There is a simple (simplistic?) argument that goes that it's cheaper and better for the economy to have a person producing 1000 units of value to the economy and paying them 1500 units to do so if the alternative is to pay them 1000 units to do nothing. This means government intervention and subsidy, because although it's good for the economy it's bad for any individual employer.
I know there are all sorts of arguments about market distortion, structural inefficiencies, impact on long-term competitiveness etc. (I'm sure CdM can come up with plenty of them). And yet it seems to me there's still a fundamental truth in there which those arguments don't eliminate - especially if aid and subsidy is carefully aimed and time-restricted.
Having said that, Rover was dead in the water 5 years ago and the 6000 working there have had 5 years more work and pay out of it than they had any right to expect. It is not a suitable recipient for further aid in its present form or on its present site. All the government can do is help to manage the transition to other jobs for the people concerned.

[rab] Every day out of work for someone who is able to work is a day's labour lost forever. Labour is the most perishable commodity there is. The fewer people who work, the less stuff is created. So yes, having people out of work makes us all poorer. Of course, I'm taking the view that the more stuff we have (including intangibles such as art and clean streets) the better; someone who takes the opposite view, that the less stuff we have the better, like some extreme environmentalists, would presumably want to see unemployment rise as high as possible, and will be celebrating that a manufacturer of evil machines has finally gone out of business.

[rab] You also take the view that all jobs result in "stuff being created," which isn't necessarily true.

[Darren] Do I? Or did you mean Raak?

[Darren] Assuming you meant me, yes, there are unproductive jobs, such as, according to the stories, a lot of the management jobs at Rover. Paying people a fat salary to do nothing does nobody any good, including the people paid the fat salary.

Yes, I meant Raak. Sorry about that.

CdM] You're right in that I wasn't defending the practices I listed (and I'm pretty sure Rosie wasn't either). The point we were making was that it's a conscious political choice for the government to let Rover go to the wall, and that this is a bad thing. I'd echo most of INJ's and Raak's answers to rab, as well. I think it is the government's responsibility to do something about employment.