The Positive Brexit Thread

[Herman 9,756]

10 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

We keep seeing suggestions that petrol and diesel shortages - at garages - were caused by a lack of HGV drivers due to Brexit.

But Germany, France and Spain are also suffering from a shortfall, of 400,000 HGV drivers

Yes we all know this to be true. But the EU still has access to FOM and open borders. We don't, hence why we have massive logistics problems. It has been explained quite clearly so this statement you choose has little relevance.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eu-single-market-avoids-supply-problems-petrol-lorry-drivers-ld5526lv6

[horsefly 4,298]

Among the many things that the current crisis of food and petrol supply demonstrate is something that is probably more deeply worrying for the long term future of manufacturing in post-brexit UK. It shows that the predominant model for maufacturers of "just in time" deliveries is no longer sustainable in a country hamstrung by brexit bureaucracy and an inflexible labour force. It is difficult to see what could replace this and maintain the UK's ability to be globally competitive as a manufacturing nation. 

[BigFish 1,986]

17 minutes ago, king canary said:

This is a bit of a bugbear of mine- you're right that average wages may not have gone down but it isn't a great argument to people who have been effected by these sorts of things- there are some good examples from on the ground here. 

Appreciate that it is counter intuitive KC, but the empirical evidence is that the impact on wages of Freedom of Movement is very small, localised and impacting some sectors. Anecdotal evidence does not negate this inconvienent fact. These anecdotes are instead used to justify a wider political project that does nothing for the low paid. Inequality has been rising across the Developed world for decades with incomes at the bottom not keeping pace with those at the top. This was accelerated in the UK by the Thatcherite/neo-liberal "labour market reforms" that tilted the balance of power between the employers and the employed in favour of the former by reducing collective bargaining, weakening Trade Unions and worker protections. Fire and rehire is a classic example of this. Furthermore, the current Labour crisis in unlikely to improve the lot of those on lower incomes for a number of key reasons. Firstly, much of this work and surplus demand is unlikely to be done. This will reduce the economy from the size it would have been, reduce government revenues and reduce consumer choice. This leads to a second factor which is stagflation. We will have slower economic growth combined with higher inflation in areas like food that impact the lower paid more than other sectors of the workforce. Thirdly, wage growth will be unequally distributed through the UK, the UK's **** towns are unlikely to see it while the urban centres probably will. Lastly, it is likely to prompt employers to invest further in labour saving technology which will increase productivity and reduce the reliance on low skill, low pay work.

[Herman 9,756]

45 minutes ago, king canary said:

This is a bit of a bugbear of mine- you're right that average wages may not have gone down but it isn't a great argument to people who have been effected by these sorts of things- there are some good examples from on the ground here. 

What I don't get is the hand wringing of certain brexiters about worker pay, conditions etc when they have just joined in with clearly a low tax, low wage, lower standards and less rights group of politicians. The red wall changed to blue because the voters there hated Corbyn, the left and all that they stood for even though their policies may have been a greater benefit to them. It's all so contradictory.

[sonyc 5,511]

29 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Thirdly, wage growth will be unequally distributed through the UK, the UK's **** towns are unlikely to see it while the urban centres probably will. Lastly, it is likely to prompt employers to invest further in labour saving technology which will increase productivity and reduce the reliance on low skill, low pay work.

Spot on about these two points (and other points ... the weakening of union power). Talk this morning too has been the very real worry about stagflation and the indicators are there.

We need much better partnerships between employers, colleges, universities and local job centres (arguably led by the government, local government) so that future job needs can be forecast and skills acquisition can be directed in the same areas. It is something that happened in the last decade in Germany (job centres very localised and links to local businesses very strong....if the employer predicted they needed more people to do computer aided design or needed more metallurgists - (for example!) then local colleges and even schools could respond).

The recent announcement at the Labour conference for expanding work experience is one positive move forward in the whole labour / skills agenda. Good also to read about actual grounded policy announcements to try and address problems. So often, you find these in tiny pockets (with much local success) but the lessons of the success are not replicated and government is deaf.

A comprehensive industrial strategy has been needed for about 40 years (at least) but perhaps our electoral system doesn't help long term change with new governments jettisoning decent initiatives because they were the choice of the wrong party colour. We have been badly served for decades by all manner of governments who have overseen massive changes in inequality and a lack in long term (country-changing) vision.

