The first in a three part series compiled by one of our young English Radicals.

Many UK retailers are now discovering that clothing manufacture in the Far East no longer has the same attraction as it once did, due to rising labour charges and increased freight costs. The need to be reactive to the impatient and fast paced fashion industry is great, and the most suitable answer to the problem is to return to English and UK manufacturing. However this is not a simple solution, since retailers deserted English factories for low cost China, manufacturing went into decline, factories were left no option but to close, and universities and colleges put a greater emphasis on designing rather than learning how to technically construct garments. This has left England with a missing generation of skilled workers and artisans, and with the current employee base ageing considerably something has to be done.

This situation isn’t getting any better, it took another hit, when De Montefort University announced that they were axing their BSc Fashion Technology course, due to lack of government funding. This particular course has a 100% employment rate and is highly regarded, mainly due to the fact that their graduates are highly trained in a wide range of technical skills, which are greatly needed by many English retailers. Despite the fact that Ed Vaizey has been vocal about the importance of these skills and how he would like to see British manufacturing grow again, there doesn’t seem to be any action from the government. Which begs the question how supportive is the British government of the English manufacturing industry. And the answer is they’re not!

The Ministry of Defence had a very good opportunity to support the English manufacturers; instead they turned their back and gave to the multi million pound contract to produce camouflage gear to the Chinese. When questioned, the MoD spokesman stated ‘Our focus is on getting the Armed Forces the equipment they require, when they need it, at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer. In the last two years British companies have won 87% of clothing contracts.’ In the act of saving a few pence per camouflage trousers, surely they are depriving a perfectly good English manufacturer who employs many tens if not hundreds of workers a contract, which could give their current employees stability, and also lead them to create more jobs, which overall is highly beneficial to the economy and in the long run to the taxpayers. Not only this many manufacturers, including Lee Dawson, managing director of military uniform specialist Samuel Brothers have argued that by having uniforms manufactured in China could expose the Armed Forces to potential dangers. Lee Dawson goes on to say ‘If we are sourcing from China and something goes wrong with Anglo-Chinese relationships, we have a problem, China could withdraw supply,’ leaving troops with a lack of basic clothing, not an ideal situation on the frontline!

A UK retailer Mulberry has recently enjoyed great success in the last few years, mainly due to the Roxanne and Alexa style of bags. These bags are highly sought after by celebrities and women alike, with demand so great, Mulberry can’t produce enough of them. As result it needs to open another factory and increase the capacity of their existing factory in Somerset by 30%. However Godfrey Davis, the Mulberry Chief Executive, has spoken with Drapers Magazine (a renowned Fashion Business journal), and said that he has been put off opening a new factory due to the impact of rising National Insurance (NI, up to 13.8% from 12.8%) rates on operating costs. Davis stated that ‘a constructive approach would be to give some sort of tax break to encourage [businesses] to relocate. An employer NI holiday for a number of years [would work] and UK plc would benefit because we would be creating more employment.’ Davis is presenting the British government with a constructive solution, instead of giving tax breaks or NI holidays to those who don’t manufacture here in England, give it to those who do make the effort to contribute to our economy and job market. The Government’s reaction so far has been, at the Start Britain conference, Chancellor George Osbourne stated ‘We are considering tax breaks for capital investment, which we will be looking at ([in more detail], particularly for various manufacturing businesses.’ If the British government doesn’t support Mulberry, then they may be forced to invest in their other production bases in Turkey or Spain, another wasted opportunity for English manufacturing.

This is a real opportunity for the British Government to invest in something positive, by channelling some of the money they are saving elsewhere, into giving more manufacturing contracts to English manufacturers, tax breaks and NI holidays which will allow manufacturers to grow and expand more easily, this will help to kick start English manufacturing. In the long run it will create more jobs, taking the unemployed off the dole and into more skilled jobs, contribute to the economy and overall make England a more lucrative country to manufacture in. We have the reputation of great design and highly quality manufacturing now all is left is to prove it!      

