Private Eye and Teesside freeport

If one has an opinion that is a based on a falsehood then surely it's ok to call that out.

This 'opinion' argument has cost this country dear over the last few years with commentators on the TV / radio spouting all sorts of rubbish about the EU, Brexit, Covid, Climate Change etc all under the banner of 'opinion' when it is basically bollox.

If we are going to have decent debate then let's base our opinions on evidence, not proven falsehoods.
 
Manufacturing is now a fraction of our economy because we are a service economy. When Blair took over it accounted for 20% of our economy in GDP and when he left 10%

To be honest if you’re trying to tell me otherwise I can’t be bothered continuing.

Like I said this has been done a million times.
A rather strange response. First of all I didn’t say you were incorrect. Secondly I gave a counter point to which you have conveniently chosen to ignore. And if you don’t want to bother continuing I am sure many reading this thread would be very relieved frankly.
 
Manufacturing output in the last 15 years or so has been at its highest but with the ability to trade easily with our biggest and nearest trading partner gone and the fact that a free trade deal with the US is “years away” at least then who are we going to sell to apart from ourselves?. It’s a cluster fcuk of a situation now and output is only going to go one way.
 
Manufacturing is now a fraction of our economy because we are a service economy. When Blair took over it accounted for 20% of our economy in GDP and when he left 10%

To be honest if you’re trying to tell me otherwise I can’t be bothered continuing.

Like I said this has been done a million times.
That makes it sound like we're an outlier in terms of manufacturing as a percentage of our economy.

Other than Germany, we're very similar in terms of the manufacturing to services ratio. We are at 10%, France is at 11% and USA 12%.

Italy is higher at 17% but I'm not sure I'd swap their economy for ours.
 
I think some have focused in on one of the points I made about production. When the larger point I was trying to discuss is that successive governments have followed a Neoliberal globalist agenda. Which is fine but there are always going to be winners and losers. I also think America and other western nations have similar problems so this isn’t just a UK problem. Maybe not Germany’s because they have a thriving export economy

Reading some of the last few comments you’d think production in the UK was the big success story of the last 40 years.
Of course it's not a UK problem, the West as a whole opted for cheap manufacturing imports at the expense of their domestic industries, it was all based on cost alone yet we're now seeing the real cost to society.

The phrase coined at the outset was that Thatcher and Co knew the cost of everything and the value of nothing, it hit the nail on the head.

Our dog eat dog approach in the UK hasn't been shared elsewhere in the West, it's why you see countries developing as ours treads water or slides backwards. We're still one of the wealthiest countries in the world but large swathes of it are looking more like underdeveloped countries. It's a similar story in USA.
 
Of course it's not a UK problem, the West as a whole opted for cheap manufacturing imports at the expense of their domestic industries, it was all based on cost alone yet we're now seeing the real cost to society.

The phrase coined at the outset was that Thatcher and Co knew the cost of everything and the value of nothing, it hit the nail on the head.

Our dog eat dog approach in the UK hasn't been shared elsewhere in the West, it's why you see countries developing as ours treads water or slides backwards. We're still one of the wealthiest countries in the world but large swathes of it are looking more like underdeveloped countries. It's a similar story in USA.
I always describe us as half-arsed.

Whatever we do, we sort of muddle through and know the cost of everything but the value of nothing.

Think about any major project that is/was planned and the cost always escalates over time as reality bites and overrides the 'do as little as possible to make it work' plan.

The main problem under the Tories especially has been low productivity and this government have no plans to solve this problem; they expect that business will 'invest' to take care of this, without giving them any reason to do so.
 
Would devolvement of power to the regions be beneficial and make positive change to the region?
Like the French have "Departments"?
Give tax-raising powers to those Regional departments(y)
The North East, like the North West and the North know their areas, demographics and needs much better than any suit in Whitehall.
Peoples republic(s) to the fore I say! ✊
 
Houchen getting pelters on twitter
He'll be hitting the 'block' button a lot today.

Look at JRM in Commons today, pushing through lifting the ban on fracking despite hostile opposition on both sides of the Commons, and with the practice basically proven to be a dead end as an option for the UK (compared to the US, which has the vast land expanses to make it work). You just have to ask 'what's in it for him?' and work out who he has connections with and what back alley deals have been made, and for how much. Because there is a generation of Tory MPs who have realised if you stick your chin out and just ignore any feelings or doubt or shame, you'll eventually get your payout. A means to an end.

I fear it will turn out to be the same with Houchen and other loudmouths in the Redcar and Cleveland area.
 
Notwithstanding Houchens corruption in the form of cronyism and land grabbing, is anybody conflicted on the actual dredging of the port?
On one side of the argument we have the dredging company who insist that they will keep and store any harmful material and only allow the harmless stuff to wash out to sea, and the agency which was called in to investigate the cause of death of the sea life washing up on our beaches stating that in their opinion the culprit is most likely algae.
On the other side we have those who have seen with their own eyes the dead sea creatures and correlate that with the dredging operations and so apportion blame to that operation. Without further evidence it is possible to find both arguments believable.

