The problem is that we are used to a standard of living our productivity does not pay for, that not unique in industrialised countries, but its particularly the case in the UK because a culture of something-for-nothing "lifestyle dependency" has been allowed to grow up (or in some cases positively encouraged) by several governments.
I'm not saying this is wrong, but what's the evidence for it? It's not enough to notice people in developing countries doing good quality work for less, because: 1) Bad infrastructure or governance can reduce their effective productivity, even if they're doing more than the equivalent British worker to play their part in creating wealth. 2) It may be that they're paid too little, not the the British too much. Wages in developing economies can rise pretty fast once their infrastructure and governance get good enough, and although it takes time, the growth of their welfare state follows along too.
To some extent the developing countries are the least of our worries.
The ONS said that output per hour worked in Britain was 29% lower than in the US and 24% lower than in Germany and France. Canada and Italy had slightly higher productivity than the UK and only one G7 nation – Japan – had a worse record.
We are staggeringly less productive that even France and Germany and they have open borders and free trade with us.
Long hours, shitty pay and strong creation of low-paid work. I can see why the British might not like going in this direction, but economically it seems like a viable position to be in.
I am not sure your description would be recognised by most German workers, but somehow they manage to churn out 24% more value than we do per working hour (so irrespective of hours worked).
Indigo - again, I am not sure that you are exactly right about what is happening in many parts of Asia. I spend a fair bit of time over there and my sense is that there is a level of expectation in populations that governments need to deliver. Chinese parents do not force their kids to give up their childhoods for hours of study each day just so that they end up taking any job available. They expect their kids to get good, well-paid jobs - and they blame the government, not their kids if these do not materialise. In the countries I visit it seems to me that you are describing the situation a generation ago. As economies have developed, though, expectations have grown. It is true that what you do not get in Asia is entrenched welfare dependency - and they are undoubtedly in a position to develop systems that prevent this from arising because as in so many other areas they are able to look at what we have done and to learn from it. But in broad terms, I think we can expect to see social spending increase in Asian countries over the coming years. Populations will not accept anything less.
You a probably mostly right there, although it highlights a second issue. China is now first in the world for education. The Top 4 are China, Singapore, Japan, South Korea. The UK is currently 26th. Schools in China are supposedly 3-4 grades ahead of us. Even if they are paying the same as us, they will still win.
Asian education systems are brilliant at producing children who can pass hard exams. They may be less good at producing risk-takers and individuals willing to work on their own initiative and able to think outside of narrow, pre-set parameters. We may be better at that. For optimal opportunities you need both. And we are lucky that the former are easier to produce than the latter.
Utter Arse of the Year. The prize — a real human sphincter muscle, steeped in formaldehyde and studded with diamonds by Damien Hirst — was accepted by the comedian Stephen Fry on behalf of the ‘Tweeting British Public’. What an incredible twist! We had all won! ‘Never in human history have people given of themselves so magnificently,’ Mr Fry declaimed. ‘Never has so much time and energy been expended on vapid, fatuous or banal observations, confected hyperbolic outrage, cretinous conspiracy theories and general idiocies. Well done, well done!’
The problem is that we are used to a standard of living our productivity does not pay for, that not unique in industrialised countries, but its particularly the case in the UK because a culture of something-for-nothing "lifestyle dependency" has been allowed to grow up (or in some cases positively encouraged) by several governments.
I'm not saying this is wrong, but what's the evidence for it? It's not enough to notice people in developing countries doing good quality work for less, because: 1) Bad infrastructure or governance can reduce their effective productivity, even if they're doing more than the equivalent British worker to play their part in creating wealth. 2) It may be that they're paid too little, not the the British too much. Wages in developing economies can rise pretty fast once their infrastructure and governance get good enough, and although it takes time, the growth of their welfare state follows along too.
To some extent the developing countries are the least of our worries.
The ONS said that output per hour worked in Britain was 29% lower than in the US and 24% lower than in Germany and France. Canada and Italy had slightly higher productivity than the UK and only one G7 nation – Japan – had a worse record.
We are staggeringly less productive that even France and Germany and they have open borders and free trade with us.
Long hours, shitty pay and strong creation of low-paid work. I can see why the British might not like going in this direction, but economically it seems like a viable position to be in.
I am not sure your description would be recognised by most German workers, but somehow they manage to churn out 24% more value than we do per working hour (so irrespective of hours worked).
I was describing Britain, not Germany. Germans get their shit done then go home, hence short hours and high per-hour productivity. I think this is better than the UK/Japan approach, but the latter still pays the bills.
National sterotype time: I once helped some Germans move house. They started about 7:30 and by 3pm everything was moved and unpacked and we were eating cake off little doilies. In contrast I don't think my parents have finished unpacking all their stuff yet, and they moved in 1993.
It is an unusually civil and constructive discussion (and normal service will be resumed soon, no doubt!)
I am an internationalist by inclination so not too concerned by globalisation. I am glad that other countries are catching up with the OECD, it would be quite wrong for the third world to be kept permanently poor so that we can be rich.
I agree that people will tolerate Scandinavian levels of taxes if they get good services. It makes no sense to cut taxes ans spending to the point that I need private health insurance, private schools and private security. There would be no more money in my pocket.
Each country will adapt to globalisation in its own way, and in many ways it is the countries that are refusing to globalise (much of the middle east and North Africa) that represent the biggest threat. In the UK we need to have a social safety net and a chance for social mobility, but it is going to be scaled back from historic norms if it is to survive. The failure to reform the welfare state is the most certain way to collapse it.
China, Singapore and Korea are all developing welfare states.
Our welfare state is much less generous than it was in the 20th century. I paid nothing for any of my education at any stage. My kids will leave university owing tens of thousands of pounds. Under the last government and this it has become much harder for the unemployed to get social security, payments are far lower in real terms and conditions for on-going receipt are far more rigorous. Those of us who grew up in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s enjoyed the benefits of a welfare state that our children and grandchildren will never know.
In the 50s & 60s could someone out of work and claiming benefits have been able to refuse jobs that they were capable of doing and still claim full benefits?
I doubt many people would have had the nerve to do so even if it were allowed
Also what proportion of people went to University in those days?
You have the paradox that the welfare state has grown less generous, even as welfare spending has grown. In the case of higher education, the reason is obvious. When 5% of the population went to university, the State could pay for everything. It can't, when 40% of the population go there.
Back in the Fifties, life expectancy was lower, so expenditure on pensions and end of life care were much lower. Unlike now, getting cancer was a death sentence, whereas all sorts of cancer treatments now exist. But, that means the NHS budget is under endless pressure, however high it goes.
Welfare dependency is much more entrenched than 50 years ago, even as successive governments salami-slice it. And, family breakdown and births outside marriage put more strain on the system.
@isam - No idea about the 50s and 60s, but in the 80s - at least in my experience - job centres etc were much less proactive in monitoring the unemployed and in finding them work. You signed on every two weeks and that was that pretty much. When he was out of work recently my son had to prove he had been looking for jobs every single week and even then he ended up getting nothing because his then girlfriend - with whom he lived - was working full-time. The last time I was unemployed my wife had a teaching job, but I got the dole still.
The problem is that we are used to a standard of living our productivity does not pay for, that not unique in industrialised countries, but its particularly the case in the UK because a culture of something-for-nothing "lifestyle dependency" has been allowed to grow up (or in some cases positively encouraged) by several governments.
I'm not saying this is wrong, but what's the evidence for it? It's not enough to notice people in developing countries doing good quality work for less, because: 1) Bad infrastructure or governance can reduce their effective productivity, even if they're doing more than the equivalent British worker to play their part in creating wealth. 2) It may be that they're paid too little, not the the British too much. Wages in developing economies can rise pretty fast once their infrastructure and governance get good enough, and although it takes time, the growth of their welfare state follows along too.
To some extent the developing countries are the least of our worries.
The ONS said that output per hour worked in Britain was 29% lower than in the US and 24% lower than in Germany and France. Canada and Italy had slightly higher productivity than the UK and only one G7 nation – Japan – had a worse record.
We are staggeringly less productive that even France and Germany and they have open borders and free trade with us.
In the case of France and Italy, there's the batting average effect. They have far fewer people in the work than we have - who tend to be the most productive workers. Our economy is relatively good at finding work for less productive workers, which is a good thing.
Indigo - again, I am not sure that you are exactly right about what is happening in many parts of Asia. I spend a fair bit of time over there and my sense is that there is a level of expectation in populations that governments need to deliver. Chinese parents do not force their kids to give up their childhoods for hours of study each day just so that they end up taking any job available. They expect their kids to get good, well-paid jobs - and they blame the government, not their kids if these do not materialise. In the countries I visit it seems to me that you are describing the situation a generation ago. As economies have developed, though, expectations have grown. It is true that what you do not get in Asia is entrenched welfare dependency - and they are undoubtedly in a position to develop systems that prevent this from arising because as in so many other areas they are able to look at what we have done and to learn from it. But in broad terms, I think we can expect to see social spending increase in Asian countries over the coming years. Populations will not accept anything less.