In part two: Retailers have to step up to the mark, and support English manufacturers.   
Add Comment
 
 
The news that David Cameron was meeting the bosses of some of the country’s largest firms, supposedly to discuss their plans to create thousands of new jobs, once again demonstrates the Tories obsession with big business. According to Cameron, the outcome of the meeting would be the "most pro-business, pro-growth, pro-jobs agenda ever unleashed by a government".

However, beneath this glossy surface, in reality what is really on the agenda is expanding the empires of an elite few companies, creating real opportunities for the few, additional profits for the shareholders and a splattering of low paid jobs. It is also likely, especially in the IT sector where we are told there is a shortage of suitably qualified staff that many jobs will actually be offered to migrant workers.

On the surface, the possible creation of 36,500 jobs in various supermarket chains does appear to be a good thing. However this comes with a price and the ‘supermarketisation’ of the country does have a devastating impact on independent traders who will no doubt feel the cost of this expansion.

So how would an English radical government deal with the present situation?

To begin with we believe business should work for the country and not the tail wagging the dog situation we have today. We feel jobs created in this country should remain in this country and not be allowed to drift abroad where labour is cheaper and worker exploitation is currently easier (though Tory legislation is likely to make exploitation easier in this country soon) . This has particular relevance to call centre staff and those employed in the manufacturing and IT industries.

Secondly, if we have skills shortages in certain areas then we should be looking at training people in this country to fill those shortages, instead of continuously relying on migrant labour. We have recently seen an increase in tuition fees and the scrapping of EMA. These policies are both deterring our young people from seeking higher and university education, which in the long term prevents them from acquiring the qualifications to help us plug the skills gap. Even if there is a need for students to contribute in some way towards a university education, surely if we have a skills shortage in certain fields it makes sense to actually provide ‘free courses’ in those subjects.

Finally Mr. Cameron’s meeting with big business leaders:

 As we have mentioned, there is no doubt some positives will come out of this in the creation of a significant number of low paid jobs and increased profits for the businesses concerned. However what if these big businesses were to adopt a distributist approach, by providing opportunities and profits which would be shared by a much wider group of people? Instead of supermarkets strangling the livelihoods of independent traders, why not work in partnership with them, by offering space in their larger stores for independent grocers, butchers, wine merchants, greengrocers etc. This would offer opportunities to people who wish to establish a business as well as providing employment opportunities. Why not work in partnership with smaller stores, offering them the benefits of bulk ordering (thus keeping prices down) but also the benefits of being their own boss. This would help keep our small convenience stores open and our town centres, villages and communities alive.

In addition to this as English Radicals, we feel the government should also be offering opportunities and support for those who wish to create businesses in this country, possibly bringing together similar minded people to work together in launching new business partnerships. Both Labour and the Con-Dem coalition are squandering money we have borrowed rather than investing in the people of this country who could help drive us out of recession. The present government and the opposition seem to prefer paying people to be out of work or allow a company from abroad to step in rather than invest in the people of England.

As well as helping to create and support new independent business ventures, we believe the government should be looking at supporting the creation of co-operatives and stakeholder business schemes, both new ones and in established businesses. If such schemes had been supported we would not have seen the demise in English ownership of companies such as MG Rover, Jaguar, Corus and Cadbury’s and endless other businesses and jobs in England that have been lost.

By taking a distributist approach, it is true there would possibly be slightly less money in the pockets of the big business directors and major shareholders. But in the wider community itself, through the increase of business opportunities, sustainable local economies and the employment created, more money would actually be circulating. It is far more beneficial to the economy of England to have a Joey Blogg type with a few extra quid in his pocket and spending it locally, rather than a Victory Tory-Roll type making a financial killing on his business investment, stashing it in an overseas bank account and avoiding paying tax. Under distributism, Victor Tory-Roll would still have enough money for his Rolls Royce and yacht, but Joey Blogg would also have a much better lifestyle as well.

