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

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.

sandwiches?

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 actually 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 own 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 “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, 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 real 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 ever 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.