|
Post by redstriper on Mar 30, 2016 14:03:08 GMT
I was working in the coal industry when that fell apart and can attest it was down to the cost of production, its not possible to compete with giant opencast mines where the coal is simply extracted from a hill with a jcb by sending 500 men underground. The pottery industry could have been turned around with investment, because much more than with coal/steel - people buy pottery on other things rather than price. Quality, design and brand strength allow you to sell at a premium. The region was let down. Let down by who? Pretty much everyone within the industry and government who failed to appreciate that a hard working, experienced and above all skilled workforce is an asset which allows you to compete on quality against start-ups if you market the product as a premium, high quality item and invest in technology. The germans have done this effectively with their cars for many years. The swiss do it with watches. There are many other examples.
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Mar 30, 2016 14:59:14 GMT
Pretty much everyone within the industry and government who failed to appreciate that a hard working, experienced and above all skilled workforce is an asset which allows you to compete on quality against start-ups if you market the product as a premium, high quality item and invest in technology. The germans have done this effectively with their cars for many years. The swiss do it with watches. There are many other examples. Yep. Instead successive governments replaced skilled manual labour with an endless string of call centres and distribution warehouses. Then wondered why it was that the best and brightest seldom stay in the area. Of course if you're a neoliberal then this was all inevitable. Market forces dontcha know. The irrepressible energy of globalisation. Nothing anyone could do about it. No alternative except the state-sanctioned destruction of countless communities, jobs, traditions and livelihoods, deemed essential by a handful of money men. Still, apparently about 1% of the population do really well out of neoliberalism so that's alright then
|
|
|
Post by mumf on Mar 30, 2016 16:03:38 GMT
Cameron has cut short his holiday amid 40000 job losses according to the Telegraph
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2016 16:05:32 GMT
Cameron has cut short his holiday amid 40000 job losses according to the Telegraph I'm sure they'll all take heart in that.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Mar 30, 2016 18:08:37 GMT
Of course it doesn't help that we have a Chancellor and Government whose main strategy has been to pander to every whim of Beijing actively preventing the European Commission from addressing dumping and arguing that their 80% state owned industry should be given market economy status. They then give a multi billion pound defence contract to Swedish Steel and leave Kinnock and the Union bloke flapping in the wind in India, yesterday. This Government doesn't give a fuck about our Steel industry or the lives that the eradication of it will throw into despair. Why not rename Tata Steel and call it 'Nat West Bank' or 'Lloyd's Bank' or 'Royal Bank of Scotland' then the Government might pour hundreds of billions of tax payers money into it to keep it afloat.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Mar 30, 2016 18:34:19 GMT
Just edited it I would also add if the EU didn't do enough to protect Europe then successive UK governments had their hands tied up by EU Law Roll on june Being in the EU hasn't stopped Italy & Germany intervening in there Steel Industry to protect it though. As far as Steel goes the UK Government are using the EU as a scapegoat for there own negligence. Negligence they've never shown with the Banking Sector. But hey? How many politicians work in Steel foundries? How many politicians have banking backgrounds?
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 30, 2016 18:40:15 GMT
Not sure, but I do think that the EU stopped Belgium from subsidising their Steel industry
|
|
|
Post by mumf on Mar 30, 2016 18:41:52 GMT
I would also add if the EU didn't do enough to protect Europe then successive UK governments had their hands tied up by EU Law Roll on june Being in the EU hasn't stopped Italy & Germany intervening in there Steel Industry to protect it though. As far as Steel goes the UK Government are using the EU as a scapegoat for there own negligence. Negligence they've never shown with the Banking Sector. But hey? How many politicians work in Steel foundries? How many politicians have banking backgrounds? Yes , most of that is fair and true , especially the negligence bit , but in all fairness we had to bail the banks out . It mattered not as to which party was in power . It was a situation that had to be dealt with . It was to certain extent a problem that all major governments did as a result of bad debt around the world ...especially the states . They knew full well that in a very short space of time that they would one day recover their losses which they all did . Steel on the other hand is more a risky and volatile business . Having said that some of our European partners have managed to hang onto their industry .....
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Mar 30, 2016 18:59:02 GMT
Pretty much everyone within the industry and government who failed to appreciate that a hard working, experienced and above all skilled workforce is an asset which allows you to compete on quality against start-ups if you market the product as a premium, high quality item and invest in technology. The germans have done this effectively with their cars for many years. The swiss do it with watches. There are many other examples. Yep. Instead successive governments replaced skilled manual labour with an endless string of call centres and distribution warehouses. Then wondered why it was that the best and brightest seldom stay in the area. Of course if you're a neoliberal then this was all inevitable. Market forces dontcha know. The irrepressible energy of globalisation. Nothing anyone could do about it. No alternative except the state-sanctioned destruction of countless communities, jobs, traditions and livelihoods, deemed essential by a handful of money men. Still, apparently about 1% of the population do really well out of neoliberalism so that's alright then Apparently it's nothing to do with Global Capitalism you know....
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Mar 30, 2016 19:08:17 GMT
Being in the EU hasn't stopped Italy & Germany intervening in there Steel Industry to protect it though. As far as Steel goes the UK Government are using the EU as a scapegoat for there own negligence. Negligence they've never shown with the Banking Sector. But hey? How many politicians work in Steel foundries? How many politicians have banking backgrounds? Yes , most of that is fair and true , especially the negligence bit , but in all fairness we had to bail the banks out . It mattered not as to which party was in power . It was a situation that had to be dealt with . It was to certain extent a problem that all major governments did as a result of bad debt around the world ...especially the states . They knew full well that in a very short space of time that they would one day recover their losses which they all did . Steel on the other hand is more a risky and volatile business . Having said that some of our European partners have managed to hang onto their industry ..... Fair comment. Banks did have to be bailed out. I'm not making Party Political points..Shelton Steelworks was closed in 1978 ..under a Labour Government. But this Government could have intervened and done more in Port Talbot & elsewhere. We also need to look at energy costs in the UK..83% higher than in Germany & the effect of 'green taxes' brought about to reduce pollution and environmental damage. This is the main reason UK steel is more expensive than China not because of unit Labour costs.China doesn't give a fuck about pollution..no green taxes..in effect they export their pollution. And unlike Italy & Germany the UK govt allows it. It's also worth noting that if Port Talbot closes we will no longer have any Steel making capacity in the UK. We have hardly any coal producing capacity. We will therefore be totally dependent on other countries for our coal and steel. UK Energy Policy is a fucking joke. There isn't one. All our eggs are in the nuclear basket. What a contrast to Germany. Light years ahead of the UK in yet another field. We might have won 2 World Wars against Germany but we've been losing an Economic one since 1945.
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Mar 30, 2016 19:28:45 GMT
Yep. Instead successive governments replaced skilled manual labour with an endless string of call centres and distribution warehouses. Then wondered why it was that the best and brightest seldom stay in the area. Of course if you're a neoliberal then this was all inevitable. Market forces dontcha know. The irrepressible energy of globalisation. Nothing anyone could do about it. No alternative except the state-sanctioned destruction of countless communities, jobs, traditions and livelihoods, deemed essential by a handful of money men. Still, apparently about 1% of the population do really well out of neoliberalism so that's alright then Apparently it's nothing to do with Global Capitalism you know.... This is the frustration isn't it. People get hung up on blaming immigrants, trade union members, whoever, when in reality there are much bigger, darker forces here. Taking the free movement of people as one small example of the effects of globalisation: for the architects of this policy, the sole aim is to suppress wages so that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It has exactly nothing to do with liberal values or tree hugging at all. The great triumph of those dark forces has been in successfully persuading the thicker element to just get angry with individual immigrants rather than looking at the bigger picture. In this way they can divide and rule to their hearts' content.
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on Mar 30, 2016 19:36:06 GMT
Not sure, but I do think that the EU stopped Belgium from subsidising their Steel industry We are not allowed to interfere in our own steel works under EU directives
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Mar 30, 2016 19:48:15 GMT
Not sure, but I do think that the EU stopped Belgium from subsidising their Steel industry We are not allowed to interfere in our own steel works under EU directives Italy & Germany have.
