Regret it Brexit?

Geri

Maybe we should have sorted out our own unelected elites before blaming all the ills of our society on the EU.

Cue indignant posts about unelected aristos thwarting the 'will of the people'?

May forced to give MPs single market vote after shock defeat
More than 80 Labour peers defy whip on amendment calling for vote on EEA membership

Hmm. We'll done H o L. This could get interesting!

Meanwhile the cabinet is in turmoil.

I’m not sure who has the time/ energy to read these worthy cut n paste articles, much of which supports what I said earlier. We are an unequal society with fewer opportunities , it’s all very well posting a huge list of suggestions from a think tank but are these proposals going to happen any time soon? Not with the current bunch of buffoons so incapable of planning the proverbial in a brewery and quoting mantras like Brexit means Brexit, the will of the people, plus spending billions cut n pasting EU legislation and setting up unnecessary duplicate organisations. Austerity and inequality are going to get worse for most of us , whilst the wealthy like Johnsons, Rees Smug , and the Russian oligarchs propping up the Tory party will be fine. 1 million Brexit voters have died since the referendum - interesting statistic. What does that mean for the will of the people?

Ye gods! An awful lot of you seem to love being patronised

Thank you Bridgeit.

By the way it’s great to have your lighthearted approach which doesn’t detract from your knowledge or opinions . Brilliant ?

?looking forward to your next post Allygran1, I will just stock up on my spinach intake lol ?

Joelsgran I just saw your response to Smileless 2012 I love both your post and your great discussions, I agree with what your both saying.

Thanks for today.

Bridgeit your so right! I might be in burn out.

I am still working on Gerispringer post. I think it's a cup of tea time again but no cake going to bed, although that won't be till after midnight.
Thanks for a good day everyone! You will be relieved to know I have an appointment tomorrow so won't be posting a lot tomorrow....I heard the cheers!

smileless2012 There are/were EU countries with worse strike records than UK. The relocation were not hindered as was the case in other countries because the Thatcher Government had a vision for the UK as a purely service industry based economy. This was okay for financiers however did not take account of the needs of the greater population for employment. The decline of our manufacturing towns and cities is saddening even the call centres are closing.

I don't deny Joelsnan that the examples you have given contributed to the decline in manufacturing but that doesn't alter the fact the businesses who couldn't rely on their workforce to work because of incessant strikes, looked elsewhere.

Smileless2012 your so spot on with your information on outsourcing and the enormous set up grants that were provided by the EU. All in aid of supporting other EU Countries.

Phew Allygran1, I’m worn out, my poor old brain will need to be reprogrammed for seriously serious debate, it’s still in an opinions mode ?

Bridget it's all very complex, but one thing I find is that standing still is no good.

Thanks for engaging.

Gerispringer because your posting covered many areas I have taken each main point and made it a single point. This is your point about social mobility. You are of course right and this confirms and offers us all details from the Social Mobilities Commission set up by Government in 2010, this report was in 2016.

All started within a decade of joining the EU in 1973, how dreadful. Things can't have been that good then. So being in the EU means we have not prospered either socially, or economically. Time to leave.
The Report:
Britain has a deep social mobility problem which is getting worse for an entire generation of young people, the Social Mobility Commission’s State of the Nation 2016 report warns today.

The impact is not just felt by the poorest in society but is also holding back whole tranches of middle- as well as low-income families - these treadmill families are running harder and harder, but are standing still.

The problem is not just social division, but a widening geographical divide between the big cities - London especially - and too many towns and counties across the country are being left behind economically and hollowed out socially.

The State of the Nation 2016 report, which was laid before Parliament this morning, lays bare the scale of the social mobility challenge facing the government. It finds fundamental barriers, including an unfair education system, a 2-tier labour market, a regionally imbalanced economy and an unaffordable housing market.

The Social Mobility Commission welcomes the high priority that the current, as well as successive, governments have given to social mobility, and finds that some real progress has been made. But it concludes that the twentieth-century expectation that each generation would be better off than the preceding one is no longer being met.

It points to evidence that those born in the 1980s are the first post-war cohort not to start their working years with higher incomes than their immediate predecessors. Home ownership, the aspiration of successive generations of ordinary people, is in sharp decline, among the young especially. Most shocking of all, today only 1 in 8 children from low-income backgrounds is likely to become a high-income earner as an adult.

The commission calls for new thinking and new approaches to deal with these deep structural problems. It recommends that an ambitious 10-year programme of social reform is needed which the government should lead and which employers and educators should join.

The Rt Hon Alan Milburn, chair of the Social Mobility Commission, said:

The rungs on the social mobility ladder are growing further apart. It is becoming harder for this generation of struggling families to move up.

