Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
93.......spot on ........why not join the club?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
GaryC - Subsidies refers to the £80m press report recently regarding Bombadier that would enable them to fulfil such a contract.
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,701
Surely there is as Peter says a middle way.
Also when the state is involved in awarding contracts they ought to be forced to consider the consequences to the economy and government finances as part of the contract review/negotiations. Consider the consequence to the state of Bombardier pulling out of the UK - loss of tax revenue from both company and workers, a fair percentage of workers going onto some form of benefit for some time etc etc
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Spot on Ross - I do not understand why those factors are not in the risk assessments that have to be done.
It needs to be an equal playing field . All companies from whatever country should be either subsidised or all not subsidised , it cannot be a fair tendering process if one or more of the bidders have less cost burden due to state intervention . Regardless of this I think Ross is spot on
It has to be so - one of the purposes of Government (be aware that BarryW may be flying overhead as we speak.....) has to be to promote and protect the Nations interests.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Bern correct, Ross - there is no middle way.
It is in the nation's interests not to go down the subsidy route. As I said it is a debilitating drug and we must not go there. It offers no long term solutions at all. Far better than subsidies and more long lasting would be to improve the environment for business overall - that would create far more long lasting jobs and more job security than subsidies, whether by 'fixing the market' so a UK firm (illegally) can be favoured or with straight dosh payments.
OK - so forget cash subsidies, look at market fixing and what it has achieved in the past. Heseltine making sure Westland got a helicopter contract, we ended up paying three to four times what we should have for helicopters that were delivered 5 years late and they were inferior to the alternative. There have been many such examples in the past, particularly in Defence and it has been deeply damaging.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
But there has never been an argument that says Bombardier could not deliver or that they don't have the necessary skills.
As far as I can see, Bombardier should have been given the contract and the Government should taken into consideration, all the other factors: - jobs, costs of benefits and loss of tax income etc.
Roger
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,890
roger/sarah/others
Most are spot on, it would be interesting as ross says the cost of putting the whole workforce on the dole and the company pulling out of the UK
CAN WE learn from germany and the other countries?
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Roger - you have to address the broader picture and what is best for the economy in the longer term.
British Leyland (or its predecessors' companies) had the skills to build world class cars before they got on the subsidy route.
Westland had the skills to build brilliant helicopters but that was still a disaster for our defence procurement.
Keith - as I said before if Germany want to make the same mistakes that we made in the 70's then let them. They will suffer in the long term.
No-one has challenged what I have pointed out about the problems of subsidy or answered the questions about how you get off that drug.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,890
BARRYW;
I think everyone appreciates where your coming from maybe peters route of the middle road is one like the old british rail went
subsidies were to high and wasted and once split up into small companies those subsidies were reduced, the only problem is the ones then who made to pay were the commuters, now you could argue that is only right.
so maybe a route of subsidies that reduce in that way?
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
There is no such thing as a free lunch Keith - you pay for everything one way or another. Better the users of a service pay for it than those who do not. But you are mixing up two things....under contracting out (which is what you refer to) a business will produce a proposal in competition with others offering to provide a particular service at a given price for a set period. Tenderers are judged based the cost and the levels of service and user charges that they are to make and are awarded the contract accordingly. It works very well as a means of keeping down costs to the public purse and maintaining or improving the service to the public - provided the client side get the contract supervision and any penalty terms correct of course. This is not a subsidy for a company but a subsidy for a service that the company provides at a lower cost than might otherwise be the case. This is a way of keeping uneconomic services going, such as many rail services, - whether we should keep such uneconomic services going is a separate argument that can only be had on a case by case basis.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
BarryW.
The subsidy you are referring to came after Bombardier's offer was rejected, so does not apply to this thread.
You really must remember to add "in my opinion" to statements like" there is no middle way"
Why you are obsessed with the 70's, do you really believe the Germans will fail now because our Government got it wrong in the 70's?
Peter & Ross are right, in my view, that is the common sense approach we should be adopting today.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
after reading this i can only conclude that there is something very wrong at the top of u.k. businesses.
companies in other countries are beating us on our own turf.
nothing to do with over regulation because the rules are broadly similar across the board.
nothing to do with unions either as ours have less say and power than in most other competing countries.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,890
howard;
you have hit the nail on the head well done boyo
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Manufacturing Business Leaders say the downward slide of the UK Industry `at home`threatens to dip the economy
back into recession and means they have to go overseas for orders.
``Overseas`` are placing contracts with their own companies.
Manufacturing is the only way for growth.
Makes the Government rejection to review the Bombardier contract................disgracefully incompetent.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,890
like a number of decisions of this cobbled together govt(soz scotchie lol)
but they had a way out of the bombardier fiasco but chose not to
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
# 117.............the worst abuse of power is doing nothing......
