[Closed] British Industry Mining/manufacturing THATCHER

Actually my main gripe is why the revenue from North Sea oil didn't pay for revitalising the areas affected by industrial decline.

Failure to invest or failure to manage the investment?

British industry was on its knees.

Thatcher shot it in the kneecaps.

British industry was on its knees.

Thatcher shot it in the kneecaps.

British workers weren't going to work for pennies...other countries did/still do...we are all to blame for this...

IIRC profitable mines were shut.

IIRC profitable mines were shut.

yep Thatcher saw the internet coming

think a good way to look at it is compare the UK and German economies

Germany is a power house of manufacturing and manufactured goods export despite having to in effect pay the unification costs (a similar economic hard time to that the Tories inherited from Labour)

German is still trying to unwind state subsidies for coal as production has declined but with less social cost

In some things, cost of worker wages matters - in manufacturing of basic consumer goods for instance. In other things, it's much less important. There were long-term systemic problems in British heavy industry, but they were solvable problems - many of these industries could have been saved with time, investment and care.

I didn't like her. Not at all.

But in 2010, depending on which info you believe, the UK was somewhere between 4th and 7th in the World in Manufacturing.

The rust-belt and mining sector went. But aerospace, electronics and defense have done well. And for a while after her, we were even a net exporter of cars.

So - unless you want your kids down a pit or in a sweatshop producing trainers...

Good point about the North Sea

many of these industries could have been saved with time, investment and care.

and along came China and undercut everyone...

The irony of coal mining is that productive coal mines with massive reserves were shut down because there were cheaper imports coming from China and elsewhere. Now that China is such an industrial powerhouse, they are eating up all their own coal and importing from elsewhere.

If we still had a mining industry, there would be massive demand for the coal - well, if the industries which used it were still around as well.

If we still had a mining industry, there would be massive demand for the coal - well, if the industries which used it were still around as well.

they couldn't afford the UK wage !

Plenty of the mines could turn a profit today.
Plenty of the manufacturing industries could still operate today.

The issue is deeper than just profit. The government should have, and still should, provide an environment where companies can flourish. A country where companies are producing, is a much better country where companies are not, even if it means subsidising them in some way. this is the government's gift to support their economy. Thatcher felt that wasn't a good way to do things and rewarded only the most profitable enterprises so the smaller ones went under, people lost their jobs. She created a series of unemployed generations. She created a whole culture of not working because there are no jobs for a particular group of unskilled/semi-skilled working men for the most part.

I don't hate her, she thought she was doing the right thing but she got it completely and utterly wrong. It is not about supporting the big or the rich or the powerful, it is about supporting the weak and the unscuessful, the people who struggle. That's where she got it wrong.

Oh, and claiming nelson mandela was a terrorist was simply shocking.

yes.

Exactly - a government should act like a good manager, not a hatchet man.

And never forget that lives matter more than money.

There is still years worth of coal under South Wales. Rumoured to be hundred of years worth (I have no proof of this)

Manufacturing is still going strong, it's changed to compete but it is there and I'm proud to be part of it. It does not help that we are all (with few exceptions) out for the cheapest product or service but we have to live with that and work accordingly.
Some support from those that could purchase UK made products would be nice but I have long given up trying make them listen.
Our company makes sure it buys British where ever possible, it's seen as the right thing to do given that we are also a UK based manufacturer.
It's fun sometimes listening to a sales engineer justifying why they should have a German car over a British made one.

Didn't I once read that James Callahan shut down more pits than maggie?. The irony of the miner is the money some of them have been handed since. I worked with an ex miner up until recently, when he retired. His annual salary was just under 35k before overtime, and he liked an hour, so around 42k. Due to the various compensatory payments for the likes of vibration white finger, emphysema, DIY payments, knee money etc etc He actually made more money in pensions associated to these things than he did from his job. He never suffered from any of those things at all, but they all knew how to play the system to get the payouts.

Nothing to do with this thread really, just pissed me off lots, as he was a lazy wee poisonous bastard.

unfitgeezer - troll or real id?

