BAE Systems to axe 940 jobs as shipbuilding ends at Portsmouth

Daily Echo: Construction of the new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy at BAE in Portsmouth Construction of the new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy at BAE in Portsmouth

ALMOST 1,000 jobs in Hampshire have been axed as ship building in the county comes to an end after 800 years.

BAE has announced it is axing 1,775 across the UK, with 940 of those going from its ship building yard in Portsmouth.

Currently the firm employs 1,200 people in its shipbulding operation at Portsmouth, as well as another 3,200 in Scotland.

Shipbuilding operations will end in Portsmouth in the second half of next year, but an engineering team will be retained to support the new Type 26 warships, which will be built in Glasgow.

Hundreds of staff from Southampton work at the Portsmouth facility, after all work from the former Vosper Thornycroft site in Woolston was moved there in 2003, ending 100 years of shipbuilding on the banks of the Itchen.

The news was given to workers at a series of meetings at 11am across the affected sites, before they were allowed to go home for the rest of the day.

BAE Systems has been reviewing its operation beyond the construction of two new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy, which are due to be complete by 2015 and has made the decision to cut a total of 1,800 ship building jobs.

In an attempt to soften the blow, the Royal Navy has said it will invest £100m in Portsmouth Naval Base, which is to be expanded ready for the new aircraft carriers which are to be based in the city.

In a statment, defence secretary Philip Hammond said: “I am also pleased to announce additional investment in Portsmouth Naval Base to prepare for the significant increase in tonnage as the home port for the Royal Navy’s aircraft carriers and destroyers.”

He later told the House of Commons today, that the loss of shipbulding capability in Portsmouth will be "harsh blow to the city".

But he added that the government together with Portsmouth and Southampton city councils were in discussions over a possible "city deal" for the area to give it major jobs boost.

He also added that government maritime experts would also advise the Solent LEP on how to progress its maritme industry.

Southampton Test MP Alan Whitehead said: “This is a devastating blow to the region and brings an end a long tradition of ship building on the South Coast.

“It isn’t just  people in Portsmouth who will be hit, Southampton will suffer too and it will radiate to skills, backup and assistance in the area just as it has with the Ford closure.”

He called for Solent area MPs and business leaders to meet with business leaders to help those whose jobs are at risk and added: “We need to look at what assistance can be provided, the consequence of job losses and for alternative employment.”

He questioned the decision to save jobs in Scotland and said: “There will be vehement denials that there is no political involvement but it looks like it is that way.

“Keeping an eye on what’s happening in Scotland means that Portsmouth loses out.”

David Hulse, GMB national officer and chair of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions' shipbuilding national committee, said: ''Following today's announcement from BAE Systems, we are able to confirm that no shipyard will be closing even though there are substantial job losses in the pipeline.

''There is no doubt that this is a devastating day for the UK shipbuilding industry and the company will have justify to us the job losses planned.

''We have arranged a two-day meeting with the company at Farnborough next Monday and Tuesday that will be attended by officers and shop stewards from all the yards and all the unions. This meeting will examine in detail the business case and all aspects for scheduling work in the yards to complete building the carriers, starting work on the Type 26 ships and any other work.''

Fareham MP Mark Hoban, said: "What we need to do is see how best to use the talents and skills of people at risk of losing their jobs, to help the economy of South Hampshire continue to grow.

"This is a bad day for the area but we need to look forward."

Southampton Itchen MP John Denham, who represents the part of the city where the former VT site is, said:

Labour secured ship building on the south coast with shares of the destroyer and carrier programmes.

“Government statement today made it clear that no efforts have been made to win new work for Portsmouth in the past three years and that they have agreed to transfer work from Portsmouth to other shipyards.

“Many on the south coast feel they have been sold down the river by a government whose interest and attention has been elsewhere.”

At Prime Minister's questions, David Cameron said: "These are extremely difficult decisions and our first thoughts should be with all of those that are affected.

"We want our Royal Navy to have the best and most modern ships and the best technology. That means we will go on building warships on the Clyde, we will be announcing three new offshore patrol vessels, keeping that yard busy rather than paying for it to remain idle as the last government proposed.

"In Portsmouth, yes there will be job reductions, but there are many more people involved in ship servicing than in ship building, so the workforce will go from 12,000 to 11,000."

In his response to the SNP's Westminster leader Angus Robertson the PM added: "No one should be in any doubt of two things: under this Government we will have aircraft carriers, Type 45 destroyers, the new frigates, the hunter-killer submarines.

"And there's something else they should know: if there was an independent Scotland we wouldn't have any warships at all."

  • Additional reporting by Rob Merrick

Comments (32)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:48am Wed 6 Nov 13

hedge end bob says...

With all the sea going vessels that dock in Southampton and Portsmouth , it's devastating that none will be built on the south coast the gate way to England.
What is England coming too?? . We are an island that has no real fishing fleet too speak of . We have a huge cruise business with none of the liners registered in England. We import coal, electricity etc etc. And yet people are flocking to our shores too live, strange.
With all the sea going vessels that dock in Southampton and Portsmouth , it's devastating that none will be built on the south coast the gate way to England. What is England coming too?? . We are an island that has no real fishing fleet too speak of . We have a huge cruise business with none of the liners registered in England. We import coal, electricity etc etc. And yet people are flocking to our shores too live, strange. hedge end bob
  • Score: 37

12:47pm Wed 6 Nov 13

rudolph_hucker says...

Very bad news.
Very bad news. rudolph_hucker
  • Score: 20

1:06pm Wed 6 Nov 13

CharlieOxbridge says...

BAE have treated the staff at Portsmouth appallingly. First by undermining them by taken on contractor after contractor, some young and experienced from Romania and Poland and paying them around 2.5x the salary of a staff worker but to justify this by claiming that as a staff member when the workload dropped that they would be kept on and the contractors let go was an abhorrent lie. Not only this for the staff to find out about this by media is utter disgrace.
BAE have treated the staff at Portsmouth appallingly. First by undermining them by taken on contractor after contractor, some young and experienced from Romania and Poland and paying them around 2.5x the salary of a staff worker but to justify this by claiming that as a staff member when the workload dropped that they would be kept on and the contractors let go was an abhorrent lie. Not only this for the staff to find out about this by media is utter disgrace. CharlieOxbridge
  • Score: 23

1:07pm Wed 6 Nov 13

Andy Locks Heath says...

