The Last One
Comments
-
See the figures I gave above - can give links if needed. Subsidies were totally uneconomical, the numbers are clear and the govt said it was simply not a good use of taxpayers money.But nobody is suggesting nationalisation. They are suggesting subsidies. Not the same thing at all."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Here it is Stevo, with no political leftie, rightie or even greenie bent:
Interesting...too.
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.
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 -
See the figures I gave above - can give links if needed. Subsidies were totally uneconomical, the numbers are clear and the govt said it was simply not a good use of taxpayers money.But nobody is suggesting nationalisation. They are suggesting subsidies. Not the same thing at all.
And I'm not suggesting that it should be subsidised. I'm just saying that nobody on here is arguing in favour of nationalisation.0 -
See the figures I gave above - can give links if needed. Subsidies were totally uneconomical, the numbers are clear and the govt said it was simply not a good use of taxpayers money.But nobody is suggesting nationalisation. They are suggesting subsidies. Not the same thing at all.
And I'm not suggesting that it should be subsidised. I'm just saying that nobody on here is arguing in favour of nationalisation.
He has a selective reading disorder Finchy, take it easy on him.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
So how would you keep it open?
See the figures I gave above - can give links if needed. Subsidies were totally uneconomical, the numbers are clear and the govt said it was simply not a good use of taxpayers money.But nobody is suggesting nationalisation. They are suggesting subsidies. Not the same thing at all.
And I'm not suggesting that it should be subsidised. I'm just saying that nobody on here is arguing in favour of nationalisation."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
So how would you keep it open?
See the figures I gave above - can give links if needed. Subsidies were totally uneconomical, the numbers are clear and the govt said it was simply not a good use of taxpayers money.But nobody is suggesting nationalisation. They are suggesting subsidies. Not the same thing at all.
And I'm not suggesting that it should be subsidised. I'm just saying that nobody on here is arguing in favour of nationalisation.
I haven't said that I think it should be kept open.0 -
Given your misinterpretation of my points above, that's a bit rich. just not sure whether you failed to understand them or chose to misunderstand them.
See the figures I gave above - can give links if needed. Subsidies were totally uneconomical, the numbers are clear and the govt said it was simply not a good use of taxpayers money.But nobody is suggesting nationalisation. They are suggesting subsidies. Not the same thing at all.
And I'm not suggesting that it should be subsidised. I'm just saying that nobody on here is arguing in favour of nationalisation.
He has a selective reading disorder Finchy, take it easy on him.
Same question to you then - how would you keep it open and why?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Fair enough. So to be clear, do you agree that closure was the right decision in the circumstances?
So how would you keep it open?
See the figures I gave above - can give links if needed. Subsidies were totally uneconomical, the numbers are clear and the govt said it was simply not a good use of taxpayers money.But nobody is suggesting nationalisation. They are suggesting subsidies. Not the same thing at all.
And I'm not suggesting that it should be subsidised. I'm just saying that nobody on here is arguing in favour of nationalisation.
I haven't said that I think it should be kept open."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Fair enough. So to be clear, do you agree that closure was the right decision in the circumstances?
So how would you keep it open?
See the figures I gave above - can give links if needed. Subsidies were totally uneconomical, the numbers are clear and the govt said it was simply not a good use of taxpayers money.But nobody is suggesting nationalisation. They are suggesting subsidies. Not the same thing at all.
And I'm not suggesting that it should be subsidised. I'm just saying that nobody on here is arguing in favour of nationalisation.
I haven't said that I think it should be kept open.
'Twas almost certainly inevitable at some point. Whether the situation has been handled correctly over the long term isn't a question I'm in a position to answer.0 -
I think I have to agree with you there. Although on the longer term point, hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Fair enough. So to be clear, do you agree that closure was the right decision in the circumstances?
So how would you keep it open?
See the figures I gave above - can give links if needed. Subsidies were totally uneconomical, the numbers are clear and the govt said it was simply not a good use of taxpayers money.But nobody is suggesting nationalisation. They are suggesting subsidies. Not the same thing at all.
And I'm not suggesting that it should be subsidised. I'm just saying that nobody on here is arguing in favour of nationalisation.
I haven't said that I think it should be kept open.
'Twas almost certainly inevitable at some point. Whether the situation has been handled correctly over the long term isn't a question I'm in a position to answer."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Given your misinterpretation of my points above, that's a bit rich. just not sure whether you failed to understand them or chose to misunderstand them.
