From the Sunday Times "The PM will declare an end to globalisation and admit that it has failed millions of voters as the fallout from President Trump's tariffs reverberates around the world.
The PM will argue that tariffs are the wrong response, but will also say he understands Trump's economic nationalism and why it is popular with voters who believe they have seen no benefits from free trade and mass immigration.
The World has changed globalisation is over and we are now in a new era". Heavens Above, a statement like that a while ago would have been heresy, we were all supposed to embrace the benefits of globalisation. The PM went on to say "We've got to demonstrate that our approach, a more active Labour government, a more reformist government, can provide the answers for people in every part of the country"
I think these are wise words and will resonate, but wonder why it has taken so long for any government to acknowledge that globalisation per se has often disadvantaged the, ordinary person and in particular the less skilled worker with its increased competition through, imported migration, undercutting the national workforce, all of which has been linked to wage compression. Simultaneously benefiting multinational corporations and investors.
Globalisation through China's Open Door Policy and the establishment of Special Economic Zones have allowed them to become a major exporter and flood the market with their cheap goods, at times unethically produced old tat often at the expense of harming local industries.
Globalisation effectively meant that different activities could be located anywhere. With company profits being taxed at very different rates in different tax jurisdictions, thus minimising their global tax liabilities, government collude with these behemoths to evade what they should pay, often at the expense of smaller enterprises who will be expected to pay their full wack of tax, which pro rata will be far more. Less than a dozen corporations who have massive profits who could afford to pay so much more, trillions, but in actual fact a mere trickle, because there is no multi- national consensus to stop this happening. Who was the brave person who stood up at the WEF and stated the obvious, "if everyone paid their fair amount of tax there wouldn't be such a need for philianthropic grandstanding."
Selling off our utilities and infrastructure to foreign interests so they can run them into the ground and draw huge dividends, all the while our bills going through the roof and this lack of foresight has come back to bite us all big time.
And whilst Trump has gone completely batshit way over the top with his tariffs and protectionism, it does seem that there were nevertheless aspects of guarding the national interests amongst some of our EU compatriots when we were part of the bloc, I'm thinking in particular The German car industry but we didn't do that very well here, Cadburys for example was a national treasure in the manufacturing sense before Kraft got their hands on that company. I remember many lamenting that at the time and some paper made a comparison between the French manufacturer Danone, that had a place in the hearts of the French with the comment "they'd never let it go".
I can't help thinking I wish we'd been able to hang on to some of the big names in the British Manufacturing Industry, MG for example now in the hands of the Chinese.
Gransnet forums
News & politics
Globalisation - The implications for ordinary working people
(94 Posts)We need to protect our steel also. Some of the best in the world, undercut by cheap Chinese steel that does not stand up to the metal. Are we to be the only country in the world that does not produce the steel we need, net bloody zero certainly not being taken note of by our competitors, including China, who now own our steel and want to shut us down, No guesses as to why. As for globalisation, good riddance,for once Starmer is right.
Yes that too! What do we do if the wind doesn't blow, the sun doesn't shine and Putin blows up our pipelines coming from Norway?
TerriBull you ask: " but wonder why it has taken so long for any government to acknowledge that globalisation per se has often disadvantaged the, ordinary person and in particular the less skilled worker with its increased competition through, imported migration, undercutting the national workforce, all of which has been linked to wage compression."
The answer, I think, is that no government has cared. No recent government, including this one, has any interest in ordinary people other than wanting their vote.
Will Starmer do anything to help? who knows.
I was never totally on board with globalisation from the start, it always seemed like it would end in tears. Obviously we can all benefit from some degree of it but to sell our prime assets to the highest bidder overseas, as we have done, is shocking.
There needs to be a middle ground between globalisation and isolationism. What that is I don't know.
It seems to me that governments all over the world have concentrated on the whole world becoming one nation rather than using globalisation to support and develop their own nation's economic growth and prosperity.
ferry23
There needs to be a middle ground between globalisation and isolationism. What that is I don't know.
