| Tata 15:48 - Jan 17 with 35144 views | raynor94 |
Looks like up to 800 job losses to be announced, 600 at Port Talbot, a devastating blow for the area, let's just hope Tata keep the faith and see these rough times through |  |
| |  |
| Tata on 20:06 - Mar 31 with 1301 views | blueytheblue |
| Tata on 19:48 - Mar 31 by NeathJack |
Ok, lets allow the British Steel industry fail and rely fully on the cheap Chinese imported Steel, which will then start to sky rocket in price leaving us with little choice but to pay it having no alternative industry of our own.
Evolution innit.
Or alternatively we could renationalise the industry at a fraction of what it cost to bail out the banks thereby securing employment for thousands of workers who will then continue to contribute to the economy both locally and nationally though taxes and purchases while protecting our ability to make steel ourselves. |
Banks, lol, ok. Apples meet oranges.
If the banks had fallen then millions would have lost their money. In terms of the scale of things.. banks were bailed out in return for giving the government shares.
Where is the motivation for tata to make such a deal? Port Talbot dies, Tata stop losing money. Government take shares, would need a sizeable shareholding to justify the continued long term funding. Given any profits made would be minimal the only way the government could recoup that money is to then sell it's shares. There's no guarantee the taxpayer would be anything other than saddled with debt.
Middle ground would be light government intervention. Cut costs at Port Talbot which would lead to job cuts; work on developing other job industries in the region. The biggest problem is much like the coal industry, regions have become too dependent upon one particular industry.
Renationalisation isn't a magic panacea that solves all the problems. |  |
| |
| Tata on 20:07 - Mar 31 with 1297 views | blueytheblue |
| Tata on 19:59 - Mar 31 by dailew |
"Are you advocating that the taxpayer should thus be forced to pay more for steel used in government projects? "
Yes, if it's cost effective.
You still haven't explained why Chinese steel would need to be banned for industries not involved in govt projects. |
I explained it.
If you believe the industry will survive and flourish with only British government projects purchasing it's steel, then good luck. | |
| |
| Tata on 20:12 - Mar 31 with 1280 views | NeathJack |
| Tata on 20:06 - Mar 31 by blueytheblue |
Banks, lol, ok. Apples meet oranges.
If the banks had fallen then millions would have lost their money. In terms of the scale of things.. banks were bailed out in return for giving the government shares.
Where is the motivation for tata to make such a deal? Port Talbot dies, Tata stop losing money. Government take shares, would need a sizeable shareholding to justify the continued long term funding. Given any profits made would be minimal the only way the government could recoup that money is to then sell it's shares. There's no guarantee the taxpayer would be anything other than saddled with debt.
Middle ground would be light government intervention. Cut costs at Port Talbot which would lead to job cuts; work on developing other job industries in the region. The biggest problem is much like the coal industry, regions have become too dependent upon one particular industry.
Renationalisation isn't a magic panacea that solves all the problems. |
Hello brick wall.
You really don't get it do you. [Post edited 31 Mar 2016 20:13]
|  | | |
| Tata on 20:14 - Mar 31 with 1272 views | longlostjack |
| Tata on 18:34 - Mar 31 by blueytheblue |
So taxpayers should pay more then to subsidise British jobs?
At one point does damage to other industries outweigh saving Tata's plants? Push cost of steel imported up via whatever means, other industries then cut jobs... |
Still trotting out Tory CCHQ spins Bluey?? Why don't your lot talk about the massive subsidies paid large scale farming in East Anglia for example? Why was Capital Gains Tax reduced to 20% in the Budget? Banks of course were too big to fail - convenient. You lot have the nerve to talk about creating a climate for manufacturing and are concerned about manufacturing companies who are buyers of steel? Makes me sick and worse than anything Alistair Campbell could have dreamed up. |  |
| |
| Tata on 20:17 - Mar 31 with 1260 views | blueytheblue |
| Tata on 20:12 - Mar 31 by NeathJack |
Hello brick wall.
You really don't get it do you. [Post edited 31 Mar 2016 20:13]
|
So your solution is?
"Hello Tata, we'll pay your massive losses with taxpayers money. What's that? you don't want to give us control of the company as it's no big deal to you if it goes bust as it'll take a big loss off your books? Oh...."
Rely upon it being sold? With the losses it makes who on earth would buy it?
The government taking over Port Talbot would solve nothing because the fundamental problems remain irrespective of who owns it. Those need addressing before anything else can take place.
My preferred solution is for any government intervention to be as light touch as possible - but also to concentrate funding in areas like Port Talbot to establish alternative jobs because the problem certain areas face are that they are utterly reliable upon single industries. | |
| |
| Tata on 20:19 - Mar 31 with 1251 views | max936 |
| Tata on 19:33 - Mar 31 by blueytheblue |
Ok then; Chinese cheap steel continues to be freely available.