Edited September 30, 2021 by sonyc

[king canary 7,604]

21 minutes ago, Herman said:

What I don't get is the hand wringing of certain brexiters about worker pay, conditions etc when they have just joined in with clearly a low tax, low wage, lower standards and less rights group of politicians. The red wall changed to blue because the voters there hated Corbyn, the left and all that they stood for even though their policies may have been a greater benefit to them. It's all so contradictory.

Because, in part, the felt that unskilled low wage labour from the EU was undercutting them and it wasn't without merit. As Badger said the overall average doesn't show much but if you're in a particular sector or a particular location it has had an impact- and if that is your 'lived experience' no amount of 'but the averages show...' arguments will win you round. Especially when combined with a favoured middle class liberal argument that these workers are just doing roles that brits are too workshy to do. 

[king canary 7,604]

4 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Spot on about these two points (and other points ... the weakening of union power). Talk this morning too has been the very real worry about stagflation and the indicators are there.

We need much better partnerships between employers, colleges, universities and local job centres (arguably led by the government, local government) so that future job needs can be forecast and skills acquisition can be directed in the same areas. It is something that happened in the last decade in Germany (job centres very localised and links to local businesses very strong....if the employer predicted they needed more people to do computer aided design or needed more metallurgists - (for example!) then local colleges and even schools could respond).

The recent announcement at the Labour conference for expanding work experience is one positive move forward in the whole labour / skills agenda. Good also to read about actual grounded policy announcements to try and address problems. So often, you find these in tiny pockets (with much local success) but the lessons of the success are not replicated and government is deaf.

A comprehensive industrial strategy has been needed for about 40 years (at least) but perhaps our electoral system doesn't help long term change with new governments jettisoning decent initiatives because they were the choice of the wrong party colour. We have been badly served for decades by all manner of governments who have overseen massive changes in inequality and a lack in long term (country-changing) vision.

Agree with all of this- the Tories are far too laize-faire free market about this sort of thing, with no strategic plan, just assuming it will all work out in the wash.

The suggestions at the Labour conference were, to me, sensible and generally well thought out and I think will go over better than the moronic '£15 minimum wage!' shouts from the far left.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

20 minutes ago, king canary said:

Agree with all of this- the Tories are far too laize-faire free market about this sort of thing, with no strategic plan, just assuming it will all work out in the wash.

The suggestions at the Labour conference were, to me, sensible and generally well thought out and I think will go over better than the moronic '£15 minimum wage!' shouts from the far left.

I wouldn't pay much heed to the shouts from the very far left as you mention. Its the last throes of Momentum, the real reason Labour now has to put up with SKS, who to me is just another Blair.

 

[Herman 9,756]

 

https://www.whtimes.co.uk/news/grants-shapps-event-cancelled-8370728

[Rock The Boat 1,330]

On 29/09/2021 at 09:33, BigFish said:

Many people think that Economics is simple and the laws of supply and demand are "basic". This is not the case. This allows them to expouse opinion as fact when actually it is fallacy. The consensus amongst economists, including the Bank of England, is that FoM did not significantly impact wages. At most the impact is a matter of a few pennies on the hourly rate restricted to certain sectors and locations.

The UK now has a Labour crisis that directly drags on the economy. Each vacancy means work that isn't being done, production that isn't being delivered, profits not made and taxes not paid. With unemployment at low levels the UK does not have the Labour force to fill these gaps, in the locations required and with the appropriate skills. The risk is this leads to stagflation with rising prices but without economic growth.

I do not use xenophobic as a slur, more an observation. When the key objection to a sector of the Labour force is that they are not "like" a poster such as Fen Canary that is cleraly xenophobic.

This is key. The UK clearly doesn't have the skills or the numbers in the sectors and locations required. That is why we now have a Labour crisis, if not caused definitly exacerbated by Brexit. We have that crisis now, the government has no plan to address this and even if they did the solution is long term. By way of illustration it takes seven years to train a doctor, we don't have enough right now of the background the xenphobes would accept and we are not training in sufficent numbers.

The problem with seeing issues through a lense of xenophobia even if not used as a slur means that it restricts your ability to see multiple possible outcomes. I've had a few conversations with other posters and no one including myself would disagree with your observation that we don't have a ready pool of trained up talent to step into the vacancies that have arisen in a post-covid, post-Brexot world. We also agree that this problem has been around for a long time. My argument is that being in the EU made us lazy, and a cheap pool of low-skilled, low-income labour meant that we never had to address the structural problems it caused. For example, we cut back on training budgets didn't invest in productivity because there was always cheap labour. 

