Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

What should be done for the steel industry in Port Talbot? watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChildOfTony)
    You can recycle it by putting it back through the furnace and moulding again. Actually to generate the heat to mould it you don't necessarily need a furnace
    You don't use a blast furnace to remelt steel that is already refined. A BF is used to separate iron ore into pig iron which is then refined in a different furnace into steel. Port Talbot has BFs.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    You don't use a blast furnace to remelt steel that is already refined. A BF is used to separate iron ore into pig iron which is then refined in a different furnace into steel. Port Talbot has BFs.
    You don't even need that
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChildOfTony)
    You don't even need that
    You sound confused now.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bill_Gates)
    What should be done for the steel industry in Port Talbot?

    I personally think they should close it down.
    - We can't afford to nationalize it, the UK government is broke.
    - It's a low value added product
    - 80% of the UK economy is now in the service sector (i don't agree with it but it is what it is).
    - We have close allies who produce steel plus China has been very efficient in the area for years.
    - Putting on tariffs for steel might lead to a trade war we might lose out on in other areas of the economy i.e car sales to China for example.

    Your views?
    I'm in two minds..

    1) Let it die, Tata is not the only steel manufacturer even if it is probably the largest (something like a quarter of UK production). Focus on finding alternative employment for the labour force.

    2) If Tata can't sell within 3 months then nationalise at 1p per share, automate the crap out of it (thus sacking most of the workforce anyway) but hopefully at the end of it all we'll be able to compete and sell 55% of the firm back into the private sector.

    I will say that i am heavily against increasing tariffs (shafting the consumer and shielding industry from competition is not beneficial in the long term) and i think that even those who want it saved should accept that we'd be saving the steel industry and not the labour force, more than half the jobs would have to go anyway if government used its giant cheque book to automate it as much as possible.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Which is why it irritates me no end when the Conservative big up how great their party is for national security at the same time as letting Chinese Communists undermine our industries.
    Proper wars see years of rearming and deteriorating relations before the war economy sees government takes over now. Other than keeping the plants around, it's irrelevant what happens now bar a surprise attack.

    (Original post by Dirty Dawah)
    You're god damn right. We should never have let them build the nuclear power station at Hinkley, if the Chinese can run that at a profit, the government could easily raise the funds through bond sales and repay investors with the proceeds, then we could raise our middle fingers as almost as high as we raise the import tariffs because David Cameron isn't the slut of the people('s republic)
    Hinkley can only be run at a profit because government is guaranteeing both the construction and a minimum price. Such deals are *******isations of the market.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChildOfTony)
    Just out of interest what would you propose if there was a world war, us and China was on opposing sides India remained neutral, neither sides use nuclear weaponary and we have no steel, or any other metal for that factor to produce anumation with. We need to still produce but not a lot.
    The EU steel industry has a capacity of 230 million tons a year. Europe has a true steel use of 125 million tons a year.

    By 2017 South America (mostly Brazil) will have a steel making capacity of 77 million tons a year. South America has a true steel use of 55 million tons

    Please explain why in your scenario we would not buy Indian steel?

    You do realise that despite the WWII U Boat blockade that would be unrepeatable in any modern conventional war, this country imported 3 million tonnes of iron and steel each year mostly from North America.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    The EU steel industry has a capacity of 230 million tons a year. Europe has a true steel use of 125 million tons a year.

    By 2017 South America (mostly Brazil) will have a steel making capacity of 77 million tons a year. South America has a true steel use of 55 million tons

    Please explain why in your scenario we would not buy Indian steel?

    You do realise that despite the WWII U Boat blockade that would be unrepeatable in any modern conventional war, this country imported 3 million tonnes of iron and steel each year mostly from North America.
    I never said they (Indians would supply it) my judgement is when we and the rest europe stop producing India and China will bung prices up ( and still be cheapest than the alternative) they will potentially price fix with each other so we are forced to pay more. Unless there is a war. But we can keep a reserve of ammunation.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChildOfTony)
    I never said they (Indians would supply it) my judgement is when we and the rest europe stop producing India and China will bung prices up ( and still be cheapest than the alternative) they will potentially price fix with each other so we are forced to pay more. Unless there is a war. But we can keep a reserve of ammunation.
    There are plenty of things we used to make and have stopped making. Virtually every one has been seen as a special case at the time. None turned out to be.

    We lease our Trident missiles.

    We make only bits of our fighter planes.

    We ship our tanks on leased vessels.

    As a nation we have been incapable of producing all the food we eat for 150 years.

    We fought two world wars with virtually no fuel for our army and air force and one world war with no fuel for our navy.

    This country has no radioactive minerals of its own.

