It's the main thing we can compete on globally and when you get down to it, it's the only thing that really matters and will impact and benefit not just ourselves, but all future generations.
"Finance, Science and Technology" are not the only world class industries in the UK that benefit the United Kingdom and the world.
For example, the City of London's Livery Companies represent:
Mercers (general merchants), Grocers (spice merchants), Drapers (wool and cloth merchants), Fishmongers, Goldsmiths (bullion dealers), Skinners* (fur traders), Merchant Taylors* (tailors), Haberdashers (clothiers in sewn and fine materials, eg. silk & velvet), Salters (traders of salts and chemicals), Ironmongers, Vintners (wine merchants), Clothworkers, Dyers, Brewers, Leathersellers, Pewterers (pewter and metal manufacturers), Barbers (incl. surgeons and dentists, since people used to have surgery/dentistry by the most experienced human cutters... Barbers), Cutlers (knife, sword and utensil makers), Bakers, Wax Chandlers (wax candle makers), Tallow Chandlers (tallow candle makers), Armourers and Brasiers (armour makers and brass workers), Girdlers (belt and girdle makers), Butchers, Saddlers, Carpenters, Cordwainers (fine leather workers and shoemakers), Painter-Stainers, Curriers (leather dressers and tanners), Masons (stonemasons), Plumbers, Innholders (tavern keepers), Founders (metal casters and melters), Poulters (poulterers), Cooks, Coopers (barrel and cask makers), Tylers and Bricklayers (builders), Bowyers (long-bow makers), Fletchers (arrow makers), Blacksmiths, Joiners and Ceilers (wood craftsmen), Weavers, Woolmen, Scriveners (court scribes and notaries public), Fruiterers, Plaisterers (plasterers), Stationers and Newspaper Makers (journalists and publishers), Broderers (embroiderers), Upholders (upholsterers), Musicians, Turners (lathe operators), Basketmakers, Glaziers and Painters of Glass, Horners (horn workers and plasticians), Farriers (horseshoe makers and horse veterinarians), Paviors (road and highway pavers), Loriners (equestrian bit, bridle and spur suppliers), Apothecaries (physicians and pharmacists), Shipwrights (shipbuilders and maritime professionals), Spectacle Makers, Clockmakers, Glovers, Feltmakers (hat makers), Framework Knitters, Needlemakers, Gardeners, Tin Plate Workers, Wheelwrights, Distillers, Pattenmakers (wooden-shoe makers), Glass Sellers, Coachmakers and Coach Harness Makers (now for cars), Gunmakers, Gold and Silver Wyre Drawers (threadmakers for military and society clothing), Makers of Playing Cards, Fanmakers, Carmen (vehicle drivers), Master Mariners, City of London Solicitors' Company (lawyers), Farmers, Air Pilots, Tobacco Pipe Makers and Tobacco Blenders, Furniture Makers, Scientific Instrument Makers, Chartered Surveyors, Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, Chartered Secretaries and Administrators, Builders Merchants, Launderers, Marketors, Actuaries, Insurers, Arbitrators, Engineers, Fuellers, Lightmongers (electric lighting suppliers), Environmental Cleaners, Chartered Architects, Constructors, Information Technologists, World Traders, Water Conservators, Firefighters, Hackney Carriage Drivers (licensed taxicab drivers), Management Consultants, International Bankers, Tax Advisers, Security Professionals, Educators and Arts Scholars.
I believe every single trade known to mankind that is not illegal by British law is represented. My favourite are the wax workers because they contribute much to bee conservation <3
With each of them contributing to innovation, expansion and conservation of their industries and their sources. That is for the
City of London, not counting just under a million businesses being run in London or the 4 million businesses ran across the United Kingdom doing every job known under the sun. Of all those businesses, 90,000 of them are in Finance & Insurance, 687,000 are in Science and Tech.
What could possibly make sense about destroying millions of businesses to cater to Fin, Sci and Tech - when all three are already world-class? It doesn't even work like that, our workers who end up in forestry, construction, catering, education, fashion, the arts e.t.c. are not likely to be people interested in going into STEM or Finance.
There are two main ways to accomplish this, either the establishment of a lower working 'slave class' which supports the 'intellectual elite', or a system encouraging the development of and ascension to the innovative/creator roles for people of all backgrounds.
I've already commented on the whole "either we choose nuclear holocaust or make some toast" comparisons but the whole notion of creating a system for "innovative/creator roles for people of all backgrounds" fails on three points:
- In your system there are no mechanisms for an educated elite to not simply consolidate generation upon generation their "innovative/creator role"
- Your system supports mass migration to have unskilled labour, when the whole system is fundamentally designed to eliminate the need for unskilled labour. The new migrants would then have to be integrated and brought up to standard so they may join in on the innovative and creator role at cost of the taxpayer they are replacing... Which creates a gap of unskilled jobs without workmen that the system promised to render obsolete on top of top demographic bants. Where have I seen this before? Unless of course the real plan is to create an oppressed caste of disenfranchised unskilled workers, which just ends up producing criminal gangs which drain on society.
- The notion of an "innovative/creator role" is interesting. I have never seen a job title like it, the closest I can think of is an entrepreneur or inventor. Innovation is done by workers who have experience and expertise in their fields, capable of identifying opportunities unexploited or problems unsolved. It's not taught out of a textbook; such a move would be a waste of time and money that would risk steering away our most scientifically adept students from actually pioneering fields of work in scientific research, clinical trials, engineering (basically, STEM).
The imposition of a class system via segregation from youth and with different tracks of education is simply not as efficient as it gives a smaller resource pool to draw from for innovation, knowledge and advancement. This environment is a good description on Britain circa the industrial revolution, but is not sufficient for the modern world. Needless to say, it may of been necessary then, but it has allowed us to pave the way to something better.
Whilst reading this I could hear the screams of old sons of England burning through steam pipes
This environment is not a good description on Britain circa the industrial revolution.
1833, Factory Act, the government makes two hours of daily education compulsory for children working in factories, and begins allocating funds to charities providing free education to children.
1844, Ragged Schools Union forms. Ragged Schools were charity schools that taught impoverished children numeracy, literacy, Christianity, provided food, clothing, lodging - and when they formed the Union, were able to pool together their resources to increase in scope and organization. Crucially, they were able to begin expand teaching into industrial and commercial fields.
1868, The Public Schools Act (1868) reforms the top public schools of that time (of which most are still the top today). Not for reasons of accessibility mind you, for reasons of expanding the curriculum.
1880, the Education Act makes school attendance compulsory for children up to the age of 10. Factory owners feared losing a great source of cheap labour, but the ensuing expansion in manufacturing and innovation caused by a new generation of literate and numerate workers ushered in the wealthiest period of British civilization. But what we really need is cheap labour lmao
1902, Education Act passed founding the secondary school system, to further develop on literacy and numeracy to more advanced subjects.
Also around this time whilst our elite Universities were off teaching Latin, new Universities were founded in places like Birmingham and Bristol focusing on what we now call STEM - places that would be come central hubs of industrialization.
To do this we need a high quality school system with free (or cheap, I'll allow for cheap) access to education, churning out large numbers of educated experts and innovators capable of entering and bolstering those industries.
Our education system is already world quality. There is currently the issue in how our teachers of state primary and secondary schools are ideologically opposed to working methods in favour of dysfunctional teaching methods that fail our students. It's honestly disgusting that people can look at British kids failing to compete with kids whose 2nd language is English and think "mission accomplished." Fundamentally nothing can be done to reform this mess without in some way challenging the control of the teachers' unions. Unbelievable that they legitimately warned our (now former) education secretary not to identify successful British schools because it made teachers from other schools uncomfortable.
It should make them uncomfortable that they're failing their students and don't know how to do their jobs. First things first, education standards in the teachers themselves need to be upped immensely, they need to be able to teach if students are at all expected to learn from them.
