This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/mar/31/national-press-splits-over-what-should-be-done-about-steel-crisis

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
National press splits over what should be done about steel crisis National press splits over what should be done about steel crisis
(about 3 hours later)
Can Britain’s frail steel industry be saved? Should it be saved? Is it all David Cameron’s fault? Is it China’s fault? Is it the European Union’s fault? Or is it no more than the final chapter in this country’s century-long manufacturing decline?Can Britain’s frail steel industry be saved? Should it be saved? Is it all David Cameron’s fault? Is it China’s fault? Is it the European Union’s fault? Or is it no more than the final chapter in this country’s century-long manufacturing decline?
Most of Thursday’s newspapers carried front page headlines about the looming closure of Tata Steel in Port Talbot. Metro’s “40,000 jobs on the line” and the Financial Times’s “Battle to save UK steelmaking as Tata says business worth nothing” were, unlike the others, free from any hint of political comment:Most of Thursday’s newspapers carried front page headlines about the looming closure of Tata Steel in Port Talbot. Metro’s “40,000 jobs on the line” and the Financial Times’s “Battle to save UK steelmaking as Tata says business worth nothing” were, unlike the others, free from any hint of political comment:
“Chaotic steel response puts 40,000 jobs at risk” (The Times); “Ministers in ‘disarray’ over steel industry” (The Guardian); “EU row over deal to save steel” (Daily Telegraph); “Betrayed: Government’s abject failure puts 40,000 jobs at risk” (Daily Mirror) and “Deal or no steel” (i).“Chaotic steel response puts 40,000 jobs at risk” (The Times); “Ministers in ‘disarray’ over steel industry” (The Guardian); “EU row over deal to save steel” (Daily Telegraph); “Betrayed: Government’s abject failure puts 40,000 jobs at risk” (Daily Mirror) and “Deal or no steel” (i).
But what, if anything, is to be done? Who should do it? And how should it be achieved?But what, if anything, is to be done? Who should do it? And how should it be achieved?
The Guardian accepted that “China’s readiness to unload steel on global markets at marginal cost” has “knocked the floor out of the industry elsewhere” but did not believe that should let Cameron’s government “off the hook.”The Guardian accepted that “China’s readiness to unload steel on global markets at marginal cost” has “knocked the floor out of the industry elsewhere” but did not believe that should let Cameron’s government “off the hook.”
It has, said the paper, “economic and social responsibilities” and should defend UK steel: “After the US imposed anti-dumping tariffs on Chinese steel, the EU could have followed suit, but the UK appears not to have voted for them.”It has, said the paper, “economic and social responsibilities” and should defend UK steel: “After the US imposed anti-dumping tariffs on Chinese steel, the EU could have followed suit, but the UK appears not to have voted for them.”
Nor did the government introduce compensation for high energy costs, reduce business rates, delay the implementation of directives on emissions and take a leading role in adopting EU anti-dumping measures.Nor did the government introduce compensation for high energy costs, reduce business rates, delay the implementation of directives on emissions and take a leading role in adopting EU anti-dumping measures.
“Steel unquestionably has a future of the sort that coal, for example, does not... But it is tragic to be trying to make these choices so late in the day, under the threat of Tata’s sell-off, when they could have been made when the problems were already apparent months ago...“Steel unquestionably has a future of the sort that coal, for example, does not... But it is tragic to be trying to make these choices so late in the day, under the threat of Tata’s sell-off, when they could have been made when the problems were already apparent months ago...
“Yet government can still do important things to help stabilise the situation in Port Talbot. It needs to work with Tata to win more time to make the serious long-term plans that should have been in place beforehand and which, if they had been, might have produced a different decision this week... the government should be ready, with short-term loans, taking a golden share or even considering temporary public ownership of some form...”“Yet government can still do important things to help stabilise the situation in Port Talbot. It needs to work with Tata to win more time to make the serious long-term plans that should have been in place beforehand and which, if they had been, might have produced a different decision this week... the government should be ready, with short-term loans, taking a golden share or even considering temporary public ownership of some form...”
The n-word made the Times and Telegraph fearful, however. Nationalisation was out of the question for both.The n-word made the Times and Telegraph fearful, however. Nationalisation was out of the question for both.
“It would be unwise to renationalise the industry,” said the Telegraph, “but bridging loans might sensibly be considered in order to preserve skills and capacity until a buyer is found or the market recovers.”“It would be unwise to renationalise the industry,” said the Telegraph, “but bridging loans might sensibly be considered in order to preserve skills and capacity until a buyer is found or the market recovers.”
