Join the Labour Party and save your country!

Jez mon

Rick Chasey wrote:

Tata also own an ex Corus steel plant in the Netherlands.

Curious to know why that's doing so much better.

Energy is a lot cheaper?

It's not just the people that the TATA employ that are looking at a dire future, it's the towns that are built around the plants. Not to mention the various companies that build equipment for the plants.

Hopefully Sports direct or Amazon can open a warehouse down in Port Talbot and the ex workers can all get nice zero hours contracts working for much lower pay.

But at least by supporting the Chinese cheap steel we are guaranteeing their support for Hinckley point C, which due to the decision to use a **** reactor design will be over budget and delayed.

Lookyhere

Very short sighted approach, Steel wont be cheap forever and once these plants are closed down, they ll never reopen and we ll be paying through the nose for Steel and should we be faced with having to re arm, where will the steel come from? what r these trident replacement subs built from? or new power stations which we ll def be needing, regardless of french or chinese doubts.
the rest of europe seems to get round or ignores EU rules and perhaps Cameron, instead of pissing around with migrant benefit changes in his negotiations, should have been getting exceptions for Steel state aid? but as said, its not an industry or in areas that you d associate with tory voters, which seems to be the default for Aid/funding in the UK.

Stevo_666

Lookyhere wrote:

Very short sighted approach, Steel wont be cheap forever and once these plants are closed down, they ll never reopen and we ll be paying through the nose for Steel and should we be faced with having to re arm, where will the steel come from? what r these trident replacement subs built from? or new power stations which we ll def be needing, regardless of french or chinese doubts.
the rest of europe seems to get round or ignores EU rules and perhaps Cameron, instead of pissing around with migrant benefit changes in his negotiations, should have been getting exceptions for Steel state aid? but as said, its not an industry or in areas that you d associate with tory voters, which seems to be the default for Aid/funding in the UK.

If steel won't be cheap for the foreseeable future then presumably a buyer will be interested as there will be the chance to buy Tata UK operations for next to nothing and ride market increase.

In the FT today, Tata estimate it would take a £2 billion investment to make the plant competitive (presumably self sustaining). There are 4,000 jobs at Port Talbot and an estimated 6,000 or so in the supply chain. Let's say it takes 3 years to turn it around while it's losing £350m per year. That a total cost of just over £3 billion to preserve 10,000 jobs - I make that £300,000 per job. Anyone think that's a good idea?

It might be cheaper to buy steel from somewhere else...a rational business decision but lets not allow the facts to get in the way :roll:

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Tata also own an ex Corus steel plant in the Netherlands.

Curious to know why that's doing so much better.

Got any facts and figures on the NL operation?

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I was talking about the product, not the people who make it.

And what happens to the people and community who make the product once the commodity has ended?
Move to London? With negative equity?

That's a bit premature. The business is up for sale, they have not said they will close it: I expect that is the last resort. Although if no trade buyer or investor can be found, what does that tell you?

Let's put it this way. If it was your money would you sub this steel works to the tune of £350m per year? And that is just the Port Talbot plant. The entire Tata UK operations are up for sale so the annual losses are likely to be considerably higher. Easy for people to say when its not their money....

That is not premature, that is what the people of the area are faced with today.
They need support, either a form of nationalisation/subsidy (not to boost a companies profit) or new industries started in the area. Our government will do nothing leaving them on the scrapheap.

Let's assume that they are faced with closure. See my post above about the cost of preserving these jobs. So I'll ask again, does that look like a good investment to you? Yes or no (If it does, I hope your job does not involve making investment decisions )

As a former resident of Redcar who left when times were tough, I am not unfamiliar with this sort of situation, but if I say how I got on my bike and looked for work/pulled myself up by my own bootstraps, I'll incur the wrath of lefties seem to assume that the affected people working for Tata UK are all helpless victims who have no choice other than stay at the steel works if it stay open, or a life on the dole.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Tata also own an ex Corus steel plant in the Netherlands.

Curious to know why that's doing so much better.

Got any facts and figures on the NL operation?

Not much.

http://www.nltimes.nl/2015/05/26/tata-s ... on-profit/

Stevo_666

Here's a recent history lesson:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9c92891a-f64f-11e5-96db-fc683b5e52db.html#axzz44Trj7g8S

Maybe we can learn from those recent examples rather than the usual knee jerk leftie reaction to bail out any ailing heavy industry - "Somebody must do something...". Industries rise and fall and I suspect that this is a case of King Canute and the tide.

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I was talking about the product, not the people who make it.

And what happens to the people and community who make the product once the commodity has ended?
Move to London? With negative equity?

That's a bit premature. The business is up for sale, they have not said they will close it: I expect that is the last resort. Although if no trade buyer or investor can be found, what does that tell you?

Let's put it this way. If it was your money would you sub this steel works to the tune of £350m per year? And that is just the Port Talbot plant. The entire Tata UK operations are up for sale so the annual losses are likely to be considerably higher. Easy for people to say when its not their money....

That is not premature, that is what the people of the area are faced with today.
They need support, either a form of nationalisation/subsidy (not to boost a companies profit) or new industries started in the area. Our government will do nothing leaving them on the scrapheap.

Let's assume that they are faced with closure. See my post above about the cost of preserving these jobs. So I'll ask again, does that look like a good investment to you? Yes or no (If it does, I hope your job does not involve making investment decisions )

As a former resident of Redcar who left when times were tough, I am not unfamiliar with this sort of situation, but if I say how I got on my bike and looked for work/pulled myself up by my own bootstraps, I'll incur the wrath of lefties seem to assume that the affected people working for Tata UK are all helpless victims who have no choice other than stay at the steel works if it stay open, or a life on the dole.

Still not answering the REAL question. What is to be done for the people and communities?
Left to their own devises will be the outcome, and one you seem to support.
How does anyone in that area get on their bike now that they will be trapped by negative equity?

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Tata also own an ex Corus steel plant in the Netherlands.

Curious to know why that's doing so much better.

Got any facts and figures on the NL operation?

Not much.

http://www.nltimes.nl/2015/05/26/tata-s ... on-profit/

True, not a lot apart from they cut 1,500 jobs from the Dutch operation and then made a profit. However there will be more to it than that obviously.

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I was talking about the product, not the people who make it.

And what happens to the people and community who make the product once the commodity has ended?
Move to London? With negative equity?

That's a bit premature. The business is up for sale, they have not said they will close it: I expect that is the last resort. Although if no trade buyer or investor can be found, what does that tell you?

Let's put it this way. If it was your money would you sub this steel works to the tune of £350m per year? And that is just the Port Talbot plant. The entire Tata UK operations are up for sale so the annual losses are likely to be considerably higher. Easy for people to say when its not their money....

That is not premature, that is what the people of the area are faced with today.
They need support, either a form of nationalisation/subsidy (not to boost a companies profit) or new industries started in the area. Our government will do nothing leaving them on the scrapheap.

Let's assume that they are faced with closure. See my post above about the cost of preserving these jobs. So I'll ask again, does that look like a good investment to you? Yes or no (If it does, I hope your job does not involve making investment decisions )

As a former resident of Redcar who left when times were tough, I am not unfamiliar with this sort of situation, but if I say how I got on my bike and looked for work/pulled myself up by my own bootstraps, I'll incur the wrath of lefties seem to assume that the affected people working for Tata UK are all helpless victims who have no choice other than stay at the steel works if it stay open, or a life on the dole.

Still not answering the REAL question. What is to be done for the people and communities?
Left to their own devises will be the outcome, and one you seem to support.
How does anyone in that area get on their bike now that they will be trapped by negative equity?

You still haven't answered my question about whether it makes economic sense to keep the place open. third time of asking - in your view, Yes or no?

Taking action before we know what is happening to them and their jobs? Like I said premature. But based on the economics of keeping it open, better to look at helping to reskill and job hunting. Unless of course a buyer is found.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Here's a recent history lesson:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9c92891a-f64f-11e5-96db-fc683b5e52db.html#axzz44Trj7g8S

Maybe we can learn from those recent examples rather than the usual knee jerk leftie reaction to bail out any ailing heavy industry - "Somebody must do something...". Industries rise and fall and I suspect that this is a case of King Canute and the tide.

It's legitimate to force the gov't to explain why highly paid banks were bailed out but steel won't be.

It's also legitimate to say Tata, the £60bn company, probably knows how to make the business work or not, and if the market says steel production in the UK is unsustainable, then it's a decent idea to believe it.

It's also legitimate for those workers to expect serious help to be able to transfer to other parts of the economy. The state should legitimately be expected to step up and help soften the blow.

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Here's a recent history lesson:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9c92891a-f64f-11e5-96db-fc683b5e52db.html#axzz44Trj7g8S

Maybe we can learn from those recent examples rather than the usual knee jerk leftie reaction to bail out any ailing heavy industry - "Somebody must do something...". Industries rise and fall and I suspect that this is a case of King Canute and the tide.

It's legitimate to force the gov't to explain why highly paid banks were bailed out but steel won't be.
It is, but they won't
It's also legitimate to say Tata, the £60bn company, probably knows how to make the business work or not, and if the market says steel production in the UK is unsustainable, then it's a decent idea to believe it.
It is
It's also legitimate for those workers to expect serious help to be able to transfer to other parts of the economy. The state should legitimately be expected to step up and help soften the blow.

It is, but they won't

Lookyhere

Stevo 666 wrote:

It might be cheaper to buy steel from somewhere else...a rational business decision but lets not allow the facts to get in the way :roll:

if the yanks can slap on 200% plus tariff, why can't the EU.... oh it can but the UK has veto'ed it... for the last 3 yes 3 years!

the chinese are interested in only one thing, what is good for china and the UK will learn the truth of the chinese saying "i will dig the hole and you will jump in it" (my sister in law is chinese and she cannot believe we are sooooo stupid)
She believes China is a bigger threat to the west than any thing from IS or Russia.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... ith-china/

rick_chasey

Starting trade wars is expensive for everyone in the long run.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Starting trade wars is expensive for everyone in the long run.

+1

Protectionism is not a good idea, especially when the global economy is not looking rosy.

Stevo_666

Stevo 666 wrote:

You still haven't answered my question about whether it makes economic sense to keep the place open. third time of asking - in your view, Yes or no?

Your silence speaks volumes Blakey.

I suspect you know that the answer you want to give is not the right one given the facts. Never mind.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

[
It's legitimate to force the gov't to explain why highly paid banks were bailed out but steel won't be.

You would need to ask the last Labour govt but my understanding is that to let retail banks fail with people's savings would have created a 'run' on the banks that would have caused a far greater banking collapse and potentially more serious economic impact than what actually happened. The lesser of two evils in all probability and as I've said before, one of the few good decisions made by Gordon Brown (along with BoE independence and keeping us out of the Euro).

Lookyhere

Rick Chasey wrote:

Starting trade wars is expensive for everyone in the long run.

so, you, steve0 and the UK are right but everyone else is wrong?
dumping steel is against WTO rules but the chinese dont abide by this do they? so what do you think they will understand?
=

rick_chasey

Who do you mean by everyone? Your own echo chamber?

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

You still haven't answered my question about whether it makes economic sense to keep the place open. third time of asking - in your view, Yes or no?

Your silence speaks volumes Blakey.

I suspect you know that the answer you want to give is not the right one given the facts. Never mind.

Too busy working, and paying taxes to help those that will need it.
I don't have all the facts to make that decision. £1m/day loss? Why? Where is the money going?
You are still not addressing what happens to those left on the scrapheap. I have already outlined why they can't get on their bikes.

surrey_commuter

Why does nobody care about the oil and gas industry? Aberdeen is anticipated to lose 4,000 jobs a year for the next 4 years. A similar number have gone already.

Baling out the banks was a no-brainer as UK economy would have collapsed. The debate is why we ended up with banks that were too big to fail.

Govt should only bale out industries that can be turned around - they should break even on the banks.

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Why does nobody care about the oil and gas industry? Aberdeen is anticipated to lose 4,000 jobs a year for the next 4 years. A similar number have gone already.

Baling out the banks was a no-brainer as UK economy would have collapsed. The debate is why we ended up with banks that were too big to fail.

Govt should only bale out industries that can be turned around - they should break even on the banks.

Because O&G has had 12 years of unprecedented success and high revenues and it is, and always will be, a cyclical industry.

It also gets fairly big tax brakes as it is anyway.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

[
It's legitimate to force the gov't to explain why highly paid banks were bailed out but steel won't be.

You would need to ask the last Labour govt but my understanding is that to let retail banks fail with people's savings would have created a 'run' on the banks that would have caused a far greater banking collapse and potentially more serious economic impact than what actually happened. The lesser of two evils in all probability and as I've said before, one of the few good decisions made by Gordon Brown (along with BoE independence and keeping us out of the Euro).

You're so predictable.

Here's a nice speech from Cameron in 2006 on the City.

The City is a great example of using our advantages.The City of London is a great UK success story. It’s the biggest international financial centre on earth.
The London foreign exchange market is the largest in the world, with an average daily turnover of $504 billion. That’s more than New York and Tokyo combined.
Far from being based on the old school tie, it is supremely meritocratic. It is also highly innovative. You cannot simply set in stone a tax or regulatory regime for the City as it is today because it’s always changing, adapting and mutating.
The lessons from the City are clear. Low tax. Low regulation. Meritocracy. Openness. Innovation. These are the keys to success.

The [labour] government is wedded to the impulse to over-regulate…While I see a much greater role for exhortation and leadership.
Many on the left-of-centre still seek to solve problems through more taxes, more laws and more regulations…But we, on the centre-right, prefer to step out of the way of business.
One of the greatest services that government can give to the economy is to know when to stand clear.

Osbourne on the City in 2006 in the telegraph.

I fear that much of this regulation has been burdensome, complex and makes cross-border market penetration more difficult. This is exactly the wrong direction in which Europe should be heading and it threatens the global competitiveness of the City of London.
Major companies can pack up and move anywhere in the world if faced with damaging regulations. We have already seen it happen in the United States, with the Sarbanes-Oxley regulations that were hastily introduced after the Enron scandal and which have led to international companies delisting and moving elsewhere.
London has benefited enormously from America's short-sightedness and it would be foolish of us to make the same mistake.

ballysmate

Rick Chasey wrote:

Starting trade wars is expensive for everyone in the long run.

Totally agree. The biggest loser is the smaller party, in this case, us, not China.

Lookyhere

Rick Chasey wrote:

Who do you mean by everyone? Your own echo chamber?

not really, the EU/USA want to support their steel industries, for long term economic security as well as jobs, you and UK dont, as i said dumping is against WTO rules, so, instead of smart arse answers, what would you do about dumped chinese steel? and the breach of WTO rules.
and why is the EU/US wrong to impose tariffs against it?

rick_chasey

Lookyhere wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Who do you mean by everyone? Your own echo chamber?

not really, the EU/USA want to support their steel industries, for long term economic security as well as jobs, you and UK dont, as i said dumping is against WTO rules, so, instead of smart ars* answers, what would you do about dumped chinese steel? and the breach of WTO rules.
and why is the EU/US wrong to impose tariffs against it?

They're already engaged in the trade war.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trade-war.asp

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

You still haven't answered my question about whether it makes economic sense to keep the place open. third time of asking - in your view, Yes or no?

Your silence speaks volumes Blakey.

I suspect you know that the answer you want to give is not the right one given the facts. Never mind.

Too busy working, and paying taxes to help those that will need it.
I don't have all the facts to make that decision. £1m/day loss? Why? Where is the money going?
You are still not addressing what happens to those left on the scrapheap. I have already outlined why they can't get on their bikes.

Just ATFQ.

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

You still haven't answered my question about whether it makes economic sense to keep the place open. third time of asking - in your view, Yes or no?

Your silence speaks volumes Blakey.

I suspect you know that the answer you want to give is not the right one given the facts. Never mind.

Too busy working, and paying taxes to help those that will need it.
I don't have all the facts to make that decision. £1m/day loss? Why? Where is the money going?
You are still not addressing what happens to those left on the scrapheap. I have already outlined why they can't get on their bikes.

Just ATFQ.

I did ATFQ. If those in the know are going to take weeks to come up with a solution then how do you expect me to in 5 minutes without the info?
ATFQ. How are we going to help the community of Port Talbot if/when it goes tits up?
I expect a similar answer to that the Government will supply. i.e. ................................................

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

[
It's legitimate to force the gov't to explain why highly paid banks were bailed out but steel won't be.

You would need to ask the last Labour govt but my understanding is that to let retail banks fail with people's savings would have created a 'run' on the banks that would have caused a far greater banking collapse and potentially more serious economic impact than what actually happened. The lesser of two evils in all probability and as I've said before, one of the few good decisions made by Gordon Brown (along with BoE independence and keeping us out of the Euro).

You're so predictable.

Here's a nice speech from Cameron in 2006 on the City.

The City is a great example of using our advantages.The City of London is a great UK success story. It’s the biggest international financial centre on earth.
The London foreign exchange market is the largest in the world, with an average daily turnover of $504 billion. That’s more than New York and Tokyo combined.
Far from being based on the old school tie, it is supremely meritocratic. It is also highly innovative. You cannot simply set in stone a tax or regulatory regime for the City as it is today because it’s always changing, adapting and mutating.
The lessons from the City are clear. Low tax. Low regulation. Meritocracy. Openness. Innovation. These are the keys to success.

The [labour] government is wedded to the impulse to over-regulate…While I see a much greater role for exhortation and leadership.
Many on the left-of-centre still seek to solve problems through more taxes, more laws and more regulations…But we, on the centre-right, prefer to step out of the way of business.
One of the greatest services that government can give to the economy is to know when to stand clear.

Osbourne on the City in 2006 in the telegraph.

I fear that much of this regulation has been burdensome, complex and makes cross-border market penetration more difficult. This is exactly the wrong direction in which Europe should be heading and it threatens the global competitiveness of the City of London.
Major companies can pack up and move anywhere in the world if faced with damaging regulations. We have already seen it happen in the United States, with the Sarbanes-Oxley regulations that were hastily introduced after the Enron scandal and which have led to international companies delisting and moving elsewhere.
London has benefited enormously from America's short-sightedness and it would be foolish of us to make the same mistake.

Those quotes don't change the fact that what I said was right. Regardless of whether a tory govt would have done the same thing.

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

You still haven't answered my question about whether it makes economic sense to keep the place open. third time of asking - in your view, Yes or no?

Your silence speaks volumes Blakey.

I suspect you know that the answer you want to give is not the right one given the facts. Never mind.

Too busy working, and paying taxes to help those that will need it.
I don't have all the facts to make that decision. £1m/day loss? Why? Where is the money going?
You are still not addressing what happens to those left on the scrapheap. I have already outlined why they can't get on their bikes.

Just ATFQ.

I did ATFQ. If those in the know are going to take weeks to come up with a solution then how do you expect me to in 5 minutes without the info?
ATFQ. How are we going to help the community of Port Talbot if/when it goes tits up?
I expect a similar answer to that the Government will supply. i.e. ................................................

So you answer is that you don't know. Even though I ser out the facts for you to make the decision.

My answer is that the best solution is reskilling and job hunting assistance, as I already said above.

Although as with anything in life, the primary responsibility rests with the individuals concerned - as it did with me back in the late 1980's.