough UK residents willing to "dig potatoes". And as for the wages those who did decide to do that, they hardly went up because the supermarkets didn't want to put up their prices. Result...less on supermarket shelves.and certainly not cheaper. It isn't enough in a global economy to use economics suitable for an 18th century village. Putting up wages only makes things more expensive for everyone. Higher wages doesn't make but a spit of difference to wages. It makes far more difference to productivity and profit when competing with others making and selling globally what you do. James Dyson knew this. So he moved his production to a low paid workforce. How does this help the British economy? How do3s this help the average vacuum assembler work for higher wages? The dream Thatcher sold was that as part of a highly geared collective open economy called the EU where the same rules applied to everyone, more Brits had a better chance to train, expand, find work, advance and still enjoy the rights they had in the UK. THIS IS NOT AN ADVERT FOR THATCHERISM. IT IS JUST FACT. It worked to some important degree as UK trained high wage earners knitted together their collective knowledge and had resources across the western world. Now the higher wage earner will go where s/he feels will fulfill their potential ( you can do that when you earn enough) and the average British worker is hardly better off and has to live with higher costs and less choice. In my opinion that isn't a good outcome. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Feb 20, 2023 12:51:32 GMT
When are you intending to start? When are you intending to start posting obeying the rules you as a moderator should adhere to? Rule 3 first line, it's hardly a hard read. I have mentioned before that P. contributes where he can generate a disagreement and if that is on the use of one word that he misuses or misunderstands or simply ignores, that's fine by him. And suddenly the whole thread disappears up the backside of some discussion and eventually, via repetition of old tropes and discredited assumptions, ends up in personal squabbles. I find it best to ignore those rabbitholes. But I am surprised such a member who plays fast and loose with the rules as often as he wants, is a mod. Who is supposed to avoid conflicts, not generate them. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Feb 20, 2023 12:53:40 GMT
The truth is he and at least one other mod do not agree with the rules Tinculin wrote
We can hope they'll get their collective act together but I don't expect they will
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 20, 2023 14:10:08 GMT
This is very misleading. The average GDP growth of the UK (over many decades) is about 2% and it didn't change much when we joined the Common Market. Well you toddle off to Oxford and present your own detailed thesis to the good professors. Do however note that they were discussing PER CAPITA GDP. Not national GDP. First take into account relative population size. And they were right by your own admission. The EU did not "drag the UK economy down". The graphs show the USA, Germany and the UK all growing their GDP/capita at roughly the same rate since 1973. So what? It's not even inflation indexed. And I don't think I said that the EU "dragged the UK economy down". I said that when the UK tried to shadow the Deutschmark we went into recession. Wake up. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Feb 20, 2023 15:00:15 GMT
Well you toddle off to Oxford and present your own detailed thesis to the good professors. Do however note that they were discussing PER CAPITA GDP. Not national GDP. First take into account relative population size. And they were right by your own admission. The EU did not "drag the UK economy down". The graphs show the USA, Germany and the UK all growing their GDP/capita at roughly the same rate since 1973. So what? It's not even inflation indexed. And I don't think I said that the EU "dragged the UK economy down". I said that when the UK tried to shadow the Deutschmark we went into recession. Wake up. I think the time has come to once again introduce this: blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2015/11/26/why-britain-really-joined-the-eec-and-why-it-had-nothing-to-do-with-helping-our-economy/ |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Feb 20, 2023 17:00:53 GMT
Just further confirmation that Alan Sked is  |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Feb 20, 2023 17:06:18 GMT
Just further confirmation that Alan Sked is Alan Sked is a Professor of International History at the LSE. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Feb 20, 2023 17:09:36 GMT
Just further confirmation that Alan Sked is Alan Sked is a Professor of International History at the LSE. He's a nutjob. A dedicated Liberal party member who then became a dedicated UKIP member and then went on to say UKIP were evil And that article with its utter BS about a world domination conspiracy further shows he's deranged - well he was as of 2015, maybe he's off the acid now. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 20, 2023 17:59:41 GMT
I am happy if we finally get some policies that put British workers first - you desire for an economy built on the importation of cheap labour is not mine I have seen no benefit to the average british worker from the introduction of mass migration when Tony Blair threw open the doors to anyone in Europe who wished to come and undercut the domestic workforce. The idea was to free up the average British worker to spend more time in furthercsstudies to allow them to earn more. The change of tech colleges too unis (often superficial on a piece of paper) was part of this. Unfortunately the STANDARD of course content didn't produce competitive levels that measured against standards achieved elsewhere so those who did achieve levels demanding better pay went abroad. Which meant that there aren't enough UK residents willing to "dig potatoes". And as for the wages those who did decide to do that, they hardly went up because the supermarkets didn't want to put up their prices. Result...less on supermarket shelves.and certainly not cheaper. It isn't enough in a global economy to use economics suitable for an 18th century village. Putting up wages only makes things more expensive for everyone. Higher wages doesn't make but a spit of difference to wages. It makes far more difference to productivity and profit when competing with others making and selling globally what you do. James Dyson knew this. So he moved his production to a low paid workforce. How does this help the British economy? How do3s this help the average vacuum assembler work for higher