You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
lets not forget they aren't in power so can't actually implement anything,
If they have a way to make PT steel profitable in the foreseeable future all Labour have to do is explain it.
Then management can simply borrow the required investment against future profits.
Or, more likely Cameron would step in and take the credit.
Power is not needed to solve this problem - merely the idea.
Power is not needed to solve this problem - merely the idea.
And I thought I was an idealist 🙂
Seriously though, if that were true, why isn't the request from labour to recall parliament to debate the issue being entertained? If ideas are all that is required, isn't that the place to thrash them out?
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/31/public-ownership-of-tata-steel-could-work-just-look-at-rolls-royce ]And as for the bonkers comment..[/url]
I have no idea. I hope that they are
Negotiating hard with Tata
....with EU
....with potential buyers, if any
Reviewing the "restructuring plan" and considering what can be done to make it work
Estimating various scenarios for ultimate liability to UK tax payer
Re-examine the history of past interventions which is mixed a best - see today's FT Lex column - and learn from past (and many) mistakes
That's for starters as I have been at works drinks and a bit worse for wear!
Seriously though, if that were true, why isn't the request from labour to recall parliament to debate the issue being entertained? If ideas are all that is required, isn't that the place to thrash them out?
Someone wise enough to have the solution to a problem everyone else finds intractable is probably bright enough to pop an e-mail to the management/tata/steel union.
I suspect Civil servants come up with all the ideas anyway.
The Labour plan is perfect as they are in opposition and there is no chance they will have to put it into action and be judged on it. Temporary nationalisation - really that's quite fabulous - so who takes it private again and when ? In the meantime it sucks billions. Also as I said whatever we do the Chinese can do to and more so, its a race to the bottom.
@outodbeeath - "borrow against future profits" - any lender will not lend against fantasy future profits particularly in an industry with over capacity in a shrinking market.
Labour want Parliament to be recalled so they can showboat. Parliament can do diddly-squat about the situation.
The labour party and unions have proposed a plan of temporary nationalisation, followed by restructuring and appropriate tax breaks and other financial support leading to eventual re-privatisation.
Sorry but with respect Labour's proposal is complete bollocks.
You can't "restructure" a business back into profit when the single biggest Opex cost (energy - which is more than half of total production cost) is 50% higher than competitors.
Unless the energy price is dealt with there cannot be transformation or anything else that would ever lead to a "re-privitisation", and Labour have absolutely no proposals for how the differential in Energy Opex can be dealt with - pretty much every aspect of their proposal has already been tried by the Belgian government to save a steelworks there and was subsequently ruled to be illegal state aid by the EU.
Of all those in the news tonight - Kinnock speaks the most sense in general - Chippy Mason getting slightly hysterical on N'njght in contrast. Kirsty deciding not to listen too...
mason currently showing his doesn't understand commodity prices....muppett.
Among the long term plans, no one yet talking about how you reduce economic and social dependency on a narrow industrial base (leaving aside it's competive position) - the ultimate folly at the heart of all this.
Chippy Mason getting slightly hysterical on N'njght in contrast.
[url= https://medium.com/mosquito-ridge/steel-crisis-they-do-not-give-a-shit-86516750a1e0#.7n80gvarv ]You won't like this then[/url] 🙂
I do find it hilarious that all the 'serious' types on here who go on about 'bonkers' plans to nationalise or who dismiss us 'chippy' northerners jump through all manner of logical hoops and contortions to argue against a pretty common sense view in the name of ideology. The same arguments which were completely abandoned (with good reason) when it was the banks in the firing line. Why not just admit that, as Mason says, you do not give a shit?
@dazh why don't the government just announce they are putting up income tax by 1% across the board to pay for the rescue or how aboit a gofundme page for the £1m a day it costs to keep it open. Lets see how many citizens go for that ?
You are right perhaps some of us me included are being too "flippant" about what is a potentially devastating development. So if that is the case I apologise. However we need to see this situation in the correct global context andnunderstand there is very little we can do about it.
BTW the Mason piece about defense made me laugh - just how much steel do you think there is in a modern piece of military hardware like a jet, helicopter or drone ? Tanks perhaps but we don't need a whole steel industry to make a handful of them, ditto ships
jambalaya - Member
@binners you are right in one regard, we could have a buy British policy for steel for construction ... except that's not allowed....
