In article . com,
lid writes
On 04/11/2016 15:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
The UK is torn down the middle by successive governments allowing the rich
to get richer while the poor got poorer.

The miners union and the car workers unions didn't/don't appear to care
much about what happens to others as long as they get paid more than the
average. The car workers unions didn't even care if the company was
going bust, they still wanted more than car workers in other plants.

Thus is capitalism. Each out for themselves. If a company seeks to get the
very best deal at that point in time for that company out of the
workforce, why expect the workforce to have some sort of public duty?

Nobody does, but why would a workforce try and put the firm into insolvency?

Not the workforce (witness the success of Nissan) but the Trotskyists
who had infiltrated the unions.




Snip
--
bert

In article , Roger Hayter
writes
dennis@home wrote:



The miners switched from protecting their jobs to bringing down the
elected government and that can't be allowed to happen even if it does
leave them on the dole.

So you *still* haven't heard the admission that they had already planned
to close 75 pits before the strke!!

Pits were continuously being closed. Labour governments actually closed
more than the Conservatives. The argument was initially over whether a
pit should remain open regardless of cost until the reserves were
exhausted or whether it should be closed when it became uneconomic.
--
bert

In article , Bob Martin
writes
in 1536274 20161104 073405 Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bob Martin
wrote:

in 1536085 20161103 150505 whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 3 November 2016 14:54:13 UTC, Bob Minchin wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

At the time I thought most knew that it was advisory and if the guvmint wan=
ted to go against the peoples vote they could, as the vote was only advisor=
y to the guvmint of what *voters* wanted, but how would that look in a so =
called democratic country might look a bit odd to say the least.

Not the differnce between what a country wants and what the voters are allo=
wed to vote for i.e no abstentions or vetoing for the general public.

So it seems the vote was either for the guvmint or against the guvmint
which is what I think happened.

If the guvmint gave us what the public wanted there would be no taxes and
the death penalty would come back.

There hasn't been a referendum on those two matters.

That's exactly my point, Tim. They would not ask a question when they
know that
the answer they would get is not the one they want.
A referendum is only called on a constitutional matter. California is a
believe keen on the process and ends up with contradictory laws on the
statue book.
--
bert

In article , Bod
writes
On 04/11/2016 07:42, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1536085 20161103 150505 whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 3 November 2016 14:54:13 UTC, Bob Minchin wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
On 03/11/2016 14:22, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

I imagine the Scottish MPs will vote Remain. But could they influence
the result? Depends whether other MPs vote along party lines. If so, a=
nd
if the government's "official" line is Leave then the government has a
significant majority.

The problem starts if a high proportion of government (Conservative) M=
Ps
vote Remain...

What would happen if the public at large have voted (by a narrow margi=
n)
to Leave but a majority of MPs vote Remain? That would be an interesti=
ng
constitutional quandary - whose view should prevail: that of the MPs o=
r
that of the public at large? I foresee a lot of discontent if the
public's views are superseded by the MPs' views.

More than there already is about brexit?
I doubt it somehow.

Maybe they should redraft the referendum so it is legal and do it again=
?

Was it a case of the referendum not being drafted properly in order to
be legally binding or is it that the results of all referendums are not=
=20
legally binding but just serve to inform the guvmint of the views of
the people that take part?
Genuinely don't know on this one.

At the time I thought most knew that it was advisory and if the guvmint wan=
ted to go against the peoples vote they could, as the vote was only advisor=
y to the guvmint of what *voters* wanted, but how would that look in a so =
called democratic country might look a bit odd to say the least.

Not the differnce between what a country wants and what the voters are allo=
wed to vote for i.e no abstentions or vetoing for the general public.

So it seems the vote was either for the guvmint or against the guvmint
which is what I think happened.

If the guvmint gave us what the public wanted there would be no taxes and
the death penalty would come back.
We elect representatives who we trust to do the right thing for everyone.

It was our government that asked us the question. Why ask it if they
won't accept the answer. A pointless question.
Might as well just have had an opinion poll - would have been much
cheaper.
--
bert

In article om,
lid writes
On 04/11/2016 07:46, Bod wrote:

It was our government that asked us the question. Why ask it if they
won't accept the answer. A pointless question.

The government isn't parliament and as the judges have stated its
parliament that has to pass the law not the government. This is the way
the UK works and is what the sovereignty voters want.
The government can do things like change tax rates without putting it
to parliament but they can't add or remove laws that affect the
constitution. If they coud then they could just remove the vote from
the opposition and become a one party state and Corbin might do that if
he could.

There is no law required to invoke Article 50.
--
bert

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

Britain doesn’t need to negotiate. Its free to make an obscene
gesture in the general direction of the EU and just leave.

There just HAS to be an ozzie ng looking for ****s with degrees in
hindsight.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Bod wrote:
It was our government that asked us the question. Why ask it if they
won't accept the answer. A pointless question.

Any government gets elected on the basis of its manifesto. The things they
promise to do. One of those for the past few governments was to bring
immigration 'down to a trickle' And none got remotely close - even
ignoring free movement of Europeans.

So just why a referendum result that didn't have an absolute majority of
those entitled to vote must be so special. I don't understand.

Ask your MP. He/she probable voted for the referendum
But even accepting that decision, I'm certainly not going to leave the
outcome of any negotiations in the hands of a few appointed by a PM that
wasn't herself elected as such.

That is the way treaties are normally negotiated. Even by your standards
it is extremely stupid to think that there can be negotiation by
parliamentary debate.
The EU are not so daft. They will negotiate and then put it to their
member states and parliament to agree.
--
bert

In article , Bob Martin
writes
in 1536247 20161104 041526 The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/11/16 17:36, charles wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 03/11/2016 14:22, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

I imagine the Scottish MPs will vote Remain. But could they influence
the result? Depends whether other MPs vote along party lines. If so, and
if the government's "official" line is Leave then the government has a
significant majority.

The problem starts if a high proportion of government (Conservative) MPs
vote Remain...

What would happen if the public at large have voted (by a narrow margin)
to Leave but a majority of MPs vote Remain? That would be an interesting
constitutional quandary - whose view should prevail: that of the MPs or
that of the public at large? I foresee a lot of discontent if the
public's views are superseded by the MPs' views.

More than there already is about brexit?
I doubt it somehow.

Maybe they should redraft the referendum so it is legal and do it again?

The Referendum was supposed to be "advisory".

NO, it was supposed to be binding.

Otherwise WTF was the point of it?

No 'supposed' about it, if it was legally binding it would have said so.
It didn't.
So to whom was the advice to be directed?
--
bert

In article , charles
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
In article ,
newshound writes
On 11/3/2016 2:09 PM, dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

You don't think the Supreme Court will reverse it then?
What is the point of an advisory referendum if you then ignore it? It
just becomes and opinion poll.

you obviously don't know the meaning of "advisory".

Well do please explain it.
--
bert

In article ,
whisky-dave writes
On Thursday, 3 November 2016 20:07:46 UTC, bert wrote:
In article ,
newshound writes
On 11/3/2016 2:09 PM, dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

You don't think the Supreme Court will reverse it then?
What is the point of an advisory referendum if you then ignore it? It
just becomes and opinion poll.
--

Have you never sort the advice of a particular thing you're not sure
about like ask the wife and kids where they'd like to go on holiday.

PLenty of people ask advice aka advisory info here doesn;t mean you
have to follow it, but if 70%+ say one thing and 30% say is an easier
deciain than 54% and 46% split makes yuo wonder who is right.



If that was the intention then surely all those MPs in parliament would
have made sure that was included in the referendum legislation.
My personal view which I have expressed previously is that any change of
this nature should require something of the order of a 60/40 majority
otherwise the status quo remains, but they didn't do that.
--
bert

In article , Nightjar
writes
On 03-Nov-16 4:40 PM, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 16:17:02 +0000, Andy Cap
wrote:

On 03/11/16 15:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

It is good that the BREXITEERS have finally been told what 'sovereignty'
actually means.

Absolutely nothing to do with 'the will of the people' or any other such
****e St Nige etc implied. But you would have expected May to know - or
have been told - long before now.


If MPs are to make the decision, there must be a General Election first,
because this issue was not on the table at the last election.

If things don't look as though they're going the way Teresa wants, she
may call a snap election anyway.


To do that, she would either have to get the House of Commons to vote
for an early election, or get a vote of no confidence in her own
government passed.


Something which commentators seem to be overlooking.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
alan_m wrote:
On 03/11/2016 15:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

It is good that the BREXITEERS have finally been told what
'sovereignty' actually means.

Absolutely nothing to do with 'the will of the people' or any other
such ****e St Nige etc implied. But you would have expected May to
know - or have been told - long before now.


A lot of MPs will be mindful of their jobs come the next general
election if the brexit vote is reversed.

I don't expect the vote to be reversed. But would rather like to know -
and have MPs vote on - what BREXIT actually means. Not have it left to a
few incompetent ministers.

You seem to overlook the involvement of the EU in these negotiations.
If those who actually voted to leave were unanimous in what they wanted,
it would be clearer. But you'll get as many versions from them as there
are days in the year.

Usual rubbish.
--
bert

In article , Moron Watch
writes

"Bob Martin" wrote in message
...

Theresa May sounds as if she thinks she can ignore the judgement.

Au contraire, (IMHO).

At a guess the people breathing the biggest sigh of relief at this
judgement were people like May, who never thought Brexit was a
good idea in the first place but found themselves stuck with
trying to bring it about. Possibly David Davis and a few others
thought and still thinks its a practical possibility, but at a
guess they're in a very small minority among those who who've
studied the actual detail. Not that they necessarily have
themselves.

Its noticeable that they're all, May included, still paying lip
service to this "Will of the People" nonsense, when as professional
politicians they'll have realised early on in their careers that
around 80% of "ordinary voters" don't have a clue when it comes
to understanding serious issues. Basically a lot of them were
looking for something to get them off the hook.

Its difficult to believe that May wasn't advised early on of
potential constitutional problems with invoking the Royal Prerogative
to take away citizens rights, as invoking Article 50 would have done.
And that if this particular person hadn't fronted a private action
somebody else would somehow have "emerged".


Conspiracy theory par excellance
--
bert

In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 04/11/16 09:22, Moron Watch wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 04/11/16 08:24, Moron Watch wrote:
Its noticeable that they're all, May included, still paying lip
service to this "Will of the People" nonsense, when as professional
politicians they'll have realised early on in their careers that
around 80% of "ordinary voters" don't have a clue when it comes
to understanding serious issues.


This is the sort of **** you voted against.


Those capable of understanding the issues at stake, produce evidence
and argue their
case.

#
Indeed they do.

Whereas those like yourself who don't have a clue, but don't want to
feel left out,
resort to name calling instead.

No they resort to making a decision against the will of the people
because they lost their case.

****, remoaner etc. etc.


Accurate description.

Produce a pack of lies to try and get the result you want, when that
doesn't work bribe a judge or three instead.


Scandalous accusation:-)
Just choose 2 judges who are known to be strongly pro remain and in one
case has a vested interest in remain.


All very impressive I must say.

QED


Exactly.




--
bert

In article , pamela
writes
On 11:26 4 Nov 2016, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Michael Chare
wrote:

On 04/11/2016 09:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

WE voted out. That's the end of it. Freedom would be deprived
if the commons voted to stay in, and you have no idea of the
****storm that would result if that happens.

There was an advisory referendum in which a minority of the
electorate voted to leave the EU, but did not know the
consequences. It can not be used to deprive us all of our
liberties.

If it was advisory why did the govt leaflet say "we will
implement your decision"? And no one knew the consequences of
staying or leaving.

It's a misleading government statement. Nothing particularly
unusual in that.

Doesn't make it acceptable.
What's more, any such statement will lapse when the government
changes even if it's the same party.

What constitutes a change of government if the party remains the same?
How many minister must change? The PM is not the government.
--
bert

In article , Moron Watch
writes

"alan_m" wrote in message
...

People are living with the consequences of being in the EU for
decades and that's
perhaps why the vote was to leave.

The UK was the fourth largest economy in the World before the vote.
The fifth largest afterwards

The UK economy has not shrunk following the vote.
Presumably people won't be happy until the UK is out of the Top Ten altogether.

Remainers wont if we leave the EU
Thye fact that all this dosh hasn't been distributed as fairly as it
appears it has in
other
EU countries, many of which have much smaller economies, is hardly the result
of the UK being in the EU.
The gap in net income between rich and poor has actually come down in
recent year.






--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
alan_m wrote:
On 04/11/2016 10:39, Michael Chare wrote:

There was an advisory referendum in which a minority of the electorate
voted
to leave the EU, but did not know the consequences.

People are living with the consequences of being in the EU for decades
and that's perhaps why the vote was to leave.

It can not be used to
deprive us all of our liberties.


What liberty are you going to lose as a result of the UK leaving the EU?
Or more importantly what liberty is 99% of the population going to lose?

You've just seen what the BEXITS want. The rule of law in the UK ignored,
if it goes against them.

And have you heard any proposals of added liberties for the average UK
citizen after we leave?

What liberties are we bereft off that you think would need to added
which can't be added whilst we are still in the EU?
--
bert

In article , pamela
writes
On 10:39 4 Nov 2016, Michael Chare wrote:

On 04/11/2016 09:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/11/16 09:55, Michael Chare wrote:
On 04/11/2016 07:44, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1536098 20161103 152617 "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
. com,
dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote? Will it be a free vote?

It is good that the BREXITEERS have finally been told what
'sovereignty' actually means.

Absolutely nothing to do with 'the will of the people' or
any other such ****e St Nige etc implied. But you would have
expected May to know - or have been told - long before now.

May's attitude & behaviour are increasingly dictatorial.
Power has obviously gone to her head.


If she loses the appeal she should resign, as she appears to
think that she can deprive us of our freedoms without a vote
in the house of commons.

WE voted out. That's the end of it. Freedom would be deprived
if the commons voted to stay in, and you have no idea of the
****storm that would result if that happens.


There was an advisory referendum in which a minority of the
electorate voted to leave the EU, but did not know the
consequences. It can not be used to deprive us all of our
liberties.

Brexiteers expecting all their extreme demands to be met should
have realised all they had was a wafer-thin majority in an
advisory referendum beset with dishonest claims.

It's not really much to cling onto.

Parliamentary Sovereignity counts for more than that.
So what were these "extreme" demands?
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Michael Chare wrote:
WE voted out. That's the end of it. Freedom would be deprived if the
commons voted to stay in, and you have no idea of the ****storm that
would result if that happens.


There was an advisory referendum in which a minority of the electorate
voted to leave the EU, but did not know the consequences. It can not be
used to deprive us all of our liberties.

But depriving the average UK citizen of at least some liberties is
*exactly* what many BREXITEERS wanted.

Care to list them?
--
bert

In article , Moron Watch
writes
WE voted out. That's the end of it. Freedom would be deprived if the
commons voted to
stay in, and you have no idea of the ****storm that would result if
that happens.

"The March of the Wrinklies" eh, Grandad ?

Any more of that nonsense and the rest of us might start wondering
whether this triple locked Old Age Pension, is really such a good idea
after all.

Especially in a Third World country as the UK is destined to become.

You mean which parts of the EU are already
Don't say you haven't been warned.



Yeh thanks for that.
--
bert

In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
They didn't. BL failed through lack of investment and absolutely
appalling management. But all to easy to blame the workforce when it
was poor design development and penny pinching on materials etc that
were to blame. Oh - and treat your workforce like **** and you get
****s.


You only invest if you are getting a return, with the unions refusing to
increase production when new equipment was invested in then there is no
reason to invest.

BMC hardly invested at all in the good times. Preferred to give it all to
shareholders. So when competition increased and no new decent product had
to go cap in hand to the government. Hence BL. More or less what happened
in the US too.

Contrast BMW over that period. Virtually all profits re-invested. Moved
from making small pretty basic cars to a full range of ones the world
wanted to buy. All with a heavily unionised workforce.

