It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK General Election - My own dilemma...

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 06:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: ufoorbhunter



The Tories let a whole load of dead industries wither away.


I wonder, in what piece of Tory propaganda did you read that?
Did you actually live and try to work under Thatcher?
Did you actually experience the aftermath of her policies?

There were certainly major issues in many areas of UK manufacturing, not least large numbers of lower and middle management, incompetent management, serial under-investment, corruption etc.



If the shipbuildars weren't mking ships that people wanted to the right spec at the right place why should others subsidise their lives?


British heavy engineering was almost universally recognised as the vest in the world.
The problem was that UK ship building and heavy engineering in general was severely undercut by the far eastern market - South Korea etc - who basically were paying their employees the proverbial bowl of rice a day whilst UK tradesmen expected a wage that befitted their skill and excellence.
Rather than protect UK manufacturing The Tories simply abandoned it.


How, in your view, should they have protected it? By giving money to the ship builders to help them discount their prices so that they could compete on price with the builders in SE Asia? Competing on price is never a good strategy. It is a race to the bottom and only the most ruthless wins. There is always somebody else who is willing to bid even lower but in the mean time, you have wasted huge amounts of money trying to compete in that space.


I worked in a yard on the Tees around 88 - 90.
One of the contracts we worked on was the Gyda platform for BP Norway.
Whilst conducting extensive onshore radiographic testing I got talking to a senior BP Norway executive.
I asked him why they had placed the order in 'our' yard - he explained that in the immediate aftermath of the Piper Alpha tragedy that had occurred in July 88 safety was viewed as paramount and that as 'everyone knew British engineering was by far the best in the world' it was decided that assured quality workmanship should take precedence over cost.


Now, this is what the British ship builders should have done from day one (and the sooner the better) - emphasised the superior quality, attention to detail and craftsmanship (but only if the company really is at that level). People are willing to pay a premium for quality. Not everyone of course, but a sufficient number to make it a good if not the best long-term strategy.




posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 06:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: DAZ21
a reply to: ufoorbhunter

Yea it's great for now, until they decide to move manufacturing somewhere else and we can't do anything about it.

We need to stop selling our industries off if there's anything actually left nowadays.

It's a sad state of affairs not something to be proud of. How do France, Germany, et al all manage to keep their industries yet we had to sell everything.

The only thing the UK has any clout in today, is the finance sector, and we all know that only benefits a select few individuals.


Having operated in Germany in the past, they don't do it by giving government support (unless you're a farmer in France) to businesses to "protect" them, but rather by making it an attractive location to run a business in. State support of private businesses is, after all, nowadays largely illegal.

Renault doesn't count, the France government has a "golden share" in it, effectively making it a state-controlled company.
edit on 11/4/2015 by moniker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 06:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

Immigrants come over here and laze about on benefits whilst simultaneously stealing our jobs.


If they were truly interested in claiming benefits they wouldn't come here. They would go to somewhere else in Europe where the benefits systems are far more generous.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 07:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: DAZ21
To even consider voting for Labour after the state that they left us in and especially since Blair has started sticking his beak in again. How anyone can trust that man makes me a bit sick. A man that got himself rich off of screwing the rest of us and doesn't trust us to make the right decision on Europe so doesn't want us to have one.


Blair is a fine politician, just doing what politicians do best - screwing us.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: moniker


Now, this is what the British ship builders should have done from day one (and the sooner the better) - emphasised the superior quality, attention to detail and craftsmanship (but only if the company really is at that level). People are willing to pay a premium for quality. Not everyone of course, but a sufficient number to make it a good if not the best long-term strategy.


That's exactly what happened for the last 250 years or so and the UK was the best in the world for engineering and manufacturing goods in all areas until Thatcher dismantled it all by smashing unions, workers rights and handing the power over to private company owners who would just relocate to the cheapest place and cheapest raw materials.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 04:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: moniker


Now, this is what the British ship builders should have done from day one (and the sooner the better) - emphasised the superior quality, attention to detail and craftsmanship (but only if the company really is at that level). People are willing to pay a premium for quality. Not everyone of course, but a sufficient number to make it a good if not the best long-term strategy.


That's exactly what happened for the last 250 years or so and the UK was the best in the world for engineering and manufacturing goods in all areas until Thatcher dismantled it all by smashing unions, workers rights and handing the power over to private company owners who would just relocate to the cheapest place and cheapest raw materials.


To think that started under Thatcher is a populist idea because it gives people someone to boo and hiss at, but a similar view is that the Callaghan government was brought down by the unions. Now, I can't recall voting a union into government (well, not unless you think of Labour as a conglomerate of unions, but then I've never voted for them anyway), and yet the unions were effectively holding the government to ransom - not for the overall benefit of the entire populace, but for paying members of their unions. Something was always going to give and if it hadn't been Thatcher it would have been someone else.

As for the privatisation piece based purely on your comments above, other companies are going to do the work at locations of lower cost and they are going to use cheaper raw materials (assuming they exist) - they did and always will do that anyway and if the quality is the same if not better - who would you buy from? That then gives the option to lower costs and trade at a loss, or maintain cost levels and accept less custom - again meaning you are highly likely to trade at a loss. How far should any government be prepared to go with that? It's not their money to spend after all.

I guess though that's a question for a different thread.
edit on 14-4-2015 by uncommitted because: typo



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 05:18 AM
link   
Back in the days of nationalised industries, we were fed the line that it wasn't right for taxpayers to subsidise loss making car plants, coal mines etc.

So the government privatised, shut and dismantled the overwhelming majority of these industries that provided good quality jobs to people who worked hard, paid lots of tax and bought things (many of which were also taxed).

Now, we have part time, zero hours, minimum wage jobs and these workers have to get their wages topped up by benefits, thus using tax payer money to shore up businesses that can't (or wont) pay decently.
These workers pay little or no tax, have nothing much to spend on buying other goods and services, thus spreading the poverty among local businesses which then also close or downsize and pay less taxes.

I wonder if the state really is better off...



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 05:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Back in the days of nationalised industries, we were fed the line that it wasn't right for taxpayers to subsidise loss making car plants, coal mines etc.

So the government privatised, shut and dismantled the overwhelming majority of these industries that provided good quality jobs to people who worked hard, paid lots of tax and bought things (many of which were also taxed).

Now, we have part time, zero hours, minimum wage jobs and these workers have to get their wages topped up by benefits, thus using tax payer money to shore up businesses that can't (or wont) pay decently.
These workers pay little or no tax, have nothing much to spend on buying other goods and services, thus spreading the poverty among local businesses which then also close or downsize and pay less taxes.

I wonder if the state really is better off...


If only things were that black and white eh? I think it's a bit easy to say everything was wonderful under nationalised industries, don't know if you remember the huge raft of strikes in the 70's for example.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 06:34 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted



If only things were that black and white eh?


Quite correct - nothing in this world is black and white, everything is a composite of different and varying shades of grey.



I think it's a bit easy to say everything was wonderful under nationalised industries,....


I think only an idiot would say everything was wonderful or perfect back then....but it was slightly better!

Personally I'm in favour of re-nationalising all utilities and the railway system - but with the proviso that they are ran and managed in a professional manner akin to them being privately owned.
Profit generated would be used to;
a) subsidise prices.
b) re-invest in the respective industries to ensure optimum performance.
c) re-invest in the infrastructure of the country and subsidise non-profit making necessities.

It really is pretty simple and straight forward, you don't have to be an economic or financial genius to understand it and appreciate the benefits for society as a whole.



.... don't know if you remember the huge raft of strikes in the 70's for example.


Yes, I do.
But for all I don't want a return to rampant and unchecked Union power I do however support workers rights.

As with most things we need a common sense approach - unfortunately 'common sense' isn't quite such a common attribute at all.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 06:45 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted
It wasn't a life was perfect sort of post. Merely an observation.
I mean, has anyone ever compared the costs of a low wage, poor employment economy like we have now, with all the benefits, lack of spending, low tax revenue and social problems with the costss of supporting big industries?

Especially when you consider things like coal mining and power generation...I bet it would be cheaper to generate power using our own coal rather than russian gas, especially when you factor in the taxes paid by the miners.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join