Either way, simplistic or uninformed...?

British workers weren't going to work for pennies...other countries did/still do...we are all to blame for this...

Germany is the oft quoted alternative model - manufacturing still drives their economy. I am not aware that our German colleagues go to work for pennies...

in 2013 they wouldn't be profitable would they ?

That shows a fundamental mis-understanding of the economics of mining. Many mines that were uneconomic in the 80s would be economic today - commodity prices have increased. We squandered our country's economic resources for the sake of political / socio-economic dogma.

The basis for any economic assessment is the mineral reserve. If it is worked out (or the higher grade / easier to mine material worked out, then the economics become "difficult"). If the reserve is there, the economics hang on the infrastructure, ease of mining, processing and transportation. We had this infrastructure, but abandoned it.

Do we want to be burning coal?
Do the youth of today want to be miners?

Who killed coal? Thatch or Arthur - the bloke who - earlier this year wanted the 2000 remaining miners to pay for his London pad, and went to court to attempt this. Or was it both of them?

Thatch made me join the Labour party. But I saw sense 😉

I was in Oz at the time.

From that perspective it looked like dinosaur right wing ideology against dinosaur left wing ideology, and the workers got trampled in the fight. Not that the dinosaurs cared or noticed.

The number of foreign owned manufacturers operating in the UK would suggest that UK industry suffered from mismanagement and a lack of long term investment rather than simply high wages.

Do we want to be burning coal?

No. But do we want to burn oil, gas or rely on non-existant (at the mo) nuclear? It is part of the mix.

Mining is bigger than just coal, although that was always by far the dominant UK aspect.

Do the youth of today want to be miners?

IIRC the workers weren't working so much as striking before Thatcher. British industry has a long and proud history of potentially being the best in the world and then shooting itself in the foot.

Nationalising and forming companies such as British Leyland did as much damage as dismantling them later...

Cheers

Danny B

[i]
Depends what you are asking them to choose between...? [/i]

Precisely.
Out of the 80's came this ideal, largely generated by the Thatcher government, that everyone was destined for a immensely well paid job in the city, driving about in Ferrari's while getting sucked off by a supermodel. This wasn't just everyone's right, this was their destiny. if you didn;t aspire to this you were a complete failure. No mines or getting your hands dirty with machinery my son, go get a degree, then off to the golden streets of London where you will run the world!

Obviously in reality that's not sensible or sustainable. you need a spread of occupations from cleaning bogs to running Ratners. They're all equally noble callings and demonising one group of workers because they don't earn over £200k or contribute directly to the global economy is appalling behaviour. For a grocers daughter she really did lose it somewhere.

I read somewhere that our economy was considered to be on a sounder footing than Germany because we relied less on manufacturing. The thinking being that businesses are more likely to move manufacturing to where it's cheapest (resources, taxes, wages, etc.) and a service based economy was somehow more stable.

The best way to answer the OPs question is to look at other advanced western economies and ask whether they still engage in mining and manufacturing?

Where shall we start?

Cars / Automotive?
- Still made here, but not by British owned companies. Tells it's own story...
- Where's the pinnacle of the car industry? In competition, still UK? Luxury - Germany? Sports - Italy

Shipbuilding?
Where do the worlds luxury liners come from - Finalnd, Italy.
Civil ships - Germany
Top military warships - US

Aeronautics - EU (incl UK), US

Mining
- Where doesn't do mining?
- Although many of the worlds mines are in developing countries / remote areas of developed countries, the companies engaged in mining include British, North American, Australian and South African (owned or or HQ'ed)companies and expertise.

There is absolutely no reason why these sectors cannot be profitable for developed economies...

... as a nation, we have simply elected (pun intended) not to take part in these areas of economic activity / wealth generation / employment generation

I read somewhere that our economy was considered to be on a sounder footing than Germany because we relied less on manufacturing. The thinking being that businesses are more likely to move manufacturing to where it's cheapest (resources, taxes, wages, etc.) and a service based economy was somehow more stable.

I think this thinking pre-dates the economic crisis.

