Xann Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Quote The Government is today still blocking an EU plan to tackle the flood of cheap Chinese steel into the UK, despite the industry being on the brick of collapse. The Department for Business confirmed to the Huff Post UK this afternoon it remained opposed to the EU axing the so-called ‘lesser-duty’ rule, which would allow increased tariffs to be placed on Chinese steel. The measure was first floated in 2013, but as recently as February Business Secretary Sajid Javid was speaking out against such a move. But today, as Anna Soubry insisted the Government was looking at “all the options” to help steel workers keep their jobs in Port Talbot and beyond, it was confirmed her department would keep blocking the axing of the ‘lesser duty’ rule... Huff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post chrisp65 Posted March 31, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) There is so much double dealing and deliberate confusion in this Tata Steel thing, clearly the thousands of jobs are nowhere near priority 1, 2 or 3 in this farce. Tories on TV last night saying we can't help by imposing different duties as it was blocked at EU level and that's why we need out of the EU. Neglected to say it was the UK as part of the EU that voted not to impose greater import duties. Disgusting politics. No UK government minister in the delegation sent to India to plead the case for UK steel. Meanwhile the Business Secretary does try and jet off to Australia for some vague business speech he was giving about, er, trade. torygraph Quote The Telegraph has learned that he took his teenage daughter with him on the controversial trip and was planning to extend his visit by several days so he could go on a holiday with her. Thousands upon thousands of jobs and the bulk of the UK steel industry in the balance and the Business Secretary is planning a trade trip / holiday to Australia. Again, disgusting. But then, you'd also have to ask why the local council planners in Port Talbot rejected two planning applications to put a renewables / bio fuel power station on the steel site. The plant would have given instant access to power, with price certainty. Rejected. It didn't fit with the local council's 'future tourism plans'. Hopefully the last batch of steel can be turned into commemorative edition bikes and they can all cycle up the M4 to Reading and get jobs in I.T. or telesales. Although, being realistic, it would probably be easier to just get chinese bikes. They're shit, but in the short term the government can get a private middle man to lease them to the benefits sucking scum much cheaper. Who knows, we might even be able to persuade the Chinese to just import bike bits so we can put them together in a shiny factory made out of chinese steel and give the chinese cash incentives to employ ex steel workers to screw the bits together. If we really put our business brains in to this, there must be a way of getting G4S in on the deal? Perhaps they can employ a few ex steelworkers to keep an eye on the other ex steelworkers to make sure nobody is stealing the little bells brought in from china via the amazon warehouse. Edited March 31, 2016 by chrisp65 rantin' 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Cheap Chinese steel keeps the directors in their Range Rovers though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkyvilla Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 I heard on the news yesterday that China made more steel last year than the UK has done in total since the industrial revolution. Unless I misheard, that is insane and it's very hard to compete with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Yes, we produce something like 1.5% of what China produces. But we aren't looking to beat them. We're looking to preserve an industry that might just be part of our nation's ability to sustain itself. How's the car industry going to look when in 5 years time China announces it's back in super expansion mode and we can't have any more steel because they need it? But then, Chinese cars will be cheaper anyway, so we should just buy them. Do we really want to close the British steel industry and be reliant on China sending us some at a fair price? Whilst we're at it, perhaps we can rely on our energy to come from China and Russia? I don't understand how it's important to spend billions upon billions on defence in the form of Trident replacement nuclear weapons. But steel and energy aren't considered part of the nation's defence plans? That can go to China, Russia and the middle east? Weird weird strategy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 29 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: Meanwhile the Business Secretary does try and jet off to Australia for some vague business speech he was giving about, er, trade. torygraph from the article you linked to He met the prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, hours before a board meeting at Tata's headquarters in Mumbai to decide the future of its British steel operation. He went to University of Bristol , not Hogwarts and I don't' think Clairvoyance was on the curriculum there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 15 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: He went to University of Bristol , not Hogwarts and I don't' think Clairvoyance was on the curriculum there Are you saying that Mr Javid didn't know that there was going to be a board meeting at Tata's HQ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 9 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: He went to University of Bristol , not Hogwarts and I don't' think Clairvoyance was on the curriculum there I'm not sure what your point is there? It wasn't a surprise party, there was advanced notice. Are you saying he didn't know days in advance there was going to be a meeting in India? Or are you saying he didn't feel he could attend, but nobody else could stand in for him, so they just cried off? Or that it simply wasn't important? I knew a week in advance there was a crunch meeting at Tata. But then, I do have the latest gadget in advanced communication technology to give me that edge. Or as I like to call it, a television. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 1 minute ago, chrisp65 said: But then, I do have the latest gadget in advanced communication technology to give me that edge. Or as I like to call it, a television. Don't tell the rest of South Wales but you'll be getting colour soon. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 11 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: Yes, we produce something like 1.5% of what China produces. But we aren't looking to beat them. We're looking to preserve an industry that might just be part of our nation's ability to sustain itself. How's the car industry going to look when in 5 years time China announces it's back in super expansion mode and we can't have any more steel because they need it? But then, Chinese cars will be cheaper anyway, so we should just buy them. Do we really want to close the British steel industry and be reliant on China sending us some at a fair price? Whilst we're at it, perhaps we can rely on our energy to come from China and Russia? I don't understand how it's important to spend billions upon billions on defence in the form of Trident replacement nuclear weapons. But steel and energy aren't considered part of the nation's defence plans? That can go to China, Russia and the middle east? Weird weird strategy. Presumably if China are dumping cheap steel on the market someone is buying it all up and stock piling it somewhere , someone like Hedge funds who did similar tactics with oil ?? it's been a disaster 40 years in the making , but the alarm bells started to ring 18 month ago so the government have been pretty very inept in that regard . What is quite interesting ,with Corbyn calling for us to renationalise the industry, is that Liberty House purchased the Scottish mills with help from the Scottish Government ,it sounds like the government purchased the debt and then sold the mills to Liberty House for a nominal fee (probably paid for by Westminster ) .. I say interesting as I expect the SNP will be in Westminster alongside Corbyn calling for renationalisation Also , If I've read it correctly , the biggest obstacle is that The British Steel Pension Scheme has liabilities of £14.5bn .. I suspect that rules out any management buyout or government re-nationalising for that matter .. not to mention the EU football that is currently being kicked about the place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post chrisp65 Posted March 31, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted March 31, 2016 Lord forbid we bail out steel. Another £15 billion on top of the £500 billion given to bankers could ruin us. Temporary nationalisation in a crisis is obviously utterly beyond modern political thinking and EU law. They'll still be wanting a Christmas bonus next, the greedy bastards. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 5 minutes ago, snowychap said: Are you saying that Mr Javid didn't know that there was going to be a board meeting at Tata's HQ? is it common for a member of the cabinet to attend Tata board meetings ? I was assuming that the decision to pull out wasn't already public info at that time ( though Chris and his witchcraft related moving image from reflected light ,suggests it was already in the public domain ) ... The loss making has been going on for some time ,I'd assume dialogue had been on going but the actual decision came as a surprise to all concerned ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) 9 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: Lord forbid we bail out steel. Another £15 billion on top of the £500 billion given to bankers could ruin us. Temporary nationalisation in a crisis is obviously utterly beyond modern political thinking and EU law. They'll still be wanting a Christmas bonus next, the greedy bastards. The bank figure was £124bn according to the Guardian Quote In 2011, a Reality Check costed the bank bailout at £124bn in loan or share purchases. Amid all the numbers was the analysis that “the Royal Bank of Scotland received £45.80bn, Lloyds £20.54bn, Northern Rock a total of £22.99bn, Bradford and Bingley £8.55bn and a further £26.05bn went on ‘loans to support deposit’.” but I'm not disagreeing with your sentiment ( just the figure ) Edited March 31, 2016 by tonyh29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) 8 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: is it common for a member of the cabinet to attend Tata board meetings ? I doubt it but we are being told by the government that everything necessary is being/has been done, aren't we? As Chris said, there was a 'delegation' from the UK (that seems to have consisted of representatives of the Community Union and Stephen Kinnock) and they apparently got to have a meeting with company execs on the Monday night. Beeb link: Quote An action plan to save Port Talbot's steelworks is being discussed by owners Tata Steel in India. Aberavon MP Stephen Kinnock has joined Community union officials in Mumbai to lobby the board, amid worries the plant could be mothballed. ... Community and Mr Kinnock met Tata Steel executives on Monday night, with the talks being called "open and constructive" but with the warning that the company was facing challenges. I don't think Mr Javid's presence would have done much more than Kinnock Jr's by the way, it's just that I do get the point that Chris seems to have been suggesting that having him sod off for a bit of a jolly to Australia with his daughter whilst board meetings and conversations were going on looks a little crap at best. Edited March 31, 2016 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 