So what is stopping Cameron or Clegg or Miliband or Farage implementing such strategies? The fact is that each of them is a very willing puppet of big business and is quite content for the tail to continuously keep wagging the dog. Big businesses are opposed to distributist strategies (possibly with the exception of John Lewis which is a successful stakeholder business) as obviously they will make less profit if capital and opportunities are distributed amongst a much wider group of people. And that is where the snag really is. They have the power and the money and they want to keep it as much of it to themselves as possible. And what is even more pitiful, is the fact that all the major parties and the majority of minor ones are very willing to let them carry on in the same manner.

As you can see, the English Radical distributist vision is much different to that of the other parties in this tail wagging the dog nation. We do not seek to knock those that are successful as some on the far left wish to, and we do not seek to restrict opportunities on race, as some on the far right wish to. We seek to encourage opportunities and success for all the people of England. These will not come from centralised state controlled socialism or the greed of capitalism, but from the implementation of modern distributist economic principles.
Add Comment
 
 
Peter Kay must be quaking in his boots judging by David Cameron's latest “stand up” slot at the Mansion House recently – telling the assembled audience that Britain is still a “world power”. For sheer hilarity, this one liner is up there with: “did you hear the one about the country that built two aircraft carriers, but couldn't afford the planes to go with them?”. And how quaintly predictable that stockbroker's son, and millionaire Old Etonian Cameron should have such a rosy, delusional view of Britain’s place in the world, comfortably coddled as he is in his Cotswolds constituency. 

Down here in the England and Britain where the rest of us live, it seems a much colder, darker, and more dangerous place than the one Cameron resides in – a reality where the British government encourages British companies and utilities to fall into foreign ownership, where either the profits are exported, or the jobs are, to countries where the hourly cost of labour is measured in pence, not pounds.

A Britain that sends poorly equipped soldiers to fight an unwinnable “whack-a-mole” war in Afghanistan, slowly bleeding our troops and our taxpayers dry in the process. 

A Britain that has record crime levels and already faces a chronic shortage of police officers to patrol the streets, but is cutting their numbers still further. A prelude to martial law, perhaps? It happened in Ulster, it's not unthinkable that it could happen on the mainland........

A Britain where the government hacks and slashes at even essential public spending,  but is more than happy to keep subsidising the EU and the Euro – whilst at the same time is unwilling to tackle the real culprits behind Britain's present financial malaise – the Tory sympathisers and globalists in the banking and credit industry.

A Britain where taxpayer's money was used without permission to buy failing banks, but have no say in how they are run, nor receive any profits back from them. What a fantastic business model -  privatised profits and socialised losses! This “generosity” is now being extended to bailing out another country, and another currency, again without the permission of the taxpayer.

A Britain that gives billions more to the EU than it gets back, but also buys twice as much from the EU as it sells back, because of the collapse of our manufacturing base. 

The English Radical Alliance are fed up with posh career politicians like Cameron from adorable picture postcard constituencies “bigging up” Britain on the world stage, whilst ignoring its problems: who even cares if Britain is a world power, when its citizens are too frightened to leave the house after dark for fear of attack by feral teenage gangs, because there are no police within ten miles? Who cares if Britain is “punching above its weight” when the young men doing the punching are coming home in body bags? 

A few years from now, who will even believe Britain is a world power, when our chronic over reliance on Russian gas and French nuclear energy suppliers allows foreign powers to blackmail us economically, when we could so easily be utilising our tidal energy or paying British miners to dig coal out of the ground?

Seriously, Mr Cameron – most British people don't care if Britain is a world power punching above its weight, or not, but:
They would like to feel safe when they go to the shops, and they would like our servicemen returned from Afghanistan and they would like to be out of the EU.

But none of these things are going to happen on your watch, are they? In our eyes, you are already a failed politician - you care more about Britain's image than Britain's people: you truly are the “heir to Blair”. What a wretched, damning epitaph. But what else can you expect, with these comedians running the country?

 
Add Comment
 
 
CABLE - CONFUSED BY CAPITALISM & PERPLEXED BY PROTECTIONISM
Business Secretary Vince Cable recently announced the British government's  latest crazy privatisation, with their intention to sell off the Royal Mail – presumably, to people with enough money to buy it – ermm, that would be “capitalists”, right? 

He then voices his fears about the “worst scenario” of protectionism, and its possible threat to the steady march of “globalisation”. Now, who benefits from globalisation?

Is it the English workers who lose their jobs to cheaper labour abroad, or:

The architects of globalisation - the global capitalists - moving their money from country to country in the search for ever greater profits? Again, we get the answer: “capitalists”.

Then incredibly, at the Lib-Dem conference in Liverpool, he makes a speech to the party faithful, rightly criticizing capitalism, which contains the following statement:

“Capitalism takes no prisoners, and it kills competition where it can.”

So, why is he so hell bent on selling the Royal Mail off, to the only people who can afford it – capitalists? His Royal Mail privatisation and protectionist/globalisation statements totally conflict with this one. Ironically, we agree with Vince on the quote from conference, perhaps he is becoming an English Radical in his old age!

Going back to the “bogeyman” of protectionism, Cable's real fear is what lies underneath it – a growing awareness by the English that we should stop propping up the rest of Britain and the EU, and look after our own interests. As a British MP, an EU supporter, and the author of several works about global governance, he is firmly in the camp of “big government”, or rule by unaccountable elites. He realises the current economic crisis is making the English question the popular fallacy that being part of a larger unit (Britain, and the EU) is somehow beneficial, when in fact it is expensive and undemocratic.  

To add insult to irony, Vince Cable is himself in a “protected” job, and will be for at least another four years. Even if he should lose his seat at the next election, he will no doubt walk straight into another cushy job within government - or that rest home for failed politicians, the EU! The redundant workers at the TATA-owned Corus steel plant in Middlesborough won't be offered that kind of a deal, nor will the production staff at Cadbury, taken over by multinational Kraft, as their work is “globalised” (moved abroad). So who the hell is he, to lecture us, about protectionism? 

The key part of the word “protectionism” is protect. As an overpopulated territory that cannot feed itself, England relies on making and selling enough goods to raise the money needed to import essentials that we cannot produce enough of ourselves. If this revenue stream dries up, we cannot afford to live without borrowing – which is exactly where we find ourselves today, thanks to the short sighted policies of successive Tory and Labour governments since 1945. One wonders how much of our present malaise was just bad luck and poor planning, and how much was deliberate.

As Vince Cable says, capitalism takes no prisoners and kills the competition where it can – it wages war, and in wars the weak get crushed. In a war, you would protect your ports, your airfields, your weapons factories: to an English Radical, there is no difference between physically defending your country, and defending the wealth producing industries that reside within it. In our eyes, protectionism equals patriotism. As well as sending troops to die needlessly in Afghanistan, we are currently fighting another war nearer home – against mass unemployment and the national debt that goes with it, and sadly we are losing that struggle thanks to successive British governments’ poor, or even criminal, leadership.

It is no coincidence that those nations with real wealth are the ones staying out of wars and generating revenue through strong manufacturing output – Germany in the West, and China in the East who are, sensibly, very protectionist. Contrast their current positions with that of America and Britain – both, in their day, the largest manufacturers in the world, but now financially ravaged by years of war, hugely in debt and scarred with industrial wastelands - witness the ghost town that is now Detroit, once the thriving home of the American car industry, or the English north east where much of our coal and steel was produced: Once-wealthy California, reduced to paying its public sector workers with IOU’s: the English shipyards, virtually all gone. 

The globalist economics so beloved by Cable encourages key manufacturing to be outsourced abroad, as it is cheaper to pay grateful peasants in far off lands to churn goods out at lower cost, meaning more profit for the multinationals that sell them: only trouble is, so many of the product's target consumers in the West have lost their jobs through globalisation - via outsourcing - they can no longer afford to buy them.  

Like a giant parasite, global capitalism has sucked its original hosts – Britain, then America - dry, and is moving eastwards looking for fresh nations on which to feed, in its quest for profits. These nations will welcome the beast at first, their people will feel prosperous and their lives will improve for a while: but eventually the lure of even fatter profits in the country next door will cause the global capitalists to withdraw and invest there instead. The money will be pulled out of perfectly viable businesses and moved to yet another poor country in order to exploit the people there, and the original host nation, unable to compete with the new kids on the block and starved of vital capital, will suffer a slow death, just as others have before them. 

