Ernie this link takes me to a password protected page. Is there a simpler link or title that I can google? I googled the basics words but they only took me to short one page summaries.
Ignore this as I have found the site. Thanks I didn't know these papers
Nice link- actually disproves what you said, ideal.
"It also took a battering in the late nineties and early noughties under New Labour"
Link shows the manufacturing grew through that period. Battered!
actually disproves what you said
That's me and my goalpost moving antics Northwind - now I've moved them so much that I'm attempting to score own goals.
Although I suspect you're ignoring the bits in the link that you don't like the sound of. Like the bit which says that annual growth of manufacturing since 1990 has been 0.0% compared to 2.7% in services and 2.7% across the economy. Or the bit which says that between 1997 and 2009 manufacturing's share of total economic output halved.
From 1979 to 1997 (the Tory years) the decline, according to that article, was that manufacturing went from 25.8% to 20.3%. From 1997 to 2009 (the New Labour years) it went from 20.3% to 11.1% ...... I thought I said the decline did not significantly improve under New Labour ? According to that article manufacturing failed to keep up with the rest of the economy under New Labour. In fact this failure appears to have been worse under New Labour than under the Tories. Although of course that's just fine because it just proves that the rest of the economy, like banking, did so well under New Labour.
The link also shows that manufacturing business investment has more than halved since 1997 - so mostly the New Labour years then. It also points out the huge trade deficit in manufactured goods, a point which I raised and they also seemed to feel was worth mentioning, but which you so contemptuously dismissed.
Finally the article also points out the concern that all parties have of being "overly dependent" on other sectors such as financial services, something which I haven't heard you say, although I seem to remember me saying it.
Still us politicians Northwind, can put a bit of spin on anything to make the point we wish to make - can't we ?
N'wind, leaving aside semantics (battering) I can't quite see your point. Even if one argues (not sure how) that the absolute level of Manu output rose, this is hardly a success story! Indeed hard to accept any other conclusion other than ernie's broad one. The period under new labour was a desperate one for UK manufacturing in most aspects other, ironically, than in terms of productivity. Most worrying is the data in the BIS report that indicates only a mixed performance in high value add industry where we should have a competitive advantage.
Hence I smile when people here are quick to accuse Thatcher/Tories for bashing UK industry when the least controversial point that can be made is that most politicians have failed irrespective of their parties ( to the extent that they are relevant at all!). The productivity data is particularly interesting and best seen in the graphs in BIS. Have a look at job losses that Ernie highlights and then their corollary ie, the significant improvements in manufacturing productivity in absolute and relative terms. then ask yourself who benefited most under new labour, the owners of capital and land or the "suppliers of labour"? Interesting that!!!!
So essentially this proves that Osborne isn't actually that useless?
Chancellors, like other government ministers, are generally only as good as the advisors they pick. If Osborne's picked the right ones then he'll probably do ok. If like Brown he succombs to the Dunning-Kruger effect then he won't.
Going quite well, this BH suck-pool...
TandemJeremy - Member
Medics remain very much in thrall to the "right uni / club tie " thing
and this proves that cronyism is alive and kicking in one of the public sector's most sacred of cows 😆
Hill dodger, plus just spoken to governor and dep head in public sector (primary and secondary) - governor was unaware of blind process and stated that process was on named basis and prone to natural bias that happens in all selections ( unintentionally) and dep head said first time she applied for dep job she was knew in advance that it was going to another persons, second time she knew it was hers from the outset. So process broadly a charade/facade. Perhaps the process that TJ interestingly refers to is only in Scotland or some parts of the country?
But whether it's cronyism or not, life and jobs have always been a combination of what and who you know and naive to think that it will ever be any different. Stupid to let my kids go into adult, professional life with such a daft set of blinkers on!
ernie_lynch - MemberAlthough I suspect you're ignoring the bits in the link that you don't like the sound of. Like the bit which says that annual growth of manufacturing since 1990 has been 0.0% compared to 2.7% in services and 2.7% across the economy. Or the bit which says that between 1997 and 2009 manufacturing's share of total economic output halved.