But hey - blame it on the workforce. After all, no EU for the gutter press
to blame then.

--
*ONE NICE THING ABOUT EGOTISTS: THEY DON'T TALK ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
On 04/11/2016 20:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
dennis@home wrote:



The miners switched from protecting their jobs to bringing down the
elected government and that can't be allowed to happen even if it does
leave them on the dole.

So you *still* haven't heard the admission that they had already
planned to close 75 pits before the strke!!


They had been closing pits for decades.
Its what happens when demand falls below supply.

Demand hadn't fallen. They could buy coal cheaper from abroad.

Now ignoring whether that is good or bad for the country, forcing
industrial action so you can close things down with a smug face shows what
Thatcher etc really thought of the working class. They didn't matter.

--
*Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
JoeJoe wrote:
Anyone want 350 million quid a week?

Osborne and Carney were either blatantly lying or are simply not fit for
purpose. These two did/do have access to the facts before they open(ed)
their mouths.

Meaning it's perfectly acceptable to tell lies if you don't have the
facts?

Oh - none can have facts about the future. Merely predictions. But
to predict we could redirect the gross EU contribution to the NHS
assumes the country would not be worse off by leaving the EU.

That assumes nothing of the sort.

A very, very, silly thing to predict.

We'll see...

You might in fact find that the country is
better off with a devaluation of the pound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
dennis@home wrote

The UK is torn down the middle by successive governments
allowing the rich to get richer while the poor got poorer.

The miners union and the car workers unions didn't/don't appear to care
much about what happens to others as long as they get paid more than
the average. The car workers unions didn't even care if the company was
going bust, they still wanted more than car workers in other plants.

Thus is capitalism.

Its actually a one eyed bigoted view of what capitalism.

Each out for themselves.

Real capitalism is about much more than that.

If a company seeks to get the very best deal at that
point in time for that company out of the workforce,

That isnt how real capitalism works.

why expect the workforce to have some sort of public duty?

No one said they did. BUT it makes absolutely no sense to be
driving the company into the ground demanding wages that
make its operation unviable and sends the company broke.

'We can buy coal cheaper from abroad than we can produce
it outselves' So close our coal industry and who cares about
those thrown out of work. They brought it on themselves
for daring to take any action to protect their jobs.

The miners switched from protecting their jobs to bringing
down the elected government and that can't be allowed to
happen even if it does leave them on the dole.

Did they actually bring down the government, then?

No, because Thatcher had the balls to make sure that didn’t happen.

Or was it just typical scare tactics?

Nope, it was in fact what Scargill said very explicitly was his aim.

Seems to be the predictions made by many
unions at that time have largely come true.

That industry had already been shutting down under Labour.
Because it made no sense to be mining coal in Britain underground
when it can be done much more effectively with open cut coal
mines and that is much better for those doing that work too.

It makes absolutely no sense to feather bed industrys that are
way past their useby date at an immense cost to the country.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 04/11/2016 15:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
The UK is torn down the middle by successive governments allowing the
rich
to get richer while the poor got poorer.

The miners union and the car workers unions didn't/don't appear to
care
much about what happens to others as long as they get paid more than
the
average. The car workers unions didn't even care if the company was
going bust, they still wanted more than car workers in other plants.

Thus is capitalism. Each out for themselves. If a company seeks to get
the very best deal at that point in time for that company out of the
workforce, why expect the workforce to have some sort of public duty?

Nobody does, but why would a workforce try and put the firm into
insolvency?

They didn't. BL failed through lack of investment and absolutely appalling
management. But all to easy to blame the workforce when it was poor design
development and penny pinching on materials etc that were to blame.
Oh - and treat your workforce like **** and you get ****s.



'We can buy coal cheaper from abroad than we can produce it
outselves' So close our coal industry and who cares about those
thrown out of work. They brought it on themselves for daring to take
any action to protect their jobs.

The miners switched from protecting their jobs to bringing down the
elected government and that can't be allowed to happen even if it
does leave them on the dole.

Did they actually bring down the government, then? Or was it just
typical scare tactics?

They stated that they were going to do so.
The government caved in but they then built up stocks so they couldn't
do it again. The idiots tried it again and lost big time.

The government can't have 'caved in' or there
would have been no reason to go on strike.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Maggie was just spoiling for a fight. There as in so much else.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

And she certainly won that battle. The country lost the war.

Like hell it did when it got much cheaper imported coal.

Seems to be the predictions made by many
unions at that time have largely come true.

Mostly because they helped to cause the problems.

That'll be why wages are so high these days, then.

It is certainly why so much industry has left Britain.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 04/11/2016 16:28, Rod Speed wrote:

Leaving the EU does allow Britain to apply the same conditions on
immigrants
from the EU as it currently does to non EU immigrants, remoaner.

Most of the immigrants aren't from the EU so that will have a big effect
then!

Quite. Stop free movement from the EU tomorrow
and immigration still won't be down to a trickle.

Yes, but Britain will no longer have hordes of those
with no real skills at all showing up in Britain from
the EU and can accept only those whose skills it
needs instead, just like it does with non EUians.

And many of those immigrants likely to be a
burden to the economy rather than a benefit.

With Britain out of the EU it is free to tell them that
they are no longer welcome in Britain if Britain chooses
to do that if they are a burden to the economy. Or
just tell them that they don’t qualify for any benefits.

On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 02:35:53 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 14:19:06 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 03/11/2016 14:09, dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

It should'nt cost a lot ;-)

We wouldn't postal vote if we had to use a stamp.

Even you lot should be able to work out how to allow that to
not require a stamp, if someone was actually stupid enough
to lend you lot a seeing eye dog and a white cane, again.

It doesn't need a stamp, I said IF it required one we wouldn't bother.

--
It said, "Insert disk #3," but only two will fit!

Roger Hayter wrote
dennis@home wrote

The miners switched from protecting their jobs to bringing
down the elected government and that can't be allowed to
happen even if it does leave them on the dole.

So you *still* haven't heard the admission that they
had already planned to close 75 pits before the strke!!

Still shouldn’t be allowed to bring down the govt.

And the govt hadn't decided to close 75 pits before the strike anyway.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...


You only invest if you are getting a return, with the unions refusing to increase
production when new equipment was invested in then there is no reason to invest.

The reason the British Motor Corporation which then became British
Leyland was doomed to failure was simply because the component
companies, which were failing as single entities before amalgamating
in many cases, still insisted on producing their own competing models.
Thus while both Austin and Morris produced Minis, and then
1100's etc. at both Longbridge and Cowley, Austin then went on to
design and built the Allegro at Longbridge which was competing directly
with Marinas which had already been being produced for two years
by Morris at Cowley. And the same went for the entire range including
sports cars with Triumph competing with MG, a situation which only
got worse when Rover came onboard.

This had nothing to do the workforce and everything to do with the
management at the various plants fighting a turf war in order
to hold on to their own design and development facilities and keep their
own models in production at whatever cost. It also had a lot to do
the personalities involved - try Googling Leonard Lord.

Basically as in a lot of fields, the politicians and civil servants
felt unable to face down industrialists with years of manufacturing
experience behind them despite the fact the latter were losing
money, and bang their heads together. This applies in a lot of areas
where politicians and officials without the necessary expertise
and experience are easily prey to pie in the sky bull****.
Computerisation projects being a case in point.

Which was a problem the likes of Ford and Vauxhall never had.
Unlike BL they could target all their efforts energies and talent
into developing and producing just the one model with maybe a
choice of engines and trim for each particular market.

As with Brexit and all it would entail the picture was a lot more
complicated than the newspaper headlines would have you believe.
Although to be fair to them Clarkson in TG and a TV documentary
or two have suggested as much as to the real problem with BL.

On 04/11/2016 23:59, bm wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

Britain doesn’t need to negotiate. Its free to make an obscene
gesture in the general direction of the EU and just leave.

There just HAS to be an ozzie ng looking for ****s with degrees in
hindsight.



He just contradicts everything.
We certainly can't just leave without causing a financial meltdown as
the finance market has rights to do things in the EU that would be
instantly removed and the UK financial sector would nose dive.

We have already seen banks move staff in case it happens as they don't
want to go bust as a result.

It would seriously affect our credit rating and put up the cost of our
debt by a lot. Far more than the £350M a week we might be paying into
the EU.

On 05/11/2016 01:08, Dave Ploughman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
They didn't. BL failed through lack of investment and absolutely
appalling management. But all to easy to blame the workforce when it
was poor design development and penny pinching on materials etc that
were to blame. Oh - and treat your workforce like **** and you get
****s.


You only invest if you are getting a return, with the unions refusing to
increase production when new equipment was invested in then there is no
reason to invest.

BMC hardly invested at all in the good times. Preferred to give it all to
shareholders. So when competition increased and no new decent product had
to go cap in hand to the government. Hence BL. More or less what happened
in the US too.

Like I said why would you invest in a company where the unions were
determined not to let you gain from the investment?



Contrast BMW over that period. Virtually all profits re-invested. Moved
from making small pretty basic cars to a full range of ones the world
wanted to buy. All with a heavily unionised workforce.

But their unions were prepared t accept increased output from each
worker unlike the UK unions that said it takes ten men to do that job
now so there will be ten watchers of that new machine that does the job.


But hey - blame it on the workforce. After all, no EU for the gutter press
to blame then.

Dave Plowman wrote:

dennis@home wrote:

They had been closing pits for decades.
Its what happens when demand falls below supply.

Demand hadn't fallen. They could buy coal cheaper from abroad.

Ignoring the obvious dip during the strike, production had been falling
for decades, imports are about half the reduction in production, hence
demand is lower.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/UK_Coal_Production.png

dennis@home wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Britain doesn’t need to negotiate. Its free to make an obscene
gesture in the general direction of the EU and just leave.

He just contradicts everything.

I don’t bother to say I agree with stuff much.

We certainly can't just leave without causing a financial meltdown

Even sillier than you usually manage. No reason why there
would be a financial meltdown, Britain is free to trade under
the WTO rules, just like all of Canada, the US, Korea, Japan,
Australia, New Zealand etc etc etc all do fine.

as the finance market has rights to do things in the EU that would be
instantly removed

BULL****. It is free to do that under the WTO rules, because
both Britain and the EU are members of the WTO.

and the UK financial sector would nose dive.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

We have already seen banks move staff in case it happens as they don't
want to go bust as a result.

And the market just yawned when that happened.

It would seriously affect our credit rating

Even sillier than you usually manage.

and put up the cost of our debt by a lot.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Far more than the £350M a week we might be paying into the EU.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

In article ,
Moron Watch wrote:
The reason the British Motor Corporation which then became British
Leyland was doomed to failure was simply because the component
companies, which were failing as single entities before amalgamating
in many cases, still insisted on producing their own competing models.
Thus while both Austin and Morris produced Minis, and then
1100's etc. at both Longbridge and Cowley, Austin then went on to
design and built the Allegro at Longbridge which was competing directly
with Marinas which had already been being produced for two years
by Morris at Cowley. And the same went for the entire range including
sports cars with Triumph competing with MG, a situation which only
got worse when Rover came onboard.

True in essence. At one time the FWD 1100/1300 Austin/Morris was a best
seller. But lost sales to the simpler (and cheaper to make) Cortina. The
Marina was the answer to the Cortina - but cobbled together using existing
parts to make it as cheap as possible in production with zero regard to
how good the end product was to drive. On the principle that those who
wanted a simple car would put up with anything. Completely missing that
the Cortina - although a simple car - was also a very decent one. Then
there was the fact that each branch produced a bewildering variety of new
engines - most of which not properly developed. While continuing to make
ones dating back to WW2. It really was stupid to spend not enough money
designing and building similar units, when the same total budget could
have produced a well sorted shared unit.

This had nothing to do the workforce and everything to do with the
management at the various plants fighting a turf war in order
to hold on to their own design and development facilities and keep their
own models in production at whatever cost. It also had a lot to do
the personalities involved - try Googling Leonard Lord.

Quite - but after that Stokes was a disastrous choice. He was simply an
accountant and the bottom line costs were the only thing that mattered to
him. Of course costs need to be controlled, but when this is at the
expense of the product which no-one then will buy because it's crap, the
wrong priority.

Jaguar provided one of the best laughs. 'Update' a beautiful looking car -
the XJ6 - and turn it in to a 'new' model which was ugly as sin. And alter
the platform to prevent the use of their own V12 engine in it - in case
the Rover V-8 might be offered in a smaller engined version.

When management of all the various parts went in for this divide and rule
principle - and apply it to the workforce, is it any wonder the workforce
were unhappy?

--
*If you ate pasta and anti-pasta, would you still be hungry?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

dennis@home wrote:

I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

Since they (nearly all) belong to a Scottish party, were elected under a
ticket of remaining in the EU, and the Scottish electorate supported
this position in the referendum, I would have thought they would be one
group who could justify voting against Brexit. Although I actually
agree that it would be somewhat anti-democratic for an English MP to do
the same.



--

Roger Hayter

NY wrote:

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

I imagine the Scottish MPs will vote Remain. But could they influence the
result? Depends whether other MPs vote along party lines. If so, and if the
government's "official" line is Leave then the government has a significant
majority.

The problem starts if a high proportion of government (Conservative) MPs
vote Remain...

What would happen if the public at large have voted (by a narrow margin) to
Leave but a majority of MPs vote Remain? That would be an interesting
constitutional quandary - whose view should prevail: that of the MPs or that
of the public at large? I foresee a lot of discontent if the public's views
are superseded by the MPs' views.


That is a very big political quandary, but not in the least a
constitutional one. There is absolutely no doubt that Parliament is
sovereign and can overrule either the Government, the Courts or a
referendum.

That said, it would be a bit of a political disaster unless immediately
followed by a general election.


--

Roger Hayter

Rod Speed wrote:

Roger Hayter wrote
dennis@home wrote

The miners switched from protecting their jobs to bringing
down the elected government and that can't be allowed to
happen even if it does leave them on the dole.

So you *still* haven't heard the admission that they
had already planned to close 75 pits before the strke!!

Still shouldn't be allowed to bring down the govt.

And the govt hadn't decided to close 75 pits before the strike anyway.

The admission that they had was quite big news about 20 years ago!!

--

Roger Hayter

In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
BMC hardly invested at all in the good times. Preferred to give it all
to shareholders. So when competition increased and no new decent
product had to go cap in hand to the government. Hence BL. More or
less what happened in the US too.

Like I said why would you invest in a company where the unions were
determined not to let you gain from the investment?

Have it your own way. British car workers are strike prone layabouts. Must
be true because the Mail and Express agree about this.

But then along come Japanese and German companies who know from experience
how to treat their employees and they manage to produce competitive
product *and* have excellent industrial relations.

--
*If you can't see my mirrors, I'm doing my hair*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 05/11/16 10:22, Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

dennis@home wrote:

They had been closing pits for decades.
Its what happens when demand falls below supply.

Demand hadn't fallen. They could buy coal cheaper from abroad.

Ignoring the obvious dip during the strike, production had been falling
for decades, imports are about half the reduction in production, hence
demand is lower.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/UK_Coal_Production.png


Indeed. We don't make much steel any more either. So less need for coal.



--
€œBut what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an
hypothesis!€�

Mary Wollstonecraft

In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
Contrast BMW over that period. Virtually all profits re-invested. Moved
from making small pretty basic cars to a full range of ones the world
wanted to buy. All with a heavily unionised workforce.

But their unions were prepared t accept increased output from each
worker unlike the UK unions that said it takes ten men to do that job
now so there will be ten watchers of that new machine that does the job.

Sigh. BMW consulted with their workforce. Introducing new production
methods was debated and agreed. To the benefit of all.

BL imposed such things. After all, in the UK, workers are merely slaves
with no intelligence and must do exactly what they're told, no more, no
less.

--
*Time is fun when you're having flies... Kermit

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.