See the figures I gave above - can give links if needed. Subsidies were totally uneconomical, the numbers are clear and the govt said it was simply not a good use of taxpayers money.But nobody is suggesting nationalisation. They are suggesting subsidies. Not the same thing at all.
And I'm not suggesting that it should be subsidised. I'm just saying that nobody on here is arguing in favour of nationalisation.
He has a selective reading disorder Finchy, take it easy on him.
Same question to you then - how would you keep it open and why?
I'll refer to Finchy's answer to the same question.
Did you read my post about education and training?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
And Pinno, I made sure to address each key point, I even numbered the points to be clear.
See the figures I gave above - can give links if needed. Subsidies were totally uneconomical, the numbers are clear and the govt said it was simply not a good use of taxpayers money.But nobody is suggesting nationalisation. They are suggesting subsidies. Not the same thing at all.
And I'm not suggesting that it should be subsidised. I'm just saying that nobody on here is arguing in favour of nationalisation.
He has a selective reading disorder Finchy, take it easy on him.
Anyway, ATQ - how would you keep Kellingley open and why?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I wouldn't have, I did not realise the huge shortfall but the debate had moved on a bit since then.
However, let's look at big overseas companies in the UK not paying corporate tax shall we? Then talk about lost revenue.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20560359
http://news.sky.com/story/1498932/brits-say-big-firms-not-paying-fair-tax-bill
http://news.sky.com/story/1568029/facebook-defends-paying-just-4327-in-tax
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3139123/Amazon-pays-just-11-9m-tax-5-3bn-worth-UK-sales.htmlseanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Any time, any place...if you really fancy your chances on that subjectI wouldn't have, I did not realise the huge shortfall but the debate had moved on a bit since then.
However, let's look at big overseas companies in the UK not paying corporate tax shall we? Then talk about lost revenue.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
So you chuck a load of links out from the press about your new hobby horse subject. What exactly is your point, in your own words?http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20560359
http://news.sky.com/story/1498932/brits-say-big-firms-not-paying-fair-tax-bill
http://news.sky.com/story/1568029/facebook-defends-paying-just-4327-in-tax
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3139123/Amazon-pays-just-11-9m-tax-5-3bn-worth-UK-sales.html"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I'll answer your question Stevo. Right decision to close the pit. Dying industry in the UK IMHO. Surface mines still around and possibly useable.for the coal fired power stations until they're all closed but more likely they'll use foreign coal.
I've no information to back this up but my gut feeling is coal mining in the UK was.doomed.from the 70s. Basically unionization was too strong in the sector and modernization wasn't introduced early enough possibly the due to having a to deal with unions. All mining, geotechnical and mineral processing engineering graduates of my generation have gone overseas or moved into other sectors. Compare that to the graduates from just 15 years before me and a lot ended up in coal mining. Mining in this country has been dying for decades apart from from the aggregates industry. The're supplying building and chemical industries I guess.so got a long term market. Now coal has not got anything close to that.
UK once had a lot of mining. Lead, copper, gold, silver, tin, coal, etc. Tin mining is a classic case of decline.due to market.forces. cheaper tin from overseas. Easier to win, higher grade.ore and labour factors too.
Mining is one of those sectors I've kept an interest in the history of since I decided it had no future for me, graduated then moved to another sector. Mining history is interesting. For example the crown imported German miners to run its gold mining adventure in Cumbria I believe (Goldscope Mine). Graphite from Borrowdale was more important than gold in the Napoleonic wars. It has been alleged that Napoleon at one point was close to running out of cannonballs due to lack of graphite (used in the casting process apparently). Now deep pit coal mining. Check out the national coal mining museum. Supposed to be very interesting.
All this ramble is basically to say everything has its day. Our needs move on. The issue here is not that it has closed but how it has resulted in a sudden closure and not phased out. Would it not have been better over the last 30 years to reduce output and workforce say over a few such mines so smaller impact.when closure happened? Perhaps some on here are more upset about sudden job loss and impact on communities than the fact it closed.0 -
Mamba, just picking up on some posts.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.
Not sure that the decline of manufacturing is a UK thing, its a global thing.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.pwc.co.uk/assets/pdf/ukmanufacturing-300309.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwinvo-LkunJAhXKcRQKHRn6AH4QFgg3MAk&usg=AFQjCNE2TfD9VgLRD8dkwNV0ildYRnOqxw
Some interesting stuff. Not all great, but shows UK manufacturing in a considerably better light than the popular perception IMO. As I've said before though, services and knowledge are the way forward in my view and this is exactly what my current employer is working towards.
In the end if it is cheaper to import what are commodities rather than subsidise domestic industries to make the stuff, it makes sense to do that. Economic logic. And fits in with my above view on the way forward generally.
Not sure that the regional situation is as bad as you say - necessity is the mother of invention and when old industries decline, new ones spring up. I'm not going back North anytime soon, but that's more becuase my line of work happens to be centred on London."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Come on the Pinno, I haven't had a good one of these in a while :twisted:
So you chuck a load of links out from the press about your new hobby horse subject. What exactly is your point, in your own words?http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20560359
http://news.sky.com/story/1498932/brits-say-big-firms-not-paying-fair-tax-bill
http://news.sky.com/story/1568029/facebook-defends-paying-just-4327-in-tax
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3139123/Amazon-pays-just-11-9m-tax-5-3bn-worth-UK-sales.html
Cat got your tongue?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
So you chuck a load of links out from the press about your new hobby horse subject. What exactly is your point, in your own words?http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20560359
http://news.sky.com/story/1498932/brits-say-big-firms-not-paying-fair-tax-bill
http://news.sky.com/story/1568029/facebook-defends-paying-just-4327-in-tax
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3139123/Amazon-pays-just-11-9m-tax-5-3bn-worth-UK-sales.html
You said: " UK coal asked for a £338m subsidy to keep the pit open for 3 years. "
£113m per year. It's all relative isn't it? It is a drop in the ocean compared to the revenue losses of the above.
You still haven't referred back to my comment about education and training.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Also worth noting that China does certainly subsidise its heavy industries.
Current prices do not support the level of output capacity it has but they have different objectives (mainly full employment).0 -
Also worth noting that China does certainly subsidise its heavy industries.
It does, so much so, they have obliterated the global market in steel. Now having monopolised the steel industry, it may be that in time, they won't have to subsidise their steel industry.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
They have a different model - focuses on full employment.
Long therm they're moving away from manufacturing etc, but it's a slow process and meanwhile, the state cannot tolerate big lay offs.
They're effectively doing what the West did with their banks....0 -
Are these be the sort of state subsidies that would be illegal under EU law?Also worth noting that China does certainly subsidise its heavy industries.
Current prices do not support the level of output capacity it has but they have different objectives (mainly full employment)."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Are these be the sort of state subsidies that would be illegal under EU law?Also worth noting that China does certainly subsidise its heavy industries.
Current prices do not support the level of output capacity it has but they have different objectives (mainly full employment).
Probably but we have continually broken EU rules and continue to do so, so why should that stop us?
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/12/uk-government-breaking-the-law-supplying-arms-to-saudi-arabia/seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
I pointed this out a few months ago.Also worth noting that China does certainly subsidise its heavy industries.
It does, so much so, they have obliterated the global market in steel. Now having monopolised the steel industry, it may be that in time, they won't have to subsidise their steel industry.
People are too busy burying their heads in the sand to notice.The 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 -
Are these be the sort of state subsidies that would be illegal under EU law?Also worth noting that China does certainly subsidise its heavy industries.
Current prices do not support the level of output capacity it has but they have different objectives (mainly full employment).
No basically.
A lot of them are SOEs, and the others get their credit from SOE's.0 -
State subsidies,,,,,,,,,,,,,,are they the way forward? As you allude to pretty soon we'll only have one monopoly to go to to get our steel, what the price then.
I pointed this out a few months ago.Also worth noting that China does certainly subsidise its heavy industries.
It does, so much so, they have obliterated the global market in steel. Now having monopolised the steel industry, it may be that in time, they won't have to subsidise their steel industry.
People are too busy burying their heads in the sand to notice.
Our government are hell bent on destroying manufacturing, despite what they say, they're a bunch of crooks with self interest at the heart of their policies.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Okay, so the Chinese govt funds the industries that it owns. Well knock me over with a feather. Not sure how that fits in with this argument though.
Are these be the sort of state subsidies that would be illegal under EU law?Also worth noting that China does certainly subsidise its heavy industries.
Current prices do not support the level of output capacity it has but they have different objectives (mainly full employment).
No basically.
A lot of them are SOEs, and the others get their credit from SOE's."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Okay, so the Chinese govt funds the industries that it owns. Well knock me over with a feather. Not sure how that fits in with this argument though.
Are these be the sort of state subsidies that would be illegal under EU law?Also worth noting that China does certainly subsidise its heavy industries.
Current prices do not support the level of output capacity it has but they have different objectives (mainly full employment).
No basically.
A lot of them are SOEs, and the others get their credit from SOE's.
Which argument?
I just like to provide a bit more context to discussions, since that's usually lacking :P.0