One of the occasions when I agree with my friend Southy is when we look at the damage capitalism has done - paradoxically - to capital intensive industry in the UK. The City and the banks demand quick returns which business like shipbuilding cannot deliver. This is why civiliian shipbuilding slowly ebbed away (And of course poor Industrial relations and union intransigience played their part in the past as well) Government can help to support businesses like shipbuilding, train building, iron and steel production etc through the lean times between big orders and can help by spreading out government contracts to ensure a healthy stream of work. Successive UK governments failed and still fail to do this, and worse still, we have an inept and inneficient Civil Service bureaucracy - especially the awful MOD - that doesn;t have the faintest notion about the need to protect key industries at home let alone lives abroad.
One of the occasions when I agree with my friend Southy is when we look at the damage capitalism has done - paradoxically - to capital intensive industry in the UK. The City and the banks demand quick returns which business like shipbuilding cannot deliver. This is why civiliian shipbuilding slowly ebbed away (And of course poor Industrial relations and union intransigience played their part in the past as well) Government can help to support businesses like shipbuilding, train building, iron and steel production etc through the lean times between big orders and can help by spreading out government contracts to ensure a healthy stream of work. Successive UK governments failed and still fail to do this, and worse still, we have an inept and inneficient Civil Service bureaucracy - especially the awful MOD - that doesn;t have the faintest notion about the need to protect key industries at home let alone lives abroad. Andy Locks Heath
  • Score: 20

1:25pm Wed 6 Nov 13

Tone says...

"aircrafty carriers"? Run it through your spelly welly checker DE.
"aircrafty carriers"? Run it through your spelly welly checker DE. Tone
  • Score: -6

1:36pm Wed 6 Nov 13

loosehead says...

never heard this news on national telly when Vospers ditched Southampton to go to Portsmouth so why not?
I can't understand with Scotland close to a referendum why this Company couldn't find work to keep this yard open until that referendum & if Scotland breaks away keep open Portsmouth.
Can't believe I'm saying this but that referendum has made this choice inevitable but I think it's the wrong choice
never heard this news on national telly when Vospers ditched Southampton to go to Portsmouth so why not? I can't understand with Scotland close to a referendum why this Company couldn't find work to keep this yard open until that referendum & if Scotland breaks away keep open Portsmouth. Can't believe I'm saying this but that referendum has made this choice inevitable but I think it's the wrong choice loosehead
  • Score: 12

2:02pm Wed 6 Nov 13

southy says...

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
One of the occasions when I agree with my friend Southy is when we look at the damage capitalism has done - paradoxically - to capital intensive industry in the UK. The City and the banks demand quick returns which business like shipbuilding cannot deliver. This is why civiliian shipbuilding slowly ebbed away (And of course poor Industrial relations and union intransigience played their part in the past as well) Government can help to support businesses like shipbuilding, train building, iron and steel production etc through the lean times between big orders and can help by spreading out government contracts to ensure a healthy stream of work. Successive UK governments failed and still fail to do this, and worse still, we have an inept and inneficient Civil Service bureaucracy - especially the awful MOD - that doesn;t have the faintest notion about the need to protect key industries at home let alone lives abroad.
Thats just the nature of Capitalism, short term thinking all ways wanting the quick buck look after the few
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: One of the occasions when I agree with my friend Southy is when we look at the damage capitalism has done - paradoxically - to capital intensive industry in the UK. The City and the banks demand quick returns which business like shipbuilding cannot deliver. This is why civiliian shipbuilding slowly ebbed away (And of course poor Industrial relations and union intransigience played their part in the past as well) Government can help to support businesses like shipbuilding, train building, iron and steel production etc through the lean times between big orders and can help by spreading out government contracts to ensure a healthy stream of work. Successive UK governments failed and still fail to do this, and worse still, we have an inept and inneficient Civil Service bureaucracy - especially the awful MOD - that doesn;t have the faintest notion about the need to protect key industries at home let alone lives abroad.[/p][/quote]Thats just the nature of Capitalism, short term thinking all ways wanting the quick buck look after the few southy
  • Score: -6

2:48pm Wed 6 Nov 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
One of the occasions when I agree with my friend Southy is when we look at the damage capitalism has done - paradoxically - to capital intensive industry in the UK. The City and the banks demand quick returns which business like shipbuilding cannot deliver. This is why civiliian shipbuilding slowly ebbed away (And of course poor Industrial relations and union intransigience played their part in the past as well) Government can help to support businesses like shipbuilding, train building, iron and steel production etc through the lean times between big orders and can help by spreading out government contracts to ensure a healthy stream of work. Successive UK governments failed and still fail to do this, and worse still, we have an inept and inneficient Civil Service bureaucracy - especially the awful MOD - that doesn;t have the faintest notion about the need to protect key industries at home let alone lives abroad.
Thats just the nature of Capitalism, short term thinking all ways wanting the quick buck look after the few
No, not so.

I agree with much Andy says but the reason for the retraction of military shipbuilding is not to be placed squarely at the door of capitalism.

It's because we are no longer a world power able to parasite off 'The Empire'. We are, in fact, but a smallish middle ranking nation that can no longer afford to 'Rule the Waves'.

Now all we need to do is face up to the reality we can also not afford (or indeed have any justification for) replacing Trident.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: One of the occasions when I agree with my friend Southy is when we look at the damage capitalism has done - paradoxically - to capital intensive industry in the UK. The City and the banks demand quick returns which business like shipbuilding cannot deliver. This is why civiliian shipbuilding slowly ebbed away (And of course poor Industrial relations and union intransigience played their part in the past as well) Government can help to support businesses like shipbuilding, train building, iron and steel production etc through the lean times between big orders and can help by spreading out government contracts to ensure a healthy stream of work. Successive UK governments failed and still fail to do this, and worse still, we have an inept and inneficient Civil Service bureaucracy - especially the awful MOD - that doesn;t have the faintest notion about the need to protect key industries at home let alone lives abroad.[/p][/quote]Thats just the nature of Capitalism, short term thinking all ways wanting the quick buck look after the few[/p][/quote]No, not so. I agree with much Andy says but the reason for the retraction of military shipbuilding is not to be placed squarely at the door of capitalism. It's because we are no longer a world power able to parasite off 'The Empire'. We are, in fact, but a smallish middle ranking nation that can no longer afford to 'Rule the Waves'. Now all we need to do is face up to the reality we can also not afford (or indeed have any justification for) replacing Trident. freefinker
  • Score: 11

3:03pm Wed 6 Nov 13

THE12THMAN says...

hedge end bob wrote:
With all the sea going vessels that dock in Southampton and Portsmouth , it's devastating that none will be built on the south coast the gate way to England.
What is England coming too?? . We are an island that has no real fishing fleet too speak of . We have a huge cruise business with none of the liners registered in England. We import coal, electricity etc etc. And yet people are flocking to our shores too live, strange.
This stinks of the government trying to keep Scotland sweet before the referendum next year, but Cameron and his cronies will never admit it.
[quote][p][bold]hedge end bob[/bold] wrote: With all the sea going vessels that dock in Southampton and Portsmouth , it's devastating that none will be built on the south coast the gate way to England. What is England coming too?? . We are an island that has no real fishing fleet too speak of . We have a huge cruise business with none of the liners registered in England. We import coal, electricity etc etc. And yet people are flocking to our shores too live, strange.[/p][/quote]This stinks of the government trying to keep Scotland sweet before the referendum next year, but Cameron and his cronies will never admit it. THE12THMAN
  • Score: 8

3:07pm Wed 6 Nov 13

CharlieOxbridge says...

CharlieOxbridge wrote:
BAE have treated the staff at Portsmouth appallingly. First by undermining them by taken on contractor after contractor, some young and experienced from Romania and Poland and paying them around 2.5x the salary of a staff worker but to justify this by claiming that as a staff member when the workload dropped that they would be kept on and the contractors let go was an abhorrent lie. Not only this for the staff to find out about this by media is utter disgrace.
*UNEXPERIENCED!
[quote][p][bold]CharlieOxbridge[/bold] wrote: BAE have treated the staff at Portsmouth appallingly. First by undermining them by taken on contractor after contractor, some young and experienced from Romania and Poland and paying them around 2.5x the salary of a staff worker but to justify this by claiming that as a staff member when the workload dropped that they would be kept on and the contractors let go was an abhorrent lie. Not only this for the staff to find out about this by media is utter disgrace.[/p][/quote]*UNEXPERIENCED! CharlieOxbridge
  • Score: 0

3:07pm Wed 6 Nov 13

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
One of the occasions when I agree with my friend Southy is when we look at the damage capitalism has done - paradoxically - to capital intensive industry in the UK. The City and the banks demand quick returns which business like shipbuilding cannot deliver. This is why civiliian shipbuilding slowly ebbed away (And of course poor Industrial relations and union intransigience played their part in the past as well) Government can help to support businesses like shipbuilding, train building, iron and steel production etc through the lean times between big orders and can help by spreading out government contracts to ensure a healthy stream of work. Successive UK governments failed and still fail to do this, and worse still, we have an inept and inneficient Civil Service bureaucracy - especially the awful MOD - that doesn;t have the faintest notion about the need to protect key industries at home let alone lives abroad.
Thats just the nature of Capitalism, short term thinking all ways wanting the quick buck look after the few
You will, of course, be readying your placard for a protest outside the HQ of BAE or any other protest action planned because of the heart felt support you have for these guys who have lost their jobs.

Unless of course you are too 'busy'...
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: One of the occasions when I agree with my friend Southy is when we look at the damage capitalism has done - paradoxically - to capital intensive industry in the UK. The City and the banks demand quick returns which business like shipbuilding cannot deliver. This is why civiliian shipbuilding slowly ebbed away (And of course poor Industrial relations and union intransigience played their part in the past as well) Government can help to support businesses like shipbuilding, train building, iron and steel production etc through the lean times between big orders and can help by spreading out government contracts to ensure a healthy stream of work. Successive UK governments failed and still fail to do this, and worse still, we have an inept and inneficient Civil Service bureaucracy - especially the awful MOD - that doesn;t have the faintest notion about the need to protect key industries at home let alone lives abroad.[/p][/quote]Thats just the nature of Capitalism, short term thinking all ways wanting the quick buck look after the few[/p][/quote]You will, of course, be readying your placard for a protest outside the HQ of BAE or any other protest action planned because of the heart felt support you have for these guys who have lost their jobs. Unless of course you are too 'busy'... Shoong
  • Score: 5

3:28pm Wed 6 Nov 13

Stephen J says...

What a mess. There's now only one company capable of building ships for the Royal Navy, but that company doesn't really want to be in serious shipbuilding at all. If it did, it would be going hell-for-leather to get every single export contract it could find, like VT did. This is what happens when you let an aerospace company take over the entire warship building capability. Idiots!
What a mess. There's now only one company capable of building ships for the Royal Navy, but that company doesn't really want to be in serious shipbuilding at all. If it did, it would be going hell-for-leather to get every single export contract it could find, like VT did. This is what happens when you let an aerospace company take over the entire warship building capability. Idiots! Stephen J
  • Score: 17

3:30pm Wed 6 Nov 13

redsnapper says...

This what we get from wretched politicians--nothing
.

No orders from the deskbound Colonel Blimps at the MOD.
No apparent ideas from BAE on how to utilise a skilled workforce (albeit skates) in other roles like ordnance or alternative energy systems manufacture.

And obviously no global orders despite how many years of HRH Andrew gallivanting around the world at huge taxpayers expense on the premise of selling British Industry.
This what we get from wretched politicians--nothing . No orders from the deskbound Colonel Blimps at the MOD. No apparent ideas from BAE on how to utilise a skilled workforce (albeit skates) in other roles like ordnance or alternative energy systems manufacture. And obviously no global orders despite how many years of HRH Andrew gallivanting around the world at huge taxpayers expense on the premise of selling British Industry. redsnapper
  • Score: 9

3:38pm Wed 6 Nov 13

southy says...

redsnapper wrote:
This what we get from wretched politicians--nothing

.

No orders from the deskbound Colonel Blimps at the MOD.
No apparent ideas from BAE on how to utilise a skilled workforce (albeit skates) in other roles like ordnance or alternative energy systems manufacture.

And obviously no global orders despite how many years of HRH Andrew gallivanting around the world at huge taxpayers expense on the premise of selling British Industry.
Just like the 80's when 6 new war ships was ordered by the Labour Government the Torys cancelled the contracts leaving only 1 to be built, how many new aircraft carriers was ordered and how many was cancelled.
Its all about not seeing tax payers money going towards what would be owned by the state and what would employ people, the money going in the wrong direction for the Torys they would give the super wealthy tax breaks.
[quote][p][bold]redsnapper[/bold] wrote: This what we get from wretched politicians--nothing . No orders from the deskbound Colonel Blimps at the MOD. No apparent ideas from BAE on how to utilise a skilled workforce (albeit skates) in other roles like ordnance or alternative energy systems manufacture. And obviously no global orders despite how many years of HRH Andrew gallivanting around the world at huge taxpayers expense on the premise of selling British Industry.[/p][/quote]Just like the 80's when 6 new war ships was ordered by the Labour Government the Torys cancelled the contracts leaving only 1 to be built, how many new aircraft carriers was ordered and how many was cancelled. Its all about not seeing tax payers money going towards what would be owned by the state and what would employ people, the money going in the wrong direction for the Torys they would give the super wealthy tax breaks. southy
  • Score: -1

4:09pm Wed 6 Nov 13

Lone Ranger. says...

Stephen J wrote:
What a mess. There's now only one company capable of building ships for the Royal Navy, but that company doesn't really want to be in serious shipbuilding at all. If it did, it would be going hell-for-leather to get every single export contract it could find, like VT did. This is what happens when you let an aerospace company take over the entire warship building capability. Idiots!
Yes there will be only one company capable of this ............. And guess what ......... they too will become a foreign company if the Scots get independance ....... Sobering isnt it.
.
Just think .... probably one of the greatest countries on earth for brains, tecnology, manufacturing all sold off and we are reduced to a pile of rusty metal in the last thirty years ....... complete and utter disgrace
[quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: What a mess. There's now only one company capable of building ships for the Royal Navy, but that company doesn't really want to be in serious shipbuilding at all. If it did, it would be going hell-for-leather to get every single export contract it could find, like VT did. This is what happens when you let an aerospace company take over the entire warship building capability. Idiots![/p][/quote]Yes there will be only one company capable of this ............. And guess what ......... they too will become a foreign company if the Scots get independance ....... Sobering isnt it. . Just think .... probably one of the greatest countries on earth for brains, tecnology, manufacturing all sold off and we are reduced to a pile of rusty metal in the last thirty years ....... complete and utter disgrace Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 12

4:41pm Wed 6 Nov 13

Stephen J says...

southy wrote:
redsnapper wrote:
This what we get from wretched politicians--nothing


.

No orders from the deskbound Colonel Blimps at the MOD.
No apparent ideas from BAE on how to utilise a skilled workforce (albeit skates) in other roles like ordnance or alternative energy systems manufacture.

And obviously no global orders despite how many years of HRH Andrew gallivanting around the world at huge taxpayers expense on the premise of selling British Industry.
Just like the 80's when 6 new war ships was ordered by the Labour Government the Torys cancelled the contracts leaving only 1 to be built, how many new aircraft carriers was ordered and how many was cancelled.
Its all about not seeing tax payers money going towards what would be owned by the state and what would employ people, the money going in the wrong direction for the Torys they would give the super wealthy tax breaks.
And this year in France the Socialist government has cut an order for an aircraft carrier and other smaller vessels. Funny old world, isn't it?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]redsnapper[/bold] wrote: This what we get from wretched politicians--nothing . No orders from the deskbound Colonel Blimps at the MOD. No apparent ideas from BAE on how to utilise a skilled workforce (albeit skates) in other roles like ordnance or alternative energy systems manufacture. And obviously no global orders despite how many years of HRH Andrew gallivanting around the world at huge taxpayers expense on the premise of selling British Industry.[/p][/quote]Just like the 80's when 6 new war ships was ordered by the Labour Government the Torys cancelled the contracts leaving only 1 to be built, how many new aircraft carriers was ordered and how many was cancelled. Its all about not seeing tax payers money going towards what would be owned by the state and what would employ people, the money going in the wrong direction for the Torys they would give the super wealthy tax breaks.[/p][/quote]And this year in France the Socialist government has cut an order for an aircraft carrier and other smaller vessels. Funny old world, isn't it? Stephen J
  • Score: 12

5:02pm Wed 6 Nov 13

george h says...

While not wishing to defend BAe Systems, the truth is that this is not really their fault. Their company has to tighten its belt to respond to a lack of orders for warships. The real problem lives in Whitehall where since the end of the Cold War they have never accepted (I almost wrote understood) that a modern navy needs a sustainable industrial base. The key word being sustainable.


Instead Whitehall has adopted a "stop-go" approach. Ordering a few ships for delivery over a few years span; followed by a period of no orders and no work. Then a few years later they order a few more vessels. However, by that time the navy's industrial base has drained away; workers with the required skills have retired or disappeared into other industries.


In truth we are governed by incompetents. Politicians who can see no further than the next election; who have neither the intellect or integrity to take a long-term view.


It wasn't always like this. But now we have only a dedicated political class, all of them of whichever party interchangeable with the three main parties, almost all straight from school to university and a PPE degree, to a job as a MP's researcher. And this wreckage of a once great shipbuilding industry is what we get when we elect to Westminster MPs with those credentials who have had no experience of life outside a Westminster bubble.


They leave behind them a trail of wrecked lives and industries and move on, leaving others to clear up the wreckage.
While not wishing to defend BAe Systems, the truth is that this is not really their fault. Their company has to tighten its belt to respond to a lack of orders for warships. The real problem lives in Whitehall where since the end of the Cold War they have never accepted (I almost wrote understood) that a modern navy needs a sustainable industrial base. The key word being sustainable. Instead Whitehall has adopted a "stop-go" approach. Ordering a few ships for delivery over a few years span; followed by a period of no orders and no work. Then a few years later they order a few more vessels. However, by that time the navy's industrial base has drained away; workers with the required skills have retired or disappeared into other industries. In truth we are governed by incompetents. Politicians who can see no further than the next election; who have neither the intellect or integrity to take a long-term view. It wasn't always like this. But now we have only a dedicated political class, all of them of whichever party interchangeable with the three main parties, almost all straight from school to university and a PPE degree, to a job as a MP's researcher. And this wreckage of a once great shipbuilding industry is what we get when we elect to Westminster MPs with those credentials who have had no experience of life outside a Westminster bubble. They leave behind them a trail of wrecked lives and industries and move on, leaving others to clear up the wreckage. george h
  • Score: 5

5:16pm Wed 6 Nov 13

CharlieOxbridge says...

george h wrote:
While not wishing to defend BAe Systems, the truth is that this is not really their fault. Their company has to tighten its belt to respond to a lack of orders for warships. The real problem lives in Whitehall where since the end of the Cold War they have never accepted (I almost wrote understood) that a modern navy needs a sustainable industrial base. The key word being sustainable.


Instead Whitehall has adopted a "stop-go" approach. Ordering a few ships for delivery over a few years span; followed by a period of no orders and no work. Then a few years later they order a few more vessels. However, by that time the navy's industrial base has drained away; workers with the required skills have retired or disappeared into other industries.


In truth we are governed by incompetents. Politicians who can see no further than the next election; who have neither the intellect or integrity to take a long-term view.


It wasn't always like this. But now we have only a dedicated political class, all of them of whichever party interchangeable with the three main parties, almost all straight from school to university and a PPE degree, to a job as a MP's researcher. And this wreckage of a once great shipbuilding industry is what we get when we elect to Westminster MPs with those credentials who have had no experience of life outside a Westminster bubble.


They leave behind them a trail of wrecked lives and industries and move on, leaving others to clear up the wreckage.
The voice of somebody that doesn't know all the facts.
[quote][p][bold]george h[/bold] wrote: While not wishing to defend BAe Systems, the truth is that this is not really their fault. Their company has to tighten its belt to respond to a lack of orders for warships. The real problem lives in Whitehall where since the end of the Cold War they have never accepted (I almost wrote understood) that a modern navy needs a sustainable industrial base. The key word being sustainable. Instead Whitehall has adopted a "stop-go" approach. Ordering a few ships for delivery over a few years span; followed by a period of no orders and no work. Then a few years later they order a few more vessels. However, by that time the navy's industrial base has drained away; workers with the required skills have retired or disappeared into other industries. In truth we are governed by incompetents. Politicians who can see no further than the next election; who have neither the intellect or integrity to take a long-term view. It wasn't always like this. But now we have only a dedicated political class, all of them of whichever party interchangeable with the three main parties, almost all straight from school to university and a PPE degree, to a job as a MP's researcher. And this wreckage of a once great shipbuilding industry is what we get when we elect to Westminster MPs with those credentials who have had no experience of life outside a Westminster bubble. They leave behind them a trail of wrecked lives and industries and move on, leaving others to clear up the wreckage.[/p][/quote]The voice of somebody that doesn't know all the facts. CharlieOxbridge
  • Score: 0

6:01pm Wed 6 Nov 13

george h says...

CharlieOxbridge wrote:
george h wrote:
While not wishing to defend BAe Systems, the truth is that this is not really their fault. Their company has to tighten its belt to respond to a lack of orders for warships. The real problem lives in Whitehall where since the end of the Cold War they have never accepted (I almost wrote understood) that a modern navy needs a sustainable industrial base. The key word being sustainable.


Instead Whitehall has adopted a "stop-go" approach. Ordering a few ships for delivery over a few years span; followed by a period of no orders and no work. Then a few years later they order a few more vessels. However, by that time the navy's industrial base has drained away; workers with the required skills have retired or disappeared into other industries.


In truth we are governed by incompetents. Politicians who can see no further than the next election; who have neither the intellect or integrity to take a long-term view.


It wasn't always like this. But now we have only a dedicated political class, all of them of whichever party interchangeable with the three main parties, almost all straight from school to university and a PPE degree, to a job as a MP's researcher. And this wreckage of a once great shipbuilding industry is what we get when we elect to Westminster MPs with those credentials who have had no experience of life outside a Westminster bubble.


They leave behind them a trail of wrecked lives and industries and move on, leaving others to clear up the wreckage.
The voice of somebody that doesn't know all the facts.
So in your undoubted wisdom you do know all the facts.

Pray enlighten us lesser mortals then.
[quote][p][bold]CharlieOxbridge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]george h[/bold] wrote: While not wishing to defend BAe Systems, the truth is that this is not really their fault. Their company has to tighten its belt to respond to a lack of orders for warships. The real problem lives in Whitehall where since the end of the Cold War they have never accepted (I almost wrote understood) that a modern navy needs a sustainable industrial base. The key word being sustainable. Instead Whitehall has adopted a "stop-go" approach. Ordering a few ships for delivery over a few years span; followed by a period of no orders and no work. Then a few years later they order a few more vessels. However, by that time the navy's industrial base has drained away; workers with the required skills have retired or disappeared into other industries. In truth we are governed by incompetents. Politicians who can see no further than the next election; who have neither the intellect or integrity to take a long-term view. It wasn't always like this. But now we have only a dedicated political class, all of them of whichever party interchangeable with the three main parties, almost all straight from school to university and a PPE degree, to a job as a MP's researcher. And this wreckage of a once great shipbuilding industry is what we get when we elect to Westminster MPs with those credentials who have had no experience of life outside a Westminster bubble. They leave behind them a trail of wrecked lives and industries and move on, leaving others to clear up the wreckage.[/p][/quote]The voice of somebody that doesn't know all the facts.[/p][/quote]So in your undoubted wisdom you do know all the facts. Pray enlighten us lesser mortals then. george h
  • Score: 3

6:06pm Wed 6 Nov 13

SOULJACKER says...

Sold down the river, anyone would think there was a referendum coming up & they didn't want to upset the sweaty socks north of the border.
This was a political decision!
Sold down the river, anyone would think there was a referendum coming up & they didn't want to upset the sweaty socks north of the border. This was a political decision! SOULJACKER
  • Score: 1

6:37pm Wed 6 Nov 13

redsnapper says...

george h wrote:
While not wishing to defend BAe Systems, the truth is that this is not really their fault. Their company has to tighten its belt to respond to a lack of orders for warships. The real problem lives in Whitehall where since the end of the Cold War they have never accepted (I almost wrote understood) that a modern navy needs a sustainable industrial base. The key word being sustainable.


Instead Whitehall has adopted a "stop-go" approach. Ordering a few ships for delivery over a few years span; followed by a period of no orders and no work. Then a few years later they order a few more vessels. However, by that time the navy's industrial base has drained away; workers with the required skills have retired or disappeared into other industries.


In truth we are governed by incompetents. Politicians who can see no further than the next election; who have neither the intellect or integrity to take a long-term view.


It wasn't always like this. But now we have only a dedicated political class, all of them of whichever party interchangeable with the three main parties, almost all straight from school to university and a PPE degree, to a job as a MP's researcher. And this wreckage of a once great shipbuilding industry is what we get when we elect to Westminster MPs with those credentials who have had no experience of life outside a Westminster bubble.


They leave behind them a trail of wrecked lives and industries and move on, leaving others to clear up the wreckage.
Couldn't have put it any better.

Politicians today, everywhere are ignorant, arrogant and only in it for themselves. Vision, creativity, intellect and delivery are exactly what we DO NOT GET, from the political class , who spend more time fiddling expenses and/or reading electrical meters at their taxpayer funded second homes.

