 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"British Steel...owned by Chinese company Jingye since 2020,is planning to close it's two blast furnaces in Scunthorpe having failed to reach a rescue deal with the government ,Jingye had invested £1.2 billion but was losing £700,000 every day. Can we compete with other countries or are we a lost cause...?" It all comes down to economics and cost control that is reflected in market price, in the UK the labour cost component is far higher than that of the Far East, so we have to charge a higher market price and therefore although UK steel maybe of a much superior quality to that produced in the Far East, we simply cannot compete in the world market, as ever, market price is the deciding factor. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If an industry is reliant on government financial help, then surely its not a viable proposition. " That's Thatcherism, which short-sighted application destroyed mining, ship building, vehicle manufacturing, public transport and several other industries forming the solid base of British industry. The country's never recovered from that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As far as I am aware the steel produced in UK is a different more specialised and higher priced commodity. Unfortunately India China etc do not have the same employee safety regulations and min wage legislation etc than the UK so we are not operating on a fair like for like basis. Additionally we are burdening ourselves with green legislation which serves no usefully global purpose while China India USA don't adhere to these and so lower cost of production. " You are spot on and it's the same in my industry, farming, at the rate we are going nothing will be produced in this country and everything will be imported and that will lead to problems. I'm glad I'm the age I am as growing up in the future doesn't look good | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If an industry is reliant on government financial help, then surely its not a viable proposition. That's Thatcherism, which short-sighted application destroyed mining, ship building, vehicle manufacturing, public transport and several other industries forming the solid base of British industry. The country's never recovered from that. " Margaret Thatcher's critics often overlook the dire state of British industry when she took office. The truth is, many industries were already on their knees, crippled by inefficient practices, outdated manufacturing methods, and the crippling grip of militant trade unions. The coal mining industry, for example, was facing significant challenges, including declining reserves, increasing costs, and competition from cheaper imported coal. Many mines were already unprofitable and reliant on government subsidies. The shipbuilding industry had been in decline since the 1960s, due to factors like overcapacity, inefficient production, and competition from Asian yards. The car industry was also struggling, with poor productivity, outdated manufacturing methods, and strong competition from foreign manufacturers. But the biggest obstacle to British industry was the excessive power wielded by trade unions. Their constant demands for wage increases led to crippling inflation, reduced competitiveness, and a lack of investment in industry. The resulting strikes and disputes brought the country to a standstill. Thatcher's government recognised that drastic action was needed to save the British economy. Her policies aimed to break the domineering power of militant trade unions, promote competition, and encourage entrepreneurship. While some industries did decline, Thatcher's policies also led to the growth of new industries like financial services, IT, and tourism. These industries have become vital contributors to the UK economy. In conclusion, Thatcher's critics are wrong to blame her solely for the decline of certain industries. The truth is, these industries were already struggling, and Thatcher's policies were a necessary attempt to adapt the UK economy to changing global circumstances and break the grip of excessive trade union power. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Don't know about heavy industry, but the way it's going the whole country is going down the pan." The greater part of UK heavy industry has long since gone and yes sadly the whole country is now on the very same trajectory! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If an industry is reliant on government financial help, then surely its not a viable proposition. That's Thatcherism, which short-sighted application destroyed mining, ship building, vehicle manufacturing, public transport and several other industries forming the solid base of British industry. The country's never recovered from that. Margaret Thatcher's critics often overlook the dire state of British industry when she took office. The truth is, many industries were already on their knees, crippled by inefficient practices, outdated manufacturing methods, and the crippling grip of militant trade unions. The coal mining industry, for example, was facing significant challenges, including declining reserves, increasing costs, and competition from cheaper imported coal. Many mines were already unprofitable and reliant on government subsidies. The shipbuilding industry had been in decline since the 1960s, due to factors like overcapacity, inefficient production, and competition from Asian yards. The car industry was also struggling, with poor productivity, outdated manufacturing methods, and strong competition from foreign manufacturers. But the biggest obstacle to British industry was the excessive power wielded by trade unions. Their constant demands for wage increases led to crippling inflation, reduced competitiveness, and a lack of investment in industry. The resulting strikes and disputes brought the country to a standstill. Thatcher's government recognised that drastic action was needed to save the British economy. Her policies aimed to break the domineering power of militant trade unions, promote competition, and encourage entrepreneurship. While some industries did decline, Thatcher's policies also led to the growth of new industries like financial services, IT, and tourism. These industries have become vital contributors to the UK economy. In conclusion, Thatcher's critics are wrong to blame her solely for the decline of certain industries. The truth is, these industries were already struggling, and Thatcher's policies were a necessary attempt to adapt the UK economy to changing global circumstances and break the grip of excessive trade union power. " What a load of fucking shite. Maggie was one just about the worse thing that happened to this country. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If an industry is reliant on government financial help, then surely its not a viable proposition. That's Thatcherism, which short-sighted application destroyed mining, ship building, vehicle manufacturing, public transport and several other industries forming the solid base of British industry. The country's never recovered from that. Margaret Thatcher's critics often overlook the dire state of British industry when she took office. The truth is, many industries were already on their knees, crippled by inefficient practices, outdated manufacturing methods, and the crippling grip of militant trade unions. The coal mining industry, for example, was facing significant challenges, including declining reserves, increasing costs, and competition from cheaper imported coal. Many mines were already unprofitable and reliant on government subsidies. The shipbuilding industry had been in decline since the 1960s, due to factors like overcapacity, inefficient production, and competition from Asian yards. The car industry was also struggling, with poor productivity, outdated manufacturing methods, and strong competition from foreign manufacturers. But the biggest obstacle to British industry was the excessive power wielded by trade unions. Their constant demands for wage increases led to crippling inflation, reduced competitiveness, and a lack of investment in industry. The resulting strikes and disputes brought the country to a standstill. Thatcher's government recognised that drastic action was needed to save the British economy. Her policies aimed to break the domineering power of militant trade unions, promote competition, and encourage entrepreneurship. While some industries did decline, Thatcher's policies also led to the growth of new industries like financial services, IT, and tourism. These industries have become vital contributors to the UK economy. In conclusion, Thatcher's critics are wrong to blame her solely for the decline of certain industries. The truth is, these industries were already struggling, and Thatcher's policies were a necessary attempt to adapt the UK economy to changing global circumstances and break the grip of excessive trade union power. " The Labour Party closed more Coal Mines than Mrs Thatcher ever did, the Labour Party closed Ravenscraig steel mill in Scotland not Thatcher, the Labour Party closed Chrysler Linwood in Scotland Mrs Thatcher put public money into them all. She built a deep water dock and dedicated railway siding from Hunterston to Motherwell but the Labour Party had killed Ravenscraig long before it happened . Thatcher was blamed for the industrial collapse when much of it was destroyed before her tenure . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Shallow comment alert! Maybe take a dive into the depths of real research?.... Perhaps a quick round in the fine Aberdeenshire ozone would serve you well...unless you are still waterlogged up there? " .... .... Ah the mask-in terms of the persona- slips! Real research in terms of what precisely? Does your own research go beyond google? Perceived slights or objectivity? In terms of golf, tautological satire I see. Wowsers! Btw No to artificial construction! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Vauxhall have just stopped producing vans in Luton this country is fucked " ... .... 😂😂 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Correct spelling. Snigger. In terms of your diatribe above, God Loves Etc. Any thoughts on Maggie's friendship with one of the most evil dictators of the 20th century. Btw Sherlockian stuff re the tennis player." I think I understand your cryptic reference now Richie. 😊 Yes, Thatcher's support for Pinochet is indeed a rather controversial topic. What are your thoughts on how that legacy should be remembered or addressed today? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Correct spelling. Snigger. In terms of your diatribe above, God Loves Etc. Any thoughts on Maggie's friendship with one of the most evil dictators of the 20th century. Btw Sherlockian stuff re the tennis player. I think I understand your cryptic reference now Richie. 😊 Yes, Thatcher's support for Pinochet is indeed a rather controversial topic. What are your thoughts on how that legacy should be remembered or addressed today? " .... .... Saying it's a controversial topic doesn't actually provide any cohesive answer as how you feel about a woman you have praised being friends with a mass murderer. My thoughts are that those who fawn over Thatcher should delve into the story of Victor Jara... For starters... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thatcher is alleged to have been involved in the invention of soft-scoop ice-cream. Depending on your political allegiance that is a either a good thing, because now you can have a tasty treat straight from the freezer, or it is a cynical ploy by Big Food to sell ice-cream that is 50% air. " And don't forget she stole our milk in school. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thatcher is alleged to have been involved in the invention of soft-scoop ice-cream. Depending on your political allegiance that is a either a good thing, because now you can have a tasty treat straight from the freezer, or it is a cynical ploy by Big Food to sell ice-cream that is 50% air. And don't forget she stole our milk in school." Milk would have been banned anyway because it's racist.