Member Info for stokey12

Just seen this article https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/canadian-government-noncommittal-on-new-submarines-as-allies-push-forward-with-nuclear-fleet-plans' I wonder if the Canadians get around to making a decision will this see work for HARL.

Avyererdowt ref 09.30 post I think that you are missing my concern. The 130% superdeduction as I understand it is on allowances that may be claimed on capital expenditure so HARL would have been able to claim the superdeduction on the recapitalisation plan at Belfast if it had been extended. What it is being replaced with is a deduction on taxable profits. As HARL is unlikely to be making any taxable profits for some years they would not be able to use this deduction on the recapitalisation plan. By my back of envelope calculations if someone will check them this will cost HARL tens of millions over the next two years . Jabido, Lottie123 do you agree.

Kaeren ref 21.35 post we will let slide the breach of parliamentary covention this story displays as it is common for this government. Nobby31 or Lottie123 will need to confirm but as HARL will not be liable to pay tax for a few years due to prior year losses HARL would have been better off with the 130% super deduction.

ref 18.22 post here is the link https://twitter.com/pinstripedline/status/1635398263615680512

A summary of the integrated review draw your own view on it as the poster is not someone I know but I have read a few of his posts before.

Interesting disussion on twitter it looks like BAe will have to come looking for an assist fromHARL to get everything done on time. https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1635376114821652483

LSE03 ref 15.30 post unless my geography is way off Appledore is well placed to act as a base for OSVs and also to do the fabricating for this.

Time will tell but I think we may have the reason for the recent visit to Appledore by BAe employees. For the agreement in relation to the Australian subs to have been concluded there would have been alot of prior discussions. In which it is not beyond the realms of possibility that BAe would have been given a heads up and was looking for subcontractors to do some fabrication work for the subs as they are doing the Dreadnought programme.

Just seen this https://www.northdevongazette.co.uk/large-award-sets-up-bidefords-ss-freshspring-for-success/ I note HARL supported the application. SS Freshspring is a former client at HARL Appledore I wonder if more work is to follow. A report fromour maan on the spot is expected shortly.

Bubble2021 ref 09.30 post The JR hearing is in May not sure when the judgement willbe.

Bubble2021 ref 08.58 It is not about IM but it gives an indication as to the approach that the courts might take in the JR. I should of pointed out that this decision would be persuasive only in relation to matters of law as it is the English and not the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal.

I have just seen this decision from the Court of Appeal https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=8e281595-d878-4efd-a67c-f9f8380e3543&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2023-03-14&utm_term= I have not seen the full claim in the IM Judicial Review so I am not sure how relevant it is. However some of the comments in the judgement does seem to be of interest.

Further to my 15.13 post here is the full question and answer taken from Hansard.

Bill Esterson

Defence procurement is essential to the success of a domestic steel industry, but, as the Secretary of State will know, the UK is currently the only country in the G20 in which steel production is declining. Given that steel is a vital industry of national security importance, will the Secretary of State ensure that we do not see a repetition of what happened with the fleet solid support contract, under which an overseas lead contractor had no obligation to use UK steel in the construction of UK Navy ships?
Mr Wallace

We always try to use as much UK steel as possible where we can, and when we do not, it is often because we do not manufacture the type of steel that needs to be used in a certain type of product. As for the fleet solid support ships, whether Navantia is part of the consortium or not, the hon. Gentleman should not listen to the union briefing. He will find that across the provision of those ships there will be plenty of British components—in fact, they will be in the majority—and the full integration of the ships will take place in a yard in Northern Ireland.

ForestGump 15.53 post you say 'But what's important, is that Kave, Killik and Co sold us down, and now we are, thanks to them, vulnerable to global financial storms.' That assumes that we would not have been negatively but for the actions of Kave and Killick. I do not believe that to be accurate it would probably to be more accurate that we may not have suffered as deep a drop in the share price but for their actions. The question of cause and effect is not in my view that easy to judge.

Hmmiwonder ref 17.37 post I believe that the volumes were

Vol. Sold 819,231
Sold Value £118,420.18
Vol. Bought 858,866
Bought Value £107,155.97

Bill Emerson MP asked a question complaining about the use of steel in the FSS where there is no obligation to use British Steel.

There is this from the BBC website on SVB https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64937251. It looks like a more serious problem has been averted for now. The blame game in America will start if it has not already. From reports I have seen part of the problem is that the parent company of SVB London did not have to do stress tests to make sure that they could survive something like what happened last week. This was due to former President Trump repeal regulations which would have required stress tests.

Xenor ref 09.21 post No you have missed the importance of the word 'Export'. It guarantees 80% of the cost of an Export. If I get this wrong I am sure I will be correctted by ne of the finance experts. As an example an Australian company enters into a contract for £100k with HARL. UKEF guarantees £80k of the value of the contract. This guarantee provides assurance to Astra that at least 80% of the contract value is guaranteed and will be paid.

A reminder for those interested we have Defence Questions this afternoon.

LSE03 ref 07.14 post thanks I find it interesting that this is being released this morning when Parliament does not sit until this morning. I note the reference to bringing Defence spending to 2.5% of GDP.