Should we have state sponsored industry?

[raf_gti]

My understanding of the past is that the British steel industry etc etc were un-productive and making no profit so along came Maggie and shut them all down. What was once heavy industry was gradually replaced by 'soft'jobs in the enterprise parks which sprang up in those former areas.

If it could somehow be revived would it be a good or bad thing to have a relatively non-profit making but high quality heavy industry that was initially bank rolled by the Govt?

I realise that it would eventually lead to the usual British disease of striking and whinging but if that was miraculously avoided then surely that would be a good thing?

[grumbledoak]

'nuff said.

[raf_gti]

grumbledoak said:

'nuff said.

So much innuendo on the one poster

[Eric Mc]

NHS have similar type posters in their hospitals and the Post Office have similar notices at their counters. I wonder, do government employees get attacked by members of the public more often than private enterprise employees?

If the answer is "yes", why should this be so?

[Spiritual_Beggar]

Well, we still had a shed load of coal that could be mined.

Technically, we could start up the coal industry again, and reduce unemployment, and solve our fuel problem at the same time.

There are a few problems with this of course...one being the lazy workshy attitude of a certain class that prefer to live off benefits rather than work, since these would most likely be the people the coal industry jobs would be aimed at.

Another being the fact that with all this 'Gree' bks around atm, starting up such a 'dirty' industry would be quite difficult (I say dirty, but it is actually quite efficient and fairly clean using modern technology, but they don't want you to know that).

[raf_gti]

Spiritual_Beggar said:

There are a few problems with this of course...one being the lazy workshy attitude of a certain class that prefer to live off benefits rather than work, since these would most likely be the people the coal industry jobs would be aimed at.

Isn't it a fair comment to say that many of those workshy would once upon a time of been employed by a similar industry?

I've been watching a few programmes recently on the 70s & 80s and I can't decide who fked up the country more, the unions or Thatcher!

[elster]

God no.

The coal board was full of slackers and lazy fkers who were milking the system.
Same with BR, who are now called Network Rail.

Let's stick with private companies, they have a purpose to work. Money.

There is no need for efficiency if the ultimate aim is employment over profit.

[nonegreen]

raf_gti said:

My understanding of the past is that the British steel industry etc etc were un-productive and making no profit so along came Maggie and shut them all down. What was once heavy industry was gradually replaced by 'soft'jobs in the enterprise parks which sprang up in those former areas.

If it could somehow be revived would it be a good or bad thing to have a relatively non-profit making but high quality heavy industry that was initially bank rolled by the Govt?

I realise that it would eventually lead to the usual British disease of striking and whinging but if that was miraculously avoided then surely that would be a good thing?

Maggie was a fkwit. She squandered the oil money on squashing the unions and the teachers. The result was the underclass that lives here now and occupies some of our council estates. The very small subsidies that were needed to keep these industries going were tiny by comparison to the cost of the 12 million public employees in the UK today. Particularly when you take account of the fact that none of the public sector work contributes tothe British economy, well hardly any. Since that fkwit came topower asuccession off massive majority gummints run by successive idiots have compounded the problem and now we must go to war with argentina to bail ourselves out. If we spend that money on ridding ourselves of the green burden and the civil service "and climate change agency" burden then maybe by 2030 we will be in a better position.

Edited by nonegreen on Sunday 21st February 19:07

[Spiritual_Beggar]

raf_gti said:

Spiritual_Beggar said:

There are a few problems with this of course...one being the lazy workshy attitude of a certain class that prefer to live off benefits rather than work, since these would most likely be the people the coal industry jobs would be aimed at.

Isn't it a fair comment to say that many of those workshy would once upon a time of been employed by a similar industry?

I've been watching a few programmes recently on the 70s & 80s and I can't decide who fked up the country more, the unions or Thatcher!

Oh definately.


The problem is now that they have had a tastee of the beneefits system, would they be willing to go back to work?

Remember, a lot of the workforce in the coal industry started when they were young....straight out of school....wwould the same age demographic now be willing to head back down the mines?....I'm not so sure.

[dilbert]

raf_gti said:

My understanding of the past is that the British steel industry etc etc were un-productive and making no profit so along came Maggie and shut them all down. What was once heavy industry was gradually replaced by 'soft'jobs in the enterprise parks which sprang up in those former areas.

If it could somehow be revived would it be a good or bad thing to have a relatively non-profit making but high quality heavy industry that was initially bank rolled by the Govt?

I realise that it would eventually lead to the usual British disease of striking and whinging but if that was miraculously avoided then surely that would be a good thing?

We have to be smarter that's all. But we're not. We have to take a long term view, but we don't.