The social divisions we face in Britain today impact many more people and places than the very poorest in society or the few thousands youngsters who miss out on a top university. Whole sections of society and whole tracts of Britain feel left behind.

The growing sense that we have become an ‘us and them’ society - where a few unfairly entrench power and wealth to themselves - is deeply corrosive of our cohesion as a nation.

As the EU referendum result showed, the public mood is sour and decision-makers have been far too slow to respond.

We applaud the Prime Minister’s determination to heal social division and foster social progress. That is a big ambition. It will require big action. Fundamental reforms are needed in our country’s education system, labour market and local economies to address Britain’s social mobility problem. That should be the holy grail of public policy, the priority for government and the cause which unites the nation to action.

Key findings include:
Britain has a deep social mobility problem - the poorest find it hardest to progress but so do families with an annual income of around £22,500
people born in the 1980s are the first post-war cohort not to start their working years with higher incomes than their immediate predecessors
millions of workers - particularly women - are trapped in low pay with only 1 in 10 escaping
only 1 in 8 children from low-income backgrounds is likely to become a high-income earner as an adult
from the early years through to universities and the workplace, there is an entrenched and unbroken correlation between social class and success
in the last decade, 500,000 poorer children were not school-ready by age 5
children in deprived areas are twice as likely to be in childcare provision that is not good enough, compared with the most prosperous areas
families where both parents are highly educated now spend on average around 110 minutes a day on educational activities with their young children compared to 71 minutes a day for those with low education. This compares with around 20 to 30 minutes a day in the 1970s when there was no significant difference between the groups of parents
over the last 5 years 1.2 million 16-year-olds - disproportionately from low-income homes - have left school without 5 good GCSEs. At present, just 5% of children eligible for free school meals gain 5 A grades at GCSE
a child living in one of England’s most disadvantaged areas is 27 times more likely to go to an inadequate school than a child in the most advantaged
young people from low-income homes with similar GCSEs to their better-off classmates are one third more likely to drop out of education at 16 and 30% less likely to study A-levels that could get them into a top university
young people are 6 times less likely to go to Oxbridge if they grow up in poor household. In the North East, not one child on free school meals went to Oxbridge after leaving school in 2010
in the North East and the South West, young people on free school meals are half as likely to start a higher-level apprenticeship
in London, the number of top-end occupational jobs has increased by 700,000 in the last 10 years compared to just under 56,000 in the North East
despite some efforts to change the social make-up of the professions, only 4% of doctors, 6% of barristers and 11% of journalists are from working-class backgrounds
home ownership is in sharp decline - particularly among the young. Rates among the under-44s have fallen by 17% in the last decade
people who own their homes have average non-pension wealth of £307,000, compared to less than £20,000 for social and private tenant households
there is a new geography of disadvantage, with many towns and rural areas - not just in the North - being left behind affluent London and the South East. In 40 local authority areas, one third of all employee jobs are paid below the living wage
more than half the adults in Wales, the North East, Yorkshire and the Humber, the West Midlands and Northern Ireland have less than £100 in savings
Key recommendations
Early years - the government should:

introduce a new parental support package at key points in a child’s life to support children falling behind
set a clear objective that by 2025, every child should be school-ready at the age of 5 and the child development gap has been closed with a new strategy to increase high-quality childcare for low-income families
double funding for the early years pupil premium to ensure better childcare for those that need it most
Schools - the government should:

have as its core objective the ambition, within the next decade, of narrowing the attainment gap at GCSE between poorer children and their better-off classmates by two thirds, bringing the rest of the country to the level achieved in London today
rethink its plans for more grammar schools and more academies
mandate the 10 lowest performing local authorities to take part in improvement programmes so that by 2020 none of those schools are Ofsted-rated inadequate and all are progressing to good
reform the training and distribution of teachers and create new incentives - including better starting pay - to get more of the highest-quality teachers into the schools that need them
require independent schools and universities to provide high-quality careers advice, support with university applications and share their business networks with state schools
repurpose the National Citizen Service so that all children between the ages of 14 and 18 can have quality work experience or extra-curricular activity
Post 16-education and training - the government should:

develop a single UCAS-style portal over the next 4 years so that youngsters can make better choices about their post-school futures
make schools more accountable for the destinations of their pupils and the courses they take post-16
school sixth form provision should be extended and schools given a role in supporting FE colleges to deliver the Skills Plan. The number of 16- to 18-year-old NEETs should be zero by 2022
low-quality apprenticeships should be scrapped
a new social mobility league table should be published to encourage universities to widen access
over the next 10 years, higher education should be extended to those parts of Britain that have no or low provision
Jobs, careers and earnings - the government should:

