It’s my theory – and I’m sticking to it – that politics is the art of exaggeration. The Remainers exaggerations were all sneery and shouty and Chicken Little, which were always going to bite them if they lost because the outcomes are typically never as bad as they are painted. Now they still look sneery and shouty and Chicken Little, but they also have a faceful of egg.
Matt B
2 years ago
Good article (below yet another odd headline). But when the government’s new National Security rules still allow UK chip makers to fall into chinese hands (amid a global supply deficit), in the latest case due to performance-related trigger clauses in the welsh firm’s own contract clauses, you have to wonder if all is well. Amid the evident good news lurk concerns: notably an EU drift to Russia, and China/France sewing up the UK energy sector (while France threatens to cut off energy supplies over NI Brexit rules and seemingly encourages the UK’s wider break-up).
Last edited 2 years ago by Matt B
Charles Hedges
2 years ago
GDP per head is lowest amongst north western European countries because Britain has a lack of technically skilled people who can produce high value products and services. This was highlighted in 2008/2009: graduates in engineering frpm good universities were receiving four job offers from top companies.
Switzerland has a whole industry producing watches even though cost of living is high because the product is high value, low volume and low mass. Producing a Swiss watch which sells for £5000, requires little materials, energy or space; just very highly skilled people. One way of assessing value of product is Cost per Kilo and cost per area of factory. £5000 /0.1Kg for watch is £50,000/kg. A BMW 5 which sells for £50k and weighs 1.7T =£29/kg. Swiss watches are basically outsource, energy and materials cost proof. Britain needs to train it’s people so we can develop industries similar in value to Swiss watches.
The high tax rate and compexity of tax laws from the 1960 meant accountants ran business, not engineers resulting in R and D and technical training being cut back.The complexity of tax laws meant it was easier to increase profits by fiddling the books which gave power to the accountants( at the expense of Engineers) rather than developing products via R and D which is uncertain as much is trial and error. British Egineers designed motorbikes in the 1960s which were never built and Japan introduced such types in the 1970s. In the early 1990s most construction companies closed their R andD/ engineering laboratories. The Grenfell Fire is an example of what goes wrong when people in charge do not understand the science and engineering.
One could say the UK started it’s industrial decline when Dr Arnold of Rugby School chose a classical syllabus rather than a mathematical,scientific and technical one. Napoleon developed national technical education via the Grand Ecoles which was copied by Bismarck in his Blood and Iron Policy. The rest is history.
Britain does NOT have a shortage of technically skilled people.
It never has done.
It doesn’t now.
It never will do.
It has a chronic shortage of willingness to pay for them.
I received an email this week for a possible staff role in Germany for the next generation of electric aircraft. It’s of no interest to me so I sent it onto a friend of mine who is working on this in the UK. The salary is 94% higher in Germany.
I’m currently at a company on a contract basis as many of their engineering staff are leaving due to the poor salaries on offer. So who are the new staff arrivals to take them further?
Another commercial manager
Another bid manager
Another financial manager
Another HR bod
Lots of fresh graduates and interns
Engineers with 10 years’ experience behind them to get the drawings out by Friday?– none…
The complexity of tax laws meant accountants were promoted to board level quickly while Engineers never reached that level. There are water companies run with no Chartered Engineers on the boards.
Britain has been blessed with a small number of brilliant engineers and scientists who made up for lack of quantity with quality. Since the 1960s Britain has had enough engineers and craftsmen to supoort a small scale but high quality industrial( Biotech, luxury and grand prix cars, satellites ) base but lack the numbers to support an industrial base the size of the advanced high value German and Swiss.
Where Britain is particularly deficient is in the high quality craftsmen( NVQ 3 to 4 ), technician ( HND )and middle ranking engineers which Germany and Switzerland produce in abundance which are required for high value advanced industry.
The best companies I worked in, many years ago, were run by engineers, assisted by me as an accountant. I understood and could mostly quantify that investment and R&D were vital, yet we weren’t allowed to do so without preparing detailed justifications which were almost always refused because the holding company didn’t like the risk or the short-term reduction in cashflow. The influential treasury department were able to accumulate funds to maintain dividends or buy overpriced businesses, and meanwhile earned Brownie points by achieving good returns on overnight money. `
Thank you for your comment.GEC being a good example. They introduced 90 day payment.
Lesley van Reenen
2 years ago
This pandemic has surely taught us that supply chains and local manufacturing need to be relooked.
