Friday, 25 October 2013

Left try to baffle with bullshit - Grangemouth bailout: Did Ineos screw the taxpayer of £134million? - Daily Record

However much complexity the Daily Record raise around the accounts and tax situation, the key point is that the shareholders believed their money could be better used elsewhere.

Grangemouth bailout: Did Ineos screw the taxpayer of £134million? - Daily Record

I used to play chess. I was taught that when playing against a much better player, my only chance of winning was if my (superior) opponent made an error. I was further instructed that a much better player would not make a mistake against my normal 'sensible' game, so the tactic to employ was to make the game as complicated as possible. A complicated game also made it more likely that I would make an error - but with out the complexity I was going to lose anyway!

A similar tactic comes up in politics - especially (but not exclusively) in broken left-wing politics. When an argument cannot be won the opponent will create a fake, complex, web of arguments to divert attention from their obvious failure.

This story in the Daily Record is an example of just such a tactic.

You must remember that Ineos the owners of the Grangemouth plant had left their chair, put on their coat and were going out the door - they had walked away from the plant as a business. There was no path for them to reopen negotiations, it was game over from their side. Ineos shareholders had decided that their money (£00's of millions) could be better used elsewhere than at the Grangemouth plant under the unions terms. End Of.

The story in the Daily Record seeks to suggest that there was lots of profit to be made from Grangemouth, they are suggesting that the Ineos shareholders turned away from those big profits - but can make no suggestion as to why the shareholders would do that.

However much complexity the Daily Record raise around the accounts and tax situation, however scheming they paint the shareholders as being, however cunning and duplicitous they paint the shareholders as, the key point is that the shareholders believed their money could be better used elsewhere and were taking it with them.

The Shareholders were not cunning - they simply decided to put their money where it would get the best return - that was not at Grangemouth under union control. The shareholders were simply rational, the Unions were simply incompetent and arrogant.

If persuading Ineos to reopen their offer has cost the taxpayer - i.e. the taxpayer has had to pay for an offer that was available *free* only days earlier - then that cost is directly attributable to Len McCluskey and his Unite union - and if that is the case, and I had my way, the union would be surcharged every penny of that cost to reimburse the innocent taxpayer.

4 comments:

  1. Alternatively Ineos knew exactly what they were doing. Holding a gun to the head of workers, the Scottish and UK governments, Ineos got exactly what they wanted. Lower costs, government handouts and even more profit fro the "shareholders" (sic) from a plant they never had any intention of closing

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you won't be voting for politicians/parties who you think are so easily manipulated in future?

      Delete
  2. The Unions have lost it all the way. Not only in this industry, but every industry their neanderthal minds are associated with. In Lancashire and Yorkshire they did nothing to persuade mill owners that investment in technology was better than the cheap alternative, proved to be the destroyer of cultural and ethnic evolution and the indigenous people, via mass immigration of less educated Third World people.
    The result has been a distortion of costs for education, health, Defence and a need to concrete over an already over populated set of islands. In a similar set of islands, because they refused to allow mass immigration as a panacea for their destroyed industries, they now have a situation of a dwindling ethnic population which can be and will be survived by a robust and highly capable new Japanese generation. They have the certainty of knowing precisely who, why and what they are which cannot and will not be said about the White, Asian, Black, African, Polish. Romanian etc..etc British.
    And we'll still have the troglodytes who believe we can have industries with no markets to sell to. I.E. the Unions and their socialist masters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks - a very interesting comment.

      I think the Unions problem is the same as most institutions (especially charities) - they were created for 'good' reasons by people who cared, but then the institution takes on an identity of its own and ends up serving its own purposes being run for its own benefit - the original purpose for them being ignored.

      Delete