Before this develops into the immigration argument here's a couple of articles from last week about the issue.

[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/immigration-does-not-cause-unemployment-6287404.htmlStudy refutes claim that foreign nationals are depriving British-born workers of jobs[/url

[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-admits-eu-migrants-do-not-hurt-british-jobs-market-6287850.htmlInflux of non-EU workers linked to 'native' job losses, but even these are only temporary, say experts[/url

There are parties on the left that have more traditional left stances, but the left in the UK is – as in many other places – fractured. There's no one party that, even now, comes close to challenging Labour.

But Labour, when in government, continued the basic political-economic philosophy of neo-liberalism that had initially been put in place at the beginning of the 1980s by the Conservative government of the time (which included de-industrialisation as a key tenet). New Labour continued with deregulation and privatisation.

The so-called 'third way' was really (as I see it) about using improved public services (some via privatisation and schemes such as the Private Finance Initiative – which has a toxic legacy) to try to balance out some of the problems being caused by those same policies. But a fair bit of that was simply making up for the state that services were in by 1997 – people dying on hospital trolleys; schools in a state of serious disrepair etc.

In a lot of way, it's understandable that Labour went down this route. The electorate had already rejected Michael Foot's much more traditional Labour Party, plus the version under Neil Kinnock. Having said that, perhaps something more like the former would have been elected anyway in 1997, given that it was less about a Labour victory and more about the country simply having had enough of the Conservatives. And of course, we never really had the chance to know what John Smith would have been like.

I don't think that the Labour government under Blair had any idea of how to deal with that loss of so much decently paid, skilled manual work. He was obsessed with the idea of the 'e-economy', for instance, presumably believing that this would solve all our problems and provide a way forward.

One of the problems with the idea of de-industrialisation (and letting the developing world do all that manufacturing stuff in order to develop their economies) is that it leaves huge swathes of people without comparable labour, income and, indeed, dignity. I had a couple of trips to Glasgow last year for work: on both occasions, because of where the hotel was, I had to use cabs to get anywhere. Most of the cabbies are former shipbuilders. They're not workshy – but they are utterly brassed off at having had a skilled job stripped away from them, finding themselves on greatly reduced incomes – and where those incomes are reducing even further, gradually but steadily. What alternative was – or is there – for them?

Add into this mix the rise of consumerism – indeed, the retail sector is massively important for the country's economy as a whole now (the service sector accounts for approximately 75% of the economy, if I remember correctly). So in other words, we actually need people to buy things. I think the last 30 years has seen a real increase in what may see as 'aspirationalism' – but a great deal of that has been about effectively saying that rampant consumerism is good. And with it, if you want more things, you have to get a better job. But where are all these 'better' jobs? And what is wrong with any job in the first place, so that some people deride people in lowly jobs? Even work, in other words, can be derided.

I think Mike made a number of very good points. One of those is snobbery. I touched on that in the previous paragraph, when I mentioned the snobbery against certain types of work. Well, that's always been around, but I do think it's got worse – at exactly a time when more people are having to take lowly work.

The entire 'chav' thing is really quite depressing. On the one hand, it's arguably an attitude toward what would classically have been known as the lumpen proletariat (so yes, the 'workshy', the 'feckless' etc), but it's also been code for something much wider. I've seen, on here, people being condemned as 'chavs' etc simply for wearing the 'wrong' jewellry – how dare they wear an Argos clown pendant – even when they're actually in work. Shopping at Iceland is another mark of someone to be abused.

It seems to me that, one of the results of a 'greed is good' consumerist society is a new strata of people to be derided: working people who don't dress the 'right' way or buy the 'right' things or buy enough etc. And of course, the internet makes it easier to spread such a culture of nastiness.

There are loads of other things I could add – many expanding on the points that Mike made – but that's quite enough at present.

Suffice it to say that we need a serious economic alternative that doesn't just work for a very small number in our society.

There is an image which can easily be conjured up, even by those who never experienced anything like it, of (as just one example) Welsh miners, coming up from the pit, black bright, off to play a game of rugby league, then down to the smoke-filled pub for 10 pints, and at weekends smrten up and go to choir practice. And some would say die at 40 of pneumoconiosis.

You could tell similar tales in relation to shipbuilders on the Clyde or Tyne, steelmaking, etc.

Setting aside nostalgic rose-tinted viewing apparatus, there is no doubt that many thousands of men and households lived in proud, close-knit communities, founded on hard honest graft.

This could have been updated to the 21c, by providing safer working environments, better pay and conditions, improved housing and schools etc. Instead (and for a variety of reasons) the possibility of earning a living through hard graft was, for the majority of such communities, slowly removed and never replaced with any reasonable alternative.