5 minutes ago, snowychap said: I doubt it but we are being told by the government that everything necessary is being/has been done, aren't we? As Chris said, there was a 'delegation' from the UK (that seems to have consisted of representatives of the Community Union and Stephen Kinnock) who got to have a meeting with company execs on the Monday night. I don't think Mr Javid's presence would have done much more than Kinnock Jr's by the way, it's just that I do get the point that Chris seems to have been suggesting that having him sod off for a bit of a jolly to Australia with his daughter whilst board meetings and conversations were going on looks a little crap at best. from the Mirror There is no invitation or request for ministers to attend, and there is no attendance,” a No 10 spokeswoman said. so I'm still not sure why he should have been in India rather than Australia , he seems to be criticised for doing his job , taking his daughter and making it a bit of holiday could be an issue for those that are looking for one , but It's not uncommon practise . On Thursday he will appear at a lunch hosted by the Australian British Chamber of Commerce, says its online page . Mr Javid's trip is designed at boosting trade links between the UK and Australia. Do we know that he wasn't out there trying to get an Aussie company to invest in British Steel ( we can of course assume the answer is no as the talk he was giving was titled "Cameron's Education revolution " ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 It is common for a vast multi national conglomerate to gauge it's business strategy on the political mood music of the countries it operates in. The UK government has paid lip service to doing something about something at some point in the future. Then voted not to impose greater tariffs on state subsidised chinese steel. The Business Secretary went on holiday (and admittedly gave a power point presentation). What mood music would that give you, if you were considering whether or not to continue losing a million pound a week? You'll remember that Question Time about a month ago when people asked / warned the then Wales Secretary Stephen Crabb about Port Talbot and he turned and shrugged and said he wasn't that 'up' on it all. How does that **** help? Weird thing is, when the budget announced £3 off Severn Bridge tolls they already had a smiling photo opportunity lined up for it. Wasn't too **** busy or uninterested that day. I'm not suggesting a blank cheque for any industry. Just the appearance of giving a **** and an explanation as to why The Royal Bank of Scotland is more important than the UK's ability to produce it's own steel. But yeah, you know, what can you do? I guess having friends in Port Talbot is causing me not to think straight about what's for the best. They should all move to Basingstoke and sell insurance to each other. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 5 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: Just the appearance of giving a **** and an explanation as to why The Royal Bank of Scotland is more important than the UK's ability to produce it's own steel. 2 different governments so I guess you'd have to ask the previous administration the first part of your question , though I doubt the current government would have acted any differently ..but both governments would argue that preventing the collapse of large chunks of the UK financial services sector was a necessary example of state aid, to mitigate the huge potential impact on the wider economy. The same argument is tougher to make about steel, a smaller sector, despite the devastating impact that closing steelworks would have on local communities. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 31, 2016 Author Moderator Share Posted March 31, 2016 2 hours ago, tonyh29 said: both governments would argue that preventing the collapse of large chunks of the UK financial services sector was a necessary example of state aid, to mitigate the huge potential impact on the wider economy. The same argument is tougher to make about steel, a smaller sector, despite the devastating impact that closing steelworks would have on local communities. That's fair comment. What it doesn't address is 40,000 people's jobs, surely dealing with something that big is what the guvmint is supposed to be for? nor does it address the importance of steel to large parts of the rest of UK manufacturing. Chinese Steel dumped on the UK (and elsewhere) at rock bottom prices just to keep their plants open is anti-competitive and has led to a rigged market, in essence. Once UK steel making is gone, it won't be back. Then we'll be dependent on overseas steel. Another part of our industry dismantled. This time not by direct Gov't action, but by the consequences of their actions re trade with China and of their inaction over this Tata thing. Because Osborne has prostrated himself for the Chinese, the tories dare not "spoil" that by addressing the chinese dumping their steel. I'm sure the EU is part of the problem, too, but I don't see massive efforts being made by UK and others to change the way EU deals with the dumping as a larger trading area. Bottom line, tories don't give a flying one about people away from the South East. They like bankers and financiers in London and pensioners and eff the rest of us, as we don't vote for them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 t. They like bankers and financiers in London and pensioners and eff the rest of us, as we don't vote for them. thats a lot of pensioners 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 I suppose the bottom line is that people need to choose between people's jobs and green taxes. The Green Party need to lead on this and tell us whether they think it is better to shut a polluting, energy-intensive, steel plant or save people's jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts