The Last One
Comments
-
i just wonder where the industries of old went?
in mainland europe, they are in the main, still there.
We went for a services based eco, probably because the Tories never wanted to be held over a barrel by the unions and as we can see, rebalancing the economy cant really happen, its just cheaper to get the products and skills from else where.
Of course a services based eco can be successful but no one has pride in a securities company, our british manufacturing companies have either dissapeared or are foriegn owned.
we will be importing hi grade steel from abroad forever now and coal from the 3rd world for the next 10 or so years.
Interesting you say you left the NE, good for you, i had to leave the SW (i came back though) its just a shame that these regional economies are stuck in decline, meaning future generations will always need to leave too.0 -
But whose job is is it to second guess the future state of a gjven company and try to sort out other jobs for them before the company has made a decision? Nice idea but not really practical and assumes some form of central state control over who works where.
DIS.
That is literally why they exist.
It's not about state controlling anything. It's about anticipating changes in industry and jobs and making sure any negative impacts are minimised.
Even you should be in favour of assistance for re-training etc. Sooner they acquire new skills, sooner they get new jobs which are less at risk.0 -
But whose job is is it to second guess the future state of a gjven company and try to sort out other jobs for them before the company has made a decision? Nice idea but not really practical and assumes some form of central state control over who works where.
DIS.
That is literally why they exist.
It's not about state controlling anything. It's about anticipating changes in industry and jobs and making sure any negative impacts are minimised.
Even you should be in favour of assistance for re-training etc. Sooner they acquire new skills, sooner they get new jobs which are less at risk.
the coal industry decline has been known about for decades.
surely, if you ve areas in the country where one employer/industry dominates the workforce and local economy, then you dont need to be sherlock to realise what will happen if this industry closes.
But the problem is and you ve hit the nail here (without realising it) we have no long term industrial policy, so every thing is just fire fighting or dis interest.0 -
Interesting you say you left the NE, good for you, i had to leave the SW (i came back though) its just a shame that these regional economies are stuck in decline, meaning future generations will always need to leave too.
Therein lies the cost of opportunity. Nissan Sunderland is a great example of how industry can work not only in the North but how we are, given the chance, good at it. The downside is that Nissan is a foreign owned company.
Historically, it's always been an 'us' and 'them' dynamic in the work place (Blyton and Turnbull, the Dynamics of the employment relationship). Unions had often too much power and management were far too short-termist and coercive. We still retain the two tier corporate structure in industry. The conflict between shop floor and management has been to our domestic and global detriment.
The service sector is a break away from that inflexible, un-retractable current.
Unless Governments start to recognise that the environment required to encourage industry needs to be in place for it to flourish, it never will. There are so many facets, it's difficult to summarise where you would start but a short list would provide indicators:
1. Price of energy
2. Start up costs
3. Education. What a mine field. For too long we have been behind and simply fire-fighting. It's ad-hoc and it's voluntary. We educate poorly to current market needs. We don't take a lateral approach and start training people to high technical standards which will in turn create it's own momentum and it's own markets. If people get the technical skills required, they often go abroad. It's pointless training people up to what they think are going to be future skill requirements because that is based on a subjective economic supposition.
Global markets change so rapidly that future planning is riddled with flaws.
4. Overheads
5. Bureaucracy, planning laws.
6. Venture capital. There is a lack of free flowing cash in the UK. It's partly down to the rocky ground to want to scatter the seeds in the first instance but it's also because entrepreneurs aren't willing to speculate.
7. Uncertainty - political and economic.
8. Internal training. Countries like Sweden have offered training incentives to major global corporations such as Volvo and ABB ASEA, SAAB for years (1950's) so that they are all training internally and increasing their skills base. This practice in the UK is sporadic and there is little financial help for corporations to do that. We don't utilise Further and Higher educational facilities within a National plan to improve and extend the skills base.
Far too much emphasis is placed on Higher academic qualifications when technical skills are often imported, therefore subsidising our shortfall.
It is time that we stop kicking the political football and work, plan and structure for the collective good.
The service economy is all good and proper but there needs to be a balance, a foundation and the North could be an industrial power house and the south the hub of the service economy - it makes better logistical, social and economic sense.
It seems crazy that we have the continuing divide where the South Eastern economy is propping up the rest of the nation. Shouldn't there be an emphasis based on the relative merits and potential of each sector both geographically and economically?