An entirely service based economy cannot be sustainable. Someone has to generate the wealth - (primary or secondary industry). Service industry (tertiary - including financial services) merely recylces the wealth created elsewhere.

For 10-20 years I have been puzzled (actually very concerned) at how we seem to think that building another mini-shopping centre comprising the same old retail sheds will sustain our economy. it wont. it cant.

- Still made here, but not by British owned companies. Tells it's own story...

This really says a lot.

[ac282 - Member
The number of foreign owned manufacturers operating in the UK would suggest that UK industry suffered from mismanagement and a lack of long term investment rather than simply high wages.]

This comment allied to the issues around workforce/union struggles (though I suppose that's mismanagement) is very true. Some of the places I have worked/seen in the 70's and 80's would surprise you, how did they manage to make anything with kit from before the WW1. The idea of change to improve all aspects of a company was alien to many from the top down to the bottom. I suppose everyone was doing their best to protect their bit instead of being involved in how change was going to benefit them all. That's I suppose is a leadership issue on several level, not forgetting those that just wanted to mess things up because they could/ideology/misguded/lazy (choose who you think this applies to depending your own politics).
Mind you given the ways that machines can work with sheet materials, you can understand that some welders and tin bashers were worried (I was).

British industry was crap and failing, thanks to lack of investment in equipment and management. You only have to look at the shockingly bad rubbish that BL turned out and how soon the Japanese wiped them out to see that. The mines were no different and should have closed down years before because they were under-invested, dangerous, unhealthy and unprofitable compared with other mines in cheaper economies. Closing the mines was an affront to the pride of the working classes, similar to the shock of closing half the railways, which is why people still feel so angry about it; all Thatcher did was put the mines out of their misery and mercifully prevent further wastage of lives and money on a massive scale.

Thatcher had the courage to do what needed doing and to incur the hatred of the brain-dead who simply followed their leaders' idiotic rhetoric without thinking through the long-term consequences.

The last remaining British national dinosaur was British Railways; we were facing complete collapse of the railways through under-investment and had already had a number of serious accidents. Privatisation came almost too late and investors have been shocked at the shoddy and dangerous condition of the infrastructure they inherited.

So if the land is still full of coal and the demand is so high for it (and the jobs) why is there no mass re opening of the mines?

Mike that is the easiest question ever on this web site

Because it would be too expensive to produce.

Oh, and claiming nelson mandela was a terrorist was simply shocking.

2) the value of uk manufacturing has remained steady since the 1970s - the graph is on the other Fatcha thread. It is just employing fewer people and is a smaller proportion of GDP than other sectors.

3) mining is not manufacturing.

An entirely service based economy cannot be sustainable.

I still don't understand this. The global economy can't only be service based, of course. But the UK is only one part of it. I don't see why it has to have its own manufacturing - why can't it sell services to people who're buying with money from manufacturing in other countries?

Thatcher had the courage to do what needed doing and to incur the hatred of the brain-dead who simply followed their leaders' idiotic rhetoric without thinking through the long-term consequences.

I hope someone can manufacture me a new irony meter, after mine's just exploded.

So if the land is still full of coal and the demand is so high for it (and the jobs) why is there no mass re opening of the mines?

Because when they were shut down they deteriorated or flooded, which makes re-opening them incredibly expensive. Much more so than keeping them open in the first place.

Incidentally the Tower (the mine that was to be closed as unprofitable but was bought out by a consortium of workers and remained profitable for 20 more years) has just recently actually run out of coal. Not unexpectedly of course.

A certain person signed an carbon emission target that has pretty much killed the coal fired power station in its easy to build form. When lots of coal was burned for fuel in industry and domestic this country was really dirty and smelly. I'm unfortunately old enough to remember why the Clean Air Act was brought in, you did not get fluffy white cloud when there was an inversion, mustard tar clouds would have been a better description. Smog then was pretty amazing.