create a new deal with employers to define business’ social obligations and the support they will get
develop a second chance career fund to help older workers retrain and write off advanced learner loans for part-time workers
work with large employers, local councils and local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) to bring new high-quality job opportunities backed by financial incentives to the country’s social mobility cold spots
support LEPs in social mobility cold spots to tackle local skills gaps and attract better jobs to the area
all large business should develop strategies to provide low-skilled workers with opportunities for career progression
introduce a legal ban on unpaid internships
Housing - the government should:

commit to a target of building 3 million homes over the next decade - with one third being commissioned by the public sector
expand the sale of public-sector land for new homes and allow targeted house-building on green-belt land
modify the starter home initiative to focus on households with average incomes and ensure these homes when sold go to other low-income households at the same discount
introduce tax incentives to encourage longer private-sector tenancies
complement plans to redevelop the worst estates, with a £140-million fund to improve opportunities for social tenants to get work
For further information, please contact Kirsty Walker, Social Mobility Commission, on 020 7227 5371 or 07768 446167 or [email protected].

Yes it’s funny isn’t it how we all have our unique way of viewing events ( and there in lies another debate nature v nurture etc)
perhaps the affect of our Nigel & his vision was enough for me to be very wary of coming out?
I think in or out immigration needs some attention. Where would a lot of our work force be without them & then that leads on to unemployment & changing industries etc etc

Bridgit I am sorry to hear that this is what came over to you. What I heard was very different, I heard change, global engagement, not narrow United Nations of Europe. I felt excited by the opportunities that are presented by getting out into the World and being unfettered by EU rules and restrictions.
Wanting to run our own Country again did not come over to me as wanting to go back to the War. I don't get that actually but you can perhaps pad that feeling out for me so I can understand your feelings better.

Now the rhetoric on immigration is another matter. My view was then and is now that we need to control immigration.
That is the first premise. What I heard was; illegal immigration should be controlled.

Now from what you tell me this is either not what you heard or not what you believe. If this is not what you heard we should clear that up and look at what was said. If you don't agree that immigration should be controlled through passports and visa applications then perhaps you could share with me why you don't want immigration control.

By the way you started this thread and I am so grateful to you for doing that, I am really enjoying all this conversation
and debate. Thank you.

Gerispringer you may have thought that but it came over as aggressive and personal. May I suggest that we will make more progress if you try not to point out other peoples flaws or inconsistencies, but engage in putting an alternative view over. It will provide much better postings and a better feeling all round don't you think.

Anyway! That said Gerispringer. Here is another diatribe (even your choice of that description is interesting). This time because I am not clever enough to put anything better than this article has I am putting an article up for you about the Nordic Countries system, and that it might not all be as good as it seems. I hope it adds to our overall knowledge about different systems and that no one system is perfect, not even the Scandinavian ones. Here it is.