Andrew Fisher
2 years ago
The problem with this argument is that the British state has over decades had an exceptionally poor record of ‘picking winners’ and regional policy. Short term political expediency and the desire for ‘sexy’ projects win out every time over long term planning (even if we concede a case for the latter) or even basic maintenance – the condition of our roads on which 80% of traffic is carried – is a disgrace. Humber Bridge anyone?
Maybe this could change, but the eye wateringly expensive and increasingly ludicrous boondoggle of HS2 doesn’t give a great deal of hope.
Last edited 2 years ago by Andrew Fisher
Dan Gleeballs
2 years ago
Historically, free trade has enriched all parties, though it’s utterly counter-intuitive. The proof is in a wealthier country fifty years after the seventies. Even allowing for inflation, how many iphones would have sold in 1972?
China tests the system and the consensus, of course. I suspect their vast middle class will want more say in time, but it’ll take a couple of generations yet.
You are going to have to elaborate a bit more. There’s nothing certain that “having a devastating war” causes economic growth afterwards. Historically it doesn’t more often than not.
It was the economic policies after the war that turbo charged the economies, and those policies were more often statist and nationalist – in the sense that borders were controlled for both labour and capital.
The case for free trade doesn’t assume or require a ‘level playing field’. If other countries commit economic self-harm by rigging their markets in favour of home-produced goods and services and forgoing imports of superior foreign-produced ones, why imitate them?
They don’t commit economic self harm by doing that. Most successful developing countries have done exactly that – Japan, Korea, now China and the 19C US.
The countries you list produce a lot for export. Are the countries that buy those exports better off or worse off as a result?
Kristof K
2 years ago
Dear Mr Franklin,
Damn right that “Brexit isn’t going to plan”, even though you tried to use this headline as some form of click-bait irony what with your being, as far as I can glean, an avid pro-Brexiter.
At some point, surely, you’re going to have to acknowledge the ever more circuitous and disingenuous train of argument you need to deploy so as you can avoid the truth.
Of course the news about Nissan, Vauxhall and Tesla to which your article refers must be considered good news by anyone who identifies with this country (the UK) and who cares deeply for the future of it and its people.
Yet your article touches on two questions which it nevertheless completely avoids trying to explain (or maybe it’s just that I’m too sophisticated and remoany to divine the explanation for myself).
How is it that Germany can subsidise its industry to the equivalent tune of 3 × the proportion of its GDP compared to the UK without having to “sweep away the EU rules” (as you put it)?
How did some pro-Brexiters manage to argue that the EU was bad because it was protectionist, only now to advocate that the UK needs to adopt a more protectionist stance on trade to cushion it from the ravages of all those countries who prefer not to play fair in their trade practices?
At least you manage to identify correctly one group of folk that have brought us to this pass: the free market fundamentalists. I don’t know if this represents the start of your journey towards acknowledging that much of what pro-Brexiters argued was — essentially — piffle, but I sincerely hope so.
Meanwhile all the adults in this country have to work with what we’ve got to raise every citizen’s standard of living across the board. But a problem is that pro-Brexiters still see pro-remainers’ persistence in pointing out the Brexit deceits as nothing more than their wallowing in self-pity. We would all find it much easier to work together once there’s an outbreak of honesty from pro-Brexiters about the mess they have created. Many of them, doubtless, felt it was genuinely necessary to create this mess for their ideology’s sake. But if so, Mr Franklin, please could you urge them to just fess up: was that “the plan” all along?
Britain plays cricket, we observe the spirit and letter of the law; a product of the Common Law which evolved out of consultation between the Ruler and The People (started under Anglo Saxon Monarchs and became a dictum of Ed I “That which affects all must be consulted by all” about 1285AD). Germany, France, Italy and Spain follow the golden rule; get away away with what you can: a product of Roman Law and Divine Right of Kings now adopted by the EU. Hence the late Queen Mother’s dictum ” One can never trust the Germans “.
The greatest deceit is by the Remainers, they said there would not be a loss of sovereignty when we joined the EEC- read P Shore’s Separate Ways.
The whole point of the EEC/EU is loss of sovereignty because democracy failed in these countries between 1918 and 1989.
“ How is it that Germany can subsidise its industry to the equivalent tune of 3 × the proportion of its GDP compared to the UK without having to “sweep away the EU rules” (as you put it)?”