Why should those in the North feel compelled to go south for opportunity? Why should the North have to live under the sword of the "be grateful, we're propping you up" mentality? Flawed because not only does it not tackle the underlying demise of industry, it does not admit to being the architects of the demise in the first instance.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Mentioned already: decline of coal. Coal has been in decline for decades, maybe more. Huge pit villages were being opened when the navy decided to move to oil-fired ships, and we, as a nation, were already seeking cheaper, cleaner alternatives.
Also mentioned already: the dominance of miners. If they couldn't see the writing on the wall years ago, then more fool them. They did lord it over other manual workers, and much good it did them. I am from the north of Staffordshire and do not know one miner whose wish it was that their lad went down the pit, as they had, or their dad had.
And the decline of heavy industry is everywhere in Europe, if you look. Northern France, southern Belgium, even the massive factories of Netherlands and Germany have also withered. In the case of some, the local government were also the biggest shareholders in the industries declining, so they can spend their tax dollars accordingly.
Final point: much spoken about grim, industrial north and prosperous south of Britain. It wasn't always so. Rural poverty in the south of the UK was evident for even the earliest commentators on the industrial revolution. And it still exists, for that matter. London distorts everything about the south east, for sure.Ecrasez l’infame0 -
I wasn't really talking about heavy industry and I wouldn't disagree with the reasons for the demise in the coal industry.
The global dichotomy is that where you need a surplus of skilled industrial labour, those industries tend to be located in Japan, Korea, Western Europe and North America. Where there is a need for cheap unskilled labour, those industries are in the 3rd and developing world.
However, the rise and scale of the Chinese economy in particular, is so quick and so consuming, we are being left behind in the technological, high skilled sectors and we place very little emphasis on trying to develop that sector that we are falling behind fast in.
Even China has suffered a loss in production in the low skilled sector as wage and remuneration expectations increase (Re. : Factory fire in Bangladesh) and this work has moved to Thailand, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and parts of Malaysia etc.
I even heard a report (BBC News 24 global business) where a Chinese woman moved her factory from China to the US as it reduced logistical costs and she could take on better skilled employees. It was also where her market was and this meant that she was more in touch with the market to which she was providing - despite the much higher wage expectations in the US.
This goes back to my original point about high skilled work which has remained (on the whole) in countries that are fully developed - apart from dear old Britain.
Porsche employs more people per unit of output than any other motor manufacturer. Flexibility built into work practices through training and R & D based around personnel flexibility rather than product/process development which has a finite production life cycle and future obsolescence.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
My old man was a miner who got made redundant in late 80s. After the 72 and 74 industrial actions, the miners enjoyed a boom in pay and bonuses. My dad used to say that they were pricing themselves out of a job...
I posted this earlier in the thread. Miners wages increased dramatically post 74.
Those of you that advocate subsidising this or any other mine, would you slash the wages of the miners?
If not, how would you justify to the low paid of this country, the subsidising of jobs to produced an overpriced product, paying a wage to which they could not aspire?0 -
You're off on one Bally. We are talking about 1 mine and the inevitable demise of coal fired power stations, not the subsidisation of a whole industry.
Let's talk about low paid low skilled work while we are at it. Let's talk about how the benefits system including Working Tax Credits are propping up the Tesco's and the ASDA's because they employ people on low hours with temporary contracts who may receive Housing Benefit and WTC's and pay no income tax, do not receive proper holiday remuneration, will not contribute to a proper workable pension (and neither does the employer) but counts as 1 less person on the unemployment stats.
If that isn't state subsidy on a massive scale, I dunno what is.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
TBH Pinno I agree with what you said above (above Ballys). Twats like Cameron are in thrall to China, but all they have done is copy the west. Pretty successfully, it has to be said.
The writing was on the wall for us when my dad was a lad, but what has been put in place to help us, as a nation to try and reap some benefit? I know there was a move to technical education, but what happened?
I know there are many very good successfull manufacturies out there, doing great work. This is arguably what Britain does best. Where do the youth of today go, I wonder?Ecrasez l’infame0 -
You're off on one Bally. We are talking about 1 mine and the inevitable demise of coal fired power stations, not the subsidisation of a whole industry.
