[Closed] Osborne. How useless is he, then?

If anything, the Eton and StPauls websites just illustrate the problem of the public school system.

I'm not quite a pensioner yet, but I've been around long enough to have met a fair few people in all sorts of different social and work situations. I try not to judge people on their background, and of course not everyone who has gone through public school is a lame duck. However, IME, the idea that public schools allow the mediocre to achieve positions of power that they wouldn't achieve on a level playing field does ring true. Just because someone has spent years being coached into Public School, then through GCSE, A-levels and Oxbridge, it certainly doesn't prove that they're intelligent.

As far as thick politicians go, I don't think the Conservative party has a monopoly by any means - but they do seem to have more hapless/hopeless products of the public school system than other parties.

To give you an example, a friend of mine treats one of the members of a local business family. Apparently, the son who was in line to inherit the family business was shipped off to an elite public school, then went on to Oxbridge - but the father said that he just couldn't trust him to look after the business. So, guess what, the family suggested that the son stand as an MP (and he got elected!). Hmm....can't be trusted to run a medium sized family firm, but OK to help run the Country - Great eh?!

As someone who runs his own business and is a prospective employer, I feel very strongly that England & Wales would be much better off in the long term if it did away with Private/Public schools altogether, and came up with a decent system that provides everyone with exactly the same opportunity. However, at the moment, a lot of people seem happy to go along with the same old system of 'it's who you know, not what you know'!

But o'course that's wrong- if other sectors outgrow manufacturing, then the % of GDP declines.

I guess I can't get away from personally seeing one UK manufacturing company after another close down. I don't think anyone who is, or has, worked in manufacturing within the last 30 years can deny that the sector took an absolute battering in the 1980's and early 90's. However, a lot of the companies that did survive did so because they were fundamentally good businesses. Ironically, one of the biggest problems that I've seen in the last 10 years or so, is that some of the best 'survivor' companies (with great reputations for well designed and manufactured products), were bought by foreign companies just to be asset stripped and closed down. I can think of a long established company in Leeds and another in Sheffield, where their main competitors bought them simply to eliminate the competition.

My wife previously worked for an American company with manufacturing plants all over the World, and in the early 90's, the company closed down their UK factory, simply because it was the easiest Country for the parent company to close a factory in! So, even though the Dutch factory was less efficient and more expensive to run, the UK factory closed. (350 highly skilled engineering jobs went, plus all the business that sub-contracted parts suppliers had)

Again, a lot of this comes down to politicians who have lived in the
School/Uni/Career Politician bubble World - they simply have no clue as to what is happening in the real World, and they don't want to hear uncomfortable truths. One only has to listen to some of the bilge spouted by the current Govt to see that they're not business minded - couldn't run a proverbial in a brewery!

fattatlasses - Member

So, it's not manufacturing that has declined, it's the other sectors that have grown faster and left it lagging?

Aye, that's it exactly.

TandemJeremy - Member

So teamhurtmore - your experience in teaching where it was the old boys network - not the public sector then?

I don't think anyone who is, or has, worked in manufacturing within the last 30 years can deny that the sector took an absolute battering in the 1980's and early 90's.

It also took a battering in the late nineties and early noughties under New Labour :

[img] [/img]

Ernie, that graph does not tell you a single thing about the health of UK manufacturing. Though I suspect you know that?

I'm using fattatlasses's criteria to show that UK manufacturing fared no better under New Labour. I am very aware of your theory that everything is hunky dory with regards to UK manufacturing Northwind. And I'm certainly not gonna bother arguing.

I went to public school, the better ones are pretty tough to get into, need to do well at Common Entrance so got to be bright as well as have quite well off parents.

UK Manufacturing over the years:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/22/manufacturing_figures/

[img] [/img]

How about this graph ..... it comes in three colours and show how jobs in manufacturing fell substantial during the period which New Labour were in government, which as I say is fattatlasses's criteria.

[img] [/img]

ernie_lynch - Member

I'm using fattatlasses's criteria to show that UK manufacturing fared no better under New Labour.

How have you shown that? With a graph that tells us nothing about how UK manufacturing fared? Seems odd.

<edit- ah, a new post, with a [i]second[/i] graph that tells us nothing about how UK manufacturing fared. Seems even odder. >

a new post, with a second graph that tells us nothing about how UK manufacturing fared.

