UK Steel

[unclebulgaria67]

Is it in the UK's interest to retain a steel industry, even at public expense ?

 

If there was a future war which affected the UK, there might be an urgent need of steel, for the manufacture of defence equipment. I am not sure we would wait for shipments from abroad. OK a war is not likely, but any country should have infrastructure to meet any need and i think production of steel in the UK should be maintained, just in case a need arises,

 

The Chinese have flooded the market and i don't want to see the UK dependent on foreign made steel. Once you lose an industry like this, it is very difficult to ever get it back again.

 

If taxpayers bailed out the Banks at a huge cost, should they bail out UK steel, so it can be restructured and be kept as a UK asset.

[unclebulgaria67]

Interesting article

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/03/30/britain-sacrifices-steel-industry-to-curry-favour-with-china/

[king12345]

Yes uncle, the steel industry should be retained and renewed.

What the government should do is pass an emergency bill taxing foreign steel so it would cost the same or more than the British one.

I wouldn't mind paying a bit more for steel products knowing that 100.000 people have still got a job and are not supported by taxpayers.

Mr Tata would then think seriously about retaining his business instead of shutting it down.

Also, as you said, our country should think about being as much as possible self sustainable.

Imagine if the Chinese industry crashed, where would we take our steel from?

And how much would we pay for it?

Unfortunately I have a feeling that there are higher interested parties in this story and the steel industry will shut down with disastrous consequences.

[tobyjugg2]

Interesting that despite dumping Steel at below cost into the EU, China has put levies of over 40% on any UK/EU steel going into China.

http://news.sky.com/story/1671109/china-hits-steel-made-in-uk-with-46-percent-levy

 

Why do the EU not do the same to China rather than only 16% tariff?

Because Cameron is blocking the EU doing that.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/01/steel-crisis-uk-accused-blocking-eu-attempts-regulate-chinese-dumping

 

 

http://news.sky.com/story/1669533/understanding-the-steel-crisis-10-key-points

[obiter dictum]

Greedy energy companies, are helping to destroy industry in this country. The electricity suppliers charge companies in the UK almost twice as much as the EU average, at £90.10 per megawatt hour!! Not only should the government be trying to help out our steel industry, they should take energy supplies back into public ownership, and stop these fat cat billionaires destroying what industry we have left!

Of course this wont happen, as some of the major stakeholders in the energy firms are massive Tory funders!!

The Tory's view is to let the steel industry rot, and get cheap steel from china, whilst letting the energy companies fleece everyone.

[Fedupandfightingback]

I understood it was the EU preventing us from supporting industry in crisis ?

[unclebulgaria67]

I understood it was the EU preventing us from supporting industry in crisis ?

 

The Tories ganged up with a few countries in the EU to stop action being taken.

[tobyjugg2]

http://www.euractiv.com/section/eu-china-trade/news/anglo-dutch-alliance-resists-pressure-to-impose-higher-tariffs-on-china/

[unclebulgaria67]

The Tories are the most anti British party there has ever been, but you would not believe this from most media. Those against the current EU should look at Heath, Thatcher, Major and Blair. I have included Blair, as many people think he was a Tory. They criticise the EU, but they have had a big influence over many EU policies. The EU wanted to look at tax competition, with companies shifting profits to cheaper tax areas, but Osborne resisted this.

 

The Tories do not believe British ownership of companies is important and would rather see foreign nationalised companies run various companies in the UK.

 

It is about time Labour and other parties started to fight back with policies which stood a chance of winning support at an election. Otherwise i can see the Tories staying in government until at least 2025, selling off most of the UK to the highest bidder.

[tobyjugg2]

The Tories are the most anti British party there has ever been, but you would not believe this from most media. Those against the current EU should look at Heath, Thatcher, Major and Blair. I have included Blair, as many people think he was a Tory. They criticise the EU, but they have had a big influence over many EU policies. The EU wanted to look at tax competition, with companies shifting profits to cheaper tax areas, but Osborne resisted this.