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on Mar 30, 2016 19:54:27 GMT
We are not allowed to interfere in our own steel works under EU directives Italy & Germany have. Maybe they ignore rediculous directives. We on the other hand behave like the perfect gentlemen and must stick to the rules
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2016 20:20:08 GMT
Maybe they ignore rediculous directives. We on the other hand behave like the perfect gentlemen and must stick to the rules Alluded to this point elsewhere with respect to the EU, but... This gov't is neoliberal as fuck. The EU has elements of that in its fabric (it is fundamentally a trade community, and one in which internal competition is incentivised), but there are attempts to make it softer around the edges with social policy. While the more liberal states such as Sweden are involved, there's a chance the softer elements will shine through in directives, which for those complaining about EU law, are actually quite a weak form of legislation. Ultimately, I'd vote to stay in because this government would do away with all barriers to trade if they could. Things like the minimum wage, restrictions on working times, agency workers' rights... The commitment to providing a basic floor for people - which incidentally is interpreted differently in each member state. The EU as an institution is not especially powerful in terms of law-making, certainly not when it comes to making laws to actually (shock!) protect citizens. Without the ECJ to counter our government, I suspect they will get much more bullish in advancing their Hayek-on-speed agenda. Those worried about the democratic deficit in the EU, would shit their beds if they gave any thought to the situation TTIP will present. Imagine B&H suing our government (that means you and I too, folks) for having the temerity to limit tobacco advertising; Coca Cola for the sugar tax; Healthcorp Inc. for our 'anti-competitive' NHS... Stock up on cyanide capsules kids.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 30, 2016 20:43:06 GMT
Why Jeremy Corbyn is the ‘out’ campaign’s secret weapon Nick Cohen Nick Cohen Jeremy Corbyn Visits The North East 24 February 2016 2:29 PM
Europe has opened up an unbridgeable chasm in the Conservative party. Labour remains, near as dammit, united. On the EU referendum, an opposition accustomed to defeat has a rare chance of victory. Yet when Jeremy Corbyn makes the case for staying in he speaks without conviction. Like a man called into work on his day off, his weary expression and dispirited voice tell you he would rather be somewhere else. Tory MPs, so divided that it is hard to see how they can stay in the same party, unite in laughing at him.
The Labour leadership and most of the unions seem unaware that this is a fight over the future of Britain. Their strange indifference may help the opponents of the EU prevail. The ‘out’ campaign offers a simple explanation for the left’s lethargy: in their hearts Corbyn, Unite and the rest do not want us to stay in the EU. As one Vote Leave spokesman said, ‘It’s extremely sad to see that Jeremy, who is for all his faults a conviction politician and a lifelong opponent of the EU, has been gagged by the clapped-out Blairites rejected in the Labour leadership contest.’
But Vote Leave fails to understand the Labour party as it fails to understand so much else. It is not that Corbyn secretly wants Britain to withdraw from the EU. It is that he all too obviously does not care about it. When Corbyn asked moderate Labour politicians to serve in his shadow cabinet, many found the idea of working for him repugnant. Those who agreed — for the good of the party — insisted that Corbyn commit to campaign to keep Britain in Europe. ‘It was like pinning jelly to a wall,’ one told me. ‘I kept telling him, “It’s a yes or no choice, Jeremy, in or out. There is no ‘maybe’ or ‘Only if the EU does what I want’ on the ballot paper.” He kept wandering away from the subject, and I kept having to drag him back.’
You must take a crash course in the biases of the far left to understand its sins of omission and commission. David Cameron got close to the truth when, in a voice full of fake pity, he told that Corbyn his pro-EU stance may cause his allies to accuse him of ‘being a member of an establishment’. Just so. The far left calls all who deviate from its sacred texts ‘red Tories’, ‘Blairite-Tories’, ‘Torylites’ or even — brace yourselves — ‘Tories’. Treason, a charge Corbynistas have thrown at so many others, will be thrown back at them. In foreign affairs, this commitment-phobia explains the willingness to go along with any anti-western movement, however racist, sexist or genocidal it might be, which has disgraced my generation of leftists as surely as support for Stalin disgraced leftwingers in the 1930s.
