Shopping & Style1 min ago
A Trip Into Future Britain?
37 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
“The project in the link is intended to arouse assistance from the 1st World to help people in the 3rd.”
Er...why should this be? Nobody helped the UK when it had its share of shanty-like accommodation, lack of sewerage facilities, and overcrowding. No, people here had to improve their own conditions, build their own infrastructure and generally do it themselves. If we had not there is every chance that we would still have open sewers, still live ten to a room and still be riddled with dysentery. The current population of the UK is enjoying the fruits of the labours of their ancestors. There is no reason to expect them to provide money and gifts for those elsewhere. Before the government expands its munificence towards other nations it needs to put right the many shortcomings at home (for which it says it has insufficient funds). There are plenty of nations who have far more spare cash than the UK. When they have exhausted all their spare change funding the “Third World” I’ll consider giving some of mine.
Er...why should this be? Nobody helped the UK when it had its share of shanty-like accommodation, lack of sewerage facilities, and overcrowding. No, people here had to improve their own conditions, build their own infrastructure and generally do it themselves. If we had not there is every chance that we would still have open sewers, still live ten to a room and still be riddled with dysentery. The current population of the UK is enjoying the fruits of the labours of their ancestors. There is no reason to expect them to provide money and gifts for those elsewhere. Before the government expands its munificence towards other nations it needs to put right the many shortcomings at home (for which it says it has insufficient funds). There are plenty of nations who have far more spare cash than the UK. When they have exhausted all their spare change funding the “Third World” I’ll consider giving some of mine.
Despite the "mass immigration" unemployment has fallen to its lowest level in 4 years. In the 3 months to November, unemployment fell by almost 100,000.
There are currently more people working ( natives and immigrants together) in this country than there has ever been before. 30,000,000 employed with an increase of 250,000 employed in the period May to June this year.
Without the extra people (natives and immigrants) in work, paying National Insurance and Income Tax, and VAT on the money they spend, the country would be deeper in the mire than it already is.
There are currently more people working ( natives and immigrants together) in this country than there has ever been before. 30,000,000 employed with an increase of 250,000 employed in the period May to June this year.
Without the extra people (natives and immigrants) in work, paying National Insurance and Income Tax, and VAT on the money they spend, the country would be deeper in the mire than it already is.
I think I’ve shown, Graham, that those on low pay are unlikely to make much - if any- contribution to the nation’s finances.
As far as the record numbers in work go, I’m sure you’re aware that large numbers of the newly employed work in part time posts. The holders of these posts make even smaller contributions to the tax and NI take and are eligible for higher working tax and child tax credits. The ONS statistics suggest that there are more than 1.5m people (that’s 5% of the 30m) working part time (many of them having their pay topped up by the taxpayer) because they cannot find full time work. There is very little point in importing people to do half a job and then fund the other half of their pay via Tax Credits.
I’m afraid the view that because record numbers are in work then everything is hunky-dory is a myth that the government will not go out of its way to dispel. You need to look beyond the headlines.
As far as the record numbers in work go, I’m sure you’re aware that large numbers of the newly employed work in part time posts. The holders of these posts make even smaller contributions to the tax and NI take and are eligible for higher working tax and child tax credits. The ONS statistics suggest that there are more than 1.5m people (that’s 5% of the 30m) working part time (many of them having their pay topped up by the taxpayer) because they cannot find full time work. There is very little point in importing people to do half a job and then fund the other half of their pay via Tax Credits.
I’m afraid the view that because record numbers are in work then everything is hunky-dory is a myth that the government will not go out of its way to dispel. You need to look beyond the headlines.
Yes, what exactly are these fruits which we are currently enjoying, Kromo?
The UK has largely abandoned its trade with the former Empire (mainly thanks to the EU). It has absorbed large numbers of people from the former colonies. When we left those lands were left in substantially better nick than they were before we arrived. Alas shamefully they have, with a few notable exceptions, regressed since our departure into the type of cesspits which are the original subject of this question.