 

The Tories do not believe British ownership of companies is important and would rather see foreign nationalised companies run various companies in the UK.

 

It is about time Labour and other parties started to fight back with policies which stood a chance of winning support at an election. Otherwise i can see the Tories staying in government until at least 2025, selling off most of the UK to the highest bidder.

 

+1

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2016/04/steel-not-sunset-industry-it-s-linchpin-our-economy

 

"The EU has sought to give teeth to trade defence rules with plans to remove the existing rule that caps tariffs at 9-16 per cent, but our government have actively campaigned against these changes.

 

Similarly, Cameron has been China’s chief cheerleader for the granting of Market Economy Status (MES), despite the Chinese steel industry being 80 per cent state owned. Granting MES would all but eliminate our ability to impose tariffs on dumped Chinese steel."

[Conniff]

The Tories this, the Tories that, Labour this, Labour that.

 

Would someone like to tell me How many companies were renationalised during the Labour 13 years 'no more boom and bust' reign ??

[Old Cogger]

MPs Not fit for purpose.

[unclebulgaria67]

The Tories this, the Tories that, Labour this, Labour that.

 

Would someone like to tell me How many companies were renationalised during the Labour 13 years 'no more boom and bust' reign ??

 

None apart from the various Banks, but Blair did not believe in renationalisation, as he thought taxpayers money was better spent on services.

 

If you read Peter Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday, he now says that Mrs Thatcher was wrong to sell off UK utility companies, as some are now owned by foreign state owned companies. I agree with him.

[Conniff]

I also agree that Gas, Water and Electricity should never be privately owned, especially the Water.

 

They don't have to be run by Civil Servants, they can be run as they are now and the bosses have fat pay packets, but look at all the profit that would be going into the coffers.

Edited April 4, 2016 by Conniff

[tobyjugg2]

It always has seemed strange to me that a 'nationalised' industry is considered inefficient and a burden on the taxpayers,

 

Yet those same industries, once privatised

Despite all the same senior management and staff

and with shareholders dividends (always high) and massive pay increases and bonuses to those same managers

... Can be immensely profitable.

 

I must be missing something.

[unclebulgaria67]

I think the Tories prefer private ownership for two reasons. Firstly it would be up to the companies to borrow money in regard to infrastructure development/investment in plant etc and not on government books. Secondly these companies pay corporation taxes and have to pay into the pension schemes, so in theory they think government finances benefit more, with less liabilities.

 

Personally, i think it is debateable whether some utilities are better in private hands, rather than public. We have the French state company EDF having to build UK Nuclear power stations with Chinese state money, as UK government does not want to do this.

 

The Tories seem to accept foreign state companies, but don't like this model in the UK in providing our own production. I find it strange.

[tobyjugg2]

I think the Tories prefer private ownership for two reasons. Firstly it would be up to the companies to borrow money in regard to infrastructure development/investment in plant etc and not on government books. Secondly these companies pay corporation taxes and have to pay into the pension schemes, so in theory they think government finances benefit more, with less liabilities.

 

There is no reason why a state owned - or majority state owned company should not be run on the same basis as the 'privatised' industries, except with the profits going to the state.

Especially as the government via tax payers money bails out the shareholders anyway

 

As in the PO sell off pension scheme, and of course RBS - one of the VERY few loss making banks in the world.

[buckthorn]

I finde it strange that when making a statement it is usually in one direction only and that is to the left, which accounts for the

peripheral vision in a lot of the contributions, (peripheral=the less important part of a subject).

 

However on this subject, I totally agree that water-gas-electricity should never have been privatised, I also think you are correct

in stating that these foreign companies are making a lot of money out of this country which they are careful not to do in their own.

(take EDF for instance) for allowing this privatisation I also blame the Tories.

 

 

Greedy energy companies, are helping to destroy industry in this country. The electricity suppliers charge companies in the UK almost twice as much as the EU average, at £90.10 per megawatt hour!! Not only should the government be trying to help out our steel industry, they should take energy supplies back into public ownership, and stop these fat cat billionaires destroying what industry we have left!