You a probably mostly right there, although it highlights a second issue. China is now first in the world for education. The Top 4 are China, Singapore, Japan, South Korea. The UK is currently 26th. Schools in China are supposedly 3-4 grades ahead of us. Even if they are paying the same as us, they will still win.
Asian education systems are brilliant at producing children who can pass hard exams. They may be less good at producing risk-takers and individuals willing to work on their own initiative and able to think outside of narrow, pre-set parameters. We may be better at that. For optimal opportunities you need both. And we are lucky that the former are easier to produce than the latter.
Anecdotally that's certainly been borne out in my experience - Western managers in China don't find that even highly-educated staff have been educated to take initiatives, though they're very willing to follow instructions carefully. That too may change in time - I've noticed that people from free-wheeling Shanghai are more willing to think independently and to recognise the need to do so than elsewhere.
Incidentally, I'm nicking parts of this discussion for a constituency blog which will appear on www.nickpalmer.org.uk - apologies to anyone (mainly fox) whose phrases I'm pinching!
Indigo - again, I am not sure that you are exactly right about what is happening in many parts of Asia. I spend a fair bit of time over there and my sense is that there is a level of expectation in populations that governments need to deliver. Chinese parents do not force their kids to give up their childhoods for hours of study each day just so that they end up taking any job available. They expect their kids to get good, well-paid jobs - and they blame the government, not their kids if these do not materialise. In the countries I visit it seems to me that you are describing the situation a generation ago. As economies have developed, though, expectations have grown. It is true that what you do not get in Asia is entrenched welfare dependency - and they are undoubtedly in a position to develop systems that prevent this from arising because as in so many other areas they are able to look at what we have done and to learn from it. But in broad terms, I think we can expect to see social spending increase in Asian countries over the coming years. Populations will not accept anything less.
You a probably mostly right there, although it highlights a second issue. China is now first in the world for education. The Top 4 are China, Singapore, Japan, South Korea. The UK is currently 26th. Schools in China are supposedly 3-4 grades ahead of us. Even if they are paying the same as us, they will still win.
Asian education systems are brilliant at producing children who can pass hard exams. They may be less good at producing risk-takers and individuals willing to work on their own initiative and able to think outside of narrow, pre-set parameters. We may be better at that. For optimal opportunities you need both. And we are lucky that the former are easier to produce than the latter.
Japan's already had a reform and a counter-reform. They brought in "Yutori kyouiku", which means something like "Give them some time to chill education" that was supposed to make the schools less like exam factories and allow the kids to become creative and express themselves. Then the maths scores took a dive and they dialled some of it back.
As you'd expect the previous generations are always bitching about the "yutori" generation being unable to follow instructions properly and do what they're told, but my (maybe untypical) experience with these kids is that it worked pretty well.
The problem is that we are used to a standard of living our productivity does not pay for, that not unique in industrialised countries, but its particularly the case in the UK because a culture of something-for-nothing "lifestyle dependency" has been allowed to grow up (or in some cases positively encouraged) by several governments.
I'm not saying this is wrong, but what's the evidence for it? It's not enough to notice people in developing countries doing good quality work for less, because: 1) Bad infrastructure or governance can reduce their effective productivity, even if they're doing more than the equivalent British worker to play their part in creating wealth. 2) It may be that they're paid too little, not the the British too much. Wages in developing economies can rise pretty fast once their infrastructure and governance get good enough, and although it takes time, the growth of their welfare state follows along too.
To some extent the developing countries are the least of our worries.
The ONS said that output per hour worked in Britain was 29% lower than in the US and 24% lower than in Germany and France. Canada and Italy had slightly higher productivity than the UK and only one G7 nation – Japan – had a worse record.
We are staggeringly less productive that even France and Germany and they have open borders and free trade with us.
Long hours, shitty pay and strong creation of low-paid work. I can see why the British might not like going in this direction, but economically it seems like a viable position to be in.
I am not sure your description would be recognised by most German workers, but somehow they manage to churn out 24% more value than we do per working hour (so irrespective of hours worked).
I was describing Britain, not Germany. Germans get their shit done then go home, hence short hours and high per-hour productivity. I think this is better than the UK/Japan approach, but the latter still pays the bills.
National sterotype time: I once helped some Germans move house. They started about 7:30 and by 3pm everything was moved and unpacked and we were eating cake off little doilies. In contrast I don't think my parents have finished unpacking all their stuff yet, and they moved in 1993.
I believe it's the same for the French too. Contrary to the widely held belief of laziness and 3 hour lunches, they crack on and get more done in a shorter day.
I wonder how internet usage at work, compares between here and France.
I suspect that when we talk about "Asia" we largely mean China, S. Korea and to some extent Vietnam. Don't think the generality of the Indian system works that well, or others. Certainly in Thailand when it's good, it's good, but limited experience suggests that's by no means universal.
Its not a cost of living crisis, its a cost of housing crisis. Cut housing costs by two thirds and you could absorb a 30% cut in wages, making us competitive with the far east and have change left over.
If Ed was clever he would undertake rent reform making it impossible for landlords to evict without good reason, make landlords offer 5 year leases, a right to renew the lease, compulsory registration of all landords, not just HMOs (with annual safety and habitability inspections by councils) and an independent eviction tribunal.
If he really wanted to be radical he could introduce right to buy with heavy discounts - for tenants of private landlords.
He could also remove the tax advantage landlords have over buy to live owners by introduction of a landlord tax and make landlords not tenants responsible for council tax.
Finally he could undertake reforms to bring house prices back down to 3x average wages. Capital gains tax on all house sales. 5% mansion tax on any property left unoccupied for a year, (10% if property above 100 sqaure metres) and a second owner mansion tax of 5% of the value of all properties owned by a person or couple if they own two or more properties. Essenitally making owning more than one property ruinously expensive for any person or couple.
And finally reform council tax so that it has two elements. The size of the property in square metres and the size of the curtilage (ie garden or estate) in square metres.
The problem that arises, to my mind, is: what if the couple (or their parents) set up an offshore family trust? These proposals seem likely to burden the middle and working classes, and legally naive, to the relative enrichment* of the wealthy and the clued up.
Asian education systems are brilliant at producing children who can pass hard exams. They may be less good at producing risk-takers and individuals willing to work on their own initiative and able to think outside of narrow, pre-set parameters. We may be better at that. For optimal opportunities you need both. And we are lucky that the former are easier to produce than the latter.
Anecdotally that's certainly been borne out in my experience - Western managers in China don't find that even highly-educated staff have been educated to take initiatives, though they're very willing to follow instructions carefully. That too may change in time - I've noticed that people from free-wheeling Shanghai are more willing to think independently and to recognise the need to do so than elsewhere.
Incidentally, I'm nicking parts of this discussion for a constituency blog which will appear on www.nickpalmer.org.uk - apologies to anyone (mainly fox) whose phrases I'm pinching!
The whole risk aversion thing is more than just education based, its quite heavily based in how local businesses culture, and especially local financiers. I was discussing this very matter with a group of Filipino businessmen a few months ago. The general feeling was that in most of Asia, but particularly here, the money comes from Chinese investors, who on the whole take a very risk averse view, and if you have had any sort of business failure will not be prepared to lend you any more money, and who tend to be very interconnected so the news of your failure will get around fast. Conversely its often said that a Wall Street investor likes to see a well handled business failure on the CV, as it shows you are aware of the risks, and you know what to look out for next time, and you might be inclined to take better care of his money!
For this reason you see many cloned businesses here, there will often be several shops selling exactly the same products next to each other on the street. This isnt a lack of imagination, this is fear of failure in a poor country where you might get one shot at getting some capital invested in your business, but if you screw it up thats the end of your dreams, so to speak. So businessmen look at a successful business and copy it, which is why franchising is huge here. The flaw in the model of course if the identical businesses dont generate new customers, so the tendency is to just share the customers around, and clone businesses continue to open until the margins are so small as to be not worth the effort.
We are staggeringly less productive that even France and Germany and they have open borders and free trade with us.
Long hours, shitty pay and strong creation of low-paid work. I can see why the British might not like going in this direction, but economically it seems like a viable position to be in.
I am not sure your description would be recognised by most German workers, but somehow they manage to churn out 24% more value than we do per working hour (so irrespective of hours worked).
I was describing Britain, not Germany. Germans get their shit done then go home, hence short hours and high per-hour productivity. I think this is better than the UK/Japan approach, but the latter still pays the bills.
National sterotype time: I once helped some Germans move house. They started about 7:30 and by 3pm everything was moved and unpacked and we were eating cake off little doilies. In contrast I don't think my parents have finished unpacking all their stuff yet, and they moved in 1993.
I believe it's the same for the French too. Contrary to the widely held belief of laziness and 3 hour lunches, they crack on and get more done in a shorter day.
I wonder how internet usage at work, compares between here and France.
When I was working in Germany standing around the coffee machine / water cooler talking was certainly frowned up, people grabbed their beverage of choice and scooted back to their desk. In some UK offices its almost worth installing a PC next to the coffee machine... When I worked at IBM many years ago they actually did install terminals in the smoking rooms!
Best wishes for your wife's recovery, speedily and fully, David Herdson. The rest will take care of itself.
The cost of living crisis in a nutshell: The cost of half a loaf of freshly baked white bread from my locally run private bakery on Xmas eve, £1.50; on reopening 2nd January, £1.60.
