Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Worth reading and thinking about!

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/03/tata-steel-industry-sajid-javid-laissez-faire-politics-disastrous

The dogmas destroying UK steel also inhibit future economic growth

Will Hutton

The crisis at Tata is a consequence of laissez-faire industrial policies that have prevailed for 40 years

Sunday 3 April 2016 05.30 BST


The elimination of Britain’s steel industry in a matter of weeks – the reality of Tata’s statement that it wants to close its UK operations – is, by any standards, shocking. There will be efforts to save something from the ruins, but the financial and trading truths are brutal.

This has not happened, however, in a day, or even over the past few years. Rather the plight of British steel making is the culmination of 40 years of refusal to organise economic, financial and industrial policy to support the generation of value. This is done in the laissez-faire belief – contested even in economic theory – that any such attempt is self-defeating. Business secretary Sajid Javid personifies this view. In fact, he is surely the most ideologically driven and least practical politician to hold this key post since the war.

The most generous interpretation is that this is creative destruction at work. Steel was an integral element of an industrial economy now giving way to a new knowledge-based capitalism where know-how is more important than brawn. It is tragic for those whose livelihoods and skills are now redundant, but it was no less tragic for ostlers, sailmakers and coal miners in their day.

The trouble is that Britain is very good at destruction, much less good at the creative part. Nor is it clear that steel’s days are over: its usage in a range of key functions – from transport to construction – remains fundamental and is growing. Rather, the economic behemoth China has monumentally over-invested in steel, for which there is too little domestic demand, and is now flooding world markets.

Britain, with a systemically overvalued exchange rate, porous market, high energy costs and ideological refusal to join others in the EU to deter imports dumped below cost with higher tariffs, is uniquely exposed to the threat. Now up to 40,000 workers directly and indirectly connected to steel production are about to lose their livelihoods.

Beneath the specifics of the steel industry lie more deep-seated problems. The day after Tata’s announcement, the Office of National Statistics (ONS) disclosed that the country’s balance of payments deficit in the last quarter of 2015 climbed to a record 7% of GDP. Britain’s international accounts are more in the red than those of any other developed country. Imports of goods and services, which have steadily outstripped exports for decades, are now to be given an extra impetus by the closure of UK steel capacity. What’s more, the same weaknesses that plague the old also inhibit the growth of the new.

After the interventionism of the 1930s – or even the 1950s and 1960s – Britain could boast dozens of substantial companies representing industries as disparate as pharmaceuticals, chemicals, aerospace and electronics. Not so in 2016. Only two high-tech companies are represented in the FTSE 100 – ARM and Sage. Another 20 years of the laissez-faire framework Javid cherishes – he is a devotee of the wild philosopher of hyper-libertarianism Ayn Rand – and the economy will be eviscerated, with a current account deficit so large it cannot be conventionally financed. The consequences – on living standards, employment, inflation, interest rates and house prices – will be severe.

We destroy our steel industry in exchange for Chinese ownership of the next generation of nuclear power stations
Start with the pound. Since it was forced out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1992, the consensus has been that the state should make no effort to manage the exchange rate. The result is that for all but four or five of the past 24 years, the pound has been well above any calculation of its real value, buoyed up by money flowing into the UK to buy our companies and our property, notwithstanding our ever higher trade deficit.

This is an auction of national assets unmatched by any other industrialised country. But it also makes it harder for our producers to compete internationally. To manage the exchange rate, to shadow the euro or dollar, or even to consider joining the euro to lock in a competitive rate, are rejected with irrational hysteria. Result – a current account deficit of 7% of GDP.

Britain is rightly committed to free trade, but again to the point of irrationality. China’s Leninist corporatism cannot be understood as a market economy. The world’s steel producers should not be rendered uneconomic because China’s Communist party has overinvested in steel production to create jobs vital to its collapsing political legitimacy, and so dumps steel in world markets at below cost. It is an open and shut case of dumping, with protections provided by the rules of the WTO.

But the UK government, positioning itself as China’s biggest friend in the west in order to win investment in the UK nuclear industry, blocked the EU’s attempts to invoke the WTO rules. Thus we destroy our steel industry in exchange for Chinese state ownership of the next generation of nuclear power stations.

So the list continues. The combination of a privatised electricity industry – insisting on sky-high returns for strategic investment – with demanding targets for the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions has meant incredible rises in the price of electricity, especially for industrial users such as steel. Relief is too little and too late. More broadly the same effects impact across all of what remains of our manufacturing sector – so it becomes a less solid market for steel, adding one more twist to the downward vicious circle.

Britain needs a genuine march of the makers, in George Osborne’s phrase. But that would need a completely different policy paradigm, overturning the failed attempts of the past 40 years. There was a nascent attempt, launched by Peter Mandelson in 2009, and followed through in the coalition government by business secretary Vince Cable and science minister David Willetts, to create an intelligent industrial strategy.

Eight great technologies were identified in which Britain had strengths; convening councils were created to remove obstacles to their growth; the agency Innovate UK geared up to support frontier innovation; and a network of Catapults created to stimulate knowledge transfer, business start-ups and scale-ups. Foreign governments, impressed by what was happening, commissioned reports on the innovative UK.

Then came Javid, keen to deliver the swingeing cuts in his budget demanded by Osborne in his quest for the 36% state. After hobbling the admired innovation infrastructure with its role for a smart state, his first piece of legislation is the trade union bill.

Javid tilts at Thatcherite windmills – and shows little understanding of today’s industrial revolution. Nor does he seem to grasp how government can co-create opportunities with entrepreneurs – as well as ensuring that the big picture is as attractive as possible.

Something face-saving will be put together to soften the steel crisis, but there are bigger lessons to be learned. Be sure they will be ignored. The enfeebled Labour party is unable to press the points home and the Tory party remains transfixed by anti-state, laissez-faire nihilism. I mix rage with sadness for the next generation, and the inheritance it has been left.

-=-=-=-==

Good article Fred!

But you have to understand the tory pov. They don't give a shit about anything outside the city.

Another interesting article, but equally as depressing:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/03/uk-free-market-economy-isnt-working

I wonder how many "Con"artists are involved in this sort of behaviour http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-35918844

so CAMERONS father used tax havens to save tax CAMERON MUST RESIGN

Link please?

If Camerons dad had stashed money away , wouldn't Dave know through a Will left to him otherwise what's the point of hiding money .

LOOK AT HEADLINE NEWS ON WINDOW 10

Mossack Fonseca leak: Iceland PM faces snap election, FIFA official, and Cameron's father implicated

To keep it hidden from prying eyes like the chancellors!

They are old boys together.

Happy days are here again.

Europe's proudest day!

You must remember that the use of tax havens itself is not illegal. A lot depends on the source of the money.

as has frequently been said, you can't blame the guys who use the rules fairly
if you don't like the rules then change them, as is now and belatedly happening

panama of course has always been a dodgy location, and assuredly hmrc will have flagged anyone who uses that for off-shore registration
however, if you are putin and the ilk, you'll do as you like

so why should the low paid be made to paye they have no chose and end up paying more tax than the rich

unlike MrT, i shan't bother to repeat yet again

unlike cynic will say this the rich who buy the gov favours for tax perks the low paid do not have any chance .

the governments have and will always have loop holes for the rich to reduce taxes
and will never close the loop holes its suits the rich

For a right wing Tory, you don't half spout a load of Left Wing Shite TANKS. :0)

I recorded the first of the new series of Maigret and decided to watch it last night to console myself after England's self destruct at the cricket.
Rowan Atkinson plays Maigret, very badly as it happens. A mixture of the Thin Blue Line and Mr Bean, without the fun. Seems to spend most of his time lighting a bloody pipe and looking pensive. When he walks away, with his sloping shoulders, he looks like a parody of Charlie Chaplin. What a let down again. : ((

maigret
thoroughly agree
though i must have been quite young, i have good memories of the original with rupert davies
this version was dire and certainly shan't be watching again

=============

watched the first episode of "undercover" last night, and that looks very promising

I prefer ITV's drama's to the BBC's, 'The Durrell's' started on itv last night, and there's one starting at 9 tonight, 'Marcelle', which is supposed to be rather 'steamy'....