I am not claiming that the entirety of what used to be a superb and highly skilled industrial workforce could all have had their jobs preserved in aspic, but in general, I consider the total destruction of this part of our society and the wholesale throwing of that part of the workforce effectively on the scrapheap to be a massive crime, for which our society has paid and is paying dearly.

Indeed.

And again setting aside any romantic notions, we're also now seeing other ramifications from those decisions, in terms of the impact on the national economy, for instance. I don't think many people would claim that such reliance on the service industries is a good thing – or that it hasn't been one of the reasons for the financial crisis, which we're still in.

Equally, one could look at the question of fuel needs and – with the technological advances that you mention – we could ask whether or not it would have been better for the country if we had continued to do things such as mine our own coal reserves.

The two nationalist parties in Wales and Scotland have done a fine job of challenging Labour, in fact the SNP is some way to the left of Labours current stance.

I'd sure like to ask those black Somali girls why they kicked the crap out of that white girl in the street while shouting ''you white b*tch''. At least that wasn't a racist attack

Maybe you should read the newspaper court reports, its all explained quite clearly in there.

Care to suggest an alternative?

Prop up uneconomic, loss making factories? Who is going to pay for this?

The reality is that a country like the UK is always going to struggle in areas such as heavy industry.
(especially in an era when Trade Unions went out on strike at the drop of a hat - talk about Turkeys voting for Xmas), with the resulting quality issues.........

If you are a company what are you going to do, pay a Chinese worker £1/hour, who is delighted to have a job and put's the effort in or pay a Glaswegian £10/hour who is likely to moan that it isn't enough and will strike at the drop of a hat?

Imagine its YOUR money. Which one are you going to choose?

The only way the UK can compete in industry is through embracing flexible working in high-tech industry. It cannot compete making girders anymore.

I agree with you re the woman herself. She has clearly become bitter and very angry and has formed racist opinions. And it may have got far enough for her to require help. I don't come on here very much, but I think it was you who on the matter of the riots of last year was for open discussion with the rioters and their grieviances. I agreed with that sentiment. However where I differ is that I would take stand and actually talk to her. I believe that one of the ways in which we can work with people like her is open and frank discussion, like you suggested we should engage in, with the rioters that KILLED 5 people and caused around £200 million of pounds of damage. I would listen to her and people like her and what were referred to as the White Working Class. There is clearly anger and resentment among these people feeling like they do not have a voice. This, I suspect may actually help people who may be right wing, from going further right into the far right and then extreme right.

Maybe there will be a party to represent them and other working class people that can pull them back from heading to the far right. It's when they go far into either end of the political spectrum that has shown to cause problems throughout history.

I hope this sort of gets across my position on things. I have a fascination with human behaviour and am training to be a counsellor at the moment.

You should become a journalist



Who's Mike though?

So you think the current situation is sensible or sustainable or even – heaven forfend – fair?

Or do you really believe that 'there is no alternative'? You think it entirely acceptable that we no longer have skilled, manual jobs that paid a decent wage – and it's brilliant that, instead, so many more people can now become shelf stackers and till jockeys in all the extra shops that we have, which the economy is now so dependent on.

Now that might mean a greater percentage of people on lower incomes, which in turn means reduced spending power, which is a bad thing when you need people to spend, spend, spend for the sake of the national economy, but then that's why we have cheap credit, isn't it?

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16639391One of the ways that we get cheap clothing[/url – which, of course, encourages people to go shopping every week and boost this consumer-based society.

No wonder the old textile industries in the north were "uneconomic" – they can hardly undercut child labour. Presumably you're happy with that.









Ah. McClennan.

??? Where on earth did that come from?

Now, here's a suggestion. Instead of bleating about how people no longer have a decent wage, etc etc , you could always answer the question.

If it was YOUR money, which would you rather do? Pay a Chinese £1 an hour, who is happy to work a 12 hour day or pay a UK citizen £10 an hour who is likely to strike at the drop of a hat.

That is the economic reality of the world economy that we live in.

You may not like it. Absolutely fine, but what is YOUR alternative?

Mintball is on a phone hacking course as we speak.





What is a realistic alternative given the situation we are in. (described by Mintball and others above)

You talked of 'uneconomic' businesses. Child labour is one of the reasons that companies in some countries can undercut companies in the UK (and West generally), making them 'uneconomic'.

This works in tandem with people believing that they should goods at ever lower prices – without consideration of the consequences. See [iThe Wal-Mart Effect[/i by Charles Fishman for examples of just what this means for local (and national) economies.



It's quite easy to answer the question in terms of food alone.

I try to buy as much as I can locally, from small businesses and producers. I make the choice that I would rather support British farmers and producers than paying less for imported produce that is usually poorer too. I buy and cook and eat seasonally for these – and other – reasons.

It's the same with, say, having any work done in the flat: I try to find someone local who can do any such work rather than a big company – and therefore keep my money within the community.

With my clothing, I try to ensure that it's not from companies where the price is subsidised by child labour or by appalling working conditions etc.

Some of us like to think we have some morals. On the basis of what you say here, you consider money more important than people.



Fortunately, throughout the course of history, people have not had the same attitude as you, or we'd still be living in caves.



Here's a suggestion. Instead of bleating about how 'that's the way it is', etc etc , you could always answer the questions I put to you.

As it happens, I DIDN'T say we should still be making "girders". But if you think that the current situation, where around 75% of the national economy is based on the service and retail sectors, is sensible and sustainable – and not remotely related to the mess we're in – then you need to think again.

You might even try addressing the human cost – and not just posting like someone who believes that a world increasingly run by and for big business and finance is sensible, fair, coherent, sustainable and democratic.

Stick to whinging about the salary cap mate.

The only problem with labelling huge swathes of society is that you accidently pull in lots of other groups who are not related at all, for instance I am white, and I definitely have to work to survive, so I am white working class, but I absolutely disassociate myself with the racist bigot on the London tube, who is simply a racist bigot and nothing else, we shouldn't try to pigeon-hole her like in order to make things nicer in our minds, you can't write her off just by thinking "oh she's the white working class", because she certainly does not represent what the vast majority of what could be described as white working people actually think, she is a racist bigot expressing her views in an illegal way for which she paid with her liberty.

The other problem of course is that if you sub-classify her like with another description, "white under-working-class" or or "white working class racist bigot" then again you've parceled up the problem and stored it away in a part of your mind that you can forget about, "its ok, she's the white working class racist bigot that we hear so much about", turn away and forget about it.

I don't particularly like labels and pigeon holes or the class system, as you may gather.

We are already propping up the private sector, service industries through tax credits and other subsidies. So because the employer of a shelf-stacker refuses to pay a living wage, the tax-payers of this country have to subsidise his/her wages through tax credits. All the time the shelf-stacker's employer is paying himself huge bonuses and shareholder dividends.

Care to suggest an alternative?

I worked in the textile industry in the 70's. While the cheap labour argument has weight (Although the British textile industry seems to have encouraged Asian workers to come over and work cheaply just as the industry collapsed!) it's not the only factor. In 1975 we worked on Looms that were built in 1904. Foreign competition worked on new looms that were up to 10 times as fast; British industry had not invested in new machinery in over 70 years and apparently had no intention of doing so. I suspect this might have applied to some other sectors. Most of our skilled workers ended up on Asda checkouts.

A very important point. We seem to have dismal management in both private and public sectors for a long time – particularly in terms of investment and infrastructure.

Of course you shouldn't be pigeonholed with her based purely on your colour, class or indeed accent. But there are many that would do exactly that. Not sure on your self-definition of WWC purely based on the fact that you work as you do know what kind of people the original report is referring to.

Like you, I too am not particularly fond of labels or people who instantly label. I blame both ends of the political spectrum for this though. Each can be as bad as the other.

I think you have touched upon one of the big mistakes of the 1950's.
Post-war, countries like Germany had to rebuild and they did so using the latest technology (not just out of foresight, they were buying new). Many other countries followed suit and reduced their unit costs in the process.
In the UK, however, there were government initiatives to bring in cheap labour from the former colonies ... and manufacturers allowed themselves to believe that would solve their unit cost issues.
In the very short-term it did.
Long term however, it merely exacerbated the situation and increased the size of the pool of de-skilled unemployed labour.

In the 1980's I visited an ICI fibre factory in Germany many times, which was consistently out-performing against its UK counterparts, largely because it had better machinery.
When it came to getting more investment, the better-performing plants got the re-investment, which was of course, the German plant. The UK plants were seen as under-performing ... when really they could have been just as good if not better.

Or actually, good decision making in that resources were shifted to areas of the economy that generated more wealth than a mature, simple industry that could be replicated in many countries around the world. If we'd stuck with textiles, coal mining, etc, etc we'd now have living standards equivalent to a developing nation.

Yes dear. That's right.





Building a sewerage system and then simply leaving it for 100 years was a good shift of resources, for instance.

If you care to look it up, you'll find that the major coal mining countries are also the major coal-consuming countries, these countries have a better security of supply than we do.
They include such "developing" nations as the USA, Australia and Germany.
Coal mining was virtually wiped-out in the UK, not for economic reasons but rather to fit Thatcher's idealogy.

Even in the reduced area of textiles, the best in the world are quality English, Italian and Swiss fabrics.

I guess you'll be telling us next that we don't make decent cars any more because the British workforce is crap?

Going back to the textile industry, it's decline really set in the 1930s when the USA's rextile industry out-competed it. It was in terminal decline thereafter.