Here we go again - Port Talbot to axe 1,000 steel jobs

[Russ]

My original hometown, I lived in Port Talbot for close to 35 years, my father worked in the steelworks for 40 years, I'd hazard a guess at more than 99% of the population there know someone who works or worked at the plant and this will have a devastating effect on the community.

He used to tell me stories about during the 70s it employed more than 20,000 people (now around 4000) and it was well known that some people would clock in at the start of a shift then nip off down the pub for a few hours. Others would have a kip in the mess room for a couple of hours on a night shift with people taking turns watching out for the foreman. For years it was badly run like that.

There's not much to brag about in PT, the eastern end at Margam (where the steelworks is mainly situated) always smells of something, usually sulphur but the plant always feels like the heart of the town and in a way that's unlikely to be understood by outsiders the residents have a kind of pride about it.

I understand there's something like 100m tonnes of coal under the steelworks and if TATA was allowed to mine it they would save a fortune on running costs which would go a long way to safeguarding jobs but for some reason permission has constantly been denied. Given what Thatcher did to the town in the 80s regarding the miner's strikes plus Cameron shaking hands with the Chinese for their steel let NOBODY be surprised at how much the Tories are generally hated in and around Port Talbot.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Yes as stated we don't know how much it would cost for us to be able to provide the prerequisite grade but that's not the point the government has told us throughout due to the EU it wasn't possible for them to intervene, which seemingly is a lie

At first glance, the government is correct on this point. EU state aid rules do not allow aid such as emergency loans or government guarantees on loans to steel manufacturers in financial difficulties.
The European Commission says this is because of its past experience with steel, and taking into account the features of the EU steel industry - in particular. its overcapacity.
Governments are allowed to support things like research and development in the steel industry, but as soon as a plant is in financial difficulties, there are limitations on what can be done.

The government stresses the support that it has managed to get EU permission to give to energy-intensive industries, including steel, to compensate them for the extra costs of climate change policies.
The TUC says the scheme will give £60m to 53 firms this year. The government says it has paid £37m so far this year and expects to have paid £81m by the end of the year. That includes £34m going to steel companies

And who added those extra costs?

[Stop It]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news/...cid=spartanntp

When is this Government going to act. Or are they waiting for every major employer to axe everyone, and go for cheap imports form other countries.

It makes my blood boil when the government doesn't act on this. This country, should be the major manufacturer of major goods to go abroad, or in this country.

But they are buying cheap imports. For example, the recent mine closure, which supplied a main power station NINE MILES AWAY. Instead they are importing coals from thousands of miles away..

It does not make sense. Thousands more British Workforce on the dole. And before people say, that TATA are losing money per week, the government should get involved and reduce various taxes they are placing on companies: mad:

Well, I guess reality denying and hoping for protectionism to save us all is always a good go-to when bad things happens.

First, for all of your bluster, unemployment is lower in the UK than most of Europe, so we aren't doing that badly as a whole.

Secondly, your post twists and turns so fast I'm not even sure you know what you're saying. If there's too many cheap imports of a certain product, how can we compete without being either cheaper or using subsidy? If we can't go down the first route as it would depress wages, the 2nd would basically make for an even worse race to the bottom as each country like China and the rest of the EU etc dashes to prop up their own industry. We've seen this before, hence current EU rules.

I am a proponent of free markets, as harsh as they can be sometimes. Commodities especially have cycles, and if you ride the highs, you must be prepared for the lows.

As for your taxes argument:

1: Corporation Taxes are already being lowered in this parliament, I don't think a few % points either way is going to do much to an industry that has a massive over-supply problem.

2: The other option, subsidies and bailouts, have to be paid for somehow. Would you back a rise in income tax to pay for a fund that bails out every industry in trouble? Not only will this not fly, it wont actually make our economy any better.

Oh, and the procurement issue is a complete red herring. I'm sure everyone wants to buy British, until it costs us more. Also, if every country did this, many UK companies that DO compete on a international level will find their access to government contracts elsewhere cut off, which will end up with just as many companies screwed as it will help.

In any market, if you face competition you can do 3 things.

1: Be Cheaper
2: Be Better
3: Be Different.

If you can't do any of those things, I don't think going cap in hand to the government should be option number 4.

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by Stop It

In any market, if you face competition you can do 3 things.

1: Be Cheaper
2: Be Better
3: Be Different.

If you can't do any of those things, I don't think going cap in hand to the government should be option number 4.

It was option #4 that got us screwed in the late 70's. I remember British Steel, as was, costing £3m per DAY! That insanity had to stop before the country was bankrupted however harsh it was to those whose jobs were no longer viable.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Stop It

Well, I guess reality denying and hoping for protectionism to save us all is always a good go-to when bad things happens.

First, for all of your bluster, unemployment is lower in the UK than most of Europe, so we aren't doing that badly as a whole.

