Steel workers - why the special treatment?

[glennpickard]

Geared: you have hit the nail right on the head !

 

The UK has hundreds of public works projects that are needed to shore up/replace old worn out infrastructure such as bridges, roads, docks, etc. Get them replaced (in the regions first) so UK steel and products can be utilised.

 

Eg: Bidding would have to be open due EU rules I suppose, but gov't could reserve the right to make final decision using its own guidelines. They could provide "Preferred" bidder guidelines. ie. UK owned/based corporations, all directors paying UK taxes, 5 years UK experience, using 90% UK materials/vehicles and 100% UK citizens or people with the right of abode etc etc. Projected 10 year program. The London gov't would have to stand up to the EU if they find reason to complain.

 

This is a win/win situation for the UK if there is political courage.

 

1) the steel industry stays alive & intact

2) employment in the regions rises

3) more work people pay taxes

4) less workers on the dole

5) trained & experienced tradespeople stay in place in the UK

6) the governing party will collect the praises

7) the UK gets millions of tons worth of new steel based modern infrastructure

significant spin off value to UK third party companies & people supporting the primary projects

 

This proposal would of course become rapidly political. So opposition parties should take the cause as their own and start lobbying the governing party, led by the Sheffield Council of course, as SC wants the first "Upgrades" to start in Sheffield, and Sheffield & Co would lobby to be the pilot project

[ECCOnoob]

Geared: you have hit the nail right on the head !

 

The UK has hundreds of public works projects that are needed to shore up/replace old worn out infrastructure such as bridges, roads, docks, etc. Get them replaced (in the regions first) so UK steel and products can be utilised.

 

Eg: Bidding would have to be open due EU rules I suppose, but gov't could reserve the right to make final decision using its own guidelines. They could provide "Preferred" bidder guidelines. ie. UK owned/based corporations, all directors paying UK taxes, 5 years UK experience, using 90% UK materials/vehicles and 100% UK citizens or people with the right of abode etc etc. Projected 10 year program. The London gov't would have to stand up to the EU if they find reason to complain.

 

This is a win/win situation for the UK if there is political courage.

 

1) the steel industry stays alive & intact

2) employment in the regions rises

3) more work people pay taxes

4) less workers on the dole

5) trained & experienced tradespeople stay in place in the UK

6) the governing party will collect the praises

7) the UK gets millions of tons worth of new steel based modern infrastructure

significant spin off value to UK third party companies & people supporting the primary projects

 

This proposal would of course become rapidly political. So opposition parties should take the cause as their own and start lobbying the governing party, led by the Sheffield Council of course, as SC wants the first "Upgrades" to start in Sheffield, and Sheffield & Co would lobby to be the pilot project

 

Little mention of budget, costs, finances in that lot.

 

All very well and good but what happens when the costs of using all this British labour, raw product and processing is 10x 20x 30x the cost of having imported part or all of such product or service?

 

It does not grow on trees.

[Cyclone]

Plus the fact, as I keep saying, is that us consumers are not prepared to pay the extra costs.

 

Increased raw materials, increased labour costs, increased manufacturing costs = increased prices.

 

You cannot moan about lack of British jobs, lack of British manufacturing, lack of a "living wage" and then go out on the streets and buy the cheapest, crappiest imported products you can find in the pound shops and supermarkets.

 

How do people actually think these things get made and sold so cheaply. Its business. We create our own demands. We have to take responsibility for ourselves.

 

When banks go bust, it's not just "business" then though, then the tax payer has to spend £100 billion in a bail out...

[unbeliever]

When banks go bust, it's not just "business" then though, then the tax payer has to spend £100 billion in a bail out...

 

No we didn't. We didn't have to do anything of the kind.

The state could have covered depositors' losses and let the bad banks fail.

That is very much what they should have done.

[Cyclone]

Thanks for spelling it out. I thought that the mildly sarcastic tone of my post about "having" to bail out the banks was quite clear.

[unbeliever]

Thanks for spelling it out. I thought that the mildly sarcastic tone of my post about "having" to bail out the banks was quite clear.

 

Sorry if you typed it in a sarcastic tone of voice and I missed it.

[TJC1]

Thanks for spelling it out. I thought that the mildly sarcastic tone of my post about "having" to bail out the banks was quite clear.

 

You, sarcastic? No.

[Cyclone]

Sorry if you typed it in a sarcastic tone of voice and I missed it.

 

You're supposed to read my mind dude.

[El Cid]

When banks go bust, it's not just "business" then though, then the tax payer has to spend £100 billion in a bail out...

 

The thing with the Government running and owning businesses.

 

George Osborne's family business has made a loss(2011) of nearly three-quarters of a million pounds, the third year in a row it has announced a deficit.

[truman]

The thing with the Government running and owning businesses.

 

And then..

 

"The international business, in which George Osborne owns a 15pc stake held in a blind trust, generated pre-tax profits of £712,000 during the year to 31 March 2014, a £1.45m operating improvement compared to a loss of £746,000 the previous year. "