Are you deliberately being daft ? One last attempt :

[i]"I guess I can't get away from personally seeing one UK manufacturing company after another close down. I don't think anyone who is, or has, worked in manufacturing within the last 30 years can deny that the sector took an absolute battering in the 1980's and early 90's."[/i]

I post a graph which shows that job losses in manufacturing were just as great in the late 90 and 00s as they were in the 1980s and early 90s. I'm sure you perfectly understand the point. But don't let that stop you from pretending that you don't.

I think everyone understands that the number of jobs in manufacturing tells you nothing at all about the health of the manufacturing sector.

If you replace 10 skilled machine operators with 1 man and a CNC machine, does that mean the sector is "taking a battering"? Or, similiarly, if you move from making a million pounds worth of ships to a million pounds worth of pharmaceuticals?

A graph off?!??!! Why wasnt I invited?? 😯

*stoner spunk, everywhere!*

😉

It's horrible being ignored, isn't it.

[img] [/img]

I got my arse handed to me on a plate tonight, them lads are fast, I peeled off and headed home on the road after an hour, Im just not fit enough at the moment.
but great conditions, super grippy and warmer than i thought, I was over dressed again.

multi-task FAIL!

If you replace 10 skilled machine operators with 1 man and a CNC machine, does that mean the sector is "taking a battering"?

If you're talking about jobs yes.

And if you want to talk about manufacturing's share of total economic output, then that has indeed taken a battering.

One man might well being doing the work of ten men 30 years ago, but does that mean everything in manufacturing is just fine ?

As an example.......35 years ago a carpenter on site was expected to have one or two tool bags with only his hand tools, [i]possibly[/i] also an electric drill - but that it wasn't vital. He could go to work on public transport. Today a carpenter on site was expected to have, hand tools, circular saw, jigsaw, cordless drill, impact driver, router, router jigs, compound mitre saw, SDS drill, electric plane, first fix nail gun, second fix nail gun, [i]possibly[/i] also sander, plunge saw/rails, cordless jigsaw, cordless circular saw, cordless SDS drill, a few other things, a mobile phone, and a vehicle to carry it all in. That's a hell of a lot of manufactured goods. If the UK is producing the same amount of manufactured goods for carpenters as it was 35 years ago then I'm afraid that isn't good enough - even twice as many wouldn't be good enough. Next example. 35 years ago the average household had one TV, one cooker............

ernie_lynch - Member

One man might well being doing the work of ten men 30 years ago, but does that mean everything in manufacturing is just fine ?

Of course it doesn't. Luckily I am not asserting that increased efficiency proves [i]anything[/i]- I'm debunking your attempt to use employment as an indicator of the health of the sector.

ernie_lynch - Member

If the UK is producing the same amount of manufactured goods for carpenters as it was 35 years ago then I'm afraid that isn't good enough-even twice as many wouldn't be good enough.

First of all, by value added, we are in fact producing more. But value added is a tricky metric. You used the example of carpentry tools. The reason your carpenter can have a vanload of kit isn't just because we produce more tools- it's because the relative value of each tool has dropped. So, you don't need to produce 10 x the value of goods in order for everyone to have 10 x the goods.

Secondly, sticking with value added, why would twice as much not be good enough? You can find higher rates of growth elsewhere, but only in larger nations and in nations which weren't previously at our level of industrialisation. The only top manufacturing countries that have made a 200% increase are I believe the USA, Japan, Brazil, India and China. Probably Korea. Notice a trend? Germany, Italy and France didn't.

It goes without saying that this is an uneven playing field- we industrialised early and strongly and took a lead but we no longer have the untapped opportunities. Maintaining that disproporationate lead is an awful lot harder than closing the gap. And saying it's "not good enough" that we can't do the impossible is silly. .

ernie_lynch - Member

And if you want to talk about manufacturing's share of total economic output, then that has indeed taken a battering.

The only reason to do that in this context is to make a spurious argument about the health of the manufacturing sector.

Now I'll give you a tip here for free. You're arguing the wrong point, which is why you can't make it stick. But you're making a solid if obvious case about problems facing the UK economy [i]as a whole[/i]. Completely different to "industry has taken a hammering". You don't need industry to decline to have a problem so you wouldn't be left trying to prove that black is white. Your trade balance diagram would even be relevant.

On the downside, you wouldn't have anyone to argue with since I doubt anyone would disagree. And thus peace would be restored to the Shire.

You're arguing the wrong point....

And yet it is precisely [i]you[/i] who is doing that.

My point, which I successfully predicted you would continue to pretend not to understand, is that UK manufacturing, contrary to fattatlasses suggestion, did not do significantly better in the late 90 and 00s in terms of employment, 'company closures', than it did in the 1980s and early 90s.

Admittedly despite announcing "I'm certainly not gonna bother arguing" I later succumbed to temptation and foolishly also made the point that UK manufacturing, whatever its "health", wasn't satisfying UK needs in the way it had satisfying UK needs 30/40 years ago. I have no one else to blame but myself.

The reason your carpenter can have a vanload of kit isn't just because we produce more tools- it's because the relative value of each tool has dropped.

I strongly disagree with that statement. Relative value of each tool might well have dropped in the last 30/40 years, but that isn't the reason.

Blimey, talk about tangents! I thought this thread was about George Osborne !

Go to www.bis.gov.uk and read the Dec 2010 report on Uk manufacturing. It supports both your views in part. The overall decline, the split between higher technology and lower technology And the bad and good about job trends (8-10).

One obvious conclusion is that it is broadly unhelpful to consider manufacturing as a homogenous industry and therefore to make widespread conclusions either way.

I thought this thread was about George Osborne !

thm:

This thread merely confirms pre-determined prejudices and leads to a tired and pointless debate. No need to personalise the debate around Osborne or individual posters surely?

you started it thm 😉

TandemJeremy - Member

So teamhurtmore - your experience in teaching where it was the old boys network - not the public sector then?

Ha, ha good point Stoner. I meant osborne's policies and the extent to which good or bad econ data was down to him specifically. But good to be bought up on any inconsistency 😉

Anyway is he moonlighting as a carpenter these days? Perhaps weshould give him and St Paul's more credit 😉 the school's website does say that this is not a place for keyboard warriors, sorry, coach potatoes!

teamhurtmore - Member

One obvious conclusion is that it is broadly unhelpful to consider manufacturing as a homogenous industry and therefore to make widespread conclusions either way.

This, very much.

Talking about the 'manufacturing sector' is akin to dividing the economy up with the ol' primary-secondard-tertiary-quarternary sectors model.

Similarly, the terms 'creative industries', 'knowledge economy' and 'globalisation' are useless terms to band about without detail or nuance.

TandemJeremy - Member

So teamhurtmore - your experience in teaching where it was the old boys network - not the public sector then?

Posted 14 hours ago

TandemJeremy - Member

So teamhurtmore - your experience in teaching where it was the old boys network - not the public sector then?

Posted 10 hours ago

TandemJeremy - Member

So teamhurtmore - your experience in teaching where it was the old boys network - not the public sector then?

Posted 12 minutes ago

😆

"excessive arguing" wasn't it ??

😀

I do think its pertinent to teamhurtmores position on things. his reluctance to answer really is an answer.

TJ it's much, much more fun to see how you assume I position things. So far from reality but fun nevertheless!

But to save the thread, the answer in this case is both, hence interested in your original reply which is where this line should have ended! Now can we end it for the sake of others?

Plus don't forget that ladies are also very capable of networking effectively especially in politics and education! ( re Old Boys Network)

Yeah right 🙄

If you had any significant experience in the public sector you would have known that recruitment is as objective as possible.

Thanks second giggle of the morning 😉 But I will pass on your thoughts to the deputy headmistress whose experiences are very different. Anyway back to the topic....

Point still stands - its so funny to listen to you as you have obvious massive gaps in your experience and you are unaware of how this skews your world view

😀 x3

😀 ^ 😀

you have obvious massive gaps in your experience and you are unaware of how this skews your world view

I dip in to the thread to see the level of ARMAGEDDON! and I get this.

Superb. Made my morning. 😆

If you had any significant experience in the public sector you would have known that recruitment is as objective as possible.

What did I say earlier about dogmatic ideology? This is bollocks TJ, it just means that your experience in the public sector is rose tinted. There are plenty of others here who have experience in the public sector who know that the vast majority of positions go to "known" candidates and the others are there to allow the system to go through it's motions.