It may be that Germany doesn’t have a fifth column bent on damaging the country at every turn. Sadly, Britain has. They’re still there too, flailing around in horror and spite.
It’s my theory – and I’m sticking to it – that politics is the art of exaggeration. The Remainers exaggerations were all sneery and shouty and Chicken Little, which were always going to bite them if they lost because the outcomes are typically never as bad as they are painted. Now they still look sneery and shouty and Chicken Little, but they also have a faceful of egg.
Good article (below yet another odd headline). But when the government’s new National Security rules still allow UK chip makers to fall into chinese hands (amid a global supply deficit), in the latest case due to performance-related trigger clauses in the welsh firm’s own contract clauses, you have to wonder if all is well. Amid the evident good news lurk concerns: notably an EU drift to Russia, and China/France sewing up the UK energy sector (while France threatens to cut off energy supplies over NI Brexit rules and seemingly encourages the UK’s wider break-up).
GDP per head is lowest amongst north western European countries because Britain has a lack of technically skilled people who can produce high value products and services. This was highlighted in 2008/2009: graduates in engineering frpm good universities were receiving four job offers from top companies.
Switzerland has a whole industry producing watches even though cost of living is high because the product is high value, low volume and low mass. Producing a Swiss watch which sells for £5000, requires little materials, energy or space; just very highly skilled people. One way of assessing value of product is Cost per Kilo and cost per area of factory. £5000 /0.1Kg for watch is £50,000/kg. A BMW 5 which sells for £50k and weighs 1.7T =£29/kg. Swiss watches are basically outsource, energy and materials cost proof. Britain needs to train it’s people so we can develop industries similar in value to Swiss watches.
The high tax rate and compexity of tax laws from the 1960 meant accountants ran business, not engineers resulting in R and D and technical training being cut back.The complexity of tax laws meant it was easier to increase profits by fiddling the books which gave power to the accountants( at the expense of Engineers) rather than developing products via R and D which is uncertain as much is trial and error. British Egineers designed motorbikes in the 1960s which were never built and Japan introduced such types in the 1970s. In the early 1990s most construction companies closed their R andD/ engineering laboratories. The Grenfell Fire is an example of what goes wrong when people in charge do not understand the science and engineering.
One could say the UK started it’s industrial decline when Dr Arnold of Rugby School chose a classical syllabus rather than a mathematical,scientific and technical one. Napoleon developed national technical education via the Grand Ecoles which was copied by Bismarck in his Blood and Iron Policy. The rest is history.
Britain does NOT have a shortage of technically skilled people.
It never has done.
It doesn’t now.
It never will do.
It has a chronic shortage of willingness to pay for them.
I received an email this week for a possible staff role in Germany for the next generation of electric aircraft. It’s of no interest to me so I sent it onto a friend of mine who is working on this in the UK. The salary is 94% higher in Germany.
I’m currently at a company on a contract basis as many of their engineering staff are leaving due to the poor salaries on offer. So who are the new staff arrivals to take them further?
Another commercial manager
Another bid manager
Another financial manager
Another HR bod
Lots of fresh graduates and interns
Engineers with 10 years’ experience behind them to get the drawings out by Friday?– none…
The complexity of tax laws meant accountants were promoted to board level quickly while Engineers never reached that level. There are water companies run with no Chartered Engineers on the boards.
Britain has been blessed with a small number of brilliant engineers and scientists who made up for lack of quantity with quality. Since the 1960s Britain has had enough engineers and craftsmen to supoort a small scale but high quality industrial( Biotech, luxury and grand prix cars, satellites ) base but lack the numbers to support an industrial base the size of the advanced high value German and Swiss.
Where Britain is particularly deficient is in the high quality craftsmen( NVQ 3 to 4 ), technician ( HND )and middle ranking engineers which Germany and Switzerland produce in abundance which are required for high value advanced industry.
The best companies I worked in, many years ago, were run by engineers, assisted by me as an accountant. I understood and could mostly quantify that investment and R&D were vital, yet we weren’t allowed to do so without preparing detailed justifications which were almost always refused because the holding company didn’t like the risk or the short-term reduction in cashflow. The influential treasury department were able to accumulate funds to maintain dividends or buy overpriced businesses, and meanwhile earned Brownie points by achieving good returns on overnight money. `
Thank you for your comment.GEC being a good example. They introduced 90 day payment.
This pandemic has surely taught us that supply chains and local manufacturing need to be relooked.
