[Closed] The unbearable sadness...

How many employees does a Centerparcs or an Alton Towers have? A few hundred? It's simply not going to provide employment at anything like the same scale. Even during the 1980s there were upwards of 20,000 employed in the South Wales coal field. Tourism may mitigate the decline, but it surely won't reverse it.
EDIT: And most tourism jobs are seasonal, casual, or both. A motor racing circuit may provide employment to a fair few people, but for how many days a year?

People have to be sooo literal don't they? 🙂 No of course tourist initiatives like centreparcs (who would provide several hundred direct and probably another 200 indirect jobs) won't save the area on their own. But combine them with decent schools, grassroots business investments and other things like decent leisure facilities that make people see the point in staying and the point in working there and the area sustains itself. The days of mass industrial employment are gone forever. That doesn't mean that the communities that exist there and the people that make up them should be abandoned.

This isn't just a UK problem; look at America's Rust Belt, particularly Detroit, which is almost a ghost city now.
There was a documentary on Detroit not so long ago about the imigration of young whites (fixie riding hipsters / 'creatives') to the city over the last 5 years displacing the previous black population who'd worked in the car factories who had now moved on (either retired to the countryside, or followed the work out of town).

There was a similar report on London, and how waves of imigration ripple outwards, with a net imigration of whites into some central/eastern parts of London for the first time in decades, whilst areas like Dargernham in Essex were experienceing the reverse as other ethnic groups who'd moved to London since WW2 retired and moved out to the subburbs and country.

Forbes put Detroit Mayor Dave Bing on its cover in 2011 for a story with the optimistic headline: “City of Hope.” The premise was that the city had hit rock bottom and was poised for a turnaround.

“Right now, it’s all about survival,” Bing told Forbes.

Two years later, Detroit’s problems continue to multiply, sadly. It is still dealing with high levels of violent crime and unemployment. Home prices, already at historic lows, plummeted a further 35% during the past three years to a median of $40,000 as net migration out of the city continued.

The latest blow was Tuesday’s announcement that the city is on the verge of being taken over by the state. Detroit is in a financial emergency and cannot pay its bills. The city has been issuing debt to fund day-to-day operations. The continuing problems propelled Detroit to the top spot in our 2013 ranking of America’s Most Miserable Cities.

There are a few peculiarities about the Valleys.

- It's a small area, for a start, so from a tourism perspective you won't have many destinations in it, unlike say the Lakes or Dales.

- The topography is also weird. It's a small area, but you can be 45 minutes away from somewhere that's just a few miles away on the map. This makes it really annoying to get around, and you are spending 45 minutes driving through either crappy towns or on bypasses and roundabouts. The overall experience of driving about is a bit frustrating and not that nice to look at. Which is why I think tourism is going to struggle. Transport really is a pain in the arse in the area!

- There are two big successful cities at the ends of the Valleys, Cardiff and Swansea. Cardiff in particular draws a lot of people to work there, and also people who work in Cardiff can buy houses in the Valleys to save money. So they become sort of suburbs. So business can locate in Cardiff where there are shiny new offices, a motorway, a main line train station, and all mod cons, and the workers can commute in. You can get from most places in the Valleys to Cardiff in less than 45 minutes by train, but if you want to get to a place just a few miles away in an adjacent valley it'll take you an hour and a half.

- There isn't much available land for large things like distrubution hubs or big warehouses - it's all either on a mountain side or down in the valley in smaller chunks alongside the river or town.

- Nowhere in the valleys is 'on the way' to anywhere. If you stick a factory or a hub alongside the M1 or M6 it's on the way to the Midlands, Scotland and London; it's in the middle of the motorway network. The valleys are on the fringe, really.

I think these things cause trouble for national or multinational businesses looking for sites.

The generalist is absolutely on the money there!! Look at the Labour Party FFS!!! Appealing to its core vote? Get a grip! All political parties are consolidating their position in the SE, to the total exclusion of the rest of the country! We just don't even register any more! Look at the money they're spending on HS2! Apparently to help the regions. Bollocks! In reality it will suck more business to London! Except we'll pay for the privilege!

The 'regions' will essentially become like China. A source of cheap labour to serve the 'core economy' in the south east. And our concerns will receive just as much consideration! in other words: we can all rot! As long as the independent nation state of Londinium continues to prosper! The detachment is almost there anyway. Look how real wages are being driven down. For everyone but the cosseted south east.

It's massively destructive to real lives and communities. But even the Labour Party has given up any pretence of representing the electorate, and merely carry out the bidding of a completely London centric elite who frankly couldn't give a toss about the rest of the country!