Your local baker is taking the proverbial. Go to the supermarket and pay less for the same.
In the 50s & 60s could someone out of work and claiming benefits have been able to refuse jobs that they were capable of doing and still claim full benefits?
I doubt many people would have had the nerve to do so even if it were allowed
Also what proportion of people went to University in those days?
You have the paradox that the welfare state has grown less generous, even as welfare spending has grown. In the case of higher education, the reason is obvious. When 5% of the population went to university, the State could pay for everything. It can't, when 40% of the population go there.
Back in the Fifties, life expectancy was lower, so expenditure on pensions and end of life care were much lower. Unlike now, getting cancer was a death sentence, whereas all sorts of cancer treatments now exist. But, that means the NHS budget is under endless pressure, however high it goes.
Welfare dependency is much more entrenched than 50 years ago, even as successive governments salami-slice it. And, family breakdown and births outside marriage put more strain on the system.
Jobs -- in the 50s and 60s, you could have a row with the boss on Friday, and walk into a new job on Monday. The benefits of full employment.
On universities, the paradox is that the current fees and loans system might end up costing more than the old, "unaffordable" student grants. It depends what on the repayment and default rates, since you do not have to repay if you do not earn enough.
I suspect that when we talk about "Asia" we largely mean China, S. Korea and to some extent Vietnam. Don't think the generality of the Indian system works that well, or others. Certainly in Thailand when it's good, it's good, but limited experience suggests that's by no means universal.
A couple of years back I had a fascinating chat with an American bloke who ran an innovation investment fund in Asia. It had offices in Japan, Korea, China, Singapore and India. In the first four countries, he said, they were very strong on incremental improvements to existing technologies; in India, on the other hand, they were much more interested in disruptive, breakthrough innovation. He put it down to education and culture. Indians argue with each other and everyone else, and are willing to question authority and challenge accepted ways of doing things; further east, though, that is much less common. However, despite being able to do stuff that, in his words, "will blow your mind" India was a nightmare from an investment perspective as everything was so chaotic. I guess that's why you find so many Indian engineers and scientists in Silicon Valley these days.
SO Although income based JSA is means tested, you can still claim contributions based JSA even if you are a millionaire for 6 months if you have made sufficient National Insurance contributions for the 2 years before claiming it
The incredible growth in employment over the last 3 years has reduced our apparent productivity as more and more marginal workers who suffered very poor educational experiences are sucked into employment. This has been combined with a significant reduction in the productivity bonus we used to get from the North Sea and the City. The productivity of most people in employment has continued to rise.
These effects have been like the proverbial tide going out and more of our underlying problems are now on show. If this makes our political class address them that would be a good thing. The UK still has a number of areas of excellence and our foreign owned car plants are a good example. We have a range of world class service industries that are extremely productive. What we need to do is grow our successes. Not enough focus is given to that by the Tories but they are like a laser beam compared with Labour who remain obsessed with distributing the proceeds rather than earning the money in the first place.
Chinese kids = hardworking but unable to think outside the box?
It's a cultural thing - one child per family has lead to a generation of spoilt children, doted on by parents willing to do everything for their offspring.
SO Although income based JSA is means tested, you can still claim contributions based JSA even if you are a millionaire for 6 months if you have made sufficient National Insurance contributions for the 2 years before claiming it
You can't claim JSA for the period you have been paid in lieu of notice. So if you get 3 months' pay in lieu of notice then you can only claim after three months if you are still out of work.
Chinese kids = hardworking but unable to think outside the box?
It's a cultural thing - one child per family has lead to a generation of spoilt children, doted on by parents willing to do everything for their offspring.
One can argue the same thing happened in Japan, as the birth rate collapsed in the 1970s and 1980s.
Chinese kids = hardworking but unable to think outside the box?
It's a cultural thing - one child per family has lead to a generation of spoilt children, doted on by parents willing to do everything for their offspring.
"Inscrutability has many advantages but it may be your undoing today"
Best wishes for your wife's recovery, speedily and fully, David Herdson. The rest will take care of itself.
The cost of living crisis in a nutshell: The cost of half a loaf of freshly baked white bread from my locally run private bakery on Xmas eve, £1.50; on reopening 2nd January, £1.60.
Your local baker is taking the proverbial. Go to the supermarket and pay less for the same.
Your trouble is that you obviously have no idea of quality. My bakers bread is far superior to the local supermarket stodge and as a small business cannot afford to suffer increased overheads, as can the large firms.
PS Sorry to hear about your wife David and hope she makes a good recovery
Party D is economically left wing according to the policies listed: more business regulation, no private investment in the NHS
That's correct. It would have been helpful to have an economic right-wing, social conservative, eurosceptic option, which presumably would take support from C and D.
Indigo - again, I am not sure that you are exactly right about what is happening in many parts of Asia. I spend a fair bit of time over there and my sense is that there is a level of expectation in populations that governments need to deliver. Chinese parents do not force their kids to give up their childhoods for hours of study each day just so that they end up taking any job available. They expect their kids to get good, well-paid jobs - and they blame the government, not their kids if these do not materialise. In the countries I visit it seems to me that you are describing the situation a generation ago. As economies have developed, though, expectations have grown. It is true that what you do not get in Asia is entrenched welfare dependency - and they are undoubtedly in a position to develop systems that prevent this from arising because as in so many other areas they are able to look at what we have done and to learn from it. But in broad terms, I think we can expect to see social spending increase in Asian countries over the coming years. Populations will not accept anything less.
You a probably mostly right there, although it highlights a second issue. China is now first in the world for education. The Top 4 are China, Singapore, Japan, South Korea. The UK is currently 26th. Schools in China are supposedly 3-4 grades ahead of us. Even if they are paying the same as us, they will still win.
What will they win? Why does America lead the capitalist world, given their education system (below postgraduate level) is widely regarded as pants? Russia leads the world in mathematics but I'd venture that none of us have any Russian consumer goods in our homes.
Chinese kids = hardworking but unable to think outside the box?
It's a cultural thing - one child per family has lead to a generation of spoilt children, doted on by parents willing to do everything for their offspring.
"Inscrutability has many advantages but it may be your undoing today"
You should take up the argument with my Chinese sister in law, though having been born, raised and lived in China for 30 years what would she know?
Chinese kids = hardworking but unable to think outside the box?
It's a cultural thing - one child per family has lead to a generation of spoilt children, doted on by parents willing to do everything for their offspring.
"Inscrutability has many advantages but it may be your undoing today"
You should take up the argument with my Chinese sister in law, though having been born, raised and lived in China for 30 years what would she know?
Small sample!
Not my words, but just funny to see mass stereotyping of people on basis of nationality casually discussed with cross party agreement on here
We are staggeringly less productive that even France and Germany and they have open borders and free trade with us.
Long hours, shitty pay and strong creation of low-paid work. I can see why the British might not like going in this direction, but economically it seems like a viable position to be in.
I am not sure your description would be recognised by most German workers, but somehow they manage to churn out 24% more value than we do per working hour (so irrespective of hours worked).
I was describing Britain, not Germany. Germans get their shit done then go home, hence short hours and high per-hour productivity. I think this is better than the UK/Japan approach, but the latter still pays the bills.
National sterotype time: I once helped some Germans move house. They started about 7:30 and by 3pm everything was moved and unpacked and we were eating cake off little doilies. In contrast I don't think my parents have finished unpacking all their stuff yet, and they moved in 1993.
I believe it's the same for the French too. Contrary to the widely held belief of laziness and 3 hour lunches, they crack on and get more done in a shorter day.
I wonder how internet usage at work, compares between here and France.
When I was working in Germany standing around the coffee machine / water cooler talking was certainly frowned up, people grabbed their beverage of choice and scooted back to their desk. In some UK offices its almost worth installing a PC next to the coffee machine... When I worked at IBM many years ago they actually did install terminals in the smoking rooms!
Years ago I did some consultancy for a company who did put a couple networked machines into the smoking room, which I made my temporary office. I found out more about what was going on in the company in two weeks than any of the directors knew. I found that in many ways the smoking room was the hub of the company as people from all different departments gravitated there and with the fags went an exchange, not only of gossip but of ideas. People came along who didn't even smoke in search of solutions to problems in atmosphere, which, whilst at times was scarcely breathable, was egalitarian to a fault.
In my final report I recommended that the smoking room be enlarged, fitted with better extraction fans and equipped with whiteboards and a Polaroid camera (for taking pictures of the whiteboards - no smartboards in those days). A recommendation, I am pleased to say they implemented.
Best wishes for your wife's recovery, speedily and fully, David Herdson. The rest will take care of itself.
The cost of living crisis in a nutshell: The cost of half a loaf of freshly baked white bread from my locally run private bakery on Xmas eve, £1.50; on reopening 2nd January, £1.60.
Your local baker is taking the proverbial. Go to the supermarket and pay less for the same.
Your trouble is that you obviously have no idea of quality. My bakers bread is far superior to the local supermarket stodge and as a small business cannot afford to suffer increased overheads, as can the large firms.