Let's talk about low paid low skilled work while we are at it. Let's talk about how the benefits system including Working Tax Credits are propping up the Tesco's and the ASDA's because they employ people on low hours with temporary contracts who may receive Housing Benefit and WTC's and pay no income tax, do not receive proper holiday remuneration, will not contribute to a proper workable pension (and neither does the employer) but counts as 1 less person on the unemployment stats.
If that isn't state subsidy on a massive scale, I dunno what is.
I agree about Working Tax Credits. But when Osbourne tried to reduce them, they appeared to have an amazing popularity didn't they? Are you advocating that they be abolished?0 -
It is very worrying indeed.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19764586#p19764586]BelgianBeerGeek[/url] wrote:I know there are many very good successfull manufacturies out there, doing great work. This is arguably what Britain does best. Where do the youth of today go, I wonder?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/epic/rrdot/12059889/New-blow-for-Rolls-Royce-as-top-backer-loses-faith.htmlThe above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
You're off on one Bally. We are talking about 1 mine and the inevitable demise of coal fired power stations, not the subsidisation of a whole industry.
Let's talk about low paid low skilled work while we are at it. Let's talk about how the benefits system including Working Tax Credits are propping up the Tesco's and the ASDA's because they employ people on low hours with temporary contracts who may receive Housing Benefit and WTC's and pay no income tax, do not receive proper holiday remuneration, will not contribute to a proper workable pension (and neither does the employer) but counts as 1 less person on the unemployment stats.
If that isn't state subsidy on a massive scale, I dunno what is.
I agree about Working Tax Credits. But when Osbourne tried to reduce them, they appeared to have an amazing popularity didn't they? Are you advocating that they be abolished?
Don't be a hypocrite - on the one hand you don't seem to mind what is ostensibly state subsidy in the form of WTC's that effectively allow employers to duck responsibility by not paying for full remuneration, Nat Ins contributions and pensions but on the other hand you are against state subsidy for industry?!
Finchy also put out a link to a report about how much corporate subsidy is occurring in the UK to which even Stevo admitted was happening and could somehow justify. So what do you think of that?
WTC's are propping up the low paid low skilled service sector jobs that have replaced the full time positions that were once held in industry.
1. How many people in the UK receive working tax credits?
2. How many of those positions are within companies who choose to have working contracts that are pert-time or temporary and are in a position to create long term permanent jobs but do the opposite deliberately because it improves the profit margin?
3. How many of those people will expect to work under those T and C's for the rest of their lives and in so doing, will never be out of the poverty trap, never directly contribute to the tax revenue and will always rely on state handouts until death?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Not being hypocritical at all. I agree that working tax credits are a wage subsidy. Where have I said otherwise?
Edit Also tell me where I have been in favour of WTCs0 -
Not being hypocritical at all. I agree that working tax credits are a wage subsidy. Where have I said otherwise?
Edit Also tell me where I have been in favour of WTCs
Don't back pedal:
"...they appeared to have an amazing popularity didn't they? Are you advocating that they be abolished?"
Why did you say the above then?
Industry nor people should be subsidised by the state according to you. Is that correct? If it is, we would all be f*cked. People and industry are being subsidised, right here, right now.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
I'm not back pedalling at all. I would do away with them.
The point I was making was that YOU seemed to be agreeing that they were wrong. I was a bit taken aback as your politics are somewhat further left than mine. When Osbourne tried to reduce them, lefties up and down the country were up in arms.0 -
Here's one I prepared earlier as Val Singleton used to say.Re: £12 billion in welfare cuts
Postby Ballysmate » Sun Oct 18, 2015 8:46 am
Ok Frank, lets talk about real people in real situations. We have a welfare system that rewards some people with more income than many others can aspire to earn.
People, some on here, have argued that big companies see tax credits and benefits in general as a wage subsidy, allowing them to pay lower wages. A view that is difficult to deny. The Tories are the only party willing to seize this particular nettle and make changes. Corbyn has stated that he would abolish the welfare cap entirely. Tesco, Asda McD would no doubt be in favour of that.
No government is 100% right 100% of the time and the policy, like any other, may need adjusting in time. We shall see0 -
So Pinno, would you abolish them?0
-
I'm not back pedalling at all. I would do away with them.
The point I was making was that YOU seemed to be agreeing that they were wrong. I was a bit taken aback as your politics are somewhat further left than mine. When Osbourne tried to reduce them, lefties up and down the country were up in arms.
I agree with you and I do think they are wrong on so many levels but until we establish a stronger economy and not one totally reliant on the south east and the service sector, we have no choice but to prop people's incomes up. Yes, get rid of them but this would maybe require employment legislation (more? God forbid) but we can only get rid of them when the employment environment has improved.
WTC's are a 'finger in the dyke' scheme, subsidising what is effectively a poor wage, low skilled service sector economy (booming or not).seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Romania etc - Low wage, low cost economy.
Sweden, Norway, Germany, France, Finland, Holland, Japan, Korea - High wage, high cost economy.
Britain - Low wage, High cost economy.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Using the numbering above.Some peope on here are makimg the case that it is economically better to nationalise andmprop up a loss making business indefinitely. Here is why this doesnt work.
Taking each assertion in turn:
1. We get more in taxes if we keep them working.
Wrong. The taxpayer will fund all of their pay but only get back at best half of that in employees taxes.
That is a presumption. The margin between profitability and loss is small. For example; If we provide energy at a competitive rate (most expensive per KW in Europe in the competitive member states, BTW) that may be enough to tip the balance.
The company will pay no corporate tax as it is loss making and may even get a refund if it can carry back the losses to profitable years.
Another presumption. You are assuming blanket subsidy. You have suggested that they don't pay corporate tax? Where in this particular subsidy debate has anyone said that removing corporate tax is the method to subsidise this particular company?
What is being proposed is effectively keeping tbe unemployed on the payroll which is more costly than the dole. Add to that the taxpayer is funding all of the losses that the operation incurs, not just the pay so that is an open ended liability.
A extension of the previous presumption. Racking up the rhetoric of your proposed method of subsidy to argue against it using presumption
2. We have to pay them all dole
Assuming nobody else gets another job. People look for work. New industries spring up. Part of the normal business cycle.
The usual cycle of replacing these jobs with low paid jobs in the service sector. Couple that with the North South divide where new opportunities will most likely materialise in the south in an area with massive financial obstacles to resettlement such as house prices, availability and cost of living, it never really balances the equation.
It just makes the South East more competitive and the North more destitute.
3. It must be cheaper than buying imported coal
How do you know? If it really is uneconomic to keep the business going, the costs of doing that could easily exceed the cost of buying alternative sources of energy. In any event the customers are likely to be private enterprise so it is not a loss for the state.
Well there is an indirect subsidy opportunity - reduce the VAT for companies buying the coal should they buy it in the UK. That way we would not be directly subsidising Kellingly. Reducing energy costs in the UK would make a massive difference to all sectors of business. Both domestically and commercially, we are being fleeced by the energy companies (Re.: Npower). Energy provision and good communication networks are critical to the performance and potential of any economy but we just leave it to the lottery of 'market forces'. It is in everybody's interest yet we come up with a myriad of excuses why we don't deploy better methods to control it more efficiently. Makes no frikkin sense to me.
But let's not get too carried away. This is only one mine.
Yes, lets not get too carried away, it's just one mine. Therefore, any subsidy in whatever form is short term due to the gradual phasing out of coal fired power stations and won't be a long drawn out headache. Whilst the coal fired power stations are phased out, the number of people employed at Kellingly can be slowly tapered off. Some will go through natural wastage (i.e retirement) and in the interim we can work out ways and means of re-training and employment in another sphere.
We are so good at arriving at cul-de-sacs without ever anticipating that it was the most likely outcome. We are not pro-active enough during that period when the cash cow is failing.
On the subject of the north/south divide and 'Northern powerhouse' - why isn't the government considering an international airport in Yorkshire? F*ck an expansion to Heathrow, Stanstead or Gatwick.
1. What makes you think the margin between profitability and loss is small? Quick fact check. UK coal asked for a £338m subsidy to keep the pit open for 3 years. According to the article that was £75,000 for each relevant employee - that's a lot of money and simply did not represent value for money for the tax payer. Last output figure I saw for the colliery was 1.2m tonnes per year and the spot price of coal was around £40 per ton. A quick bit of maths tells me that represents a subsidy of over £90 per tonne over the 3 years - more than twice the spot price for coal. Fine margins eh?
Logically it is cheaper to close it at that level of loss.
You misunderstood the point about corporate tax. It's not about subsidising the company, it's about the tax contribution of the company. If it is having to close because it is deeply loss making, it will not be paying corporate tax because that is a tax on profits...or at the very least reducing the corporate tax bill of a larger organisation if there are other profitable operations in the same legal entity.
2. Show me some evidence that the jobs are being replaced with low paid service jobs. Just a presumption based on your gloomy outlook for the UK?
3. You don't understand VAT. It is a tax on the end consumer. Businesses can reclaim their VAT so changing the VAT rate has zero impact in terms of subsidies for Kellingley. The only rate of VAT that matters to consumers is the VAT rate on our individual energy bills, which is currently 5%. The govt said they would drop it if they could but that is not allowed as the minimum VAT rate allowed under EU law is 5% :roll:
Also don't understand your assumption that this is a cash cow (assume you mean for the country). It is a privately owned company. You know, one of those nasty capitalist outfits that profits from the people.
You also seem to omit that if we need to buy coal we can buy it from one of the 34 open cast mines in the UK. This isn't the end of coal mining, just the end of one type of coal mining.
PS: there is an international airport in Yorkshire - Leeds International. Even has its own airline
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VLYpKGVBUg"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I'm not back pedalling at all. I would do away with them.
The point I was making was that YOU seemed to be agreeing that they were wrong. I was a bit taken aback as your politics are somewhat further left than mine. When Osbourne tried to reduce them, lefties up and down the country were up in arms.
I agree with you and I do think they are wrong on so many levels but until we establish a stronger economy and not one totally reliant on the south east and the service sector, we have no choice but to prop people's incomes up. Yes, get rid of them but this would maybe require employment legislation (more? God forbid) but we can only get rid of them when the employment environment has improved.
WTC's are a 'finger in the dyke' scheme, subsidising what is effectively a poor wage, low skilled service sector economy (booming or not).
I would do away with them now. I am not advocating putting people into poverty. If people qualify for benefits, then they qualify for benefits and they should be paid as such.0 -
Evidence please?Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Romania etc - Low wage, low cost economy.
Sweden, Norway, Germany, France, Finland, Holland, Japan, Korea - High wage, high cost economy.
Britain - Low wage, High cost economy."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I'm not back pedalling at all. I would do away with them.
The point I was making was that YOU seemed to be agreeing that they were wrong. I was a bit taken aback as your politics are somewhat further left than mine. When Osbourne tried to reduce them, lefties up and down the country were up in arms.
What, lefties like The Sun and backbench Tory MPs?0 -
Re: nationalisation, there was a clear implication by some that 'we' keep it going.
Maybe the govt see some other strategic value or there is a necessity in other forms of production.Some peope on here are makimg the case that it is economically better to nationalise andmprop up a loss making business indefinitely. Here is why this doesnt work.
Taking each assertion in turn:
1. We get more in taxes if we keep them working.
Wrong. The taxpayer will fund all of their pay but only get back at best half of that in employees taxes. The company will pay no corporate tax as it is loss making and may even get a refund if it can carry back the losses to profitable years. What is being proposed is effectively keeping tbe unemployed on the payroll which is more costly than the dole. Add to that the taxpayer is funding all of the losses that the operation incurs, not just the pay so that is an open ended liability.
2. We have to pay them all dole
Assuming nobody else gets another job. People look for work. New industries spring up. Part of the normal business cycle.
3. It must be cheaper than buying imported coal
How do you know? If it really is uneconomic to keep the business going, the costs of doing that could easily exceed the cost of buying alternative sources of energy. In any event the customers are likely to be private enterprise so it is not a loss for the state.
But let's not get too carried away. This is only one mine.
From what I can make out, people are saying subsidise rather than nationalise. In that case, the state wouldn't be paying the entire wage bill.
Do you oppose government subsidies to all industries? Because fossil fuels, nuclear and renewables all receive government subsidies.
I am looking at this case and I can't see here an economic case or strategic case to nationalise and prop it up: that was what was being proposed and I set out my reasons why not. It would appear that the owners of the mine, who real,y know the financial situation, are of the same view.
Any comments on my points and the specific issue above?
I can't see a single person saying it should be nationalised. I'm a bit short of shut-eye at the moment, but I don't think I'm so tired I've skipped over someone saying nationalise the pit.
As for the principle of government subsidies/nationalisation, I say take it on a case-by-case basis. Plenty of companies/industries get government support. I don't know enough about this case in particular to offer an opinion.
As for coal in general, let's be honest, it's had its day. As far as I'm aware, nobody has yet made clean coal technology viable, so this was bound to happen sooner or later. A low carbon future is now an accepted goal in just about every country in the world, so I would say that in this case the emphasis should be shifted to making sure that the workers (especially the older ones who may suffer age discrimination when looking for alternative employment) are supported properly.
I've shown above that the operation was totally non-viable financially; it's reasonable to assume that there were no willing buyers in the market (otherwise they would have sold it). So what would the alternative be to keep it open?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I did not refer to the mine in question as a cash cow if you read it properly.
Here's a fantastic pictorial chart of the North/South divide and the emphasis on our service economy:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/bus-register/business-register-employment-survey/2013-provisional/info-jobs-growth-by-region-and-industry.html
You (Stevo) have ducked a few key issues that I raised, as usual. If you read my other posts, I was not suggesting any doom and I quote myself:
WTC's are a 'finger in the dyke' scheme, subsidising what is effectively a poor wage, low skilled service sector economy (booming or not).
Yes, I agree with you based on the stats that you provided that showed Kellingly was uneconomical. However, we have known this for a long time and we always arrive at this point without seemingly, any anticipation.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Like the apprenticeship levy?But whose job is is it to second guess the future state of a gjven company and try to sort out other jobs for them before the company has made a decision? Nice idea but not really practical and assumes some form of central state control over who works where.
DIS.
That is literally why they exist.
It's not about state controlling anything. It's about anticipating changes in industry and jobs and making sure any negative impacts are minimised.
Like the apprenticeship levy?
Even you should be in favour of assistance for re-training etc. Sooner they acquire new skills, sooner they get new jobs which are less at risk.
In the end we all have a personal responsibility for our careers and skills development. My own experience is that this how most people get on."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
But nobody is suggesting nationalisation. They are suggesting subsidies. Not the same thing at all.0
-
I'm not back pedalling at all. I would do away with them.
The point I was making was that YOU seemed to be agreeing that they were wrong. I was a bit taken aback as your politics are somewhat further left than mine. When Osbourne tried to reduce them, lefties up and down the country were up in arms.
What, lefties like The Sun and backbench Tory MPs?
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/welfare/2015/09/government-wins-vote-cut-tax-credits-majority-35
Two Tory MPs voted against. The Lords defeated it.
PS I never realised that you held The Sun in such high esteem as to quote its political position.. 0 -
Like the apprenticeship levy?But whose job is is it to second guess the future state of a gjven company and try to sort out other jobs for them before the company has made a decision? Nice idea but not really practical and assumes some form of central state control over who works where.
DIS.
That is literally why they exist.
It's not about state controlling anything. It's about anticipating changes in industry and jobs and making sure any negative impacts are minimised.
Like the apprenticeship levy?
Even you should be in favour of assistance for re-training etc. Sooner they acquire new skills, sooner they get new jobs which are less at risk.
In the end we all have a personal responsibility for our careers and skills development. My own experience is that this how most people get on.
Bollox. Every man for himself?!
Refer back to one of my previous posts about education and training. 'cos I cannot be bothered to re-iterate, it's obvious you didn't read it.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Not so much emphasis as the fact that we are good at the service part and should be happy that it is so. This is the future - as I explained before quoting my own company as a real live example.I did not refer to the mine in question as a cash cow if you read it properly.
Here's a fantastic pictorial chart of the North/South divide and the emphasis on our service economy:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/bus-register/business-register-employment-survey/2013-provisional/info-jobs-growth-by-region-and-industry.html
You (Stevo) have ducked a few key issues that I raised, as usual. If you read my other posts, I was not suggesting any doom and I quote myself:
WTC's are a 'finger in the dyke' scheme, subsidising what is effectively a poor wage, low skilled service sector economy (booming or not).
Yes, I agree with you based on the stats that you provided that showed Kellingly was uneconomical. However, we have known this for a long time and we always arrive at this point without seemingly, any anticipation.
Still waiting for evidence of a low wage, low skill service sector. Most people I work with in services are high skill and high wage compared to our poorer cousins in manufacturing - anecdotally of course "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