It seems to me that governments all over the world have concentrated on the whole world becoming one nation rather than using globalisation to support and develop their own nation's economic growth and prosperity.
I think you've encapsulated the essence of what I feel, neither is ideal, globalisation or isolationism.
Things worked perfectly well before. Why change the system? We have had so many new politicians with their own idea of the perfect world. None have worked.
Star Trek was a fantasy....it doesn't work in practise.
The problem with globalisation is that it only seems to work one way. Look at immigration. How many people are heading to join the East....none...everyone wants to live in the West!
I'm not sure there was ever a deliberate pro globalisation policy as such.
It has gradually grown up to be that way.
The combination of outsourcing production and investors not only investing across borders but the growth of big international investment and finance companies that owe no loyally to individual nations states, just out for profit.
A lot of this is facilitated by new financial technologies that again move seamlessly across borders.
I agree about the middle ground.
mum2three
Things worked perfectly well before. Why change the system? We have had so many new politicians with their own idea of the perfect world. None have worked.
Star Trek was a fantasy....it doesn't work in practise.
The problem with globalisation is that it only seems to work one way. Look at immigration. How many people are heading to join the East....none...everyone wants to live in the West!
(By outsourcing production, inevitably it has meant that countries with cheap labour instead of being part of our outsourcing, caught on and started producing cheap goods themselves which we in the West have chosen to buy - no one made a political decision, its a result of changing trading patterns)
What’s happening now is a massive wake-up call, and I do think we will see gradual shifts back to national production of many items, but not the end of globalisation for others. Not just in the UK and Europe. I agree with what Starmer said about the world order changing. If it means more people stop over purchasing, buy more quality goods, and buy local wherever they can, then for the UK it may be a good lesson, hard learned in the end.
mum2three
Things worked perfectly well before. Why change the system? We have had so many new politicians with their own idea of the perfect world. None have worked.
Star Trek was a fantasy....it doesn't work in practise.
The problem with globalisation is that it only seems to work one way. Look at immigration. How many people are heading to join the East....none...everyone wants to live in the West!
When exactly did things work "perfectly well"? And for whom did things work perfectly? I can't think of any time when things worked perfectly well, so am waiting to be enlightened.
I see one fly in the ointment being Labour's determination to concrete over our prime agricultural land with "little boxes" housing estates in areas where very few locals could afford to buy.
Cutting down our ability to grow our own food and putting unsustainable pressure on already stretched facilities and infrastructure.
Another is our inability to compete with cheap producers of a whole range of goods - from knickers to machinery. Even with tariffs non-unionised countries will still be cheaper. I doubt we'll ever replace our manufacturing base so we need to up our game on quality and efficiency in the service industry.
Globalisation as an economic system grew organically over time, it didn’t just get “introduced”, and to this end neither will it disappear because of the tariffs Trump has introduced.
When Starmer talks about a changed order, he isn’t talking about the end of globalisation, but rather an end to the American leadership of a post WW2 rules based, open economic system, run by liberal democracies.
What is happening is that we (the liberal democracies) are at a crosssroads, and how we deal with Trumps coercive strategy will make or break the continuation of a stable economic system.
I see one fly in the ointment being Labour's determination to concrete over our prime agricultural land with "little boxes" housing estates in areas where very few locals could afford to buy.
Except that all these new houses do sell and like you everyone says the people buying them are not locals. So presumably everybodies locals are simply buying elsewhere. Builders will not build if there is no one buying.
I live in an area where research centres and high tech industrial sites are being built everywhere round us. Most of the high technical staff they require move here from elsewhere, plus of course locals with the specialised expertise they demand, who can also afford them. These people are generally well paid and have two incomes coming in.
I think the days of globalisation, as we have known it have gone. Globalisation has been all about economic advantage and nothing to do with human advantage as millions of people, if not billions have suffered as a result - which is why MAGA has been so beguiling to so many.
