How broke is Britain?

10 Feb 2010

Quote by noladreams
Kent, Awayman appears to have apologised and, from his response to her, gulsonroad didn't seem to take offence at foxylady's comments.
It would help if people acted sensibly and sensitively and didn't insult each other with such regularity. If anyone really wishes to make an issue out of the comments then please let us know. In the meantime, please can we all try to refrain from unnecessary insults. Adult debate doesn't have to descend into name-calling all the time!
Back on topic now?
Nola x

sorry didnt see this or would not have said anything :sad:

10 Feb 2010

Incidentally there's an excellent aticle on the situation at Pompey here
David James is an excellent bloke...

10 Feb 2010

Quote by awayman
well i could joke about cds and say they are the plural of a cd but no. cds means cadbury's dairy soufle soon to become kds. the counter party being kraft and kraft are spreading their risk, i mean cheese a bit far lately.
they've nicked all the choccy by default really so you've gotta giv em credit, cadbury shareholders will have to swap choccy for money, which proves what every woman has already derived :- that choccy is legal tender.
enuf about choccy, a siv is a range rover with armour plating and a cdo is a mortgage secured by nohouse.
like a the fuckwit i am, i take more note of paul volker than i do of stiglitz coz paul is more of a peoples man (volker) but hey,i must admit joe does have some merit. both are very aware of the crisis of solvency/systemic risk and contagion.
the attention to banks on my part, which i pm'd you, became redundant to both you and me when the market opened this a.m. and it was apparent that something had occured early this morning as you probably know and no, i was not doing a goldman sachs on you.
meantime, enjoy your coffee awayman and i will try to figure out bulls and bears,risk aversion, systemic risk, derivitives, collaterised debt obligations, securitised investment vehicles, credit default swaps, assets, non performing assets, financial instruments, debt, credit, liabilities, counterparty, libor, gilts, bonds, interest and compound cos i have'nt got a phuckwit of an idea bout any of it.
and its all rock and roll to me.

I probably shouldn't have called you a fuckwit, but why do you keep up this pretence that there's some kind of ghost in your machine that garbles your words?
I must have missed something here, but how can Kraft be a counterparty to Cadburys when they own Cadburys? Are they being a counterparty to themselves? (Yes, I know there's effectively a set of sale contracts for shares in which Kraft is is, in avery general sense, counterparty to the individual shareholders, but you didn;t really mean that did you?)
I was right to call you on your prediction though. I don't actually know what happened to FTSE yesterday - that kind of day tradery entrail reading is a symptom of the mess we've got ourselves into - it's like betting on horse racing without the fringe benefits of jolly ladies in nice frocks and high heels to admire between the races.
The idea that Volker is a people's man is pretty risible; Volker is a creature of the system that created the systemic risk. His warnings now are the metaphorical equivalent of telling people their tap water may taste funny after you've diverted the sewerage into the reservoir.
Surely, if your last but one paragraph is 'We didn;t start the fire' without the tuneful bits, your last line should be 'It's Still Rock and Roll to me' volk er was a pun, you and i missed the about face of the germans announced through the dax at yesterday morning re greece. volker was the high interest credit controlling chairman of the fed before greenspan, as i'm sure you know.
unlike the moderators interpretation of foxylady's attitude towards me, a fellow member like your goodself, i am deeply offended by personal attacks and slander. if i have offended anyone by my text, i genuinely sincerly appologise, as i have no intent to do so even if i may sound patronising at times. you awayman, launched into a personal attack, calling me a fuckwit and suggesting by your prose, that i have'nt got a clue what i am talking about.
well i bow to your knowledge and experience. yours faithfully fuckwit.

10 Feb 2010

Quote by gulsonroad30664
unlike the moderators interpretation of foxylady's attitude towards me, a fellow member like your goodself, i am deeply offended by personal attacks and slander. if i have offended anyone by my text, i genuinely sincerly appologise, as i have no intent to do so even if i may sound patronising at times. you awayman, launched into a personal attack, calling me a fuckwit and suggesting by your prose, that i have'nt got a clue what i am talking about.
well i bow to your knowledge and experience. yours faithfully fuckwit.

If you wish to report a poster, then please do so by PM-ing a Moderator or by clicking on the profile button under their avatar and then pressing the 'report profile' button.
I believe that a member of the Mod team may already have spoken to some of the people involved in the comments via PM.
As I said earlier, it would be a much pleasanter place if everyone kept the personal out of their posting.

11 Feb 2010

Quote by gulsonroad30664
contrary to the image being promoted, that the world economy has stabilised due to governments and central banks actions, the worst is yet to come, by design.
unfortunately, there are many on this site that will poo poo the evidence as conspiracy theory, so i think i will reserve further comment for now.

