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.

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

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 :

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/

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.

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 second 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 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 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.

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, possibly 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, possibly 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 anything– 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 as a whole. 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 you 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 http://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. 🙂