Cuts - And So It Begins

chewmylegoff

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

Many people do not understand that manufacturing is MORE IMPORTANT than any number of desk jobs.

I doubt any of those agreeing with the ConDems have made anything in their sorry little lives.

GG

why? if, for instance, i was to sell professional advice to an overseas market, why would manufacturing something and selling it to an overseas market be more important than that?

amcluesent

>Sheffield Forgemasters International Limited: £80m<

Soon to downsize to Sheffield Forgemisers National Ltd

treliac

lostinrates wrote: »

I love stonehenge. I really love it. And I have to say I wish they wouldn't have the visitor centre. what is amazing about it is that it is where it is, alone, and that we have minimised our interfering busybodyness about it. Stonehenge is well documented...can a visitor centre really offer anything new?

I'm afraid even if I didn't feel this way that I think its a good idea to at least postpone things like the visitor centre spend.

I agree. I loved visiting Stonehenge before we interfered with it. What right does this generation have to rope off a national treasure, left by our ancestors, and commercialise it?

lostinrates

treliac wrote: »

I agree. I loved visiting Stonehenge before we interfered with it. What right does this generation have to rope off a national treasure, left by our ancestors, and commercialise it?

gotta rope it off, sadly. Because they are protecting it from the people who wouldn't respect the right to leave it as is for future generations. :mad:

Sir_Humphrey

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Spot on. Unless they were trying to bribe the local population in a swing seat perhaps?

No marginals in Sheffield I think.

To Bendix: the banks prefer to lend to BTLs than productive industries.

There is no way that nuclear will progress without state intervention. If you do not favour state intervention, then you cannot be pro-nuclear.

Still, we can improve our balance of trade by importing the items from (IIRC) South Korea.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

There is no way that nuclear will progress without state intervention. If you do not favour state intervention, then you cannot be pro-nuclear.

Still, we can improve our balance of trade by importing the items from (IIRC) South Korea.

And thats just it - Osberk clearly hasn't got a clue. He is under the impression that he cuts money now and everything will be fine. But this wasn't public spending, it was a loan. We not only earn money on that loan, we get to be an exporter not an importer of nuclear power station bits.

So, we cut his £80m And spend massively more later......

chewmylegoff

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

And thats just it - Osberk clearly hasn't got a clue. He is under the impression that he cuts money now and everything will be fine. But this wasn't public spending, it was a loan. We not only earn money on that loan, we get to be an exporter not an importer of nuclear power station bits.

So, we cut his £80m And spend massively more later......

or, we buy the parts from abroad for less than they would have cost if they were produced here, and we don't have to pay £80m upfront - a loan that would only have been repaid by the government buying things from the company in the future.

what guarantee is there that we would become an exporter of these thingies? if there is only one plant in the world which is producing them it hardly suggests that there is a massive demand which outstrips the current supply, and that we could therefore sell loads to overseas markets.

if there was an opportunity there, it would have been exploited already, and wouldn't need to be subsidised by the government.

chodges84

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

And thats just it - Osberk clearly hasn't got a clue. He is under the impression that he cuts money now and everything will be fine. But this wasn't public spending, it was a loan. We not only earn money on that loan, we get to be an exporter not an importer of nuclear power station bits.

So, we cut his £80m And spend massively more later......

If it was viable and they were sure the money would have been repaid then a bank would have lent them the money.

That said, £80m is small change compared to the £3billion PER WEEK we are hemorrhaging thanks to Gordon Brown's 'chuck money at anything' policies of the last 13 years.

I will say that I am ECSTATIC that Stonehenge's visitor centre has been cancelled though. It is totally out of keeping and just adds to the slow errosion of our Heritage.

And I cannot believe it will cost £27.5 million in total to build. Give me £1mil and I will build them a visitor centre with enough change left to get myself a nice 3 bed semi.

Absolutely wasteful.

fc123

lostinrates wrote: »

gotta rope it off, sadly. Because they are protecting it from the people who wouldn't respect the right to leave it as is for future generations. :mad:

I didn't know it was now roped off. We visited by accident about 18 years ago on a trip to Cornwall....just drove past and decided to op in. I hugged a stone.
As I understand it, the original site was cut in half by the road?

Sir_Humphrey

chodges84 wrote: »

If it was viable and they were sure the money would have been repaid then a bank would have lent them the money.

That said, £80m is small change compared to the £3billion PER WEEK we are hemorrhaging thanks to Gordon Brown's 'chuck money at anything' policies of the last 13 years.

I will say that I am ECSTATIC that Stonehenge's visitor centre has been cancelled though. It is totally out of keeping and just adds to the slow errosion of our Heritage.

And I cannot believe it will cost £27.5 million in total to build. Give me £1mil and I will build them a visitor centre with enough change left to get myself a nice 3 bed semi.

Absolutely wasteful.

IIRC, the plan was to divert the nearby main road into a tunnel, which would be expensive. Or was that the plan that was cancelled the previous time?

Just saw a funny clip of Cleggover on Newsnight.