Busy busy busy today.  These caught my eye however.

Tim Montgomerie is making an explicit push for Christian votes here.  I think it is worth reading this in conjuction with the Reportage of Chris Cook on this subject, and the tensions within Conservativism caused by this:

Two years after being exiled by Michael Howard, a small group of Christian Tories was defining the party’s social policy. Today, the CSJ says it has crafted a full 70 Conservative policies. Among the secular members of the party machine, there is unease about that sort of influence. The use of the CSJ’s research, in particular, causes concern. One official – who, like all party staff I spoke to, refused to go on the record – said: “Their hearts are in the right place, but loads of their stuff is ropey. They just seem to make up statistics or use dodgy assumptions.”

I had not heard that said about the Centre for Social Justice before.  But I had heard this, of course:

And while poverty brought Montgomerie and Cameron together, another “decontaminating” element of the modern Tory platform may yet divide them: climate change. Montgomerie has become increasingly vocal in his scepticism. As he said just two months ago: “It is an issue that can split conservative parties around the world.” Cameroons, take note.

Dillow has written a typically excellent piece linking business investment figures to dearth of profitable opportunities, and the possible incompatibility of full employment with globalisation.  In part his conclusions are similar to this from Ed Conway:

In part, inequality is a natural consequence of globalisation. When a company shifts factories overseas, the shareholders make more money, but the workers lose their jobs. Optimists claim that this wealth should trickle down to those unemployed workers as the shareholders go out and spend more, but reality has proved otherwise

As a free trading liberal, I find this dismaying.  And hope to deal with it in another post…

Another reason unemployment may be high may come from workers’ preferences.  See what Buttonwood thought of a programme about returning immigrants.

So the programme got three employers in Wisbech (a Fenland town close to where I grew up) to take on British unemployed workers instead of the eastern Europeans on whom they normally relied. One genial owner of an Indian restaurant offered four jobs for waiters and trainee cooks; three of the four failed to turn up on the first day. The other lad was baffled by “all these Indian names” for food although Indian meals are nowadays as British as roast beef; he lasted for about two hours, including one walk-out.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Christian Tories, and globalisation causing unemployment

  1. “In part, inequality is a natural consequence of globalisation. When a company shifts factories overseas, the shareholders make more money, but the workers lose their jobs. Optimists claim that this wealth should trickle down to those unemployed workers as the shareholders go out and spend more, but reality has proved otherwise”

    I recall the claim that wealth would trickle down to unemployed workers etc being bandied about during the Thatcher era. I think they are still waiting and the UK seems to have become more unequal (in terms of wealth), not less.

    1. There’s no “seems” about it – the UK is much more unequal, largely due to astronomical gains at the top, with very little improvement of incomes for the bottom half or so (i.e not only has the top grown faster than the bottom, but the bottom half has *barely* grown). I wish I had the graphs to hand – they make for scary viewing.

      1. I think the IFS has shown that the median has risen by 2% per year or thereabouts for most of Labour’s time. I think inequality, without the very very top and very very bottom, has broadly improved a little, thanks to redistributive budgets. I dispute your ‘bottom half’…

      2. You’re probably right about the “bottom half”. What is your “very very” in percentile terms?

        I still can’t find those graphs (damn my lack of organisation) but the executive summary here (http://www.ifs.org.uk/comms/c109.pdf) says that inequality only improved in Labour’s second term and that overall incomes are at their most unequal since 1961 (for “most measures”). I admit to not reading the main report, maybe that’ll be my task for this evening (much more entertaining than what I’m supposed to be doing at any rate!).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s