Your argument seems to be that you still want to access this cheap labour force. My argument is that this is papering over the cracks. There is no reason why one of the wealthiest countries in the world can't train it's own supply of doctors, nurses or lorry drivers. Or do we expect a third world country to train a doctor and then we come along and entice her away? Is that even or moral stance to take?  

So ok, it takes seven years to train a doctor and three months an HGV driver and we need them now. But we deserve to be punished for foolishly relying on foreign resources when we could develop our own. This isn't xenophobia it is careful management of key sectors of industry. And it just isn't in human resources that we have to have correct policies, we need it in sectors such as energy supply and key technologies if for no other reason that security of supply. 

[BigFish 1,986]

54 minutes ago, king canary said:

Because, in part, the felt that unskilled low wage labour from the EU was undercutting them and it wasn't without merit. As Badger said the overall average doesn't show much but if you're in a particular sector or a particular location it has had an impact- and if that is your 'lived experience' no amount of 'but the averages show...' arguments will win you round. Especially when combined with a favoured middle class liberal argument that these workers are just doing roles that brits are too workshy to do. 

The thing is emprically it was without merit, there is research in which the calculation is that over the eight years to 2012 immigration impacted wages by 1p per hour, yes one penny. The "lived experience" is a perception rather than a fact and it was this perception that certain politicians nurtured to create dissatisfaction which ultimately led to Brexit.

[BigFish 1,986]

16 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

The problem with seeing issues through a lense of xenophobia even if not used as a slur means that it restricts your ability to see multiple possible outcomes. I've had a few conversations with other posters and no one including myself would disagree with your observation that we don't have a ready pool of trained up talent to step into the vacancies that have arisen in a post-covid, post-Brexot world. We also agree that this problem has been around for a long time. My argument is that being in the EU made us lazy, and a cheap pool of low-skilled, low-income labour meant that we never had to address the structural problems it caused. For example, we cut back on training budgets didn't invest in productivity because there was always cheap labour. 

Your argument seems to be that you still want to access this cheap labour force. My argument is that this is papering over the cracks. There is no reason why one of the wealthiest countries in the world can't train it's own supply of doctors, nurses or lorry drivers. Or do we expect a third world country to train a doctor and then we come along and entice her away? Is that even or moral stance to take?  

So ok, it takes seven years to train a doctor and three months an HGV driver and we need them now. But we deserve to be punished for foolishly relying on foreign resources when we could develop our own. This isn't xenophobia it is careful management of key sectors of industry. And it just isn't in human resources that we have to have correct policies, we need it in sectors such as energy supply and key technologies if for no other reason that security of supply. 

Nice reply RTB and there is much in which we appear to be in agreement. However, if you think that I am seeing the situation through lens of xenophobia then I haven't articulated well enough to make my argument clear. The EU did not make us lazy, although I agree the nation is. That was the UK's brand of Anglo-Saxon capitalism on which the the Thatcherite/neo-liberal reforms of the 80's poured rocket fuel. The structural issues of low pay, low skill, low productivity have their roots in this, particularly the short-termism and financial engineering of the City of London. They are nothing to do with the EU, in contrast Germany successfully levelled up the old DDR while the UK has some of the poorest regions in Europe. The UK is a rich country, there is no reason why we can't train our own workers but we don't, or at least not in sufficient numbers. There is no reason why we cannot invest in the UK's productivity, but we don't, at least not sufficently. That is a political choice the UK has made, particularly Tory governments, and has nothing to do with the EU. The point is that those who try to blame Europeans who come to the UK to build a better life for these structural problems is, at best, based on a lack of understanding and at worst xenophobic.

[A Load of Squit 5,161]

"Your argument seems to be that you still want to access this cheap labour force".

Take the word "cheap" out of the sentence and you would have been correct. 

 

[Herman 9,756]

If anyone wants a bit of light relief from the bad news please read Nigel Farage's tweet from this morning. 😂

[A Load of Squit 5,161]

5 minutes ago, Herman said:

If anyone wants a bit of light relief from the bad news please read Nigel Farage's tweet from this morning. 😂

I hope his chauffeur was OK.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

38 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

I hope his chauffeur was OK.

Oh dear. Who is going to pay for all that? Another pension claim looming?

[king canary 7,604]

2 hours ago, BigFish said:

The thing is emprically it was without merit, there is research in which the calculation is that over the eight years to 2012 immigration impacted wages by 1p per hour, yes one penny. The "lived experience" is a perception rather than a fact and it was this perception that certain politicians nurtured to create dissatisfaction which ultimately led to Brexit.

I agree this was nurtured but I also think the attitude of 'your experience is wrong actually' also doesn't help. It isn't just purely about pay either- conditions are a large part of the issue. 

There is a good FT piece about how the meat processing industry in the UK became entirely reliant on cheap immigrant labour and is now set up around that- 12 hour shifts, days and nights, low pay and no security. These are the kind of jobs you can do if you're in the country for a limited spell in order to earn money and send it home. It isn't the kind of work someone with kids and a family to plan around can do. Similarly with the fruit picking jobs that are always in the news. As the quote from the agency recruiter in the New Statesmen article I posted said 'I've got 70 East Europeans wanting this job if you don't want it.' Hardly a strong negotiating position for the workers in question.

I rarely agree with RTB but I generally find that freedom of movement is one of those things beloved by the Middle Classes who see all the benefits (cheaper goods on the supermarket shelves, easy travel for European holidays etc etc) but none of the negatives and don't see that it allows governments like the Tories to not bother investing in training and developing their own workforce. In principle I like free movement but to be honest its also a free market capitalists wet dream the leads to easy exploitation. 

[BigFish 1,986]

2 minutes ago, king canary said:

I agree this was nurtured but I also think the attitude of 'your experience is wrong actually' also doesn't help. It isn't just purely about pay either- conditions are a large part of the issue. 

There is a good FT piece about how the meat processing industry in the UK became entirely reliant on cheap immigrant labour and is now set up around that- 12 hour shifts, days and nights, low pay and no security. These are the kind of jobs you can do if you're in the country for a limited spell in order to earn money and send it home. It isn't the kind of work someone with kids and a family to plan around can do. Similarly with the fruit picking jobs that are always in the news. As the quote from the agency recruiter in the New Statesmen article I posted said 'I've got 70 East Europeans wanting this job if you don't want it.' Hardly a strong negotiating position for the workers in question.

I rarely agree with RTB but I generally find that freedom of movement is one of those things beloved by the Middle Classes who see all the benefits (cheaper goods on the supermarket shelves, easy travel for European holidays etc etc) but none of the negatives and don't see that it allows governments like the Tories to not bother investing in training and developing their own workforce. In principle I like free movement but to be honest its also a free market capitalists wet dream the leads to easy exploitation. 

True, and I would probably phrase this argument differently if talking directly to the low paid (in which class I supect you don't fall @king canary). However, the perception that EU immigration led to significantly lower wages or conditions is demonstrably false. Successive UK governments created this situation, it has nothing to do with the EU, it has nothing to do with Freedom of Movement.

[horsefly 4,298]

2 minutes ago, king canary said:

I agree this was nurtured but I also think the attitude of 'your experience is wrong actually' also doesn't help. It isn't just purely about pay either- conditions are a large part of the issue. 

There is a good FT piece about how the meat processing industry in the UK became entirely reliant on cheap immigrant labour and is now set up around that- 12 hour shifts, days and nights, low pay and no security. These are the kind of jobs you can do if you're in the country for a limited spell in order to earn money and send it home. It isn't the kind of work someone with kids and a family to plan around can do. Similarly with the fruit picking jobs that are always in the news. As the quote from the agency recruiter in the New Statesmen article I posted said 'I've got 70 East Europeans wanting this job if you don't want it.' Hardly a strong negotiating position for the workers in question.

I rarely agree with RTB but I generally find that freedom of movement is one of those things beloved by the Middle Classes who see all the benefits (cheaper goods on the supermarket shelves, easy travel for European holidays etc etc) but none of the negatives and don't see that it allows governments like the Tories to not bother investing in training and developing their own workforce. In principle I like free movement but to be honest its also a free market capitalists wet dream the leads to easy exploitation. 

I totally agree that the practices you identify are as seriously egregoius as you claim. The point is it was entirely within the legislative power of government to address those issues without leaving the EU. There was no need to visit the disaster of brexit upon the country to achieve higher wages and better working conditions. Nothing in EU and single market regulations stopped the government introducing a higher minimum wage, reintroduction of wages councils (or their like,), increased (genuine) worker representation on boards, increased worker rights and protections. Shortages in a few industries such us HGV driving may benefit those workers while shortages are maintained, however, there is nothing in what we have seen to date in brexit to suggest anything other than its effects will be detrimental to many, many workers and the industries in which they work (as the deal with Australia highlights).

[Yellow Fever 3,772]

24 minutes ago, king canary said:

I agree this was nurtured but I also think the attitude of 'your experience is wrong actually' also doesn't help. It isn't just purely about pay either- conditions are a large part of the issue. 

There is a good FT piece about how the meat processing industry in the UK became entirely reliant on cheap immigrant labour and is now set up around that- 12 hour shifts, days and nights, low pay and no security. These are the kind of jobs you can do if you're in the country for a limited spell in order to earn money and send it home. It isn't the kind of work someone with kids and a family to plan around can do. Similarly with the fruit picking jobs that are always in the news. As the quote from the agency recruiter in the New Statesmen article I posted said 'I've got 70 East Europeans wanting this job if you don't want it.' Hardly a strong negotiating position for the workers in question.

I rarely agree with RTB but I generally find that freedom of movement is one of those things beloved by the Middle Classes who see all the benefits (cheaper goods on the supermarket shelves, easy travel for European holidays etc etc) but none of the negatives and don't see that it allows governments like the Tories to not bother investing in training and developing their own workforce. In principle I like free movement but to be honest its also a free market capitalists wet dream the leads to easy exploitation. 

 

14 minutes ago, BigFish said:

True, and I would probably phrase this argument differently if talking directly to the low paid (in which class I supect you don't fall @king canary). However, the perception that EU immigration led to significantly lower wages or conditions is demonstrably false. Successive UK governments created this situation, it has nothing to do with the EU, it has nothing to do with Freedom of Movement.

All true Guys.

The problem I have is that's an insular isolationist protectionist model that only spells economic decline. The 'sick' man of Europe all over again and a brain/worker drain to greener pastures for those with skills - Auf Wiedersehen, Pet

I thought Brexit was a sold as global free trade Britain - you know like the USA (and yes a much lower safety/benefit net). That could work. Guess I was wrong on that as per most of the Brexiteers.

Edited September 30, 2021 by Yellow Fever

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

you can see how much he Government is trying to avoid higher wages, bringing in the army to prolong the agony, rather than letting in EU drivers to sort out their problems. But it will look good at the COP26 conference next month when Boris stands up and say that x amount of electrical cars have been on the roads in England for the last few month with the uptake of petrol and diesel being greatly reduced. What a way to pushing up electric car sales, sadly I'm not playing, no electric car will replace my 1.2ltr. TSI, the most efficient car I ever drove.

[SwindonCanary 455]

Labour want to bring in the EU drivers on cheap wages, whilst the Conservatives would like to see the wages go up for the British drivers !

[horsefly 4,298]

6 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

Labour want to bring in the EU drivers on cheap wages, whilst the Conservatives would like to see the wages go up for the British drivers !

Which British drivers would those be? We're 100,000 short in case you haven't noticed. Try reading some of the previous posts about wage levels before you post such nonsense.

BTW you never did respond to my post asking you to post pictures of empty supermarket shelves, closed garages, and long petrol queues in Spain, Germany, and France despite them having a shortage of drivers too (as you helpfully pointed out). Any explanation why not?

Edited September 30, 2021 by horsefly

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

15 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

Labour want to bring in the EU drivers on cheap wages, whilst the Conservatives would like to see the wages go up for the British drivers

Delusional. The notion that they want to increase wages has been brought about by a crisis. A crisis brought upon us by several factors with the major one being brexit.

Why didn't they raise the wages in 2016?

[SwindonCanary 455]

Boris said it him self 

[Creative Midfielder 1,996]

Just now, SwindonCanary said:

Boris said it him self 

In which case then it is almost certainly untrue - Johnson is a serial liar, a bit like............

[SwindonCanary 455]

it's what he said and has not been corrected by Labour

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

10 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

it's what he said and has not been corrected by Labour

They haven't stopped laughing yet thats why.

Is this the same Boris who lied about Covid, the Irish border and Cummings?

[A Load of Squit 5,161]

45 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

Labour want to bring in the EU drivers on cheap wages, whilst the Conservatives would like to see the wages go up for the British drivers !

The Conservatives are going to use drivers from the Royal Logistics Corps, salary whilst training is £15,985 and once trained the salary rises to £20,400. 

[BigFish 1,986]