| Tata 15:48 - Jan 17 with 36282 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 18:34 - Mar 31 with 1433 views | 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... | |
| |
| Tata on 18:38 - Mar 31 with 1416 views | dailew |
It could well cost the taxpayer less as money is recycled thru the economy and taxes paid etc. | |
| |
| Tata on 18:45 - Mar 31 with 1403 views | blueytheblue |
And if pushing the price up, blocking cheap steel thus causes more jobs to be lost in other industries? Swings and roundabouts, pushing the problem elsewhere.
The big problem nobody seems to comment on is the role of Tata in this - they massively overextended themselves borrowing from Indian banks seemingly to be able to brag about being Indians owning big companies abroad. I'd say mismanagement has played a big part of things. | |
| |
| Tata on 18:52 - Mar 31 with 1390 views | dailew |
How would it push up the price?
How would it block cheap steel for other industries? | |
| |
| Tata on 19:01 - Mar 31 with 1364 views | exiledclaseboy |
It's free market forces folks. Unbridled, uninhibited capitalism. The vocal minority who warned this would happen during the monetarism frenzy of the 80s and 90s were shouted down. Mostly by those lining their pockets during the privatisation inspired boom. The market rules, money rules, profit rules. People are just expendable commodities.
The capitalists won the argument. It's over. Live with the results. If you see Sid, tell him. | |
| |
| Tata on 19:03 - Mar 31 with 1364 views | blueytheblue |
Look at the annual losses made.
You either cut costs or push up prices. Only other alternative is long term subsidisation by the taxpayer.
If demand isn't there domestically due to cheap imports how the hell would Tata increase income? How would any external force direct British industries to use more expensive steel? Either tariffs would be applied or an outright ban on cheap Chinese steel... | |
| |
| Tata on 19:04 - Mar 31 with 1360 views | max936 |
What's your answer to it all then let up to 4,00 Tata employees become unemployed plus the contactors and let the many other business's that rely on Tata steel go to the wall is it?
How do you know that's what the Indians did then? from what I was told it was their own personal wealth that's been keeping Tata afloat by investing 4 billion over the best part of 8yrs. [Post edited 31 Mar 2016 19:15]
| |
| |
| Tata on 19:06 - Mar 31 with 1354 views | blueytheblue |
The workplace, industries have always changed throughout the ages. Globalisation was just evolution. | |
| |
| Tata on 19:07 - Mar 31 with 1353 views | exiledclaseboy |
Aye. Evolution. That's what it is. Dear god. | |
| |
| Tata on 19:07 - Mar 31 with 1353 views | waynekerr55 |
Thatcher's biggest errors for me were not retaining a shareholding in the utilities, ringfencing R2B money and setting up a sovereign wealth fund with the proceeds | |
| |
| Tata on 19:13 - Mar 31 with 1343 views | exiledclaseboy |
But all that would have been anathema to her. Privatisation was designed to put short term money in people's pockets, ditto right to buy. She'd have had no interest in keeping a stake in the privatised utilities, replacing the housing stock or keeping money behind because she believed that the government had no business protecting its citizens in times of trouble. That was your responsibility. New Labour carried on her work admirably, albeit with a little more Brownite social justice. And her real legacy is Cameron and Osborne and the 2010s intake of rabidly free market, anti-state Tory MPs. | |
| |
| Tata on 19:14 - Mar 31 with 1338 views | blueytheblue |
So are you saying things should always remain the same, such as in the old days when kids were sent up t'chimney?
Technology evolves. Transport changes. The world is now a far bigger place in terms of trade. it's naive to believe things can always stay the same.
Tata have taken something that would probably have suffered anyway due to the influx of cheap steel and imo made the damage far worse based upon their vanity. The question then is should questionable mismanagement always be bailed out by taxpayers. | |
| |
| Tata on 19:19 - Mar 31 with 1324 views | waynekerr55 |
Very true. Pure greed. Her and her chums would still have been filthy rich and the country would still be better for it | |
| |
| Tata on 19:21 - Mar 31 with 1314 views | max936 |
Well again I ask you. what's the answer then? do nothing, which will cause devastation in West Glamorgan and probably further afield, because there's nothing else here that could employ directly or indirectly thousands of those employed there, plus the other business's that support Tata steel. [Post edited 31 Mar 2016 19:23]
| |
| |
| Tata on 19:21 - Mar 31 with 1312 views | exiledclaseboy |
I dont actually think that for Thatcher it was about personal wealth and lining her and her mates' pockets. It was an ideological crusade far more than narrow personal interest. And far more damaging for that too. | |
| |
| Tata on 19:28 - Mar 31 with 1299 views | blueytheblue |
It's difficult to come up with any definitive answer. I wish I could.
The problem is more with Tata than anything else, I've no doubt a lot of their grandstanding on this is aimed at getting direct government intervention to prop them up relying upon the public sentiment.
The losses Tata are making simply aren't sustainable. That's obvious. | |
| |
| Tata on 19:29 - Mar 31 with 1297 views | dailew |
Why would the govt buying British Steel mean Chinese steel need to be banned?
Never mentioned any other British Industry (eg the car industry) being forced to use more expensive steel. | |
| |
| Tata on 19:30 - Mar 31 with 1294 views | exiledclaseboy |
Forget Tata. What about the 4000 people whose livelihoods depend on the place directly and the countless thousands of others who depend on it indirectly? | |
| |
| Tata on 19:33 - Mar 31 with 1286 views | 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... | |
| |
| Tata on 19:37 - Mar 31 with 1279 views | max936 |
Exactly, the implications are massive, it took years for Ebbw Vale to show any semblance of a recovery and they're not there yet, that is on a much smaller scale than Port Talbot etc | |
| |
| Tata on 19:48 - Mar 31 with 1253 views | 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. | | | |
| Tata on 19:53 - Mar 31 with 1238 views | Darran |
Sometimes people should just think things and not post them.
F*ck off Bluey. | |
| |
| Tata on 19:59 - Mar 31 with 1226 views | 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. | |
| |
| Tata on 20:02 - Mar 31 with 1215 views | acejack3065 |
Put the straw men away FFS Bluey. This is the livelihood of tens of thousands South Walians we are talking about here. This will have a knock-on effect across South Wales and I'm worried because there are towns and villages here that still haven't recovered from the last major loss of heavy industry.
Yes it's not as simple as completely subsidising the losses and yes Tata have to shoulder responsibility and yes successive governments have been happy to watch British Manufacturing decline but it's plain as f**king day that David Cameron has absolutely no desire to use anymore political will than is strictly necessary on this. He's already playing down expectations when he should be busting his @rse to save jobs. Then again this is South Wales, not the home counties.
Do the Chinese, Germans and French not subsidise their steel industry? Why can't we? Does the USA not impose tariffs on foreign imports? Why can't we? Why did the Tories block proposals from other EU members to tackle the dumping of cheap steel by China in February?
Redcar has gone to the wall and now so will Port Talbot with little to no prospect of thousands of highly skilled jobs being replaced. South Wales will be picking up the pieces of this for generations but f**k them because it's all about the bottom line for some people. I'm alright Jack, I suppose. | | | |
| Tata on 20:05 - Mar 31 with 1203 views | oh_tommy_tommy |
Scargill was right ,that's a fact | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