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thatcher is alleged to have been involved in the invention of soft-scoop ice-cream. Depending on your political allegiance that is a either a good thing, because now you can have a tasty treat straight from the freezer, or it is a cynical ploy by Big Food to sell ice-cream that is 50% air. And don't forget she stole our milk in school. Milk would have been banned anyway because it's racist. "Mot if you're colour blind  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"British Steel...owned by Chinese company Jingye since 2020,is planning to close it's two blast furnaces in Scunthorpe having failed to reach a rescue deal with the government ,Jingye had invested £1.2 billion but was losing £700,000 every day. Can we compete with other countries or are we a lost cause...?" Possibly going to be nationalised under UK anti-terrorist legislation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Steel, cement, glass and ceramics are all industries with cheap raw materials. The major cost is energy. It's all basically earth with huge inputs of energy. The UK has very expensive energy. This was a political decision. They knew the consequences of that decision Has that leaflet arrived yet, asking whether you're prepared for energy blackouts ? Big energy consumers have already been told in the event of an energy shortfall, they must prepare to be switched off, to protect the national grid. Once upon a time security be it energy security, food security, financial security andthe security of our borders were the main concern of Govt. Leaders who lead nations to defeat in wars paid the price. Today it seems, not so much." You don't remember the Ted Heath government of the 70's when we had a 3 day week and your lights went out every evening | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thatcher is alleged to have been involved in the invention of soft-scoop ice-cream. Depending on your political allegiance that is a either a good thing, because now you can have a tasty treat straight from the freezer, or it is a cynical ploy by Big Food to sell ice-cream that is 50% air. And don't forget she stole our milk in school." Labour froze the elderly and is taking away money from the disabled. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thatcher is alleged to have been involved in the invention of soft-scoop ice-cream. Depending on your political allegiance that is a either a good thing, because now you can have a tasty treat straight from the freezer, or it is a cynical ploy by Big Food to sell ice-cream that is 50% air. And don't forget she stole our milk in school. Labour froze the elderly and is taking away money from the disabled." Again...means tested. Also look at how many people have a car on mobility and there is sod all wrong with them. I'm not saying it's right how they want to go about it but with so many people abusing the system it's hardly surprising is happening. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"" You don't remember the Ted Heath government of the 70's when we had a 3 day week and your lights went out every evening." You mean the 3 day week caused by industrial action by railworkers and coal miners ? Actually I do. It was quite exciting for a young boy, having candles etc for light, quite an adventure. I also remember the winter of discontent where industrial action meant piles of rubbish uncollected etc. I also remember govt refusing to allow companies to give workers pay rises. Piece time workers in b'ham, Being laid off with no pay. I have a very good memory going back to aged about 4 for some things. " You forgot to mention the national speed limit of 50mph and the TV adverts the government had "North Sea Gas, it will be that cheap you'll hardly notice that you have a bill", where's that now, Germany dug for coal and they still, it wouldn't be a bad idea for the UK to start | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If an industry is reliant on government financial help, then surely its not a viable proposition. That's Thatcherism, which short-sighted application destroyed mining, ship building, vehicle manufacturing, public transport and several other industries forming the solid base of British industry. The country's never recovered from that. " Add to that list the utility companies, these were the biggest trainers of tradesmen, once closed or privatised, the training ceased, one of the reasons there's such a skills shortage today | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's tempting to think that our industrial decline is down to poor political decisions. It's not. China could never get to become the global industrial power it is without western capital. China didn't have that money. It was the liberation of the credit markets which let the finance bods take our pension and savings and use it to build up the China industrial base. It meant big returns for a while, but it was never a free meal ticket forever. See it as charity on a global scale "It was China's massive purchases of Western bonds and petrodollars that gave it huge tranches of Western capital. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If an industry is reliant on government financial help, then surely its not a viable proposition. That's Thatcherism, which short-sighted application destroyed mining, ship building, vehicle manufacturing, public transport and several other industries forming the solid base of British industry. The country's never recovered from that. Margaret Thatcher's critics often overlook the dire state of British industry when she took office. The truth is, many industries were already on their knees, crippled by inefficient practices, outdated manufacturing methods, and the crippling grip of militant trade unions. The coal mining industry, for example, was facing significant challenges, including declining reserves, increasing costs, and competition from cheaper imported coal. Many mines were already unprofitable and reliant on government subsidies. The shipbuilding industry had been in decline since the 1960s, due to factors like overcapacity, inefficient production, and competition from Asian yards. The car industry was also struggling, with poor productivity, outdated manufacturing methods, and strong competition from foreign manufacturers. But the biggest obstacle to British industry was the excessive power wielded by trade unions. Their constant demands for wage increases led to crippling inflation, reduced competitiveness, and a lack of investment in industry. The resulting strikes and disputes brought the country to a standstill. Thatcher's government recognised that drastic action was needed to save the British economy. Her policies aimed to break the domineering power of militant trade unions, promote competition, and encourage entrepreneurship. While some industries did decline, Thatcher's policies also led to the growth of new industries like financial services, IT, and tourism. These industries have become vital contributors to the UK economy. In conclusion, Thatcher's critics are wrong to blame her solely for the decline of certain industries. The truth is, these industries were already struggling, and Thatcher's policies were a necessary attempt to adapt the UK economy to changing global circumstances and break the grip of excessive trade union power. What a load of fucking shite. Maggie was one just about the worse thing that happened to this country." 100% Terrible woman. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If an industry is reliant on government financial help, then surely its not a viable proposition. That's Thatcherism, which short-sighted application destroyed mining, ship building, vehicle manufacturing, public transport and several other industries forming the solid base of British industry. The country's never recovered from that. " All of which was costing the country a fortune and didnt have a future. Why support industries that our competitors could do cheaper? Whether you like her or not, she had the foresight to deregulate the stock market; it put us back on the world stage, even competing against New York. Made far more money than heavy industry | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As far as I am aware the steel produced in UK is a different more specialised and higher priced commodity. [/Quote] Not true. Specialist production in both china and India now supply anything that UK may have had a monopoly on 20 years ago. [Quote] Unfortunately India China etc do not have the same employee safety regulations and min wage legislation etc than the UK so we are not operating on a fair like for like basis. [/Quote] True [Quote]Additionally we are burdening ourselves with green legislation which serves no usefully global purpose while China India USA don't adhere to these and so lower cost of production. " Not true Legislation and practice in china for green economy significantly more advanced Main issue with British steel is that it was not a protected national industry so China govt and Tata steel could buy it out run it down and kill off their competition, and for what? The furtherance of a neoliberal dream ? Or some "gentleman's agreement" of which we will never know the full details? To say "the government was asleep at the wheel while strategic national industry was crippled" is to be unduly kind to successive governments and industry bodies over the last forty years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And did the working class communities that she destroyed actually benefit from the riches of the City of London?" She knew the far east could provide the same thing for less. The unions, understandably, just wanted to protect their own. They didnt care where the government would find the addition funds for increased wages. She stopped a leaking tap. Every other heavy industry has since adapted or lost out to competitors Economics doesnt care whether you support miners or hate thatcher | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If an industry is reliant on government financial help, then surely its not a viable proposition. That's Thatcherism, which short-sighted application destroyed mining, ship building, vehicle manufacturing, public transport and several other industries forming the solid base of British industry. The country's never recovered from that. All of which was costing the country a fortune and didnt have a future. Why support industries that our competitors could do cheaper? Whether you like her or not, she had the foresight to deregulate the stock market; it put us back on the world stage, even competing against New York. Made far more money than heavy industry" But that money didn't go to making peoples lives better it went to the shareholders | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And did the working class communities that she destroyed actually benefit from the riches of the City of London? She knew the far east could provide the same thing for less. The unions, understandably, just wanted to protect their own. They didnt care where the government would find the addition funds for increased wages. She stopped a leaking tap. Every other heavy industry has since adapted or lost out to competitors Economics doesnt care whether you support miners or hate thatcher " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" but the biggest obstacle to British industry was the excessive power wielded by trade unions. Their constant demands for wage increases led to crippling inflation, reduced competitiveness, and a lack of investment in industry. The resulting strikes and disputes brought the country to a standstill." Thatchers legacy is to allow the industry to offshore it's capital. Crushing the unions didn't save the industry nor did it make the labour force compete with China and India. It just crushed the labour force. Thatcher gave rise to deregulated financial markets such as the London laundromats and hedge funds who are doging tax laundering 50%of the world's dirty money and seeing an exodus of traditional capital who want stable markets and no risk of contagion in their finances. She also allowed the whole scale gutting of local government resource, and the kleptocracy that is senior health care. She was small minded for all she was intelligent and blinded by the ann rand school of thought, blinkered by her British American hot housing. The industries people say she gave rise to were all that was left after the ground zero that was Thatcherism. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And did the working class communities that she destroyed actually benefit from the riches of the City of London? She knew the far east could provide the same thing for less. The unions, understandably, just wanted to protect their own. They didnt care where the government would find the addition funds for increased wages. She stopped a leaking tap. Every other heavy industry has since adapted or lost out to competitors Economics doesnt care whether you support miners or hate thatcher " .... ... ... The point I made related to the City of London. Clearly there was no filtering down the Valleys. Non-Mining Heavy Industry communities also didn't benefit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And did the working class communities that she destroyed actually benefit from the riches of the City of London? She knew the far east could provide the same thing for less. The unions, understandably, just wanted to protect their own. They didnt care where the government would find the addition funds for increased wages. She stopped a leaking tap. Every other heavy industry has since adapted or lost out to competitors Economics doesnt care whether you support miners or hate thatcher .... ... ... The point I made related to the City of London. Clearly there was no filtering down the Valleys. Non-Mining Heavy Industry communities also didn't benefit." There's always been this problem around change. Nobody really had a plan or appetite to reinvigorate these places which were losing major job sources. Oh, I'm sorry. I overlooked the garden festivals. Anyone remember them? 
