The Labour Party under Keir Starmer

[brad465]

Looks like British Steel is about to be nationalised:

Parliament recalled to debate emergency law to save British Steel

A source says the government is looking "to take control"' of the company after talks to save the Scunthorpe plant.

www.bbc.co.uk

Parliament will be recalled on Saturday to debate an emergency law to save British Steel's plant in Scunthorpe.

A government source says it is looking "to take control"' of the company, after its Chinese owner said its blast furnaces are "no longer financially sustainable".
Talks have been taking place this week talks to keep production going at the firm, which employs 2,700 people.
Politicians left Westminster for their Easter break on Tuesday, and were not due to return until 22 April.
Ministers had expressed a preference for a commercial solution to secure the long-term future of the plant.
But they had not ruled out nationalising the firm, saying all options remained on the table.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1k44k4rz8jo
The House of Commons said MPs would discuss proposed legislation to "ensure the continued operation" of the company's blast furnaces, the last place in the UK where higher-grade virgin steel is made.
The House of Lords is also being recalled, sitting from midday, one hour after the sitting will start in the House of Commons.
Chinese company Jingye, which bought British Steel in 2020, says it has been suffering financial losses of around £700,000 a day.
Last month it began a mandatory 45-day consultation on plans to shed jobs at its steelmaking operations, blaming "highly challenging" market conditions, tariffs and costs associated with lower-carbon production techniques.
But the government is thought to have lost confidence in the company after a stand-off over who will pay for raw materials to keep the blast furnaces going.
Industry body UK Steel has warned that ending production at the Scunthorpe site would see the UK would lose vital steelmaking capabilities.

 

[BranstonJnc]

Looks like British Steel is about to be nationalised:

Parliament recalled to debate emergency law to save British Steel

A source says the government is looking "to take control"' of the company after talks to save the Scunthorpe plant.

www.bbc.co.uk

I believe the expression is "We are so back, baby."

 

[jon0844]

I've also heard that since so few cyclists use dedicated cycle paths, a lot of debris gets scattered across the cycle paths such that any cyclist using it would soon get punctures, hence they don't use them. So yes, probably an idea with good intentions, but a waste of money.

Debris, leaves, overgrown vegetation are all very common reasons that cycle paths go unused. Other countries treat them like proper roads and salt/grit them, cut away vegetation and use small roadsweepers. We (usually*) don't.

* I have seen a small sweeper on a cycle lane and it stood out with me thinking 'is it lost?'. Not anywhere near where I live though.

 

[JamesT]

I believe the expression is "We are so back, baby."

I wonder if there will now be a reconsideration of the coal mine in Cumbria? If production of steel is of national importance, then having to import thousands of tons of coal to make it can’t be right?
How many more setbacks will it take for Ed Miliband to resign?

 

[The Ham]

I wonder if there will now be a reconsideration of the coal mine in Cumbria? If production of steel is of national importance, then having to import thousands of tons of coal to make it can’t be right?
How many more setbacks will it take for Ed Miliband to resign?

I believe that steel often uses coke rather than coal (yes I know coke is made from coal). The UK in 2023 made about half a million tonnes, however in 2011 it was about 4 million tonnes and I understand that the last coke ovens closed in 2024.

At 2.8 million tonnes (estimated production of the coal mine in Cumbria) that would have been far too much for our coke production - as indicated by the fact that estimates put the account of coal from the mine due to be sorted at around 85%.

Even if 100% of our coke production from 2023 was from that mine it would only account for about 20% of the mines production (and not all coal is suitable to convert to coke).

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Looks like British Steel is about to be nationalised:

Parliament recalled to debate emergency law to save British Steel

A source says the government is looking "to take control"' of the company after talks to save the Scunthorpe plant.

www.bbc.co.uk

Lets hope this represents s policy change from Starmer that indigenous production of our basic needs is true security for a country. They now need to allow oil and gas exploration to continue in the N.Sea to ensure we have as much of our own production as possible to see us through the transition period. They also need to take a look at the farms tax policy as if that drives even more food production overseas then its a flawed policy nothing as important than food.

 

[dangie]

Looks like British Steel is about to be nationalised:

I think it’s a bit nauseous that Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has blamed the government's "incompetence". I’m assuming she means the previous government?

At times like this it shouldn’t be one against the other, but all being on the same side for the good of the country, not trying to score points.

 

[Gloster]

I think it’s a bit nauseous that Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has blamed the government's "incompetence". I’m assuming she means the previous government?

At times like this it shouldn’t be one against the other, but all being on the same side for the good of the country, not trying to score points.

Perhaps she could take the matter up with the previous Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the post now held by Johnathan Reynolds. Let me see…that was a certain K.Badenoch.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I think it’s a bit nauseous that Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has blamed the government's "incompetence". I’m assuming she means the previous government?

The Torys have completely lost the plot at all levels of shadow minister level operating as though they've had nothing to do with the previous 14 years. Until the own up to their mistakes no one is going to take them seriously.

At times like this it shouldn’t be one against the other, but all being on the same side for the good of the country, not trying to score points.

Oh right none of them can be partisan Starmer came in saying he was going to be different he hasn't been. We need a new approach in the UK but unlikely to happen.

 

[stuartl]

The conservatives privatised Sheffield Forgemasters to ensure that the capabilty to produce the high quality forgings for nuclear submarines etc. was kept in UK. They are now investing several hundreds of millions over 10 years to install a 13,000 ton forge line, amongst other things.

 

[Gloster]

The conservatives privatised Sheffield Forgemasters to ensure that the capabilty to produce the high quality forgings for nuclear submarines etc. was kept in UK. They are now investing several hundreds of millions over 10 years to install a 13,000 ton forge line, amongst other things.

My reading of the information on Sheffield Forgemasters is that it was purchased by the Ministry of Defence in July 2021. It was said that there were long-term plans to reprivatise the company, but I can’t find a reference to this happening. Have I missed something?

 

[stuartl]

Still owned by MOD, the investment is apparently part of a recapitalisation prgrammme. Not sure where the money is coming from though.

 

[Class 317]

Still owned by MOD, the investment is apparently part of a recapitalisation prgrammme. Not sure where the money is coming from though.

Purchased as critical military capability.
Long term British steel needs to have investment in turning to clean steel to keep a reason for industry's to use more expensive steel.

 

[Dunnyrail]

How are things going with bringing the first trance of toc's out of private running?
Chiltern due 4/25
Thameslink due 4/25
Swr due 5/25
Sorry if this has been discussed wlswhere.

 

[Mogster]

We have no iron ore, no metallurgical coal (like the rest of Europe it’s seems, OK maybe apart from Sweden) We have the most expensive industrial electricity in Europe, according to the governments own data, making any energy intensive industrial process hopelessly uneconomic in the UK. Scunthorpe steel plant is losing £200m per year, which will apparently rise to £500m cost to the taxpayer.

No one wants to see these workers on the dole. However is it time to concede that the only sensible course of action is to import cheeper steel for non national security projects?

 

[Gloster]

We have no iron ore, no metallurgical coal (like the rest of Europe it’s seems, OK maybe apart from Sweden) We have the most expensive industrial electricity in Europe, according to the governments own data, making any energy intensive industrial process hopelessly uneconomic in the UK. Scunthorpe steel plant is losing £200m per year, which will apparently rise to £500m cost to the taxpayer.

No one wants to see these workers on the dole. However is it time to concede that the only sensible course of action is to import cheeper steel for non national security projects?

Where do we get the steel for national security projects from?

 

[Mogster]

Where do we get the steel for national security projects from?

The problem is economics, national security considerations and the cost of importing raw materials. Surely the economics of making steel parts for a nuclear submarine and making steel for a skyscraper in Manchester are very different.

 

[takno]

The problem is economics, national security considerations and the cost of importing raw materials. Surely the economics of making steel parts for a nuclear submarine and making steel for a skyscraper in Manchester are very different.

That still doesn't affect the fact that if you need an on-shored source of steel for national security purposes then you need an on-shore source of steel. Scunthorpe is the only source of suitable steel in the UK, therefore we need Scunthorpe.

Scunthorpe doesn't need to supply all our steel (and indeed it won't, not least because less-pure steel will be getting manufactured in Newport).

In any case, national security is as much about the ability to carry on if the countries we are depending on for our steel suddenly turn hostile as it is about nuclear submarines. If a country we weren't particularly attached to, but had previously trusted to act as a reliable and open trade partner, were suddenly to go mad and make it more difficult for us to acquire basic goods, that would be a national security issue.

 

[The Ham]

If a country we weren't particularly attached to, but had previously trusted to act as a reliable and open trade partner, were suddenly to go mad and make it more difficult for us to acquire basic goods, that would be a national security issue.

10 years ago that would have been considered unthinkable by many, in the last few weeks people are now likely to consider it something which could happen.

 

[BranstonJnc]

The problem is economics, national security considerations and the cost of importing raw materials. Surely the economics of making steel parts for a nuclear submarine and making steel for a skyscraper in Manchester are very different.

Not entirely. This is where the issues always begin. Someone looks at the cost of construction steel from Slovakia and goes "Okay even with shipping this is 7% cheaper", which, if we do that enough as a country feeds into losses at steelworks all over as we aren't letting them benefit from economies of scale.

