FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

Tata steel bailout

Jump to newest
 

By *mateur100 OP   Man
over a year ago

nr faversham

When the banks were bailed out by the govt (our you and I) I'm sure I recall the taxpayer taking a percentage stake in them in return yet whilst I'm reading about a £500m bailout to Tata Steel (owners of Jaguar Land Rover) I'm not seeing any indication that the taxpayer is getting anything by way of a stake...am I missing something?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"When the banks were bailed out by the govt (our you and I) I'm sure I recall the taxpayer taking a percentage stake in them in return yet whilst I'm reading about a £500m bailout to Tata Steel (owners of Jaguar Land Rover) I'm not seeing any indication that the taxpayer is getting anything by way of a stake...am I missing something?"

Your probably missing out any backhanders in brown envelopes. Don't worry so am I..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

“Tata said that the capital cost of the redevelopment on Port Talbot would cost £1.25bn, including a grant from the UK government of “up to” £500m, and could be completed within three years of gaining all regulatory and planning approvals.

The government said modernising the furnaces at Port Talbot would reduce the UK’s entire carbon emissions by 1.5% – the site is the UK’s largest single carbon emitter – and “safeguard over 5,000 jobs across the UK”.”

So it is a govt grant, not a loan or a stake.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth


"“Tata said that the capital cost of the redevelopment on Port Talbot would cost £1.25bn, including a grant from the UK government of “up to” £500m, and could be completed within three years of gaining all regulatory and planning approvals.

The government said modernising the furnaces at Port Talbot would reduce the UK’s entire carbon emissions by 1.5% – the site is the UK’s largest single carbon emitter – and “safeguard over 5,000 jobs across the UK”.”

So it is a govt grant, not a loan or a stake."

I haven't looked at this. Are we saying it's a grant and not a 'bailout'?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"“Tata said that the capital cost of the redevelopment on Port Talbot would cost £1.25bn, including a grant from the UK government of “up to” £500m, and could be completed within three years of gaining all regulatory and planning approvals.

The government said modernising the furnaces at Port Talbot would reduce the UK’s entire carbon emissions by 1.5% – the site is the UK’s largest single carbon emitter – and “safeguard over 5,000 jobs across the UK”.”

So it is a govt grant, not a loan or a stake."

Govt are saying that without it, we’d lose all 8000 tata jobs. That’s a bailout. But Tata say it’s a grant?

Huge blow for port Talbot though. At least 50% of the workforce will be made redundant even with this grailout.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
over a year ago

Gilfach


"Govt are saying that without it, we’d lose all 8000 tata jobs. That’s a bailout. But Tata say it’s a grant?"

The announcement says that the money will be used to transition Tata away from their coal-fired blast furnaces, and create new arc furnaces to replace them. So the money is an environmental grant.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Govt are saying that without it, we’d lose all 8000 tata jobs. That’s a bailout. But Tata say it’s a grant?

The announcement says that the money will be used to transition Tata away from their coal-fired blast furnaces, and create new arc furnaces to replace them. So the money is an environmental grant."

It’s keeping the plant open as well. So it’s also a bailout

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

Grant or bailout, the taxpayer gets no stake in the business (unlike say the banks per point above).

If this is purely Net Zero driven then is it an example of both govt (taxpayers) and corporations (TATA who also have to invest £700m) doing their bit to save the planet? Saving jobs being a bonus!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Grant or bailout, the taxpayer gets no stake in the business (unlike say the banks per point above).

If this is purely Net Zero driven then is it an example of both govt (taxpayers) and corporations (TATA who also have to invest £700m) doing their bit to save the planet? Saving jobs being a bonus!"

Indeed. The steel workers of PT won’t see it as saving jobs - the workforce will be at least halved. But half is better than all, I guess.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

Timing interesting too (not a conspiracy theory just a statement) with Sunak’s recent discussion with India to push the FTA (wonder if TATA featured in discussions?)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ove2pleaseseukMan
over a year ago

Hastings


"Govt are saying that without it, we’d lose all 8000 tata jobs. That’s a bailout. But Tata say it’s a grant?

The announcement says that the money will be used to transition Tata away from their coal-fired blast furnaces, and create new arc furnaces to replace them. So the money is an environmental grant.

It’s keeping the plant open as well. So it’s also a bailout "

How is this a Bailout it's an improvement Grant to keep the plant running. But as Tata is an Indian company with the Wife's links to India it dose not look right.

I guess the tax paid by workers and profit from the plant would be like a stake in sum way.

But again gid government even ask for 10% or 5% or can't they be bothered to sit in on board meetings or where Tata scared they might fu@k it right up.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *yth11Couple
over a year ago

newark


"Grant or bailout, the taxpayer gets no stake in the business (unlike say the banks per point above).

If this is purely Net Zero driven then is it an example of both govt (taxpayers) and corporations (TATA who also have to invest £700m) doing their bit to save the planet? Saving jobs being a bonus!

Indeed. The steel workers of PT won’t see it as saving jobs - the workforce will be at least halved. But half is better than all, I guess."

The downside of electric ark process it that’s needs less workers and it’s the same with electric cars as less parts mean less workers.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton


"Govt are saying that without it, we’d lose all 8000 tata jobs. That’s a bailout. But Tata say it’s a grant?

The announcement says that the money will be used to transition Tata away from their coal-fired blast furnaces, and create new arc furnaces to replace them. So the money is an environmental grant.

It’s keeping the plant open as well. So it’s also a bailout

How is this a Bailout it's an improvement Grant to keep the plant running. But as Tata is an Indian company with the Wife's links to India it dose not look right.

I guess the tax paid by workers and profit from the plant would be like a stake in sum way.

But again gid government even ask for 10% or 5% or can't they be bothered to sit in on board meetings or where Tata scared they might fu@k it right up. "

Now I am one of the first people to jump on the Sunak’s for apparent conflicts of interest (Childcare agencies for example) but in this instance, simply being Indian is of no relevance. As far as I am aware Akshata Murthy’s family have no involvement in TATA?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ove2pleaseseukMan
over a year ago

Hastings


"Govt are saying that without it, we’d lose all 8000 tata jobs. That’s a bailout. But Tata say it’s a grant?

The announcement says that the money will be used to transition Tata away from their coal-fired blast furnaces, and create new arc furnaces to replace them. So the money is an environmental grant.

It’s keeping the plant open as well. So it’s also a bailout

How is this a Bailout it's an improvement Grant to keep the plant running. But as Tata is an Indian company with the Wife's links to India it dose not look right.

I guess the tax paid by workers and profit from the plant would be like a stake in sum way.

But again gid government even ask for 10% or 5% or can't they be bothered to sit in on board meetings or where Tata scared they might fu@k it right up.

Now I am one of the first people to jump on the Sunak’s for apparent conflicts of interest (Childcare agencies for example) but in this instance, simply being Indian is of no relevance. As far as I am aware Akshata Murthy’s family have no involvement in TATA?"

OK I'll take you better intell one way or the other it's better to invest in something than the plat close a loss of some jobs might save more and if done over 3 years it should be voluntary first..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *idnight RamblerMan
over a year ago

Pershore

This is a no-brainer, Steel is a core commodity of a strong economy. Do we want to be held hostage by China or India for supplies of steel? The job losses are unfortunate, but that's technological progress. Remember we lost our shipbuilding industry because trade unions wanted to use rivets instead of new fangled welding.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I feel for the people of Port Talbot. The steel works *is* Port Talbot. If half the jobs (at least) go, the town is in for a rough ride.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *9alMan
over a year ago

Bridgend


"I feel for the people of Port Talbot. The steel works *is* Port Talbot. If half the jobs (at least) go, the town is in for a rough ride."

it is worrying that the government is giving a lot of money to a foreign company with few guarantees of jobs or steel production long term

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
over a year ago

Gilfach


"It is worrying that the government is giving a lot of money to a foreign company with few guarantees of jobs or steel production long term"

The government are giving them money to build new arc furnaces. You don't build one of those if you're not planning to stay for a while.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *mateur100 OP   Man
over a year ago

nr faversham


"It is worrying that the government is giving a lot of money to a foreign company with few guarantees of jobs or steel production long term

The government are giving them money to build new arc furnaces. You don't build one of those if you're not planning to stay for a while."

If someone else is paying you might

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
over a year ago

Gilfach


"It is worrying that the government is giving a lot of money to a foreign company with few guarantees of jobs or steel production long term"


"The government are giving them money to build new arc furnaces. You don't build one of those if you're not planning to stay for a while."


"If someone else is paying you might"

The government grant is contingent on Tata putting £1.25bn into the upgrades that the plant needs. That's not the sort of investment that you walk away from.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *mateur100 OP   Man
over a year ago

nr faversham


"It is worrying that the government is giving a lot of money to a foreign company with few guarantees of jobs or steel production long term

The government are giving them money to build new arc furnaces. You don't build one of those if you're not planning to stay for a while.

If someone else is paying you might

The government grant is contingent on Tata putting £1.25bn into the upgrades that the plant needs. That's not the sort of investment that you walk away from."
.

We'll see

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ove2pleaseseukMan
over a year ago

Hastings


"I feel for the people of Port Talbot. The steel works *is* Port Talbot. If half the jobs (at least) go, the town is in for a rough ride."

Close the plat when it isn't competitive would be a bigger disaster. For a poor area.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *orleymanMan
over a year ago

Leeds

This wasnt a bailout.

Tata steel is a global company.

It had every right to move it'd production.

The uk wanted the production here. A huge cost for them is the green energy levies.

It's a grant because the uk governemnt wants to secure jobs tsta steel isn't in financial trouble.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top