So you're complaining that your artisan bread supplier has raised prices for his premium product? It's a bit like moaning that the local Bentley dealer has slapped an extra £10k on the cost of a coupe.
David Evershed True, although you would still not have been in work during that 3 months timeframe, but receiving payment in lieu of notice so the need for benefits would be less strong, but the point that you can claim contributions based benefit for several months once that payment has ended remains
When I was working in Germany standing around the coffee machine / water cooler talking was certainly frowned up, people grabbed their beverage of choice and scooted back to their desk. In some UK offices its almost worth installing a PC next to the coffee machine... When I worked at IBM many years ago they actually did install terminals in the smoking rooms!
Years ago I did some consultancy for a company who did put a couple networked machines into the smoking room, which I made my temporary office. I found out more about what was going on in the company in two weeks than any of the directors knew. I found that in many ways the smoking room was the hub of the company as people from all different departments gravitated there and with the fags went an exchange, not only of gossip but of ideas. People came along who didn't even smoke in search of solutions to problems in atmosphere, which, whilst at times was scarcely breathable, was egalitarian to a fault.
In my final report I recommended that the smoking room be enlarged, fitted with better extraction fans and equipped with whiteboards and a Polaroid camera (for taking pictures of the whiteboards - no smartboards in those days). A recommendation, I am pleased to say they implemented.
According to the book How Google Works, the principle there is the same: encourage interaction of smart, creative people.
When I was working in Germany standing around the coffee machine / water cooler talking was certainly frowned up, people grabbed their beverage of choice and scooted back to their desk. In some UK offices its almost worth installing a PC next to the coffee machine... When I worked at IBM many years ago they actually did install terminals in the smoking rooms!
Google apparently has free food cafes all over their main complex, the idea being that creative types wander over, munch and interact, then return to their desks full of fresh inspiration and with a cheerful indifference to the clock or mundane stuff like going home for a meal. By all accounts it works pretty well for their workforce, which is selected explicitly for creativity.
National sterotype time: I once helped some Germans move house. They started about 7:30 and by 3pm everything was moved and unpacked and we were eating cake off little doilies. In contrast I don't think my parents have finished unpacking all their stuff yet, and they moved in 1993.
The real problem for politicians is that to maintain our current standard of living we need as a country to be producing about £100bn a year than we currently are. We are not close to justifying what we spend on ourselves as a country. This inevitably means years of flat standards of living for the country and waves of unpopularity for whoever is elected.
The Tory poster is boring but it is true in one sense. There is a long and difficult road ahead. Years and years of catch up for the mistakes of the past.
Indigo - again, I am not sure that you are exactly right about what is happening in many parts of Asia. I spend a fair bit of time over there and my sense is that there is a level of expectation in populations that governments need to deliver. Chinese parents do not force their kids to give up their childhoods for hours of study each day just so that they end up taking any job available. They expect their kids to get good, well-paid jobs - and they blame the government, not their kids if these do not materialise. In the countries I visit it seems to me that you are describing the situation a generation ago. As economies have developed, though, expectations have grown. It is true that what you do not get in Asia is entrenched welfare dependency - and they are undoubtedly in a position to develop systems that prevent this from arising because as in so many other areas they are able to look at what we have done and to learn from it. But in broad terms, I think we can expect to see social spending increase in Asian countries over the coming years. Populations will not accept anything less.
You a probably mostly right there, although it highlights a second issue. China is now first in the world for education. The Top 4 are China, Singapore, Japan, South Korea. The UK is currently 26th. Schools in China are supposedly 3-4 grades ahead of us. Even if they are paying the same as us, they will still win.
What will they win? Why does America lead the capitalist world, given their education system (below postgraduate level) is widely regarded as pants? Russia leads the world in mathematics but I'd venture that none of us have any Russian consumer goods in our homes.
In PISA2012 (the latest) Russia came 34th In Mathematics. They might have a few leading mathematicians, but their high school maths is nearly as bad as the USA (36th). At the end of last year China overtook America as the world largest economy, India is expected to overtake China before 2050. America has vast resources, but is living high on everyone elses money given the $18tn deficit.
I suspect that when we talk about "Asia" we largely mean China, S. Korea and to some extent Vietnam. Don't think the generality of the Indian system works that well, or others. Certainly in Thailand when it's good, it's good, but limited experience suggests that's by no means universal.
A couple of years back I had a fascinating chat with an American bloke who ran an innovation investment fund in Asia. It had offices in Japan, Korea, China, Singapore and India. In the first four countries, he said, they were very strong on incremental improvements to existing technologies; in India, on the other hand, they were much more interested in disruptive, breakthrough innovation. He put it down to education and culture. Indians argue with each other and everyone else, and are willing to question authority and challenge accepted ways of doing things; further east, though, that is much less common. However, despite being able to do stuff that, in his words, "will blow your mind" India was a nightmare from an investment perspective as everything was so chaotic. I guess that's why you find so many Indian engineers and scientists in Silicon Valley these days.
Interesting thoughts, Mr Observer. My son, who sells high tech kit of varying sorts, and which is, incidentally, largely British designed and made, across Asia Pacific hates going to do business in India. Does a lot in China, though. Finds them a bit long-winded but straightforward. Shall have to make further enquiries when we visit him next.
The real problem for politicians is that to maintain our current standard of living we need as a country to be producing about £100bn a year than we currently are. We are not close to justifying what we spend on ourselves as a country. This inevitably means years of flat standards of living for the country and waves of unpopularity for whoever is elected.
The Tory poster is boring but it is true in one sense. There is a long and difficult road ahead. Years and years of catch up for the mistakes of the past.
We need to swell the tax base by 100bn, which means we need to produce quite a lot more than that at the prevailing (or indeed any commercially acceptable) tax rate, I would suggest somewhere north of 500bn, and thats a tall order when our total GDP is only five times that.
Indigo - again, I am not sure that you are exactly right about what is happening in many parts of Asia. I spend a fair bit of time over there and my sense is that there is a level of expectation in populations that governments need to deliver. Chinese parents do not force their kids to give up their childhoods for hours of study each day just so that they end up taking any job available. They expect their kids to get good, well-paid jobs - and they blame the government, not their kids if these do not materialise. In the countries I visit it seems to me that you are describing the situation a generation ago. As economies have developed, though, expectations have grown. It is true that what you do not get in Asia is entrenched welfare dependency - and they are undoubtedly in a position to develop systems that prevent this from arising because as in so many other areas they are able to look at what we have done and to learn from it. But in broad terms, I think we can expect to see social spending increase in Asian countries over the coming years. Populations will not accept anything less.
You a probably mostly right there, although it highlights a second issue. China is now first in the world for education. The Top 4 are China, Singapore, Japan, South Korea. The UK is currently 26th. Schools in China are supposedly 3-4 grades ahead of us. Even if they are paying the same as us, they will still win.
What will they win? Why does America lead the capitalist world, given their education system (below postgraduate level) is widely regarded as pants? Russia leads the world in mathematics but I'd venture that none of us have any Russian consumer goods in our homes.
In PISA2012 (the latest) Russia came 34th In Mathematics. They might have a few leading mathematicians, but their high school maths is nearly as bad as the USA (36th). At the end of last year China overtook America as the world largest economy, India is expected to overtake China before 2050. America has vast resources, but is living high on everyone elses money given the $18tn deficit.
Choose a university -- any university -- go to their website -- go to the maths department and look for academics with Russian names. Russia leads the world regardless of what Pisa thinks.
But the main point is that whatever makes America, Germany, or if you like, China better than us, it probably is not Pisa rankings. Maybe our politicians should try harder to discover what are those other factors -- I certainly am not claiming to know them.
I suspect that when we talk about "Asia" we largely mean China, S. Korea and to some extent Vietnam. Don't think the generality of the Indian system works that well, or others. Certainly in Thailand when it's good, it's good, but limited experience suggests that's by no means universal.
A couple of years back I had a fascinating chat with an American bloke who ran an innovation investment fund in Asia. It had offices in Japan, Korea, China, Singapore and India. In the first four countries, he said, they were very strong on incremental improvements to existing technologies; in India, on the other hand, they were much more interested in disruptive, breakthrough innovation. He put it down to education and culture. Indians argue with each other and everyone else, and are willing to question authority and challenge accepted ways of doing things; further east, though, that is much less common. However, despite being able to do stuff that, in his words, "will blow your mind" India was a nightmare from an investment perspective as everything was so chaotic. I guess that's why you find so many Indian engineers and scientists in Silicon Valley these days.
Interesting thoughts, Mr Observer. My son, who sells high tech kit of varying sorts, and which is, incidentally, largely British designed and made, across Asia Pacific hates going to do business in India. Does a lot in China, though. Finds them a bit long-winded but straightforward. Shall have to make further enquiries when we visit him next.
I understand from those doing business in China that corruption is much greater in China than elsewhere.
Utter Arse of the Year. The prize — a real human sphincter muscle, steeped in formaldehyde and studded with diamonds by Damien Hirst — was accepted by the comedian Stephen Fry on behalf of the ‘Tweeting British Public’. What an incredible twist! We had all won! ‘Never in human history have people given of themselves so magnificently,’ Mr Fry declaimed. ‘Never has so much time and energy been expended on vapid, fatuous or banal observations, confected hyperbolic outrage, cretinous conspiracy theories and general idiocies. Well done, well done!’