Democracy in action. Why bother chasing votes in the North or Wales when they are all safe seats?

The geography of the SE is unque though, and I think it's going to be really difficult to do anything about that.

The 'regions' will essentially become like China.

Will be? That's exactly what they were!

In the future we'll all be in service industries, and people will eventually realise that we can work remotely from all over the country. Technology will save the provinces I reckon.

Like it or not Binners, London is the heart of the UK economy. If you have any better ideas please share!

Like it or not Binners, London is the heart of the UK economy.

And the financial services industry is the heart of London's economy. Last I heard they were receiving billions and billions of pounds of state handouts.

How much had they previously contributed in the past? Not just in tax...

How much had they previously contributed in the past? Not just in tax...

How about you tell me.

It's not much good paying lots of tax if you then get it all back in handouts and ruin the wider economy in the process though is it. The City of London is a cancerous blight on our society and we'd be much better off as a poorer country that wasn't in thrall to those greedy crooks.

Well I don't know, and neither do you. I suspect the amount that they have grown the UK economy over the last 20 odd years vastly outstrips anything we have given them recently, but I am not an economist.

I do not agree with your assessment that we'd be better off without the City.

I suspect the amount that they have grown the UK economy over the last 20 odd years vastly outstrips anything we have given them recently

For who's benefit?

You don't have a problem with the fact that we have decided to base our economy on high stakes financial gambling and money laundering for terrorists and drug cartels - then we employ those responsible in well-paid and powerful jobs (like trade minister Philip Green)?

The Prime Minister said that former HSBC boss Lord Green had done a “superb job” re-focusing Government efforts on export, pushing forward trade agreements, including the planned US-EU trade deal, and had secured “vital investments”, including the redevelopment of Battersea Power Station.

Lord Green, 65, who will retire from the Government in December, said his two-and-a-half-year stint as Trade Minister was “one of the most rewarding roles” of his career, even though it was not without difficulties.
A year ago, he was accused of having “serious questions to answer” after a US Senate Committee found that HSBC had allowed money laundering by rogue states and terror groups. Lord Green expressed his “regret” for the failures at HSBC as the bank apologised for having “sometimes failed to meet the standards regulators and customer expect”.

Our PM is here seen kissing the arse of a guy who has personally enriched himself by washing the dirty money from terrorists and drug cartels - no doubt he is receiving a tasty state pension when he should be seeing the inside of a prison cell! This is all fine to you presumably?

The dominance of the city corrupts our government totally and we're all complicit in it.

You don't have a problem with the fact that we have decided to base our economy on high stakes financial gambling and money laundering for terrorists and drug cartels - then we employ those responsible in well-paid and powerful jobs (like trade minister Philip Green)?

I'm not saying I don't have a problem with it. But we are where we are, and it's impossible (and pointless) to debate what we should've done 20 years ago.

And you're rolling a lot of issues into one big angry ball there. You're right to be upset, but it's more of a rant than a socio-political discussion about how to solve problems.

But we are where we are

It's this kind of attitude that perpetuates the problem though!

You're right to be upset, but it's more of a rant than a socio-political discussion about how to solve problems.

Yes a bit of a rant - but what were your suggestions of how to solve problems again? My suggestion is that we should strongly consider how to move away from basing our economy on a corrupt, greedy, financial elite housed in a tiny fraction of the country. This would have a number of knock-on benefits, including allowing the regions (on which London's wealth was built) to escape the stranglehold it has on our economy.

It's not going to happen though - partly because people just shrug their shoulders and go 'oh well that's just how it is'.

You don't have a problem with the fact that we have decided to base our economy on high stakes financial gambling and money laundering for terrorists and drug cartels

I forgot about the arms trade too. 😐

Just for the record, Blaina's a very small village, the type with just the one high street, I guess most villages like that are struggling unless there in a very affluent area.

Blaina might be struggling a little to maintain its high street due to there being a Tesco in the next town south 4 miles away and a huge Asda about a mile to the north on a trading estate.

Only the pubs boarded up anyway! Closing pubs is a UK wide issue. Those shops in the pics were all open today....

Plus its got a cracking laundrette run by an ex-DH'er if anyone needs clean kit quick and cheap!

It's this kind of attitude that perpetuates the problem though!

Saying 'we are where we are' doens't mean we don't have to do anything. It means there's no point in getting aeriated over what's already happened.

But there are two points here:

1) Moving the economy away from finance - no idea how to do this. Hey everyone, please stop doing all this incredibly profitable stuff and do er.. well.. something else.. dunno what.