Why on earth would anyone willingly want to pay more for steel then? Are you advocating that the taxpayer should thus be forced to pay more for steel used in government projects?
So how on earth would Tata's business magically improve? Even if people willingly accepted substantial amounts of public money being spent on more expensive steel... which private companies would pay more?
All you'd be doing is making Port Talbot et al utterly dependent upon taxpayer funded projects... |
That cheap Chinese Steel is fit only for white goods, it can't be welded or properly folded/ shaped, its no good for any decent car making, so yes bring on Chinese steel. |  |
| |
| Tata on 20:23 - Mar 31 with 1235 views | blueytheblue |
| Tata on 20:14 - Mar 31 by longlostjack |
Still trotting out Tory CCHQ spins Bluey?? Why don't your lot talk about the massive subsidies paid large scale farming in East Anglia for example? Why was Capital Gains Tax reduced to 20% in the Budget? Banks of course were too big to fail - convenient. You lot have the nerve to talk about creating a climate for manufacturing and are concerned about manufacturing companies who are buyers of steel? Makes me sick and worse than anything Alistair Campbell could have dreamed up. |
Farming subsidies across the EU are an utter disgrace. When people have been paid NOT to farm, it's an utter joke driven by the demands of French farmers for the most part.
CGT? 2007 the rate was.... 18%
Of course banks were too big to fail. That's obvious and undeniable.
The reality is that manufacturing has been hit worst by globalisation. I'd argue that whilst manufacturing is important, the lack of secondary industries within regions causes an over reliance upon manufacturing sectors for jobs. | |
| |
| Tata on 20:25 - Mar 31 with 1225 views | blueytheblue |
| Tata on 20:19 - Mar 31 by max936 |
That cheap Chinese Steel is fit only for white goods, it can't be welded or properly folded/ shaped, its no good for any decent car making, so yes bring on Chinese steel. |
Well, in that case Chinese steel prices can't be the reason for falling income Tata have found then if it's not fit for most purposes. That's then a misnomer for any debate.
The question then is why Tata steel isn't being used for areas where Chinese steel can't be used. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Tata on 20:26 - Mar 31 with 1222 views | max936 |
| Tata on 20:23 - Mar 31 by blueytheblue |
Farming subsidies across the EU are an utter disgrace. When people have been paid NOT to farm, it's an utter joke driven by the demands of French farmers for the most part.
CGT? 2007 the rate was.... 18%
Of course banks were too big to fail. That's obvious and undeniable.
The reality is that manufacturing has been hit worst by globalisation. I'd argue that whilst manufacturing is important, the lack of secondary industries within regions causes an over reliance upon manufacturing sectors for jobs. |
Out of interest, what is your job Bluey? | |
| |
| Tata on 20:28 - Mar 31 with 1219 views | blueytheblue |
| Tata on 20:26 - Mar 31 by max936 |
Out of interest, what is your job Bluey? |
Director of a software development company.
Survived quite a few years despite the drive for outsourcing to other countries.
Yes, arguably my view would be different if I worked in a different sector, freely acknowledge that. | |
| |
| Tata on 20:31 - Mar 31 with 1204 views | NeathJack |
| Tata on 20:17 - Mar 31 by blueytheblue |
So your solution is?
"Hello Tata, we'll pay your massive losses with taxpayers money. What's that? you don't want to give us control of the company as it's no big deal to you if it goes bust as it'll take a big loss off your books? Oh...."
Rely upon it being sold? With the losses it makes who on earth would buy it?
The government taking over Port Talbot would solve nothing because the fundamental problems remain irrespective of who owns it. Those need addressing before anything else can take place.
My preferred solution is for any government intervention to be as light touch as possible - but also to concentrate funding in areas like Port Talbot to establish alternative jobs because the problem certain areas face are that they are utterly reliable upon single industries. |
"The government taking over Port Talbot would solve nothing".
Go and knock on the doors of the thousands upon thousands of families affected by this and tell them.
The industry needs to be renationalised, tariffs need to be put on imported steel rather than blocked, a commitment needs to be given that all major Government projects such as HS2 will use British Steel and energy costs need to be cut to make it more competitive.
All of this can be done and should be done. | | | |
| Tata on 20:35 - Mar 31 with 1184 views | blueytheblue |
| Tata on 20:31 - Mar 31 by NeathJack |
"The government taking over Port Talbot would solve nothing".
Go and knock on the doors of the thousands upon thousands of families affected by this and tell them.
The industry needs to be renationalised, tariffs need to be put on imported steel rather than blocked, a commitment needs to be given that all major Government projects such as HS2 will use British Steel and energy costs need to be cut to make it more competitive.
All of this can be done and should be done. |
All those in combination would be a solution, maybe not the solution and certainly wouldn't guarantee a thriving steel business.
You missed out government aid in developing alternative sectors within regions dependent upon single industries. That would be more effective long term. | |
| |
| Tata on 20:37 - Mar 31 with 1174 views | acejack3065 |
| Tata on 20:35 - Mar 31 by blueytheblue |
All those in combination would be a solution, maybe not the solution and certainly wouldn't guarantee a thriving steel business.
You missed out government aid in developing alternative sectors within regions dependent upon single industries. That would be more effective long term. |
Aye, that's the really big issue down in Port Talbot at the minute. The long term! |  | | |
| Tata on 20:37 - Mar 31 with 1172 views | dailew |
| Tata on 20:07 - Mar 31 by blueytheblue |
I explained it.
If you believe the industry will survive and flourish with only British government projects purchasing it's steel, then good luck. |
Never said it would survive and flourish. Just think it would stand a better chance and it may well be more cost effective for the taxpayer, if the British Government, like other governments, used domestic sources if practicable. |  |
| |
| Tata on 20:38 - Mar 31 with 1171 views | blueytheblue |
| Tata on 20:37 - Mar 31 by acejack3065 |
Aye, that's the really big issue down in Port Talbot at the minute. The long term! |
Any solution has to consider the long term or it's not a solution, it's a plaster covering a broken leg. | |
| |
| Tata on 20:39 - Mar 31 with 1203 views | NeathJack |
| Tata on 20:35 - Mar 31 by blueytheblue |
All those in combination would be a solution, maybe not the solution and certainly wouldn't guarantee a thriving steel business.
You missed out government aid in developing alternative sectors within regions dependent upon single industries. That would be more effective long term. |
Absolutely but it needs to be in conjunction with keeping the steel industry alive until these alternative, equally skilled and salaried jobs in alternative sectors are available.
But then that should have been done long before the area found itself in this situation. And the Welsh Government is equally culpable in that as the Westminster Government. | | | |
| Tata on 20:41 - Mar 31 with 1197 views | acejack3065 |
| Tata on 20:38 - Mar 31 by blueytheblue |
Any solution has to consider the long term or it's not a solution, it's a plaster covering a broken leg. |
If we are going into a broken leg metaphor then at this current rate the leg (Port Talbot) is about to be left to go gangrenous. That will result in it eventually being amputated (closed for good) and we won't have a leg to stand on. | | | |
| Tata on 20:44 - Mar 31 with 1187 views | blueytheblue |
| Tata on 20:39 - Mar 31 by NeathJack |
Absolutely but it needs to be in conjunction with keeping the steel industry alive until these alternative, equally skilled and salaried jobs in alternative sectors are available.
But then that should have been done long before the area found itself in this situation. And the Welsh Government is equally culpable in that as the Westminster Government. |
Agreed - see, I'm not unreasonable.
I can't however see anything other than some job cuts short to medium term whilst that happens. Steel industry may be kept alive but not in the form it is today ( or rather yesterday ).
I'd be interested to see how renationalisation could happen. Forced handing over of a company? Something Putin would like to do. Take over the debts in return for shares - sadly can't see government could ever make a return to justify that approach. To be successful that would need an eventual buyer of the shares, it would be a case of minimising losses should someone want to buy. Even so, who would want to buy either the company or any shares in the future when losses are piling up? | |
| |
| Tata on 20:48 - Mar 31 with 1166 views | longlostjack |
| Tata on 20:23 - Mar 31 by blueytheblue |
Farming subsidies across the EU are an utter disgrace. When people have been paid NOT to farm, it's an utter joke driven by the demands of French farmers for the most part.
CGT? 2007 the rate was.... 18%
Of course banks were too big to fail. That's obvious and undeniable.
The reality is that manufacturing has been hit worst by globalisation. I'd argue that whilst manufacturing is important, the lack of secondary industries within regions causes an over reliance upon manufacturing sectors for jobs. |
Who benefits from a reduction in CGT?
Who benefits most from subsidies in agriculture - large scale farming operations or small farmers?
Why aren't any steel plants closing in Europe?
Why have the Tories blocked efforts to raise tariffs on steel in the EU?
Why do we rely on Chinese state finance and French expertise to secure our energy needs?
Why have the Tories continually sold off the nation's assets under market value?
Churchill would be spinning in his grave. | |
| |
| Tata on 20:49 - Mar 31 with 1161 views | NeathJack |
| Tata on 20:44 - Mar 31 by blueytheblue |
Agreed - see, I'm not unreasonable.
I can't however see anything other than some job cuts short to medium term whilst that happens. Steel industry may be kept alive but not in the form it is today ( or rather yesterday ).
I'd be interested to see how renationalisation could happen. Forced handing over of a company? Something Putin would like to do. Take over the debts in return for shares - sadly can't see government could ever make a return to justify that approach. To be successful that would need an eventual buyer of the shares, it would be a case of minimising losses should someone want to buy. Even so, who would want to buy either the company or any shares in the future when losses are piling up? |
Given the fact that Tata will be closing the plant if no "buyer" is found and their current losses, I can't imagine it taking a whole lot of persuading for them to part with the plant on terms favourable to the Government.
However, this is all probably moot as Cameron would happily let the area die rather than renationalise. | | | |
| Tata on 20:49 - Mar 31 with 1159 views | oh_tommy_tommy |
| Tata on 20:48 - Mar 31 by longlostjack |
Who benefits from a reduction in CGT?
Who benefits most from subsidies in agriculture - large scale farming operations or small farmers?
Why aren't any steel plants closing in Europe?
Why have the Tories blocked efforts to raise tariffs on steel in the EU?
Why do we rely on Chinese state finance and French expertise to secure our energy needs?
Why have the Tories continually sold off the nation's assets under market value?
Churchill would be spinning in his grave. |
I've been trying to tell you all for years
Basically
They are a bunch of C@nts |  |
| |
| Tata on 20:52 - Mar 31 with 1151 views | longlostjack |
| Tata on 20:48 - Mar 31 by longlostjack |
Who benefits from a reduction in CGT?
Who benefits most from subsidies in agriculture - large scale farming operations or small farmers?
Why aren't any steel plants closing in Europe?
Why have the Tories blocked efforts to raise tariffs on steel in the EU?
Why do we rely on Chinese state finance and French expertise to secure our energy needs?
Why have the Tories continually sold off the nation's assets under market value?
Churchill would be spinning in his grave. |
Oh and what's the point of Industry 4.0 if you have no manufacturing? | |
| |
| Tata on 20:54 - Mar 31 with 1134 views | blueytheblue |
| Tata on 20:49 - Mar 31 by NeathJack |
Given the fact that Tata will be closing the plant if no "buyer" is found and their current losses, I can't imagine it taking a whole lot of persuading for them to part with the plant on terms favourable to the Government.
However, this is all probably moot as Cameron would happily let the area die rather than renationalise. |
I read Tata's threats as a way to get government investment rather than handing over the company. Meekly giving up would cause a massive loss of face to Tata in India; given the massive loans they took out to buy Corus, those loans would still need to be repaid. | |
| |
| Tata on 21:27 - Mar 31 with 1079 views | vetchonian |
| Tata on 20:17 - Mar 31 by blueytheblue |
So your solution is?
"Hello Tata, we'll pay your massive losses with taxpayers money. What's that? you don't want to give us control of the company as it's no big deal to you if it goes bust as it'll take a big loss off your books? Oh...."
Rely upon it being sold? With the losses it makes who on earth would buy it?
The government taking over Port Talbot would solve nothing because the fundamental problems remain irrespective of who owns it. Those need addressing before anything else can take place.
My preferred solution is for any government intervention to be as light touch as possible - but also to concentrate funding in areas like Port Talbot to establish alternative jobs because the problem certain areas face are that they are utterly reliable upon single industries. |
The problem s was all caused 30 years ago with the privatisation of British Steel e company then fell under the ownership of a "foreign" control. Tata have raped the knowledge from the business and will still keep some steel making as India know this is essential to a viable economy something our governments have failed to grasp. ( Tory) by the way I worked in the industry and
Have been a Tory supports but feel they have no clue they truly believe we just need a service sector which is why we have to rely on the Chinese to build us power stations,the Japanese to provide our locomotives,the French for our utilities.
The bigger problem is the loss of revenue to the government from the income tax and NI from the reasonable salaries paid in steel compared to the national living wage jobs which may replace some of those lost. Plus the los of income from VAT as people will have no spending power,followed by the loss of the jobs in the supply chain and local business coupled with the increase in benefits which will require paying .....the. Of course those manufacturers left are at he mercy of "foreign" steel suppliers at possible higher courts potentially driving them out of business. Maybe those. Brilliant economists in the government should redo some sums maybe investing in Tata might be a good investment after all | |
| |
| Tata on 21:32 - Mar 31 with 1066 views | longlostjack |
| Tata on 20:54 - Mar 31 by blueytheblue |
I read Tata's threats as a way to get government investment rather than handing over the company. Meekly giving up would cause a massive loss of face to Tata in India; given the massive loans they took out to buy Corus, those loans would still need to be repaid. |
Allowing Port Talbot the same tax advantages that the Duchy of Cornwall gets might be a good start. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