Greedy Westminster vermin not caring about our country or anything but themselves.
[quote][p][bold]george h[/bold] wrote: While not wishing to defend BAe Systems, the truth is that this is not really their fault. Their company has to tighten its belt to respond to a lack of orders for warships. The real problem lives in Whitehall where since the end of the Cold War they have never accepted (I almost wrote understood) that a modern navy needs a sustainable industrial base. The key word being sustainable. Instead Whitehall has adopted a "stop-go" approach. Ordering a few ships for delivery over a few years span; followed by a period of no orders and no work. Then a few years later they order a few more vessels. However, by that time the navy's industrial base has drained away; workers with the required skills have retired or disappeared into other industries. In truth we are governed by incompetents. Politicians who can see no further than the next election; who have neither the intellect or integrity to take a long-term view. It wasn't always like this. But now we have only a dedicated political class, all of them of whichever party interchangeable with the three main parties, almost all straight from school to university and a PPE degree, to a job as a MP's researcher. And this wreckage of a once great shipbuilding industry is what we get when we elect to Westminster MPs with those credentials who have had no experience of life outside a Westminster bubble. They leave behind them a trail of wrecked lives and industries and move on, leaving others to clear up the wreckage.[/p][/quote]Couldn't have put it any better. Politicians today, everywhere are ignorant, arrogant and only in it for themselves. Vision, creativity, intellect and delivery are exactly what we DO NOT GET, from the political class , who spend more time fiddling expenses and/or reading electrical meters at their taxpayer funded second homes. Greedy Westminster vermin not caring about our country or anything but themselves. redsnapper
  • Score: 3

7:10pm Wed 6 Nov 13

CharlieOxbridge says...

george h wrote:
CharlieOxbridge wrote:
george h wrote:
While not wishing to defend BAe Systems, the truth is that this is not really their fault. Their company has to tighten its belt to respond to a lack of orders for warships. The real problem lives in Whitehall where since the end of the Cold War they have never accepted (I almost wrote understood) that a modern navy needs a sustainable industrial base. The key word being sustainable.


Instead Whitehall has adopted a "stop-go" approach. Ordering a few ships for delivery over a few years span; followed by a period of no orders and no work. Then a few years later they order a few more vessels. However, by that time the navy's industrial base has drained away; workers with the required skills have retired or disappeared into other industries.


In truth we are governed by incompetents. Politicians who can see no further than the next election; who have neither the intellect or integrity to take a long-term view.


It wasn't always like this. But now we have only a dedicated political class, all of them of whichever party interchangeable with the three main parties, almost all straight from school to university and a PPE degree, to a job as a MP's researcher. And this wreckage of a once great shipbuilding industry is what we get when we elect to Westminster MPs with those credentials who have had no experience of life outside a Westminster bubble.


They leave behind them a trail of wrecked lives and industries and move on, leaving others to clear up the wreckage.
The voice of somebody that doesn't know all the facts.
So in your undoubted wisdom you do know all the facts.

Pray enlighten us lesser mortals then.
VT were able to do business with other countries, why can't BAE? VT kept the shipbuilding industry going in the South during the last famine and the feast has been poorly managed by BAE from the start of the takeover. The decision to keep the Scottish yards open just political meddling and no surprise when you see that the majority of the BAE board are Scottish. Nobody wants to deal with BAE that's why they were unable to source work outside their cosy corrupt deals with MOD and Government. Michael Portillo once said that the only person he knew that could just walk in and out of No10 whenever they wanted was the CEO of BAE.
[quote][p][bold]george h[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CharlieOxbridge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]george h[/bold] wrote: While not wishing to defend BAe Systems, the truth is that this is not really their fault. Their company has to tighten its belt to respond to a lack of orders for warships. The real problem lives in Whitehall where since the end of the Cold War they have never accepted (I almost wrote understood) that a modern navy needs a sustainable industrial base. The key word being sustainable. Instead Whitehall has adopted a "stop-go" approach. Ordering a few ships for delivery over a few years span; followed by a period of no orders and no work. Then a few years later they order a few more vessels. However, by that time the navy's industrial base has drained away; workers with the required skills have retired or disappeared into other industries. In truth we are governed by incompetents. Politicians who can see no further than the next election; who have neither the intellect or integrity to take a long-term view. It wasn't always like this. But now we have only a dedicated political class, all of them of whichever party interchangeable with the three main parties, almost all straight from school to university and a PPE degree, to a job as a MP's researcher. And this wreckage of a once great shipbuilding industry is what we get when we elect to Westminster MPs with those credentials who have had no experience of life outside a Westminster bubble. They leave behind them a trail of wrecked lives and industries and move on, leaving others to clear up the wreckage.[/p][/quote]The voice of somebody that doesn't know all the facts.[/p][/quote]So in your undoubted wisdom you do know all the facts. Pray enlighten us lesser mortals then.[/p][/quote]VT were able to do business with other countries, why can't BAE? VT kept the shipbuilding industry going in the South during the last famine and the feast has been poorly managed by BAE from the start of the takeover. The decision to keep the Scottish yards open just political meddling and no surprise when you see that the majority of the BAE board are Scottish. Nobody wants to deal with BAE that's why they were unable to source work outside their cosy corrupt deals with MOD and Government. Michael Portillo once said that the only person he knew that could just walk in and out of No10 whenever they wanted was the CEO of BAE. CharlieOxbridge
  • Score: 11

7:28pm Wed 6 Nov 13

rudolph_hucker says...

No ships in Pompey is unbelievable, ffs.
Down the pan we go.
Just glad my submariner grandfather is not around to see this.
No ships in Pompey is unbelievable, ffs. Down the pan we go. Just glad my submariner grandfather is not around to see this. rudolph_hucker
  • Score: 5

7:31pm Wed 6 Nov 13

Shoong says...

Stephen J wrote:
southy wrote:
redsnapper wrote:
This what we get from wretched politicians--nothing



.

No orders from the deskbound Colonel Blimps at the MOD.
No apparent ideas from BAE on how to utilise a skilled workforce (albeit skates) in other roles like ordnance or alternative energy systems manufacture.

