BAE operates in a free market, it's just that it operates in a market where a UK based manufacturing capability is usually given a heavy weighting on the balanced scorecard. Lockheed Martin, Thales and EADS (to name a few) all have UK manufacturing bases because they are basically requirements to get UK defence contracts. That's not to say that there aren't problems in defence industry procurement however, but you won't fix it by buying stuff from abroad and throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Cameron doesn't care about the UK manufacturing industry
- Thread starter KNiVES
- Start date
BAE operates in a free market, it's just that it operates in a market where a UK based manufacturing capability is usually given a heavy weighting on the balanced scorecard. Lockheed Martin, Thales and EADS (to name a few) all have UK manufacturing bases because they are basically requirements to get UK defence contracts. That's not to say that there aren't problems in defence industry procurement however, but you won't fix it by buying stuff from abroad and throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
surely all the tax due on the purchase, wages, corp tax etc would be payable in this country, therefore the country as a whole would save about 1bn quid.
Instead it will be going to the German government, great, after all we've got debt coming out of ears, we can afford a bit more to help the German economy
the tories are so stupid, free market, free market, free market blah blah blah... only it's not a free market and you have to consider the bigger picture and longer term.
Like not selling of the council houses or public utilities and giving away the revenue from north sea oil
How do you know the government haven't included that in their decision making...?
Do you actually have any idea why one bid one and the other didn't or are you just talking out your hole?
When did we do this? I can't remember anythink like that in the history of fighter planes. Unless of course you're making a joke out of the very good Typhoon? In which case the F22 costs a LOT more and the US weren't/aren't willing to sell it...
Luckily for the defence of the nation there are people with far more knowledge than you... Luckily as well there are several international competitions where fighters can be compared and luckily for us the only think that comes close/beats a Typhoon (only just) is the F22...
Current? Do you mean the 20k tonners or the soon to be 60k tonners? Only the Harrier and one varient of the F35 can take off from the 20ks and it doesn't really matter, having two different planes is useful in a lot of respects, especially when different roles are wanted.
Ahh, the phrase that someone brought up earlier... "that'll do" comes to mind.
How about getting something that beats roles currently required so we don't end up with something out of date within a few years that will cost a load to replace.. This is a major problem with a lot of government procurement, get is as cheap as possible and for roles we want today... Don't worry about the future, that'll cost more and the next government will have to pay!
Not really, unless you make the fronts up...
Either way the eurofighter was more expensive and delayed but in the end we have a much more capable aircraft for MOST roles than getting something like a Rafale or F15.
Last edited:
Why should we accept having our industrial sector in a straightjacket?
We shouldn't, that's why we shouldn't rig the bidding process, and why we should ensure our taxation and regulation is suitable, and work to improve our education and reverse the decline to encourage good results.
What are we going to do about reliance of services in your mind.
Answers on a postcard please.
What are we going to do about reliance of services in your mind.
Answers on a postcard please.
a certain person has a very one track mind.
is that a light at the end of the tunnel or a train coming the other way.
What are we going to do about reliance of services in your mind.
Answers on a postcard please.
See what I wrote above. You can't create sustainable demand by spending, it has to be by ensuring competitiveness.
The idea that we can just splurge a load of money to some UK manufacturers and it will suddenly create long term recovery in the industry is piffle and balderdash, especially if paired with giving a company the contract out of pity rather than because they made the best offer.
yeah well killing of lame ducks and becoming leaner and fitter worked so well didn't it.
yeah well killing of lame ducks and becoming leaner and fitter worked so well didn't it.
You what?
in the eighties man, we were there man... crazy
It did actually, but hey, never let the facts get in the way of ideology.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 1,909
- Location
- Swansea Wales
Yeah, buy British and it's broken, just like the Trade Unions and the Labour Party.
Yes but you aren't actually putting anything forward, are you?
I'm not asking what wouldn't help, I know that, I want to know what you think would start to support industry given our current economic makeup.
Or would you rather sit with a service orientated economy?
It did not.
And I am looking at it purely analytically.
The 80's/90's gave as a short term elevation, it was not a long term solution or we wouldn't be drowning in debt or even having this discussion.
Don't blame labour, you'll sound pathetic. It started with Thatcher and was continued through Labour.
Ineptitude disguised as 'free market' principles.
the economic model is...
1) borrow money
2) buy loads of imported stuff
3) chuck imported stuff away
4) if still able to borrow, go to 1) if not continue.
5) go begging to the eu or IMF
6) lose control of finances
7) be forced to put up taxes and cut public sector pay
8) try to grow industry which you killed off
9) fail
Cutting business taxes, not getting into stupid and pointless environmental taxes that just move both the business and the associated pollution somewhere else, ensuring balance in employment regulation, working to improve educational standards in the UK (to reverse the last 15+ years of decline), building better industrial transport links...
The list goes on and on. At least we have a government that is now starting to do some of these things.
It didn't start with Thatcher, it started before that, or Thatcher would not have had the effect she did. Thatcher turned off the life support for many of the old industries, she didn't cause them to need it in the first place.
As for drowning in debt, you can certainly blame Labour for that, they were the ones running a deficit in a large boom...
You are correct that 'it', the UK's failing framework, did not start with Thatcher. She merely cemented it in with a displaced faith in banking at the expense and worsened detriment of the other potentials. It was not just 'lifesupport' to the industries she cut, but to the communities at the same time. She did not cause the problems she inherrited, but she took the easy option.
Not what was really needed looking beyond an ideology that while great on paper did not produce the desired results (poor are workshy scum etc I can see it now), look at the exposure it left us open to in the long run. Labour continued for that policy for all intents and puproses, supported by the Conseravtive party for long enough.