There isn't a plan for the next wave of automation.
Instead, we will just react too late and lament. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"British Steel...owned by Chinese company Jingye since 2020,is planning to close it's two blast furnaces in Scunthorpe having failed to reach a rescue deal with the government ,Jingye had invested £1.2 billion but was losing £700,000 every day. Can we compete with other countries or are we a lost cause...?" I did an apprenticeship in engineering, the year I started the relatively small company that employed me, took on 9 apprentices that year.. What happened to skills and manufacturing in this country! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" but the biggest obstacle to British industry was the excessive power wielded by trade unions. Their constant demands for wage increases led to crippling inflation, reduced competitiveness, and a lack of investment in industry. The resulting strikes and disputes brought the country to a standstill. Thatchers legacy is to allow the industry to offshore it's capital. Crushing the unions didn't save the industry nor did it make the labour force compete with China and India. It just crushed the labour force. Thatcher gave rise to deregulated financial markets such as the London laundromats and hedge funds who are doging tax laundering 50%of the world's dirty money and seeing an exodus of traditional capital who want stable markets and no risk of contagion in their finances. She also allowed the whole scale gutting of local government resource, and the kleptocracy that is senior health care. She was small minded for all she was intelligent and blinded by the ann rand school of thought, blinkered by her British American hot housing. The industries people say she gave rise to were all that was left after the ground zero that was Thatcherism. " I was thinking that…as if the country couldn’t have an industrial base and a financial centre… all the industrial workers suddenly freed up, put on their suit & shout down a phone like in the movies…nope chucked on the scrap heap, their apprenticeships & skills meaningless, and their identity in tatters. These men are now fathers & grandfathers… and I was reading about the crisis in masculinity/toxic masculinity , could be rooted here? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It was considered unaffordable for the country to provide welfare support to anyone except those unable to work - the elderly, the sick infirm. For everyone else, they were guaranteed a job - in one of the nationalised industries. There was no welfare for people capable of work, only the promise of a paid job. " Not so. Support for the unemployed goes back to the Unemployment Insurance Act 1920 which created the dole system of payments for unemployed workers in the United Kingdom. It provided 39 weeks of unemployment benefits to over 11,000,000 workers—practically the entire civilian working population except domestic service, farmworkers, railway men, and civil servants. In 1946, the National Insurance Act established a comprehensive system of social security throughout the United Kingdom. All who were of working age paid a weekly contribution, and the scheme provided benefits including sickness and unemployment benefits. So there was certainly support for people who were currently unemployed, although it was conditional upon their record of having paid National Insurance contributions in the past. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... Trump is now tearing all that up, and switching to protectionism in order to sustain domestic industry at the expense of global free markets." As with emerging markets in Asia, protectionism is needed if a country is to developed (or in our case redevelop) industries. I don't agree with much of what trump says or does but in this case I think he's on point. But the strategy isn't coherent, and as such I think UK could do a lot better if we had leaders with the vision and industry backing to do so. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If an industry is reliant on government financial help, then surely its not a viable proposition. " Absolutely. It should be left in the benevolent, invisible hand of the Free Market, which will: 1. Snap it up for a ridiculously low sum. 2. Set up a fund for stock options, golden handshakes and final salary pensions for senior management. This will of course be untouchable by creditors. 3. Jack up prices to eye-watering levels. 4. Load it with debt. 5. Strip out the assets, whose ownership will be transferred to another company, leaving only its liabilities. 6. Declare bankruptcy and say "So Long Suckers" to the creditors and customers, and fuck off to the Bahamas and plan their next scheme of financial sorcery. 7. Leave the wreckage to be picked over by avaricious scavengers. Ain't Capitalism Wonderful? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"British Steel...owned by Chinese company Jingye since 2020,is planning to close it's two blast furnaces in Scunthorpe having failed to reach a rescue deal with the government ,Jingye had invested £1.2 billion but was losing £700,000 every day. Can we compete with other countries or are we a lost cause...?" This is sad news for workers and the community. But it's not a surprise. The steel industry has been struggling for years because it can't afford its relatively high labour costs. UK steelmakers face tough competition from countries like China and India, where labour costs are much lower. Maybe it's time for the industry to change and focus on new things, like eco-friendly steel or specialist products. We simply cannot compete on price, but we can innovate and focus on producing quality products. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If an industry is reliant on government financial help, then surely its not a viable proposition. Absolutely. It should be left in the benevolent, invisible hand of the Free Market, which will: 1. Snap it up for a ridiculously low sum. 2. Set up a fund for stock options, golden handshakes and final salary pensions for senior management. This will of course be untouchable by creditors. 3. Jack up prices to eye-watering levels. 4. Load it with debt. 5. Strip out the assets, whose ownership will be transferred to another company, leaving only its liabilities. 6. Declare bankruptcy and say "So Long Suckers" to the creditors and customers, and fuck off to the Bahamas and plan their next scheme of financial sorcery. 7. Leave the wreckage to be picked over by avaricious scavengers. Ain't Capitalism Wonderful? "An entertaining display of satire but it's unfair to tarnish all of capitalism with the same brush. The scenario you describe is actually an example of crony capitalism, where corporations exploit the system for personal gain. True capitalism is about fair competition, innovation, and hard work. It's about entrepreneurs taking calculated risks to create value, jobs, and prosperity. British Steel's struggles are more a result of global market forces, high labour costs, and inefficient operations. In a fair capitalist system, inefficient companies would be allowed to fail, making way for more innovative and efficient players to take their place. This process of creative destruction drives economic growth and progress. As history has already proven, Capitalism is indeed 'wonderful' just as you say, as it has lifted millions of people out of poverty and created unprecedented prosperity! 😊 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If an industry is reliant on government financial help, then surely its not a viable proposition. Absolutely. It should be left in the benevolent, invisible hand of the Free Market, which will: 1. Snap it up for a ridiculously low sum. 2. Set up a fund for stock options, golden handshakes and final salary pensions for senior management. This will of course be untouchable by creditors. 3. Jack up prices to eye-watering levels. 4. Load it with debt. 5. Strip out the assets, whose ownership will be transferred to another company, leaving only its liabilities. 6. Declare bankruptcy and say "So Long Suckers" to the creditors and customers, and fuck off to the Bahamas and plan their next scheme of financial sorcery. 7. Leave the wreckage to be picked over by avaricious scavengers. Ain't Capitalism Wonderful? "About sums up the average effect of inward investment in this country that successive governments have been so keen to invite and so inept at policing. At best - incompetent. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... Trump is now tearing all that up, and switching to protectionism in order to sustain domestic industry at the expense of global free markets. As with emerging markets in Asia, protectionism is needed if a country is to developed (or in our case redevelop) industries. I don't agree with much of what trump says or does but in this case I think he's on point. But the strategy isn't coherent, and as such I think UK could do a lot better if we had leaders with the vision and industry backing to do so. " Trump is erecting barriers to free trade. They need to be pretty high to make manufacturing in the USA appear the "cheaper" option. I put "cheaper" in quotation marks, because inevitably the US consumer will end up paying more. Inflation. It may well generate new jobs in manufacturing for the US market. It may also destroy jobs in manufacturing for export markets, as a result of reciprocal tarrifs. In the old days, they called this mercantilism. Adam Smith detested it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Industries and their associated skills come and go , in this time of technological and ecological revolution it's a time for the innovators and entrepreneurs to come to the fore and galvanize a new way forward for the UK and it's malleable workforce. Engagement and incentivisation is the key to this also, but it takes time and trial and error to achieve. Mx " I agree totally, to continue to be a global market player the UK must harness the transformative power of technological and ecological innovation, unlocking new opportunities for growth and development. By fostering a culture of entrepreneurship and adaptability, we can drive sustainable progress, create jobs and secure a prosperous future. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If an industry is reliant on government financial help, then surely its not a viable proposition. Absolutely. It should be left in the benevolent, invisible hand of the Free Market, which will: 1. Snap it up for a ridiculously low sum. 2. Set up a fund for stock options, golden handshakes and final salary pensions for senior management. This will of course be untouchable by creditors. 3. Jack up prices to eye-watering levels. 4. Load it with debt. 5. Strip out the assets, whose ownership will be transferred to another company, leaving only its liabilities. 6. Declare bankruptcy and say "So Long Suckers" to the creditors and customers, and fuck off to the Bahamas and plan their next scheme of financial sorcery. 7. Leave the wreckage to be picked over by avaricious scavengers. Ain't Capitalism Wonderful?