The UK prospered in the days of its wicked imperialism because of the entrepreneurial attitude of its people who were prepared to "get things done" both here and abroad. It's the fruits of that which today's Britons are enjoying and there is nothing to stop people in other nations making a similar effort to improve their lot. Instead of doing so they up sticks and head for richer pastures elsewhere where all the work has already been done.
The UK has largely abandoned its trade with the former Empire (mainly thanks to the EU). It has absorbed large numbers of people from the former colonies. When we left those lands were left in substantially better nick than they were before we arrived. Alas shamefully they have, with a few notable exceptions, regressed since our departure into the type of cesspits which are the original subject of this question.
The UK prospered in the days of its wicked imperialism because of the entrepreneurial attitude of its people who were prepared to "get things done" both here and abroad. It's the fruits of that which today's Britons are enjoying and there is nothing to stop people in other nations making a similar effort to improve their lot. Instead of doing so they up sticks and head for richer pastures elsewhere where all the work has already been done.
I was more trying to contribute to the discussion that had already been raised about our past/historic prosperity rather than Britain's present-day economy.
But our Industrial revolution was built on colonies. Check out the research of Ken Pomeranz, particularly his figures for 'ghost acreage.' Basically, Britain had access to huge areas of arable land through colonies, which allowed it to use 'spare' land for industrial purposes back home (this was made easier, of course, by the fact that we happened to have large deposits of coal in areas that were relatively easy to transport to/from).
See more here (about half way down)
http://
Plus during the C19, UK producers (whether they knew it or not) often had markets stacked significantly in their favour - the East India Company had a deliberate policy of trashing local textile industries in order to force people to buy products that were from Europe. They also had a habit of forcing farmers (usually at gunpoint) to stop growing subsistence crops and instead grow opium, which was just about the only thing funding British trade with China. This latter trade has been found to have been particularly huge, and was pumping huge amounts of money into the developing British economy for decades.
"When we left those lands were left in substantially better nick than they were before we arrived. "
This is certainly true in some places. Others it's not so apparent, and others it's unknowable because the British were there for centuries (and unfortunately we can't run history twice to see how they would have done otherwise and the time gap is far too long to judge how they would have developed independently). Certainly Japan and Thailand were never colonized by any European power and seem to have done fine on their own.
Basically, I'm not saying the UK benefits particularly from Empire in the here and now. It doesn't have an empire to benefit from anymore. But I do think it's a little narrow-minded to say that the UK developed off of its own back without affecting any other nations, when a significant part of the UK's modernization would have been unthinkable without imperialism.
But our Industrial revolution was built on colonies. Check out the research of Ken Pomeranz, particularly his figures for 'ghost acreage.' Basically, Britain had access to huge areas of arable land through colonies, which allowed it to use 'spare' land for industrial purposes back home (this was made easier, of course, by the fact that we happened to have large deposits of coal in areas that were relatively easy to transport to/from).
See more here (about half way down)
http://
Plus during the C19, UK producers (whether they knew it or not) often had markets stacked significantly in their favour - the East India Company had a deliberate policy of trashing local textile industries in order to force people to buy products that were from Europe. They also had a habit of forcing farmers (usually at gunpoint) to stop growing subsistence crops and instead grow opium, which was just about the only thing funding British trade with China. This latter trade has been found to have been particularly huge, and was pumping huge amounts of money into the developing British economy for decades.
"When we left those lands were left in substantially better nick than they were before we arrived. "
This is certainly true in some places. Others it's not so apparent, and others it's unknowable because the British were there for centuries (and unfortunately we can't run history twice to see how they would have done otherwise and the time gap is far too long to judge how they would have developed independently). Certainly Japan and Thailand were never colonized by any European power and seem to have done fine on their own.