Of course this wont happen, as some of the major stakeholders in the energy firms are massive Tory funders!!

The Tory's view is to let the steel industry rot, and get cheap steel from china, whilst letting the energy companies fleece everyone.

 

Most of the problems in relation to the steel industry relate to the cost of energy (gas and electric), this can also be attributed to the

green energy tariff, which is making the cost of production uneconomic compared to other countries.

 

And who was one of the instigator of this policy Red Ed Miliband :- So let’s not put all the blame on one side as they are just as bad as each other.

Ed Miliband:"60% of green taxes were introduced by him [Energy Secretary Ed Davey."

. Compulsory ‘green’ energy – adds £30 to the average bill. Miliband policy: No

But it doesn’t end there – Ed previously proposed policies that would add another £125 to bills by 2020.

“As energy supremo under Gordon Brown, ‘Red Ed’ lumbered us with green taxes forcing energy prices into the stratosphere for years,” he writes.

Ed. It was Ed Miliband who decided, following pressure from green lobby groups, to up the emissions reduction target from 60 per cent to an even more mind-boggling 80 per cent.

This alone, on his department’s figures, nearly doubled its cost.

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3059932/The-pottiest-costliest-mistake-times-Forget-tax-spend-plans-Red-Ed-s-climate-change-law-Brown-years-cost-50-000-home-says-CHRISTOPHER-BOOKER.html#ixzz44rxRmsHM

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Red Ed's great green obsession... and the real reason YOUR bill has gone through the roof: The hidden subsidies each household pays every year thanks to Miliband's laws

• Mail on Sunday analysis shows how the taxes add £132 to the average bill

• The official figures show the amount paid out will almost double by 2020

• Experts warn the taxes may be more costly and less effective than feared

By DAVID ROSE FOR THE MAIL ON SUNDAY and PAUL CAHALAN FOR THE MAIL ON SUNDAY

PUBLISHED: 22:26, 12 October 2013 | UPDATED: 13:26, 13 October 2013

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2456760/Red-Eds-great-green-obsession--real-reason-YOUR-gone-roof-The-hidden-subsidies-household-pays-year-thanks-Milibands-laws.html#ixzz44ry2WuXX

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[tobyjugg2]

I think putting that in perspective, 30 quid on a bill is nothing compared to a 46% premium on UK steel to China, while the UK government protects the Chinese from even a like for like response.

 

and nothing compared to the over Trillion pounds poured into the banking system to protect the shareholders - rather than simply paying bottom dollar for the shares as other shareholders would and then refloating the bank to the nations benefit

 

Let alone selling off the countries crucial assets like Gas, Electrity and Water companies

 

and I blame ALL the political parties - just Maggies policies most of all

 

 

Grab 25 of the worst offenders from each of the Tories and Labour and hang them for treason - that would make the rest think twice.

- but no - they will give each other titles and wealth instead.

[Conniff]

I think putting that in perspective, 30 quid on a bill is nothing compared to a 46% premium on UK steel to China, ...

 

Lets put that into it's 'real' perspective -

 

"China is to impose the levy on imports of some specialist, high-tech steel from the EU, South Korea, and Japan."

"Tata said the type of steel affected by the Chinese tariffs had not been exported "in recent times from our UK operations",

 

So the the Chinese tariff will either have no effect or be very limited.

 

As for the UK blocking similar tariffs on China, the US has imposed tariffs of 266%, the UK blocked the EU setting a similar tariff, they have 'not' blocked the setting of tariffs.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Conniff

[tobyjugg2]

Lets put that into it's 'real' perspective -

 

"China is to impose the levy on imports of some specialist, high-tech steel from the EU, South Korea, and Japan."

"Tata said the type of steel affected by the Chinese tariffs had not been exported "in recent times from our UK operations",

 

So the the Chinese tariff will either have no effect or be very limited.