An entertaining display of satire but it's unfair to tarnish all of capitalism with the same brush.
The scenario you describe is actually an example of crony capitalism, where corporations exploit the system for personal gain.
True capitalism is about fair competition, innovation, and hard work. It's about entrepreneurs taking calculated risks to create value, jobs, and prosperity.
British Steel's struggles are more a result of global market forces, high labour costs, and inefficient operations.
In a fair capitalist system, inefficient companies would be allowed to fail, making way for more innovative and efficient players to take their place. This process of creative destruction drives economic growth and progress.
As history has already proven, Capitalism is indeed 'wonderful' just as you say, as it has lifted millions of people out of poverty and created unprecedented prosperity! 😊
"You really have swallowed all that self-serving dogma doled out by business people, and embraced it with the zeal of a religious convert, haven't you? By "True Capitalism", you mean capitalism as the capitalists tell you it is, and as you would like it to be. "Capitalism: The extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of motives, will somehow work for the benefit of all". Often attributed to J.M Keynes, although it is disputed. COMPETITION. "True capitalism is about fair competition ..." What nonsense. Ask anyone who runs a business of any size if they love competition, because it keeps them on their feet. They may SAY they do, but behind your back they'll laugh at you. Businesses HATE competition. Apart from making money for themselves, what they crave most is to drive their competitors out of business and form a monopoly. Tell it to Andrew Carnegie. (Well ... you can't, because he's dead, but his spirit lives on.) Now known mainly as a philanthropist, because he has his name attached to a lot of hospitals and academic institutions, Carnegie was ruthless in the 1930's, swallowing up rival steel companies at knockdown prices to form US Steel, and throwing millions out of work to do it. And forget "fair": people like him will use any means they can to gain an advantage. INNOVATION. Tell that to Bill Gates. You think he got where he is by running a company based on technical innovation and excellence? Microsoft's initial growth was due to Gates making a deal with IBM so they were contracted to ship every PC with MS-DOS, locking out the competition. NOBODY innovates if they can increase their technical capital by buying out a rival, stripping out the intellectual property, and shutting them down. That's how Microsoft has always worked, and many others have followed their example. "CALCULATED RISKS" One of the myths of the business world is that they live in a world of constant risk. But how does that sit alongside "Go Fast And Break Things"? One of the features of an economy where competition is shrinking, the industry is tending towards a monopoly and there is constant expectation of growth, is the reckless behaviour of those running it. When they're in that position, where else will their customers go if it all goes pear shaped? And those heading the business won't be the ones who suffer if it, all goes pear-shaped, after all. Consider the behaviour of banks & finance houses who issued mortgages to people who had no hope of paying them off, and found they were holding worthless paper. Reckless doesn't describe it. But when it all collapsed, they just said "we're too big to fail", and went begging to government for a bailout. And they got it. JOB CREATION. "entrepreneurs ... create value, jobs, and prosperity." None of these are what people are in business for. The purpose of a business is to make a profit. Nothing else. Job creation may be an incidental result of those efforts, but if the business can make the same money with less people, those jobs will go. CREATIVE DESTRUCTION. Give us a break. We're currently witnessing the collapse of whole economies because the world's riches people think the whole structure needs to be dynamited, and razed to the ground. Once that's done, they think they can go in, pick up the pieces, and build something more to their advantage. It's like watching kids attacking a Lego model with a hammer - except there happens to be millions of people living in it. But hey, who cares about those? Compassion and empathy have no place in your religion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If an industry is reliant on government financial help, then surely its not a viable proposition. That's Thatcherism, which short-sighted application destroyed mining, ship building, vehicle manufacturing, public transport and several other industries forming the solid base of British industry. The country's never recovered from that. " . That's a very narrow attack, and quite inaccurate. Coal mining is an out of date industry that caused thousands of men to put their life, and health at risk on daily basis. It had a terrible worker/employer relationship and unfortunately was very badly managed in final years. Yes destroyed whole communities, but the outcome was inevitable. Could of been managed with a lot more compassion and support. But no one should have to go underground in those conditions | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You really have swallowed all that self-serving dogma doled out by business people, and embraced it with the zeal of a religious convert, haven't you? By "True Capitalism", you mean capitalism as the capitalists tell you it is, and as you would like it to be. "Capitalism: The extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of motives, will somehow work for the benefit of all". Often attributed to J.M Keynes, although it is disputed. COMPETITION. "True capitalism is about fair competition ..." What nonsense. Ask anyone who runs a business of any size if they love competition, because it keeps them on their feet. They may SAY they do, but behind your back they'll laugh at you. Businesses HATE competition. Apart from making money for themselves, what they crave most is to drive their competitors out of business and form a monopoly. Tell it to Andrew Carnegie. (Well ... you can't, because he's dead, but his spirit lives on.) Now known mainly as a philanthropist, because he has his name attached to a lot of hospitals and academic institutions, Carnegie was ruthless in the 1930's, swallowing up rival steel companies at knockdown prices to form US Steel, and throwing millions out of work to do it. And forget "fair": people like him will use any means they can to gain an advantage. INNOVATION. Tell that to Bill Gates. You think he got where he is by running a company based on technical innovation and excellence? Microsoft's initial growth was due to Gates making a deal with IBM so they were contracted to ship every PC with MS-DOS, locking out the competition. NOBODY innovates if they can increase their technical capital by buying out a rival, stripping out the intellectual property, and shutting them down. That's how Microsoft has always worked, and many others have followed their example. "CALCULATED RISKS" One of the myths of the business world is that they live in a world of constant risk. But how does that sit alongside "Go Fast And Break Things"? One of the features of an economy where competition is shrinking, the industry is tending towards a monopoly and there is constant expectation of growth, is the reckless behaviour of those running it. When they're in that position, where else will their customers go if it all goes pear shaped? And those heading the business won't be the ones who suffer if it, all goes pear-shaped, after all. Consider the behaviour of banks & finance houses who issued mortgages to people who had no hope of paying them off, and found they were holding worthless paper. Reckless doesn't describe it. But when it all collapsed, they just said "we're too big to fail", and went begging to government for a bailout. And they got it. JOB CREATION. "entrepreneurs ... create value, jobs, and prosperity." None of these are what people are in business for. The purpose of a business is to make a profit. Nothing else. Job creation may be an incidental result of those efforts, but if the business can make the same money with less people, those jobs will go. CREATIVE DESTRUCTION. Give us a break. We're currently witnessing the collapse of whole economies because the world's riches people think the whole structure needs to be dynamited, and razed to the ground. Once that's done, they think they can go in, pick up the pieces, and build something more to their advantage. It's like watching kids attacking a Lego model with a hammer - except there happens to be millions of people living in it. But hey, who cares about those? Compassion and empathy have no place in your religion." Thankyou for taking the time to share your thoughts on capitalism in such a detailed and lengthy response. I must, however respectfully suggest that the personal attacks levelled in your text serve only to undermine the credibility of your