-
@victor-meldrew said in Brexit:
@gibbonrib said in Brexit:
@victor-meldrew said in Brexit:
@majorrage said in Brexit:
Fascinating little debate going on here at the moment.
Due to a few different factors (pandemic, Brexit mainly) there are a few skills shortages in the country. Truck (HGV) driving is probably the biggest one, but also shortages in a lot of the lesser skilled sectors - fruit picking, catering/hospitality, security, warehouse work. I've also been reading that there is a shortage in some finance / accounting work as well, but I'm not inclined to believe that. In turn, this is now pushing wages up in some of those lesser skilled jobs. Thus, you have:
Remain: Brexit, we fucking told you it was a bad idea, this is exactly what we said would happen, this country is fucked, Johnson is a liar and you fell for it, you utter utter morons!
Leave: Um, this is exactly what we voted for. Wages have been repressed at the lower end for years due to uncontrolled immigrants doing these jobs, and now its time for the rate paid for these to catch up.
Left: Wage growth is only going to push prices up and this will obviously hit those on the lower incomes the most. This is such a destructive thing to happen for these families and its going to make it even harder for them when their situation is almost impossible as it is.
Right: They are the ones getting the pay rises, no? If they aren't then perhaps they should look to pick up some of this lucrative work. By the way, we keep hearing about the illegal migrant crisis, so instead of these guys being a drain, why don't we make them work in some of these jobs and actually earn money / contribute to the economy.
It's fascinating stuff & Brexit is proving to be quite the social experiment most people thought it would be.
@Victor-Meldrew quite interested in your thoughts on this one!
i apologise in advance for the long-ish reply..
I wonder if the terms Left and Right and Remain or Leave are the best way to describe what seems to me to be the two camps in the UK.
Obvious generalisation, but seems to me the division is between metriopolitan/service industy/media/woke/degree-educated/cosmopolitan/global outlook/transferable skills v local community/works with hands/local root/pride in cultural identity/just get on with life types. The former has lots of money, ambition & power compared to the latter, but the latter has a much clearer sense of identity, values & community. Call them Metros and Provincials.
The former have done well out of the EU, for the latter it's been a bit of a disaster. Not only have they seen jobs disappear to cheaper parts of the EU, but were called racist and xenophobic for pointing out the impact of Eastern European immigration on jobs and local communities - as Gordon Brown showed. Fast forward to Brexit referendum and the 2019 GE and the Metros were shocked to realise they might have the wealth, but they don't have the power any more - and I sense they don't quite know how to handle it. Smart politicians are courting the Provincials, others, like Starmer, just don't know how to react. Difficult to appeal to people you've spent years trying to subvert their decision to leave the EU
Now the cheap labour taps have been turned off, many business will need to respond and stop taking local people for granted and start valuing them - investing in their skills and getting the best out of what has become an expensive resource. That could be a good thing for all in breaking down income barriers and pushing up the UK's appalling productivity and make everyone richer. Big opportunity to level things up, break down regional barriers and make parts of the North as rich and productive as London.
On the other hand, you could get the friction between the two groups growing - industrial action, increased division, culture wars, political violence.
Think there will a bit of friction and uncertainty, but if you look at history, the UK has a pretty good record of coming to pragmatic and sensible solutions which meets everyone's needs
Finally.. Perhaps Brexit isn't a social experiment, but the ending of one? Perhaps it started under Blair where the Metros were meant to provide the wealth to pay for keeping the Provincials happily hidden away and on benefits. But I'm probably being cynical...
That is fantastically written and I agree with every word - especially the last part!
Very simplistic IMO.
This is the Fern....
Over the last few decades, while Britian was in the EU, the Metros have done much better than the Provincials. But that's true of just about every country in the developed world (possibly the whole world).
Yep, the Uk isn't unique...
Globalisation happened, and cheaper labour became accessible. Either cheaper labour comes into your country to make the goods if your immigration settings allow it, or cheaper labour overseas means that your companies choose to make goods there and import them instead.
And automation happened, so the relative value of manual work has decreased massively.
....but there is a strong argument that as the UK economy is/was more services based where jobs are easier to move, spoke the global language and the manufacturing more niche and high-value, it impacted the UK economy far more.
These things didn't happen because the UK was in the EU.
