Heartland

boudicca wrote:

andymackem wrote: the Western European nations will be in the upper percentiles in terms of things like life expectancy, average earnings, civil liberties and so on.

Not Glasgow.

And no civil liberties for anyone, even in the sarf-east, if Mr. Blair has his wicked "anti-terror" way.

Yeah I had to laugh, the Rough Guide to Scotland really bigged up Glasgow this time round...

Shame its got the highest murder rate in Western Europe, lowest life expectancy in the UK and on of the highest teenage pregnancy rates..

The Home Office statistics I saw, I remember that Glasgow and SW Scotland usually took about 5 or 6 out of the top ten places for such things....

boudicca wrote:

andymackem wrote: the Western European nations will be in the upper percentiles in terms of things like life expectancy, average earnings, civil liberties and so on.

Not Glasgow.

And no civil liberties for anyone, even in the sarf-east, if Mr. Blair has his wicked "anti-terror" way.

Actually yes, Glasgow. As well you know. I see your Easterhouse and raise you Kelvingrove. Parts of Glasgow are undoubtedly deprived, but parts are very affluent. You might have done better refering to Greenock or Airdrie or any of those other dismal Lanarkshire/ Inverclyde towns which appear to have nothing at all to recommend them. Then I'd have to refer you to some of the crappier bits of Bosnia or Albania for a pan-Euro comparison.

Though also illustrate my (thus far ignored) point about the problems of funding relatively deprived areas of affluent nations when they compete against eastern and southern Europe.

@ GD ... and what was that life-expectancy? I don't know the answer, but I'd love to find out.

Civil liberties are a seperate issue, but I'd take our legal system over many of the alternatives. Go back to the capital punishment debate for a run-down of places where you wouldn't fancy being the defendent.

andymackem wrote:A genuine, non-rhetorical question: what return do I, as a British taxpayer, get out of Europe? I live in a strong Western economy and enjoy a higher than average standard of living by European and global standards. So a chunk of my taxes is diverted to other countries to enable them to strengthen their economies, compete for trade and jobs with my country etc, etc. Why does this help me?

In the short term it costs me money. In the long term it encourages people to compete with me to cost me money.

If I want to help disadvantaged nations, why would I start with Poland as opposed to Somalia? If it's a choice between building a ring-road for Krakow or sanitation for Mogadishu I'd probably rather go for a project that might save people's lives rather than enable them to drive home five minutes faster.

If the EU is a charity it is aimed at the wrong places: there are places in the world with far greater problems than Eastern Europe.

If it is a business proposition it is clearly disadvantageous to any large Western European economy.

You hit the nail on the head (that's how they say it, right?), and I bow at your positive critics plus support it fully, that's the way to go the a genuine Europe

Though, when you say there are parts in the world with more serious problems (okay, agree) you perhaps should think more like 'lets start here, and later on those guys will be able to help out the others more easily because of this too, and with this Union we can more easily stand up against the powers of eg. the US'

When you say it costs you money, well, it brings money into your pockets really... I don't know if you're familiar with the theories of Smith and Ricardo, but those theories show (and although they are from the 1700s, they're still valuable) this:

clicky (with requested diagrams )

And, because of the free trade and comparative advantage you get through countries specialising (okay, in reality it is slightly less simple, but it's the idea) you will get an advantage and more wellfare in all countries (which is basically the principle behind WTO too, allthough I reckon you have to have some protection....

So my point is, when you give others more welfare, you'll get more wellfare yourself because of the extra money the others will have...[/i][/u]

andymackem wrote:

Gottdammerung wrote:

andymackem wrote:

I live in a strong Western economy and enjoy a higher than average standard of living by European and global standards.

Do you really?? Did you not come across the recent study of living standards in 10 countries comprising 8 European countries, the UK and the US. Surprise, surprise, the UK was second bottom and the US last.

In terms of living standards in Western Europe the UK really is lagging behind and there is a definite gap appearing between the haves and have nots...

The eight European countries were probably not Albania, Belarus, Moldova, Armenia etc, etc were they?

And I'd guess that most (if not all) of Africa, South America and Asia would come well below that group of 10 - which represents almost the entire population of the world. However you slice it, globally speaking the UK, the US and the Western European nations will be in the upper percentiles in terms of things like life expectancy, average earnings, civil liberties and so on.

But are all these countries part of the EU?? Which is really what this debate is about...

My point was that in comparison to other Western European countries, the UK is really falling behind and our belief in supposed free market economics is going to screw us in the long-term. Remember, this constitution was more geared towards our viewpoint than any previous EU document. One of the reasons the French rejected it was the fact that it was not a social document. For crissake, look how long it took the UK to even consider ratifying the Social Charter and how quickly we bandied about the idea of suspending the Human Rights charter as soon as it became apparent that it would interfere with our governments authoritian attitude to civil liberties and its m*****n for "respect"...

Re-read the bit you quoted from me: I live in a strong Western economy (true - maybe not the strongest but a strong one).

... and enjoy a higher standard of living by European and global standards. (No mention of the EU there, and another demostrably true statement.)

That would be true wherever I lived in the EU.