    All of the propellant in our ammunition and all of the stuff that goes bang inside, we buy from a German company with factories in Germany and Switzerland.

    In that context to regard the preservation of steel production capacity as being of strategic importance is laughable.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Nationalising it is against EU law. Realistically, I can't see a future buyer making it profitable. The state should take over the pension fund and invest in retraining the workers in the area. The factory should be closed.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by I Don't Care)
    Nationalising it is against EU law.
    No it isn't.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    2) If Tata can't sell within 3 months then nationalise at 1p per share, automate the crap out of it (thus sacking most of the workforce anyway) but hopefully at the end of it all we'll be able to compete and sell 55% of the firm back into the private sector.
    This sounds like the most sensible option available.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bill_Gates)
    What should be done for the steel industry in Port Talbot?

    I personally think they should close it down.
    - We can't afford to nationalize it, the UK government is broke.
    - It's a low value added product
    - 80% of the UK economy is now in the service sector (i don't agree with it but it is what it is).
    - We have close allies who produce steel plus China has been very efficient in the area for years.
    - Putting on tariffs for steel might lead to a trade war we might lose out on in other areas of the economy i.e car sales to China for example.

    Your views?
    You say the government is broke but the cost of paying for all those worker's pensions and dole money is going to come at a cost with no return. Surely paying workers to produce steel is better than paying unemployed people to do nothing?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bill_Gates)
    What should be done for the steel industry in Port Talbot?

    I personally think they should close it down.
    - We can't afford to nationalize it, the UK government is broke.
    - It's a low value added product
    - 80% of the UK economy is now in the service sector (i don't agree with it but it is what it is).
    - We have close allies who produce steel plus China has been very efficient in the area for years.
    - Putting on tariffs for steel might lead to a trade war we might lose out on in other areas of the economy i.e car sales to China for example.

    Your views?
    For me it depends on the referendum, for example according to Eu rules government contracts have to be put out to tender when they are above a certain size something like 50k if memory serves me right.

    Obviously it would be advantageous if we used British steel for all our projects whilst the demand is so low to keep it going.

    We can only do that without breaking the rules if we leave.

    Aside from that I'm not against it on a short term nationalisation of say up to 6 months for it to go private or at least parts of it but it must have a time limit on it so if a buyer hasn't been found the place is closed down 350m a year as a loss just to keep it running isn't sustainable


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JimJam456)
    You say the government is broke but the cost of paying for all those worker's pensions and dole money is going to come at a cost with no return. Surely paying workers to produce steel is better than paying unemployed people to do nothing?
    A lot of workers would probably end up moving to nearby cities and working low-skilled service industry jobs, which has its own problems.

    Generally speaking, I agree. Even if we run the nationalized factory at a loss, as long as it's less of a loss than we would be paying out due to unemployment (plus the other issues with the town becoming a ghost town), it works out. At least then, downsizing can be done gradually, rather than overnight.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChildOfTony)
    To protect UK Jobs maybe?!
    What about the UK Jobs that rely on cheap steel?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Let the steel works close, it will only cost more taxpayers' money to keep it going. With the price of steel so low, all the industries that use steel like car making and construction will benefit. Invest the money that would be used to keep it open to built infrastructure like houses, roads and bridges that can be used to employ the skilled workers from Port Talbot.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    If it is now uncompetitive to make steel in the UK I see no reason why the taxpayer should foot any part of any bill for its continued production.

    The exception would be if it were thought strategically necessary to maintain some level of steel production (i.e. for defence). Otherwise, protectionism helps nobody.

    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    In that context to regard the preservation of steel production capacity as being of strategic importance is laughable.
    Alright, fair enough, I'm convinced.

    No reason at all, then.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    If it is now uncompetitive to make steel in the UK I see no reason why the taxpayer should foot any part of any bill for its continued production.

    The exception would be if it were thought strategically necessary to maintain some level of steel production (i.e. for defence). Otherwise, protectionism helps nobody.



    Alright, fair enough, I'm convinced.

    No reason at all, then.
    Because of the welfare costs of the newly unemployed and the possible need for steel during a war....


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    Because of the welfare costs of the newly unemployed and the possible need for steel during a war....


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Welfare costs will decrease over time as people get jobs, retire or die.

    Britain produces very little iron ore, most of it is imported, it would be odd for shipments of steel to be blockaded in the event of war but not iron ore.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by paul514)
    Because of the welfare costs of the newly unemployed and the possible need for steel during a war....


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Try looking back a few pages, the welfare costs, even when you throw in lost tax revenues, is actually a tiny amount, even if the whole steel industry goes under, and all it requires is a savings of a couple of percent on steel prices for the 12m tonnes of steel to be net cheaper getting it elsewhere.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.