I'm sure the Brexiters will love to point that out...
The same arguments which were completely abandoned (with good reason) when it was the banks in the firing line.
Banking is a special case for all the obvious reasons, but even if it wasn't banking is probably sustainable in the UK for the time being. Tragically, Steel production isn't.
Its a bit rich of you to complain about others not seeing a way out, when you can't think of one yourself.
A buy British policy will just saddle British businesses with having to buy Steel at uncompetitive prices, and so you get a knock on effect that will hamper other British businesses - or foreign business operating in Britain.
The real problem here, and it is the fault of every government we've had for the last 50 years probably, is that we've allowed large areas to become totally reliant on one industry and one facility/company. Ideally you want each area to have access to a broad and diverse industrial base.
I've got no problems with the UK government chucking loads of money at this problem - but not to save a business or industry that can never be competitive, i'm not sure that is the case with Steel or not if you were to take away the dumping issue, but I'd much rather see the government chuck that money at the people losing their jobs and the local communities that will be affected in retraining people and doing what they can to invest in the future and attract new businesses and industries into the area. It was good news to hear that Aston Martin and TVR will be building new facilities in Wales. It is things like this that are the future for these areas that have become reliant on one industry, and not artificially propping up a hopeless existing industry or business that will never be able to stand on their own two feet and don't have a viable future. That is just wasting taxpayers money and that is a reckless and unacceptable thing to do for any government. They should treat every penny of taxpayers money like a bar of Gold Bullion.
The whole Northern Powerhouse thing was not about propping up and attracting the old heavy industries of the past - it is about new high technology, high value industries - the things that the UK is genuinely world leading and world class at. More Silicone Valley than Steel City. We can't hope to compete with the Developing world in labour intensive old heavy industries - the average British worker earns about ten times more than their Chinese counterpart. There just is not a business case. And it's a vision that will be a number of generations in the making rather than an overnight thing. You can't re-balance a nations economy intantaniously - it trickles down to how we educate our kids as we bring up the next generations with the necessary skills and knowledge etc.
If there was carbon tax (which is also good for the environment) surely British Steel would be cheaper than Chinese steel. Chinese steel is cheaper, but the price gives free/cheaper shipping.
Carbon tax wouod be good for environment and local business...and one cannot ignore the long term environment issues over business making cash in the short term (because I'm sure the argument to this point will be our export economy)
Why not just admit that, as Mason says, you do not give a shit?
Ah, so there is now a monopoly on giving a shit? Marvellous. Equally "hilarious" will be the criteria used to define it....
Almost as good as Mason lambasting the (admittedly lightweight) business secretary for not being able to delivery long term stability to the owners of business that is subject to volatile commodity prices. Lazy rhetorical nonsense.
The real problem here, and it is the fault of every government we've had for the last 50 years probably, is that we've allowed large areas to become totally reliant on one industry and one facility/company. Ideally you want each area to have access to a broad and diverse industrial base.
Ssh, I mentioned that earlier but think I got away with it.
We've allowed areas to become dependant on one industry. True but the flip side is we've allowed London to suck up everything else.
Why not move parliament out of London? Say Middlesbrough? Have HS2 starting there?
With energy costs why not build a ****ing tidal lagoon in PT? Free energy.
I'm very surprised the brexiters are not making more of this. IIRC USA has 233% import duties on Chinese steel.
And how is the US steel industry faring behind those tariff barriers?
The whole "area reliant on one industry" rhetoric is completely misplaced. If one looks at the history of industry, like businesses tended to group themselves together round the sources of raw materials, other geographically significant features (for example, rivers) or an abundance of labour. Blaming successive governments in the second half of the 20th century for the economies of production employed at the start of the industrial revolution and even many centuries before is ridiculous.
😯
If one looks at the history of industry, one also sees what happens to those who fail to recognise when the original rationale for location disappears. Boiling frogs anyone?
Of your three factors - RM supply no longer relevant, other geog features not sure, and supply of labour - well smell the coffee, steel has long since gone from being a labour intensive industry.