Britain has its problems - as does the rest of Europe - but they are not of the same order as the problems facing most of the developing world.

My question, which we are now sidetracking, was how it benefits me as a UK resident to be indirectly investing in Polish road-building (in reference to something Delilah mentioned about EU cash in Poland).

Re life expectancy...

...the suburb-I-live-in-which-shall-remain-nameless is very affluent, it's true. But it is sat right next door to two particular areas where, apparently, the life expectancy is 10 years less. Literally, just two miles down the road.

Pretty sad.

I think part of the problem is that in the UK, people don't seem to accept that we need to be part of something bigger. People still hanker after the days of Empire. Newsflash: the Empire has gone!

But we still have people singing "Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves..." and the Daily Mail-esque distrust of "Johnny Foreigner".

I'm far more in favour of greater integration into Europe (with the usual caveats about greater democratisation and accountability) than I am of our "most favoured nation" status with the US, but it's increasingly looking like "you can't get there from here". Sadly.

Back to life-expectancy: can anyone actually give me a number. For the UK, for Glasgow, for nameless suburbs in Strathclyde?

Just give me a sodding number, someone! Then we can start making informed comparisons.

@ MF - wasn't the Empire 'something bigger'. We've no problem being a part of it, we just want to dictate the terms of our participation. A bit like everyone else.

And do other nations not have a 'Daily-Mailesque distrust of Johnny Foreigner'? Looks like a lot of racial tension in the famously tolerant Netherlands, and I'm sure I remember the Front National in a presidential run-off in France not so long back.

The German far-right is a visible spectre, especially in the east and even the Danes have moved to the right. Maybe the problem is that different countries don't like each other and don't want to be part of anything bigger?

andymackem wrote:@ MF - wasn't the Empire 'something bigger'. We've no problem being a part of it, we just want to dictate the terms of our participation. A bit like everyone else.

Good point.

I think the general drift to the right is something that's being engineered, but that's a different topic.

Righty, here's a BBC news item on the figures.. I'm off to find the actual report somewhere... (I remember browsing it when it first came out...)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3172229.stm

It's more than likely this...

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/P ... 1&Rank=272


Just the statistics office have redesigned their front page to make it a bit less "taxing" by the looks of it.. means all the proper infos a bit harder to find too....


Mind you my work's firewall now bans Exel files.. brilliant....

Thanks. I don't have xls on this computer so the government stuff wouldn't download for me.

However, the numbers were roughly what I'd expected. Our lowest life expectancy, for a man living in Glasgow, is 68.7 years.

While searching I found an article in the Independent saying that life expectancy in parts of Africa was down to 33 years in places. Male life expectancy in Russia is 48 years (helped by sending a conscript army to fight a guerilla war in Chechnya, but that's another story).

In keeping with my earlier comments, we're a good 20 years better off than many, as is the EU as a whole.

So, returning to my original point, since living in the UK is (compared with most of the rest of the world) a good thing, how do I benefit from paying to build roads in Poland?

andymackem wrote:However, the numbers were roughly what I'd expected. Our lowest life expectancy, for a man living in Glasgow, is 68.7 years.

Not according to

http://www.smokefreescotland.com/facts/statistics.html

63 years in Shettleston. If you've been to Shettleston, you'll understand.

I think I've read somewhere that low life-expectancy figures in the developing world are largely due to high child mortality rather than people living less long. In other words, if they make it past 5 years old, they have not much less chance of reaching 60 than we do.

If (for example) out of ten births, four die aged 4 and the other 6 die aged 60, the average "life expectancy" for this hypothetical group is 37.6 years.

Now I'm not sure what the relevance of that is...

markfiend wrote:I think I've read somewhere that low life-expectancy figures in the developing world are largely due to high child mortality rather than people living less long. In other words, if they make it past 5 years old, they have not much less chance of reaching 60 than we do.

If (for example) out of ten births, four die aged 4 and the other 6 die aged 60, the average "life expectancy" for this hypothetical group is 37.6 years.

Now I'm not sure what the relevance of that is...

Wish some of the noisy wee bastards I see running about wouldn't make it past 5...

...oops! Did I say that out loud?

markfiend wrote:I think I've read somewhere that low life-expectancy figures in the developing world are largely due to high child mortality rather than people living less long. In other words, if they make it past 5 years old, they have not much less chance of reaching 60 than we do.

If (for example) out of ten births, four die aged 4 and the other 6 die aged 60, the average "life expectancy" for this hypothetical group is 37.6 years.

Now I'm not sure what the relevance of that is...

Dunno about that. Sub-saharan Africa has the highest HIV/AIDS rate in in the world. South Africa's official statistic is 1 in 9 and climbing.

boudicca wrote:

andymackem wrote:However, the numbers were roughly what I'd expected. Our lowest life expectancy, for a man living in Glasgow, is 68.7 years.

Not according to

http://www.smokefreescotland.com/facts/statistics.html

63 years in Shettleston. If you've been to Shettleston, you'll understand.

The stats were taken city-wide (or comparing local authority with local authority). How big is Shettleston? And how small do you want to make your sample before it becomes irrelevant.

If I set fire to the school round the corner, what impact will that have on average life-expectancy in one area of Westcliff? Now compare that with the impact on Southend's borough-wide expectancy, and the figures for Essex, England, UK, EU etc.

@ MF - doesn't that imply that infant mortality somehow 'doesn't count'? If you die before you're five years old you weren't really alive in the first place? I don't think that's what you mean but your example does suggest that within our (alarmingly low) 37-year figure you have almost a 50-50 chance of not seeing your fifth birthday, an even more shocking indicator of poverty and low standards of living.

Some very interesting views expressed. Thankyou.

@MrMackem: Your tenacity is to be commended. I guess the answer is something along the lines of the investment in countries like Poland should pay off in the medium to longer term with more customers for our products and services. As for the money being better spent on the starving Biafrans, haven't we been doing that for he last 40 years in one way, shape or form with very little effect? At least the Poles aren't going to squander our charity on corrupt governments and weapons to wipe out the tribe next door.

In theory, I support the internationalist ideals of the EU, but just can't see the UK ever having more than a 'what's in it for me' attitude. The prevalence of the English language and the protection of the English channel have made us feel superior and detached from mainland Europe for centuries. That's not going to disappear overnight. And language is very important when it comes to trusting a politician. Two words/ phrases may translate the same but have subtley different connotations/ implications/ intonations which only a native speaker would discern. At least I feel like I know when Tony or George are shooting from the hip. Chirac and Schroeder could be lying through their teeth and it will be lost in translation.

As for the whole of Europe moving further to the right. That was always on teh cards after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the apparent 'triumph' of capitalism over communism.

hallucienate wrote:Dunno about that. Sub-saharan Africa has the highest HIV/AIDS rate in in the world. South Africa's official statistic is 1 in 9 and climbing.

Having googled and found where my stats came from, the article I was precising was talking about life-expectancies in prehistory (which were of the order of 30-40 but because of high child mortality as I described.) HIV and AIDS does change the picture indeed.

Francis wrote:As for the whole of Europe moving further to the right. That was always on teh cards after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the apparent 'triumph' of capitalism over communism.

Didn't Mikhail Gorbachev in his "Humanity's great ideas" (or whatever it was called) about communism suggest that capitalism now needs its own perestroika?

andymackem wrote:@ MF - doesn't that imply that infant mortality somehow 'doesn't count'? If you die before you're five years old you weren't really alive in the first place? I don't think that's what you mean

no, that's not what I meant!

andymackem wrote:but your example does suggest that within our (alarmingly low) 37-year figure you have almost a 50-50 chance of not seeing your fifth birthday, an even more shocking indicator of poverty and low standards of living.

Yes, this is what I was trying to point out. The figure is made lower not by everyone dying in their 30s-40s (which would be shocking enough) but by an obscenely large number of children dying.

Although as Lucien points out, this is not so much the case any more, with HIV/AIDS.

Although come to think of it, a significant proportion of AIDS fatalities are children born HIV positive I think.

markfiend wrote:Although come to think of it, a significant proportion of AIDS fatalities are children born HIV positive I think.

Yup Although the parents of said child eventually also don't live out their full lives due to the disease.

OK, on the idea of paying for roads in Poland..

Wouldn't it be interesting to see how much money the UK actually receives from the EU. Remember it is not a one-way transaction and on top of whatever money we receive - i.e for infrastructure, poor regions, regeneration etc - we get a rebate back.

The EU doesn't hand out money to member states nilly willy, they have to put money in too.

however, in the long run, building roads in Poland is good in that it will provide better communication between member states, allowing for the wider distribution of goods produced by member states. Its long-termism - something that isn't really a factor in UK politics...


And as for life expectancy, its still shocking that there's a difference of almost ten years between parts of the country. Fine I know it doesn't show it by council region but look at it this way, if the affluent parts of Glasgow have a high life expectancy then the poorer areas must have an abysmal one to drag down the average so much...

andymackem wrote:How big is Shettleston?

Too big!

@ GD - again I'm after figures (boring, aren't I? ). The anti-European lobby quotes an annual net spend of billions of pounds going into Europe. They tend to moan about junketing politicians more than building roads in Poland, but the thrust of the argument is that it is costing us hard cash. I've no means of contradicting this, though of course I am aware of the use of EU money within the UK.

The implication is that poorer EU members (especially the eastern ones at the moment) are making a net profit from this - in other words our taxes are subsidising Polish projects.

Given that we in the UK have big problems of our own, and given that other parts of the world face a more urgent development need than eastern Europe, is this the best use of our money?

I refer you back to my choice between clean water in Mogadishu v quicker journeys around Krakow as an (admittedly extreme) illustration.

Building roads in Poland is good: but roads are known to generate their own traffic and promote a dependency on fossil fuels which is damaging to the global environment. It is perpetrating the industro-capitalist rich v poor status quo which means your postcode can affect your life expectancy within a couple of miles of streets in Glasgow.

OK, now I'm stirring as well as being boring. We're having a really s**t day in the office, if you were wondering!

pedant!




I don't have the time to go through the minute of it all, but at the end of the day I still have a belief in the European project and frankly I think that if we were out of it the UK would be a far worse place than it is today...