argument, rather than engaging with the substance of the points. I daresay, these attacks are a futile attempt to discredit the opposing view, but certainly have no place in a respectful discussion. Now, let us now proceed to address the criticisms levelled against capitalism. The notion that capitalism is solely driven by greed and a desire for exploitation is, I'm afraid, a simplistic and misguided view. Capitalism, is about efficiency, innovation, and progress. It's about creating value, not merely accumulating wealth. The pursuit of profit is what drives entrepreneurs to innovate, take risks, and create jobs. The concept of "fair competition" is, in fact, the backbone of a healthy capitalist system. Competition drives innovation, improves quality, and reduces prices. It's what forces businesses to adapt, evolve, and better serve their customers. I must correct the assertion that businesses hate competition. While it's true that companies may not relish the prospect of competing with others, it's the healthy pressure of competition that pushes them to improve and innovate. The examples cited, such as Andrew Carnegie and Bill Gates, are not typically representative of the entire capitalist system. Yes, there have been instances of ruthless business practices, but these are exceptions, not the rule. Furthermore, the notion that capitalism is about "creative destruction" is also misunderstood. This concept, coined by Joseph Schumpeter, refers to the process of innovation and progress, where new businesses and technologies replace outdated ones. Finally, the idea that compassion and empathy have no place in capitalism is a false dichotomy. Capitalism is not inherently cruel or heartless; it's a system that rewards hard work, innovation, and risk-taking. In reality, capitalism has lifted millions of people out of poverty, created unprecedented prosperity, and driven innovation and progress. It's a system that rewards meritocracy, not cronyism or corruption. To suggest that the pursuit of profit is inherently evil or that capitalism is driven solely by greed is clearly a simplistic and misguided view. Capitalism is a complex system that of course has its flaws, but it remains the most effective way to promote economic growth, innovation, and prosperity – benefiting not just entrepreneurs and investors but also employees, customers, and communities who rely on the goods and services they provide. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If an industry is reliant on government financial help, then surely its not a viable proposition. That's Thatcherism, which short-sighted application destroyed mining, ship building, vehicle manufacturing, public transport and several other industries forming the solid base of British industry. The country's never recovered from that. . That's a very narrow attack, and quite inaccurate. Coal mining is an out of date industry that caused thousands of men to put their life, and health at risk on daily basis. It had a terrible worker/employer relationship and unfortunately was very badly managed in final years. Yes destroyed whole communities, but the outcome was inevitable. Could of been managed with a lot more compassion and support. But no one should have to go underground in those conditions" I completely agree that the coal mining industry was outdated and posed significant health risks to its workers. The poor relationships between workers and employers, as well as the mismanagement, only made things worse. However, it's also important to acknowledge the role that militant trade unionism played in the industry's decline. The constant strikes and unrealistic demands made by the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) under Arthur Scargill's totalitarian leadership hindered the industry's ability to modernise and invest in necessary improvements. A more cooperative approach, rather than using industrial action as a means to achieve political power, might have allowed for a more managed transition, with greater support and compassion for the affected communities. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If an industry is reliant on government financial help, then surely its not a viable proposition. That's Thatcherism, which short-sighted application destroyed mining, ship building, vehicle manufacturing, public transport and several other industries forming the solid base of British industry. The country's never recovered from that. . That's a very narrow attack, and quite inaccurate. Coal mining is an out of date industry that caused thousands of men to put their life, and health at risk on daily basis. It had a terrible worker/employer relationship and unfortunately was very badly managed in final years. Yes destroyed whole communities, but the outcome was inevitable. Could of been managed with a lot more compassion and support. But no one should have to go underground in those conditions I completely agree that the coal mining industry was outdated and posed significant health risks to its workers. The poor relationships between workers and employers, as well as the mismanagement, only made things worse. However, it's also important to acknowledge the role that militant trade unionism played in the industry's decline. The constant strikes and unrealistic demands made by the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) under Arthur Scargill's totalitarian leadership hindered the industry's ability to modernise and invest in necessary improvements. A more cooperative approach, rather than using industrial action as a means to achieve political power, might have allowed for a more managed transition, with greater support and compassion for the affected communities. " absolutely agree. Ultimately it was a spent industry. The outcome would of been the same. Same as the car industry. That was very much a victim of extreme trade union power, poor productivity and extreme wage demands. Simple economics. Thatcher did what had to be done. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If an industry is reliant on government financial help, then surely its not a viable proposition. That's Thatcherism, which short-sighted application destroyed mining, ship building, vehicle manufacturing, public transport and several other industries forming the solid base of British industry. The country's never recovered from that. . That's a very narrow attack, and quite inaccurate. Coal mining is an out of date industry that caused thousands of men to put their life, and health at risk on daily basis. It had a terrible worker/employer relationship and unfortunately was very badly managed in final years. Yes destroyed whole communities, but the outcome was inevitable. Could of been managed with a lot more compassion and support. But no one should have to go underground in those conditions I completely agree that the coal mining industry was outdated and posed significant health risks to its workers. The poor relationships between workers and employers, as well as the mismanagement, only made things worse. However, it's also important to acknowledge the role that militant trade unionism played in the industry's decline. The constant strikes and unrealistic demands made by the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) under Arthur Scargill's totalitarian leadership hindered the industry's ability to modernise and invest in necessary improvements. A more cooperative approach, rather than using industrial action as a means to achieve political power, might have allowed for a more managed transition, with greater support and compassion for the affected communities. absolutely agree. Ultimately it was a spent industry. The outcome would have been the same. Same as the car industry. That was very much a victim of extreme trade union power, poor productivity and extreme wage demands. Simple economics. Thatcher did what had to be done. " . Even if that was the case…did what had to be done…it didn’t have to be done in that way. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Talk of British Steel being renationalised in the msm...." Expeditiously!!! Can't depend on foreign countries to run our steele, build our dams, own our water and trains. If we find out selves in WWIII having to go to help Ukraine or Taiwan or Greenland or Canada and those very countries we're fighting can close our critical infrastructures down we're fucked let alone buy machinery of war from them too. Old Maggie's defenders are finding out the hard way that those wanks are costing more than a few poor sapps jobs in the forgotten North. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If an industry is reliant on government financial help, then surely its not a viable proposition. That's Thatcherism, which short-sighted application destroyed mining, ship building, vehicle manufacturing, public transport and several other industries forming the solid base of British industry. The country's never recovered from that. " Agree. The OP obviously missed the Hatchet Thatcher period. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Talk of British Steel being renationalised in the msm...." Heard a Conservative MP stand up in Parliament yesterday , asking for British Steel to be Nationalised | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Imagine cheering for privatisation only to have our infrastructure state owned by other states. Madness, and all they've done is extract, extract and extract. No planning for the good of the British people. And then they'll come on here with a straight face and say nothing to do with us gov. Look at BJ and the Mango Mussolini typical examples of the male species of that generation and they wonder why we have problems? You, you created this world because you believed deeply unserious people, the same ones that told you Brexit was a good idea, BJ would be the best thing for this country then Liz Truss's budget was the best conservative budget since Nigel Lawson. And now they line up to put another one of them in power dear uncle Nige. When i say they've never got anything right!! I mean ever, never!! " Ageism is prejudice, however you try to dress it. The Boomer coal miners, steel workers and ship builders neither voted for nor "cheered on" privatisation. Grouping people by an immutable characteristic and assuming they share identical attributes is bigotry regardless of which immutable characteristic they share. You had the temerity to call out someone else for the use of the phrase "these people", yet here you are. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Imagine cheering for privatisation only to have our infrastructure state owned by other states. Madness, and all they've done is extract, extract and extract. No planning for the good of the British people. And then they'll come on here with a straight face and say nothing to do with us gov. Look at BJ and the Mango Mussolini typical examples of the male species of that generation and they wonder why we have problems? You, you created this world because you believed deeply unserious people, the same ones that told you Brexit was a good idea, BJ would be the best thing for this country then Liz Truss's budget was the best conservative budget since Nigel Lawson. And now they line up to put another one of them in power dear uncle Nige. When i say they've never got anything right!! I mean ever, never!! Ageism is prejudice, however you try to dress it. The Boomer coal miners, steel workers and ship builders neither voted for nor "cheered on" privatisation. Grouping people by an immutable characteristic and assuming they share identical attributes is bigotry regardless of which immutable characteristic they share. You had the temerity to call out someone else for the use of the phrase "these people", yet here you are. " Right on que, poor me, poor me, poor me won't someone think of the privileged white male | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Imagine cheering for privatisation only to have our infrastructure state owned by other states. Madness, and all they've done is extract, extract and extract. No planning for the good of the British people. And then they'll come on here with a straight face and say nothing to do with us gov. Look at BJ and the Mango Mussolini typical examples of the male species of that generation and they wonder why we have problems? You, you created this world because you believed deeply unserious people, the same ones that told you Brexit was a good idea, BJ would be the best thing for this country then Liz Truss's budget was the best conservative budget since Nigel Lawson. And now they line up to put another one of them in power dear uncle Nige. When i say they've never got anything right!! I mean ever, never!! Ageism is prejudice, however you try to dress it. The Boomer coal miners, steel workers and ship builders neither voted for nor "cheered on" privatisation. Grouping people by an immutable characteristic and assuming they share identical attributes is bigotry regardless of which immutable characteristic they share. You had the temerity to call out someone else for the use of the phrase "these people", yet here you are. Right on que, poor me, poor me, poor me won't someone think of the privileged white male " There are many black and asian boomers who were employed in UK industry. Are you denying their existence, or that many were adversely affected by de-industrialisation? Is it just a part of your prejudice that working-class boomer equals white male? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not just industry most buisnesess are run by foreign owners, in scotland the majority of so-called Scottish tartan and gift shops are run by Asians, staffed by Asians, eastern Europeans and Chinese selling cheap foreign rubbish. Nothing Scottish about them." Except maybe being born here, to parents that were born here and living their whole lives here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not just industry most buisnesess are run by foreign owners, in scotland the majority of so-called Scottish tartan and gift shops are run by Asians, staffed by Asians, eastern Europeans and Chinese selling cheap foreign rubbish. Nothing Scottish about them." Try running one of these businesses and try employing ethnically local employees only. Guarantee you will be soon employing the same group or be put of business. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If an industry is reliant on government financial help, then surely its not a viable proposition. That's Thatcherism, which short-sighted application destroyed mining, ship building, vehicle manufacturing, public transport and several other industries forming the solid base of British industry. The country's never recovered from that. Margaret Thatcher's critics often overlook the dire state of British industry when she took office. The truth is, many industries were already on their knees, crippled by inefficient practices, outdated manufacturing methods, and the crippling grip of militant trade unions. The coal mining industry, for example, was facing significant challenges, including declining reserves, increasing costs, and competition from cheaper imported coal. Many mines were already unprofitable and reliant on government subsidies. The shipbuilding industry had been in decline since the 1960s, due to factors like overcapacity, inefficient production, and competition from Asian yards. The car industry was also struggling, with poor productivity, outdated manufacturing methods, and strong competition from foreign manufacturers. But the biggest obstacle to British industry was the excessive power wielded by trade unions. Their constant demands for wage increases led to crippling inflation, reduced competitiveness, and a lack of investment in industry. The resulting strikes and disputes brought the country to a standstill. Thatcher's government recognised that drastic action was needed to save the British economy. Her policies aimed to break the domineering power of militant trade unions, promote competition, and encourage entrepreneurship. While some industries did decline, Thatcher's policies also led to the growth of new industries like financial services, IT, and tourism. These industries have become vital contributors to the UK economy. In conclusion, Thatcher's critics are wrong to blame her solely for the decline of certain industries. The truth is, these industries were already struggling, and Thatcher's policies were a necessary attempt to adapt the UK economy to changing global circumstances and break the grip of excessive trade union power. " Sell sell sell... We own nothing now.. not even our water | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Imagine cheering for privatisation only to have our infrastructure state owned by other states. Madness, and all they've done is extract, extract and extract. No planning for the good of the British people. And then they'll come on here with a straight face and say nothing to do with us gov. Look at BJ and the Mango Mussolini typical examples of the male species of that generation and they wonder why we have problems? You, you created this world because you believed deeply unserious people, the same ones that told you Brexit was a good idea, BJ would be the best thing for this country then Liz Truss's budget was the best conservative budget since Nigel Lawson. And now they line up to put another one of them in power dear uncle Nige. When i say they've never got anything right!! I mean ever, never!! Ageism is prejudice, however you try to dress it. The Boomer coal miners, steel workers and ship builders neither voted for nor "cheered on" privatisation. Grouping people by an immutable characteristic and assuming they share identical attributes is bigotry regardless of which immutable characteristic they share. You had the temerity to call out someone else for the use of the phrase "these people", yet here you are. Right on que, poor me, poor me, poor me won't someone think of the privileged white male There are many black and asian boomers who were employed in UK industry. Are you denying their existence, or that many were adversely affected by de-industrialisation? Is it just a part of your prejudice that working-class boomer equals white male? " The howl of privilege. Never was so much given to one generation to be squandered away. Frit | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If an industry is reliant on government financial help, then surely its not a viable proposition. That's Thatcherism, which short-sighted application destroyed mining, ship building, vehicle manufacturing, public transport and several other industries forming the solid base of British industry. The country's never recovered from that. " It was Union s and strikes that finished them off | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If an industry is reliant on government financial help, then surely its not a viable proposition. That's Thatcherism, which short-sighted application destroyed mining, ship building, vehicle manufacturing, public transport and several other industries forming the solid base of British industry. The country's never recovered from that. Margaret Thatcher's critics often overlook the dire state of British industry when she took office. The truth is, many industries were already on their knees, crippled by inefficient practices, outdated manufacturing methods, and the crippling grip of militant trade unions. The coal mining industry, for example, was facing significant challenges, including declining reserves, increasing costs, and competition from cheaper imported coal. Many mines were already unprofitable and reliant on government subsidies. The shipbuilding industry had been in decline since the 1960s, due to factors like overcapacity, inefficient production, and competition from Asian yards. The car industry was also struggling, with poor productivity, outdated manufacturing methods, and strong competition from foreign manufacturers. But the biggest obstacle to British industry was the excessive power wielded by trade unions. Their constant demands for wage increases led to crippling inflation, reduced competitiveness, and a lack of investment in industry. The resulting strikes and