No. But the impact of EU freedom of movement from the newly-joined Eastern Europe states exacerbated the factors you mention and had a much bigger impact on the UK. UK employers were advertising job vacancies in Poland only or putting Polish or Romanian languages as a requirement in the job description.
Other EU countries delayed freedom of movement from Eastern Europe but Blair enthusiastically pushed for it knowing how much money it would make for businesses in London despite the impact it would have on working class communities. Can't think why....
For an unskilled workforce, in the past being located near the consumer was a big advantage, because of the cost of shipping raw materials and finished goods. These days it counts for very little, because with automation and global shipping it's cheaper to import. And because the global economy is much more about services then manufacturing, compared to the past.
Again I agree. But it begs the question as to why, when the factors you mention should have had less of an impact services-based economy (and a successful one) like the UK, such a huge division seems to have grown between the two groups.
Cutting off cheap labour, and even enforcing tariffs, is not going to bring back a manufacturing boom. Different skills are needed for a different economic era.
Agreed, but cutting off cheap labour and enforcing tariffs has been EU policy for decades. And haven't Metros/Remainers been telling Provincials/Leavers for years this is a great thing as it protects their jobs and that's why their vote to leave should be ignored?
I just wish we'd put half the effort into training that we have into arguing about the EU.
True. But it isn't just training, economics, labour mobility or productivity - culture and values probably have as big as, if not bigger, impact on what is a pretty clear divide. Things like long-term thinking, social costs (which are real) not being factored into business decisions, culture-blindness and not taking the time to understand the people you employ, have a huge impact.
In 2008/9 one of my clients (Life Insurance) re-engineered their Service Centres that looked after the wholesale/IFA market. It included spending £5k per customer agent on training over 2 years with the result it was cheaper to service their customers out of Sheffield than Mumbai. Big success I'd say. A year later they looked at replacing the employees with an operation in East Anglia staffed by Poles and Hungarians.....
At least now there's a chance our world-class FTSE directors will be able to focus on the un-tapped potential in the UK.
I agree with just about all of this. The culture and values divide between metros & provincials that you mention is huge, and Brexit is both a symptom and partial cause of this. (And that's also a global phenomenon).
Blair did abandon the traditional labour voters, totally took them for granted and shafted them, so it's not surprising that the result is a generational shift away from labour in many areas. I can't figure out any reason why Boris's Tories would be an attractive alternative, they've a multi generational history of shafting the poor regions. But when you've been abandoned by 'your' party and all the alternatives are also awful then you can't blame them.
-
@victor-meldrew said in Brexit:
@gibbonrib said in Brexit:
@victor-meldrew said in Brexit:
... the foresight to realise eliminating the thing is worse than living with it - better than most.
I think you've giving him a massive and unwarranted benefit of the doubt. The elimination option was long gone by the time he started paying attention.
If the option ever existed. Increasingly looking like a rabbit-hole in places like Australia. He took the view of the scientists at the time that a widespread epidemic was only a possibility and it was best to live with the thing.
Much of the criticism of him seems to be thru a Brexit lens. His decision to trust the advice of the scientists and other experts and not join the EU vaccination program was called "criminal" and "putting ideology over people's lives" even by some of the more sensible Remainers.
Which scientists' views were these?
-
@gibbonrib said in Brexit:
I can't figure out any reason why Boris's Tories would be an attractive alternative, they've a multi generational history of shafting the poor regions.
The poorer regions did better under Tory governments than they did under Blair that's for sure. But Labour & the Trade Unions patronised and exploited them for years and under Brown, Miliband and Corbyn they were vilified.
Have a read of this as an example of how Labour and the unions treated the poorer parts of the UK as cannon-fodder pre-Thatcher . The factory in the article was set up/invested in by a Tory government and state-owned under Labour
Loved the "Workers were just returning to work, after a 17 week strike, to fight plans to close the site" comment.
-
@gibbonrib said in Brexit:
@victor-meldrew said in Brexit:
@gibbonrib said in Brexit:
@victor-meldrew said in Brexit:
... the foresight to realise eliminating the thing is worse than living with it - better than most.
I think you've giving him a massive and unwarranted benefit of the doubt. The elimination option was long gone by the time he started paying attention.
If the option ever existed. Increasingly looking like a rabbit-hole in places like Australia. He took the view of the scientists at the time that a widespread epidemic was only a possibility and it was best to live with the thing.
Much of the criticism of him seems to be thru a Brexit lens. His decision to trust the advice of the scientists and other experts and not join the EU vaccination program was called "criminal" and "putting ideology over people's lives" even by some of the more sensible Remainers.
Which scientists' views were these?
Patrick Vallence for one.
-
-
-
@victor-meldrew said in Brexit:
@mikethesnow said in Brexit:
A Metro speaking to a Provincial, perchance?
Clarity is in the eye of the beholder
-
@mikethesnow said in Brexit:
@victor-meldrew said in Brexit:
@mikethesnow said in Brexit:
A Metro speaking to a Provincial, perchance?
Clarity is in the eye of the beholder
Spoken like a French referee...
-
@victor-meldrew said in Brexit:
@mikethesnow said in Brexit:
@victor-meldrew said in Brexit:
@mikethesnow said in Brexit:
A Metro speaking to a Provincial, perchance?
Clarity is in the eye of the beholder
Spoken like a French referee...
Way.
-
@nostrildamus said in Brexit:
@victor-meldrew said in Brexit:
@nostrildamus said in Brexit:
thanks for that. Does your distinction work for Scotland?
Dunno. Doesn't the Independence debate cloud everything there?
Probably, was just interested in if the metro/provincial distinction applied.
The Weegies v the rest of Scotland. Just look at the map of how the country voted on independence.
-
@catogrande said in Brexit:
@nostrildamus said in Brexit:
@victor-meldrew said in Brexit:
@nostrildamus said in Brexit:
thanks for that. Does your distinction work for Scotland?
Dunno. Doesn't the Independence debate cloud everything there?
Probably, was just interested in if the metro/provincial distinction applied.
The Weegies v the rest of Scotland. Just look at the map of how the country voted on independence.
Same in Wales
-
Why Brexit happened and why Labour is in serious trouble
LABOUR MP’S AIDE CALLS CONSTITUENCY “SHIT” ON-CAMERA
-
@victor-meldrew said in Brexit:
Why Brexit happened and why Labour is in serious trouble
LABOUR MP’S AIDE CALLS CONSTITUENCY “SHIT” ON-CAMERA
Typical of a some of today's left.
Chardonnay Socialists or Limousine Liberals.
Deeply elitist and not even aware they are. -
@victor-meldrew said in Brexit:
Why Brexit happened and why Labour is in serious trouble
LABOUR MP’S AIDE CALLS CONSTITUENCY “SHIT” ON-CAMERA
Typical of a some of today's left.
Chardonnay Socialists or Limousine Liberals.
Deeply elitist and not even aware they are.Also I want power and influence so I’ll get in to politics.
Which party?
Doesn’t matter I just want to be in the House
-
@victor-meldrew said in Brexit:
@majorrage said in Brexit:
Fascinating little debate going on here at the moment.
Due to a few different factors (pandemic, Brexit mainly) there are a few skills shortages in the country. Truck (HGV) driving is probably the biggest one, but also shortages in a lot of the lesser skilled sectors - fruit picking, catering/hospitality, security, warehouse work. I've also been reading that there is a shortage in some finance / accounting work as well, but I'm not inclined to believe that. In turn, this is now pushing wages up in some of those lesser skilled jobs. Thus, you have:
Remain: Brexit, we fucking told you it was a bad idea, this is exactly what we said would happen, this country is fucked, Johnson is a liar and you fell for it, you utter utter morons!
Leave: Um, this is exactly what we voted for. Wages have been repressed at the lower end for years due to uncontrolled immigrants doing these jobs, and now its time for the rate paid for these to catch up.
Left: Wage growth is only going to push prices up and this will obviously hit those on the lower incomes the most. This is such a destructive thing to happen for these families and its going to make it even harder for them when their situation is almost impossible as it is.
Right: They are the ones getting the pay rises, no? If they aren't then perhaps they should look to pick up some of this lucrative work. By the way, we keep hearing about the illegal migrant crisis, so instead of these guys being a drain, why don't we make them work in some of these jobs and actually earn money / contribute to the economy.
It's fascinating stuff & Brexit is proving to be quite the social experiment most people thought it would be.
@Victor-Meldrew quite interested in your thoughts on this one!
i apologise in advance for the long-ish reply..
I wonder if the terms Left and Right and Remain or Leave are the best way to describe what seems to me to be the two camps in the UK, albeit with some strong correlations.
At the risk of being accused of oversimplification, I think there are two dimensions at work here.
One dimension is cultural. Divide between the majority, which can be characterised as patriotic, traditional and, perhaps more feet on the ground, and the minority, which are 'children of the world', abhorring the nation state and have views of social justice based on novel, and, by and large, untested theories.
The other dimension might be more along the conventional capitalist/socialist divide.
Red wall voters mainly culturally conservative, but politically left of centre.
Large contingent of, typically younger, culturally avant garde and politically left in London and other cities.
But also large contingent of middle aged centre left/right politically and culturally fairly conservative.
There's also a fairly small, but as a whole extraordinarily wealthy, bunch of nouveau extremely riche types who see wokism as a form of elitism.
Obvious generalisation, but seems to me the division is between metropolitan/service industy/media/woke/degree-educated/cosmopolitan/global outlook/transferable skills v local community/works with hands/local root/pride in cultural identity/just get on with life types. The former has lots of money, ambition & power compared to the latter, but the latter has a much clearer sense of identity, values & community. Call them Metros and Provincials.
The former have done well out of the EU, for the latter it's been a bit of a disaster. Not only have they seen jobs disappear to cheaper parts of the EU, but were called racist and xenophobic for pointing out the impact of Eastern European immigration on jobs and local communities - as Gordon Brown showed. Fast forward to Brexit referendum and the 2019 GE and the Metros were shocked to realise they might have the wealth, but they don't have the power any more - and I sense they don't quite know how to handle it. Smart politicians are courting the Provincials, others, like Starmer, just don't know how to react. Difficult to appeal to people you've spent years trying to subvert their decision to leave the EU
My hunch is that whilst the lot of the 'red wallers' has substantially worsened in relative terms in the last 40 years, Thatcherism has had as much to do with it as the EU. Blair didn’t help and they have felt 'unheard'. An influx since the expansion of the EU-14 (2004?) of cheap EU-13 labour has been salt in wound. Brexit provided an opportunity to have a voice, and the Tories listened by upholding the referendum result. Labour told them that 'they' knew better. So they voted for Boris.
The self-styled 'sophisticates' (mainly Metro's) were appalled to discover that democracy could trump their superior judgement (what about our foie gras?). Bear in mind post Thatcher Big Business was used to Government, even Blair, following their [heavily self-serving] 'guidance'.
Boris has played a blinder in being more in tune to the culturally conservative majority than the Metro ordained Starmer.
Now the cheap labour taps have been turned off, many business will need to respond and stop taking local people for granted and start valuing them - investing in their skills and getting the best out of what has become an expensive resource. That could be a good thing for all in breaking down income barriers and pushing up the UK's appalling productivity and make everyone richer. Big opportunity to level things up, break down regional barriers and make parts of the North as rich and productive as London.
Agree. News flash: good products and services don't have to be the very cheapest to prosper: after all, look at Amazon. Can learn a lot off Northern Europe. Less university degrees, more tradies and vocational education.
On the other hand, you could get the friction between the two groups growing - industrial action, increased division, culture wars, political violence.
Think there will a bit of friction and uncertainty, but if you look at history, the UK has a pretty good record of coming to pragmatic and sensible solutions which meets everyone's needs
Totally agree.
For time being Remainers blame huge amounts on Brexit, but needless to say overegging the pudding. There is a real need to start looking forward, at the path ahead.
Finally.. Perhaps Brexit isn't a social experiment, but the ending of one? Perhaps it started under Blair where the Metros were meant to provide the wealth to pay for keeping the Provincials happily hidden away and on benefits. But I'm probably being cynical...
I'd say the market mentality/experiment started under Thatcher [it was certainly needed in her first two terms] and was continued by Blair. GBP growth and average earnings can grow at the same time as GDP/head shrinks and median earnings stagnate.
Which is why elections are confusing the politicians who are still sticking with economic orthodoxy, rather than assessing practical outcomes.
-
My hunch is that whilst the lot of the 'red wallers' has substantially worsened in relative terms in the last 40 years, Thatcherism has had as much to do with it as the EU. Blair didnt help and they have felt 'unheard'. An influx since the expansion of the EU-14 (2004?) of cheap EU-13 labour has been salt in wound. Brexit provided an opportunity to have a voice, and the Tories listened by upholding the referndum result. Labour told them that 'they' knew better. So they voted for Boris.
Great post.
Two points about Thatcher.
She democratised the trade unions and gave their power to the members. Before her trade union reforms many, if not most, union leaders weren't voted in by their members and If you were found to be a member of the Tory party, you could also lose your job due to the closed shop. (yes, really)
Second, Thatcher appealed to what you'd call the Provincial's core values - patriotism, identity, family - and was loathed and hated by what was then called the "trendy left" - rich urban socialists like Diane Abbott, Livingstone and Corbyn.
Utterly lost her way and forgot the impact of her policies on working people which caused all sorts of appalling issues, but she was one of the first to recognise the causes of the culture wars we see today.
-
@victor-meldrew while I think Thatcher's role in history and her intentions may be beyond my ken, I understand Thatcher had more enemies than rich lefties (and honorable or dishonorable mention to Elvis Costello: I don't think Costello was that rich when he wrote "Let Her Dangle"). Plus "trade uniform reforms" in the name of democracy is arguable, she weakened unions' ability to strike.
-
@nostrildamus said in Brexit:
@victor-meldrew while I think Thatcher's role in history and her intentions may be beyond my ken, I understand Thatcher had more enemies than rich lefties (and honorable or dishonorable mention to Elvis Costello: I don't think Costello was that rich when he wrote "Let Her Dangle"). Plus "trade uniform reforms" in the name of democracy is arguable, she weakened unions' ability to strike.
Very much arguable, but @Victor-Meldrew is pretty much on the money saying she democraticised the unions. Her Government put in place structures that had to be adhered to before a strike could be called. Previously it was simply a show of hands at a meeting with not everyone possibly getting the memo about. Rarely an actual count in any event, simply the shop steward deciding on the numbers. Open to abuse and readily abused all too often.
To get a true idea of how much the reform of the unions was necessary one would probably have to have lived through the 1970's and early 80s. It was a time of constant industrial strife, quite often on the flimsiest of pretences. Some places having several wild cat strikes in the same week. Plummeting production, appalling production quality, completely unreliable supply lines. Industry wise we were a complete mess and in truth we have never recovered. That ship has sailed and we have, in the main, the unions to blame for it. Then there were some industries that operated on a closed shop principle whereby it was the union that dictated the recruitment of staff and decided upon protected jobs that had nothing to do with their worthiness.
Add in to this mix some pretty dire management at times and an awful lot of Governmental interference and the mess just got worse.
Fuck me but it was an awful time.
-
@nostrildamus said in Brexit:
@victor-meldrew while I think Thatcher's role in history and her intentions may be beyond my ken, I understand Thatcher had more enemies than rich lefties (and honorable or dishonorable mention to Elvis Costello: I don't think Costello was that rich when he wrote "Let Her Dangle"). Plus "trade uniform reforms" in the name of democracy is arguable, she weakened unions' ability to strike.
How ensuring union members (the people who will be impacted by a strike) could decide on whether they actually want to go on strike weakened their ability to withdraw their labour is beyond me. She actually strengthened Unions ability to strike by giving them legal protection as long as the strike was the result of a secret ballot.
Sympathy strikes were common. Imagine being told by some bloke you'd never voted for, that you'd have to lose your income for weeks or months by going on strike to support a dispute which had nothing to do with you or your employer. No wonder she won loads of union members votes.
The only thing she weakened was un-elected Trade Union leaders ability to force people to go on strike on pain of permanently long their job, and that was a bloody good thing.
-
@catogrande said in Brexit:
Add in to this mix some pretty dire management at times and an awful lot of Governmental interference and the mess just got worse.
One of the really clever bits of her reforms was the mandatory strike ballot.
A vote for a strike made the (usually useless, incompetent and often not giving a fuck about their people) company management finally wake up to the fact they had a real issue that actually needed resolving. They could no longer blame the unions for their mismanagement of their employees.
Brexit