Secondly the pressure for all kids to go to Uni to acquire useless degrees needs to stop. Getting a job, learning trades, becoming specialists - if we can't bring back trade schools due to union opposition, then we can call them technician schools or simply defer to apprenticeships. Really begin telling students about how they could better plan their future careers, from getting work experience to their first jobs, to using those jobs to get onto access courses/integrated degrees/degrees and use those to further promote their careers, instead of ending up with a useless degree, no career and massive student debt. For Universities give massive sponsorship to talented and keen students wishing to enter highly competitive degrees like STEM, Economics, Law e.t.c. - to international and national students. This creates a very socially mobile system based off of merit, with most of the students in the former category (far be it being left behind from the students with competitive degrees), often earning more (doctors pays are shit).
Furthermore an expert or innovator is not born out of a book. One cannot mass produce experts from a Uni mill, you get an expert from someone who's been living the field for decades and understands how it works. This is really obvious and goes without saying, but it has to be said anyways. Vocational degrees, conversion courses, sandwich courses, offer even more options for those who want to gain work experience and an academic qualification for their field of work. There are so many options available, not just "slavery or technocratic neoliberalism." Those are just options available to students in place NOW, not options we could implement.
Affordable healthcare helps keep those numbers high too, as then people do not need to sabotage their future for their health. Public (as in government) ownership and oversight is required for these things, as corporate interests are too often and too easily immediate profit oriented, and so at odds with that long-term goal.
We cannot get any cheaper than free healthcare, and I do not see how students sabotage their future for their health. A student is capable of going to Uni and not drinking and drugging their liver into paradise :
P
As old industries inevitably are made irrelevant and die in the rapidly evolving market of the world, we need a strong welfare system able to support and retrain people to work the new industries. This system can also simultaneously be used to catch people who fall through the cracks of schooling, training them to enter the service industries.
That sounds like a good idea, (specifically, retraining individuals who have devoted their lives to an industry that has been made obsolete). I would not entrust it to the welfare system however, as our social services are mentally ill and could not save a life even if the life wasn't in peril to begin with. There are many routes to retraining, both private and public, this is not something that would be aided by stifling it with bureaucracy. I'm also rather disturbed by your vision of the service industry to say the least, or what you mean by those who fall through the cracks of the education system.
Our welfare system has failed to support the people of those industries, leaving them abandoned and disenfranchised by the advancements that should of brought only benefits to their lives. The systems of support that the government have so recklessly cut in the name of austerity must be revitalised.
I like virtue signalling, because it means people want to do good, or at least care enough to appear good. I like a good plan more than good appearances by far though. Putting large sums of unemployed people on benefits until the money borrowed runs out is not a long term solution, it's not even a short term one. Money spent on regeneration projects, or better yet, money spent from international investors on regeneration projects have been far better use of the money towards increasing the growth of Britain's former industrial centres instead of merely having them languishing on the government dole. The United Kingdom could benefit greatly from greater transport links, though I am critical of the highspeed railway, I am hopeful someone comes up with a better version that will not merely end up concentrating greater wealth to London. Oh! And one thing that has certainly helped immensely has been giving greater autonomy to local councils and devolved governance, so that they may spend their taxes on local projects they understand most of all will benefit their communities the most.
Long gone are the days where a person can work the same basic job cradle to grave. We must embrace the ever-changing nature of the modern world, and accept the reality that no matter what job you are doing now, some part of it will be irrelevant in ten years.
"Transferable skills" - a phrase good Londoners learn before they can walk. Don't know about the rest of the UK, but they seem to produce workers with even more transferable skills than London, where urbanites tend to specialize in one subject of one field to become a consultant. Much of what doctors did in 2000 for example has been made entirely irrelevant, which is why they are continually learning and adapting to the changes in their work environment. It seems rather odd to pretend this is something new, it is something the United Kingdom's workers have been doing since the Romans invaded :]
And then their children will be able to enter the British system and achieve the above, bringing further resources and pools of talent into this country.
But zero incentives mentioned for the benefit of large, strong family units? If so much emphasis is placed on the atomised professional, then the value of a parent teaching their child their professional skills, or helping them gain work experience, or having them branch the family business is gone - furthermore, the nation ends up wholly addicted to immigration, further exacerbating its dependency and social issues. It also seems to be making a rather odd strategic choice, rather than seek to elevate British children into higher talent pools on the global workplace, and to additionally bolster our workplace with proven talented workers from around the world - why take unskilled workers from around the world, provide them family welfare and then educate their children into the global talent pool? There is an obvious stage of redundancy here.