Globalti, privatisation saved the railways? So the train owning companies were bought out by the management and were quickly sold on for huge profit - a scandal. Franchises run the routes with varying degrees of public subsidy. Railtrack went bust having to shoulder the bill for the underinvestment in infrastructure. Not sure what public good came of all that. I remember the speed restrictions as the lines were upgraded.
Roads are in the same position of massive investment needed after longstanding underspending.

mrblobby - Member

I read somewhere that our economy was considered to be on a sounder footing than Germany because we relied less on manufacturing. The thinking being that businesses are more likely to move manufacturing to where it's cheapest (resources, taxes, wages, etc.) and a service based economy was somehow more stable.

think this was a way of promoting the success of the financial services bubble

true that companies investment decisions are especially based on corporation tax rates but in recent years less so on wages - more on skills and more on the total cost of doing business - long supply chains have proved costly to run and make failure proof

last data have to hand is for 2007 courtesy the Economist 2010 year book

Manufacturing output $bn UK 270 ranked 7th Germany 595 rank 4th
Service output $bn UK 1874 rank 4th Germany 2051 rank 3rd
(which per capita is roughly equal)

Balance of payment surplus UK $m -79,000 ie deficit = 3rd largest deficit

Germany +253,000 ie surplus 2nd largest

same pressures with aging rustbelt industries and same global pressures

edit forget to mention that a threat of increased regulation has led to financial services companies threatening to move to more lax locations

Manufacturing went from making up 25.8% of the economy before Thatcher came to power to 22.5% of the economy when she left....that doesnt seem to suggest she decimated manufacturing at all really....just goes to show how little British Leyland and mining contributed to the economy at the time.

Contrast that with manufacturing going from more than 20% of the economy in 1997 when Labour came to power to 12.4% under Brown.....that is a hell of a reduction and yet Blair and Brown arent vilified to her extent.

The big winners under new Labour were Bankers, Estate Agents and public sector workers.

Source:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8c257da6-dfab-11de-98ca-00144feab49a.html#axzz2PxNaYj2O

makes youlaugh -- most of you on here work for people and can often see the bad management that is inherent in british companies a legacy of the public school system-- added to short term 'thinking' and the need to please 'shareholders' all makes for a pretty big disadvantage in a competitive capitalist world-- of course in germany they tend to do things collectively with long term goals for the benefit of all concerned... Me i would do a thatcher in reverse--but crucial give the workers the control- the folk who know whats happening ,share the wealth not steal it !

^ lol

Me i would do a thatcher in reverse--but crucial give the workers the control- the folk who know whats happening

So if the land is still full of coal and the demand is so high for it (and the jobs) why is there no mass re opening of the mines?

There is a lot of mineral exploration activity in the UK and Ireland at the moment...

Because it would be too expensive to produce

Correct.

The most significant element of opening a NEW mine is the infrastructure cost.

Mine infrastructure - shaft sinking / decline construction, underground development (i.e. digging shafts and tunnels through uneconomic barren rock to provide the access to the economically viable stuff), surface support services, mineral handling and processing, transportation (e.g. most of the Welsh pits had rail connections)

All of this overhead costs £10s- 100Ms for new developemnts

But was previously in place for many mining areas.

There are new mines being opened except they are open cast, there is an enormous one at Dowlais.

Manufacturing went from making up 25.8% of the economy before Thatcher came to power to 22.5% of the economy when she left....that doesnt seem to suggest she decimated manufacturing at all really....just goes to [b]show how little [/b]British Leyland and [b]mining contributed to the economy[/b] at the time

Figures for mining would not be included with manufacturing

So if the land is still full of coal and the demand is so high for it (and the jobs) why is there no mass re opening of the mines?

because alot of the land that were mining sites has been developed into housing/parks etc. no way would they remove these to reopen mines.

There are new mines being opened except they are open cast, there is an enormous one at Dowlais.

its not enormous its big and its only getting bigger... alot bigger... 4-5times bigger infact

4-5times bigger infact

The global economy can't only be service based, of course. But the UK is only one part of it. I don't see why it has to have its own manufacturing - why can't it sell services to people who're buying with money from manufacturing in other countries?

molgrips - to some extent I agree with your point, but the UK as a whole provides a good illustration as to why this model is not sustainable at a country level.

How many of us can provide services to offshore clients (directly or indirectly), or onshore clients using offshore money?

I (somewhat selfishly) disagreed with Labours 4% Uni education aspirations. Apart from being a tad unrealistic, it sows a high level of expectation on students, devalues the qualifications already in circulation and doesn't match the capacity of the employment market to take up those quals.

The model you have illustrated (and has been attempted) has left a large proportion of the less able / those with less opportunity (and the less willing) with very poor prospects

Tower has just recently actually run out of coal. Not unexpectedly of course.

explain how there is an open cast right next to it in hirwaun with 10-15 yrs worth of coal then?

explain how there is an open cast right next to it in hirwaun with 10-15 yrs worth of coal then?

most likely a different mineral lease?

rkk01 - Member

Figures for mining would not be included with manufacturing

think they usually are as a "base industry"

I thought the Tower mine ceased it underground operations due to geological problems, not the lack of coal, hence the new open cast on site nearby. They are also doing reclamation work on the spoil heaps.

"Figures for mining would not be included with manufacturing" This is true however deep mined coal production was subsidized even though this would be shown as part of GDP. When the mines were shut there were many other related manufacturing jobs lost. Not just pit props and cutting machines, other smaller companies from sheet metal to pies. Fishing tackle and maggot production definitely got hit bad.

Like it or lump it, many mines had to go. However if there could have been some sort of strategic agreement more mines may have been in existence for longer given that they could have been viewed as nationally important asset ( i am aware that there a few still working, nearly).

antigee - Member

rkk01 - Member

Figures for mining would not be included with manufacturing

think they usually are as a "base industry

puts on dunces cap - wrong (edit that is rkk01 is correct) base industries aka primary production are still produced as a a separate series - i thought they'd been combined years ago

think they usually are as a "base industry"

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/business-energy/production-industries/manufacturing click on glossary tab, read def of manufacturing
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Mining_and_quarrying_statistics_-_NACE_Rev._2

explain how there is an open cast right next to it in hirwaun with 10-15 yrs worth of coal then?

The Tower was the pit, the open cast mine is different. There are still a few opencast mines around despite all the deep pits having closed.

Having mined out the northern coal extracts, the colliery was last worked on 18 January 2008 and the official closure of the colliery occurred on 25 January.

Since we all seem so keen on mines today why not visit the National Coal Mining Museum. www.ncm.org.uk/

Its a really interesting place and some folk may even learn what real work was about. Kids love it. Look listen and breath that air down pit, it's what we do.

ffs get your facts right molgrips

worked seam reduced in capacity,
the management team possibilities to extended the length of mine production

* Work another nine faces in the existing workings, in coal classed only as mineral potential

* Address the water problem in the Bute seam, to the northwest

* Open new developments in the Nine Feet seam, 100 m above the existing seam; the Four Feet seam, a further 30 m above

But none of these prospects seemed economic,

so instead they opened an opencast to extract the residual 6m tonnes of anthracite.

Can't imagine we'd still be sending kids down t'pit in 2013. Would you let your children go down a coal mine? Making it nearly 100% safe would be financially unfeasible, and you only have to see how the case of a mine collapse in Wales last year made the news to know that it wouldn't be tolerated.

So I think the mining industry would be dead and gone regardless; Thatcher just hastened its demise.

Interestingly one of the reasons shipbuilding moved to Norway follows a series of shipyard strikes (although not during Thatcher's premiership so it was already on its knees when she finished it off). When the strikes were over and work resumed, a new ship was flooded in dry dock when water was introduced to the plumbing and heating system. Turns out the employees had been stealing lengths of copper pipe from the ship during construction.

From the somewhat sad article in the maritime museum, the cost that this incurred pretty much resulted in major cruise lines such as Cunard switching manufacturing away from the UK.

EDIT whatever.

Oh, and claiming nelson mandela was a terrorist was simply shocking.

I think a great many victims of the ANC might disagree with you there.

yesterdays terrorist tomorrows politician.

you only have to see how the case of a mine collapse in Wales last year made the news to know that it wouldn't be tolerated

IMHO, What happened at Gleision is a very good example of what can happen in the post privatisation vacuum.

Coal mining has gone from a nationalised behemoth (yes, unionised, but very stringently regluated, both externally - M&Q, HSE - and internally), to a a fragmented, privately owned and operated industry.

At it's worst, represented by places like Gleision, the industry has returned to it's Victorian roots, with small bands of miners toiling away by hand in small dark holes in the ground - quite the opposite of the modern mechanised industry that should have been the result of privatisation

Britain currently produces more cars each year than the "boom" years of the early to Mid 1970's - hardly an indicator that we've lost manufacturing as an industry sector. What has changed is the mix of things we make with a focus on higher value manufacturing and products which allow for significant capital investment that can be recovered through innovation and automation - churning out low value products in volume using mass labour isn't something we can compete on any longer.

There's been some sensible discussion so far apart from a few loons, perhaps this bodes well for the future?

However,

And never forget that lives matter more than money.

You won't get far in this country with that attitude sonny. 😉

She may be having a funeral next week, but until we lay her ghost to rest; her legacy, I can only see us lunging from one banker led crisis to another.

Britain currently produces more cars each year than the "boom" years of the early to Mid 1970's

because of inward investment by multinationals looking for a quality workforce - nothing wrong with that but it wasn't part of Thatcher's plan. This should have happened in addition to investment by UK plc in new industries but much of that investment went abroad - a few remnant industries survived and prospered despite, not because of government policies

WTF is "UK plc"? Private sector? State?

One thing for sure - the mining and manufacturing industries would not be alive and well today if the unions had got the salary increases they were asking for.

It was the unions that made a lot of nationalised industries inherently uncompetitive abroad and unprofitable in their own right.

They killed the golden goose in the 70s - Thatcher would not have been necessary if they'd had half an eye on the middle to long term, but no, they went for EVERYTHING NOW, or else.

These industries could have had a managed decline (a sort of evolutionary dying out), but instead the unions provoked a clash that was only going to end one way.

Thatcher had seen the Heath government brought down by the unions, she prepared the ground, stockpiled coal, noted the dwindling% of energy that came from coal and then waited for someone to do something stupid (enter Scargill).

You cannot have a country where elected governments can be overthrown by a few union bosses (or bank CEOs for that matter).

Banking executives have been doing soemthing similar - except their D-Day was caused by stupidity rather than subterfuge.

Different people, different times, similar motives.

These industries could have had a managed decline (a sort of evolutionary dying out)

Have you read (understood?) nothing of the above???

Our views of these industries have been conditioned (by both sides of the politcal spectrum)

What was required was investment and [i]revitalisation[/i]

Plenty of examples aboves as to why it is beneficial to be involved in these PROFITABLE activities, even in a developed, western economy.

Have TATA invested in UK steelworks with a business plan marked "Managed Decline"?

Why have Honda, Nissan, BMW etc all invested in UK car plants? Throwing good money away? Surely that's what UK Govmts do, not astutue foreign capitalists?

Our pre-conditioned views are bad for our economy!

It was the unions that made a lot of nationalised industries inherently uncompetitive abroad and unprofitable in their own right.

There was an interesting piece on R4 Pm last night...

The polarisation of views re UK industry, decline and politics tends to focus on the politicians and unions - less emphasis is generally placed on the equally culpable management...

... and even less on the banking industry..

Without wanting to flog a (currently) popular whipping post, the commentator compared UK and German investment bank activities during the 70s and 80s. In Germany the banking sector resolutely backed - ie provided investment for, German manufacturing industry. In the UK, the banking sector were chasing "sexier" offshore opportunities and largely ignored investment in the UK.

Now, in part, this will be due to the role of Govt funding in UK Nationalised industries and private capital in German private industry, but even so the discussion exposed the stark contrast in the levels of investment in the UK.

rkk01. Agree with your comments regarding difference in Govt/banking funding for UK and Germany.
UK financial sector has a very long history but from it's start was about funding the trading nation that we are (once were, if you disagree), this meant a system of fairly quick returns on investments. That is the culture here (i'm being broad with this).
German investments for Govt/bank funding has it historical base in rebuilding after the war. Long term low interest loans from private and state funded national and regional banks. This was to get manufacturing restarted with investment in factories and the damaged production machinery. Given the need to make things happen and who was next door and recent history(then), the politic's of the left and right were very low down the list of what was important with the main stream government. State or private you could all get support.

For stupid reasons manufacturing has been looked at as dead end and not the place to invest money or a career, even by the off spring of the founders of companies (that funded their education). Germany is different, manufacturers are important, engineers qualified and respected. I'd like to see a similar attitude in the UK, I'm not holding my breath.

When you have a 98% marginal tax rate on investment income, as the UK did, there wasn't a huge incentive for private capital to invest in the UK.

Musings that may be relevant. They are from memory so may not be entirely accurate:

The profit in manufacturing doesn’t come from making widgets. It comes from having the idea and licensing someone else to make the widgets. This is the model that a lot of UK businesses try to follow.

Dyson employs more people in the UK now its manufacturing is abroad than it did when the stuff was made here.

Some in the automotive industry believe the world only needs about 5 car manufacturing plants. The UK automotive industry is extremely competitive. It now exports cars to Japan.

One of the major costs in manufactured goods now is transport of the finished item. Although significant, wage differences are becoming less so. If transport costs continue to rise there may be a shift back to making more stuff locally. (This is what the brewing industry has always done, as their product is mainly water).

I’m told that British trained mining engineers are recognised as among the best in the world. They just don’t do much mining in the UK any more.

and when Germanies economic miracle that everyone is lamenting over as why we arent like them is built on 30% of the workforce on less than the OECD poverty level then it starts to explain a lot, that and that the Germans are using the Euro to devalue their products abroad helps again explain their exports.
So the Uk isnt as bad as you might imagine when it comes to manufacturing and work.
and when you compare to places like Spain whrere I am with 25% unemployment and no talk of an economic up turn, with british management held in the highest regard for the sector I'm in then were a pretty brilliant country that is doing pretty well in the world.

It comes from having the idea and licensing someone else to make the widgets

Would the mining industry still be going in 2013 if M. Thatcher hadn't stopped it all ?

Mines closed during Harold Wilsons' premiership - 212
Mines closed during Margaret Thatcher's premiership - 25

So in answer to your question, I doubt it. Seeing as the damage had already been done, annd as the great lady herself said, there's no point in supporting failing business.

Would manufacturing still be active in 2013?

Exqueeze me? Baking powder?

Toyota, Nissan, JCB, Airbus, Rolls Royce, Bentley, Aston-Martin, Jaguar-Land Rover, BAE Systems.

Shall I go on? OK then - Vosper-Thorneycroft, Handley-Paige, Bombardier, Honda, Outo-Kumpu, Glaxo-Smith-Klein, Procter & Gamble, Akzo-Nobel.

Not to mention the thousands of sub-contractors that these companies use.

Granted, they aren't all British companies, but they've had the good sense to invest in the UK. No manufacturing in Britain? Pull the other one...

Why have Honda, Nissan, BMW etc all invested in UK car plants?

Massive government subsidies and tax breaks.

Next question, please.

Mines closed during Harold Wilsons' premiership - 212
Mines closed during Margaret Thatcher's premiership - 25

Again- can we post sources of info. Thats a bloody bit of info but we need to know where the data came from. If it was a Toryblogsite for instance created in someones bedroom or the Economist.

When figures etc are publishes on any argument I always want to know their source. 🙂

I'd like to see the source for that too. But also, I'd like to see it beefed up with some figures on productivity and job losses.

Massive government subsidies and tax breaks.
which dosent happen in the rest of the world?
lets hope the government can do more with tax breaks etc to bring in more investment.

as the Germans allow most of their workforce to work for peanuts. and the euro to subsidise their exports.