Sean F Indeed. Tories mainly C, Labour and Greens mainly A, Blairites and some Cameroons and Cleggites B, UKIP and a handful of Tories and Labour D.
On coalitions though voters for A would work with B and both C and B with A, D seems to be a far less attractive although won a plurality of votes
There appears to be a left-wing socially-conservative grouping missing from the list, in the current climate you might think a Blue Labour type party, a UKIP for Lefties (rather than the current UKIP for Righties with some pink window dressing) might draw quite a lot of support.
I agree entirely with Mr Nelson.... this is not often the case... still waiting for all that inflation he predicted a few years ago!!
We didn't like Labour's lies about Tory plans and yet we've come up with this trixy rubbish, just add the GDP bit, many people won't focus on that bit anyway and will still hear halved the deficit. End of story.
Indigo - again, I am not sure that you are exactly right about what is happening in many parts of Asia. I spend a fair bit of time over there and my sense is that there is a level of expectation in populations that governments need to deliver. Chinese parents do not force their kids to give up their childhoods for hours of study each day just so that they end up taking any job available. They expect their kids to get good, well-paid jobs - and they blame the government, not their kids if these do not materialise. In the countries I visit it seems to me that you are describing the situation a generation ago. As economies have developed, though, expectations have grown. It is true that what you do not get in Asia is entrenched welfare dependency - and they are undoubtedly in a position to develop systems that prevent this from arising because as in so many other areas they are able to look at what we have done and to learn from it. But in broad terms, I think we can expect to see social spending increase in Asian countries over the coming years. Populations will not accept anything less.
You a probably mostly right there, although it highlights a second issue. China is now first in the world for education. The Top 4 are China, Singapore, Japan, South Korea. The UK is currently 26th. Schools in China are supposedly 3-4 grades ahead of us. Even if they are paying the same as us, they will still win.
What will they win? Why does America lead the capitalist world, given their education system (below postgraduate level) is widely regarded as pants? Russia leads the world in mathematics but I'd venture that none of us have any Russian consumer goods in our homes.
In PISA2012 (the latest) Russia came 34th In Mathematics. They might have a few leading mathematicians, but their high school maths is nearly as bad as the USA (36th). At the end of last year China overtook America as the world largest economy, India is expected to overtake China before 2050. America has vast resources, but is living high on everyone elses money given the $18tn deficit.
India came second bottom of PISA and won't be overtaking anyone soon.
Not bothered that NE Asians are and will be marginally economically richer than us. Far more concerned about immigration dragging us down to South Africa or Brazil's level.
Indigo Maybe on gdp, in which case it will follow that India would overtake China as the world's largest population with the US still third, but on gdp per capita China will remain ahead of India and the US ahead of both, even with a narrowing gap
When I was working in Germany standing around the coffee machine / water cooler talking was certainly frowned up, people grabbed their beverage of choice and scooted back to their desk. In some UK offices its almost worth installing a PC next to the coffee machine... When I worked at IBM many years ago they actually did install terminals in the smoking rooms!
Google apparently has free food cafes all over their main complex, the idea being that creative types wander over, munch and interact, then return to their desks full of fresh inspiration and with a cheerful indifference to the clock or mundane stuff like going home for a meal. By all accounts it works pretty well for their workforce, which is selected explicitly for creativity.
National sterotype time: I once helped some Germans move house. They started about 7:30 and by 3pm everything was moved and unpacked and we were eating cake off little doilies. In contrast I don't think my parents have finished unpacking all their stuff yet, and they moved in 1993.
LOL. Been there, got the T-shirt.
I have been to the main Google campus in Mountain View a few times and it is pretty amazing. You can get any type of food at any time for free, there are free drink dispensers all over the place, bikes are available for you to cycle from one place to another, there's dry cleaning done to order, you can get your haircut, there are pool and table tennis tables all over the place, volleyball and basketball courts, and so on. Basically, there's no need to leave except to sleep. In the old days employees were able to bring friends and family in for meals at any time, but that ended up reducing productivity as it encouraged non-work-related lingering and there were kids running all over the place. So now it's only available to staff and to accredited, signed in guests.
The thing that strikes me when I am there is that although every race of person imaginable is represented everyone looks the same: ridiculously young and healthy, t-shirts, jeans and Apple Macs; except the patent attorneys - they try to blend in, but fail dismally!!
But the main point is that whatever makes America, Germany, or if you like, China better than us, it probably is not Pisa rankings. Maybe our politicians should try harder to discover what are those other factors -- I certainly am not claiming to know them.
I think the answer is conspicuously work ethic. Sufficient education is an enabling factor, and is necessary for the very high end jobs, but for 95% of jobs, good is probably enough, excellent is overkill.
The bigger problem as has been alluded to here any number of times is frankly, laziness and entitlement. 50 years ago we had a culture of achievers and people who got off their arse and did something, we still have some of those to be proud off, but they are increasingly the exception rather than the rule.
We now have endless drama graduates chasing the 2-3 jobs in the broadcast media every year and then being dissatisfied with whatever non-job they get instead, or deciding instead to join the ranks of the lifestyle benefit claimants.
Even 30 years ago most people who have been horrified at the idea of living on benefits. I am not even that old, I am in my 40s, but when the IT world had a heart attack in the dotCom crash I spent six months assembling peoples flat pack furniture for them for a fixed price. It wasn't great money so I went back to IT when the market recovered, but rather that than sit on my arse all day sponging off someone else.
I suspect that when we talk about "Asia" we largely mean China, S. Korea and to some extent Vietnam. Don't think the generality of the Indian system works that well, or others. Certainly in Thailand when it's good, it's good, but limited experience suggests that's by no means universal.
A couple of years back I had a fascinating chat with an American bloke who ran an innovation investment fund in Asia. It had offices in Japan, Korea, China, Singapore and India. In the first four countries, he said, they were very strong on incremental improvements to existing technologies; in India, on the other hand, they were much more interested in disruptive, breakthrough innovation. He put it down to education and culture. Indians argue with each other and everyone else, and are willing to question authority and challenge accepted ways of doing things; further east, though, that is much less common. However, despite being able to do stuff that, in his words, "will blow your mind" India was a nightmare from an investment perspective as everything was so chaotic. I guess that's why you find so many Indian engineers and scientists in Silicon Valley these days.
Interesting thoughts, Mr Observer. My son, who sells high tech kit of varying sorts, and which is, incidentally, largely British designed and made, across Asia Pacific hates going to do business in India. Does a lot in China, though. Finds them a bit long-winded but straightforward. Shall have to make further enquiries when we visit him next.
I understand from those doing business in China that corruption is much greater in China than elsewhere.
Never been mentioned as an issue, although I’ve asked. Couple of people I met a year or so ago in Thailand said corruption wasn’t a problem in private business, but was with officials. Don’t think that is still the case, though.
David Evershed It would suggest immigration controls and a Eurosceptic, socially conservative climate change agenda is popular with about a third of voters but that UKIP should tone down the economic liberalism which they have begun to do. However, the remaining 2 thirds are sceptical for one reason or another about aspects of such a platform
The real problem for politicians is that to maintain our current standard of living we need as a country to be producing about £100bn a year than we currently are. We are not close to justifying what we spend on ourselves as a country. This inevitably means years of flat standards of living for the country and waves of unpopularity for whoever is elected.
The Tory poster is boring but it is true in one sense. There is a long and difficult road ahead. Years and years of catch up for the mistakes of the past.
We need to swell the tax base by 100bn, which means we need to produce quite a lot more than that at the prevailing (or indeed any commercially acceptable) tax rate, I would suggest somewhere north of 500bn, and thats a tall order when our total GDP is only five times that.
The tax base is important for the deficit and the level of public spending but the balance of payments remains more important for our long term standard of living. We cannot keep using other peoples' investments to fund our current bills.
If we had a balance of payments surplus I am pretty confident the fiscal deficit would take care of itself.
I suspect that when we talk about "Asia" we largely mean China, S. Korea and to some extent Vietnam. Don't think the generality of the Indian system works that well, or others. Certainly in Thailand when it's good, it's good, but limited experience suggests that's by no means universal.
A couple of years back I had a fascinating chat with an American bloke who ran an innovation investment fund in Asia. It had offices in Japan, Korea, China, Singapore and India. In the first four countries, he said, they were very strong on incremental improvements to existing technologies; in India, on the other hand, they were much more interested in disruptive, breakthrough innovation. He put it down to education and culture. Indians argue with each other and everyone else, and are willing to question authority and challenge accepted ways of doing things; further east, though, that is much less common. However, despite being able to do stuff that, in his words, "will blow your mind" India was a nightmare from an investment perspective as everything was so chaotic. I guess that's why you find so many Indian engineers and scientists in Silicon Valley these days.
Interesting thoughts, Mr Observer. My son, who sells high tech kit of varying sorts, and which is, incidentally, largely British designed and made, across Asia Pacific hates going to do business in India. Does a lot in China, though. Finds them a bit long-winded but straightforward. Shall have to make further enquiries when we visit him next.
I understand from those doing business in China that corruption is much greater in China than elsewhere.
