buctootim

In many areas you are as ignorant as Wes. No mean feat. Ford, in common with all other multinational manufacturers will go where access to markets are best, costs are lowest and the incentives greatest. Having manufacturing plants in a country with an uncertain access to the single market and a fluctuating currency different to that used in its principal market are major disincentives. As for its decline, odd then that its number of employees is rising, its the leading brand in the UK and its sales are up. http://www.statista.com/statistics/297324/number-of-ford-employees/ http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-news/industry-news/ford/uk-2015-car-sales-analysis-winners-and-losers/

Actually it states it is due to its customers choosing other engines in its portfolio - and the choice is because of the price Ford markets one model model compared to another.

And so it begins. Ford cut planned investment. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-37286883

So it is necessary then. Goodo

The bad news about this company is so widespread even the slackest due diligence couldnt have missed it. Its either incompetence or desperation for cash, any cash, no matter how badly it smells.

So you think Data Protection and communications privacy should only apply to exporters? You can tout around peoples personal details no problem as long as its in country?

Partly rightly mostly wrong. Poor management, lack of investment and low quality product were the major problems. One example Ive got two friends who worked as managers in British car plants in the late 1970s and 1980s - Fords and BL. When the companies found production exceeded sales because they couldnt sell their poorly designed, poor quality product and were losing sales to German and Japanese imports (VW Golf, Honda Concerto or Austin Allegro? hmm) they would provoke a strike - by sacking a union official for example. After three weeks when the backlog was cleared they'd reinstate the official and production resumed. Much cheaper than sending people home on pay. Odd that Honda (1979) and Nissan (1984) never had any problems don't you think?

You start with 1 and they have zero. Then they tell you how you're going to be a millionaire if you give them 1. Then they have 1 and you have 0.

Read through the list properly. Many of the 30 recommendations are to make EU harmonisation of regs work better (ie less national difference not more) and to advertise existing schemes better. Others are simply reducing food and environmental protection standards and the rights of temporary workers. I have no doubt many on the Tory right / UKIP would welcome sweeping away many of the benefits of the single market and the rights and protections we currently enjoy in order to return to the low cost, low quality, low standards UK industry we used to have pre EU. Thats what got us into the hideous 1960s/70s mess in the first place and ended up with us being bailed out by the IMF.

At least we've trumped all those other clubs sponsored by online gambling and payday loan companies. We're the sleaziest!

He might have, but somebody else in Parliament has probably fu cked it

Thats just another Brexit myth. Most of the regulations have nothing to do with exporting. Its 'fitness for market things' like electrical safety, guarantee periods, disposal of hazardous waste etc. I defy you to go through the regs and find pointless bureacracy. Its just another right wing Chimera. Yes a lot of the regulations are EU - because we have tasked them with producing a large part of our regulations for 45 years. If we leave the burden wouldnt fall it would either increase or remain the same. Why? because we'd either have to invent our own regs - in which case exporters would have to produce to two different standards, or we'd keep the same EU regs in which case its just another example of nothing changing and 'freedom' being nothing more than an illusion.

There isnt going to be a major reduction in immigration - at least not as the result of government action. Never was going to be. The only difference is that Remain didn't pretend they would do something about it.

Interesting definition of 'decisive' too. 27% of the population, 35% of the electorate.

Its got to be better than the 'Curiously Cinnamon' cereal I bought the other day.

Bless. Wes tries so hard to score he doesn't care which end its at.

If May had made a success of reducing non EU immigration then I would have had less opposition to Brexit. Excessive immigration is a real problem for Britain. As Home Secretary May failed to reduce numbers even when it was easy to do so - for example those coming on student visas but not leaving at the end of their courses - some 100,000 pa according to Radio 2 this morning. Thats why for me leaving the EU was pointless - you get all the pain but the promised gains don't materialise.

Its Dog Schitt or Cat Schitt on the menu. Which one are you opting for Johnny?

One of the central planks of the Brexit campaign was that large scale immigration of unskilled labour stopped the young from getting first jobs and depressed working class wages. Its true, it does. A points based system is used where you want immigrants to have skills and education which are useful to the country but where the workers arent available locally. Ruling it out effectively signals we are going to have a quota system - continue to import unskilled low paid labour and screw many of those who voted for Brexit.

You're treating the 27 countries as if they are one big lump with one common interest. They aren't. Germany has a huge interest in maintaining free access to the UK market because they have very large exports but its in a minority of one. The 26 other countries largely don't - France for example would love to see tariffs on Nissans, Hondas and Toyotas to give protection to domestic producers. Poland, Romania, Czech Republic, Baltic States etc are more interested in protecting the rights of their citizens and free movement of labour than their comparatively small export trade.

Overall Im happy too. Im just a bit concerned Les has developed a belief that he / the club have got the Midas touch and that you can always replace successful managers and players with no problem and no risk.

Hmm. Choices choices. Who to get on a freebie - Wilshere or Pied?

Agree with this. Why not just be open and say "we're paying down debt / planning for a new ground / paying off contracts etc but we will be nett spenders again next year" (or whenever). Most fans appreciate the truth and are alienated by CL crap that is totally detached from reality and the club's actions.

Oddly enough other clubs also have scouts who identify good young players and CEOs who drive hard bargains. Like it or not there is a relationship between what you spend and the quality of what you get. Thats why the top spenders are also consistently the top clubs.

Exactly. If we're serious about competing for the top six we should on average be matching comparable clubs like Leicester and West Ham.