We need a new system that places greater emphasis on improving people's lives rtaher than making more and more money for fewer and fewer people.
Citizens as consumers like high quality goods that are inexpensive. To what extent can politicians disappoint them by bringing back manufacturing to the UK or USA when the high cost of labour will make goods more expensive? I read that onshoring would double the cost of a new iPhone. Not all offshore production is cheap tat.
I think that there is a bit of rose tinted glasses sometimes as the problem is that many people are very happy with the low prices that global production brings - home produced goods will be more expensive.
There is also the issue of workers who will be laid off because tariffs mean exporting their goods is not economic.
Then there is the issue of the UK not being self sufficient in a lot of products
- the UK imports 37% of its energy - which is going to need a lot of nuclear power plants and/or wind farms built on someone's doorstep
www.bbc.com/news/business-63976805
- the UK imports 40% of its food and with tariffs this will mean higher prices as the tariffs add an additional tax
www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-food-security-index-2024/uk-food-security-index-2024
- billions of pounds worth of clothing is imported each year
M0nica
"We need a new system that places greater emphasis on improving people's lives rather than making more and more money for fewer and fewer people."
Well said, M0nica.
I think what is being described is a form of social democracy. This can be easily combined with the existing globalisation network.
But as soon as the word social is mentioned, a certain section of society draws back in horror.
The world largely agrees that unfettered capitalism is a bad thing, but otoh governments are not very good at organising trade (although it does have the advantage of planning long term, and arguably for everyone’s good) so most liberal democracies have settled on as free a market as possible, but run with agreed rules. The social aspect of capitalism is where government must step in to protect both those providing the labour snd those consuming the products. This is where the tension is always present between the need to make a profit and the need to earn a wage sufficient to live a reasonable existence.
This can be achieved without trashing the entire system.
youtu.be/QfgVhE1M6ns
The thousands of comments below the video are proof he's "not the only one".
Albert Einstein said something about nationalism being the measles of mankind.
I must be a dreamer.
Macadia
Albert Einstein said something about nationalism being the measles of mankind.
I must be a dreamer.
Just because Einstein said it, doesn't make it true. He was speaking outside his area of expertise.
The alternative to globalisation as it exists now, is not nationalism or futile attempts at self-sufficiency. I do not think anyone is suggesting that.
But as things are at the moment we are hollowing countries out and driving people into poverty for the sake of knocking £10 off a new phone or other gadget.
We need to find away forward that enables countries to trade successfully without giving more to those that have and taking away more from those that have not.
The devastated cities of the rust belt and car making towns in the US. the gig economy, our rust belt and deprived and devastated towns of the north of this country, are the current price for cheap washing machines. I do not consider it is a price worth paying.
We need a new system that places greater emphasis on improving people's lives rtaher than making more and more money for fewer and fewer people.
We had such a system post WW2. It was based on Keynesian economics which aimed at full employment and more equable distribution of wealth. The inequality gap was narrowing, wages were rising and capital was being redistributed.
It wasn’t perfect, as I’m sure that this statement will be greeted with anecdotal evidence of poverty stricken childhoods and young adult struggles to make ends meet, but the research and statistical evidence doesn’t lie.
The system was destroyed by Thatcher with her embrace of neoliberalism and destruction of the ‘state’. It gave the wealthy such a stranglehold on government, similar to that which they had in previous centuries, that no government since has dared to seriously challenge them.
Monica, I agree with all the points you've made.
The world has been flooded with cheap imported goods and in spite of all the ills that have flown out of that Pandora's Box, I'm not sure it could easily be reversed in our consumer lead societies where the demand for cheap "stuff" is paramount and appears to trounce ethics and at times the national interest. Rachel Reeves, allowing Shein for example to evade what they should pay in tax giving them an unfair advantage over home grown businesses.
Join the conversation
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »