How is holding a knife to the throat of the government saying pay us or we'll add to your economic woes any more legal than a kidnapper asking for ransom money for the safe return of the victim?
Who's to say that the car firm won't collapse even if it does get the cash injection?

Mark

The government has a vested interest in keeping people in work, and letting a factory full of skilled workers sign on isn't a good thing - there's also the people who rely on the factory for orders, metal suppliers, maintenance contracts, stationary orders...



Well nobody. But then who's to say your putative kidnap victim won't be run over by a bus on their way home?

We really should not be doing this for large companies with more access to funds than small business. I would rather see extra support being given to small companies that actually create jobs. A big company that threatens its host nation should be killed like any parasite.

The government also has a vested interest in preventing terrorism, but they always say they won't negotiate with terrorists.

We don't build things in this country, because we can't compete with other countries who build things. That's just evolution. Providing our economy replaces the manufacturing jobs with equivalent skill and pay levels in whatever industry we can be competitive in, I can't see a problem beyond nostalgia.

If we had freer movement between countries, anyone of a particular skillset would have the choice to go wherever the market was most buoyant for said skillset. Unfortunately, that's often not possible. In any case, the move of manufacturing is down to cost, which is in turn down to consumers who live down the road from the redundant manufacturing employee and just want the moon on a stick for no money.

Our entire system is unsustainable as it is, but it'll last at least long enough to make sure everybody gets Prof's £5.50 call centre jobs.