Mr Chakrabortty\’s talking bollocks again!

Meanwhile Britain has been undergoing one of the biggest industrial declines seen in postwar western Europe. When Thatcher came to power, manufacturing accounted for almost 30% of Britain\’s national income and employed 6.8 million people. By the time Brown left Downing Street last May, it was down to just over 11% of the economy, with a workforce of 2.5 million. (Two caveats need to be made. First, manufacturing is partly a productivity game: you get more machines in, so you employ fewer staff on a particular task. Second, other countries have stepped back a bit from manufacturing – all those new Labour-isms about the competitive threat from China and India were not just babble.)

Even so, by any standards these numbers represent a collapse.

What fucking collapse you ignorant troll?

\"\"

And then we get:

As the government itself admits, no other major economy has been through our scale of de-industrialisation. The Germans and French have kept their big domestic brand names – the Mercedes and Mieles, the Renaults and Peugeots – and with them their supply chains of smaller suppliers and partners. In Britain there\’s been no such industrial husbandry, with the result that we have few big manufacturers left – but a profusion of bit-part makers. Is that a bad thing? Plenty of evidence suggests so. Bad economically, and terrible socially and culturally.

Oh rilly?

\"\"

Everybody\’s manufacturing sector is shrinking, manufacturing is shrinking as a percentage of the entire world economy. And if you think this is unique to the UK what the fuck do you think has happened over in France?

Honestly, this is fuckwittery of the first order.

Aditya Chakrabortty\’s talk on the de-industrial revolution is on Radio 3, 18 November, 10pm.

Yup, you\’re all paying to have this claptrap broadcast to the nation.

17 comments on “Mr Chakrabortty\’s talking bollocks again!

  1. It was an extraordinarily poor article, almost entirely lacking in any statistics or evidence at all.

    Was an interesting snippet though that Regional Development Agencies spend their money on producing leaflets encouraging kids to fish.

  2. “Radio 3, 18 November, 10pm”
    Shouldn’t think I’ll be amongst the three people listening to that then. And wtf? Thought R3 was the classical music channel. They running short of Birtwhistle? Now there was a guy really knew his unintelligible rubbish.

  3. This whole thing of making a distinction for “manufacturing” is daft. If someone works as a tea lady and is employed by Honda, that counts as a manufacturing job. If someone installs a coffee machine, that’s service.

    Does a company like Mind Candy that produces the online Moshi Monsters game count as manufacturing? Why is their a distinction between mass producing value-added bytes of information and mass producing value-added bits of steel? And why do companies like get classed as manufacturing when what they really do is bespoke craftsmanship?

  4. “manufacturing accounted for almost 30% of Britain’s national income and employed 6.8 million people”

    usual mistake/ploy of confusing/substituting manufacturing jobs for output.

  5. bloke in spain.
    R3 is gradually being turned into a talk station, the presenters have begun to take centre stage and we’re even getting celebrity guests now. Only a matter of time before it becomes unlistenable to.

  6. Sometimes I wonder if the data is misinterpreted because of certain aspects of manufacturing being outsourced and reclassified as services. In a big, integrated firm, things like HR etc might get done in-house; nowadays, it is more likely to be farmed out.

    I liked this book by Evan Davis in which he pointed out that Britain’s output is a lot more complex than sweeping generalisations suggest. Here is a link: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Made-Britain-Evan-Davis/dp/1408703300/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1321526174&sr=8-1

  7. >Yup, you’re all paying to have this claptrap
    >broadcast to the nation.

    Well, I am not. Note to TV licensing: threatening letters that purport to explain what will happen when I am taken to court are less impressive when they are addressed to “The Legal Occupier”.

  8. >Yup, you’re all paying to have this claptrap broadcast to the nation.

    Nor me – we don’t have telly down in Dorset.

  9. The Germans and French have kept their big domestic brand names – the Mercedes and Mieles, the Renaults and Peugeots – and with them their supply chains of smaller suppliers and partners.

    Why do lefties only consider manufacturing to be manufacturing if it produces stuff they recognise? And why do they care who owns the factory? In the last week I’ve dealt with Tyco – and American company manufacturing control valves in Leicestershire – and Emerson – an American company manufacturing subsea equipment in Leeds, neither of which a Guardian journalist would ever of heard of, and would in any case probably dismiss on the grounds that the factory owners are not British.

    I’m pretty sure it’s not manufacturing that these lefties want, but the political clout that an enormous unionised workforce wields.

  10. Pingback: British manufacturing decline… « Behind Blue Eyes

  11. I used to live near some huge factories that manufacture food – canned wotsits, processed meat, loaves of bread, ready-meals. Genuinely industrial stuff. But not the first thing that comes to mind when people think about “manufacturing”. (But does the little baker around the corner count? Or meat-processing when performed by a local butcher?)

  12. I second your rant, but also what the HELL is this rubbish doing on Radio 3?

    It’s supposed to be a bloody Classical Music channel ferchrissake.

    Instead of which, stupid drama, stupid ignorant lectures, endless chat during what music programmes do remain, stupid ignorant chatty presenters, and too much bloody jazz.

    Jazz! What has that got to do with serious music? And it’s all over every other airwave anyway.

    No wonder they call it Radio 2.5 now.

    Oh, sorry. Got a bit carried away there…

  13. Tim Newman,

    Why do lefties only consider manufacturing to be manufacturing if it produces stuff they recognise?

    How many lefties have run a business? Their interaction is as a consumer or a worker for the government. How much interaction do they have with buying anything or building anything for their job?

  14. “How much interaction do they have with buying anything or building anything for their job?”

    Gather round & I’ll tell you a story I heard from a welder pal.
    He’d always worked away on the rigs etc but due to family reasons needed to be UKside for a while so got a job on the council. First day, he’s given a drawing to make some gates. Draws some steel from stores, cuts all the pieces according to drawing, chalks out his plan on the shop floor & goes for his tea break. When he gets back, he sets out all the bits, welds them up, does the same with the second gate & he’s done. Goes to find the foreman before lunch.
    Foreman goes apeshit. Tells him to lose the gates, hide them, cut them up. That’s supposed to be a weeks work for him & the ‘assistant’ who hadn’t shown that day.
    Answer your question?

  15. Andrew Duffin

    Rant away about R3. It’s losing its marbles.

    But it has always had a tendency towards chatter. Do you remember that awful programme “Talking About Music”? It used to play a short excerpt of a piece then give detailed analysis of the rest of it, which it didn’t play. Maddening. I spent four years at the Royal College of Music and did a London University music degree, in the course of which I did enough Talking About Music to last a lifetime. Now I just want to listen to the music, not some pompous ass talking about it – as if he knows more about it than I do, which he probably doesn’t.

    On the subject of jazz, though, I’m afraid it is now considered “serious music”. It features on the curricula of the top music conservatoires (including my alma mater) and has its own suite of Associated Board examinations.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.