But if you take the savings, and then instead stick thousands of local people and other related industries into work, as well as the associated NI / Income Tax / Corporation Tax / other tax incomes, you potentially break even or find a net positive.

It's part of why the Tories are so bad at economics: they are fully aware of the cost of everything, but understand the value of nothing.

 

[Yew]

Not entirely. This is where the issues always begin. Someone looks at the cost of construction steel from Slovakia and goes "Okay even with shipping this is 7% cheaper", which, if we do that enough as a country feeds into losses at steelworks all over as we aren't letting them benefit from economies of scale.

But if you take the savings, and then instead stick thousands of local people and other related industries into work, as well as the associated NI / Income Tax / Corporation Tax / other tax incomes, you potentially break even or find a net positive.

It's part of why the Tories are so bad at economics: they are fully aware of the cost of everything, but understand the value of nothing.

It's worth remembering as well, that often private companies are more focused on quarterly numbers as opposed to long term investments, particularly in the era of everything being owned by private capital, which is often at odds with the sort of rejuvenation costs needed by heavy industry.


My hope, is that we see real investment in the plant, leveraging automaton to make it a competitive option, rather than it just being put on life-support for political reasons.

 

[The Ham]

Not entirely. This is where the issues always begin. Someone looks at the cost of construction steel from Slovakia and goes "Okay even with shipping this is 7% cheaper", which, if we do that enough as a country feeds into losses at steelworks all over as we aren't letting them benefit from economies of scale.

But if you take the savings, and then instead stick thousands of local people and other related industries into work, as well as the associated NI / Income Tax / Corporation Tax / other tax incomes, you potentially break even or find a net positive.

It's part of why the Tories are so bad at economics: they are fully aware of the cost of everything, but understand the value of nothing.

It's weirder than that though, as if you are paying someone (say) £35,000 a year for doing a job rather than (say) £21,000 in benefits that's an extra £10,080 in take home pay which is in the wider economy benefiting far more business than just related industries.

That's from just one extra job, scale that up and for every 1,000 people and that's an extra £1 million in the economy.

Whilst that's still tiny compared to the total size of the UK economy (£2.56 trillion), that's just the first time that moneys spent, as chances are it'll be used to pay for goods and services which will be used to pay other people who'll pay for other goods and services and so on.

You also set the mindset that there's jobs with doing so people aim to do well at school, rather than not bothering and potentially ending up involved in anti social behaviour, which further adds to the cost to the country.

That's before you consider health costs, which may include an unhealthy lifestyle, mental health issues associated with feelings of lack of worth, and the like, which could all be additional costs to the NHS.

 

[MotCO]

It's weirder than that though, as if you are paying someone (say) £35,000 a year for doing a job rather than (say) £21,000 in benefits that's an extra £10,080 in take home pay which is in the wider economy benefiting far more business than just related industries.

That's from just one extra job, scale that up and for every 1,000 people and that's an extra £1 million in the economy.

Whilst that's still tiny compared to the total size of the UK economy (£2.56 trillion), that's just the first time that moneys spent, as chances are it'll be used to pay for goods and services which will be used to pay other people who'll pay for other goods and services and so on.

You also set the mindset that there's jobs with doing so people aim to do well at school, rather than not bothering and potentially ending up involved in anti social behaviour, which further adds to the cost to the country.

That's before you consider health costs, which may include an unhealthy lifestyle, mental health issues associated with feelings of lack of worth, and the like, which could all be additional costs to the NHS.

Whilst I do not disagree with anything you've said, I would question whether nationalising the company is the best solution. I'm struggling to think of a manufacturing industry which has been successfully run by the government. Would it be better to offer subsidies to the industry, either to offset the high energy costs, or a straight-forward subsidy to lower prices of finished products so that they are competitive? Brexit surely offers us the ability to subsidise whatever industries we want to. I would not be comfortable with the plant being held by a Chinese company, but with the right subsidies, it could attract a British industrialist.

Something raised in the HoC yesterday, without an answer, was whether a nationalised steel company would sit on the Government's balance sheet. I suspect it would, increasing the size of the Government's debt.

 

[Yew]

It's interesting to note that a lot of criticism from the Conservatives until a few days ago was roughly "nationalisation is wrong and we need to find a market solution" yet now they are saying that Kier "should have nationalised sooner".

Not an honest bone in their bodies, they just live soundbite-to-soundbite.

 

[Purple Train]

It's interesting to note that a lot of criticism from the Conservatives until a few days ago was roughly "nationalisation is wrong and we need to find a market solution" yet now they are saying that Kier "should have nationalised sooner".

Not an honest bone in their bodies, they just live soundbite-to-soundbite.

Exactly. I was reading the BBC article here, and fortunately hadn't yet touched my glass of water as it would have ended up all over the laptop.

Speaking to the BBC, Tory shadow business secretary Andrew Griffith argued the government should fully nationalise British Steel to clear up any doubts about the future of the company.

The company has already "been nationalised" in "substance" by the emergency powers, he argued.

When was the last time a Conservative argued in favour of nationalisation? Clearly it's not just Starmer who seems to have little to no political stance, but I guess that doesn't suit the predominant media narrative.

 

[DarloRich]

Starmer has been accused of being a Tory but seizing control of the means of production seems quite old labour!

 

[stuartl]

The tories temporarily nationalised Rolls Royce in 1971 when it got into financial difficulties, mainly due to the development of the RB211 engine.

 

[The Ham]

Whilst I do not disagree with anything you've said, I would question whether nationalising the company is the best solution. I'm struggling to think of a manufacturing industry which has been successfully run by the government. Would it be better to offer subsidies to the industry, either to offset the high energy costs, or a straight-forward subsidy to lower prices of finished products so that they are competitive? Brexit surely offers us the ability to subsidise whatever industries we want to. I would not be comfortable with the plant being held by a Chinese company, but with the right subsidies, it could attract a British industrialist.

Something raised in the HoC yesterday, without an answer, was whether a nationalised steel company would sit on the Government's balance sheet. I suspect it would, increasing the size of the Government's debt.

Define successfully.

Most nationalised industries have been able to be sold off, so arguably they must have been run well enough to make them attractive to investors.

Likewise, many industries employed a lot of staff. In doing so kept them off the dole.

There's going to be cases where the wider industry was changing and this leed to conflict with the unions who want to retain staffing levels.

As an example, coal was nationalised in 1947 and had nearly 40 years before the bitter strikes in the 1980's and whilst there was industrial action in the 1970's they weren't as significant. Ultimately it saw decline, however some of that was down to the shift in the energy mix.

However either way, you can't run a business for over 30 years without it being somewhat successful.

 

[MotCO]

Define successfully.

Most nationalised industries have been able to be sold off, so arguably they must have been run well enough to make them attractive to investors.

I did specify manufacturing industries. I was thinking, for example, of British Leyland. It was sold to BMW, but whether it was for its product range, their intellectual property or their manufacturing capacity, who knows. Whilst JLR still exists, the lower end of the market served by Austin and Morris, did not survive, ditto Leyland Vehicles.

Likewise, many industries employed a lot of staff. In doing so kept them off the dole.

I agree that it is better to keep staff in gainful employment, but I suggested that targeted subsidies may be a better option. Governments have no experience of successfully running companies; the very nature of a nationalised company means that the Government is the shareholder, and can veto any investment plans, especially with a change of Government, which can lead to short-termism which is not good in a capital-heavy business. If the conditions for subsidies were pre-determined, there would be greater stability.

There's going to be cases where the wider industry was changing and this leed to conflict with the unions who want to retain staffing levels.

As an example, coal was nationalised in 1947 and had nearly 40 years before the bitter strikes in the 1980's and whilst there was industrial action in the 1970's they weren't as significant. Ultimately it saw decline, however some of that was down to the shift in the energy mix.

There are some successful nationalised companies which were privatised - British Airways for example - but this was not in the manufacturing sector. On the other hand, can I give you Thames Water (again, not manufacturing)?

 

[The Ham]

I did specify manufacturing industries. I was thinking, for example, of British Leyland. It was sold to BMW, but whether it was for its product range, their intellectual property or their manufacturing capacity, who knows. Whilst JLR still exists, the lower end of the market served by Austin and Morris, did not survive, ditto Leyland Vehicles.

British Leyland is an example, where it's complex, certainly. However, cars are very complex compared to steel manufacturing.

For example, Leyland had very high R&D costs, and had to try and develop products where they are trying to guess what the market wants.

Steel isn't so complicated - is easy to know what the market wants, especially when the government is wanting it for specific products (which may include rail).

I agree that it is better to keep staff in gainful employment, but I suggested that targeted subsidies may be a better option. Governments have no experience of successfully running companies; the very nature of a nationalised company means that the Government is the shareholder, and can veto any investment plans, especially with a change of Government, which can lead to short-termism which is not good in a capital-heavy business. If the conditions for subsidies were pre-determined, there would be greater stability.

That only works if there's a company willing to run it, the current owners don't appear to be interested and last time it was sold they were the only company which put in a bid.

Do you have any suggestions as to a company to run it?