http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article5372774.ece

What makes you think that Tata won’t still do exactly that?

Assuming this is not taken out of context, you are advocating government ownership of a British car producer. I seem to remember something like this happeening in the past. British Leyland? How did that work out?

I wonder if its more along the lines of TATA suggesting they will let Land Jaguar fail unless they get cash. They own the IPR so they could just let the UK factories die and move them to cheaper places elsewhere.

MGs are made in China, so why not ?

The British Government, like the rest of the EU have bought into the Global Warming crisis – maybe they are right. I won’t pretend to be educated enough to make sense of all the conflicting arguments.

One thing for sure, we will soon be hearing a lot more about it from our own government, and will certainly following the GW line.

Neither have been British owned for a long time, and when they were British owned it was as part of the disaster we call British Leyland.

If they were still British government owned I think the Financial Times would demand immediate divestment. And I don’t think that the Financial Times would have much sympathy for a weak Jaguar and Land Rover under Ford.

“True, the UK car industry employs 190,000 people directly and supports several hundred thousand more once components and retailing are taken into account.”

That number includes Ford of Europe, Vauxhall, Mini, a number of Japanese transplant factories, Bentley, Rolls Royce, and the sole British owned company, Morgan.

Jaguar and Land Rover Probably employ 5,000 UK citizens and indirectly support another 7,000, at best.

That is not too big to fail, it is a good size for recievership. If Tata does not want to keep the company afloat a new buyer can.

Of course going by your argument if the TATAs have to bail out the company on their own fully, they might as well go the full distance and move all of the production to India, make use of cheaper labour and raw materials. As long as the TATAs are committed to keeping it a British company I dont see any reason for such jingoistic comments…

Wake up people. We are in a globalized economy.Very few companies are fully owned by individuals or groups from a single nation.. The government should only be concerned about the employees losing their jobs. Again by the same logic countries shouldn’t be doling out sops for foreign companies to set up shop there.If they want to setup a factory let them do it all alone.We’ll do nothing for them.Common sense says they will just go to some other place where the government will accept them with open hands and export their products to your country.

All I’m saying is this..if the government is going to bailout industry by means of loans then JLR shouldn’t be made an exception for the said reasons.

I’d feel a whole lot better if they were saying that the decision makes poor economic sense for whatever reason.

Tata bought the pig in the poke, and they should own it. It’s an illusion to think that British jobs will be protected by giving Tata money. The fact is not enough people are going to be ordering Land Rovers or Jaguars for the next year or so. That means no work for the British workers.

Any money is going to go to management, and the workers are going to be laid off anyhow.

True – the European governments have sometimes sorrily still some stakes left (from dark times) they will have to privatize the remains as soon as the market conditions allows. Besides – the British & US have no law requesting the copying of every stupidity anyone in the EU makes. Austria has “sold” (in fact given away for free & more) the partly state run Austrian Airline just days ahead and did not get money payed for, but has been forced to sweetened the deal to Lufthansa with € 500 $ 750 Million cash – just to get rid of all shares the state held.
They saw finally after continuous losses there is no way Gov. & Industry can work together – it was a very costly trial for the Austrian government & taxpayer.

To gamble with other peoples money that a Indian company would refuse money because there are strings attached is either childish or criminal – in any case getting he wrong way on the horse and hope that the horse finds a way to correct that. You underestimate the cleverness of a indian businessmen by a mile. Governments have no, I said no business in private companies matters. They simply fail all the time, repeatedly in a row without exception

If history is any guide, your mentioning that state and private industries / entities can work in harmony is not founded on any empirical data. Not even in a size of a proton one can hardly show any positive example.
Negative examples of failed trials to mix state and private matters are available daily in boatload sizes. The current financial housing crisis is in core a result of a failed trial of US government mixing private matters (housing for every bump no matter what, ignoring commercial fundamentals and the cost to others)- it took a while until the ceiling came down. But it started under Clinton, broke down under W.
Your proposing the same now.

The medical definition of insanity is trying the same failed approach repeatedly expecting another outcome.
A “green” approach, being nice to each other and hope for the best by mixing water and flame leaving anyone familiar with historic & empiric facts baffled – to say the least.

Government & industries can never ever work together as they have opposite mutual excluding aims.

andrichrose :
December 19th, 2008 at 9:00 am

Mandleson is saying that the money is just a loan
and will need to be repaid , however that will depend
on these companies making some money in the future,
at the moment I would say that is a pretty tall order !

Indeed.
They can never get profitable with the anchor of a government commissar as led on their feet. If the government hold shares in their fat and incompetent hands the outcome will be the same as with Austrian-Airlines – a total failure and huge losses are predictable- see same posting above.

I am English and have owned and run both Jaguar and
Land Rover cars in the past and feel that they are both
national institutions , however they are not cars for
these times and there has been precious little attempt
at moving them out from their 20th century technology,
like all other car companies their cars have become
bigger heavier and more costly to maintain , if you
compare the 1970s range rover to the current model
you can see what I mean !

At the end of the day these companies are now foreign
owned , and should be treated as such , I totally agree
with the opinion of the FT , they should not be bailed
out with taxpayers money , let TATA stick its hand in
its pocket !

The government should be the lender of last resort; not the lender of first resort to canny multinationals.

But seriously, I think we’re being too hard on Tata. How were they to know that Jag was a massive sink-hole for money, with scant prospects? I mean, look at the billions that British Leyland and Ford made from it… Oh, right.

Cheers

Malcolm

The French Government own 15% of Renault and the German government still have a hand in VW.

Believe it or not, government and industry CAN work together…..

Also, I love the way you’ve taken my quote and put it completely out of context.

If you’d taken my quote as a whole you’d see that I was advocating that if the UK government were to give Jaguar Land Rover some money, they’d have to attach conditions with it (i.e a stake in the company). That way, it’d make Tata think twice before accepting the money….

isn’t “harnessing public funds” for “green cars” a vested interest?

Still, if taxpayers are going to invest in auto companies, it should be as “secured creditors” with representation on the BOD.

The UK government should be using UK taxpayers’ money to support UK jobs. But we want a stake in Jaguar Land Rover or Tata itself.”

Nationalization of and directing of private entities by states get back in fashion.
Whooow…
How retro.
That’s one of the many things that Karl Marx, Hugo Chavez, Iosseb Bessarionis dse Dschughaschwili (Stalin) and George Walker Bush thought and have in common – we know the results.
Thank you.
One (in case of W two) time is enough

@Bertel Schmitt
Please share your wisdom with us and broaden my horizon – say it clear what I understand in-between the lines.
What is your problem with a FT reloading the flame thrower (rarely enough) when public interests and taxpayers money are at stake?

Tata is a Foreign owned Company making Jaguar and Landrover brands, probably soon to be moved to either India or some other Asian Country, so all Money given to them would be a total waste imho!

The UK government should be using UK taxpayers’ money to support UK jobs. That’s an idealogy which I subscribe to whole-heartedly. However, the UK government shouldn’t let Tata off the hook.

If I were the UK government, I’d say to Tata “OK, lads. We’ll give you the bailout you want for Jaguar and Land Rover. But we want a stake in Jaguar Land Rover or Tata itself.”

Then, let’s see how willing Tata are to take taxpayers’ money…..