I don't know how you reached your conclusion that things are going to get much worse, but I also believe they will and that we are all in for one hell of a shock. God (or whoever) only knows how much corruption there has been in the government and banking system, and how long it has been going on. IMHO whatever we have been told so far is only the tip of what could well be a monstrous iceberg. They wouldn't have told us as much as they have if they hadn't had to. The fact that they have told us we are in so much trouble suggests to me that we are in so much more. Brown has held on to power as long as he could, and even now he is trying to change the voting system in order to retain some of it after suffering what will be a humiliating general election. The newly elected Tory government will typically introduce the old tightening of the belt, and there will be higher unemployment just like the early 1980's. Unfortunately his cuts will only be to spending, taxes will still rise as they continue to try and pay back the enormous debt we are in. Those who work in the public sector are not going to like this and also typically will use industrial action to try and reverse the decisions, and just like the 1980's they will force the government to cut their losses by making even further cuts and selling off even more state owned assets. We are going to see power cuts, public transport disruptions, postal strikes, bins not emptied for weeks, maybe even doctors and nurses staging walk outs, what little manufacturing we still have will move abroad as costs soar and unions call the workers out. Of course this is just history repeating itself, the labour party have wrecked the economy like they did in the 70's only much much worse, the Tories will use extremely unpopular measures to try and put it right like they did in the 80's, only it is probably too late this time. I see civil unrest leading at first to a few scuffles between militant workers and the police, unfortunately it will not stop there because sooner or later the ordinary people are going to come to the end of their (our) tether. There is nothing in the world more frightening and dangerous than a society and government that has lost control. This is Britain, the police and armed forces will not fight the people for too long, and when the majority pick up the battering ram and charge down the road towards Whitehall they will be with us.
We have never had a revolution in this country, but it is coming and when it does I only hope that those responsible do not get away, because most of the victims will be inocent as per usual.
BG (where's me tablets?)

11 Feb 2010

Quote by gulsonroad30664
well i could joke about cds and say they are the plural of a cd but no. cds means cadbury's dairy soufle soon to become kds. the counter party being kraft and kraft are spreading their risk, i mean cheese a bit far lately.
they've nicked all the choccy by default really so you've gotta giv em credit, cadbury shareholders will have to swap choccy for money, which proves what every woman has already derived :- that choccy is legal tender.
enuf about choccy, a siv is a range rover with armour plating and a cdo is a mortgage secured by nohouse.
like a the fuckwit i am, i take more note of paul volker than i do of stiglitz coz paul is more of a peoples man (volker) but hey,i must admit joe does have some merit. both are very aware of the crisis of solvency/systemic risk and contagion.
the attention to banks on my part, which i pm'd you, became redundant to both you and me when the market opened this a.m. and it was apparent that something had occured early this morning as you probably know and no, i was not doing a goldman sachs on you.
meantime, enjoy your coffee awayman and i will try to figure out bulls and bears,risk aversion, systemic risk, derivitives, collaterised debt obligations, securitised investment vehicles, credit default swaps, assets, non performing assets, financial instruments, debt, credit, liabilities, counterparty, libor, gilts, bonds, interest and compound cos i have'nt got a phuckwit of an idea bout any of it.
and its all rock and roll to me.

I probably shouldn't have called you a fuckwit, but why do you keep up this pretence that there's some kind of ghost in your machine that garbles your words?
I must have missed something here, but how can Kraft be a counterparty to Cadburys when they own Cadburys? Are they being a counterparty to themselves? (Yes, I know there's effectively a set of sale contracts for shares in which Kraft is is, in avery general sense, counterparty to the individual shareholders, but you didn;t really mean that did you?)
I was right to call you on your prediction though. I don't actually know what happened to FTSE yesterday - that kind of day tradery entrail reading is a symptom of the mess we've got ourselves into - it's like betting on horse racing without the fringe benefits of jolly ladies in nice frocks and high heels to admire between the races.
The idea that Volker is a people's man is pretty risible; Volker is a creature of the system that created the systemic risk. His warnings now are the metaphorical equivalent of telling people their tap water may taste funny after you've diverted the sewerage into the reservoir.
Surely, if your last but one paragraph is 'We didn;t start the fire' without the tuneful bits, your last line should be 'It's Still Rock and Roll to me' volk er was a pun, you and i missed the about face of the germans announced through the dax at yesterday morning re greece. volker was the high interest credit controlling chairman of the fed before greenspan, as i'm sure you know.
unlike the moderators interpretation of foxylady's attitude towards me, a fellow member like your goodself, i am deeply offended by personal attacks and slander. if i have offended anyone by my text, i genuinely sincerly appologise, as i have no intent to do so even if i may sound patronising at times. you awayman, launched into a personal attack, calling me a fuckwit and suggesting by your prose, that i have'nt got a clue what i am talking about.
well i bow to your knowledge and experience. yours faithfully fuckwit.
Ok, you want me to apologise again, when I've said I shouldn't have used the word, and didn't intend to cause offence? Fine. I apologise. Don't claim I've slandered you though. That's just more evidence for the proposition that you use big words you don't know the meaning of. It is almost impossible to slander someone if no-one knows who you're talking about, and defamation in the written form is libel, not slander. The notion that you can libel a pseudonymous author in an attack addressed only to their pseudonym in an online fourm would be a novel and intriguing use of the law, but you'd probably find the cost of insuring for the other sides costs prohibitive.
Have a nice day - glad to see the ghost in the machine is suddenly allowing your punctuation through.