Recruit skilled migrant workers. Teach British children good. Keep enrolling talented students from abroad. Result: Success for everyone. Leave the German strategy for the Germans, and let them reap the rewards for their plans.
Universities must cooperate on international projects with other university's around the world.
They already do, on many many levels. Foreign exchange, student swaps, language courses, research collaboration - this has been reality for a very long time m8. This is not something Unis "must do," this is what Unis do business as usual.
In keeping with the themes of both scientific innovation and future generations, a key field of UK research must be in alternative energy sources to fossil fuels. This creates whole new industries whilst working to protect the environment for our children and children's children. Another win-win scenario where ethics and practicality line up.
Here's a gov index on government grants for low-carbon energy research grants for youAs the possible benefactors and markets of technology and science are not just limited to the country it takes place in, but the entire world, Britain must support and elevate other countries where it can, working to minimise the hostility that hampers progress, and encouraging the development of new economies, markets, and sources of talent in areas that are lacking in such things.
You had me until "elevate" and "minimise the hostility that hampers progress."
Elevate assumes Britain is the end-all high state of civilization. While that is obviously true (joke deployed), Nation states will obviously have different interest, priorities and concepts of what high stages of civilization are than to us. More worrying, "minimising the hostility that hampers progress" is so fucking vague, yet it commands the ability to create an Empire whose dissidents "are just hostile to progress."
This is accomplished... globally through supporting international charity endeavours.
This would actually be a step backwards from our foreign development programs - whereas many global international aid charities are propping up a system for an even larger collapse, our foreign development programs develop the education, civil oversight, sanitary systems and infrastructure of their nations so they can create self-sustaining and democratic nations
The setting and development of these foundations can be supported by taxation of both high earners and businesses, as those taxes act as an investment from high earners.
They act as an investment from the government, the taxes on high earners are taxes on high earners.
I support such efforts, at least as far as we can get away without them fucking off to the other international financial hubs of the world. As long as the focus is on increasing tax revenue by increasing value created in the UK, all is well with the Universe.
By investing in the development of resources, they help guarantee future growth. The kinds of businesses that would not benefit from this system are the kind of exploitative monstrosities which in the long run only hinder progress, and so would not be welcome.
You're going to need to elaborate on everything here a great deal. Development how, of what resources, to ensure growth how? What businesses are monstrosities, why? What is the "progress" they are hindering, why are they not welcome, and what is to stop abuse of such a system to eliminate competitors by a cartel of "progressing" companies?
Additionally, by attracting, developing and maintaining talent for the innovation economy, by developing the science and engineering infrastructure for these specialised areas, we ensure those businesses benefit from setting up in this country above others.
Holy fucking shit we can't do everything for the entire world, fucking hell not even the USA could pull this off
Encouraging the development of new businesses from both local and international talent ensures the UK remains a globally important centre. A place that not only benefits from the world, but benefits the world we all share.
Encouraging development of new businesses how? I agree fully, whole heartedly that is a prime objective. Gov grants? Tax cuts for startups? Setting up business apprenticeships?
Other things I want: Stem cell research, genetically modified foods to solve problems of food shortages, co-operation with international bodies on space research.
1. Stem Cell research, we do it already
2. GMO deregulation, wait until we leave the EU
3. We already cooperate with the space agencies of other nations. It'd make much more sense to increase the size of our space agency to match our private sector space agency, or else just invest in British space companies that show promise
At the end of the day and current rates of population growth, the planet is risking being overpopulated by the 2050s. We need to prepare for this by finding ways to produce food and energy more efficiently, and ultimately aim to be getting the hell off this planet.
That will be insufficient if political stability is not brought to Africa, Near Asia and SAsia and SE Asia
Also scrap trident, it's just money being pissed away so blind old bulls can feel like big men.
10/10 insightful analysis of national security