It's horrific in India. In China it's mostly just backhanders of one kind or another to state officials, so if you are just trading with the private sector you may not come across it. We never have. Our biggest problem was being frozen out by state authorities for a few months after Dave met the Dalai Lama. That made it impossible for us to get support for or help on events and publications we were putting on in China, though it didn't stop us doing anything.
Indigo Maybe on gdp, in which case it will follow that India would overtake China as the world's largest population with the US still third, but on gdp per capita China will remain ahead of India and the US ahead of both, even with a narrowing gap
One of the real horrors of doing business in India is that there is a fundamental inability to adhere to confidentiality. Gossip is the currency of kudos. Someone hears something, they have to tell someone. I have seen big deals go down just because someone couldn't STFU.
I have been to the main Google campus in Mountain View a few times and it is pretty amazing. You can get any type of food at any time for free, there are free drink dispensers all over the place, bikes are available for you to cycle from one place to another, there's dry cleaning done to order, you can get your haircut, there are pool and table tennis tables all over the place, volleyball and basketball courts, and so on. Basically, there's no need to leave except to sleep. In the old days employees were able to bring friends and family in for meals at any time, but that ended up reducing productivity as it encouraged non-work-related lingering and there were kids running all over the place. So now it's only available to staff and to accredited, signed in guests.
The thing that strikes me when I am there is that although every race of person imaginable is represented everyone looks the same: ridiculously young and healthy, t-shirts, jeans and Apple Macs; except the patent attorneys - they try to blend in, but fail dismally!!
In contrast, what annoys me on Civil Service T&Cs is the penny pinching. You can say what you like about the salaries and the pensions, but they save pennies on things like water coolers and not providing sandwiches for internal visitors. Spend £30 a head on a Christmas do and you will be in the Daily Mail. Which is stupid: you will be spending 1,000 times that on salaries and on-costs and certainly will not be getting anything like 1,000 times the goodwill. OK there has been silliness in the past (such as everyone above a certain grade having an entitlement to use first class travel) but it has swung too far back the other way. Oh, and many departments will not pay for training in case you leave! (Actually the core civil service needs to encourage turnover, it is not healthy having people working there for 40 years).
In the current climate, as far as I can see the problem is too many layers of middle management feathering their own nests and taking the necessary savings out of the wrong place.
Good article, but can't help but feel it might be a bit too optimistic from Labour's standpoint. People might agree with Labour's analysis that there's a "cost of living crisis" and that the recovery is not being felt by the majority of people, but that won't necessarily translate into support for Labour if people don't feel Labour are providing solutions to the problem they've identified. There's a lot of people who feel that it's impossible for any government to do anything to impact on the cost of living or on (private-sector) wages even if they wanted to. Then others who think it would be theoretically possible if a government had the guts to really grasp the nettle, but that Labour's current solutions (the energy price freeze and adjustments to rent contracts), while good as far as they go, do not really match up to the scale of the problem that they're shouting about.
I still think a much stronger theme for Labour is going on the central issue of spending cuts, i.e. whether there should be massive cuts or not. Unlike the cost of living, that IS something which the public feel that the government self-evidently has control over, and even the consensus among the commentariat is that the Right have "won" the austerity debate, it's a different story among the general public, who imo would be quite receptive to an argument from Labour that there's no real pressing need to slash the deficit since right now we still have a deficit and yet we're under no pressure whatsoever from the bond markets.
OK I will Mr Morris *winks* This seems an apt thread to put some reminders out there. Indeed it's not specifically what I think but what is actually known. So,,,,,,,,,
The following are only the some of the indicators that Labour knew they were in trouble long before 2008 and as early as 2001. This was a significant point given it was shortly before they had stopped using the previous governments spending plans and quite simply let rip and boy did they let rip.
The OECD and IMF and CBI and ASI and others repeatedly warned Brown that he was running a dangerously large deficit from as early as 2001:
"2001: Adam Smith Institute warns that the “Chancellor is riding for a fall”, and that “the undermining of the competitiveness of the economy since 1997 could leave Britain particularly vulnerable.” (Telegraph)
- 2001: Gordon Brown warned about the dangers of the personal borrowing bubble and potential downturn. The warnings are ultimately ignored. (Telegraph)
- 2003: The IMF warns Gordon Brown that he will breach his own borrowing rules, and stresses the need to cut the mounting public spending deficit. (BBC)
- 2004: The OECD warns Gordon Brown about mounting budget deficit and rate of government borrowing. (BBC)
- 2005: Gordon Brown changes the economic cycle time-frame in which he measured his ‘golden rule’, so that he wouldn’t break it. (Channel Four) (BBC)
- 2005: UK has slowest rate of growth in 12 years. Gordon Brown “still didn’t heed warnings of slow-down”. (BBC)
- 2005: Gordon Brown is warned he is ”on thin ice with the economy”. (BBC)
- 2005: The CBI warns Brown about the criticality his widening budget deficit and spending ‘black hole’. (BBC)
- 2005: “The fact is [Gordon Brown] had already run out of money this time last year” - 2005, Ernst and Young Item Club, leading forecasting group. (BBC)"
Indeed the IMF were the most vocal in their criticism.....................................................
1) Dec 2003 IMF gives Brown borrowing warning
2) Sep 2005 IMF report warning over £1 trillion mountain of debt
3) Sep 2005 Brown besieged over growth and borrowing plans
4) Dec 2005 IMF fires new warning over Britain's finances
5) Sep 2006 IMF warns over possible UK property crash
6) Oct 2007 IMF report UK house market is 'heading for crash'
7) Apr 2008 IMF: UK vulnerable to US-style housing slump
October, 2008 the IMF said that the UK was worst placed of all the major economies to weather the coming recession. The crash occurred and Labour blame it all on the banks and continue to do so even on this very website day in and day out.
In saying that we should also not forget that Labour let PFI run rampant, Sold gold at rock bottom right before bull market, Deliberately leaves out house prices in calculation of inflation, leading to artificially low interest rates thus spawning an unprecedented housing boom (which later crashes of course), Spends entire national reserves, racks up record debt. Encourages local councils to save with Icelandic accounts which later go bust, purely based on high interest rates offered. Run on pound against a basket of currencies, reaches below parity mark with Euro for high street exchange rates. Encourages people to keep on spending and borrowing to invigorate the economy despite the UK already having the highest levels of personal debt in Europe . Recommends to Lloyds TSB (which has a reputation for being a slow and steady bank) acquisition of another bank which is subsequently shown to have losses of over £10billion and that's just to name but a few......
This is why Labour cannot then now or ever be trusted with the economy. It is why we are where we are today and why in 2008 Brown the head Firemen ran the Government Fire brigade into extinguish the economic firestorm Labour and the clunking fist as Head arsonist had started while at the same time claiming to have then "saved the world"
Yes ....no wonder Labour saw the crash as their savior we were certainly screwed long before it.....and now even our Grand children's children will be.
not what I think but what is known and reported by many institutions most of them sympathetic with Labour. The left would have this buried and Labour hopes people will forget well this is why they should not.
Best wishes to your wife Mr Herdson and wish her a speedy recovery....
What battle over the economy?
Labour have lost. They have lost every single economic argument over the entire course of this coalition government. Despite desperately " talking Britain down" at every opportunity none of it happened, in fact the direct opposite occurred. Balls is an utter madman and about to be given the keys to the economic sweetshop.
Labour, the party that created this unholy mess in the first place deserve to go down to a defeat the likes of which re rarely seen. No it was not the banks they applied the coup de Grace. Labours economy was in trouble in 2003 with warnings coming in, by 2005 international warnings wer coming in about the Labour party's direction. The Labour Party greeted with relief the financial crash of 2008 the seeds of which they sowed themselves. They could then blame all their mistakes on a single entity. Blair was a lucky general and it was stunning timing to hand over the utter clusterfuck to Brown at the point the socialist fues finally ran out.
Labours defeat though With the built in bias and postal voting that regrettably is unlikely to happen and over the next 5 years we will repeat the same left wing ideology that always brings us to the brink of catastrophe every time. This time I am sure Miliband will achieve what other Labour governments have only just failed. Think France and Greece combined. The total destruction of this country once and for all.
If all this is true , why did Osborne as Shadow Chancellor commit the Tories to matching Labour's spending plans prior to 2008?
Best wishes to your wife Mr Herdson and wish her a speedy recovery....
What battle over the economy?
Labour have lost. They have lost every single economic argument over the entire course of this coalition government. Despite desperately " talking Britain down" at every opportunity none of it happened, in fact the direct opposite occurred. Balls is an utter madman and about to be given the keys to the economic sweetshop.
Labour, the party that created this unholy mess in the first place deserve to go down to a defeat the likes of which re rarely seen. No it was not the banks they applied the coup de Grace. Labours economy was in trouble in 2003 with warnings coming in, by 2005 international warnings wer coming in about the Labour party's direction. The Labour Party greeted with relief the financial crash of 2008 the seeds of which they sowed themselves. They could then blame all their mistakes on a single entity. Blair was a lucky general and it was stunning timing to hand over the utter clusterfuck to Brown at the point the socialist fues finally ran out.