Basically, I'm not saying the UK benefits particularly from Empire in the here and now. It doesn't have an empire to benefit from anymore. But I do think it's a little narrow-minded to say that the UK developed off of its own back without affecting any other nations, when a significant part of the UK's modernization would have been unthinkable without imperialism.
too simplistic an argument, points, but poor, ordinary folk in Britain didn't benefit from empire for the most part, those who did were the well to do, who made money from a variety of businesses, sugar being one, on the backs of slavery of blacks, vile trade that it was.
industrialisation came about because of people like Brunel, Stephenson, Edison, Cure, Bell, but we were a stinky backwater until quite late into the 19th Century into the early 20th Century.
most people's lives didn't really improve until fairly recent days. Outside privies were the lot of many, as were living cheek by jowl, disease was rife, smallpox, chicken pox, TB killed millions, unsanitary, unsafe homes and businesses.
modernisation has taken a long time in coming. Change of laws on equality, homosexuality, racism has also taken a long time to implement, but it's here now. That we are a relatively modern wealthy country now is generally on the backs of those who built Britain from the neck up that includes those men and women i have quoted, those who worked in the coal mines, factories, steel and cotton industry, hard, dirty, dangerous work. Then the wars came and changed the entire hierarchical structure, the time of Lords and Ladies of means is by and large gone, taken by the changing times, modernity. Thank goodness, however what we have seen in the large 50 or so is large scale immigration from countries that had little or nothing to offer this country,
and i am not specifically referring to the West Indians who were invited in because of the shortage of manpower after the war. They came in relatively small numbers in reality, most settled and raised families, but since that time peoples have come from any part of the world one could think of. Some have made a contribution but we are left with many problems, not least cultural, religious. Hiding one's head in the sand as our politicians have done has not helped. Just a little snapshot of our area has seen it go from not so much well to do but pleasant, neighbourly, to a down at heel ghetto. Unpleasant to me is that there is no so called cohesion, much of the groundwork of good housing, schools is being undone by a number of factors, one being far too many people for too few services. Oversubscribed surgeries, hospitals, schools. I only have to look around me to see this, London is now swollen to capacity with such people, we should be going up in the world not coming down to third world status.
We may well have the need for new blood to keep us competitive, that should come from educated peoples, not the importation of the worlds poor, sorry if it's harsh but that is my viewpoint. Our coupling with the EEC was for internal trade, a very good idea, but what we have now has exceeded that remit beyond all recognition, not something i see as a good thing. Vince Cable a man i dislike, said that unfettered immigration has been a good thing, that it's not without merit that Britons go abroad to work, live, true. however as i have pointed out numerous times, they generally do so with an education under their belt and money in the bank to settle in their designated country, not land on the doorstep without those skills and capital to start that new life.
industrialisation came about because of people like Brunel, Stephenson, Edison, Cure, Bell, but we were a stinky backwater until quite late into the 19th Century into the early 20th Century.
most people's lives didn't really improve until fairly recent days. Outside privies were the lot of many, as were living cheek by jowl, disease was rife, smallpox, chicken pox, TB killed millions, unsanitary, unsafe homes and businesses.
modernisation has taken a long time in coming. Change of laws on equality, homosexuality, racism has also taken a long time to implement, but it's here now. That we are a relatively modern wealthy country now is generally on the backs of those who built Britain from the neck up that includes those men and women i have quoted, those who worked in the coal mines, factories, steel and cotton industry, hard, dirty, dangerous work. Then the wars came and changed the entire hierarchical structure, the time of Lords and Ladies of means is by and large gone, taken by the changing times, modernity. Thank goodness, however what we have seen in the large 50 or so is large scale immigration from countries that had little or nothing to offer this country,
and i am not specifically referring to the West Indians who were invited in because of the shortage of manpower after the war. They came in relatively small numbers in reality, most settled and raised families, but since that time peoples have come from any part of the world one could think of. Some have made a contribution but we are left with many problems, not least cultural, religious. Hiding one's head in the sand as our politicians have done has not helped. Just a little snapshot of our area has seen it go from not so much well to do but pleasant, neighbourly, to a down at heel ghetto. Unpleasant to me is that there is no so called cohesion, much of the groundwork of good housing, schools is being undone by a number of factors, one being far too many people for too few services. Oversubscribed surgeries, hospitals, schools. I only have to look around me to see this, London is now swollen to capacity with such people, we should be going up in the world not coming down to third world status.