wages? The dream Thatcher sold was that as part of a highly geared collective open economy called the EU where the same rules applied to everyone, more Brits had a better chance to train, expand, find work, advance and still enjoy the rights they had in the UK. THIS IS NOT AN ADVERT FOR THATCHERISM. IT IS JUST FACT. It worked to some important degree as UK trained high wage earners knitted together their collective knowledge and had resources across the western world. Now the higher wage earner will go where s/he feels will fulfill their potential ( you can do that when you earn enough) and the average British worker is hardly better off and has to live with higher costs and less choice. In my opinion that isn't a good outcome. I have already said that I dont agree with the dream that you and Thatcher have - I'm more interested in the welfare of the British worker, if that means that we lose out on growth due to immigration then I count that as a good thing - especially as immigration has never benefitted the individual in the UK. You are perfectly entitled to follow the Thatcherite view - it's just not one that I share. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 20, 2023 18:01:10 GMT
When are you intending to start posting obeying the rules you as a moderator should adhere to? Rule 3 first line, it's hardly a hard read. I have mentioned before that P. contributes where he can generate a disagreement and if that is on the use of one word that he misuses or misunderstands or simply ignores, that's fine by him. And suddenly the whole thread disappears up the backside of some discussion and eventually, via repetition of old tropes and discredited assumptions, ends up in personal squabbles. I find it best to ignore those rabbitholes. But I am surprised such a member who plays fast and loose with the rules as often as he wants, is a mod. Who is supposed to avoid conflicts, not generate them. well it would help if you stopped telling porkies.. you have yet to apologise to me for your false claim about me sending you PM's. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Feb 20, 2023 19:25:46 GMT
The idea was to free up the average British worker to spend more time in furthercsstudies to allow them to earn more. The change of tech colleges too unis (often superficial on a piece of paper) was part of this. Unfortunately the STANDARD of course content didn't produce competitive levels that measured against standards achieved elsewhere so those who did achieve levels demanding better pay went abroad. Which meant that there aren't enough UK residents willing to "dig potatoes". And as for the wages those who did decide to do that, they hardly went up because the supermarkets didn't want to put up their prices. Result...less on supermarket shelves.and certainly not cheaper. It isn't enough in a global economy to use economics suitable for an 18th century village. Putting up wages only makes things more expensive for everyone. Higher wages doesn't make but a spit of difference to wages. It makes far more difference to productivity and profit when competing with others making and selling globally what you do. James Dyson knew this. So he moved his production to a low paid workforce. How does this help the British economy? How do3s this help the average vacuum assembler work for higher wages? The dream Thatcher sold was that as part of a highly geared collective open economy called the EU where the same rules applied to everyone, more Brits had a better chance to train, expand, find work, advance and still enjoy the rights they had in the UK. THIS IS NOT AN ADVERT FOR THATCHERISM. IT IS JUST FACT. It worked to some important degree as UK trained high wage earners knitted together their collective knowledge and had resources across the western world. Now the higher wage earner will go where s/he feels will fulfill their potential ( you can do that when you earn enough) and the average British worker is hardly better off and has to live with higher costs and less choice. In my opinion that isn't a good outcome. I have already said that I dont agree with the dream that you and Thatcher have - I'm more interested in the welfare of the British worker, if that means that we lose out on growth due to immigration then I count that as a good thing - especially as immigration has never benefitted the individual in the UK. You are perfectly entitled to follow the Thatcherite view - it's just not one that I share. Please quote anywhere in any of my posts which indicates I approved of her policies. Then we can discuss lies. In another thread. I care about staying on topic, as any moderator should. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Feb 20, 2023 19:34:03 GMT
Well you toddle off to Oxford and present your own detailed thesis to the good professors. Do however note that they were discussing PER CAPITA GDP. Not national GDP. First take into account relative population size. And they were right by your own admission. The EU did not "drag the UK economy down". The graphs show the USA, Germany and the UK all growing their GDP/capita at roughly the same rate since 1973. So what? It's not even inflation indexed. And I don't think I said that the EU "dragged the UK economy down". I said that when the UK tried to shadow the Deutschmark we went into recession. Wake up. The OP was about Boris saying the EU dragged the economy down. Or don't you remember what this thread is about? The EU never promised a growing economy. It merely made global trade easier to access and execute. What members made of the opportunities was their decision. As sovereign countries. No one devised investment decisions or interest rates. Made businesses merge or acquire others. Any ups and downs were the results of boards of directors and shareholders. I also note that Boris never explained how or where the EU prevented growth. It was a soundbite useful to appear a truth with no substance. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 20, 2023 22:35:11 GMT
I have already said that I dont agree with the dream that you and Thatcher have - I'm more interested in the welfare of the British worker, if that means that we lose out on growth due to immigration then I count that as a good thing - especially as immigration has never benefitted the individual in the UK. You are perfectly entitled to follow the Thatcherite view - it's just not one that I share. Please quote anywhere in any of my posts which indicates I approved of her policies. Then we can discuss lies. In another thread. I care about staying on topic, as any moderator should. If Thatchers policies are not relevant to your argument why did you introduce them into the thread? |
|