In domestic policy, however, the instinct to find fault with those who say, for instance, that Britain’s justice system is the best in the world, or that our future can only be in the European Union, is not a bad reflex. Without the urge to unravel such complacency, faults are never exposed and reform is never attempted. But such a tendency can easily develop into nervous tics and then compulsive disorders. If left-wingers and union leaders could bring themselves to think strategically, they would be scared out of their skins by the prospect of Britain withdrawing from the EU. ‘Splendid isolation’ would be anything but splendid for them. The Tories would oust Cameron and his replacement would be even more right-wing. The social and economic protection provided by EU membership would vanish.
Yet the left cannot bring itself to campaign wholeheartedly for Britain to stay in. For that would mean accepting that the EU had values worth defending — despite its disgraceful treatment of southern Europe and its attempts to promote a free-trade area, from which left-wingers instinctively recoil. And so Unite spends most of its time worrying that the mooted free-trade agreement between the EU and the US will lead to the privatisation of the NHS. And Frances O’Grady, the current TUC general secretary, does not share the enthusiasm for the EU of her predecessors. In Labour circles, the conventional view is that the far left’s commitment-phobia does not matter. Alan Johnson and Hilary Benn are leading the Labour campaign for ‘in’ and they are politicians with open minds, skilful in debate, who can secure the Labour vote.
I am not so sure. Corbyn may be an electoral disaster waiting to happen but he has the support of the two or three million people in Britain who define themselves as leftists. Their votes will matter, and if the EU referendum doesn’t bother their leader, they may wonder why they should bother to vote at all. The trade unions may not be what they were, but they can still run an effective campaign. Yet with a few exceptions, they are refusing to think strategically. How can they? If the unions and the wider left were to think strategically, they would have to accept that the leaders they have helped to impose on the Labour party — first Miliband and now Corbyn — have benefited no one except the Conservatives.
They would have to accept that they should remove Corbyn from office before he loses Labour another election. They would have to accept, in short, that the willingness to compromise is not the same as the desire to sell out. And this they show no signs of doing.
This is a preview from the new issue of The Spectator, out tomorrow.
REFERENDUM 2016: THE BATTLE AHEAD
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 30, 2016 20:54:13 GMT
Main Menu News Categories Account Management Features
THE EU: ANTI- SOCIALIST AND ANTI-DEMOCRATIC MAY 2015 Tuesday 26TH posted by Morning Star in Features The EU is in trouble and it is the working class which poses the real threat to its future, writes KELVIN HOPKINS THERE should be no doubt that the European Union is anti-working class, anti-socialist and anti-democratic. This has been the case since its first incarnation as the European Common Market in 1957, and the evidence is now overwhelming. One in four workers are now unemployed in Greece and Spain, with youth unemployment at double that. Living standards have been cut as economies have contracted under the lash of austerity and thousands have been forced to move abroad to look for work. Unemployment in Spain has been the equivalent of over seven million without jobs in Britain. Three-hundred thousand Irish working people have left their homes to look for work overseas since the 2008 banking crisis, the equivalent of over four million in Britain. Membership of the euro has acted as an economic vice on these economies, fixing them at unsustainable currency parities above all with Germany. Only when the euro is dismantled so that those EU members in severe economic difficulties can begin to manage and rebuild their own economies again will the sufferings of their peoples be reversed. Gordon Brown’s 1997 decision to resist British membership of the euro saved Britain from economic catastrophe after 2008. Larry Elliott, writing in the Guardian, rightly suggested that if Britain had joined the euro at the then prevailing parity, and had been unable to depreciate after 2008, the economy would have been wrecked. Britain would have been the first to crash out of the euro and the whole edifice would have collapsed. As it is, sterling depreciated by 27 per cent against the euro after the crisis and gave a degree of protection from the savage economic storms which have devastated other EU economies. But the anti-socialist and anti-democratic nature of the EU were long ago recognised by the left and it is the left which threatens it today. The virtual disappearance of Pasok, the formerly socialist Greek political party, which chose to walk into a deadly embrace with the Conservative New Democracy Party to inflict austerity on Greek workers, has been a modern Greek tragedy. Other pro-EU social democratic parties elsewhere in the EU are suffering too. Syriza in Greece and Podemos in Spain have grown quickly to fill vacuums on the left. But to return to the nature of the EU and what it is for. It is of course a branch of global neoliberalism, of laissez-faire capitalism, constructed to