I understand why you are banging on about it, as you want to sell this position as the paragon for elected officials, but those of us based in the real world know that most jobs are about who you know.

edit: TJ google "every schoolboy knows" and see what that brings you. (or "no true scotsman" which might be more apt)

If you had any significant experience in the public sector you would have known that recruitment is as objective as possible.

Mrs R went through a public sector recruitment process a not so long ago for a post she had already been informally told was hers (in fact the post was created to move her from a contract to a permanent post). The process she went through was very clearly designed not to select the best candidate (and in this case that decision had already been made) but to make sure that no one individual could be held accountable if a wrong decision was made.

Very different from the Osborne case where it's clear who's responsible for his appointment!

Seriously tho, people on here who don't answer questions put directly to them, but just ignore them, really have no credibility.

Cynic-al is right.
BTW have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Simple Yes or No answer please, no fudging the issue. 🙂

I've worked in the (English) education, science and health public/private sector in about equal amounts for the last 25 years.
Found far more "good chap-ism" in the public sector than the private. In the health sector all my HoDs made a thing of there being a hospital/medical school Lodge, all would far rather recruit from a "Good University" and as for anonymity of applicants, well that's so transparently easy to circumvent it's pathetic....

....this is of course anecdotal rather than evidential so not elegible in the stw kangaroo courthouse 😉

Dear God! I've avoided this thread since it was heading into Big Hitterdom. But this really is a worrying development....

the Big Hitters now tring to out-graph each other? Oh Hurray! Well done on finding the solution to how to make the ARMAGEDDON threads even less appealing to everyone else though. Don't underestimate what it is you've actually achieved. Amazing! No... really

So TJ's anecdotes count as evidence then?

A graph off?!??!! Why wasnt I invited??

*stoner spunk, everywhere!*

This thread has truly gone menthol.

In the health sector all my HoDs made a thing of there being a hospital/medical school Lodge

Quite agree with you hence why I said Nurses and Teachers. Medics remain very much in thrall to the "right uni / club tie " thing

Another academic question:

Do we actually WANT to still be manufacturing things?

Surely the move to a 'knowledge based economy' represents a step up? Better to be highly educated and designing the world's cool stuff than slaving away in factories, surely?

TandemJeremy - Member

.... I said Nurses and Teachers. Medics remain very much in thrall to the "right uni / club tie " thing

Clinical scientists, not medics - my HoDs were academics rather than clinicians.....

Toys, to the extent that tired, irrelevant, and perjorative questions are worth responding to, yes!

Mol - basic law of comparative advantage? Hence some of the stuff in the BIS report is very interesting.

Oops double post

[img] [/img]

Teamhurtmore - pot kettle and black!

binners - a waffle? radical, man, truly radical

I've been told that Cat Sandwiches are where it's at now.

[img] [/img]

sandwiches?
[img] [/img]

That's just utter crêpe.

ernie_lynch - Member

My point, which I successfully predicted you would continue to pretend not to understand, is that UK manufacturing, contrary to fattatlasses suggestion, did not do significantly better in the late 90 and 00s in terms of employment, 'company closures', than it did in the 1980s and early 90s.

Here's what you [i]actually[/i] said.

"It also took a battering in the late nineties and early noughties under New Labour" (along with, for reasons still unknown, a graph about the defecit of trade)

Not "it didn't do significantly better" and nothing about "in terms of employment". But "It took a battering".

I've seen people misunderstand or misinterpret other people's arguments on the internet many times so it's refreshing to see someone do it to their [i]own[/i] argument 😆

🙄 Yes that's correct Northwind, UK manufacturing didn't do significantly better the late 90s and 00s than it had done in the 80s and early 09s. In fact, it also took a battering, as fattatlasses describes it, in the late 90s and 00s.

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 💡

And you just can't leave that [i]"graph about the defecit of trade"[/i] 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, but many people consider the fact that since 1983 the UK has had a manufacturing deficit (for the first time since the Industrial Revolution) to be "a bad thing".

The reality is that UK manufacturing is not satisfying consumer demand for manufactured goods in the same way as it was 30 years ago. Whether we are manufacturing at the same level or better is not relevant in this respect - demand for manufactured goods in the UK has increased. Plus many people consider over reliance on non- manufactured sectors to be also "a bad thing". Making stuff is what creates [i]real[/i] material wealth.....not pushing money around.