Not saying I agree or disagree wherever Arthur was going with that but he has a point when it relates to Port Talbot. The area always has been an unemployment blackspot with little or no prospects of advancement for some. The general 'community feel' to PT means that many people have elderly or disabled relatives living with them so while they may have a job, the option of moving away for new employment is not as straightforward as outsiders may initially think.

[Stop It]

Originally Posted by Russ

Not saying I agree or disagree wherever Arthur was going with that but he has a point when it relates to Port Talbot. The area always has been an unemployment blackspot with little or no prospects of advancement for some. The general 'community feel' to PT means that many people have elderly or disabled relatives living with them so while they may have a job, the option of moving away for new employment is not as straightforward as outsiders may initially think.

Any community relying on a single industry or source of employment is forever in danger if that industry declines.

The key there is for local government to encourage a vibrant mix of business to exist and never rely on one large "good thing", especially for nostalgia reasons as Port Talbot have now found to their detriment.

Again, the answer isn't to try to prop up an industry that has been pummelled, but find uses for the skills this community has in innovative ways that can compete on a local and international level. Not easy, and the pull towards an industry that most of the community knows is strong. One must sometimes break the links with the past to get on and calling to save the woefully outmoded steel plants (Blast furnaces, really. Look at the US for examples of modern steel works that are far more efficient and can be scaled to meet demand, rather than simply be "off" or "on") wont help anyone in the long run.

[tweedle]

Originally Posted by Russ

Not saying I agree or disagree wherever Arthur was going with that but he has a point when it relates to Port Talbot. The area always has been an unemployment blackspot with little or no prospects of advancement for some. The general 'community feel' to PT means that many people have elderly or disabled relatives living with them so while they may have a job, the option of moving away for new employment is not as straightforward as outsiders may initially think.

There is a polish family near me with disabled twin daughters, they managed to move country's an get their home refitted for the 2 disabled kids. So ya know......... I think some British need a wake up call.

All this "nice politics" bull is getting stupid sometimes you have to roll up your sleeves an get knee deep in crap inorder to get out the crap. Not just sit back being a victim

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by nomadking

And who added those extra costs?

Hope this helps your confusion

http://www.northeastlabour.eu/confir...ved-steelworks

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Hope this helps your confusion

http://www.northeastlabour.eu/confir...ved-steelworks

You seem to be the one confused. As I already posted and there is nothing in your link that contradicts it.

Governments are allowed to support things like research and development in the steel industry, but as soon as a plant is in financial difficulties, there are limitations on what can be done.

The money would have to be for specific things and NOT for keeping the plant open. IIRC one closed plant ran up losses of £300m. That meant the steel they were selling was at BELOW cost, ie DUMPING.

The "extra costs" I referred to, are the climate change ones.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by tweedle

There is a polish family near me with disabled twin daughters, they managed to move country's an get their home refitted for the 2 disabled kids

Does this family own their own home or is this social housing you are referring to?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by nomadking

You seem to be the one confused. As I already posted and there is nothing in your link that contradicts it.
The money would have to be for specific things and NOT for keeping the plant open. IIRC one closed plant ran up losses of £300m. That meant the steel they were selling was at BELOW cost, ie DUMPING.

The "extra costs" I referred to, are the climate change ones.

Please that list is so ambiguous it even had temporary renationalisation included in it, the reasons are spurious to, like the area around the plant was contaminated, well that'd be reason to shut it not for the Italian government to step in and save it. More could've been done imo

[tweedle]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Does this family own their own home or is this social housing you are referring to?

Social housing why? So much of the new development I live on had to have social housing on it. People like you are a massive part of what's wrong with this country. Why should it matter if they live in social housing/private rented/home owner??

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by tweedle

Social housing why? So much of the new development I live on had to have social housing on it. People like you are a massive part of what's wrong with this country. Why should it matter if they live in social housing/private rented/home owner??

You said:

There is a polish family near me with disabled twin daughters, they managed to move country's an get their home refitted for the 2 disabled kids. So ya know......... I think some British need a wake up call.

I was curious if they own their own home or if it was provided for them? It matters because if they were allocated social housing which was re-fitted at the tax payers expense for disabled access then this would be ironic since this is exactly what many people on this forum and in the right wing press complain about .. and you used it as an example to inspire the residents of Port Talbot to stop whinging.

People like you are a massive part of what's wrong with this country.

Inspired ..

[Hom3r]

DC was more worried about corruption in tennis than steel.

[tweedle]

Originally Posted by ianch99

You said:



I was curious if they own their own home or if it was provided for them? It matters because if they were allocated social housing which was re-fitted at the tax payers expense for disabled access then this would be ironic since this is exactly what many people on this forum and in the right wing press complain about .. and you used it as an example to inspire the residents of Port Talbot to stop whinging.



Inspired ..

You're obsessed with left wing/ right wing, I just want to see people who need being helped and people stealing from those that need help with false claims for help being dealt with. An those that can help themselves doing so!