Why would I ignore either of those? I covered way back in my second post the issue of absoute vs relative growth- so it's only more evidence of a point that I already made very clearly several pages ago.
The 0% growth in manufacturing since 1990 reflects the fact that the sector had a long period of growth with a recession at the end, with a short period of serious decline. It's not a trend of stagnation, and already shows signs of returning to growth (according to the CBI)
teamhurtmore - MemberEven if one argues (not sure how) that the absolute level of Manu output rose, this is hardly a success story!
OK; first of all, does anyone dispute that the absolute level of output rose, in terms of value added? Or that value added is the best way to measure output across the industry?
Secondly- when did I [i]ever[/i] say it's a success story? I'm just stating that's it's not the decline many people have been led to believe. I think maybe Ernie's managed to muddy the water there by asserting I've said things which I haven't, tbh.
So what I've actually said: First, that it's a myth that Thatcher destroyed marketing and that we don't make anything, and that in fact the sector has grown not declined. Second, that UK manufacturing is a smaller percentage of the UK's GDP only because other industries have grown faster.
Then Ernie arrived and all I've really said since is:
Balance of trade tells you nothing about the health of the manufacturing sector (I have not made any other comment on the implications of the trade imbalance on the wider economy)
Levels of employment in the sector also tell you nothing about the state of the sector. (not to imply that they're not significant; they're just not significant in that way)
And lastly, that industries that are taking a battering don't display consistent and stable long-term growth trends.
OK; first of all, does anyone dispute that the absolute level of output rose, in terms of value added? Or that value added is the best way to measure output across the industry?
N'wind, you will have to help us out here. Lets look at the data (in real terms of course), kindly provided by the Gov via Ernie:
Manufacturing Output (GVA) £ billions
Current prices 1997 £150.2, 2009 £139.9
2009 prices 1997 £199.7, 2009 139.9
How do I interpret that as the level of output rising?
If the argument that manufacturing has not declined is synonymous with flat-to-slightly lower, then you may have a point. Otherwise....?
Plus the BIS data makes it clear that in high value added industry, the UK's performance has been weak.
teamhurtmore - MemberHow do I interpret that as the level of output rising?
Just down to the timeframe used. The detailed stats in that table end in 2009, and so don't include the return to growth mentioned in the supporting paragraph and the following graph, and that exaggerates the effects of the massive dip of 08/09.
When you look at the 50-year trend, all periods of recession were followed by periods of correction, and the longterm trend of moderate growth was sustained. In this case, the figures just don't yet show the recovery so give a false image.
I think maybe Ernie's managed to muddy the water there by asserting I've said things which I haven't, tbh.
What have I asserted you've said which you haven't said ?
I have tediously scrolled through my posts looking for examples of where I might have misquoted you, I can't find any. In fact I can't really find any examples of me claiming you've said anything, let alone falsely attributing quotes to you.
I reckon you're telling porkies.
Funny, because I only have to look at your second post in the thread:
"I am very aware of your theory that everything is hunky dory with regards to UK manufacturing Northwind"
I've said nothing of the sort- it's a simple misrepresentation of my argument.
So I'll have your apology now if you don't mind.
Another:
ernie_lynch - MemberAnd you just can't leave that "graph about the defecit of trade" point alone can you ? You have to constantly bring up again as if its not an issue worth considering. Well you might not think it is,
Again, misrepresenting what I've said. Nowhere in this thread (or on this forum, ever) have I said that the deficit of trade isn't an issue worth considering. My only reference to that has been to point out that you used it as if it were evidence of a decline in manufacturing, which it clearly is not.
Funnily enough, in broad terms arent you both making a similar point?
Funny, because I only have to look at your second post in the thread:"I am very aware of your theory that everything is hunky dory with regards to UK manufacturing Northwind"
Oh that ! ...... is that all ? 😀
Well it's a term of expression.......yes I know you didn't [i]actually[/i] say it, and I'm truly sorry if you feel hard done by because of it.
Anyway, I'm glad you agree me that everything is not hunky dory in the rose garden of UK manufacturing.