 

As for the UK blocking similar tariffs on China, the US has imposed tariffs of 266%, the UK blocked the EU setting a similar tariff, they have 'not' blocked the setting of tariffs.

 

lets put some really real perspective on that.

 

The UK and its allies blocked the EU from imposing UPTO a 60% tariff on Chinese dumped steel, NOT 266% as the Americans have already done (and quite rightly in my opinion) and even if imposed the higher tariff would only be on steel traded below a minimum price -

 

Why should we not support preventing the destruction of our core industries by dumping.

Particularly as it isnt simply the Steelworks, its the thousands of people who would be made unemployed and not only not be contributing to our economy (as the steel industry has continued to do) but that those people would then be claiming benefits as is their right.

 

 

DUMPING

"The European Commission advocates higher punitive tariffs in cases such as this,"

To darn right

 

but Britain has led the defence of the principle of lower duties levied in such cases."

To darn wrong.

 

TATA steel has successfully lobbied for anti-dumping measures in India

 

So why do we think TATA have decided to withdraw from the UK - anyone else think its because the UK are making it easy for China to shaft the UK industries?

 

 

Heres the link again

http://news.sky.com/story/1669533/understanding-the-steel-crisis-10-key-points

[unclebulgaria67]

I read somewhere that China deliberately over produced and dumped steel at a cost of $16 billlion. It was not just a case of loss of demand in China and elsewhere. The EU/UK response is not to protect their markets as much as the US and to take advantage of cheaper steel, even if there are consequences. Some politicians might complain to curry favour with their countries steel industries, but the companies using cheap Chinese steel are not complaining.

 

Richard Branson has sold his stake in Virgin America at a huge profit, even though he apparently did not want to sell. The US authorities stopped Branson as a non American from holding a majority of voting shares, so he got out voted. The US are far more protective of their own market, than in Europe.

[Conniff]

"The UK and its allies blocked the EU ..."

 

No, the Dutch presidency with strong support from the UK, not the other way around, it's wasn't a UK idea. In fact at the moment, EU law of 'lesser duty' will not allow a similar tariff to be imposed and there is a consultation in progress.

[tobyjugg2]

"The UK and its allies blocked the EU ..."

 

So why do you think that TATA evidently right up until the last minute apparently showed no intention of withdrawing from the UK?

 

Perhaps they were hoping against hope that their lobbying to make their (TATA's) continuation of supporting the UK Steel industry possible would bare fruit and the UK government would change its stance?

 

Perhaps they didn't believe that the UK would throw one of its core industries to the dogs while supporting China who are the main source of fake memory, let alone cheap poor quality steel, and who are one of the major users of the Panama tax evasion systems.

 

 

If you had multiple locations to make and sell your goods, and one location became a decidedly hostile environment to your manufacturing/trading there, would you continue?

Its commonly why multiple sources/locations are used ...

 

 

In fact at the moment, EU law of 'lesser duty' will not allow a similar tariff to be imposed and there is a consultation in progress

 

Err yes - the changing of which is what the UK government and its allies are blocking

 

"The European Commission advocates higher punitive tariffs in cases such as this,"

 

"The EU did impose some duties of up to 16% on some Chinese steel products, enough to make them unprofitable. But the Commission issued a call to remove the "lesser duty rule" to allow it to raise anti-dumping duties against China much higher. Independent analysts Fitch calculate a tariff of nearly 60% would be allowed under these arrangements, enough to deter the bulk of Chinese imports.

:: But the British Government (Sajid Javid) argued against the move"

 

 

(

[unclebulgaria67]

Both can agree, that all of this is just one big game being played and it is the poor b*ggers with mortgages to pay etc, that will end up suffering. At some stage if they want UK steel production to continue in the UK, they will need investment of hundreds of millions ( probably several billion) to modernise production and to change the business model. They will also need to resolve the pension liabilities, which a new private investor is unlikely to fund. The pension liabilities go back over decades and are huge,