flango
Hardcore MB Enthusiast
Arthur Scargill along with Derk Robinson in the motor industry?
I trust you mean Red Robbo and not Derek Robinson the black humour novelist
Arthur Scargill along with Derk Robinson in the motor industry?
I trust you mean Red Robbo and not Derek Robinson the black humour novelist
Of course, silly me, I should have known that I only have to watch a film to find out what really happened. Watching Alice in Wonderland should have put me off having parties but I'm still going to leave you all now to get on with prepping for tonight's bash. Happy New Year.
Watching Black Beauty always made me be careful...
Can't disagree with you there however to single out a certain section of society and raze it to the ground then sell off the country's main assets to the benefit of the few.
But we're talking about a Government that not only did nothing to help but destroyed some industries
^^^^^ Johnson Matthey were a complete basket case. They were a 'precious metals' private company, buying, selling and otherwise making money (or not) out of dealing with shiny things.
Coalmining was not the only sector that disapperared.
In the 70s shipbuilding was lost. Along with steel.
How many people were employed on the railways in the early 60s compared with the early 80s and 90s.
What happened with coal mining was because the union was stronger it managed to stand against the economic tide for longer. The outcome was inevitable - it was just that with the strife in the industry the hard landing was made harder.
Whilst you are correct about the other industries suffering none of it was inevitable it was politically motivated decision making. Much of it was the opportunity to loot state assets, Gas, Electric, Water prime sites owned by BL as well. Public housing stock given away all in pursuit of a mad cap ideology of monetrism.
It was seen as offloading liabilities.
Government is not good at managing stuff that involves people because it doesn't make hard nosed decisions.
So the taxpayers gets milked twice over. Once for the direct costs of subsidising the excesses of the nationalised sector and again for the ongoing damage of the rest of the economy.
It's also not good at getting a good price for assets either (with the odd exception such as 3G licences).
Arguably it shouldn't have some of these things in the first place except as a last resort contingency. What happened was that public housing became a significant burden. And it was left with heavily manned nationalised industries where it wasn't capable of making the harder rational decisions because there were so many people being maintained within these sectors.
This problem still exists with the NHS - but the balance beween value to the nation vs. costs is better balanced by keeping it part starved of resources. Cynical solution - but arguably it works reasonably.
I would argue that having these industries run at a loss worked as a subsidy to private companies, in addition when they were closed there was an enormous redundancy bill and loss of income tax receipts.
It may surprise you but public employees do pay income tax
I would argue that having these industries run at a loss worked as a subsidy to private companies, in addition when they were closed there was an enormous redundancy bill and loss of income tax receipts. The decision to close and or privatise was purely ideological and the little financial gain was squandered on Trident and militarising the Falklands, in terms of the public spending argument, can you tell me where the British companies are that do not benefit from public spending, direct or indirect.