Here's a nice link for you to a House of Commons Library article concerning UK manufacturing. There's a pretty graph with two shades of green titled "Manufacturing's Decline", have a look at it. The article also points out the concern that "all parties" have of being "overly dependent" on other sectors such as financial services. Which suggests a shift in attitude from say 30 years ago, when it was strongly argued that the UK should focus on wealth creation from the finance sector. It would appear that lessons have been learnt, although perhaps rather late in the day.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:gxvnt5atAkEJ:www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN01942.pdf+House+of+Commons+Library+Standard+Note+SN/EP/1942+Table+1&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESh2MjMWF5S8JNc5nDIb8nfbIy-q-Cnxhdttc68hRWRpearcX6Gw6Nfb2-GtA0k9U_0KNSVYl1SG2Q3dzh-8-mioF8ZbQsv7uF7d1GmAOq-6DR6LBJiA5azZdOJq0oGfbvgEP40u&sig=AHIEtbRWSmAGRkEkUTa4l5nyEpOCFkiGuw

What's the point in arguing with someone who'll just move the goalposts? Even less someone who'll then pretend that actually they were there all the time. Delusional or dishonest, was the question in my mind but tbh I realise now it makes no difference. What a joke. What a politician.

So what's the answer Ernie?

Do we accept that we need to retain onshore skills, but must therefore pay over the odds for labour to attract and retain the best talent - a decision we have taken in key strategic skilled hi tech industries such as Aero Engine design and manufacture?

You've banged on about the balance of trade Ernie, but why on earth would a potential foreign customer choose to buy From the UK? Its a global market, the UK labour market is expensive compared with so, so many other countries.

Or do we accept that in order to maintain global competitiveness we need to reduce the cost of labour in this country and adjust what our expectations of living standards are?

What's the point in arguing with someone who'll just move the goalposts?

What "goalposts" ? Are you playing some sort of game ?

It's all pretty straightforward what I'm saying. The UK's reliance on manufacturing, and jobs within manufacturing, has declined over the last 30 years. I don't believe there has been a significant difference in this decline whether it has been under Tory governments or under New Labour governments, as a previous poster seemed to suggest.

Where's this goalpost moving you speak of ?

Furthermore I think this situation is "not a good thing", you seem to think that it is "not a bad thing".

You put a bit of spin on the situation (I notice you are now accusing me of being a politician - how ironic) by pointing out that we are still manufacturing plenty of stuff. I point out that it is not enough to satisfy substantial increases in demand for manufactured goods over the last 30 years. And I illustrate the fact that since 1983 the UK has had a manufacturing trade deficit, something which it previously never had.

I don't agree with your conclusion and you don't agree with mine. I said on the onset that I wasn't going to bother arguing, something which I have obviously spectacularly failed to achieve.

If you now feel that there is no point arguing with someone who apparently "moves the goalposts", then the simple, and I would imagine only solution, is don't. Just ignore me, I won't mind. After all I was somewhat reluctant to get involved in a pointless argument with a predetermined conclusion from the start.

ARMAGEDDON!

Ernie. Please, please, please STOP REFERRING TO 'MANUFACTURING' LIKE IT IS A COHERENT SET OF ACTIVITIES!!

But I like talking about manufacturing.

And if click on my link you'll see that the House of Commons Library also likes to talk about manufacturing. As I said, they've got a pretty graph titled "Manufacturing's Decline", which is quite nice.

Although to be fair I've probably had enough of talking about manufacturing for today. So you can take it easy and relax now CaptJon 🙂

Well if you enjoy it... but it weakens your argument and reads like a poor undergrad essay from someone who doesn't get the nuance.

Oh I think you'll find that I'm not much bothered if my posts sound like a poor undergrad essay from someone who doesn't get the nuance. Why would I want to get top marks for my essays ? I'm just happy plodding along the best I can with my not very good essays.

BTW did you check on my link - what did you think of it ? Would you give the House of Commons Library top marks for their recent briefing on manufacturing ? And what did you think of the title to their graph "Manufacturing's Decline" .......was the apostrophe in the right place ? I think that maybe it should have been after the "s". But hey, I'm no expert......I think it was grade 4 English CSE which I got, or maybe grade 3 - can't remember.

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 - Member

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.

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 - Member

Even 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 - Member

How 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 - 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,

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.