disputes brought the country to a standstill. Thatcher's government recognised that drastic action was needed to save the British economy. Her policies aimed to break the domineering power of militant trade unions, promote competition, and encourage entrepreneurship. While some industries did decline, Thatcher's policies also led to the growth of new industries like financial services, IT, and tourism. These industries have become vital contributors to the UK economy. In conclusion, Thatcher's critics are wrong to blame her solely for the decline of certain industries. The truth is, these industries were already struggling, and Thatcher's policies were a necessary attempt to adapt the UK economy to changing global circumstances and break the grip of excessive trade union power. " Completely agree | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If an industry is reliant on government financial help, then surely its not a viable proposition. That's Thatcherism, which short-sighted application destroyed mining, ship building, vehicle manufacturing, public transport and several other industries forming the solid base of British industry. The country's never recovered from that. Margaret Thatcher's critics often overlook the dire state of British industry when she took office. The truth is, many industries were already on their knees, crippled by inefficient practices, outdated manufacturing methods, and the crippling grip of militant trade unions. The coal mining industry, for example, was facing significant challenges, including declining reserves, increasing costs, and competition from cheaper imported coal. Many mines were already unprofitable and reliant on government subsidies. The shipbuilding industry had been in decline since the 1960s, due to factors like overcapacity, inefficient production, and competition from Asian yards. The car industry was also struggling, with poor productivity, outdated manufacturing methods, and strong competition from foreign manufacturers. But the biggest obstacle to British industry was the excessive power wielded by trade unions. Their constant demands for wage increases led to crippling inflation, reduced competitiveness, and a lack of investment in industry. The resulting strikes and disputes brought the country to a standstill. Thatcher's government recognised that drastic action was needed to save the British economy. Her policies aimed to break the domineering power of militant trade unions, promote competition, and encourage entrepreneurship. While some industries did decline, Thatcher's policies also led to the growth of new industries like financial services, IT, and tourism. These industries have become vital contributors to the UK economy. In conclusion, Thatcher's critics are wrong to blame her solely for the decline of certain industries. The truth is, these industries were already struggling, and Thatcher's policies were a necessary attempt to adapt the UK economy to changing global circumstances and break the grip of excessive trade union power. What a load of fucking shite. Maggie was one just about the worse thing that happened to this country." Probably one of the best | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If an industry is reliant on government financial help, then surely its not a viable proposition. That's Thatcherism, which short-sighted application destroyed mining, ship building, vehicle manufacturing, public transport and several other industries forming the solid base of British industry. The country's never recovered from that. It was Union s and strikes that finished them off " Mas'as voice is strong in this one. Please sir can I have some more | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maggie's voters will go to the grave starving and cold waiting for those pennies to trickle down. And still claim she was right " Maggie's voters will only go to their graves cold and starving because of the punitive policies of Starmer and Reeves | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Imagine cheering for privatisation only to have our infrastructure state owned by other states. Madness, and all they've done is extract, extract and extract. No planning for the good of the British people. And then they'll come on here with a straight face and say nothing to do with us gov. Look at BJ and the Mango Mussolini typical examples of the male species of that generation and they wonder why we have problems? You, you created this world because you believed deeply unserious people, the same ones that told you Brexit was a good idea, BJ would be the best thing for this country then Liz Truss's budget was the best conservative budget since Nigel Lawson. And now they line up to put another one of them in power dear uncle Nige. When i say they've never got anything right!! I mean ever, never!! Ageism is prejudice, however you try to dress it. The Boomer coal miners, steel workers and ship builders neither voted for nor "cheered on" privatisation. Grouping people by an immutable characteristic and assuming they share identical attributes is bigotry regardless of which immutable characteristic they share. You had the temerity to call out someone else for the use of the phrase "these people", yet here you are. Right on que, poor me, poor me, poor me won't someone think of the privileged white male There are many black and asian boomers who were employed in UK industry. Are you denying their existence, or that many were adversely affected by de-industrialisation? Is it just a part of your prejudice that working-class boomer equals white male? The howl of privilege. Never was so much given to one generation to be squandered away. Frit " And yet Sunak, Truss and Cameron are all Gen X. Johnstone and Starmer miss it by a couple of years. Gen X and Y can all vote. Why haven't our generations managed to turn things round and saved the world from the cursed boomers.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Imagine cheering for privatisation only to have our infrastructure state owned by other states. Madness, and all they've done is extract, extract and extract. No planning for the good of the British people. And then they'll come on here with a straight face and say nothing to do with us gov. Look at BJ and the Mango Mussolini typical examples of the male species of that generation and they wonder why we have problems? You, you created this world because you believed deeply unserious people, the same ones that told you Brexit was a good idea, BJ would be the best thing for this country then Liz Truss's budget was the best conservative budget since Nigel Lawson. And now they line up to put another one of them in power dear uncle Nige. When i say they've never got anything right!! I mean ever, never!! Ageism is prejudice, however you try to dress it. The Boomer coal miners, steel workers and ship builders neither voted for nor "cheered on" privatisation. Grouping people by an immutable characteristic and assuming they share identical attributes is bigotry regardless of which immutable characteristic they share. You had the temerity to call out someone else for the use of the phrase "these people", yet here you are. Right on que, poor me, poor me, poor me won't someone think of the privileged white male There are many black and asian boomers who were employed in UK industry. Are you denying their existence, or that many were adversely affected by de-industrialisation? Is it just a part of your prejudice that working-class boomer equals white male? The howl of privilege. Never was so much given to one generation to be squandered away. Frit And yet Sunak, Truss and Cameron are all Gen X. Johnstone and Starmer miss it by a couple of years. Gen X and Y can all vote. Why haven't our generations managed to turn things round and saved the world from the cursed boomers. "Maths their called boomers for a reason
And they vote.
The conservative party can't get out from Maggie's shadow and neither can the treasury.
TBF to Truss her diagnosis was correct on many issues her medicine not so much | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Imagine cheering for privatisation only to have our infrastructure state owned by other states. Madness, and all they've done is extract, extract and extract. No planning for the good of the British people. And then they'll come on here with a straight face and say nothing to do with us gov. Look at BJ and the Mango Mussolini typical examples of the male species of that generation and they wonder why we have problems? You, you created this world because you believed deeply unserious people, the same ones that told you Brexit was a good idea, BJ would be the best thing for this country then Liz Truss's budget was the best conservative budget since Nigel Lawson. And now they line up to put another one of them in power dear uncle Nige. When i say they've never got anything right!! I mean ever, never!! Ageism is prejudice, however you try to dress it. The Boomer coal miners, steel workers and ship builders neither voted for nor "cheered on" privatisation. Grouping people by an immutable characteristic and assuming they share identical attributes is bigotry regardless of which immutable characteristic they share. You had the temerity to call out someone else for the use of the phrase "these people", yet here you are. Right on que, poor me, poor me, poor me won't someone think of the privileged white male There are many black and asian boomers who were employed in UK industry. Are you denying their existence, or that many were adversely affected by de-industrialisation? Is it just a part of your prejudice that working-class boomer equals white male? The howl of privilege. Never was so much given to one generation to be squandered away. Frit And yet Sunak, Truss and Cameron are all Gen X. Johnstone and Starmer miss it by a couple of years. Gen X and Y can all vote. Why haven't our generations managed to turn things round and saved the world from the cursed boomers.
Maths their called boomers for a reason
And they vote.
The conservative party can't get out from Maggie's shadow and neither can the treasury.