With high levels of equality, low unemployment and sophisticated social services, Norway, Denmark and Sweden represent models many strive to emulate, but they are not the northern utopias they seem
And so another league table has confirmed what has become a truism: that when it comes to prosperity, Scandinavia rules the roost.
This year’s edition of the annual Legatum Prosperity Index (LDI) places Norway, Denmark and Sweden in first, fourth and sixth places respectively, with Finland trailing at a still-enviable eighth. The UK was 13th, narrowly beaten by Ireland but ahead of Germany.
The Nordic nations frequently feature at the top of such lists, giving the aura of a shimmering northern utopia. On almost every indicator worth measuring – from public health to educational attainment and social wellbeing – the Scandinavians seem to have got things sorted.
But should we all be aiming to be Norway? Indeed, is that goal even desirable?
Scandinavian societies are certainly admirable in many respects. Their high scores for human development are built around principles of individual autonomy and self-determination.
Their commitment to gender equality saw Norway introduce a much-publicised law in 2003 requiring 40% of board members at large firms to be female, in an attempt to forcibly shatter the glass ceiling. Female political representation is also high, and both Norway and Denmark currently have female prime ministers.
These countries also fare well on measures of inequality – with Gini indicesconsistently ranking them among the most income-equal societies in the world.
Low levels of unemployment are supported by high levels of engagement between trade unions (in Sweden around 71% of workers are members of unions), the government and employers. Arguably, this results in a more engaged and democratic workforce.
But not everything is as rosy as it might first seem.
If we look at carbon emissions per capita, some Scandinavian countries are ranked quite high - Norway is in 24th place and Finland in 26th compared to the UK’s 47th, according to the US Department of Energy’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC).
And on the WWF’s scale of ecological impact across carbon, grazing land, cropland, fishing ground, forests and built-up land, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden are all near the top of the chart, consuming considerably more than the world average of 2.7 gha per capita (one gha represents a biologically productive hectare with world average productivity).
In other words, citizens of these countries – just like all nations in the global north - are consuming resources at a rate that would require several Earths to sustain.
Part of the problem is that the Scandinavian nations (with the possible exception of Denmark) have based their economic success on extractive industries – whether it’s Norway’s oil, Sweden’s iron ore or Finland’s forests, creating huge carbon footprints. Being geographically remote and subject to extreme cold for parts of the year also means that their food production capacities are small, with the consequence that a high proportion of food and other goods have to be imported, creating road, air and shipping miles.
In prosperity terms, they also enjoy the luxury of having relatively small, homogenous populations across which to spread their wealth. In this, the Scandinavian nations are again unusual.
So, the Scandanavian countries might look like league champions. But they don’t necessarily provide a desirable model for future prosperity in the rest of the world.
High levels of autonomy and self determination are important for everybody, but these may not be a clear indicator of prosperity or wellbeing in countries where community resilience is of paramount importance, because of the need to collectively manage environmental resources like oceans, forests and agricultural land.
And while the conditions of salaried work are very important for people’s life satisfaction in Europe, unionisation won’t do much for people in countries where most people work in smallholder agriculture and the informal economy – and are often at the sharp end of managing environmental resources and the effects of climate change brought about by consumption in rich countries.
The LDI is interesting and informative and it’s pleasing to see that sub-Saharan Africa’s prosperity levels have gone up 0.58 points between 2013 and 2014.
But I would argue that the ‘prosperity’ depicted in the index is based on social and economic models that are essentially outdated because they’re not sustainable in the long term. We are already feeling the effects of manmade climate change and the pressure on resources is becoming ever more acute as the world’s population heads towards an estimated 10 billion by 2050.
The truth is that there is no one model of prosperity. In the future, there will have to be multiple models of prosperity based on individual circumstances, and the specifics of culture, history, economics and politics; not everybody following one model - but everybody flourishing within their own context.
Discovering what these models may look like has prompted UCL to establish the Institute for Global Prosperity, the first centre of its kind in the world bringing together academics, business and policymakers to examine the challenges and propose solutions.
This provides a challenge for all of us, but particularly for global businesses who operate in diverse contexts around the globe. In the case of the Scandinavian countries, it’s the way in which the redistribution of tax and wealth from business works that makes a lot of their success possible.
Their free market system underpinned by high levels of state welfare is one model of government-business cooperation.
However, across the globe we need new and diverse models if we are to secure multiple forms of prosperity for diverse citizens and regions. Global businesses have a unique role to play in devising these new models of collaboration precisely because they are engaged in diverse contexts.
Coming top of the league is all very well, but we need some new ideas about what it means to be a team player in an interdependent world.
Professor Henrietta Moore is director of UCL Institute for Global Prosperity

You also made some very valid points earlier on Gerispringer

You can’t blame the workers here for the wholesale sell off of our assets. Many people sneer at the French workers for frequently striking , yet they make as much in 4 days as we do in 5. They have their own car companies and own much of our utilities. Difference is the French government have valued their industries and not sought to destroy them.

allygran I wasn’t aggressive or personal - just pointing out the inconsistencies and flaws in your statements.

Allygran I voted remain, mainly because I was put of voting to leave by what at the time seemed to be a desire to take the country back to a vision of England when we ‘won the war, & could still take on the world. Also because of the rehtoric around immigration etc.

smileless2012
for the loss of manufacturing in this country, this was in part due to the number of strikes that brought many manufacturing plants to a stand still. Companies moved factories abroad because they needed a more reliable workforce and not ones that would take strike action at the drop of hat
The reason our industries were outsourced to cheaper Eastern Europe was in some part cheap labour but more importantly it was to keep these countries in Europe to prevent a resurgence of the Soviet Union. There is a lot of European 'politicking' that those who view the EU in terms of cheap holidays and holiday homes do not acknowledge.
As a result UK basically paid for our industries to be outsourced through set up grants to these countries resulting in loss of skilled labour and manufacturing in our own countries. I admit our production costs were high however as expected production costs in these countries are now rising.
Additionally as our manufacturing base went to Eastern Europe many of the lower skilled jobs were taken up by cheap Eastern European folk relocating here. And before anyone says this is because our youth wouldn't do the work, that was not always the case, they were not given the opportunity and if it was the case whose fault is that?