Labours defeat though With the built in bias and postal voting that regrettably is unlikely to happen and over the next 5 years we will repeat the same left wing ideology that always brings us to the brink of catastrophe every time. This time I am sure Miliband will achieve what other Labour governments have only just failed. Think France and Greece combined. The total destruction of this country once and for all.
If all this is true , why did Osborne as Shadow Chancellor commit the Tories to matching Labour's spending plans prior to 2008?
Justin24 body swerves all evidence.... Not surprising no answers you see
Best wishes to your wife Mr Herdson and wish her a speedy recovery....
What battle over the economy?
Labour have lost. They have lost every single economic argument over the entire course of this coalition government. Despite desperately " talking Britain down" at every opportunity none of it happened, in fact the direct opposite occurred. Balls is an utter madman and about to be given the keys to the economic sweetshop.
Labour, the party that created this unholy mess in the first place deserve to go down to a defeat the likes of which re rarely seen. No it was not the banks they applied the coup de Grace. Labours economy was in trouble in 2003 with warnings coming in, by 2005 international warnings wer coming in about the Labour party's direction. The Labour Party greeted with relief the financial crash of 2008 the seeds of which they sowed themselves. They could then blame all their mistakes on a single entity. Blair was a lucky general and it was stunning timing to hand over the utter clusterfuck to Brown at the point the socialist fues finally ran out.
Labours defeat though With the built in bias and postal voting that regrettably is unlikely to happen and over the next 5 years we will repeat the same left wing ideology that always brings us to the brink of catastrophe every time. This time I am sure Miliband will achieve what other Labour governments have only just failed. Think France and Greece combined. The total destruction of this country once and for all.
If all this is true , why did Osborne as Shadow Chancellor commit the Tories to matching Labour's spending plans prior to 2008?
All the current political parties commit to spending more and taxing less because they believe it is the only way they will get elected.
Sadly a majority of the population believe you can have something for nothing.
Hence all democratic governments end up with massive debts from continuous deficits - except Germany where the German people are more perceptive and more disciplined (as well as more productive as we discussed earlier today).
Best wishes to your wife Mr Herdson and wish her a speedy recovery....
What battle over the economy?
Labour have lost. They have lost every single economic argument over the entire course of this coalition government. Despite desperately " talking Britain down" at every opportunity none of it happened, in fact the direct opposite occurred. Balls is an utter madman and about to be given the keys to the economic sweetshop.
Labour, the party that created this unholy mess in the first place deserve to go down to a defeat the likes of which re rarely seen. No it was not the banks they applied the coup de Grace. Labours economy was in trouble in 2003 with warnings coming in, by 2005 international warnings wer coming in about the Labour party's direction. The Labour Party greeted with relief the financial crash of 2008 the seeds of which they sowed themselves. They could then blame all their mistakes on a single entity. Blair was a lucky general and it was stunning timing to hand over the utter clusterfuck to Brown at the point the socialist fues finally ran out.
Labours defeat though With the built in bias and postal voting that regrettably is unlikely to happen and over the next 5 years we will repeat the same left wing ideology that always brings us to the brink of catastrophe every time. This time I am sure Miliband will achieve what other Labour governments have only just failed. Think France and Greece combined. The total destruction of this country once and for all.
If all this is true , why did Osborne as Shadow Chancellor commit the Tories to matching Labour's spending plans prior to 2008?
All the current political parties commit to spending more and taxing less because they believe it is the only way they will get elected.
Sadly a majority of the population believe you can have something for nothing.
Hence all democratic governments end up with massive debts from continuous deficits - except Germany where the German people are more perceptive and more disciplined (as well as more productive as we discussed earlier today).
Best wishes to your wife Mr Herdson and wish her a speedy recovery....
What battle over the economy?
Labour have lost. They have lost every single economic argument over the entire course of this coalition government. Despite desperately " talking Britain down" at every opportunity none of it happened, in fact the direct opposite occurred. Balls is an utter madman and about to be given the keys to the economic sweetshop.
Labour, the party that created this unholy mess in the first place deserve to go down to a defeat the likes of which re rarely seen. No it was not the banks they applied the coup de Grace. Labours economy was in trouble in 2003 with warnings coming in, by 2005 international warnings wer coming in about the Labour party's direction. The Labour Party greeted with relief the financial crash of 2008 the seeds of which they sowed themselves. They could then blame all their mistakes on a single entity. Blair was a lucky general and it was stunning timing to hand over the utter clusterfuck to Brown at the point the socialist fues finally ran out.
Labours defeat though With the built in bias and postal voting that regrettably is unlikely to happen and over the next 5 years we will repeat the same left wing ideology that always brings us to the brink of catastrophe every time. This time I am sure Miliband will achieve what other Labour governments have only just failed. Think France and Greece combined. The total destruction of this country once and for all.
If all this is true , why did Osborne as Shadow Chancellor commit the Tories to matching Labour's spending plans prior to 2008?
Because an election was forecast (the election that never was) and to state that you would reduce spending would have been political suicide. Unfortunately the wheels came off in a big way a couple of years later. Panem et Circenses.
Best wishes to your wife Mr Herdson and wish her a speedy recovery....
What battle over the economy?
Labour have lost. They have lost every single economic argument over the entire course of this coalition government. Despite desperately " talking Britain down" at every opportunity none of it happened, in fact the direct opposite occurred. Balls is an utter madman and about to be given the keys to the economic sweetshop.
Labour, the party that created this unholy mess in the first place deserve to go down to a defeat the likes of which re rarely seen. No it was not the banks they applied the coup de Grace. Labours economy was in trouble in 2003 with warnings coming in, by 2005 international warnings wer coming in about the Labour party's direction. The Labour Party greeted with relief the financial crash of 2008 the seeds of which they sowed themselves. They could then blame all their mistakes on a single entity. Blair was a lucky general and it was stunning timing to hand over the utter clusterfuck to Brown at the point the socialist fues finally ran out.
Labours defeat though With the built in bias and postal voting that regrettably is unlikely to happen and over the next 5 years we will repeat the same left wing ideology that always brings us to the brink of catastrophe every time. This time I am sure Miliband will achieve what other Labour governments have only just failed. Think France and Greece combined. The total destruction of this country once and for all.
If all this is true , why did Osborne as Shadow Chancellor commit the Tories to matching Labour's spending plans prior to 2008?
All the current political parties commit to spending more and taxing less because they believe it is the only way they will get elected.
Sadly a majority of the population believe you can have something for nothing.
Hence all democratic governments end up with massive debts from continuous deficits - except Germany where the German people are more perceptive and more disciplined (as well as more productive as we discussed earlier today).
Yes, it's all the people's fault.
The people get what they vote for and deserve.
Hence the German people get responsible governments whilst the Uk gets to choose from political parties who all promise to spend more, tax less and mortgage the country's future.
Comments
I am not sure your description would be recognised by most German workers, but somehow they manage to churn out 24% more value than we do per working hour (so irrespective of hours worked).
http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/rod-liddle/9403602/a-wonderful-time-was-had-by-all-at-the-utter-arse-of-the-year-awards/
I was describing Britain, not Germany. Germans get their shit done then go home, hence short hours and high per-hour productivity. I think this is better than the UK/Japan approach, but the latter still pays the bills.
National sterotype time: I once helped some Germans move house. They started about 7:30 and by 3pm everything was moved and unpacked and we were eating cake off little doilies. In contrast I don't think my parents have finished unpacking all their stuff yet, and they moved in 1993.
Back in the Fifties, life expectancy was lower, so expenditure on pensions and end of life care were much lower. Unlike now, getting cancer was a death sentence, whereas all sorts of cancer treatments now exist. But, that means the NHS budget is under endless pressure, however high it goes.
Welfare dependency is much more entrenched than 50 years ago, even as successive governments salami-slice it. And, family breakdown and births outside marriage put more strain on the system.
In the case of France and Italy, there's the batting average effect. They have far fewer people in the work than we have - who tend to be the most productive workers. Our economy is relatively good at finding work for less productive workers, which is a good thing.
David H , I hope your wife makes a full recovery.
Incidentally, I'm nicking parts of this discussion for a constituency blog which will appear on www.nickpalmer.org.uk - apologies to anyone (mainly fox) whose phrases I'm pinching!
As you'd expect the previous generations are always bitching about the "yutori" generation being unable to follow instructions properly and do what they're told, but my (maybe untypical) experience with these kids is that it worked pretty well.
Could be a pub convo in the BNP Arms 20 years ago! Reminds me of this billy bleach sketch (creative English must be ill disciplined I guess)
http://youtu.be/UrFa51JU3sM
National sterotype time: I once helped some Germans move house. They started about 7:30 and by 3pm everything was moved and unpacked and we were eating cake off little doilies. In contrast I don't think my parents have finished unpacking all their stuff yet, and they moved in 1993.
I believe it's the same for the French too. Contrary to the widely held belief of laziness and 3 hour lunches, they crack on and get more done in a shorter day.
I wonder how internet usage at work, compares between here and France.
Don't think the generality of the Indian system works that well, or others. Certainly in Thailand when it's good, it's good, but limited experience suggests that's by no means universal.
Edit: * - or relatively less impoverishment.
