International Marxist Group Archive

Magazines, bulletins and booklets of the IMG and its forerunners, 1961–1984

Why "mik." Is Mad

The Week Vol. 3, No. 18, 6 May 1965 · p. 4 of the scan · 211 words

The scan: The Week v3 no18.pdf (PDF, Marxists Internet Archive, opens at this page)

Uncorrected machine reading. This text was read by machine (Tesseract OCR) from a scan of a stencilled typescript and has not been corrected. Expect misread words; titles in particular are often garbled where the issue printed no contents list. Quote from the scan, not from this page.
How this article was cut and titled: capitals heading; heuristic; title from the OCR of the heading.

The Financial Times published, the day after the Government's White Paper on steel nationalisation was made public, a table giving the proposed compensation prices of the shares of the nine companies which are to be taken over in toto (the other five consist of one already nationalised, and four subsidiaries.) It also gave the price of these shares on the Thursday prior to the announcement. The comparison is revealing: Company No. of shares Proposed Compensation Price Thursday's Price

(in millions) = a s- <¢ Colvilles 19.51 ATE 6 25. 0 Consett 10,00 19 10 15-6 Dorman Long 22.50 29 10 23°" 9 Lancashire 9,00 ee 21 44 South Durham 13.87 262-3 19 9 Steel of Wales 40.00 $25 5 19. 9 Stewart & Lloyds 49.50 a 29: «2 Summers (John) 30.48 36 0 29 3 United Steel 50.00 38 55 i a

No wonder the Financial Times commented in its editorial: "It must be admitted at once that the basis chosen for compensating shareholders in quoted steel companies is fair and that the terms are better than expected. The Government, which clearly has its eye on foreign opinion as well on the strength of the opposition to its proposals, may even be criticised by Labour's left wing for being unnecessarily generous..."

← "the Economist" Likes Mr. BrownFrank Cousins' Union Holds the Line ! →

Something wrong on this page?