11 Feb 2010

Quote by awayman
well i could joke about cds and say they are the plural of a cd but no. cds means cadbury's dairy soufle soon to become kds. the counter party being kraft and kraft are spreading their risk, i mean cheese a bit far lately.
they've nicked all the choccy by default really so you've gotta giv em credit, cadbury shareholders will have to swap choccy for money, which proves what every woman has already derived :- that choccy is legal tender.
enuf about choccy, a siv is a range rover with armour plating and a cdo is a mortgage secured by nohouse.
like a the fuckwit i am, i take more note of paul volker than i do of stiglitz coz paul is more of a peoples man (volker) but hey,i must admit joe does have some merit. both are very aware of the crisis of solvency/systemic risk and contagion.
the attention to banks on my part, which i pm'd you, became redundant to both you and me when the market opened this a.m. and it was apparent that something had occured early this morning as you probably know and no, i was not doing a goldman sachs on you.
meantime, enjoy your coffee awayman and i will try to figure out bulls and bears,risk aversion, systemic risk, derivitives, collaterised debt obligations, securitised investment vehicles, credit default swaps, assets, non performing assets, financial instruments, debt, credit, liabilities, counterparty, libor, gilts, bonds, interest and compound cos i have'nt got a phuckwit of an idea bout any of it.
and its all rock and roll to me.

I probably shouldn't have called you a fuckwit, but why do you keep up this pretence that there's some kind of ghost in your machine that garbles your words?
I must have missed something here, but how can Kraft be a counterparty to Cadburys when they own Cadburys? Are they being a counterparty to themselves? (Yes, I know there's effectively a set of sale contracts for shares in which Kraft is is, in avery general sense, counterparty to the individual shareholders, but you didn;t really mean that did you?)
I was right to call you on your prediction though. I don't actually know what happened to FTSE yesterday - that kind of day tradery entrail reading is a symptom of the mess we've got ourselves into - it's like betting on horse racing without the fringe benefits of jolly ladies in nice frocks and high heels to admire between the races.
The idea that Volker is a people's man is pretty risible; Volker is a creature of the system that created the systemic risk. His warnings now are the metaphorical equivalent of telling people their tap water may taste funny after you've diverted the sewerage into the reservoir.
Surely, if your last but one paragraph is 'We didn;t start the fire' without the tuneful bits, your last line should be 'It's Still Rock and Roll to me' volk er was a pun, you and i missed the about face of the germans announced through the dax at yesterday morning re greece. volker was the high interest credit controlling chairman of the fed before greenspan, as i'm sure you know.
unlike the moderators interpretation of foxylady's attitude towards me, a fellow member like your goodself, i am deeply offended by personal attacks and slander. if i have offended anyone by my text, i genuinely sincerly appologise, as i have no intent to do so even if i may sound patronising at times. you awayman, launched into a personal attack, calling me a fuckwit and suggesting by your prose, that i have'nt got a clue what i am talking about.
well i bow to your knowledge and experience. yours faithfully fuckwit.
Ok, you want me to apologise again, when I've said I shouldn't have used the word, and didn't intend to cause offence? Fine. I apologise. Don't claim I've slandered you though. That's just more evidence for the proposition that you use big words you don't know the meaning of. It is almost impossible to slander someone if no-one knows who you're talking about, and defamation in the written form is libel, not slander. The notion that you can libel a pseudonymous author in an attack addressed only to their pseudonym in an online fourm would be a novel and intriguing use of the law, but you'd probably find the cost of insuring for the other sides costs prohibitive.
Have a nice day - glad to see the ghost in the machine is suddenly allowing your punctuation through.
That may well be true but.... SH have their own rules called the AUP, which I would have thought calling someone a " fuckwit " would have been against those rules. I have been banned for calling someone less than that.
I would have thought that your superior intelligence would have told you that.

11 Feb 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
well i could joke about cds and say they are the plural of a cd but no. cds means cadbury's dairy soufle soon to become kds. the counter party being kraft and kraft are spreading their risk, i mean cheese a bit far lately.
they've nicked all the choccy by default really so you've gotta giv em credit, cadbury shareholders will have to swap choccy for money, which proves what every woman has already derived :- that choccy is legal tender.
enuf about choccy, a siv is a range rover with armour plating and a cdo is a mortgage secured by nohouse.
like a the fuckwit i am, i take more note of paul volker than i do of stiglitz coz paul is more of a peoples man (volker) but hey,i must admit joe does have some merit. both are very aware of the crisis of solvency/systemic risk and contagion.
the attention to banks on my part, which i pm'd you, became redundant to both you and me when the market opened this a.m. and it was apparent that something had occured early this morning as you probably know and no, i was not doing a goldman sachs on you.
meantime, enjoy your coffee awayman and i will try to figure out bulls and bears,risk aversion, systemic risk, derivitives, collaterised debt obligations, securitised investment vehicles, credit default swaps, assets, non performing assets, financial instruments, debt, credit, liabilities, counterparty, libor, gilts, bonds, interest and compound cos i have'nt got a phuckwit of an idea bout any of it.
and its all rock and roll to me.