And obviously no global orders despite how many years of HRH Andrew gallivanting around the world at huge taxpayers expense on the premise of selling British Industry.
Just like the 80's when 6 new war ships was ordered by the Labour Government the Torys cancelled the contracts leaving only 1 to be built, how many new aircraft carriers was ordered and how many was cancelled.
Its all about not seeing tax payers money going towards what would be owned by the state and what would employ people, the money going in the wrong direction for the Torys they would give the super wealthy tax breaks.
And this year in France the Socialist government has cut an order for an aircraft carrier and other smaller vessels. Funny old world, isn't it?
We've been through this with Peter, the French government are 'Capitalist Socialists' so they don't count I'm afraid.
[quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]redsnapper[/bold] wrote: This what we get from wretched politicians--nothing . No orders from the deskbound Colonel Blimps at the MOD. No apparent ideas from BAE on how to utilise a skilled workforce (albeit skates) in other roles like ordnance or alternative energy systems manufacture. And obviously no global orders despite how many years of HRH Andrew gallivanting around the world at huge taxpayers expense on the premise of selling British Industry.[/p][/quote]Just like the 80's when 6 new war ships was ordered by the Labour Government the Torys cancelled the contracts leaving only 1 to be built, how many new aircraft carriers was ordered and how many was cancelled. Its all about not seeing tax payers money going towards what would be owned by the state and what would employ people, the money going in the wrong direction for the Torys they would give the super wealthy tax breaks.[/p][/quote]And this year in France the Socialist government has cut an order for an aircraft carrier and other smaller vessels. Funny old world, isn't it?[/p][/quote]We've been through this with Peter, the French government are 'Capitalist Socialists' so they don't count I'm afraid. Shoong
  • Score: 4

7:51pm Wed 6 Nov 13

Crossley Place Saint says...

george h wrote:
While not wishing to defend BAe Systems, the truth is that this is not really their fault. Their company has to tighten its belt to respond to a lack of orders for warships. The real problem lives in Whitehall where since the end of the Cold War they have never accepted (I almost wrote understood) that a modern navy needs a sustainable industrial base. The key word being sustainable.


Instead Whitehall has adopted a "stop-go" approach. Ordering a few ships for delivery over a few years span; followed by a period of no orders and no work. Then a few years later they order a few more vessels. However, by that time the navy's industrial base has drained away; workers with the required skills have retired or disappeared into other industries.


In truth we are governed by incompetents. Politicians who can see no further than the next election; who have neither the intellect or integrity to take a long-term view.


It wasn't always like this. But now we have only a dedicated political class, all of them of whichever party interchangeable with the three main parties, almost all straight from school to university and a PPE degree, to a job as a MP's researcher. And this wreckage of a once great shipbuilding industry is what we get when we elect to Westminster MPs with those credentials who have had no experience of life outside a Westminster bubble.


They leave behind them a trail of wrecked lives and industries and move on, leaving others to clear up the wreckage.
My response to this very well-argued post is a four-letter word.

UKIP
[quote][p][bold]george h[/bold] wrote: While not wishing to defend BAe Systems, the truth is that this is not really their fault. Their company has to tighten its belt to respond to a lack of orders for warships. The real problem lives in Whitehall where since the end of the Cold War they have never accepted (I almost wrote understood) that a modern navy needs a sustainable industrial base. The key word being sustainable. Instead Whitehall has adopted a "stop-go" approach. Ordering a few ships for delivery over a few years span; followed by a period of no orders and no work. Then a few years later they order a few more vessels. However, by that time the navy's industrial base has drained away; workers with the required skills have retired or disappeared into other industries. In truth we are governed by incompetents. Politicians who can see no further than the next election; who have neither the intellect or integrity to take a long-term view. It wasn't always like this. But now we have only a dedicated political class, all of them of whichever party interchangeable with the three main parties, almost all straight from school to university and a PPE degree, to a job as a MP's researcher. And this wreckage of a once great shipbuilding industry is what we get when we elect to Westminster MPs with those credentials who have had no experience of life outside a Westminster bubble. They leave behind them a trail of wrecked lives and industries and move on, leaving others to clear up the wreckage.[/p][/quote]My response to this very well-argued post is a four-letter word. UKIP Crossley Place Saint
  • Score: 8

7:57pm Wed 6 Nov 13

Sir Ad E Noid says...

Follow the link to read the MOD statement released today, hours before the Commons statement concerning Portsmouth Dockyard.

https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/news/new-o
ffshore-patrol-vesse
ls-for-royal-navy
Follow the link to read the MOD statement released today, hours before the Commons statement concerning Portsmouth Dockyard. https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/news/new-o ffshore-patrol-vesse ls-for-royal-navy Sir Ad E Noid
  • Score: 0

7:57pm Wed 6 Nov 13

The Wickham Man says...

southy wrote:
redsnapper wrote:
This what we get from wretched politicians--nothing


.

No orders from the deskbound Colonel Blimps at the MOD.
No apparent ideas from BAE on how to utilise a skilled workforce (albeit skates) in other roles like ordnance or alternative energy systems manufacture.

And obviously no global orders despite how many years of HRH Andrew gallivanting around the world at huge taxpayers expense on the premise of selling British Industry.
Just like the 80's when 6 new war ships was ordered by the Labour Government the Torys cancelled the contracts leaving only 1 to be built, how many new aircraft carriers was ordered and how many was cancelled.
Its all about not seeing tax payers money going towards what would be owned by the state and what would employ people, the money going in the wrong direction for the Torys they would give the super wealthy tax breaks.
Careful Southy - if you try and do your usual black and white thing with labour and tories you will just undo everything. Remember it was the labout Government - including Mr "He can do no wrong(according to his own diaries)" Tony Benn - who cancelled TSR2 and thereby consigned our world leading independent aerospace industry down to a bit part player reliant on the USA for bits and pieces. It was Harold Wilson who decided that the RAF would be happier with the F4 Phantom, not the tories.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]redsnapper[/bold] wrote: This what we get from wretched politicians--nothing . No orders from the deskbound Colonel Blimps at the MOD. No apparent ideas from BAE on how to utilise a skilled workforce (albeit skates) in other roles like ordnance or alternative energy systems manufacture. And obviously no global orders despite how many years of HRH Andrew gallivanting around the world at huge taxpayers expense on the premise of selling British Industry.[/p][/quote]Just like the 80's when 6 new war ships was ordered by the Labour Government the Torys cancelled the contracts leaving only 1 to be built, how many new aircraft carriers was ordered and how many was cancelled. Its all about not seeing tax payers money going towards what would be owned by the state and what would employ people, the money going in the wrong direction for the Torys they would give the super wealthy tax breaks.[/p][/quote]Careful Southy - if you try and do your usual black and white thing with labour and tories you will just undo everything. Remember it was the labout Government - including Mr "He can do no wrong(according to his own diaries)" Tony Benn - who cancelled TSR2 and thereby consigned our world leading independent aerospace industry down to a bit part player reliant on the USA for bits and pieces. It was Harold Wilson who decided that the RAF would be happier with the F4 Phantom, not the tories. The Wickham Man
  • Score: 4

8:15pm Wed 6 Nov 13

Crossley Place Saint says...

Sir Ad E Noid wrote:
Follow the link to read the MOD statement released today, hours before the Commons statement concerning Portsmouth Dockyard.

https://www.gov.uk/g

overnment/news/new-o

ffshore-patrol-vesse

ls-for-royal-navy
Try this one.

https://navynews.co.
uk/archive/news/item
/8265

Read it and weep.