The problem with this argument is that the British state has over decades had an exceptionally poor record of ‘picking winners’ and regional policy. Short term political expediency and the desire for ‘sexy’ projects win out every time over long term planning (even if we concede a case for the latter) or even basic maintenance – the condition of our roads on which 80% of traffic is carried – is a disgrace. Humber Bridge anyone?
Maybe this could change, but the eye wateringly expensive and increasingly ludicrous boondoggle of HS2 doesn’t give a great deal of hope.
Historically, free trade has enriched all parties, though it’s utterly counter-intuitive. The proof is in a wealthier country fifty years after the seventies. Even allowing for inflation, how many iphones would have sold in 1972?
China tests the system and the consensus, of course. I suspect their vast middle class will want more say in time, but it’ll take a couple of generations yet.
The country is richer than the 70s but the 70s was richer than the 1940s, and more so.
Good luck getting a 40s to 70s comparison that controls for proximity to World Wars ….
You are going to have to elaborate a bit more. There’s nothing certain that “having a devastating war” causes economic growth afterwards. Historically it doesn’t more often than not.
It was the economic policies after the war that turbo charged the economies, and those policies were more often statist and nationalist – in the sense that borders were controlled for both labour and capital.
Indeed – it just doesn’t seem that the start of the 70s would in any way equate to the start that was the 40s
No idea what you are trying to argue here.
If can you elucidate further on your 40s comment, I’ll try and close the loop.
My comment was clear. Your answers are clouded.
very weak response
The case for free trade doesn’t assume or require a ‘level playing field’. If other countries commit economic self-harm by rigging their markets in favour of home-produced goods and services and forgoing imports of superior foreign-produced ones, why imitate them?
They don’t commit economic self harm by doing that. Most successful developing countries have done exactly that – Japan, Korea, now China and the 19C US.
The countries you list produce a lot for export. Are the countries that buy those exports better off or worse off as a result?
Dear Mr Franklin,
Damn right that “Brexit isn’t going to plan”, even though you tried to use this headline as some form of click-bait irony what with your being, as far as I can glean, an avid pro-Brexiter.
At some point, surely, you’re going to have to acknowledge the ever more circuitous and disingenuous train of argument you need to deploy so as you can avoid the truth.
Of course the news about Nissan, Vauxhall and Tesla to which your article refers must be considered good news by anyone who identifies with this country (the UK) and who cares deeply for the future of it and its people.
Yet your article touches on two questions which it nevertheless completely avoids trying to explain (or maybe it’s just that I’m too sophisticated and remoany to divine the explanation for myself).
At least you manage to identify correctly one group of folk that have brought us to this pass: the free market fundamentalists. I don’t know if this represents the start of your journey towards acknowledging that much of what pro-Brexiters argued was — essentially — piffle, but I sincerely hope so.
Meanwhile all the adults in this country have to work with what we’ve got to raise every citizen’s standard of living across the board. But a problem is that pro-Brexiters still see pro-remainers’ persistence in pointing out the Brexit deceits as nothing more than their wallowing in self-pity. We would all find it much easier to work together once there’s an outbreak of honesty from pro-Brexiters about the mess they have created. Many of them, doubtless, felt it was genuinely necessary to create this mess for their ideology’s sake. But if so, Mr Franklin, please could you urge them to just fess up: was that “the plan” all along?
Britain plays cricket, we observe the spirit and letter of the law; a product of the Common Law which evolved out of consultation between the Ruler and The People (started under Anglo Saxon Monarchs and became a dictum of Ed I “That which affects all must be consulted by all” about 1285AD). Germany, France, Italy and Spain follow the golden rule; get away away with what you can: a product of Roman Law and Divine Right of Kings now adopted by the EU. Hence the late Queen Mother’s dictum ” One can never trust the Germans “.
The greatest deceit is by the Remainers, they said there would not be a loss of sovereignty when we joined the EEC- read P Shore’s Separate Ways.
The whole point of the EEC/EU is loss of sovereignty because democracy failed in these countries between 1918 and 1989.
What reciprocal “fessing up” would you urge pro-Remainers to offer ?
Do you think the word “piffle” should be used in that offer ?
“ How is it that Germany can subsidise its industry to the equivalent tune of 3 × the proportion of its GDP compared to the UK without having to “sweep away the EU rules” (as you put it)?”
It may be that Germany doesn’t have a fifth column bent on damaging the country at every turn. Sadly, Britain has. They’re still there too, flailing around in horror and spite.