It's nice when people despite the odds find common areas of agreement. It was a long haul but we got there bruv 🙂
And the apology for calling me a liar?
Nice to finish the night on a positive note. Ernie, pls keep posting those links - that's a hidden source for the econ revision file that I had missed. You are my (unintended) source of hidden gems!! 😉 The world works in mysterious ways!!
Sorry Northwind I hadn't seen your edited post, you've now included this :
[b]Another:[/b]ernie_lynch - Member
And you just can't leave that "graph about the defecit of trade" point alone can you ? You have to constantly bring up again as if its not an issue worth considering. Well you might not think it is,
[b]Again, misrepresenting what I've said. Nowhere in this thread (or on this forum, ever) have I said that the deficit of trade isn't an issue worth considering. My only reference to that has been to point out that you used it as if it were evidence of a decline in manufacturing, which it clearly is not[/b].
Well I'm not having that.
That is not an example of me claiming that you've said things which you haven't said. It is a fact that you have repeatedly brought up that graph I posted.
[i]"as if its not an issue worth considering"[/i] and [i]"Well you might not think it is"[/i] is not an example of me misquoting you. It is an example of me coming to conclusions, and reasonable conclusions at that, I might add.
And the apology for calling me a liar?
Bollox. I didn't call you a liar. I said [i]"I reckon you're telling porkies"[/i]
I'm calling you a liar now though.
teamhurtmore - MemberFunnily enough, in broad terms arent you both making a similar point?
Well, kind of. Ernie's been making a broader argument which I agree with, and even though some parts of that argument are wrong the overall conclusion is, well, obvious. I did say so a while back. 😉 I've not really been talking on the broad point at all, for that reason- it's just not very interesting, like I say we'd just end up with a forum of people going "That's not good. But we don't know what to do about it"
I think maybe it looks like I'm attacking the broader argument on the overall health of the economy, rather than just the narrower point on the health of manufacturing. But the broad argument doesn't need manufacturing to be in decline.
ernie_lynch - MemberBollox. I didn't call you a liar. I said "I reckon you're telling porkies"
This is some sort of joke? Not a funny one.
ernie_lynch - Member"as if its not an issue worth considering" and "Well you might not think it is" is not an example of me misquoting you.
But it is an example of misrepresenting my argument. Which was, in its entirety:
"Ernie, that graph does not tell you a single thing about the health of UK manufacturing."
Your evasion on that point has been to act as though I'm talking about something else entirely, even though the point couldn't be any clearer.
And incidentally, your last post is [i]also[/i] an example of misrepresenting my argument- I've said nothing about "misquoting".
Yes, so c'mon guys, shake hands and have a smile before bed! 😉
your last post is also an example of misrepresenting my argument- I've said nothing about "misquoting".
TBH I don't think [i]you[/i] know what you're saying. Let me remind you :
[i]"I think maybe Ernie's managed to muddy the water there by asserting I've said things which I haven't, tbh."[/i]
I've asserted that you've said things which you haven't ? ..... I call that misquoting.
But of course I didn't misquote you. To say [i]"as if"[/i] and [i]"you might not think"[/i] is very clearly a suggestion and not a direct claim.
And now you want to start making a distinction between "misquoting" and "misrepresenting", because in true STW style it is far more important to argue the pedantic toss over the precise meaning of words than engage in meaningful debate.
I mentioned precisely this issue yesterday Northwind, let me remind you again what I said :
[i]It's sad to see you descend into petty trivia over words used btw. Try to deal more with the bulk of the argument in future[/i] 💡
I am not a barrister putting a legal argument before a court. I try to be reasonably factually correct because to do otherwise devalues debates. But I'm not going to entertain petty issues brought up by anal-retentive sufferers attempting to score points on the precise meaning of words.
Let's get the really obvious thing out of the way first.
"I didn't call you a liar. I said "I reckon you're telling porkies""
It's [i]almost[/i] funny that you can say "It's sad to see you descend into petty trivia over words used" while simultaneously arguing "Oh no, I didn't call you a liar, I said you're telling lies".
But instead it's just rather pathetic. Have some dignity for pete's sake.
Grow up.
