Showing posts with label Ideas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ideas. Show all posts

Tuesday, 3 December 2019

Trump solves a big bit of the Hong Kong crisis

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-50581862

Human rights & democracy in Hong Kong

US tariffs will rise on Chinese goods if conditions are not met for Hong Kong independence, according to a known set of requirements that will be considered annually with a formal process. Everyone exporting from China will have a chance to think about this in advance and Chinese dictators know this; they're thinking about the same thing. You can tell because they have issued very rude statements and are trying to retaliate in ways that don't matter for such a vital issue. They will stop US navy ships using Chinese ports. Maybe they will put tariffs on US goods. Or not send a christmas card. Whatever they do will not matter as much as human rights and democracy. Even if you don't think about human rights and democracy in Hong Kong, it's useful to stop the spread of dictatorship from the country where so much economic activity takes place; what happens to hong kongers will spread to the rest of us.
This is something so blindingly obvious that only an economist or a foreign office expert could quibble. If the Chinese government wants to do something bad, there is no way that any other trading block of government can stop it, but adding a tariff is easy and doing it with well-known polite and clear rules set in advance is the best way, and might even work. It makes a bit of money in tariff payments too.

fashion manufacturing in Bangladesh - similar point

If the government of Bangladesh wants to introduce national insurance and benefits to people who don't contribute, the population there will stop growing so fast .Girls will stay a little longer at school. The chances of a baby surviving into adulthood will increase. The fear of growing old without children will decrease. All of this is vital to people in the UK who need fairer imports, less money spent on aid or wars, and less inward migration. And vital to people in Bangladesh as well, although it seems a bit rude for me in the UK to say how some country on the other side of the planet should be run.
If a government in Bangladesh wants to remain scared of being the second cheapest country next to Sri Lanka or Vietnam, there's very little it can do. The kind of people who run things in Bangladesh aren't very keen anyway, if I they are anything like ex-pats who come back from those countries and are used to doing very well by being rich amongst poor people. Why introduce national insurance when it would increase the cost of your servants? You might have to use a car wash or a washing machine. These people would react rather like the Chinese government if their exporters were forced to pay tariffs until the country met some set of standards for national insurance and benefits to people who don't contribute. They might do exactly the same set of rude things that don't matter compared to poverty and over-population.  
Even if you don't think about human rights and democracy in Hong Kong, it's useful to stop the spread of dictatorship from the country where so much economic activity takes place; what happens to Bangladeshis will spread to the rest of us.
At a lecture about Bangladesh, I asked an economist whether tariffs could be used to make national insurance possible in that country and charge a tariff if not. The lecturer was from London School of Economics which gets about the lowest satisfaction ratings from students of its Economics courses. That what posh economics courses are like. She disagreed and came back to the point at the end of the lecture, The quote was something like this:
"for me, it is for the people of Bangladesh whether they have national insurance, and not for the people of the UK"
Arse.
People in countries like the UK can help get national insurance into Bangladesh for our own sake and for Bangladeshis' sake. They have no more chance of doing on on their own than the people of Hong Kong have of standing up against China. If they don't do it. their goods will under-cut goods made with the costs of a welfare state and democracy built-in, from countries like the UK. That's how it works. That's the kind of thing that people called "economist" ought to know but don't.

Afterthought: Kurds

I wrote that last bit with a kind of tabloid confidence, but Trump has also done the opposite to Kurds in Syria, for reasons that not even a blogspot blogger can understand. 

Sunday, 13 December 2015

We pay several times for each badly-run country

We pay several times for each badly-run country.

We benefit once, or I do, because I'm wearing Primark's cheapest jeans.

We pay in having fewer jobs, because there's less rag trade here.

We pay in having fewer taxes for the same reason.

We pay because our politicians send our army to those poor and unstable parts of the world that have no secondary education or welfare state.


We pay in having unstable desperate parts of the world that refugees and economic migrants leave, overcrowding parts of the UK.


We probably pay in the spread of disease - thinking more about African governments which choose not to set-up a health service.


We pay 0.7% of our GDP, out of our taxes, towards the social services bills of badly-run countries like Bangladesh. Pakistani taxpayers pay less than that for their own few state hospitals, and many Pakistani MPs do not even bother to pay Pakistani tax. It's probably the same in Bangladesh or India.

So we have all paid six times for my pair of trousers and politicians' failure to write a proper tariff against goods from badly-run countries. That's before any ultuism towards people in Bangladesh. My jeans are beginning to feel a bit special now!



Planb4fashion is a blog by Veganline.com which is a vegan shoe shop


Cheap factory expensive shop

Cheap factory expensive shop

http://www.guardian.co.uk/…/2013/jul/28/india-sweated-labour - after reading six pages of comment after this article I discover
(1) a challenging rant with a challenging headline that offers no solution begs six pages or more of feebdack on a national newspaper site

(2) the fairtrade label is not completely trusted; people could do with a link on a swing-tag or something to help them check the checking system. Someone said it's a bit like labels on eggs - there's a lot to learn. Others distrust all claims. The article itself is a rant that lumps all ethical claims together and asks consumer to ask more questions
(4) UK-made or European-made goods are looked-for but not found. No surprise when our government rules-out compulsory labels to say where clothes come from, and ignores requests for more data from which to write trade directories.

(5) Several people - not just me - ask why the Bangladeshi government doesn't do its job and introduce some list of changes if it is to get 0% tariff access to the European market. This is in the spirit of the rant article, which questions respect for Indian authorities "Last week India's powerful planning commission claimed that poverty was at a record low of 21.9% of the population. It did so on the basis that people could live on 26 rupees (29p) a day in rural areas (33 rupees in urban areas). Many inside India baulk at this. Few outside the country did so."

(6) Every Guardian reader, Indian or British, is puzzled by the cost of shipping something to well-organised warehouse and from there to branches of some smart and advertised chain store in shopping centres or high streets. Nike and Addidas may be extreme in how much their brand costs and matters, but everything sold in modern shopping centres carries a big price tag for the shopping centre itself and getting stuff there, branded or not. The common debate is why M and S charge so much more than Primark when the technicalities of their shops are only so-much different and what they pay their suppliers is only so-much different. Nobody knows! One reader suggested that Gieves and Hawkes of Saville Row now sends some of its handmade work to India and back without the client knowing.


This is the article copied from the Guardian, with a link.


Until three years ago I did not believe in magic. But that was before I began investigating how western brands perform a conjuring routine that makes the great Indian rope trick pale in comparison. Now I'm beginning to believe someone has cast a spell over the world's consumers.

This is how it works. Well Known Company makes shiny, pretty things in India or China. The Observer reports that the people making the shiny, pretty things are being paid buttons and, what's more, have been using children's nimble little fingers to put them together. There is much outrage, WKC professes its horror that it has been let down by its supply chain and promises to make everything better. And then nothing happens. WKC keeps making shiny, pretty things and people keep buying them. Because they love them. Because they are cheap. And because they have let themselves be bewitched.

Last week I revealed how poverty wages in India's tea industry fuel a slave trade in teenage girls whose parents cannot afford to keep them. Tea drinkers were naturally upset. So the ethical bodies that certified Assam tea estates paying a basic 12p an hour were wheeled out to give the impression everything would be made right.

For many consumers, that is enough. They want to feel that they are being ethical. But they don't want to pay more. They are prepared to believe in the brands they love. Companies know this. They know that if they make the right noises about behaving ethically, their customers will turn a blind eye.

So they come down hard on suppliers highlighted by the media. They sign up to the certification schemes – the Ethical Trading Initiative, Fairtrade, the Rainforest Alliance and others. Look, they say, we are good guys now. We audit our factories. We have rules, codes of conduct, mission statements. We are ethical. 

But they are not. What they have done is purchase an ethical fig leaf.

In the last few years, companies have got smarter. It is rare now to find children in the top level of the supply chain, because the brands know this is PR suicide. But the wages still stink, the hours are still brutal, and the children are still there, stitching away in the backstreets of the slums.

Drive east out of Delhi for an hour or so into the industrial wasteland of Ghaziabad and take a stroll down some of the back lanes. You might want to watch your step, to avoid falling into the stinking open drains. Take a look through some of the doorways. See the children stitching the fine embroidery and beading? Now take a stroll through your favourite mall and have a look at the shelves. Recognise some of that handiwork? You should.

Suppliers now subcontract work out from the main factory, maybe more than once. The work is done out of sight, the pieces sent back to the main factory to be finished and labelled. And when the auditors come round the factory, they can say that there were no children and all was well. Because audits are part of the act. Often it is as simple as two sets of books, one for the brand, one for themselves. The brand's books say everyone works eight hours a day with a lunch break. The real books show the profits from 16-hour days and no days off all month.

Need fire extinguishers to tick the safety box? Hire them in for the day. The lift is a deathtrap? Stick a sign on it to say it is out of use and the inspector will pass it by. The dark arts thrive in the inspection business. We, the consumers, let them do this because we want the shiny, pretty thing. And we grumble that times are tight, we can't be expected to pay more and, anyway, those places are very cheap to live in.
This is the other part of the magic trick, the western perception of the supplier countries, born of ignorance and embarrassment. India, more than most, knows how to play on this. Governments and celebrities fall over themselves to laud India for its progress. India is on the up, India is booming, India is very spiritual, India is vibrant. Sure, the workers are poor, but they are probably happy.

No, they are not. India has made the brands look rank amateurs in the field of public relations. Yes, we know it is protectionist, yes, we know working conditions are often diabolical, but we are in thrall to a country that seems impossibly exotic.

Colonial guilt helps. The British in particular feel awkward about India. We stole their country and plundered their riches. We don't feel able to criticise. But we should. China still gets caught out, but wages have risen and working conditions have improved. India seems content to rely on no one challenging it.

Last week India's powerful planning commission claimed that poverty was at a record low of 21.9% of the population. It did so on the basis that people could live on 26 rupees (29p) a day in rural areas (33 rupees in urban areas). Many inside India baulk at this. Few outside the country did so.

But times are tough, consumers say. This is the most pernicious of the ideas the brands have encouraged. Here's some maths from an Observer investigation last year in Bangalore. We can calculate that women on the absolute legal minimum wage, making jeans for a WKC, get 11p per item. Now wave your own wand and grant them the living monthly wage – the £136 the Asia Floor Wage Alliance calculates is needed to support a family in India today (and bear in mind that the women are often the sole earners). It is going to cost a fortune, right? No. It will cost 15p more on the labour cost of each pair of jeans.
The very fact that wages are so low makes the cost of fixing the problem low, too. Someone has to absorb the hit, be it the brand, supplier, middleman, retailer or consumer. But why make this a bad thing? 

Why be scared of it?

Here is the shopper, agonising over ethical or cheap. What if they can do both? What if they can pluck two pairs of jeans off the rail and hold them up. One costs £20. One costs £20.15. It has a big label on it, which says "I'm proud to pay 15p more for these jeans. I believe everyone has the right to a decent standard of living. My jeans were made by a happy worker who was paid the fair rate for the job."
Go further. Stitch it on to the jeans themselves. I want those jeans. I want to know I'm not wearing something stitched by kids kept locked in backstreet godowns, never seeing the light of day, never getting a penny. I want to feel clean. And I want the big brands and the supermarkets to help me feel clean.

I want people to say to them: "You deceived us. You told us you were ethical. We want you to change. We want you to police your supply chain as if you care. Name your suppliers. Open them to independent inspection. We want to trust you again, we really do, because we love your products. Know what? We don't mind paying a few pennies more if you promise to chip in too."


And here's the best part: I think they would sell more. I think consumers would be happier and workers would be happier. And if I can spend less time trawling through fetid backstreets looking for the truth, I'll be happier.


guardian.co.uk | By Gethin Chamberlain

-----------------------
Photo of ten "Young boys rescued from child traffickers at Katihar station in Bihar state, India, waiting for their parents to collect them". I have no idea what stories are hidden here, but know that some kind of welfare state in more of India could be part of the answer



Planb4fashion is a blog by Veganline.com which is a vegan shoe shop

Sunday, 8 September 2013

Socially aware fashion degree uses the "s" word for vagueness about human rights

Syllabuses for these Ethical Fashion courses tend to be written by the state-backed Centre for Sustainable Fashion which says "Ethical" in the same way that some prople say "Hullo" to open a conversation, begging the question of which ethic, immediately followed by "Sustainable", which sounds less vague next to "Ethical". Basically they want big business to be a bit greener and for everyone but big business folk to be paid starvation wages. For that bit of propaganda they get paid by us via Higher Education Funding Council and sometimes Department for International Development.
First socially aware fashion degree launches | Ms Wanda's
First socially aware fashion degree launches | Ms Wanda'shttp://www.mswandas.co.uk/2013/03/12/first-socially-aware-fashion-degree-launches/Fashion students in the UK will now get sustainability and ethics embedded in their studies thanks to Buckinghamshire New University.

Baroness Young of Hornseas' full speech at Ethical Fashion Source Summit

Baroness Young of Hornsey of the all-party committee on fashion gave a speech, criticised in the post below. The is in favour of clearer explanations by shopkeepers, collaboration in industry internationally, and compromise. The speech was to an organisation that claims to be a forum but selects speakers from big business and related consultants.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Baroness Young of Hornsey's speech to Ethical Fashion Source Summit, July 2013 [video times in minutes and seconds from the video below]

Oh Gosh!

No. It's so refreshing. I love coming to these events because it's so different to the house of lords, as some of you might guess! It's not known for its fashion sensibility. I've had some interesting adventures there as some of you might imagine. I have to share with you, although I am not going to name names, that a colleague of mine was told , first of all, that it was against the rules to wear cropped trousers. For a woman anyway - it didn't say anything about men.
And then she was reported to one of the highest authorities in that house of lords for being dressed "flamboyantly". In the bar! [11.19] So that's part of the context in which I work. So it's refreshing to be here. Although I have to say that I have been involved in arts and culture for many years.

Although, again I would say, though, that since I started working in the fashion sector. In this bit of the fashion sector, I hasten to add, I've found a really refreshing engagement with politics with a small "p". I think that comes naturally, as it were: if you are concerned about
-the environment; if you are concerned about
-workers' rights,
-all of these different issues, how can you not be political?
So after years of having worked in a sector that kind-of wanted to distance itself from politics, for me it's very refreshing and energising to work with a group of people for whom that - that, linked with the creativity and the innovation with is at the centre of what they do.

Now sustainability is a word that has so much currency in so many different ways, that it has started to become, I think, a bit devalued, and perhaps over-used and mis-used. When I introduced that into the terminology of my all party parliamentary group, there were some questions about it, particularly as it was linked to fashion. And I think that, even in the three of four years in which I have been involved in this sector and working with these campaigns, there has been a change, as Tamsin [the chair] has already indicated. But even: there has been a change within the House of Lords. Because the people there that I am working with have come to understand. So actually I have got an excellent group of people who are working with me on this issue. And they come from lots of different perspectives. And that's absolutely fine. They also come from different political parties which is really great, because it means we have a common understanding of some of the key issues that we are working with.

I just want to go back a little bit and say how I cam to be involved. I have always loved clothes and fashion ever since I was a kid, in the old days, when people would make their clothes from the bits of fabric that they would get in the remnant box in John Lewis in Oxford Street, run-up something on the machine (glue it together if there wasn't time) and then go out to a party. And of course, at that time, there wasn't High Street Fashion. There wasn't that sense that you were being driven by magazines of by celebrities to go out to these shops and buy-buy-buy, because the shops weren't there. All of that has changed. I think that, while there are some good aspects to that, it's actually becoming increasingly difficult to argue that that represents a democratisation of fashion, when other people are being oppressed, and indeed loosing their lives, because of that change. So there are a lot of issues here for us to think about, whether that's as consumers, as retailers, as makers, as designers, or as educators.

Interestingly, I think that fashion still has this sense of being something that is a little bit frivolous, and something that girleys do and are interested in, and so not very important. Or, that we are all pretty stupid and dumb, and we go-out and buy things because we've been told to do that. And of course in some respects, there is a little bit of truth in that, in the pressures that are put upon - particularly - young women to conform to certain ways of wearing clothes; certain ways of being in the world. But there is also so much that is to do with stereotyping and stigmatisation of certain groups in society.

I'm very much against the idea that there are a load of young people who all like sheep and go-out and do-stuff. However, I think I do want to make it clear that consumers do have a responsibility. And interestingly, I think that young people are at the heart of that sense of responsibilty. Of course, there will always be some who say "I don't care what happens to those people over there; those people mean nothing to me, and therefore I am going to shop the way I shop", whatever that is. But I think for the most part - certainly the young people I come across when I go out to schools to do talks or have young people in the houses of parliament to do talks, there is a very keen sense of responsibility [16'00'] but a lot of it is about not knowing what to do with it. Not knowing where to go. The questions I get asked most frequently are "OK: what clothes should I wear; where should I shop, what should I do?". And those are really difficult questions to which one has to answer: "it's very complex". And that, you know, is not an easy idea to get across: "it's very complex". What kind of a response is that? It feels like you are trying to sit on the fence and not say very much. [She doesn't say: "buy from democratic welfare states if you can".]

So one of the things I want to say is that: we have got to find new fresh ways of explaining ...
very succinctly and in a way that has real impact, to the market; to consumers, what it is that we are about and why it really matters what they buy, how they buy, where they buy it, and so-on.

I'm not going to replay the statistics to you. Although I've got this one about us all having about £30bn of clothes stashed-away in our wardrobes, and I sometimes think or feel that most of that £30bn is in my wardrobe! It has overtaken my bedroom, which looks like a teenage girls' at times. But, you know, it is a serious point. There are loads of these statistics - whether it is to do with the amount of water we use; the kinds of chemicals that we use in dry-cleaning. So all this work which we have to do about post-consumer waste and over-use of water and so-on and so-forth. So again this adds to the complexity and the number of messages that we need to get across to people.

"Those people": the reason I am emphasising consumers is that in a capitalist society, it is about making money. It is about a very kind of crude sense of what it takes for an organisation to make a profit. And that needs to be linked to a sense of Consumer Action, Consumer Urgency, and indeed there is a sense in which we need to think about throwing-out that word Consumer because it does imply a certain passivity which we would not want to encourage necessarily. So I think it is very important to think about what it is that we want people to do and to think about.

In February, earlier this year, I was in Copenhagen giving a presentation to Danish MPs on our all party parliamentary group, and explaining how we structure that, and how it works, and what we were meant to do. And again that was very instructive, because this is all about an international movement. It's not something we can do or think-of, only in terms of one particular country or one particular market. It is very much about how we can collaborate with people across the world. And I know that there's a lot of initiatives going-on as a result of what happened in Rana Plaza, which hopefully will gather even more momentum. [18'56"]

It was interesting: during the horse meat scandal, horse-meat-gate, I think people became more aware of the difficulties which lie behind and industry with a highly distributed supply chain. This idea that - you see people, even when we look very carefully at a packet of whatever it is. Burgers. And we see that it is £1 for 2 burgers. There is no connection in peoples' heads about what that actually means. And again in relation to the fashion industry, I sort of thought of our horse meat scandal as being something like Uzbekistan cotton, with all of the issues and problems around that. However, all of that was overtaken by the disaster that happened at Rana Plaza. Like many others, I would say "of course we do not want that to happen again", but the issue is, how do we do that? How do we stop that happening?

I think that. Well. You know this phrase "don't let the best be the enemy of the good". [20'00"]
Personally, I'm not into beating retailers about the head. I'm not into going to Primark and saying "you've got to do this", or "you've got to do that". I'm really interested in what sort of dialogues we can set-up. So one of the pieces of work, if you like, that the all-party parliamentary group does, is to be open to every discussion, to find out how the business works, and make suggestions about who to contact and who to work with, with a view to improving that situation.

I think that government - I've been pleasantly surprised, that after Rana Plaza, the government did call on major retailers and say "look: what are you going to do about this?". And fortunately Labour Behind the Label have produced the Accord, which a number of major retailers have signed-up to, and there are other initiatives which are going on elsewhere. And I wanted to - I don't want to take up too much more of your time because I know that you are running late, and there's lots more to get in, so I am just going to summarise what I was going to say, very quickly here.

In terms of what needs to happen next.

Well obviously, you are all here because you all feel very strongly about it. Part of what it is about getting the word out to more people.

And some of the proposals that are coming forth. I think that some of them are really good. But what we need to do is to try and formulate them into a kind of global strategy, if that is not much of a world domination type of speech! But it is about being strategic in what we do. Otherwise we will all be running-around, using lots of energy in what we do, and duplicating, and not being as effective as we might be [by letting Ethical Fashion Forum ignore human rights or the need for new tariff conditions against Bangladesh forcing Bangladesh to introduce a welfare state. She didn't say that].

So post Rana Plaza, the situation has changed. One would hope that it would be impossible for it not to change. So there is a momentum. It is up to us all to keep up the momentum, and as Tamsin has already said, "it can't happen again". But, you know, it is really easy to say that. [22'00'] But I don't, at the moment, without being particularly pessimistic, I can't have the confidence to say that there isn't another Rana Plaza waiting to happen, whether that is in Bangladesh or in India or in Burma, where new factories are being built to - kind-of - cope with the fallout from what has happened in Bangladesh. We can't be confident about that.

So that work which we have to do. We have to keep on doing it and we have to collaborate. I would be very much in favour of some kind of coalition being formed. [It has in the EU parliament. She didn't say that.] But that kind of thing has to be organic. It has to have people to drive it forward. But if it isn't to happen again; if there is anything we can do to stop that happening again, then obviously we need very much to be involved with that and make sure that we have some kind of global campaign that has clout, and nous, and intelligence, and is formed from all the different parts of the sector that we really like. Thank you.Baroness Young of Hornsea, All Party Committee Ethical Fashion, stooge




Planb4fashion is a blog by Veganline.com which is a vegan shoe shop

Not sure if Baroness Young called activists a hinderence - it mighthave been in a discussion that wasn't on video

I watched the free video of her speech: glad I'm not the only one to think it weird!

  • No mention of a welfare state as a way of reducing poverty.

  • No mention of American tariffs on a token amount of Bangladeshi products being raised.

  • No mention of an EU parliamentary motion reminding the Bangladeshi government of its commitments.

I had used Writetothem.com to tip her off about Ethical Fashion Forum's position, and to urge her to mention the political world outside.

Sadly, Ethical Fashon Forum isn't just for the big business insiders who appear as "experts" and run "masterclass" events. It's a pop-up lobby that has only existed for a few years, and sprang-up at the same time as some taxpayer-funded lobby groups, Esthetica at London Fashion Week, The Centre for Sustainability in Fashion at London College of Fashion, Own-It, and the one that sponsored "Making it Ethically in China", Creative Connexions. Creative Connexions closed after swallowing millions of pounds of higher education funding council money, but the others are influential lobby groups and highly selective in what they choose not to say. They would be pleased with Baroness Young's speech.
Baroness Young calls activists a hinderance | Ms Wanda's
Baroness Young calls activists a hinderance | Ms Wanda'shttp://www.mswandas.co.uk/2013/07/19/baroness-young-calls-activists-a-hinderance/At The Source Summit last week Baroness Young called “puritanical activists” a “hinderance”. Fashion Mob founder, Esther Freeman, thinks she’s…

Thursday, 5 September 2013

Nothing changes except the outfits (2) - why no social insurance in Bangladesh / Bengal?

Talking of imperious Bangladeshis, I asked a historian why National Insurance was not introduced in Bengal about 1911 when it started in the UK. My post below about Charles Hardinge (pictured) is wrong; he was the Viceroy.

Wikipedia tells me that Bengal had a former district officer as temporary governor 1911, Edward Duke, who became deputy in 1912 to an ex-governor of Australia, Thomas Gibson-Carmichael. Then as now, failed MPs sometimes happen to get well-paid government jobs and this one had tried being a UK MP for the party that brought-in National Insurance. So he knew what it was. Unusual for the people who worked for the Indian Civil Service who had been toughened-up with a ten-year stretch of boarding school before being "posted" to India. Most of them learned about the UK from surface-mail copies of The Times, arriving in bundles.

The historian usually does West-Indies, but said that if there was a Bengali assembly, discussion of national insurance would show-up in its records. He told me that the experience of empire diverged between white colonies and others from the 1860s to 1914. This surprised people in India, who had been lead to expect something different. Colonies like New Zealand could be the first part of the empire to have women voters. So why not Bengal? It's one of history's un-answered questions, and a reason for poverty in Bangladesh and clothes manufacturing today.

Fair access to subsidies

PlanB4fashion wants fair access to subsidies. London Fashion Week offered subsidised stallls for 3 shows starting February 2008 to Ethical Fashion Forum, who's first archived web page of October 2007 shows connections with other exibitors. EFF were also keen to turn-down members who might be troublesome.

London Fashion Week is funded by the Greater London Assembly (London Development Agency in 2007-8) out of European Regional Development Grant. In other countries like Portugal it is used to help local manufacturers co-operate, train and export.

UK government spends the money in a different way. Centre back at London Fashion Week is Gallahad Clark selling his "arguably more democratic" shoes made in China and centre forward is probably Elizabeth Laskar of Ethical Fashion Forum turning-down awkward members. The money is syphoned-off to promote Chinese factories rather than develop any region of Europe.

How to reduce poverty

PlanB4fashion wants government to realease more tax data to help people who produce trade directories in the UK; at the moment, you could have a factory a bus-ride away and not be able to find out what they make or the minimum order. There are plenty of wholesalers and consultants willing to help you get stuff from Bangladesh because the margin allows more people to be involved, but if you want to buy from the UK you have to do a lot of homework.
Fashion Capital | Ethical Manufacturing - Right Here in the UK - Ethical Manufacturing - Right Here in the UK ?... | Manufactur
Fashion Capital | Ethical Manufacturing - Right Here in the UK - Ethical Manufacturing - Right Here in the UK ?... | Manufacturhttp://www.fashioncapital.co.uk/News/25974-ethical-manufacturing-right-here-in-the-uk.html Leading the way is our very own FashionCapital factory based in North London. Due to increased demand in production the factory recently moved from 4,500 square foot which…

Redundancies and food poverty encouraged by fashion pundits

Last night on telly was a programme about food poverty in the UK and the difficulty of many people in the UK to afford meals from our run-down welfare benefits in a run-down manufacturing economy, broken down by unfair exchange rates, neglect, and lack of respect for the extra costs involved in making something in the fairer working conditions of the UK.

It would be easy to estimate the number of jobs lost in Leicester directly as a result of people like Ethical Fashion Forum and London Fashion Week and Estethica - often job lossses that they have engineered on money paid to them by Greater London Authority, Defra, or Department for Business, out of taxes paid for those who are being put out of work. One of the worst offenders Orsulanda de Castro is speaking at the moment to I am typing this rather than listen!

I just saw a slight glimpse of the world that I recognise overlapping with Ethical Fashion Forum's world when a guest speaker about closed-loop polyesters needing a larger investment than UK textiles mills could afford; about the way production management has usually been removed from college corriculums in favour of design or "fashion"; prioduction people are scarce at large company head offices. There was a great quote "production people are the brokers of fair relationships" in industry.

Chukka Umunna answers your questions (but not on tariffs)


Live Q&A: Chuka Umunna answers your questions | Guardian Small Business Network | theguardian.comhttp://discussion.guardian.co.uk/comment-permalink/24778818Chuka Umunna, shadow secretary of state for business, will be online on Tuesday at 12:15pm to chat directly to you about the issues affecting SMEs

plan B 4 fashion manifesto

4-point manifesto from the blog at https://facebook.com/planB4fashion .
Points 1 & 2 are about fashion production in the UK.
Points 3 & 4 are about reducing poverty in the far east - for example Bangladesh.

1.
UK government can help UK factories compete, by releasing tax data to say what factories exist.

Data could be made-up into trade directory by anyone who wanted to do the work as happens already with simlar data. Some companies would find ways of covering their costs and cross-selling other services. If not, perhaps a small grant of a volunteer effort could get good directories written.

Better trade directories are a very cheap way of re-balancing the UK economy so that it begins to pay enough taxes and employ enough people. Factories help money circulate around the UK, bringing taxes back into government, and creating jobs in run-down areas. Factories also have to be very lean to pay the costs of paying for a democratic welfare state with a UK living-standard and rents. They don't all have staff for sales or PR or tendering for contracts or submitting entries to competitions. Some don't even have office or reception staff. They need terse orders from well-informed customers who know exactly what the factory makes, the technique used, and maybe the minimum orders for free set-up or free UK delivery.

2.
UK government can change the fashion week that we pay for in taxes (through Greater London Authority and Department for Business' UK Trade and Investment).  It can insist that exhibitors are nominated by UK or European factories & display the names of the factories. This would get better value for UK taxpayers' money: UK taxpayers pay to promote employment amongst other UK taxpayers. UK taxpayers promote a clothing brand and a factory for the same budget that just paid to promote a clothes brand in the past; it's two results for the price of one.

Factory-vetted designers are probably reasonable to work with, from a factory's point of view.
At the moment London Fashion Week pays for extra coaching for designers who aren't businesslike - even some in the past who didn't have a way of making the clothes they put on show! There is an export guarantee system that insures their bad debts from overseas buyers,  who sometimes take advantage by not paying. So, in the worst case, a fashion week and UK Trade and Investment subsidy can promote a designer who is hard to work with, then pay the bad debts when the designer isn't paid, and put rival producers out of work because they're not in the PR business and get overlooked. An example is Equity Shoes of Leicester who were overlooked as ethical footwear producers while Terra Plana, who bought shoes from China, got the PR. Both are now closed.


For a long time there was only anecdotal evidence that London Fashion Week helped taxpayers. Now they have a 50 page "Value of Fashion" report in very small print which seems to show huge returns. We know from the Olympics' effect on London tourism that these reports are partly a sales pitch; they are not impartial. Read closely, the report admits the opposite of what the headline summaries say. Estimates of how money circulates are based on decades-old data about how many shoe factories existed in the UK, including many like Equity Shoes that have now closed. Most of the money circulates amongst people who could get other jobs in PR and fashion journalism. And no estimate is made of the cost of crowding-out UK apparel suppliers from the market.

3.
Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Indian & Chinese governments can reduce poverty.
The methods that worked in the UK 100 years ago were universal schooling and national insurance. Schooling for girls helped them become more assertive and reduced the rate of child birth. Pensions helped parents plan for old age without having to have as many children as they possibly could.

The first modern national insurance scheme was introduced in Germany, just before its industrial revolution.  It is not too early for Bangladesh to start one now.

The difficulty is how someone in the UK can effect government in Bangladesh, beyond a few factory checks or a fair-trade scheme. This is the next point.


4.
European and US government can change the tariffs that tax trade from countries without democratic welfare states like Bangladesh or China.
This helps people in Bangladesh as well as their cousins in Bolton. There is a consensus.
A formula for tariffs be worked-out over time.

  • More democracy earns a lower tariff - there is already a democracy index that could help this one get started.

  • More of a welfare state earns a lower tariff.

  • More human rights earn a lower tariff. And the reverse could also be true, so a country with more expensive exports because of the cost of a welfare state can still compete on price with China; the worst country no longer sets the market price for garment production.


Western governments are already trying to help eastern ones become more stable and better governed, if only to prevent the tide of misery reaching Europe in the form of wars and refugees. Search "Bangladesh" on gov.uk and find this...
"we are working with Transparency International Bangladesh and other civil society organisations to generate more debate between the government and citizens about progress in improving the providing services like health, education and legal services, and to beat corruption."

Unfortunately, western governments are also paying Bangladesh to keep its poor, with grants, development work and tariff-deals that depend on there being a lot of very poor people in Bangladesh. The rich in Bangladesh do very well out of this system. Their government even has enough free cash to pay for an export subsidy in a country that gets aid from the UK. Factory owners now get some free training for their staff paid by the UK taxpayer. With luck, the firm consistent pressure of conditional tariffs would change their minds and the way they run government. If not, the tariff system would raise some money towards the 0.7% that UK taxpayers pay in aid, to pay for Pakistani healthcare when the Pakistan government only pays 0.8% on health.

Plan A for fashion - in case anyone wonders what plan A was


What was plan A?



27 June 2013 at 15:39

Why plan B 4 fashion? (or what was plan A?)

It used to be thought that

  • Fashion will be fashioned in the far east along with everything else from ships to computers.
    This wasn't really a thought based on statistics or such. Just an every-day observation that seemed inevitable until countries like South Korea and Japan got similar living standards to the UK and still had a lot more indiustry. How do they do it? Their governments didn't fiddle their exchange rates and are much more interested in industry.

  • European jobs could come from financial services & invisibles (invisible clothes for example),
    because we are so much better and cleaverer and smarter with all our sophistication (sarcastic).
    To be fair, the new middle class in the far east are suckers for Western brands because they represent something vaguely good, but it seems silly to rip them off by selling them sweatshop goods as a symbol of the free civilised west. The next generation will choose differently.


Since the banking crisis, banks have cut-back service jobs as have walk-in retailers.
The currency manipulation that made countries like the UK look rich in the 1980s-2000s now has to be reversed, so that more things can be made here again. Fashionistas might not be very interested in monetary policy, but it's a label for rigging exchange rates so that imports look cheap and there can be less inflation. An odd policy to keep in place for 30 years, but that was the policy. It's probably not on the syllabus at fashion college.

A compromise view is that posh things can be made in Europe but cheap things must be made in the far east for high street chain stores. But there are other niche-markets than posh. The shoes worn by ballroom dancers who dance after the political party conferences in Blackpool are often made in the UK and sold for lower prices than branded alternatives made in the far east. The problem is the cost of advertising a brand and distributing it on a high street, as well as manufacturing. Now that people are buying online and may be more savvy about brands, there is a chance to promote shoes made in the UK.

Western people were different to eastern people and should not poke their noses into corruption or bad government by rich elites (who could arrest any eastern people who poked nose). In the UK it's hard to know if any one person believed the first part of this, but it's easy to see that westerners did not want to poke their noses into the politics of Bangladesh or Paikistan or India or China.

More trade might lead to a trickling-down of wealth, of human rights, welfare rights & democracy  If not, it was thought to be post-colonial nose-poking to have an opinion.
It was not the business of facebook readers. It was the business of people getting very wealthy in the far east.

If western people are much the same as eastern people, and wealth usually needs a push to trickle-down to to most of us, then there are policies to sort out on the western side, because that is where the consumer money is as the moment. Maybe in a hundred years it will be in the east. In business, it is always good to build-up good will in case someone else is making the decisions in a few years' time! So my recommendation is to keep everyone happy by writing happiness tariff laws, leading to good will and happiness all-round.

European Parliament non legislative motion on Bangladesh

The European Parliament takes a tougher view on tariffs than the G8 - and it is the European Commission who set tariffs. Clauses 5 & 6 mention labout conditions among plenty of other clauses about other issues I had never heard of!

Joint motion for a resolution on labour conditions and health and safety standards following the recent factory fires and building collapse in Bangladesh - RC-B7-0223/2013http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2F%2FEP%2F%2FTEXT+MOTION+P7-RC-2013-0223+0+DOC+XML+V0%2F%2FEN–   having regard to its resolutions of 25 November 2010 on human rights and social and environmental standards in international trade agreements(4) and on corporate social…

Wednesday, 4 September 2013

MPs say ending violence against women is a key to ending poverty

MPs say ending violence against women is the key to ending poverty - News from Parliament - UK Parliament
MPs say ending violence against women is the key to ending poverty - News from Parliament - UK Parliamenthttp://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/international-development-committee/news/vawg-report-substantive/Ending violence against women and girls is the litmus test for whether ‘development’ is working in poor countries such as Afghanistan, say MPs in report by the Commons…


A third of girls in the former third world are married by the age of 18. This could by why the countries are overpopulated and the poor in those countries are very poor.

.

Planb4fashion blog posts are by Veganline.com which is a vegan shoe shop

Tuesday, 3 September 2013

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/form_of_data_re_footwear_clothin

Will government release trade data to allow more products to be made in the UK? This FOI request letter and request for government open data might have a result.

http://www.prfire.co.uk/politics/message-for-the-g8-tariffs-can-make-poor-countries-richer-140732

Many of my early posts appear to be blank. I am not sure why they have become blank and will write something to fill the gap in due course.




Planb4fashion is a blog by Veganline.com which is a vegan shoe shop


Great attempt to introduce the start of a welfare state in Pakistan -where they pay less on health than we do in aid




http://www.scribd.com/doc/106797587/PTI-Health-Policy UK taxpayers are paying 0.7% in aid while Pakistani taxpayers are only paying 0.8% towards health services















Pakistan Tehreeh-e-Insaf presented its healthy policy on 24th September 2012


Scribd







http://enoughfoodif.org/issues/transparency

Transparency


http://enoughfoodif.org/issues/transparency
- starting with trasparency at home. One of the agencies backing The Big If is CAFOD, an organisation funded by people who want to look like good churchgoers in order to get taxpayer-funded places for their children in exclusive schools! Unlike Oxfam, Action Aid or Christian Aid, CAFOD does not advocate contraception. Another charity with the same loyalty - Cardinal Hume Centre - advertised itself as helping the young street homeless of Westminster while providing grace and favour housing to people well connected with senior figures in failed african regimes. If Cardinal Hume Centre in London does that, how much more transparent does CAFOD need to be?





Planb4fashion may be easier to read on a single page
a blog by Veganline.com which is a vegan shoe shop

http://enoughfoodif.org/issues/tax

This post appears to be missing