But beware the evil EU, which “may thwart even such a modest rescue package on competition grounds.”But beware the evil EU, which “may thwart even such a modest rescue package on competition grounds.”
The government “would be neglecting its responsibilities to the taxpayer if it took the plant into public ownership,” argued the Times.The government “would be neglecting its responsibilities to the taxpayer if it took the plant into public ownership,” argued the Times.
Instead, “the case for a solution that keeps the steel industry off the government’s balance sheet must now be made.”Instead, “the case for a solution that keeps the steel industry off the government’s balance sheet must now be made.”
British steel’s story is one of decline, it said, and nationalisation could not reverse that trend. “The taxpayer cannot afford to take on the liabilities of an ailing industry that looks set to get sicker.”British steel’s story is one of decline, it said, and nationalisation could not reverse that trend. “The taxpayer cannot afford to take on the liabilities of an ailing industry that looks set to get sicker.”
The Times put its faith in “private equity or venture capital taking up the mantle” and called for the government of “encourage and facilitate... radical restructuring by an ambitious investor.”The Times put its faith in “private equity or venture capital taking up the mantle” and called for the government of “encourage and facilitate... radical restructuring by an ambitious investor.”
The Daily Mail contended that the plight of Britain’s steelmaking industry is “a textbook example of how EU membership undermines our ability to defend our national interests.” It continued:The Daily Mail contended that the plight of Britain’s steelmaking industry is “a textbook example of how EU membership undermines our ability to defend our national interests.” It continued:
“While Britain remains yoked to the EU, ministers are severely restricted in their options for saving it... the truth is that only urgent and decisive action - concepts entirely alien to Brussels - can save an industry buckling under the pressures of slowing demand, sky-high energy costs, Ed Miliband’s crippling green taxes and China’s dumping of surplus steel.”“While Britain remains yoked to the EU, ministers are severely restricted in their options for saving it... the truth is that only urgent and decisive action - concepts entirely alien to Brussels - can save an industry buckling under the pressures of slowing demand, sky-high energy costs, Ed Miliband’s crippling green taxes and China’s dumping of surplus steel.”
But the Mail, although “deeply wary of state intervention in free markets”, believed “these are freak times”. So, if the steel industry is to survive, it needs government help. In so doing, ministers “must be ready to defy the EU.”But the Mail, although “deeply wary of state intervention in free markets”, believed “these are freak times”. So, if the steel industry is to survive, it needs government help. In so doing, ministers “must be ready to defy the EU.”
The Mirror took the opportunity to bash Cameron called on him to “renationalise steel if no buyer is found.” It said:The Mirror took the opportunity to bash Cameron called on him to “renationalise steel if no buyer is found.” It said:
“Time after time the Tories have let down steel workers, whether failing to reduce production costs or by not backing European Union proposals to stop China dumping cheap metal... Money was found for the banks. We must Save our Steel.”“Time after time the Tories have let down steel workers, whether failing to reduce production costs or by not backing European Union proposals to stop China dumping cheap metal... Money was found for the banks. We must Save our Steel.”
The Daily Express was having none of that, of course, giving top billing to an op-ed piece by its columnist, Leo McKinstry, in which he stated that “steel’s return to the public sector would be no panacea for the industry’s problems.”The Daily Express was having none of that, of course, giving top billing to an op-ed piece by its columnist, Leo McKinstry, in which he stated that “steel’s return to the public sector would be no panacea for the industry’s problems.”
His solution? He didn’t offer one, preferring to berate the EU (“the Alice-In-Wonderland world of the Eurocrats”) and China and Russia (which benefit from lavish state subsidies and lower costs).His solution? He didn’t offer one, preferring to berate the EU (“the Alice-In-Wonderland world of the Eurocrats”) and China and Russia (which benefit from lavish state subsidies and lower costs).
And the Sun? It blamed the EU for its “sluggishness” in responding to the offloading of cheap Chinese steel and for “Brussels’ rules” that bar Britain from bailing out the steel industry with taxpayers’ money.
So it wants nationalisation? No, of course not. Cameron “cannot and must not nationalise the plants for good, as some lefties insist”... but “he should prop them up just long enough to give them some hope of finding a buyer.”
And if no buyer is found? Then “our steel industry has had its day” and the government must instead “create fertile conditions for new startups in steel towns.”