TBF to Truss her diagnosis was correct on many issues her medicine not so much "So why are Gen X not called Busters? Haunted by the ghost of Thatcher: Makes as much sense as your astrology-like assumption that groups are homogeneous based on the arbitrary period of their birth year. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s not finished just turned into nail bars barbers and take aways" Consumer capitalism, don't like them don't use them. Simples | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s not finished just turned into nail bars barbers and take aways" Cash business. Great way of distributing money of dubious origin I believe. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If an industry is reliant on government financial help, then surely its not a viable proposition. Absolutely. It should be left in the benevolent, invisible hand of the Free Market, which will: 1. Snap it up for a ridiculously low sum. 2. Set up a fund for stock options, golden handshakes and final salary pensions for senior management. This will of course be untouchable by creditors. 3. Jack up prices to eye-watering levels. 4. Load it with debt. 5. Strip out the assets, whose ownership will be transferred to another company, leaving only its liabilities. 6. Declare bankruptcy and say "So Long Suckers" to the creditors and customers, and fuck off to the Bahamas and plan their next scheme of financial sorcery. 7. Leave the wreckage to be picked over by avaricious scavengers. Ain't Capitalism Wonderful? "
Sounds just like Thames Water. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nice £470 bonus you have there, shame if something was to happen to it " Which, thanks to a small private income, will push me even further over the threshold so the treasury will get some of it back. Plus I lost my WFA, my council tax has gone up over £200 a year and gas, electric and water are all going up as well. Obviously you went to the same school of mathematics and accountancy as Ms Reeves. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nice £470 bonus you have there, shame if something was to happen to it Which, thanks to a small private income, will push me even further over the threshold so the treasury will get some of it back. Plus I lost my WFA, my council tax has gone up over £200 a year and gas, electric and water are all going up as well. Obviously you went to the same school of mathematics and accountancy as Ms Reeves." Lol - that ALL happened to just you? Welcome to the world Maggie built. Capital only flows one way and it isn't down!! But hey hoe we move, if you did fail to plan.... Should have made hey while that sun shone on Norms bike | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Probably, because of the cost of energy in this country. We have lost our aluminium industry, most of our foundries, our silicon production, our glass industry… all big electricity users, I could go on. … UK energy prices are artificially high because of successive governments’ policies, in some other countries it is artificially low" That is what annoys me when ‘the costs of production’ in the UK are mentioned… it always seems to be a code for ‘over paid loafers’ rather than energy & raw materials | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"UK biggest export by volume? The air inside empty containers. I guess that's not heavy either. " Can we leave Nigel Farige out of this.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If an industry is reliant on government financial help, then surely its not a viable proposition. That's Thatcherism, which short-sighted application destroyed mining, ship building, vehicle manufacturing, public transport and several other industries forming the solid base of British industry. The country's never recovered from that. Margaret Thatcher's critics often overlook the dire state of British industry when she took office. The truth is, many industries were already on their knees, crippled by inefficient practices, outdated manufacturing methods, and the crippling grip of militant trade unions. The coal mining industry, for example, was facing significant challenges, including declining reserves, increasing costs, and competition from cheaper imported coal. Many mines were already unprofitable and reliant on government subsidies. The shipbuilding industry had been in decline since the 1960s, due to factors like overcapacity, inefficient production, and competition from Asian yards. The car industry was also struggling, with poor productivity, outdated manufacturing methods, and strong competition from foreign manufacturers. But the biggest obstacle to British industry was the excessive power wielded by trade unions. Their constant demands for wage increases led to crippling inflation, reduced competitiveness, and a lack of investment in industry. The resulting strikes and disputes brought the country to a standstill. Thatcher's government recognised that drastic action was needed to save the British economy. Her policies aimed to break the domineering power of militant trade unions, promote competition, and encourage entrepreneurship. While some industries did decline, Thatcher's policies also led to the growth of new industries like financial services, IT, and tourism. These industries have become vital contributors to the UK economy. In conclusion, Thatcher's critics are wrong to blame her solely for the decline of certain industries. The truth is, these industries were already struggling, and Thatcher's policies were a necessary attempt to adapt the UK economy to changing global circumstances and break the grip of excessive trade union power. What a load of fucking shite. Maggie was one just about the worse thing that happened to this country. Probably one of the best " Then we truly are screwed.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A lot of British industry was destroyed in the ‘70s by trade unions and endless strikes. When you think of all the British inventions nor enjoyed by the world, we threw it all away " I don’t think union power .. or lack of since it has been 40 years of declining powers and membership, but lack of entrepreneurial spirit, which seems to be a grab the money and run spirit rather than invest and develop. The nations inability to invents, fails to invest, sells out for a fast buck, someone else reaps the rewards. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A lot of British industry was destroyed in the ‘70s by trade unions and endless strikes. When you think of all the British inventions nor enjoyed by the world, we threw it all away I don’t think union power .. or lack of since it has been 40 years of declining powers and membership, but lack of entrepreneurial spirit, which seems to be a grab the money and run spirit rather than invest and develop. The nations inability to invents, fails to invest, sells out for a fast buck, someone else reaps the rewards." This it's a belief in the sovereign individual. No such thing as society. And they hate the youth that the world they created are. Hate the fact that the workers who pay for them have melanin. But don't understand any of it. Extract, extract, extract | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maggie's voters will go to the grave starving and cold waiting for those pennies to trickle down. And still claim she was right " Which will come first ???? (A) thatchers pennies trickling down OR (B) a Brexit benefit being found ????? Currently standing as a 0-0 draw | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If an industry is reliant on government financial help, then surely its not a viable proposition. That's Thatcherism, which short-sighted application destroyed mining, ship building, vehicle manufacturing, public transport and several other industries forming the solid base of British industry. The country's never recovered from that. Margaret Thatcher's critics often overlook the dire state of British industry when she took office. The truth is, many industries were already on their knees, crippled by inefficient practices, outdated manufacturing methods, and the crippling grip of militant trade unions. The coal mining industry, for example, was facing significant challenges, including declining reserves, increasing costs, and competition from cheaper imported coal. Many mines were already unprofitable and reliant on government subsidies. The shipbuilding industry had been in decline since the 1960s, due to factors like overcapacity, inefficient production, and competition from Asian yards. The car industry was also struggling, with poor productivity, outdated manufacturing methods, and strong competition from foreign manufacturers. But the biggest obstacle to British industry was the excessive power wielded by trade unions. Their constant demands for wage increases led to crippling inflation, reduced competitiveness, and a lack of investment in industry. The resulting strikes and disputes brought the country to a standstill. Thatcher's government recognised that drastic action was needed to save the British economy. Her policies aimed to break the domineering power of militant trade unions, promote competition, and encourage entrepreneurship. While some industries did decline, Thatcher's policies also led to the growth of new industries like financial services, IT, and tourism. These industries have become vital contributors to the UK economy. In conclusion, Thatcher's critics are wrong to blame her solely for the decline of certain industries. The truth is, these industries were already struggling, and Thatcher's policies were a necessary attempt to adapt the UK economy to changing global circumstances and break the grip of excessive trade union power. " . The industries that Maggie closed were also the biggest trainers of tradesmen, electricians fitters plumbers joiners et al, the surviving privatised companies slashed their training budgets in order to increase dividends to shareholders. How many tradesman are trained by financial services or Costa , McDonald's etc? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If an industry is reliant on government financial help, then surely its not a viable proposition. That's Thatcherism, which short-sighted application destroyed mining, ship building, vehicle manufacturing, public transport and several other industries forming the solid base of British industry. The country's never recovered from that. Margaret Thatcher's critics often overlook the dire state of British industry when she took office. The truth is, many industries were already on their knees, crippled by inefficient practices, outdated manufacturing methods, and the crippling grip of militant trade unions. The coal mining industry, for example, was facing significant challenges, including declining reserves, increasing costs, and competition from cheaper imported coal. Many mines were already unprofitable and reliant on government subsidies. The shipbuilding industry had been in decline since the 1960s, due to factors like overcapacity, inefficient production, and competition from Asian yards. The car industry was also struggling, with poor productivity, outdated manufacturing methods, and strong competition from foreign manufacturers. But the biggest obstacle to British industry was the excessive power wielded by trade unions. Their constant demands for wage increases led to crippling inflation, reduced competitiveness, and a lack of investment in industry. The resulting strikes and disputes brought the country to a standstill. Thatcher's government recognised that drastic action was needed to save the British economy. Her policies aimed to break the domineering power of militant trade unions, promote competition, and encourage entrepreneurship. While some industries did decline, Thatcher's policies also led to the growth of new industries like financial services, IT, and tourism. These industries have become vital contributors to the UK economy. In conclusion, Thatcher's critics are wrong to blame her solely for the decline of certain industries. The truth is, these industries were already struggling, and Thatcher's policies were a necessary attempt to adapt the UK economy to changing global circumstances and break the grip of excessive trade union power. . The industries that Maggie closed were also the biggest trainers of tradesmen, electricians fitters plumbers joiners et al, the surviving privatised companies slashed their training budgets in order to increase dividends to shareholders. How many tradesman are trained by financial services or Costa , McDonald's etc?" Indeed. Anyone remember student apprenticeships? A 3 year "sandwich" course, each year consisting of 6 months in the workplace & 6 months at the local Poly, ending in a Higher National Diploma. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