So it is massive folly to ignore this and allow any region to become economically and socially dependent on an industry in which there is so little, if any, long term competitive advantage.
Northern textiles???
@thm it doesn't matter. The US can do something and our hands are tied is the narrative that brexiters could be using.
Boris visit to PT?
John Redwood singing national anthem outside blast furnace?
The whole "area reliant on one industry" rhetoric is completely misplaced. If one looks at the history of industry, like businesses tended to group themselves together round the sources of raw materials, other geographically significant features (for example, rivers) or an abundance of labour. Blaming successive governments in the second half of the 20th century for the economies of production employed at the start of the industrial revolution and even many centuries before is ridiculous.
Yes, and have you seen the size of a steel works? They're the size of a town. It's not like you can have lots of small steel works, one on every corner in every town.
CFK, so the US have steel tariffs and it has FA impact on their domestic industry. So you are correct, easy answers and empty rhetoric are indeed perfect for the Brexit camp
So it is massive folly to ignore this and allow any region to become economically and socially dependent on an industry in which there is so little, if any, long term competitive advantageNorthern textiles???.
Do you have the remotest idea how these industries get established in the first place? Their are very valid reasons. Access to power, to raw materials, to labour, transport links.
These may make little sense in an economy now based on sitting in coffee shops, on the internet, remotely selling your skill set to someone the other side of the planet, but they made a hell of a lot of sense at the time.
My problem is that as with northern textiles, mining, steel etc, over the decades these industries have contributed billions upon billions to this countries wealth. In some cases they can genuinely be what made this country what it is. Yet now they've served their purpose, and outlived their usefulness, they are treated as petty inconvenience. A nuisance.
And all those people who contributed to the economy all there working lives are now just a PITA that will appear on the unemployment statistics and be a drain on resources. . They will receive not a shred of acknowledgement or sympathy from government, and will be abandoned to the grim fate that awaits them as they are stripped of their dignity and their community implodes.
As a society, is this really the best we can do?
Do you have the remotest idea...
No, I prefer to rely 100% on your insight instead (hence the checks on accuracy). And thanks, I will re-write all the geog GCSE case studies on the industry that I have used over the past few years. All bllx, but fortunately the examiners are as thick as me.
at the time
Hmmm,
[i]The whole "area reliant on one industry" rhetoric is completely misplaced. If one looks at the history of industry, like businesses tended to group themselves together round the sources of raw materials, other geographically significant features (for example, rivers) or an abundance of labour. Blaming successive governments in the second half of the 20th century for the economies of production employed at the start of the industrial revolution and even many centuries before is ridiculous. [/i]
+1
What is different now though, and for the past 1/2 century is that movement of labour has been restricted due to costs and welfare - I'm not saying that it is a bad thing to support folk where they live, but in the past workers (and bosses etc) had to move to where work was (whatever the cost).
We need to understand that and this is why you have to persuade (through cash) industry to move to areas of high unemployment.
Obviously companies can easily 'do the merry-go-round' though...
I would imagine many Brexiters like me don't think the plant should be nationalised even if it where possible. I have already commented on protectionist import tarrifs, that's not a solution either imo. As such as a Brexiter there isn't a lot of poitical milage in the situation. The only political point I would make references Corbyn, he published on his now deleted blog that he was against the EU as it prevented nationalisation.
@binners is there not a natural cycle, a town grows from a rural village or port on an industry (mining, coal, textiles) it reaches a level sustainable on that industry. If that industry changes the town must change too or irs natural for it to shrink back towards its origins. Perhaps you can tell me what the owners of the Northen businesses did with their money (Castle Howard, Nidd Hall etc) ? The North of England receives a massive subsidy from the South East in terms of tax revenues etc, but its never enough is it ?
Perhaps you can tell me what the owners of the Northen businesses did with their money (Castle Howard, Nidd Hall etc) ?
They spent it all on whippets, pigeons, flat caps and pies? Come on Jammers.... keep up.... this is common knowledge.
The North of England receives a massive subsidy from the South East in terms of tax revenues etc, but its never enough is it ?