2) London isn't ONLY a financial city. It's a focal point for most businesses really. See, the UK is a funny old place. You can get to London in a few hours from most places, so you might as well do that. If you scatter businesses all over the country then they can't (or couldn't, historically) work so well together, which restricts growth and development. In really big places like the US, there are large centres all over the place because it's just too big for everyone to get together in the same place. If you are starting a business, and you could choose anywhere, would you choose to be next to all your other related businesses, or would you up sticks to the other end of the country? (That's rhetorical, I know what you'll say!)

Friends of mine who run a web design business have lost loads of trade when clients discovered they didn't have a London office and they'd have to schlep across the country. To achieve what you are saying you'd have to do the equivalent of taking a team out of a single office and putting them all in different buildings.

It's similar in most European countries actually, apart from I suppose Germany. Capitals grow into huge hubs that draw all the business. the only reason there's much of anything beside rural towns in the North or Wales is down to natural resource distribution.

The unfortunate reality is that most people are surplus to modern economics.

The small consolation is that many of the generation that were the most badly hit by de-industrialisation should by now be reaching pensionable age and will enter into a demographic that no government can ignore.

The unfortunate reality is that most people are surplus to modern economics.

So how come most people have jobs then ?

I'm just opening a new business in London. Why London not the valleys. Well the proximity to affluent customers, world
class universities, airports and the ability to attract international customers to "London". Sadly
I'd love to open in S.Wales or the North East but it would be a disaster in my business. That's the sad truth.

I'm just opening a new business in London. Why London not the valleys. Well the proximity to affluent customers, world class universities, airports and the ability to attract international customers to "London". Sadly I'd love to open in S.Wales or the North East but it would be a disaster in my business. That's the sad truth.

It's almost as if "poor people" were bad for the economy, you know, like if poor people had [i]more money[/i] perhaps it would boost the economy ...... makes you think, eh ?

Although the present government appears to be intent to do the complete opposite, ie, make poor people even poorer.....so who knows ?

Like it or not Binners, London is the heart of the UK economy. If you have any better ideas please share!

Well when a certain G Osbourne became chancellor, with public anger at its peak about pouring hundreds of billions of taxpayer pounds into the failed financial institutions previously feted as the Golden Goose, he stressed the need to reform the City, and re-balance the countries economy. Remember his 'March of the Makers' speech?

Anyone seen any evidence of any of this? A single, solitary example? Any evidence of any kind of growth strategy in the 'real' economy whasoever?

Because all I've seen is the Bank of England pouring yet many more hundreds of billions into the banks in the form of QA. All of which has remained there, and not a penny of it has made it into the 'real' economy, in lending to business. All its done is just bolstered the balance sheets of the banks that got themselves into this mess in the first place, while they resume business as usual, completely unreformed. On they go with their previous casino banking practices, paying themselves obscene amounts in the process.

Well I don't know, and neither do you. I suspect the amount that they have grown the UK economy over the last 20 odd years vastly outstrips anything we have given them recently, but I am not an economist.

I do not agree with your assessment that we'd be better off without the City.

I admire your optimism. What worries me is they're not done with us yet by a long shot. All they seem to be doing at the moment is creating the perfect conditions for the next crash. They've changed nothing! Can we as a country afford to bail them out a second time? Because we'll be on the hook for it! That's for sure! We're acting as their guarantors, whether we like it or not. And don't they bloody know it?!

The interests of the city work against those of the wider economy. Take Krafts purchase of Cadburys for example. RBS - a bank, lest we forget, we own (whether we wanted too or not. I don't remember being asked. Personally I'm against nationalised industries. Reeks of socialism!), lends Kraft British Taxpayers money for a leveraged buyout of Cadbury's. They then close down the British operations, moving them abroad, putting British workers out of work. The increased benefits bill for them, we will now be picking up, of course.

I'm not familiar with Kraft's specific tax arrangements. But I'm willing to go out on a limb and guess that the sum total of **** all will now be being paid by them in tax, to the exchequer. But hey - some city institutions made a fortune in the deal in consultancy fees etc. so we're all richer, right?

Well... Maybe? if only those institutions didn't spend all their waking hours ensuring that they don't pay a penny of it in tax either

It's almost as if "poor people" were bad for the economy, you know, like if poor people had more money perhaps it would boost the economy ...... makes you think, eh ?

Although the present government appears to be intent to do the complete opposite, ie, make poor people even poorer.....so who knows

Surely the best way to get rid of poverty is to get rid of the poor ?

Remember his 'March of the Makers' speech?

No, I wasn't listening. I've told you this before - never listen to anything they say, look at what they do.

All they seem to be doing at the moment is creating the perfect conditions for the next crash.

How so?

Surely the best way to get rid of poverty is to get rid of the poor ?

That's not actually possible unless every single person has the exact same amount of money and assets...

That's not actually possible unless every single person has the exact same amount of money and assets...

That is not true of absolute poverty. Which is even less acceptable in an advanced democratic society than relative poverty.

Creating the conditions where every working person receives a living wage which provides an adequate standard of living without the need for supplementary benefits [i]is[/i] an attainable goal.

Although I fully accept that there is no political or popular desire to achieve this. To the detriment of everyone bar the privileged few.

imho

I'm American, and I live near Pittsburgh.

We have the same problems with towns and cities where industry has left as the UK does. Some have successfully managed the transition and are prospering; others have not.

Detroit is going through what Pittsburgh did in the 1970s and 80s, though it seems worse in Detroit. The steel industry and related ones were the economic backbone of Pittsburgh. Then, the US steel industry collapsed for a long list of reasons. Some mill sites are abandoned wastelands, and other have been successfully redeveloped. But it has taken 20, 30 or even 40 years.

Steel is no longer a significant industry in Pittsburgh. The economy has diversified. Universities and hospitals are the biggest employers now. Only in the last few years has the city population decline stopped. But now, younger people are moving into the city.

And we also have smaller towns that were built for a single mine or manufacturing plant that has long since closed. Some are run down skeletons, others are doing better. There's no easy answer or quick fix, thought.

Google urban regeneration - very interesting subject on what makes it successful and vice versa. Work in economics and geography disciples normally good, plus the Rowntree Fdnt. has some interesting stuff.

The rebalancing of UK econ is happening albeit slowly. But the simple bank bashing is simply misguided, especially from Vince Cable who should know better. Don't forget how we pay for public services - taxation and borrowing. Without properly functioning capital markets/banks access to borrowing is compromised. So people need to be careful what they wish for!

Although I fully accept that there is no political or popular desire to achieve this. To the detriment of everyone bar the privileged few.

Is there a vested interest on both left and right to retain a level of relative poverty in a sector of our society ?

imho

 

Creating the conditions where every working person receives a living wage which provides an adequate standard of living without the need for supplementary benefits is an attainable goal.

Quite so, but I think most countries have a problem getting 100% there, don't they? We don't do as badly as all that, do we?

Don't forget how we pay for public services - taxation and borrowing.

Because we choose to.

Every time I turn a light switch on, a few pennies fall into the French government coffers. And every time I turn a water tap on, a few pennies fall into the Chinese government coffers.

We could nationalise EDF and Thames Water, for example, and use their vast profits to pay towards British public services instead of handing it over to the French and Chinese governments, but we choose not to.

Ernie - I'm not a rabid socialist, as I'm sure you know, but I do firmly believe that certain things should be nationalised. Utilities being one of them.

Ernie - I'm not a rabid socialist, as I'm sure you know

Well actually I didn't. But I did know that former Tory Prime ministers Harold Macmillan and Edward Heath weren't, and they both very strongly supported public ownership of "the family silver", as the Earl of Stockton liked to refer to the utilities as.

Of course in the case of EDF it is 85% publicly owned. It just happens to be the French public.

I think most countries have a problem getting 100% there, don't they? We don't do as badly as all that, do we?

Who knows we dont try and unemployment is a price worth paying

Don't forget how we pay for public services - taxation and borrowing. Without properly functioning capital markets/banks access to borrowing is compromised.

Interestingly it is the one industry so essential we will bale those it out at any cost. If we attack them [ its not like they got us into this mess and are doing next to nothing to get us out is it?] we get comments like this...ah The right wing gotta love their principles...if anyone can point out what the principle is here [ is it self interest??] then please let me know.

But I did know that former Tory Prime ministers Harold Macmillan and Edward Heath weren't, and they both very strongly supported public ownership of "the family silver", as the Earl of Stockton like to refer to the utilities as.

How things have changed eh..? I blame.. whatsername.. you know..

Who knows we dont try and unemployment is a price worth paying

Come off it. You're not making any sense.

Ok for you
1. We do not try and do full employment. Historically there was a post war commitment to full employment that lasted till roughly the 70's where folk had living wages and we did not [ generally] subsidise wages to make them "living".

2. The tory chancellor Lamont once said , rather famously, that unemployment was a price worth paying

I am suggesting we could do it if we GAS

Junkyard - lazarus
Aye good point I mean where would we be without the bankers

In a very difficult position *. One of the reasons why the whole European area (Euro and non-Euro) remains in a highly depressed state is that the banks are still buggered. Now of course, banking (and debt levels)became out of-synch and unsustainable, but that doesn't mean that we can do without them.

EDF makes a return on capital of just over 6% with debt almost 200% of equity. Hardly a vast profit making business?

Governments do not have money. They have to raise it from us (tax) or from markets (borrowing. And in our case (the UK) lots/too much (?) of the latter. So again, when we bash banks and capital markets, be careful what you wish for!

* especially with a gov that is relying (here nd elsewhere) on a loose monetary policy/tight (really?) fiscal policy mix.

edit: double post

Today Direct line insurance announced they where getting rid of 500 jobs in Liverpool, but at least we have the tourists.

The thing is we can never get back to full employment, look at all the steelworks, glass works, foundries, car factories,railway engine and carrige builders and other high users of the working classes have been desimated and or moved abroad.

Some enterprising people have gone the tourist route,showing kids down a mine, or an old factory, and telling them this is how your parents and grandparents used to work, making old british industries like some sort of disneyland theme park, then there are the trail centres, employing a few people, and bringing tourists into an area, llandegla and Blaenau Festiniog being 2 local ones, and hopefully the visitors spend some cash on B and B and in the local shops, supporting small buissneses.

Tourism and ofice jobs are not going to create 12,000 jobs like in the local steelworks, now down to about 600.

We could create construction jobs and build stuff, but how is that going to soak up thousands of desk jockey types,that are curently being made redundant, people who have never worked outside or on a construction site.

Then there is the 4 year apprenticeships to train fully qualified tradesmen, only the teenagers are going to go down that route.

But then cam says were all in it together, and forgets to insert the word "shit" in the sentance.

Rant over.

In a very difficult position.

Then there is the 4 year apprenticeships to train fully qualified tradesmen, only the teenagers are going to go down that route.

how many kids doa FT "apprenticeship at college " at a cost of circa £10 k per person [ 6 year old figures] in trade to which there are no jobs..construction, motor vehicle, hairdressing, beauty therapy, animal care, sports turfing etc

I hear it said all the time but training is no solution. i can train you to do anything but it matter not one jot if there are no jobs at the end of the training.

Colleges no this and and have become engorged cash cows. Look how much this industry has grown in the last 20 years funded largely by taxation
Training folk to do trades where jobs dont exist

Junkyard, would you be happy to thank the banks for periods of growth?

FWIW I dont really blame them for either tbh as capitalism is boom and then bust they/we/ politicians can no more stop it than they can stop the tide as a quick look at history will show you.

I object to not subsidising real jobs and real communities yet having to bale these ****ers out a because it would be far worse

Do you think this argument does not hold up for the valleys to get us dangerously bag on topic...only they were too costly to subsidise

I think the way the bankers are still getting bonuses and not hitting any lending targets does not endear them to the populus so find it idd when folk apologise/defend them.

JY - you will recall, that I consistently argued that the current problem facing the UK and others is one of excess leverage (ie, too much debt among households, corporates and governments). So I am hardly defending bankers, central banks, regulators etc that allowed the debt bubble to get out of hand. But that is only one part of the problem. The other part is that we need banks to work if current macro policies are going to work. The US grasp this, but the good old Europeans (yes my mates) didn't and hence prefer to allow banks to cover up the dire straights that they are still in. And then these masters think that loose monetary policy will work! Muppets! But as binners has stated above, they have created more bubbles with risk incorrectly valued. So much for people getting in the way of markets!!! 😉

Then there is the 4 year apprenticeships to train fully qualified tradesmen, only the teenagers are going to go down that route.

This is the biggest waste of money the givt spends

how many kids doa FT "apprenticeship at college " at a cost of circa £10 k per person [ 6 year old figures] in trade to which there are no jobs..construction, motor vehicle, hairdressing, beauty therapy, animal care, sports turfing etc

Full time apprenticeships at colleges are a bit pointless,you need real world experience of a work environmnet,then there are a huge swathe of university courses that cost a lot more, and give you a bit of paper ,but no work experience at the end of the course if you get an apprenticeship, you actually work for that company and attend college either part time or block realease, like i did.

Training people for non existant jobs is a waste of money, but training them with the skills required for a job are worthwhile for the people involved and for the companies who may employ them.

But then again where are these jobs going to come from.

I dont disagree with the employed route as long as they done use them for cheap labour then fire them off

For example an office admin apprenticeship - no offence but that wont take 2 years of training with day release to master the skills needed

I just object to the fact that college pull down loads of money to train folk for jobs that dont exist knowing they will never ever work in that industry ever.

See also the rise in training people to do "forensic Science" as another example

Sound production and media courses, along with games design and many more.

To many kids chasing dreams of the media, that dont exist.

teamhurtmore - Member

EDF makes a return on capital of just over 6% with debt almost 200% of equity. Hardly a vast profit making business?

Well in that case I feel indebted to the French government for unselfishly allowing EDF to keep British consumers supplied with electricity.

And all for a mere £1.7billion profit last year - a piddling little sum which would be of absolutely no use whatsoever to the British government. Obviously.

£1.7bn in isolation doesn't tell you anything. It could be a lot or a little depending on the capital employed in the business. In this case, it isn't a lot compared with the capital employed.

Why do they even bother eh ?

Makes you wonder doesn't it? No surprise that EDF share price is down 46% since it was listed when the market in France (Cac 40) is down 20%over the same period. Easy money?????? The poor old French government who own 80odd% of EDF!!!

A 7.5% increase in EDF UK profits last year and an 8.5% increase the previous year, all despite the economic downturn.

And yet the French government still wants to provide electricity to UK consumers ! What is the reason for such generous and altruistic behaviour ?

E_L, you know well enough that there is a difference between profits and profitability. Imagine they made 1p profit last year and 2p the next. 100% in an economic downturn. So what? Irrelevant. Still 2p(ignoring the capital employed for simplicity)

Compare the profits made by banks 2011 v 2012. Are they in good health despite the change?

edit: to put into context about the Fr government and price tariffs for EDF. From the WSJ:

Ms. Batho's reaction underscores the ongoing difficult economic equation for the French government which wants to preserve households' budgets during the dire economic crisis but also needs to grant EDF, which is state-controlled, [b]a means of economic profitability and [u]eventual viability[/u]. [/b]

My highlights!

OK mate, you've made your point - electricity supply is a business which anyone with any business sense wouldn't get involved in. So luckily the £1.7billion profit EDF made in the UK last year won't be going to the UK government.

I will leave you to decide if profits per se are important, or profitability ie, profits in relation to the capital employed. Seems we differ on this point!

Time for Newsnight now, to see dear Old George's performance analysed!!

EDIT: I guess if I was making £1.7 billion I would not be all that arsed to pin dance with my accountant about semantics as i reckon i could get by 😉

We are not talking about a £2 billion investment doubling profit from 1p to 2p - now are we? We are discussing billions of profits.

Compare the profits made by banks 2011 v 2012. Are they in good health despite the change

Perhaps we as a people and a govt could do more...I mean baling them out, quantitative easing, Merlin project and the rest was not enough for them.....and they are trying so hard to meet their end of the bargain arent they 😕

From the article you quoted in your edit teamhurtmore :

[i]The French government last year decided to cap power regulated tariff increases to 2% a year, to help protect households' spending power as much as possible. [/i]

Last December EDF increased its prices to UK customers by 10.8%.

So the French government is using price increases and profits from UK consumers to subsidise French consumers and protect [i]their[/i] living standards. Clever ****ers.

[url= http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20130605-702911.html ]French Govt Says Won't Allow Higher Recommended Power Tariffs [/url]

JY, please don't use that first comment if you are going for a CEO role! £1.7b on its own, tells you very little. Nothing to do with accountants, merely understanding what profitABILITY means.

Banks are not playing their part clearly. I referred to that earlier - hence the problem with current policy mix. But then again, we expect banks to lend despite the fact that they don't have enough capital to meet new standards. What's the phrase? Make your mind up, regulators!! What do you want, because you sure as hell aren't going to get both at the same time!

Not that simple Ernie, I'm afraid. That would require some pretty roundabout logic. Anyway, Nnight is boring and hospitals have tired me out. Bon nuit as those lucky (?) Frenchies would say!

Sound production and media courses, along with games design and many more.

To many kids chasing dreams of the media, that dont exist.

Er.... computer game design and creative arts (music, design etc) generally are quite successful export industries I believe.

Not that simple Ernie, I'm afraid.

Careful, you're only sounding moderately patronising here.

That would require some pretty roundabout logic.

You'd know all about that wouldn't you.

Not that simple Ernie, I'm afraid.

No its clearly very complicated. I can see that I'm just going to have to take your word for it, especially as you're so tired.

After all it takes "some pretty roundabout logic" to understand that it makes perfect sense for the French government to own a British utility company, but no sense at all for the British government to own it, and I just don't possess this roundabout logic.

JY, please don't use that first comment if you are going for a CEO role!

Earlier Wednesday, France's power regulator Commission de Regulation de l'Energie recommended that regulated tariffs are substantially increased as soon as this summer to help power producer Electricité de France SA (EDF.FR) match its production and distribution costs.

I thought this was pretty clear tbh especially the bit where the govt said no

computer game design and creative arts (music, design etc) generally are quite successful export industries I believe.

