I believe the expression is "We are so back, baby."Looks like British Steel is about to be nationalised:
British Steel: Government aims to take control with emergency law
Parliament will be recalled for a rare Saturday sitting in a bid to save the company's owner from closing the site.www.bbc.co.uk
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The Labour Party under Andy Burnham
- Thread starter Cowley
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
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.
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
Established Member
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.Looks like British Steel is about to be nationalised:
British Steel: Government aims to take control with emergency law
Parliament will be recalled for a rare Saturday sitting in a bid to save the company's owner from closing the site.
dangie
On Moderation
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
Veteran Member
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
Established Member
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.
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.
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
Veteran Member
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?
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
Member
- Joined
- 26 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 151
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.
Chiltern due 4/25
Thameslink due 4/25
Swr due 5/25
Sorry if this has been discussed wlswhere.
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?
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
Veteran Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not an honest bone in their bodies, they just live soundbite-to-soundbite.
Purple Train
Established Member
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.
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
Veteran Member
Starmer has been accused of being a Tory but seizing control of the means of production seems quite old labour!
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.
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.
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 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)?
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).
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?
Whereas of course a bunch of shareholders that are only concerned about this quarters numbers is a great way to ensure capital-heavy long term investment.
Perhaps changes in government are not ideal, but they're more well suited for this type of industry than that.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Hmm, I honestly don't know where they sit on that scale, I suppose you could call them a chemical manufacturer if you really tried