We may well have the need for new blood to keep us competitive, that should come from educated peoples, not the importation of the worlds poor, sorry if it's harsh but that is my viewpoint. Our coupling with the EEC was for internal trade, a very good idea, but what we have now has exceeded that remit beyond all recognition, not something i see as a good thing. Vince Cable a man i dislike, said that unfettered immigration has been a good thing, that it's not without merit that Britons go abroad to work, live, true. however as i have pointed out numerous times, they generally do so with an education under their belt and money in the bank to settle in their designated country, not land on the doorstep without those skills and capital to start that new life.
emmie
I'm afraid that, contrary to what we are taught in school, British industrialisation and modern development would not have been possible without the fact that we had colonies.
One big factor in this, as I mentioned before, was 'ghost acreage'. Britain had huge tracts of land spare that it would otherwise have had to dedicate to food production. Why? Because it was importing huge quantities from colonies.
A good summary is available here:
http://
Basically without colonies, we would simply not have been able to produce cotton, or feed people on anything like the scale necessary.
"poor, ordinary folk in Britain didn't benefit from empire for the most part, those who did were the well to do"
In the late C19 (from about the 1860s onwards if I remember right), standards of living and wages in Britain even for the working classes were significantly higher, on average, than on the continent. This is because, by and large, consumer products (including food) were cheaper, and wages tended to be slightly higher, and British enterprises had easy-access markets abroad where the odds were stacked considerably in their favour.
None of this means that there wasn't huge poverty in Victorian England. There was. But for its time, the level of prosperity enjoyed by the UK was pretty unprecedented.
This is not a particularly controversial view among economic historians. For at least the past 15-20 years, the role of empire in creating industrialisation has just been supported by mountains of evidence.
I'm afraid that, contrary to what we are taught in school, British industrialisation and modern development would not have been possible without the fact that we had colonies.
One big factor in this, as I mentioned before, was 'ghost acreage'. Britain had huge tracts of land spare that it would otherwise have had to dedicate to food production. Why? Because it was importing huge quantities from colonies.
A good summary is available here:
http://
Basically without colonies, we would simply not have been able to produce cotton, or feed people on anything like the scale necessary.
"poor, ordinary folk in Britain didn't benefit from empire for the most part, those who did were the well to do"
In the late C19 (from about the 1860s onwards if I remember right), standards of living and wages in Britain even for the working classes were significantly higher, on average, than on the continent. This is because, by and large, consumer products (including food) were cheaper, and wages tended to be slightly higher, and British enterprises had easy-access markets abroad where the odds were stacked considerably in their favour.
None of this means that there wasn't huge poverty in Victorian England. There was. But for its time, the level of prosperity enjoyed by the UK was pretty unprecedented.
This is not a particularly controversial view among economic historians. For at least the past 15-20 years, the role of empire in creating industrialisation has just been supported by mountains of evidence.
Kromovaracun
/// It's also enjoying the fruits of Empire. The UK's growth and development from the late C18 to the middle-twentieth was inextricably linked with imperialism. ///
Britain wasn't alone in this enjoying the fruits of their exploration, this type of thing went on from the dawn of time by all the tribes of all the inhabited countries of the World.
Why should Britain alone be singled out for criticism?
/// It's also enjoying the fruits of Empire. The UK's growth and development from the late C18 to the middle-twentieth was inextricably linked with imperialism. ///
Britain wasn't alone in this enjoying the fruits of their exploration, this type of thing went on from the dawn of time by all the tribes of all the inhabited countries of the World.
Why should Britain alone be singled out for criticism?
Well, Britain is only singled out here because it's Britain we happen to be talking about. You could say much the same thing for France, or the Netherlands, or (in a different way) Spain.
And I'm not really criticising the country itself to be honest. My feelings on the whole towards Britain are neither particularly good or particularly bad. I'm criticising the idea that was going around earlier that Britain developed purely on the basis of its own enterprise and "going it alone." This is true, but we also had the odds significantly stacked in our favour by being a beneficiary of empire.
And I'm not really criticising the country itself to be honest. My feelings on the whole towards Britain are neither particularly good or particularly bad. I'm criticising the idea that was going around earlier that Britain developed purely on the basis of its own enterprise and "going it alone." This is true, but we also had the odds significantly stacked in our favour by being a beneficiary of empire.
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Film, Media & TV5 mins ago
News7 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.