I probably shouldn't have called you a fuckwit, but why do you keep up this pretence that there's some kind of ghost in your machine that garbles your words?
I must have missed something here, but how can Kraft be a counterparty to Cadburys when they own Cadburys? Are they being a counterparty to themselves? (Yes, I know there's effectively a set of sale contracts for shares in which Kraft is is, in avery general sense, counterparty to the individual shareholders, but you didn;t really mean that did you?)
I was right to call you on your prediction though. I don't actually know what happened to FTSE yesterday - that kind of day tradery entrail reading is a symptom of the mess we've got ourselves into - it's like betting on horse racing without the fringe benefits of jolly ladies in nice frocks and high heels to admire between the races.
The idea that Volker is a people's man is pretty risible; Volker is a creature of the system that created the systemic risk. His warnings now are the metaphorical equivalent of telling people their tap water may taste funny after you've diverted the sewerage into the reservoir.
Surely, if your last but one paragraph is 'We didn;t start the fire' without the tuneful bits, your last line should be 'It's Still Rock and Roll to me' volk er was a pun, you and i missed the about face of the germans announced through the dax at yesterday morning re greece. volker was the high interest credit controlling chairman of the fed before greenspan, as i'm sure you know.
unlike the moderators interpretation of foxylady's attitude towards me, a fellow member like your goodself, i am deeply offended by personal attacks and slander. if i have offended anyone by my text, i genuinely sincerly appologise, as i have no intent to do so even if i may sound patronising at times. you awayman, launched into a personal attack, calling me a fuckwit and suggesting by your prose, that i have'nt got a clue what i am talking about.
well i bow to your knowledge and experience. yours faithfully fuckwit.
Ok, you want me to apologise again, when I've said I shouldn't have used the word, and didn't intend to cause offence? Fine. I apologise. Don't claim I've slandered you though. That's just more evidence for the proposition that you use big words you don't know the meaning of. It is almost impossible to slander someone if no-one knows who you're talking about, and defamation in the written form is libel, not slander. The notion that you can libel a pseudonymous author in an attack addressed only to their pseudonym in an online fourm would be a novel and intriguing use of the law, but you'd probably find the cost of insuring for the other sides costs prohibitive.
Have a nice day - glad to see the ghost in the machine is suddenly allowing your punctuation through.
That may well be true but.... SH have their own rules called the AUP, which I would have thought calling someone a " fuckwit " would have been against those rules. I have been banned for calling someone less than that.
I would have thought that your superior intelligence would have told you that.
How would my superior intelligence have told me what had happened to you? I'll leave the interpretation of what is appropriate and inappropriate behaviour to the mods - I'm always happy to take their advice as to the AUP, and will always endeavour to conform with it.
Have a nice day...

11 Feb 2010

Please can you stick to the topic in the opening post, or relevant comments leading from that.
If this thread does not go back on topic, it will be locked.
If anyone has a problem with this please pm me.
Thank you

11 Feb 2010

Quote by Sarah
Please can you stick to the topic in the opening post, or relevant comments leading from that.
If this thread does not go back on topic, it will be locked.
If anyone has a problem with this please pm me.
Thank you

Well now, they say there is no smoke without fire. Inbetween the divergences, there were some good comments and I thank those of you who so contributed - the problem is that anyone new to the thread might have difficulty in spotting them, especially when long missives are "quoted" with further long missives, all or most of which may be out of context.
I accept entirely, the Moderators' warning to lock the thread - sad that this has to come about though :sad:
Anyway, let's be cheerful - I'm about to put up a new thread about the jury system - it will be interesting to see how this one stays on track (or not!)
Plim :thumbup:

11 Feb 2010

1. I apologise to Gulson - it's none of my business how he posts, and since it wasn't in answer to one of mine I should have kept my trap shut.
2. How broke is Britain? I haven't the foggiest. I just don't have enough background in finances beyond basic domestic and company level. But I am VERY concerned about it. All I can do is watch my own situation, keep a grip on my pension and try to plan ahead sensibly.
3. I am getting my bonus this year - so I have something in common with the bankers out there biggrin

:D:D:D Shame mine is less than one mortgage payment. :giggle:

11 Feb 2010

very but, i'm off to val d sere so i wont give a phuck for a week.

11 Feb 2010

Quote by foxylady2209
1. I apologise to Gulson - it's none of my business how he posts, and since it wasn't in answer to one of mine I should have kept my trap shut.
2. How broke is Britain? I haven't the foggiest. I just don't have enough background in finances beyond basic domestic and company level. But I am VERY concerned about it. All I can do is watch my own situation, keep a grip on my pension and try to plan ahead sensibly.
3. I am getting my bonus this year - so I have something in common with the bankers out there :D:D:D Shame mine is less than one mortgage payment. :giggle:

My bonus is another button undone across the lunch table...

11 Feb 2010

Britain is broken in two respects:
1) Manufacturing
To develop an income for a nation you need something that other nations are prepared to buy. Most developed countries maintain a manufacturing industry for exactly that purpose. We have not. Instead, the sexy world of finance was seen to be the best way of assuring income and her beckoning call was answered - succesive governments bent over and took it all. We can see what happens when that particular finance stream falls over (I won't call it an industry because it 'produces' nothing). This fickle revenue generation method is crazy - banking can be moved to anywhere with good communications.
Until we have a stable manufacturing industry, we will not get 'richer' as a nation.
2) Society
It has broken down - certainly.
Neighbours often don't know each others names, stick up for each other and ensure that the moral fibre of our society is cascaded by their own actions.
Thirty years ago, if a child was disciplined at school (whether corporal or otherwise), the last thing they wanted was for their parents to find out - otherwise they got it all over again at home. Now ? Instant trip to the school and rants at teachers for picking on their offspring.
That's my two-pennorth and I'm off my soap box now.
:mad:

12 Feb 2010

Quote by marriedmale
Britain is broken in two respects:
1) Manufacturing
To develop an income for a nation you need something that other nations are prepared to buy. Most developed countries maintain a manufacturing industry for exactly that purpose. We have not. Instead, the sexy world of finance was seen to be the best way of assuring income and her beckoning call was answered - succesive governments bent over and took it all. We can see what happens when that particular finance stream falls over (I won't call it an industry because it 'produces' nothing). This fickle revenue generation method is crazy - banking can be moved to anywhere with good communications.
Until we have a stable manufacturing industry, we will not get 'richer' as a nation.
2) Society
It has broken down - certainly.
Neighbours often don't know each others names, stick up for each other and ensure that the moral fibre of our society is cascaded by their own actions.
Thirty years ago, if a child was disciplined at school (whether corporal or otherwise), the last thing they wanted was for their parents to find out - otherwise they got it all over again at home. Now ? Instant trip to the school and rants at teachers for picking on their offspring.
That's my two-pennorth and I'm off my soap box now.
:mad:

Good contribution - I agree, thank you.
Plim :thumbup:

13 Feb 2010

Quote by marriedmale
Britain is broken in two respects:
1) Manufacturing
To develop an income for a nation you need something that other nations are prepared to buy. Most developed countries maintain a manufacturing industry for exactly that purpose. We have not. Instead, the sexy world of finance was seen to be the best way of assuring income and her beckoning call was answered - succesive governments bent over and took it all. We can see what happens when that particular finance stream falls over (I won't call it an industry because it 'produces' nothing). This fickle revenue generation method is crazy - banking can be moved to anywhere with good communications.
Until we have a stable manufacturing industry, we will not get 'richer' as a nation.
2) Society
It has broken down - certainly.
Neighbours often don't know each others names, stick up for each other and ensure that the moral fibre of our society is cascaded by their own actions.
Thirty years ago, if a child was disciplined at school (whether corporal or otherwise), the last thing they wanted was for their parents to find out - otherwise they got it all over again at home. Now ? Instant trip to the school and rants at teachers for picking on their offspring.
That's my two-pennorth and I'm off my soap box now.
:mad:

Problem one; to compete at manufacturing you have to have either very low wages, low quality of life and low levels of democracy OR technological and managerial advantage. We have neither. We spurned the chance to put our manufacturing on a sensible track in the 1950s and 60s; while Toyota were changing the world in terms of manufacturing methods the UK was leaving manufacturing to witless amateurs and short term dividend obsessed bean counters. Every technological advantage we've had has been spurned, (like inventing the modern computer) and even when, in the 1980s, we were briefly energy rich the government decided to piss the money up the wall on useless nuclear weapons, stupid wars and pointless privatizations that destroyed rather than enhanced value.
As for your second point, it's a very English trait to long for a past that never existed. That England you describe where everyone knew everybody else and bad things never happened is the England Mary Bell grew up in. Dig out a copy of In The Office of Constable by Sir Robert Mark - the opening chapters on his early years in the corrupt Manchester police, and about the van squad who used illegal rubber truncheons and other weapons in their regular Saturday night fights with the inhabitants of Manchester's less salubrious districts is very illuminating. In that past that never existed everyone lived in nice neat garden suburbs and the road to Wigan pier was the road less travelled.

13 Feb 2010

Quote by awayman
Britain is broken in two respects:
1) Manufacturing
To develop an income for a nation you need something that other nations are prepared to buy. Most developed countries maintain a manufacturing industry for exactly that purpose. We have not. Instead, the sexy world of finance was seen to be the best way of assuring income and her beckoning call was answered - succesive governments bent over and took it all. We can see what happens when that particular finance stream falls over (I won't call it an industry because it 'produces' nothing). This fickle revenue generation method is crazy - banking can be moved to anywhere with good communications.
Until we have a stable manufacturing industry, we will not get 'richer' as a nation.
2) Society
It has broken down - certainly.
Neighbours often don't know each others names, stick up for each other and ensure that the moral fibre of our society is cascaded by their own actions.
Thirty years ago, if a child was disciplined at school (whether corporal or otherwise), the last thing they wanted was for their parents to find out - otherwise they got it all over again at home. Now ? Instant trip to the school and rants at teachers for picking on their offspring.
That's my two-pennorth and I'm off my soap box now.
:mad:

Problem one; to compete at manufacturing you have to have either very low wages, low quality of life and low levels of democracy OR technological and managerial advantage. We have neither. We spurned the chance to put our manufacturing on a sensible track in the 1950s and 60s; while Toyota were changing the world in terms of manufacturing methods the UK was leaving manufacturing to witless amateurs and short term dividend obsessed bean counters. Every technological advantage we've had has been spurned, (like inventing the modern computer) and even when, in the 1980s, we were briefly energy rich the government decided to piss the money up the wall on useless nuclear weapons, stupid wars and pointless privatizations that destroyed rather than enhanced value.
As for your second point, it's a very English trait to long for a past that never existed. That England you describe where everyone knew everybody else and bad things never happened is the England Mary Bell grew up in. Dig out a copy of In The Office of Constable by Sir Robert Mark - the opening chapters on his early years in the corrupt Manchester police, and about the van squad who used illegal rubber truncheons and other weapons in their regular Saturday night fights with the inhabitants of Manchester's less salubrious districts is very illuminating. In that past that never existed everyone lived in nice neat garden suburbs and the road to Wigan pier was the road less travelled.
There is just so much I could say to counter argue that, but just cant be arsed.
But as a quick example.....prisons full now?

13 Feb 2010

Whilst it is true that we missed the boat when traditional manufacturing went into decline in the 70s and 80s, reasonable wages would have been available if the bosses hadn't been greedy in the short term - during the 50s we started to rely on immigrant labour - and to be fair, the Country could not afford to develop robotics to any extent with the WWII debts to the US and Canada, but then when the opportunity was there with some prosperity during the 60s and 70s, short term greed kicked in and this just fueled the Trade Union movement.
Valid point about us throwing away the computer invention after WWII - also another, often forgotten, point is the the Volkswagon car plant in Germany was offered to Morris Motors (later part of BL) as a spoil of war and we turned it down and put our people into West Geramny to help the Germans rehabilitate in th spirit of good sportsmanship - we were just 50 years behind the times on that one!
Plim - still :sad: and :mad:!

13 Feb 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
Britain is broken in two respects:
1) Manufacturing
To develop an income for a nation you need something that other nations are prepared to buy. Most developed countries maintain a manufacturing industry for exactly that purpose. We have not. Instead, the sexy world of finance was seen to be the best way of assuring income and her beckoning call was answered - succesive governments bent over and took it all. We can see what happens when that particular finance stream falls over (I won't call it an industry because it 'produces' nothing). This fickle revenue generation method is crazy - banking can be moved to anywhere with good communications.
Until we have a stable manufacturing industry, we will not get 'richer' as a nation.
2) Society
It has broken down - certainly.
Neighbours often don't know each others names, stick up for each other and ensure that the moral fibre of our society is cascaded by their own actions.
Thirty years ago, if a child was disciplined at school (whether corporal or otherwise), the last thing they wanted was for their parents to find out - otherwise they got it all over again at home. Now ? Instant trip to the school and rants at teachers for picking on their offspring.
That's my two-pennorth and I'm off my soap box now.
:mad:

Problem one; to compete at manufacturing you have to have either very low wages, low quality of life and low levels of democracy OR technological and managerial advantage. We have neither. We spurned the chance to put our manufacturing on a sensible track in the 1950s and 60s; while Toyota were changing the world in terms of manufacturing methods the UK was leaving manufacturing to witless amateurs and short term dividend obsessed bean counters. Every technological advantage we've had has been spurned, (like inventing the modern computer) and even when, in the 1980s, we were briefly energy rich the government decided to piss the money up the wall on useless nuclear weapons, stupid wars and pointless privatizations that destroyed rather than enhanced value.
As for your second point, it's a very English trait to long for a past that never existed. That England you describe where everyone knew everybody else and bad things never happened is the England Mary Bell grew up in. Dig out a copy of In The Office of Constable by Sir Robert Mark - the opening chapters on his early years in the corrupt Manchester police, and about the van squad who used illegal rubber truncheons and other weapons in their regular Saturday night fights with the inhabitants of Manchester's less salubrious districts is very illuminating. In that past that never existed everyone lived in nice neat garden suburbs and the road to Wigan pier was the road less travelled.
There is just so much I could say to counter argue that, but just cant be arsed.
But as a quick example.....prisons full now?[/quote
What would that prove? Was therea time when prisons were empty? (As opposed to triple bunks in single man cells in the 70s).

13 Feb 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
Britain is broken in two respects:
1) Manufacturing
To develop an income for a nation you need something that other nations are prepared to buy. Most developed countries maintain a manufacturing industry for exactly that purpose. We have not. Instead, the sexy world of finance was seen to be the best way of assuring income and her beckoning call was answered - succesive governments bent over and took it all. We can see what happens when that particular finance stream falls over (I won't call it an industry because it 'produces' nothing). This fickle revenue generation method is crazy - banking can be moved to anywhere with good communications.
Until we have a stable manufacturing industry, we will not get 'richer' as a nation.
2) Society
It has broken down - certainly.
Neighbours often don't know each others names, stick up for each other and ensure that the moral fibre of our society is cascaded by their own actions.
Thirty years ago, if a child was disciplined at school (whether corporal or otherwise), the last thing they wanted was for their parents to find out - otherwise they got it all over again at home. Now ? Instant trip to the school and rants at teachers for picking on their offspring.
That's my two-pennorth and I'm off my soap box now.
:mad:

Dont know about the first in enough detail, but the second,,,,
i feel its a pity that people draw such broad generalisations about the past and present,it wasnt all sweetness and light in the past and it isnt all doom and gloom now, Away has pointed out some of the problem with nostalgia, so lets look at this world now,
I know teenagers, they volunteer on their weekends,are intelligent, articulate and a hell of a lot more mature than i was at that age, i know my neighbours, i allow my children to wander the local fields,realtivly secure in the knowledge thay are safe.
Nobody was saying all teenagers are bad, in my opinion kids boudaries are less now than ever, and the respect factor for many just is not there. You may well know your neighbours but a heck of a lot do not know who lives three doors away, unlike in the 40's or the 50's and the 60's. People looked out for their neighbours withoiut the fear of getting their heads smashed in or worse IF they dared to intervene.
If a parent rants at the teachers in either of the schools my sons attend they are breaking the parental contract we had to sign, and would be asked to leave the premises,
Parental contract? How weak is that piece of paper? Yes they can be asked to leave the premises, but only after threatening or even hitting a teacher. Threats from parents are an everyday occurance with or without a parental contract, which is worthless.
on top of this i have sexual freedom and can bring up my children to be unbigoted and fine with different cultures and sexuality without others passing comment
You would have had sexual freedom 30 years ago, I do not know how it is any different today? Yes we can all bring up our kids to be unbigoted...does not mean they won't be though, it is called being a good parent. I take my hat off to you IF the above comment works as you are saying it does, where your kids accept all cultures and their sexuality. Most kids are just that kids...and will take the piss as they see fit. They might not do it in front of you but are you there with them 24 hours a day? Still if that is what you say, I will have to take your word for it.
Ah yes u say , you are lucky/unique/privileged,but the fact is that there are thousands like me,people who do not make the news
That is true but there are many out there who would never accept this lifestyle that you choose....having sex with others. Maybe that is a bigoted view that they hold, but certainly the older generation would find it strange. Yes there are thousands like you out there, and there are just as many that are not...nothing changed there then over the years.
the media has an agenda behind reporting the worst, and no interest in the facts of many of our lives
No agenda....they are doing what they are supposed to do....report. Because you do not like reading what some of the papers write, millions of people do. Check the circulation figures.
Now respect in general is not there....parents would not know the word parent if it jumped out from a lorry at them, kids are much more violent than they have ever been.
Times may not have been as good forty years ago as they are now, but materialistic things do not make a better society.
An example which is an everyday thing now is road rage. I cannot remember it being as aggressive 30 years ago on the roads as it is now. It is extreme now and to honk ya horn at someone, even if they are in the wrong, could well end up with you being accosted by an aggressive tosser, and it does not have to be a man now either, as women are almost as bad.
At the end of the day...you have your take on it and I have mine, but in my 50 years on this planet I can safely say that times have changed, and certainly not all for the better.

13 Feb 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
Britain is broken in two respects:
You would have had sexual freedom 30 years ago, I do not know how it is any different today? Yes we can all bring up our kids to be unbigoted...does not mean they won't be though, it is called being a good parent. I take my hat off to you IF the above comment works as you are saying it does, where your kids accept all cultures and their sexuality. Most kids are just that kids...and will take the piss as they see fit. They might not do it in front of you but are you there with them 24 hours a day? Still if that is what you say, I will have to take your word for it.
An example which is an everyday thing now is road rage. I cannot remember it being as aggressive 30 years ago on the roads as it is now. It is extreme now and to honk ya horn at someone, even if they are in the wrong, could well end up with you being accosted by an aggressive tosser, and it does not have to be a man now either, as women are almost as bad.
But in my 50 years on this planet I can safely say that times have changed, and certainly not all for the better.

........................................................................................
On the point of sexual freedom, I don't really think that actual beliefs and things change all that much from one generation to the next - folk are folk! However, the percentage of the population outside of monogamy might have increased over recent years and everything is more open and less "underground" - perhaps always has been in more artistic and wealthy circles and was more noticable to me during the 60s in Central London than the East Midlands, not sex between young people outside of marriage which was universal, but gay sex (still not legal during early 60s) and group sex and similar. Marriage has certainly become much less of the norm now than in my youth. The number of single parent households is a sign of recent times though.
Regarding road rage, I started driving in 1961 and whilst it wasn't called that then, driving behaviour was just as bad from some then as now. What is very different, is the wanton damage to cars by vandalism and the taking of cars by younger children and "pool cars" on sink estates - now that IS a sign of change and in my view in part indirectly due to loss of manufacturing and other hard work (eg. mining) for the less educated youth.
Plim

14 Feb 2010

Quote by Plimboy
Whilst it is true that we missed the boat when traditional manufacturing went into decline in the 70s and 80s, reasonable wages would have been available if the bosses hadn't been greedy in the short term - during the 50s we started to rely on immigrant labour - and to be fair, the Country could not afford to develop robotics to any extent with the WWII debts to the US and Canada, but then when the opportunity was there with some prosperity during the 60s and 70s, short term greed kicked in and this just fueled the Trade Union movement.
Valid point about us throwing away the computer invention after WWII - also another, often forgotten, point is the the Volkswagon car plant in Germany was offered to Morris Motors (later part of BL) as a spoil of war and we turned it down and put our people into West Geramny to help the Germans rehabilitate in th spirit of good sportsmanship - we were just 50 years behind the times on that one!
Plim - still :sad: and :mad:!

the advantage that the Toyota method and Deming style management gave didn't focus on technological leadership via robotics. It focussed on quality, on empowering work teams and on eliminating waste. The investment is in people and methods, not technology. The failure to address that agenda is why you ended up with BL shipping unpainted shells from one assembly plant at Longbridge to a paint shop at the other end, despite the enormous amounts of rework that kind of stupidity caused.
The foolish attitude of BL management is summed up by this quote;

'Shortly after the 1800's launch in 1965, Autocar's party borrowed one for the annual trek to the Turin Show, and as we arrived outside the Palace Hotel a black Peugeot 404 driven by Sergio Pininfarina drew up behind us. Out stepped Issigonis, his engineering deputy Charles Griffin and BMC styling chief Dick Burzi. Smiling broadly, Issigonis straight over to us.
"No one told me you were bringing one of these. How did you find it?" he asked
"A curate's egg, good only in parts," I replied, then challenged him.
"Alec, you've never actually had one of these in France, have you?"
"My dear, of course we have - what makes you suggest that?"
"Because for every ten miles along the French roads we must have travelled half a mile up and down! It gets very wearing."
"Let's have a chat over Martinis before dinner" he suggested.
An hour later he drew me out of earshot of the others.
"You're quite right, we haven't had an 1800 in France. You see, I've always thought it a waste of time and effort to build two dozen prototypes and send them all over the world on proving trials," he admitted.
"So we built only three 1800s, thinking we could do everything with them."

Here's a similar quote.
At

launch of the revised Maxi, Austin Morris managing director George Turnbull said: 'We would be foolish not to concede that the original Maxi needed more refinement and a more positive gear selection mechanism. It is in these areas that we have concentrated our research and development.'

The history of the failure of the British car industry is the history of bad design, bad management and a disdain for quality.

14 Feb 2010

I'd be interested to read the thoughts coming out in this thread, but I'm fed up of having to trawl through acres of quotes, and loads of them broken up with inserted comments.
It's such a shame - thne comments I've spotted are well put. dunno

14 Feb 2010

Yes Foxy I am guilty of that.
I have tried to copy and paste quotes but I must be an idiot as I just cannot do it.
I agree it does look messy.

15 Feb 2010

The history of the failure of the British car industry is the history of bad design, bad management and a disdain for quality

The failure can be more easily put down to the fact that the cars they designed were liked by the designers.
Now back to this year. The door handle on my van broke. The price for the new one was quite high. The price for the SAME handle on the BACK DOOR was much lower, so one was purchased and fitted.
Same handle, different part number, different price. The drivers door handle breaks more often than the load door....now, who remembers the Allegro/Marina et-al.....different body but...

15 Feb 2010

Yes, the decline of BL was archetypal of the whole failure of "GB Ltd".
However, the quote re Toyota is out of context to my robotic reference, as I was talking about the late 40s at the end of WWII, hence the reference that Morris (William Morris, Viscount Nuffield) did not want to expend into Europe by taking over VW from the Government when it was spoil of war. Around 1948 we then started to develop inefficient labour methods to accomodate the traditional Trade Union view and this then lead to immigration of people from Commonwealth counties to swell the labout force even more. But the problem wasn't started by the Unions, it was the total inability of high management accross the whole of the economy to operate properly and BMC (merger of Morris/MG, Austin and Standard/Triumph) and then others, including Jaguar to become BL was probably the worst example, which is confirmed by quotes that have correctly been made by others, thanks.
Remember, finance, manufacturing, immigration and other issues, even social behaviour, are all interfaced with each other over quite a period to bring about the current situation of "how broke is Britain".
Plim :sad:

15 Feb 2010

Quote by Plimboy
Yes, the decline of BL was archetypal of the whole failure of "GB Ltd".
However, the quote re Toyota is out of context to my robotic reference, as I was talking about the late 40s at the end of WWII, hence the reference that Morris (William Morris, Viscount Nuffield) did not want to expend into Europe by taking over VW from the Government when it was spoil of war. Around 1948 we then started to develop inefficient labour methods to accomodate the traditional Trade Union view and this then lead to immigration of people from Commonwealth counties to swell the labout force even more. But the problem wasn't started by the Unions, it was the total inability of high management accross the whole of the economy to operate properly and BMC (merger of Morris/MG, Austin and Standard/Triumph) and then others, including Jaguar to become BL was probably the worst example, which is confirmed by quotes that have correctly been made by others, thanks.
Remember, finance, manufacturing, immigration and other issues, even social behaviour, are all interfaced with each other over quite a period to bring about the current situation of "how broke is Britain".
Plim :sad:

I don't recognise any of your explanation of what went wrong post war. We developed inefficient working methods because of the arrogant disdain British management had for Fordism, and their general attitude that there was nothing they could learn from others. Most British managers didn't know the difference between Denning and Deming; far too many still don't.
The need for migrant labour had two causes. One was that conscription continued for too long after the war when there was no need for a large standing army, navy or air force. The second was that Imperial preference meant Britain had, for fiteen years, a competitive advantage that vanished at about the same time as a conservative government decided to increase mass migration into the UK.

16 Feb 2010

Quote by awayman
Yes, the decline of BL was archetypal of the whole failure of "GB Ltd".
However, the quote re Toyota is out of context to my robotic reference, as I was talking about the late 40s at the end of WWII, hence the reference that Morris (William Morris, Viscount Nuffield) did not want to expend into Europe by taking over VW from the Government when it was spoil of war. Around 1948 we then started to develop inefficient labour methods to accomodate the traditional Trade Union view and this then lead to immigration of people from Commonwealth counties to swell the labout force even more. But the problem wasn't started by the Unions, it was the total inability of high management accross the whole of the economy to operate properly and BMC (merger of Morris/MG, Austin and Standard/Triumph) and then others, including Jaguar to become BL was probably the worst example, which is confirmed by quotes that have correctly been made by others, thanks.
Remember, finance, manufacturing, immigration and other issues, even social behaviour, are all interfaced with each other over quite a period to bring about the current situation of "how broke is Britain".
Plim :sad:

I don't recognise any of your explanation of what went wrong post war. We developed inefficient working methods because of the arrogant disdain British management had for Fordism, and their general attitude that there was nothing they could learn from others. Most British managers didn't know the difference between Denning and Deming; far too many still don't.
The need for migrant labour had two causes. One was that conscription continued for too long after the war when there was no need for a large standing army, navy or air force. The second was that Imperial preference meant Britain had, for fiteen years, a competitive advantage that vanished at about the same time as a conservative government decided to increase mass migration into the UK.
Your points add value, except that as I recall conscription was only for two years for males at age 18 and wasn't too significant. Your input actually appears to support and supplement my arguement that people at the top were largely incompetent.
Plim