raise up the power of the market and progressively dismantle the socialist and social democratic structures which were established and were so successful in the immediate post-war decades. The EU political class does have a serious problem, however, because working people have a strong attachment to these post-war structures — welfare states, public services, redistributive taxation and the public ownership and democratic accountability of public utilities and other sectors. The reactionary Thatcherite revolution inflicted on Britain has pushed the neoliberal agenda far beyond that of Continental Europe, but the direction and objectives are the same. It is of significance that the neoliberal push in the European Union was actually initiated quietly by Thatcherite ideologues in Britain, including the then deputy governor of the Bank of England in the mid-1980s. The so-called Single European Act was the first major step on that road. However, on the Continent, it is fear of the likely political reaction by millions of workers which has held back the neoliberal thrust. The left and the working class resisted the attempt to impose a “European constitution” on the EU, voting against in referendums in France and the Netherlands, despite pressure from allegedly socialist parties to vote in favour. The Swedish elite failed to persuade the Swedish people to join the euro and the Norwegian political class twice failed to get Norwegians to vote to join the EU. Eurosceptism is indeed growing right across the EU, and an early Greek exit from the euro remains a probability. The EU is in trouble and it is the working class which poses the real threat to its future. It is time for democratic governments across the EU to reclaim power from Brussels and begin again to represent the real interests of their peoples and move in a socialist direction. The EU economy is failing, and it is not just the southern fringe where problems exist. The elephant in the room, so to speak, is in fact France, and as France finds it increasingly difficult to sustain its membership of the eurozone, a seismic change really is in prospect. It is the EU which has in effect derailed President Francois Hollande’s initial progressive agenda promised before his election. The French, like other members of the eurozone, need to be able to adjust the value of their currency, against Germany in particular, which means re-establishing the franc and beginning once again to manage their economy at a national level with appropriate monetary and fiscal policies and direct state intervention to generate full employment and long-term economic stability. The whole EU economic strategy has proved a failure, and while a useful level of co-operation between economies on a voluntary and mutually beneficial basis is appropriate, bureaucratic control and economic dictats from the EU institutions do not work. It is time for the EU to recognise its failure and leave the countries of Europe to reconstruct the democratic socialist/social democratic post-war world which worked so well. Kelvin Hopkins is Labour MP for Luton North. He has recently written The European Union — A View From the Left (published by Labour Euro Safeguards Campaign).
|
|
|
Post by mumf on Mar 30, 2016 21:18:23 GMT
Yes , most of that is fair and true , especially the negligence bit , but in all fairness we had to bail the banks out . It mattered not as to which party was in power . It was a situation that had to be dealt with . It was to certain extent a problem that all major governments did as a result of bad debt around the world ...especially the states . They knew full well that in a very short space of time that they would one day recover their losses which they all did . Steel on the other hand is more a risky and volatile business . Having said that some of our European partners have managed to hang onto their industry ..... Fair comment. Banks did have to be bailed out. I'm not making Party Political points..Shelton Steelworks was closed in 1978 ..under a Labour Government. But this Government could have intervened and done more in Port Talbot & elsewhere. We also need to look at energy costs in the UK..83% higher than in Germany & the effect of 'green taxes' brought about to reduce pollution and environmental damage. This is the main reason UK steel is more expensive than China not because of unit Labour costs.China doesn't give a fuck about pollution..no green taxes..in effect they export their pollution. And unlike Italy & Germany the UK govt allows it. It's also worth noting that if Port Talbot closes we will no longer have any Steel making capacity in the UK. We have hardly any coal producing capacity. We will therefore be totally dependent on other countries for our coal and steel. UK Energy Policy is a fucking joke. There isn't one. All our eggs are in the nuclear basket. A What a contrast to Germany. Light years ahead of the UK in yet another field. We might have won 2 World Wars against Germany but we've been losing an Economic one since 1945. I hear what you are saying and on the face of it you make a lot sense in your observations . In relation to our energy policy I'm afraid I have little or no knowledge on it , however if what you are saying is true then we agree . As a matter of info ...I think Northwich is the man who's the most qualified ....he's on some energy users council or summat . It would be interesting to know what he thinks ...