And we're eternally grateful for the crumbs that fall from your table sir
*doffs cap*
THM - raw material supply is still relevant, because in PT's instance a deepwater port was built in order to ship it in - I guess that's a sign that the place was moving with the times. Continuing to use Port Talbot as the example, the site grew to keep up with demand from the use of local materials over 200 years ago, development of the dock, building of blast furnaces, introducing steelmaking and then the amalgamation that took place 100 years ago (to counter foreign competition as it happens). These were all business decisions which drove the place to the size and scale it is now. I think "allowing a region to become socially and economically dependent on one industry" misses the point: this government, and any of the past few decades didn't "allow" it. It's how most traditional industry has developed. What we're seeing now is the failure of modern legislation to keep up in a global market. As many have already said, a free market only works for everyone if it's a level playing field, which it isn't.
My point about those 2 factors was that they're the reason that regions traditionally saw clusters of similar businesses and industries. Sure, it's less relevant now, but it can't simply be ignored as no longer relevant since that's how these places have developed over decades and in some cases centuries.
You're right, steelmaking and rolling is no longer labour intensive - very few industries are these days - but there's two parts to the labour side of it and you're forgetting the skills and experience built up over (in some cases) a lifetime.
What's your point with Northern textiles? Same influencing factors as I mentioned previously, then undercut by foreign imports?
I'm very surprised the brexiters are not making more of this. IIRC USA has 233% import duties on Chinese steel.
It would make no difference, we port far more from Europe than we do from China.
My point about those 2 factors was that they're the reason that regions traditionally saw clusters of similar businesses and industries.
Agreed
Sure, it's less relevant now
Ditto
but it can't simply be ignored as no longer relevant since that's how these places have developed over decades and in some cases centuries.
Not ignored no, but not the determining factor going forward either. Industries evolve as you describe and locations become more or less relevant with them. As we know large parts of the S Wales industry became locationally less relevance and locations changes as a result. That will never change.
Is Dundee still reliant on Jute, Jam and Journalism?
I think "allowing a region to become socially and economically dependent on one industry" misses the point
Well we will agree to disagree on that one, but I think for the people of Ebbw Vale in the past and PT now I fear that this is very much the point.
Those furnaces at port talbot use products that we manufacture in our company. the product that we manufacture is used in many and varied industries in the world. These products are made from the material that is made at port talbot (and other steelworks). On many high spec projects (oil/marine, Power gen, Nuclear) the projects specifically state no Chinese or Indian steel to be used due to poor quality. Just thought I'd mention it speaking as an actual manufacturer in the UK.
MT - there was an automotive production guy on the radio saying exactly this. He said that the car plants in the UK would never use cheap Chinese steel due to quality issues, so they'd now have to import that instead of getting it from Port Talbot, which would increase their costs
A question for Jambawibble and THM, do you think steel making is a strategic industry?
what is a "strategic" industry - uncle Vince tried to explain and he didn't include steel, but he wasn't clear.
Steel isn't strategic or important. Credit default swaps are where its at!
what is a "strategic" industry
Estate Agents?
On many high spec projects (oil/marine, Power gen, Nuclear) the projects specifically state no Chinese or Indian steel to be used due to poor quality. Just thought I'd mention it speaking as an actual manufacturer in the UK
You don't expect some shiney arsed money juggler to understand this do you ?
God help them if they ever need to replace steels in any structures around the city eh
And real answers?
As humourous as the glib responses are they don't really address the question do they? It's very easy to hide behind glib sound bites, especially as a politician, but actually hard to come up with proper answers.
Ducking the question?
Ok is steel making a vital industry to keep going come what may? THM You seem one of the more hawkish among the STW brethren, what are you going to make your tanks, ships, guns out of? Papier Mache ?
You don't expect some shiney arsed money juggler to understand this do you ?God help them if they ever need to replace steels in any structures around the city eh
Have you heard of Building Control Officers? Classification Societies? Warranty Surveyors?
If a "shiney arsed money juggler" though they could make significant savings by using cheap inferior steel, they would be doing it now.
Interesting to now try and label steel as 'strategic' given that the foundation of the entire EU was a free trade coal and steel pact, set up in the aftermath of WW2 with the specific aim of [i]preventing[/i] war by removing competition for natural resources... Oops!
Brillo has just pointed out in Twitter that the latest figures (January) show the UK importing £202m from the EU and only £80m from the rest of the world inc. China and India... Again, Oops! 😳
No, just wondering what strategic means before answering it. Here's a few possible criteria
Contribution to total output/national income
Number of people employed
Market share and international competitiveness, contribution to trade
Relevant to other industries
Potential substitutes
National security
R&D
Relevance to killing other people
Nostalgia
Etc, etc
It seems a very broad concept that doesn't fit an easy one-word answer
Paper tanks now why didn't we think about that before?f
fwiw, I am not hawkish on the issue. I just prefer sensible solutions and have very few from any politicians or industry representatives since the news broke.
The two main parties are saying the same thing, which is ST government support, which makes obvious sense, but Labour have dressed it up in a better sound bite "nationalise to stabilise" - despite the baggage that comes with the term nationalise. But as ever, the devil will be in the detail
Interesting to now try and label steel as 'strategic' given that the foundation of the entire EU was a free trade coal and steel pact, set up in the aftermath of WW2 with the specific aim of preventing war in Europe [s]by removing competition for natural resources... Oops![/s]to ensure a balance of power
FTFY
Well it might of prevented war in Europe, we seem to like getting involved a bit further afield of late though.
THM so I guess you are ok with no steel and us relying on others if the need arises? As you want us to leave the EU isn't it even more important to have control over such things?
Strategic Businesses. On reflection I don't think there are any businesses which are strategic. Hospitals, police, military - they are strategic
Post at 13.11 to show how strong our realtionship with China is
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2016/apr/01/tata-steel-crisis-uk-ringleader-china-sajid-javid-port-talbot-live ]Guardian business live[/url]
pigface I would prefer that your didn't put words into my mouth - and at no stage have I said that I am ok with no steel production and I am pro EU (but anti €). But apart from that, as you were....what did meatloaf say, none out of two ain't bad...
....and "strategic" or ducking the question? 😉
THM please accept my apologies I all get the impression you supported a Brexit
Don't know what Dundee's reliant on, but none of those seems to involve an enormous integrated works built up over a century.
Ferrals - that's the tin lid! Reinforces what many people have already said about not sticking to the "rules" of international trade.
Fair do's
fwiw - your question is an excellent one. Interestingly, it is extremely hard to define a strategic industry, indeed many professional bodies have tried and there is plenty of research in the matter but little hard definition - plus it's is dynamic issue too. Any easy term to bandy around but a hard one to tie down.
Historically, Dundee was very reliant on the three Js so applying the logic earlier, this is important when considering its future - or not as the case may be
I think at this point we actually need to think of what we are going to do with PT it's population. No UK government (of any colour) would buy it from Tata. There is no political mileage in saying that we are going to be losing £350m to £500m per annum just to keep a plant and related industries open, plus all the pension liabilities. In reality this means everyone in the UK paying £5 to £10 per year for a product that we can't sell.
Given the sheer oversupply of steel across the planet, there is no way it makes business sense for the factory to remain open. We may not like, we can all see the impact that it is going to cause, but stuffing our head in the sands and praying that someone will buy it is stupid.
Rather than spending the £350m pa on running the plant, the government could commit that sum for the next 10 - 15 years to fund growth in new business in that area. It won't be enough, but at least it is solid enough start.
However there are no easy solutions, if there was we would be following it already. We need a plan which accepts that the s*** has hit the fan and ALL parties need to back a plan for the future and not resort to sound bites or simply slagging off the other side. Perhaps if we could all do that (and that includes Dave and Jeremy acting in statesman like manner) we could actually do something that might help?
So would increasing the EU tarrif on cheap Chinese steel to American levels, not help Tata?
Tata and European Steel Association think so, the latter stated that the UK had been the ringleader in blocking the tariff change at the EU in February, just after the visit from Xi Jumping...
It seems that Osborne's so desperate for the Chinese to bail out his economic disaster that he's willing to sacrifice the jobs in the steel industry and the local economies it supports
The strategic question is a good one, and until now, I thought it might be the argument that won the day. I assume by 'strategic' people mean "cannot be allowed to fail because we need to commodity/product so badly we can never rely on sourcing that product as an import for fear of being deprived of it".
I've always thought there *were* strategic industries. (Say the kind of high tech defense things QinetiQ do.)
I'm less sure now I've thought about it.
If you wanted to make Britain Surrender by depriving us of something you'd pick first water (no chance, it falls out of the sky) then food. So our second most strategic business is food production. Well that ship sailed in Napoleonic times. We can't possibly feed ourselves.
So if our second most strategic product is completely at the mercy of foreign powers what's the point in protecting (say) No11 and No15. I'm not even sure where steal would be in the list - certainly below energy.
The "strategic" trump card doesn't exist.
Kimbers: Well, yeah, obviously steel makers want their competitors' products taxed more heavily so that people have to buy their more expensive products! They get a short term gain from that and if other countries impose retaliatory duties on other UK products - well, snot their problem gov
It seems that Osborne's so desperate for the Chinese to bail out his economic disaster that he's willing to sacrifice the jobs in the steel industry and the local economies it supports
In other words he's prepared to shore up (say) 500,000 jobs by sacrificing 40,000.
If that hypothesis were true it would be the *right* thing to do.
It seems that Osborne's so desperate for the Chinese to bail out his economic disaster that he's willing to sacrifice the jobs in the steel industry and the local economies it supports
Given whats come out this morning, its hard to reach any other conclusion.
Same as him not supporting sanctions against Russia as the City is awash with dirty Russian money that its laundering for them
There are sanctions on Russia that target those actually responsible for the Ukrainian invasion etc and they have practically killed Russian corporate financial activity in London (and Cleethorpes). hth
Strategic Companies - National Grid? EDF Energy? British Telecom? Urenco? - increasingly Serco.
Poll by Sky News sugest 66% of british population favour nationalisation of PT steelworks.
Seems to be growing appetite in EU for stronger protectionist strategies for steel. If UK gov't can get on board with that, and assuming we stay in the EU we could potentially get somewhere.
It seems that Osborne's so desperate for the Chinese to bail out his economic disaster that he's willing to sacrifice the jobs in the steel industry and the local economies it supports
President Hollande would love some of Osbourne's disaster what withFrance's 8% unemployment rate which is 20%+ amongst the young. Another coupe of strikes yesterday (air traffic plus train and metro) and a big demonstration primarily by the young complaining about relaxing Labour laws (which Hollande is trying to introduce so that companies might actually hire some young people)
it is extremely hard to define a strategic industry
No it's not, Sir Humphrey would have no trouble - a strategic industry is one whose closure would lose you the election.
HTH
Doubtful - the let's make stuff up momentum is growing. And what is Jamba accused off!!! 😉
Protectionism - phew, we are all saved!!!
Mefty 😀
it may help if those governments across Europe (the UK voted against this) that are worried about their own steel industry raised the import duty on any product sold at below the cost of production. Perhaps China see's steel as a world strategic industry and are planning to control it as they are successfully doing on rare earth metals (you need them for your electronic/alternative energy industries).
I'd not like to see a nuc power station built out of Chinese/indian steel or an oil rig for that matter. Shell are fully conversant as to what happens to 316L stainless steel sourced from the most economic suppliers (with certification) on one of the worlds larges floating production and storage vessels.
Some berk on radio 4 yesterday was trying to say we don't need steel for defense purposes, his example of the UK purchasing Armour plate from Czechoslovakia before the WW2. Bet that was a sustainable supply chains once the actual war started.
However you define strategic, we need to have a secure supply of steel in the event of troubled times or to ensure important projects have the material needed.
Tata are going to ensure that UK steel is over and they plan to purchase another steel producer in Germany very shortly. It's not in their interests to have a rival to the plants they already own in The Netherlands.
It would also help if we could all develop a "buy British" policy when possible, rather than the very Yorkshire selfish "I'll not be ripped off". This approach may keep our neighbours in a job and paying their taxes. Yes I know its an old fashioned view but it works for me, as I like seeing stuff being made here.
PS I should own up and say that the closure of TATA steel making will affect our company, they purchase from us and we supply to them. Jobs at our place rely on them. Never mind though as we are just some thick northern manufacturer that living off all that tax paid by the banking and finance industry in the south. Our 60 staff are as expendable as all the other manufacturing jobs in the UK. I'm sure we'll be able to get a job at McCrapbugerking. Am I taking this badly F..kin Right.
Worked In the 70s too - at least for the flag, badge and sticker makers
[I]Poll by Sky News sugest 66% of british population favour nationalisation of PT steelworks.[/I]
Now ask that 66% how much they'd personally be prepared to spend doing so, methinks that it'll be far, far less.
[i]Worked In the 70s too - at least for the flag, badge and sticker makers [/i]
The public sector could itself be somewhere to start buying British.
It would also help if we could all develop a "buy British" policy when possible,
This.
We can't possibly feed ourselves.
What a ridiculous thing to say. Of course we can feed ourselves. It would be difficult, and some of us would have to accept being a bit thinner and less choosy, and as in WW2 it would require a concerted collective effort but it could be done. But not if we got rid of the capability altogether, which is what we're discussing here.
Irony if true...
Faisal Islam's(Sky News) tweets:
[i]New tariff announced today re Chinese steel. 46%.
By China. On EU. hi-tec "Grain Oriented Electrical Steel". Made by...Tata Steel in Newport[/i]
[i]China says that "Grain Oriented Electrical Steel" has been dumped by EU in China causing "substantial damage" to justify a 46.3% duty[/i]
[img] 
[/img]
The public sector could itself be somewhere to start buying British
It's illegal to not have a completely open and balanced tender process.
You must compare all EU bids evenly.
Irony if true...
If they're losing a million pounds a day then they must be dumping steel somewhere.
The strategic question is a good one, and until now
Maybe it's one of those things you will only miss when it's gone.
Don't know what Dundee's reliant on,
Tesco! There are about 10 of their F****** extra superstores in the city plus the national call centre. It should really be renamed TescoTown
but none of those seems to involve an enormous integrated works built up over a century.
On a more serious note the jute trade in Dundee was massive. There were a lot of very large mills that employed a good number of the cities population. It was also one of the main users of the port (along with ship building and whaling) and rail network. When the mills closed there was mass unemployment but eventually they realised that something else had to be done and the city moved on to other trades.
What I have never understood about the miners, steel workers in Wales and the car builders in Birmingham is why they have never though to do something else other than what they used to do. This isn't meant to be a criticism but i genuinely don't understand the attitude of not moving on to other things if your trade is shut down. An example is the oil workers many of whom have (admittedly not all) found alternative work in other trades instead of sitting around for the next 10 years complaining that there is (comparatively) little oil industry left.
Of course we can feed ourselves. It would be difficult, and some of us would have to accept being a bit thinner and less choosy, and as in WW2
We imported food in WW2.
In fact we imported all kinds of stuff. Heard of Convoys? Same in WW1.
What do you think German Submarines were doing in both world wars - they were trying to stop the supply of the UK. That only works because we aren't self sufficient.
[url= http://news.sky.com/story/1671109/china-hits-steel-made-in-uk-with-46-percent-levy ]http://news.sky.com/story/1671109/china-hits-steel-made-in-uk-with-46-percent-levy[/url]
[i]China has said it will levy 46% duties on a type of high tech steel produced by Tata Steel in Wales, Sky News has learned.[/i]
And our government argues against tariffs on Chinese steel. **** wits.
No it's not, Sir Humphrey would have no trouble - a strategic industry is one whose closure would lose you the election.
Chapeau. How true.
That only works because we aren't self sufficient.
That's mainly because people now expect to eat strawberries and green beans in January.
In the 1980's we were produced about 80% of our own food.
with modern, high intensity farming techniques we could probably be self sufficient if we really wanted or needed to be.
We imported food in WW2.
Of course we did. Being 100% self-sufficient wasn't an arbitrary ambition, but a potential necessity. It doesn't change the fact though that we could have been self-sufficient if required and massively reduced the amount we relied on imported food. By your logic, an industry isn't worth keeping unless it has a monopoly on supply.
The whole point of international trade (and laws of comparative advantage) is for countries to be able to specialise in producing those goods and services in which they have a natural competitive advantage. Given that we have limited resources, there has never been a goal to be self sufficient in all industries.