For this reason you see many cloned businesses here, there will often be several shops selling exactly the same products next to each other on the street. This isnt a lack of imagination, this is fear of failure in a poor country where you might get one shot at getting some capital invested in your business, but if you screw it up thats the end of your dreams, so to speak. So businessmen look at a successful business and copy it, which is why franchising is huge here. The flaw in the model of course if the identical businesses dont generate new customers, so the tendency is to just share the customers around, and clone businesses continue to open until the margins are so small as to be not worth the effort.
I hope your wife makes a full and speedy recovery.
Lab 33%, Tory 32%, UKIP 15%, LD 9%, Green 6%
Seats - Labour 285, Tory 269, SNP 51, LD 20, UKIP 1, DUP 8, SF 5, SDLP 3, Green 2, PC 3, Others 3
Labour short by 40
http://www.ukelect.co.uk/HTML/forecasts.html
On universities, the paradox is that the current fees and loans system might end up costing more than the old, "unaffordable" student grants. It depends what on the repayment and default rates, since you do not have to repay if you do not earn enough.
Party A Is economically left-wing and socially liberal and pro EU
Party B Is economically right-wing and socially liberal and pro EU
Party C Is economically right-wing and socially liberal but Eurosceptic
Party D Is economically right-wing and socially conservative and anti-EU
Party D was most popular with 37%, followed by Party A with 27%, Party C with 23% and Party B with 13%.
Party A won most Labour support, Party C most Tory, Party D most UKIP voters. Party B wpm slightly more Tories than Labour.
Most party D voters would prefer to form a coalition with party C, most Party A with Party B, more party B and C would deal with Party A.
http://populus.co.uk/item/When-voters-say-all-parties-are-the-same-theyre-just-complaining-that-other-voters-aren’t-sufficiently-like-them-/
PS Sorry to hear about your wife David and hope she makes a good recovery
The incredible growth in employment over the last 3 years has reduced our apparent productivity as more and more marginal workers who suffered very poor educational experiences are sucked into employment. This has been combined with a significant reduction in the productivity bonus we used to get from the North Sea and the City. The productivity of most people in employment has continued to rise.
These effects have been like the proverbial tide going out and more of our underlying problems are now on show. If this makes our political class address them that would be a good thing. The UK still has a number of areas of excellence and our foreign owned car plants are a good example. We have a range of world class service industries that are extremely productive. What we need to do is grow our successes. Not enough focus is given to that by the Tories but they are like a laser beam compared with Labour who remain obsessed with distributing the proceeds rather than earning the money in the first place.
http://youtu.be/dlMiKrwCRQ0
Not my words, but just funny to see mass stereotyping of people on basis of nationality casually discussed with cross party agreement on here
In my final report I recommended that the smoking room be enlarged, fitted with better extraction fans and equipped with whiteboards and a Polaroid camera (for taking pictures of the whiteboards - no smartboards in those days). A recommendation, I am pleased to say they implemented.
On coalitions though voters for A would work with B and both C and B with A, D seems to be a far less attractive although won a plurality of votes
The Tory poster is boring but it is true in one sense. There is a long and difficult road ahead. Years and years of catch up for the mistakes of the past.
Based on policies, this survey shows voting preferences as follows:
Labour (A) 27%
Lib Dem (B) 13%
Cons (C) 23%
UKIP (D) 37%
This suggests UKIP have the most popular policies but Farage is holding them back. Both Lab and Con 2010 voters favour policies of D (UKIP).
Shall have to make further enquiries when we visit him next.
Incidentally, Singapore adopted Russian maths education.
But the main point is that whatever makes America, Germany, or if you like, China better than us, it probably is not Pisa rankings. Maybe our politicians should try harder to discover what are those other factors -- I certainly am not claiming to know them.
We didn't like Labour's lies about Tory plans and yet we've come up with this trixy rubbish, just add the GDP bit, many people won't focus on that bit anyway and will still hear halved the deficit. End of story.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/01/how-osbornes-claim-of-having-halved-the-deficit-backfired/
Not bothered that NE Asians are and will be marginally economically richer than us. Far more concerned about immigration dragging us down to South Africa or Brazil's level.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations
The thing that strikes me when I am there is that although every race of person imaginable is represented everyone looks the same: ridiculously young and healthy, t-shirts, jeans and Apple Macs; except the patent attorneys - they try to blend in, but fail dismally!!
The bigger problem as has been alluded to here any number of times is frankly, laziness and entitlement. 50 years ago we had a culture of achievers and people who got off their arse and did something, we still have some of those to be proud off, but they are increasingly the exception rather than the rule.
We now have endless drama graduates chasing the 2-3 jobs in the broadcast media every year and then being dissatisfied with whatever non-job they get instead, or deciding instead to join the ranks of the lifestyle benefit claimants.
Even 30 years ago most people who have been horrified at the idea of living on benefits. I am not even that old, I am in my 40s, but when the IT world had a heart attack in the dotCom crash I spent six months assembling peoples flat pack furniture for them for a fixed price. It wasn't great money so I went back to IT when the market recovered, but rather that than sit on my arse all day sponging off someone else.
How many at the front line normally receive 6 figure pay offs?
If we had a balance of payments surplus I am pretty confident the fiscal deficit would take care of itself.
0-5 seats - 125/1 down to 16/1
6-10 seats - 66/1 down to 7/1
11-15 seats - 20/1 down to 5/1
India definitely going to overtake China in population by some margin unless policies change.
In the current climate, as far as I can see the problem is too many layers of middle management feathering their own nests and taking the necessary savings out of the wrong place.
I still think a much stronger theme for Labour is going on the central issue of spending cuts, i.e. whether there should be massive cuts or not. Unlike the cost of living, that IS something which the public feel that the government self-evidently has control over, and even the consensus among the commentariat is that the Right have "won" the austerity debate, it's a different story among the general public, who imo would be quite receptive to an argument from Labour that there's no real pressing need to slash the deficit since right now we still have a deficit and yet we're under no pressure whatsoever from the bond markets.
P.S. All the best to Mr & Mrs Herdson.
The following are only the some of the indicators that Labour knew they were in trouble long before 2008 and as early as 2001. This was a significant point given it was shortly before they had stopped using the previous governments spending plans and quite simply let rip and boy did they let rip.
The OECD and IMF and CBI and ASI and others repeatedly warned Brown that he was running a dangerously large deficit from as early as 2001:
"2001: Adam Smith Institute warns that the “Chancellor is riding for a fall”, and that “the undermining of the competitiveness of the economy since 1997 could leave Britain particularly vulnerable.” (Telegraph)
- 2001: Gordon Brown warned about the dangers of the personal borrowing bubble and potential downturn. The warnings are ultimately ignored. (Telegraph)
- 2003: The IMF warns Gordon Brown that he will breach his own borrowing rules, and stresses the need to cut the mounting public spending deficit. (BBC)
- 2004: The OECD warns Gordon Brown about mounting budget deficit and rate of government borrowing. (BBC)
- 2005: Gordon Brown changes the economic cycle time-frame in which he measured his ‘golden rule’, so that he wouldn’t break it. (Channel Four) (BBC)
- 2005: UK has slowest rate of growth in 12 years. Gordon Brown “still didn’t heed warnings of slow-down”. (BBC)
- 2005: Gordon Brown is warned he is ”on thin ice with the economy”. (BBC)
- 2005: The CBI warns Brown about the criticality his widening budget deficit and spending ‘black hole’. (BBC)
- 2005: “The fact is [Gordon Brown] had already run out of money this time last year” - 2005, Ernst and Young Item Club, leading forecasting group. (BBC)"
Indeed the IMF were the most vocal in their criticism.....................................................
1) Dec 2003 IMF gives Brown borrowing warning
2) Sep 2005 IMF report warning over £1 trillion mountain of debt
3) Sep 2005 Brown besieged over growth and borrowing plans
4) Dec 2005 IMF fires new warning over Britain's finances
5) Sep 2006 IMF warns over possible UK property crash
6) Oct 2007 IMF report UK house market is 'heading for crash'
7) Apr 2008 IMF: UK vulnerable to US-style housing slump
October, 2008 the IMF said that the UK was worst placed of all the major economies to weather the coming recession. The crash occurred and Labour blame it all on the banks and continue to do so even on this very website day in and day out.
This is why Labour cannot then now or ever be trusted with the economy. It is why we are where we are today and why in 2008 Brown the head Firemen ran the Government Fire brigade into extinguish the economic firestorm Labour and the clunking fist as Head arsonist had started while at the same time claiming to have then "saved the world"
Yes ....no wonder Labour saw the crash as their savior we were certainly screwed long before it.....and now even our Grand children's children will be.
not what I think but what is known and reported by many institutions most of them sympathetic with Labour. The left would have this buried and Labour hopes people will forget well this is why they should not.
Sadly a majority of the population believe you can have something for nothing.
Hence all democratic governments end up with massive debts from continuous deficits - except Germany where the German people are more perceptive and more disciplined (as well as more productive as we discussed earlier today).
The people get what they vote for and deserve.
Hence the German people get responsible governments whilst the Uk gets to choose from political parties who all promise to spend more, tax less and mortgage the country's future.