Then we have the reasons for dredging. Firstly there is the new dock being built to accommodate the new wind farm piling manufacturing plant - reportedly the biggest of its kind in the world. Secondly, the Tees is one of the biggest ports in the UK and has a capacity for greater expansion. This could encourage more manufacturing companies to build a presence on Teesside and increase the number of well paid jobs in the area by thousands, in manufacturing, on the docks and in cutting edge industries like Green Hydrogen production.

So the worst case scenario is that the dredging is unleashing pollutants and that these are causing the deaths in sea life.
However, we know (because they have given us reasurances) that the dredgers will put great effort into storing the harmful materials.
We know also that if the pollutants below the river bed are to blame, that one day they will dissipate and that the coastal waters around Teesside will return to normal along with the numbers of crustaceans .

So the questions are:-

a. Do we halt the dredging and protect a handful of underpaid fishing jobs through a period of temporary hardship and possibly forfeit our chance of maintaining our place at the cutting edge of new industries and increasing the number of jobs in more traditional industries, by losing out to other parts of the country?
b. Do we crack on and try to maintain and increase the industries that the majority of us have earned our living in?

In short, do we want to be an area of modern heavy industry, or a fishing port?
 
So the worst case scenario is that the dredging is unleashing pollutants and that these are causing the deaths in sea life.
However, we know (because they have given us reasurances) that the dredgers will put great effort into storing the harmful materials.
Worst case is life in the sea is wiped out permanently or that the pollutants enter the food chain and poison humans. Isn't Teesside already toxic enough? Vast swathes are already so polluted as to be uninhabitable. Do you think that making it worse is a selling point these days?

Who is this 'they' who have given assurances and how would they store harmful materials? 'They' would first have to identify the pollutants and then find somewhere (on land presumably) to safely store the material. This would cost millions, if not tens of millions and delay any project by months if not years. It would not happen and you'd have to be gullible or complicit to say that it would.
 
Notwithstanding Houchens corruption in the form of cronyism and land grabbing, is anybody conflicted on the actual dredging of the port?
On one side of the argument we have the dredging company who insist that they will keep and store any harmful material and only allow the harmless stuff to wash out to sea, and the agency which was called in to investigate the cause of death of the sea life washing up on our beaches stating that in their opinion the culprit is most likely algae.
On the other side we have those who have seen with their own eyes the dead sea creatures and correlate that with the dredging operations and so apportion blame to that operation. Without further evidence it is possible to find both arguments believable.

Then we have the reasons for dredging. Firstly there is the new dock being built to accommodate the new wind farm piling manufacturing plant - reportedly the biggest of its kind in the world. Secondly, the Tees is one of the biggest ports in the UK and has a capacity for greater expansion. This could encourage more manufacturing companies to build a presence on Teesside and increase the number of well paid jobs in the area by thousands, in manufacturing, on the docks and in cutting edge industries like Green Hydrogen production.

So the worst case scenario is that the dredging is unleashing pollutants and that these are causing the deaths in sea life.
However, we know (because they have given us reasurances) that the dredgers will put great effort into storing the harmful materials.
We know also that if the pollutants below the river bed are to blame, that one day they will dissipate and that the coastal waters around Teesside will return to normal along with the numbers of crustaceans .

So the questions are:-

a. Do we halt the dredging and protect a handful of underpaid fishing jobs through a period of temporary hardship and possibly forfeit our chance of maintaining our place at the cutting edge of new industries and increasing the number of jobs in more traditional industries, by losing out to other parts of the country?
b. Do we crack on and try to maintain and increase the industries that the majority of us have earned our living in?

In short, do we want to be an area of modern heavy industry, or a fishing port?
I tend to agree with BBG that the dredging has to proceed. The dredging is not producing the pollulants (unlike fracking) but as he says possibly releasing them after the were deposited maybe 60 years ago. What I would like to see is more honesty and openness and actions to minimise the negative affects on sea life.
 
Would devolvement of power to the regions be beneficial and make positive change to the region?
Like the French have "Departments"?
Give tax-raising powers to those Regional departments(y)
The North East, like the North West and the North know their areas, demographics and needs much better than any suit in Whitehall.
Peoples republic(s) to the fore I say! ✊
Roofie

My answer is Yes - Its happened and happening in Scotland.
 
I've been thinking along those lines too. Freeport or not, we do want the port to expand and we do need to attract more industry to the area. The building of a new quay for the offshore wind farm industry is good news. The jury is still out over whether the dredging has caused the death of the crustaceans but we need some balance here too. The sealife will recover so do we need to protect a few fishing jobs at the expense of the port's future when fishing employes very few people on fairly low wages for what they do?
It's not a few fishermen but rather the tourist industry to Saltburn when people are being warned not to go near the sea
 
Back
Top