There is no quick fix to this problem: but people must wake up and be aware of it, and action taken. An immediate protectionist measure we should all adopt is quite easy to do – where an English made product exists, buy it! It may be cheaper to buy a foreign product, but the government will have that saving off you in tax at some point, as a down payment for an English worker’s dole.

England needs more self sufficiency and fewer imports: an English Radical government would adopt protectionism by imposing higher taxes on foreign made goods, but offer foreign manufacturers the chance to avoid these taxes if they produce in England. They win by undercutting their rivals, and we win by creating jobs.

But until then, defy Vince and the globalists, and support protectionism – please buy English, and help stop your own jobs being “globalised”!!
Add Comment
 
 
Picture
David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ proposals on face value admittedly look quite promising from an English Radical perspective. However there is a certain fable about the scorpion and the frog that rings alarm bells in our ears. For those that are not familiar with the tale a frog offers a scorpion a ride on its back across a river, only for the scorpion to sting the frog half as they were midstream. ‘Why on earth did you do that?’ asked the frog, ‘Now we shall both die?’
The scorpion shrugged and replied, ‘I could not help myself. It is my nature’.

The Tories have their own distinctive nature. Cameron’s Conservative Party remains the party of big business, of the multi-nationals and of the Lord Ashcroft’s of this world. They are poles apart from the sole traders, local shopkeepers and small businessmen of this country and die-hard Tories would shun any thought of encouraging co-operatives. Like the scorpion, the Tories are a party with a sting in their tale.

Yet Cameron’s Conservative’s ‘Big Society’ wishes to return decision making on planning and housing to local councils. Communities will be given powers to save local facilities threatened with closure such as pubs and Post Office’s and have the right to bid to take over local state run services such as libraries.  A bold move, and one on face value we as English Radicals thoroughly support as it is in line with our distributist principals. However I think a lesson can be learnt here from history.

In the Thatcher years of the 1980’s there were other superb opportunities offered to ordinary people. We were told we could be shareholders in our utility companies and become players on the stock market. Enter characters such as ‘Buzby’ and ‘Hissing Sid’ to sell the idea to the trusting public, an idea snapped up by people thinking they could make a tidy sum within a few months. To be honest, many did make a profit – but years down the line we are all now paying the price for the family silver being sold.

So how is that relevant to Cameron’s big society? To begin with the Conservative’s are a capitalist party, a party of big business and not a distributist party, a party of community interest and co-operatives. When they talk of returning decision making to local councils they do not mean to local people as we do in the English Radical Alliance. They mean local council’s hiring more expensive consultants, that often have no connection with the local area. This will be at the council taxpayers expense.  When they talk of communities taking over shops, pubs and libraries, they do not mean supporting these, they mean the capitalist ideology of ‘sink or swim’, ‘survival of the fittest’. Just as large, very often foreign owned companies came in and snapped up the ordinary peoples share in our utility companies, you can be assured vultures will be circling over the heads of these new community initiatives waiting to pick off the weakest. Nothing will be put in place to prevent community managed shops and services from facing unfair competition or helping to support them. It is the way of the sting in the tail capitalist Conservatives. 

Mr Cameron is playing distributist politics, but only offering part of a distributist package. It is like selling you a car with no engine and then expecting you to take your driving test in it straight away. The English Radical Alliance believes in real community initiatives and a complete distributist package. Local decision making by local people, local economic networks, opportunities and support for community initiatives, co-operatives and small businesses and doing our utmost to ensure all survive through training and ensuring unfair competition does not exist.

The fable of the frog and the scorpion may be an ancient tale, but history does have a habit of repeating itself and I am sure ‘Buzby’ and ‘Hissing Sid’ lurking somewhere in Cameron’s closet are now waiting to embark on their comeback tour.

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO HOME PAGE & WEBSITE MENU
Add Comment