Starmer's vision quest

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Psamathe

Well-Known Member
Re: British Steel @Scunthorpe
One aspect to what UK Gov. is doing that I don't quite understand is how UK Government has taken over management and not ownership. If I own an asset then I can chose to eg sell that asset. If the Government has reduced the value of that asset (eg by taking control) then I can sell for the lower price and sue them for the difference. Bit like selling a house with or without "vacant possession". An asset over which the owner has no control and the new owner would have no control must be worth less than an asset over which the owner does have control.

The Chinese owners were proposing to shut down one of the furnaces using a Salamander method which would allow them to be restarted in the future, thus retaining the value of the asset, keeping the other furnace operating. Given the losses seems to me closing down one of the furnaces in a way allowing it to be restarted and keeping the other operating is not the "irresponsible sabotage" many incl. some politicians have been presenting.

My impression is that taking over management and operation will be impacting the value of the asset, it will be using what materials there are on-site, it will be causing further wear on the furnaces (that don't have that much more life anyway given they are now very old), etc. and I assume UK taxpayer is liable for such losses and I assume UK Government must be paying the Chinese owners for use of that asset (rent, lease or something).

Genuine my not understanding not my making a point through a question.

Ian
 

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside
Re: British Steel @Scunthorpe
One aspect to what UK Gov. is doing that I don't quite understand is how UK Government has taken over management and not ownership. If I own an asset then I can chose to eg sell that asset. If the Government has reduced the value of that asset (eg by taking control) then I can sell for the lower price and sue them for the difference. Bit like selling a house with or without "vacant possession". An asset over which the owner has no control and the new owner would have no control must be worth less than an asset over which the owner does have control.

The Chinese owners were proposing to shut down one of the furnaces using a Salamander method which would allow them to be restarted in the future, thus retaining the value of the asset, keeping the other furnace operating. Given the losses seems to me closing down one of the furnaces in a way allowing it to be restarted and keeping the other operating is not the "irresponsible sabotage" many incl. some politicians have been presenting.

My impression is that taking over management and operation will be impacting the value of the asset, it will be using what materials there are on-site, it will be causing further wear on the furnaces (that don't have that much more life anyway given they are now very old), etc. and I assume UK taxpayer is liable for such losses and I assume UK Government must be paying the Chinese owners for use of that asset (rent, lease or something).

Genuine my not understanding not my making a point through a question.

Ian

Yes, it is confusing. I think you may be labouring under the mistaken premise that our Politicians have a viable plan. 😂
 

CXRAndy

Veteran
What's this (new) rumour about Starmer and CCTV that allegedly has been seen by Jim Davidson and then high court gagging orders flying all over the place?

Allegedly Mrs Starmer is seeing lawyers too.

Or is it regurgitated from previous lord Ali penthouse suite shenanigans?
 

CXRAndy

Veteran
7 speed


Must be true then, but without the authenticity of a meme I don't believe it.

Is that  the Jim Davidson, the comedians' comedian who sadly is no longer on our screens?

I didn't say it was true, I was asking those , some of which will toady the left so much information flows like diarrhea
 
Sounds like an AI spoof. Davidson sent it as a WhatsApp message to someone and then it ended up in wider circulation apparently.
Social media is rife with stuff like that about politicians and celebrities of all persuasion (the Zuckerberg one of him looking down a woman's cleavage stands out) and until there's proof it was anything other than an AI fake outlets are right to kick it off.
 
Top Bottom