Nationalisation

Thrugelmir

Marktheshark wrote: »

The Ability to forge steel can win or lose a war.
It is about our national security and protection of our people.

Without US imports we would have lost the war.

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

you are a bore Clapton

true but I have a liking for scientific logical correct deduction


but if you start with the proposition that the EU is truth and truth is the EU, then you are always right
very medieval but nothing wrong with that.

BobQ

Generali wrote: »

Why do people seem to want to nationalise or subsidise Tata Steel but not Austin Reed or BHS?

After all those retailers employ far more people than Tata and provide career jobs to low qualification people that realistically aren't going to get work in the higher income sectors of the economy.

Tata Steel employs about 6,000 people in the UK whereas BHS has 11,000 and Austin Reed 1,100 according to press reports so surely those shops are twice as important to the economy.....?

I suppose you could argue that if a clothing retailer closes the public will still buy clothes from other firms spread across the land, and it is unlikely to impact on the economy. Closing the steel plants will mean more imports and decimate a local economy which will lose skilled jobs.

But many people see the loss of a steel making as losing a sovereign capability.

It is however a tragedy that we cannot close down industries we do not need and seamlessly grow an industry we do need, with an appropriate re-training programme.

kinger101

Generali wrote: »

Why do people seem to want to nationalise or subsidise Tata Steel but not Austin Reed or BHS?

After all those retailers employ far more people than Tata and provide career jobs to low qualification people that realistically aren't going to get work in the higher income sectors of the economy.

Tata Steel employs about 6,000 people in the UK whereas BHS has 11,000 and Austin Reed 1,100 according to press reports so surely those shops are twice as important to the economy.....?

I'm generally not in favour of nationalization or subsidies, but not being able to buy a nasty suit or some scatter cushions doesn't have the same national security implications as not being able to produce you own steel.

I'm sure we already subsidize BHS and Austin Reed handsomely with in work benefits. And I think the Tata Steel jobs have more interdependent jobs as well.

There's also the argument that if an Austin Reed store closes, it's relatively easy for those largely unskilled workers to find other jobs in another retail outlet. Closing a large steel plant will devastate a community.

kinger101

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Without US imports we would have lost the war.

True, but we'd likely have lost it to without the UK-based steel production as well.

Generali

Any steel works in operation on day 1 of a major war will be closed by day 2 because missiles. It's a completely specious argument. We will never fight WW2 again.

mwpt

Generali wrote: »

Any steel works in operation on day 1 of a major war will be closed by day 2 because missiles. It's a completely specious argument. We will never fight WW2 again.

Some sense. There might actually be economic reasons to temporarily subsidise industries on which a region depends, if the market is being artificially suppressed elsewhere, but the war argument is flawed.

Johnsmith2016

What we trying to save? Losing 1m a day, pointlesss . Times industries change sadly.
No comparison, we bailed out banks to benefit all of us and to save economy.

Andy_L

Generali wrote: »

Any steel works in operation on day 1 of a major war will be closed by day 2 because missiles. It's a completely specious argument. We will never fight WW2 again.

Plus without an indigenous source of iron ore how are you going to run them? Convoys of ships full of iron ore are far less efficient than ships full of iron and stell

kinger101

Generali wrote: »

Any steel works in operation on day 1 of a major war will be closed by day 2 because missiles. It's a completely specious argument. We will never fight WW2 again.

We don't know what war we'll fight next. If it were with a global superpower, then yes, steel works, docks, airfields, power stations etc could be rapidly taken out within a few days.

But the UK has been involved in many military conflicts post-1945. In fact, the UK has spent more years engaged in conflict the that at peace.

A UK steel industry wasn't necessary for these conflicts, but I don't think the future is certain enough to say we would never be at a military disadvantage without UK steel. Not an easy risk to assess.