Setting up industry is difficult. Just because you can get cheaper stuff abroad, doesn't mean you should. Competition on price is not always good. Big is not always better.

We let go of this stuff, because it's easy, but we never think about what it would take to get it back. Such complacency, perhaps, stems from the fact that we started it all. There was no competition then. Perhaps the saddest thing is that we caved in so easily.

We could be exploiting the drive for nuclear power. But no, we're going to buy it all in.

We could be strategic. We could look at all the things that we buy, and say;

"Which will we chose not to buy? What would benefit us most, if we did not buy?"

You just have to look at industrial estates, with too few parking spaces. Worse, industrial estates that have been converted to housing. Too many houses, too few jobs. Dismantled railways that then have shopping centres built on them.

We're not quite so foolish to build houses on roads, but it wouldn't surprise me!

We're just stupid and lazy, that's all.

[Spiritual_Beggar]

elster said:

God no.

The coal board was full of slackers and lazy fkers who were milking the system.
Same with BR, who are now called Network Rail.

Let's stick with private companies, they have a purpose to work. Money.

There is no need for efficiency if the ultimate aim is employment over profit.

I think the unions are more to blame for that.....Scargill and his Egotrip...dragged the workforce down...put stupid ideas into their heads.


The industry itself has the potential for some enormous benefits to the country....whether we could get to that stage is another matter though.

[elster]

Spiritual_Beggar said:

elster said:

God no.

The coal board was full of slackers and lazy fkers who were milking the system.
Same with BR, who are now called Network Rail.

Let's stick with private companies, they have a purpose to work. Money.

There is no need for efficiency if the ultimate aim is employment over profit.

I think the unions are more to blame for that.....Scargill and his Egotrip...dragged the workforce down...put stupid ideas into their heads.


The industry itself has the potential for some enormous benefits to the country....whether we could get to that stage is another matter though.

Well in that case those same workers who now work at the power stations and other industrial places around the area are just naturally lazy basterds. Unless someone is cracking the whip, they try their best to avoid work. It has been ingrained from a life of doing the bear minimum.

If the aim is only to keep people in jobs, then who will bother to crack the whip?

[Spiritual_Beggar]

elster said:

If the aim is only to keep people in jobs, then who will bother to crack the whip?

I don't think the aim is to just keep unemployment down. I genuinely think the is a strong dormant industry there. But like you say, there needs to be the willingness to work.

With the benefits sytem the way it is, I don't see how we can make working in such an industry seem worthwhile.

[raf_gti]

elster said:

Spiritual_Beggar said:

elster said:

God no.

The coal board was full of slackers and lazy fkers who were milking the system.
Same with BR, who are now called Network Rail.

Let's stick with private companies, they have a purpose to work. Money.

There is no need for efficiency if the ultimate aim is employment over profit.

I think the unions are more to blame for that.....Scargill and his Egotrip...dragged the workforce down...put stupid ideas into their heads.

The industry itself has the potential for some enormous benefits to the country....whether we could get to that stage is another matter though.

Well in that case those same workers who now work at the power stations and other industrial places around the area are just naturally lazy basterds. Unless someone is cracking the whip, they try their best to avoid work. It has been ingrained from a life of doing the bear minimum.

If the aim is only to keep people in jobs, then who will bother to crack the whip?

I will

Would it not be better to have xxx amount of people doing the bare minimum in a factory rather than sat completely on their arses claiming benefits?

[AndrewW-G]

We can discuss the theoretical Ins and out of state industry, or who’s to blame for the current mess, until the cows come home.

However we are forgetting one simple thing, under EU rules, we are no longer allowed to nationalise industry, nor would we be able to demand that only UK companies bid for government work and only use UK sourced materials if available.

Any heavy industry in the UK will now also be hampered by the CO2 insanity tax, so even if we did have a skills advantage over the likes of India or China, we wouldn’t be allowed to exploit it!

Edited by AndrewW-G on Sunday 21st February 18:30

[elster]

Spiritual_Beggar said:

elster said:

If the aim is only to keep people in jobs, then who will bother to crack the whip?

I don't think the aim is to just keep unemployment down. I genuinely think the is a strong dormant industry there. But like you say, there needs to be the willingness to work.

With the benefits system the way it is, I don't see how we can make working in such an industry seem worthwhile.

The mines could easily be opened in a few weeks, they wont be though.

There is plenty of work out there, people just like to think they are too important to start at the bottom.

A benefits system is there to help people in the short term, lets return it to short term help.

Why not help people start businesses?

[AndrewW-G]

elster said:

Why not help people start businesses?

To be fair, there are incentives to start a new business, with most councils giving out grants via business link type organistations, my own will happily hand out £500 upon recipt of a business plan and proof that a business has been started.................even if you've been trading for 5 years and have a decent turn over

Edited by AndrewW-G on Sunday 21st February 18:35

[Puggit]

Aren't state subsidies illegal under EU law...?

(not that the French pay a blind bit of notice)

[dilbert]

elster said:

There is plenty of work out there, people just like to think they are too important to start at the bottom.

This isn't true. I have an electronic engineering degree, not the best, but I have quality experience to back it up. I have a good spread of GCSE's and an OND in mechanical engineering.

If there's an engineering job I apply. Through agencies, I am guaranteed no meaningful response. I look in the paper. I apply for allsorts. I applied to be a shopkeepers assistant in a paper crafts shop for example. No chance. I might get offered an interview if the job is related, but I apparently have no people skills. That's what I've figured out over time. Literally hundreds of applications.

elster said:

A benefits system is there to help people in the short term, lets return it to short term help.

You can return it to short term help, but exactly what do you do with people who have not got a job. When they stop paying their mortgage. When they're begging on the streets. Kick them to death perhaps? We're already kicking them, the only question is the death part.

elster said:

Why not help people start businesses?

It's a great idea. I'm lousy at it. It cost's me money I don't have.

If you want to know the real source of the problem you have to look at things my way.

I was in the Job Centre for my 13 week interrogation just last week. I was forced into a situation where I had to explain that I had a business, that I had started whilst unemployed. It's a limited company, which generated some surprise. I assume that the stereotype amongst DWP employees is that the long term unemployed aren't smart enough to do the company paperwork. Their strategy is to give you more complex paperwork, in exchange for benefits, until you can no longer fill out the forms... But I digress.

In the process I explained that the business costs me money overall, but that I was spending some of my time trying to find work for the business, in addition to my already extensive efforts to find a job.

At this point I was reminded by the DWP staff that I would be subject to prosecution if I were to spend more than 16 hours a week, trying to find work for my business.

I understand that some people will be making money and claiming the dole. I'm not, but that's irrelevant. The point is that it's only the work shy and MP's that do such things. Certainly I remember a case reported in the local press some 3 years ago, where exactly this happened.

That's the problem.

It's just a side show really that because I have set up a limited company that it would be easier to detect any benefit fraud on my part. It's just a sideshow that it makes me more liable to prosecution for finding work, in any way I can.

Edited by dilbert on Sunday 21st February 18:54

[elster]

dilbert said:

elster said:

There is plenty of work out there, people just like to think they are too important to start at the bottom.

This isn't true. I have an electronic engineering degree, not the best, but I have quality experience to back it up. I have a good spread of GCSE's and an OND in mechanical engineering.

If there's an engineering job I apply. Through agencies, I am guaranteed no meaningful response. I look in the paper. I apply for allsorts. I applied to be a shopkeepers assistant in a paper crafts shop for example. No chance. I might get offered an interview if the job is related, but I apparently have no people skills. That's what I've figured out over time. Literally hundreds of applications.

If you are claiming benefits then after a certain period you have to look outside your field. Simple as that

dilbert said:

elster said:

A benefits system is there to help people in the short term, lets return it to short term help.

You can return it to short term help, but exactly what do you do with people who have not got a job. When they stop paying their mortgage. When they're begging on the streets. Kick them to death perhaps? We're already kicking them, the only question is the death part.

If you want to continue with the bare minimum benefits you do 4 days community service and 1 days job seeking.

dilbert said:

elster said:

Why not help people start businesses?

It's a great idea. I'm lousy at it. It cost's me money I don't have.

If you want to know the real source of the problem you have to look at things my way.

I was in the Job Centre for my 13 week interrogation just last week. I was forced into a situation where I had to explain that I had a business, that I had started whilst unemployed. It's a limited company, which generated some surprise. I assume that the stereotype amongst DWP employees is that the long term unemployed aren't smart enough to do the company paperwork. Their strategy is to give you more complex paperwork, in exchange for benefits, until you can no longer fill out the forms... But I digress.

In the process I explained that the business costs me money overall, but that I was spending some of my time trying to find work for the business, in addition to my already extensive efforts to find a job.

At this point I was reminded by the DWP staff that I would be subject to prosecution if I were to spend more than 16 hours a week, trying to find work for my business.

I understand that some people will be making money and claiming the dole. I'm not, but that's irrelevant. The point is that it's only MP's that do such things. Certainly I remember a case reported in the local press some 3 years ago, where exactly this happened.

That's the problem.

I think an system which has no leeway for people to start up businesses is flawed.