THM is doing pretty well trying to explain things to people who appear to know fk all about his subject, I applaud him for that 🙂

1. We do not try and do full employment.

I seem to remember reading that full employment is actually a bad thing for the economy in the long run, and everyone's actually worse off if we try for it. Of course, that's not the same as making some people long-term unemployed. If you have 0.5m unemployed each year, it's not necessarily the same 0.5m people.

2. The tory chancellor Lamont once said , rather famously, that unemployment was a price worth paying

A throw-away remark taken out of context by a **** 20 years ago - yeah good evidence, that's really sewn the debate up 🙂

THM is doing pretty well trying to explain things to people who appear to know fk all about his subject, I applaud him for that

Even if you think that's true, why does he have to be so pompous and condescending? I've read articles by Nobel-prize winning economists and they aren't constantly being massively patronising and trying to show off how much jargon they know, despite presumably knowing a fair bit more about the subject.

I didn't think he was being condescending.

If he was being condescending, I think he needs to increase his efficiency. I (and I'm sure, his shareholders) would have expected a far greater level of pomposity given the raw material he had to work with.

All I read was a pretty concise bit of information delivered in a light-hearted way. Poor show.

No he wasn't (but thanks mol!) And jargon use? Wow, to make the simple but important distinction between profits and profitability is hardly hiding behind jargon. And it is key.

But if it sounded patronising, then apologies (seriously). But for the grum, JY, Ernie troika to become overly sensitive about someone pointing out factual errors is a little bit funny when that seems to be one of their daily delights on STW!

But this is a thread about what to do in economically depressed areas such as certain parts of Wales. And the slight (unintended on my side) biff is valuable as it raises an important point about the role of government. Its easy to forget that governments do not have money on their own. They raise it from us and from those they borrow from. They have a responsibility to use that money in a sensible fashion, balancing often conflicting demands with the need ultimately to make a adequate return on both sources of funds. Successful urban regeneration does exactly that - most of the case studies show how different parties (public, private sectors, planners, local representatives etc) work TOGETHER to make successful projects work. This does not equate to throwing money down the drain or accepting bad investment returns - and to come back to EDF, yes a 6% ROCE when your cost of capital is circa 10% is a bad return. And who loses? The French taxpayer. So it really isn't that simple is it - and certainly not the case that the French government has devised this wonderful scheme to screw us to ensure that French people pay low utility bills. Perhaps that is why people much cleverer than me, writing in the WSJ conclude that something needs to be done to make the company viable eventually!

ernie_lynch - Member
especially as you're so tired.

Yes, you will have to excuse me. Tending to my closest relative dying in hospital is tiring I'm afraid. But thanks!

When we have our regular forays into subjects like this, THM's posts are the some of the most informative and unbiased. He's not condescending in the least IMHO

molgrips - Member

THM is doing pretty well trying to explain things to people who appear to know fk all about his subject, I applaud him for that

So has he changed your mind then molgrips ?

On the previous page you said :

[i]Ernie - I'm not a rabid socialist, as I'm sure you know, but I do firmly believe that certain things should be nationalised. Utilities being one of them. [/i]

teamhurtmore then waded in to claim that EDF's UK operations were an example of poor business performance and that their £1.7 billion profit last year was unimpressive.

Has this changed your mind that utility companies "should be nationalised" ?

If it has, it does indeed give testimony to the claim that he can "explain things to people who appear to know fk all about his subject".

Perhaps he can offer his services to the French government who presumably know **** all and should ditch EDF's UK operations, as it continues to make profit from British consumers ?

Whether a utility company should be in public or private hands is a different question altogether.

My point was to ask whether a £1.7b profit was good, bad or neither since on its own it cannot be determined. Given that the company's cost of capital will be around 10%, then generating a return that is 4 percentage points (400bp for the jargon!) below that (6%) is not good performance. But if you want to pay CEOs handsomely to deliver that then so be it. I wouldn't. Judging by the very poor returns from EDFs share price since listing (2x as bad as the average French company roughly speaking) other agree with me!

And who loses? The French taxpayer.

French taxpayers are subsidising British consumers ! Brilliant ! 😀

THM is doing pretty well trying to explain things to people who appear to know fk all about his subject, I applaud him for that

But if it sounded patronising, then apologies (seriously). But for the grum, JY, Ernie troika to become overly sensitive about someone pointing out factual errors is a little bit funny when that seems to be one of their daily delights on STW!

What would your reply be to the "over sensitive" factually incorrect if you did choose to patronise the hypocrits?
You cannot help yourself can you [ that rhetorical by the way]
For you to apologise in that manner is a proper face palm moment if genuine and snidey if deliberate.

Binners is correct you are very knowledgeable on this and far more knowledgeable than the rest of us but I assume you are used to dealing with folk who know less than you and I doubt this is your pedagogical style

Sorry for you personal situation at this difficult time

Junkyard - lazarus
Sorry for you personal situation at this difficult time

Thank you JY. We rarely agree (but nice when we do!) but at least you are a gent. Appreciate the comment, its a bloody tough time.

But on the rest - go back a page. My first comment is about the need for a functioning banking system and why IMO EDF is not a business making vast profits (with a clear reason why). This is followed by some sarcy replies which I responded to in a factual manner. After more sarcasm, the basic point was grudgingly conceded. You still seemed to have an issue about the £1.7b, hence the slightly exasperated comment about profitability and CEO roles (poor low blow, sorry!).

Re the "not that simple stuff" - well it isnt is? Late at night is not the time and STW is not the place to go into why not. Hence the comment. In hindsight, I re-read the next morning, and recognised that is could have been misread. Hence the apology. But yes, it is rich for you guys (who I enjoy debating with) to get so touchy. Perhaps grum, given his ability to master the works of nobel-award winning economist could provide us all with an explanation of how edf works? It would be good to know as I can't understand the complexities of how and to what extent UK electricity is subsidising other activities including - current and future nuclearr energy in the UK, the expense of decommissioning nuclear plants in France etc. Now the CEO of edf has stated that the UK and France electricity are run as independent energies. Ernie's comments suggest that he is being "economical with the truth" which in his position is very serious/illegal. So who is right?

I await the simple, easy to understand, explanation of how this all works. But for me, it remains "not that simple, I'm afraid." I hope grum can help us all.

THM do you actually work in the City? I only ask cos I am down there occasionally myself 🙂

Not any more, but do visit quite regularly and may be tempted back one day! It would be hard to read STW with the old job!!

Well quite, they do work you quite hard there!

Ernie's comments suggest that he is being "economical with the truth" which in his position is very serious/illegal. So who is right?

Economical with what truth ? I said I thought EDF's UK operations, along with other utilities, could be nationalised and their profits used by the UK government.

You posted a comment claiming that you were unimpressed with EDF's UK profits, fair enough you're entitled to say that, and I've got no problem with it.

So where exactly is the bit where I have been "economical with the truth" ?

Ernie, you suggested yesterday that UK customers may be subsidising French consumers (among the sarcy comments). The CEO has publically stated that the two businesss are run independently without cross-subsidisation. So I am suggesting that you believe that he ( not you!) is being less than honest. You may be right. In which case that is very serious. So if someone could explain simply we would all benefit, wouldn't we?

teamhurtmore - Member

I hope grum can help us all.

Some people would call that a highly patronising comment. Personally I couldn't give a monkeys as it greatly amuses me when people behave like that, although I suspect it might bother grum.

Anyway it's all a bit of a red herring and tangent to the topic/OP. The crux with edf and others is the extent to which nuclear power and renewables should be subsidised and the transparency issues that go with it. But that is another thread.

EDF's UK operations is wholly owned by the French parent company which is in turn 85% owned by the French government. Where exactly do you think the £1.7 billion profit EDF made in the UK last year went?

Good question. I had a look but found it hard to get my head round, but here you go....

Loads of funnies to get your head round there, but beyond me.....

Good question. I had a look but found it hard to get my head round

I'm sorry I assumed you knew since you appeared to be criticizing my comment.

Anyway what's the answer ? I feel confident enough with my theory that as a rule the profits of a company go to its owners not to be bothered to read EDF's annual report. Unless of course after reading it yourself you can tell me otherwise.

In the meantime I will carry on assuming that a significant amount of EDF's £1.7 billion UK profit goes to the French government.

Perhaps grum, given his ability to master the works of nobel-award winning economist could provide us all with an explanation of how edf works? .....
I await the simple, easy to understand, explanation of how this all works. But for me, it remains "not that simple, I'm afraid." I hope grum can help us all.

Can you explain how this refutes what he said?

why does he have to be so pompous and condescending? I've read articles by Nobel-prize winning economists and they aren't constantly being massively patronising and trying to show off how much jargon they know, despite presumably knowing a fair bit more about the subject.

TBh given the above I am not sure that you do intentionally but you do indeed do it [ not saying you are never provoked either to be fair]

I am pretty sure ernie knows he is doing it and is trying to but he is correct on this issue IMHO

TBh given the above I am not sure that you do intentionally but you do indeed do it

He's far more restrained than many on here, and you and ernie are two of the worst in terms of arguing style.