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Mar 30, 2016 21:35:31 GMT
Fair comment. Banks did have to be bailed out. I'm not making Party Political points..Shelton Steelworks was closed in 1978 ..under a Labour Government. But this Government could have intervened and done more in Port Talbot & elsewhere. We also need to look at energy costs in the UK..83% higher than in Germany & the effect of 'green taxes' brought about to reduce pollution and environmental damage. This is the main reason UK steel is more expensive than China not because of unit Labour costs.China doesn't give a fuck about pollution..no green taxes..in effect they export their pollution. And unlike Italy & Germany the UK govt allows it. It's also worth noting that if Port Talbot closes we will no longer have any Steel making capacity in the UK. We have hardly any coal producing capacity. We will therefore be totally dependent on other countries for our coal and steel. UK Energy Policy is a fucking joke. There isn't one. All our eggs are in the nuclear basket. A What a contrast to Germany. Light years ahead of the UK in yet another field. We might have won 2 World Wars against Germany but we've been losing an Economic one since 1945. I hear what you are saying and on the face of it you make a lot sense in your observations . In relation to our energy policy I'm afraid I have little or no knowledge on it , however if what you are saying is true then we agree . As a matter of info ...I think Northwich is the man who's the most qualified ....he's on some energy users council or summat . It would be interesting to know what he thinks ... He thinks power stations should be run by treadmills
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on Mar 30, 2016 22:04:34 GMT
The loss of most of our industrial base is more or less down to the zoning of certain sectors in different parts of Europe. Germany and Italy are still industrial countries possibly explaining why a blind eye was turned when they intervened in their steel industry's. We on the other hand have become the EU's service sector area. Southern Europe is the area for tourism which isnt the highest priority for the grand scheme. I believe the current migrant crisis is just a distraction (and a big one to alot of people) to divert people away from whats really going on behind the scenes. Its called order out of chaos and when the order comes we'll be treated as nothing more than drones.
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Mar 31, 2016 7:08:24 GMT
I suppose part of it is the nature of the beast of business though. When you're expanding, growing and new on the block as it were, you tend to buy what's available at the time in terms of technology. There's no union issues to worry about stifling the integration of new processes that perhaps only need 800 people to run instead of 1000. Unions are ultimately a very self-destructive entity, they do great things in terms of trying to keep people in jobs and supporting workers and ensuring a degree of fairness - but ultimately somewhere down the line it reaches the point where companies aren't able to compete. Working for a tools company these days, so this does have a knock on effect of sorts but we had moved away from a lot of British tools as they were extremely expensive for no other reason than being British. WTF Has this to do with unions. Multi-National decides that Port Talbot isn't worth running any longer so they're fucking it off. That's Capitolism
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2016 8:49:28 GMT
Sell everything off, and your at the whims of other countries. This is what this country has done. End of. If their is no one to make anything, where are you going to make money. You cannot trust the financial system, as has already been proved. But still the rich get richer. How? Bent is my answer!
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Mar 31, 2016 12:08:58 GMT
Sell everything off, and your at the whims of other countries. This is what this country has done. End of. If their is no one to make anything, where are you going to make money. You cannot trust the financial system, as has already been proved. But still the rich get richer. How? Bent is my answer! The idea behind privatisation was to run companies more efficiently & effectively. In some cases it's worked but usually because of reduced Labour costs (people losing their jobs and being payed less) but also increased capital investment. The big problem with privatisation is that once you float your Company on the Stock Market is that anybody..anywhere..can buy shares. Most UK Banks..despite having billions of pounds poured into them by British Taxpayers are in large part owned by Saudi Arabia.. United Arab Emirates.. USA etc The same is true with privatised Utilities..British Gas.. Centrica..National Grid. Telecoms.. BT..Vodafone. Virgin Money..Virgin Mainline plus all the other rail companies are partly foriegn owned. Same with buses.. Eg Stagecoach. British Steel is now Tata Steel. The UK PLC is no longer owned by the UK.
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Mar 31, 2016 13:26:33 GMT
Sell everything off, and your at the whims of other countries. This is what this country has done. End of. If their is no one to make anything, where are you going to make money. You cannot trust the financial system, as has already been proved. But still the rich get richer. How? Bent is my answer! The idea behind privatisation was to run companies more efficiently & effectively. In some cases it's worked but usually because of reduced Labour costs (people losing their jobs and being payed less) but also increased capital investment. The big problem with privatisation is that once you float your Company on the Stock Market is that anybody..anywhere..can buy shares. Most UK Banks..despite having billions of pounds poured into them by British Taxpayers are in large part owned by Saudi Arabia.. United Arab Emirates.. USA etc The same is true with privatised Utilities..British Gas.. Centrica..National Grid. Telecoms.. BT..Vodafone. Virgin Money..Virgin Mainline plus all the other rail companies are partly foriegn owned. Same with buses.. Eg Stagecoach. British Steel is now Tata Steel. The UK PLC is no longer owned by the UK. The problem with privatisation was that it was never done properly. Theyre not truly private as they still have heavy government involvement and thus kept the people who 'know' government ie the people they most needed rid of. Ownership was sold off but they retained the public sector culture and inefficiency. The worst of both worlds. The banks were bailed out over other industries for 3 reasons: 1. They are more important to the UK economy. 2. They are still competitive in the global market. 3. They had to in order to blame the banks and cover up the outright negligence of the government in regulating the industry in the years before the recession.
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Mar 31, 2016 16:16:40 GMT
The idea behind privatisation was to run companies more efficiently & effectively. In some cases it's worked but usually because of reduced Labour costs (people losing their jobs and being payed less) but also increased capital investment. The big problem with privatisation is that once you float your Company on the Stock Market is that anybody..anywhere..can buy shares. Most UK Banks..despite having billions of pounds poured into them by British Taxpayers are in large part owned by Saudi Arabia.. United Arab Emirates.. USA etc The same is true with privatised Utilities..British Gas.. Centrica..National Grid. Telecoms.. BT..Vodafone. Virgin Money..Virgin Mainline plus all the other rail companies are partly foriegn owned. Same with buses.. Eg Stagecoach. British Steel is now Tata Steel. The UK PLC is no longer owned by the UK. The problem with privatisation was that it was never done properly. Theyre not truly private as they still have heavy government involvement and thus kept the people who 'know' government ie the people they most needed rid of. Ownership was sold off but they retained the public sector culture and inefficiency. The worst of both worlds. The banks were bailed out over other industries for 3 reasons: 1. They are more important to the UK economy. 2. They are still competitive in the global market. 3. They had to in order to blame the banks and cover up the outright negligence of the government in regulating the industry in the years before the recession. Don't, Don't, Don't. They've been running under their own steam for decades, don't don't come on here with your lies. Anyone who worked there from the nationalised days have long gone. You really don't endear yourself to the natives
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Mar 31, 2016 23:07:56 GMT
The problem with privatisation was that it was never done properly. Theyre not truly private as they still have heavy government involvement and thus kept the people who 'know' government ie the people they most needed rid of. Ownership was sold off but they retained the public sector culture and inefficiency. The worst of both worlds. The banks were bailed out over other industries for 3 reasons: 1. They are more important to the UK economy. 2. They are still competitive in the global market. 3. They had to in order to blame the banks and cover up the outright negligence of the government in regulating the industry in the years before the recession. Don't, Don't, Don't. They've been running under their own steam for decades, don't don't come on here with your lies. Anyone who worked there from the nationalised days have long gone. You really don't endear yourself to the natives Unless things have changed in the last 5 years (hint: they havent) they are still full of ex public sector employees and people who have never worked in the true private sector. Its a pre requisite of being hired for many positions. When dealing with them the attitude is always how can we avoid doing anything over how we can we make things better.
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Apr 1, 2016 1:49:35 GMT
Look at the facts... UK steel is just not competitive. The quality is not there and the prices are too high. Furnaces are 50 years out of date and they are shipping product half way across the country and back between different facilities to get a single saleable item. You cant put a bandage on a broken enterprise and expect it to do anything other than drain the government coffers. This is not just 'we sold out to the Chinese', other countries modernised their industries years ago and are reaping the rewards of doing so.
|
|
|
Post by Timmypotter on Apr 1, 2016 5:44:06 GMT
I'm usually fairly cynical when people say that the BBC spouts government propaganda, but this piece as the main story on their website takes the biscuit. www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/35933173/steel-v-banks-why-theyre-different-when-it-comes-to-a-government-bail-out[\url]. Or maybe its some elaborate April fools joke? I've never read anything on there that supports the neo liberal agenda to such an extent. We have to let UK steel fail as the market knows best apparently, and the situation is entirely different from the banking crisis, as steel isn't vital to our economy. It doesn't mention that a root cause is cheap, state supported Chinese steel, or that we might want to think about saving steel if we care about making things. Absolute tosh.
|
|
|
Post by santy on Apr 1, 2016 6:16:48 GMT
I suppose part of it is the nature of the beast of business though. When you're expanding, growing and new on the block as it were, you tend to buy what's available at the time in terms of technology. There's no union issues to worry about stifling the integration of new processes that perhaps only need 800 people to run instead of 1000. Unions are ultimately a very self-destructive entity, they do great things in terms of trying to keep people in jobs and supporting workers and ensuring a degree of fairness - but ultimately somewhere down the line it reaches the point where companies aren't able to compete. Working for a tools company these days, so this does have a knock on effect of sorts but we had moved away from a lot of British tools as they were extremely expensive for no other reason than being British. WTF Has this to do with unions. Multi-National decides that Port Talbot isn't worth running any longer so they're fucking it off. That's Capitolism I'll explain then: First 2 sentences related to the situation of starting up a new business in an area without a pre-existing union for that industry, and without a pre-existing workforce. While there are start-up costs involved, right from the off you can aim during the start-up period for the long term costs to be lower, you can aim for more automated processes. You don't need to think of the kind of volumes of workers that would have been needed many years ago for the same processes. So, new steel set up in countries that previously didn't have a steel industry can specifically designate what they want to happen to be as competitive as they possibly can be - without any influence or opposition to their views. - - - - - The second part is merely an observation, if you keep pushing for improved conditions for your workers, if you keep working to ensure that people who've become inefficient at their job aren't able to be moved on etc then you lose competitiveness. The aim of a union isn't to allow a business to invest money in new technologies/methods that allow them to save 20% of their costs and create the redundancy of a few hundred workers. And if it does still end up going ahead anyhow, a unions aim isn't then to allow the business alone to profit from that saving. You can argue these are fair and right things to do, but at some point if that's your business you're going to look at it and wonder why even try to make the effort to save it because you're then in a situation down the line where you're faced with huge costs and arguments either way. You're right, it's capitalism. Unions are a force within a capitalist society. Like consumers, like banks, like governments. No one ever decides though: "Fucking hell I'm sick of making money hand over fist, and I'm sick of having such easy opportunities to make money from British steel, it's just not right. Fuck it lads, we're packing it in. There's just too much money making potential here and its not right we exploit that."
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Apr 1, 2016 6:18:37 GMT
Don't, Don't, Don't. They've been running under their own steam for decades, don't don't come on here with your lies. Anyone who worked there from the nationalised days have long gone. You really don't endear yourself to the natives Unless things have changed in the last 5 years (hint: they havent) they are still full of ex public sector employees and people who have never worked in the true private sector. Its a pre requisite of being hired for many positions. When dealing with them the attitude is always how can we avoid doing anything over how we can we make things better. Never mind things changing in the past 5yrs. Things have changed since 1988, when it was privatised. So unless they have staff with a midian age of 75, I would say you're talking out of you're arse & that's why you're breath stinks. Not only to you support $#!t, you talk $#!t
|
|