https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Leyland
The best option is to let uncompetitive businesses fail and concentrate on things the private sector can't do well.
This is such an Economics 101-style response, I'm not even sure how to address it.
When the plant stops production, it's not only the 2500 people who lose their jobs, it's also the auxiliary economy of parts suppliers, logistics networks and food and drink businesses that are affected and may have to shut down as well. That creates a negative multiplier effect that pushes economic activity down further. Not to mention the long term impact of lower tax receipts, lower property values.
You can't snap your fingers and replace the underpinnings of an entire community overnight via the magic of the "free market". Another company will only accept the costs of relocating there if the government starts offering tax incentives and the like to make it worth their while.
I agree that we need a better system, especially when companies can simply move when it's convenient. But manufacturing is a strategically important industry and governments are willing to pay to keep that industry at home.
I keep seeing this response pop up.
"Sure, my position fails to demonstrate even the most basic understanding of economics, but your argument reeks of being built on the fundamentals of the field!"
Not the outcome rather the consumers, tax payers, even the workers, possibly the environment although I suspect that is somewhat orthogonal to this.
Ever heard of Renault? Due to neo-liberal politics the ownership has changed in more recent times, but they have been state owned for a lot of their history.
The disease of neo-liberalism was a contributory factor to the demise of BL and the word neo-liberalism didn't even exist prior to 1982. The writing was not on the wall with BL during the post war years and their products were highly successful. The UK balance of payments was helped not hindered by the predecessor companies - the Rovers, Triumphs, Austins and what-not.
The problem was investment. So in the years when BL was a lot of private companies they could not get investment from the city. This is because London only invests in companies they can asset strip, they don't speak the same banking language as in Germany where banks invest in companies and people.
After the Labour government that preceded Thatcher rescued BL there was a problem due to the lack of investment, however BL did what they could to rise to the challenge despite the difficulties of strikes and useless managers. Then when Thatcher arrived BL was privatised. There was obviously no investment from the conservative government, that is not how they roll. They just wanted to sell the family silver.
So then it comes to the media and how they portray the story as all the fault of the unions and the company being nationalised. Yet the story is not an honest one, the truth is that the UK banking sector just don't invest in actual companies that employ people that do actual work. They might front the cash for some asset stripping or they might invest in property, but never did they invest in UK industry. German culture was different, banks there have much better investment ideas, they can also see a better return from investing in their own concerns.
The disease of neo-liberalism was enforced on the world so you have things like Renault that the state aren't allowed to own if they are to be in the clubs of the EU/IMF/GATT and what not.
The people that manage companies are not automagically better people just because they work for vulture capitalists instead of the government.
It's interesting to note we now make more cars in the UK than we ever did in the BL era.
I have a lot more faith in decisions that get made because people put money down then because people put votes down. What's the line? A bet is a tax on bullshit. People say they like lots of things. They'll pay money they had to work to earn for a lot fewer - and they'll think about those a lot harder.