I1L2T3 Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 No offence but you're the idiot. He didn't say that he would sacrifice the entire industry. He just said that he wouldn't nationalise Tata Steel UK or more specifically Port Talbot. As for letting the entire steel industry go, you couldn't be further from understanding what is going on. See what is happening to Forgemasters, where the government is actively keeping them going. Like I said before, Forgemasters is strategic and Tata Steel UK isn't. You're missing the point that dogma will be allowed to get in the way of what is potentially for the national good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ez8004 Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 Because it is strategic national importance. Simple as that. Tata Steel UK isn't strategic. They aren't the only steelmaker in the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 Use £365m to keep 15,000 jobs going or help out 4.6m people with a reduction in their income tax burden. An obvious no brainer there. The £4.8bn is the cost of reducing capital gains tax for windfalls over £11k, and reducing income tax for those earning £43k+ Like I said, high earners. I'd rather take 7% of their cut of the pie to have the chance of saving 15,000 jobs. Who wouldn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quik Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 You're missing the point that dogma will be allowed to get in the way of what is potentially for the national good. The national good will be in breach of the EUs rules so unless we leave we can't preserve them anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LLAN Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 Will Jaguar and Land Rover's now be manufactured with Chinese Steel, or will Big Dave step in and re nationalise the industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ez8004 Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 The £4.8bn is the cost of reducing capital gains tax for windfalls over £11k, and reducing income tax for those earning £43k+ Like I said, high earners. I'd rather take 7% of their cut of the pie to have the chance of saving 15,000 jobs. Who wouldn't? The 4.6m wouldn't. The unfortunately political reality is 15,000 isn't going to win an election, but a potential 4.6m can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 Tata Steel UK isn't strategic. They aren't the only steelmaker in the country. Steel manufacturing is a highly specialised process. Different plants make different products. There are many types of steel we already have to import so let's not become even more dependent on imports. ---------- Post added 30-03-2016 at 21:07 ---------- The 4.6m wouldn't. The unfortunately political reality is 15,000 isn't going to win an election, but a potential 4.6m can. I'm not talking about the 4.6m. Read my post again. There is a specific cost to two tax changes for high earners. I'm saying that 7% of the cost of that is a small price to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 Tata Steel UK isn't strategic. They aren't the only steelmaker in the country. no and it looks like this one will be next http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/03/14/steel-industry-suffers-new-blow-with-more-job-cuts-in-sheffield/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ez8004 Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 Will Jaguar and Land Rover's now be manufactured with Chinese Steel, or will Big Dave step in and re nationalise the industry. Chinese steel? Unlikely. More likely to be French (i.e. Ascometal) or German (i.e. GMH or ThyssenKrupp) or any other capable European steelmaker such as Ovako. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 The national good will be in breach of the EUs rules so unless we leave we can't preserve them anyway. If nationalisation was in breach of EU rules then we wouldn't have been able to nationalise the banks in 2008-9. Try again....... The argument that we can't nationalise is a fallacy developed by Ukip to bash the EU, and it's contrary to all the evidence about what happened in 2008-9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now