The contract to build these strategically vital ships was given to Korea, to "achieve best value" for the "UK taxpayer". A few million pounds "saved", but at what long-term cost?
[quote][p][bold]Sir Ad E Noid[/bold] wrote: Follow the link to read the MOD statement released today, hours before the Commons statement concerning Portsmouth Dockyard. https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/news/new-o ffshore-patrol-vesse ls-for-royal-navy[/p][/quote]Try this one. https://navynews.co. uk/archive/news/item /8265 Read it and weep. The contract to build these strategically vital ships was given to Korea, to "achieve best value" for the "UK taxpayer". A few million pounds "saved", but at what long-term cost? Crossley Place Saint
  • Score: 3

9:14pm Wed 6 Nov 13

loosehead says...

There was a report in the news that the Labour shadow industry MSP minister alongside the unions had talks about the removal of cranes from the Scottish yards & then a week later we hear this announcement from a private company what did that minister & the Unions promise BAe systems?
I heard to day that there was work up to the end of next year for Portsmouth if this is so & Scotlands referendum is before the end of that work this decision could change very quickly.
The news today said the workers in Scotland are saying if independence is indeed voted for & the British Government insist on the warships for the navy are built in Britain these Scottish yards will close & Portsmouth stays open.
So when Labour signed up to two new aircraft carriers at a time when we could little afford them what were they going to do once they were built?
they say only this country & the states can build the modern warships needed today so why hasn't BAe got orders from abroad?
When Vospers were here in Southampton they got them but if I remember they were pulling out of ship building weren't they?
But let's get it straight BAe is going to shut at least one yard & at this moment it looks as if it's Portsmouth but as I've said come the referendum that decision could be reversed!
There was a report in the news that the Labour shadow industry MSP minister alongside the unions had talks about the removal of cranes from the Scottish yards & then a week later we hear this announcement from a private company what did that minister & the Unions promise BAe systems? I heard to day that there was work up to the end of next year for Portsmouth if this is so & Scotlands referendum is before the end of that work this decision could change very quickly. The news today said the workers in Scotland are saying if independence is indeed voted for & the British Government insist on the warships for the navy are built in Britain these Scottish yards will close & Portsmouth stays open. So when Labour signed up to two new aircraft carriers at a time when we could little afford them what were they going to do once they were built? they say only this country & the states can build the modern warships needed today so why hasn't BAe got orders from abroad? When Vospers were here in Southampton they got them but if I remember they were pulling out of ship building weren't they? But let's get it straight BAe is going to shut at least one yard & at this moment it looks as if it's Portsmouth but as I've said come the referendum that decision could be reversed! loosehead
  • Score: -3

9:15pm Wed 6 Nov 13

loosehead says...

Crossley Place Saint wrote:
Sir Ad E Noid wrote:
Follow the link to read the MOD statement released today, hours before the Commons statement concerning Portsmouth Dockyard.

https://www.gov.uk/g


overnment/news/new-o


ffshore-patrol-vesse


ls-for-royal-navy
Try this one.

https://navynews.co.

uk/archive/news/item

/8265

Read it and weep.

The contract to build these strategically vital ships was given to Korea, to "achieve best value" for the "UK taxpayer". A few million pounds "saved", but at what long-term cost?
Isn't it the MOD who awards the contracts?
[quote][p][bold]Crossley Place Saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Ad E Noid[/bold] wrote: Follow the link to read the MOD statement released today, hours before the Commons statement concerning Portsmouth Dockyard. https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/news/new-o ffshore-patrol-vesse ls-for-royal-navy[/p][/quote]Try this one. https://navynews.co. uk/archive/news/item /8265 Read it and weep. The contract to build these strategically vital ships was given to Korea, to "achieve best value" for the "UK taxpayer". A few million pounds "saved", but at what long-term cost?[/p][/quote]Isn't it the MOD who awards the contracts? loosehead
  • Score: -2

7:06am Thu 7 Nov 13

skeptik says...

To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day.
Winston Churchill
To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day. Winston Churchill skeptik
  • Score: 1

9:38am Thu 7 Nov 13

Avery T Decanary says...

It is dreadful news but let me correct a few things. Shipbuilding has NOT been at Portsmouth for 800 years. The first warship built in Portsmouth was the Sweepstake in 1497, that a little more than 500 years – yes it’s me being pedantic and it is a long time but not 800 years. And there were no new naval vessels were built there between 1558 and 1648, a gap of 90 years.

The last warship built and launched in Portsmouth was in 1967. Between then and the mid-2000’s there was no ship building, about 35 years, so it’s nothing new. Portsmouth became a maintenance base. In the last ten years the yard has built modular elements for the Type 45’s and the aircraft carriers and I would imagine, that much of that workforce came from the old VT in Woolston. We have known for years there was nothing behind those orders and now everyone is holding their collective hands up in dismay.

I am not making excuses for BAE but if the orders aren’t there what are they supposed to do – retain the workforce indefinitely. The MOD cannot simply order more ships. The Type 26s are still on the drawing board and will probably be built in one yard. They have to be planned in line with second-guessing government military needs 10 and 20 years from now. And when they are built they have to be manned and those sailors need shore bases not just for them but also for their families.

Finally about 885 jobs are going in Scotland where they actually build, fit and launch the ships. So it is not just pain for Portsmouth.
It is dreadful news but let me correct a few things. Shipbuilding has NOT been at Portsmouth for 800 years. The first warship built in Portsmouth was the Sweepstake in 1497, that a little more than 500 years – yes it’s me being pedantic and it is a long time but not 800 years. And there were no new naval vessels were built there between 1558 and 1648, a gap of 90 years. The last warship built and launched in Portsmouth was in 1967. Between then and the mid-2000’s there was no ship building, about 35 years, so it’s nothing new. Portsmouth became a maintenance base. In the last ten years the yard has built modular elements for the Type 45’s and the aircraft carriers and I would imagine, that much of that workforce came from the old VT in Woolston. We have known for years there was nothing behind those orders and now everyone is holding their collective hands up in dismay. I am not making excuses for BAE but if the orders aren’t there what are they supposed to do – retain the workforce indefinitely. The MOD cannot simply order more ships. The Type 26s are still on the drawing board and will probably be built in one yard. They have to be planned in line with second-guessing government military needs 10 and 20 years from now. And when they are built they have to be manned and those sailors need shore bases not just for them but also for their families. Finally about 885 jobs are going in Scotland where they actually build, fit and launch the ships. So it is not just pain for Portsmouth. Avery T Decanary
  • Score: 10

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree