A Nation That Can’t Make Its Own Steel Isn’t Sovereign

The great Paul Knaggs writes:

Emergency Measures Aren’t Enough – Full Nationalisation Is the Only Answer

At last, a moment of clarity cuts through Westminster’s fog. The emergency recall of Parliament to potentially save British Steel isn’t just good policy—it’s the bare minimum of what a self-respecting industrial nation should do when faced with the collapse of a strategic industry. But make no mistake: this “special measures” bill should be merely the prelude to full nationalisation, not a hesitant half-step.

I’ve spent decades watching successive governments—Conservative and New Labour alike—treat Britain’s industrial heritage as an embarrassing relic, something to be auctioned off to the highest foreign bidder while ministers mumbled platitudes about “market forces” and “global competitiveness.” The predictable result stands before us: a once-proud industry reduced to begging for survival, controlled by distant owners watching their investment through the cold lens of spreadsheets.

The absurdity reaches its zenith with British Steel’s current predicament. Our national rail infrastructure depends on a company owned by a Chinese conglomerate, which now threatens to shutter the last steelworks in Britain capable of making steel from iron ore. You have to wonder how we arrived at this point of strategic vulnerability—though the answer is painfully obvious to anyone who lived through the neoliberal consensus that has dominated British politics for forty years.

A Nation That Can’t Make Its Own Steel Isn’t Sovereign

Let us speak plainly: the “special measures” bill is welcome, but it dances around the obvious solution. When Jingye admits to haemorrhaging £700,000 daily, when the global steel industry faces both protectionist tariffs and the urgent need for decarbonisation, the only rational answer is public ownership. Not temporary control, not “directing” private companies, but bringing this essential industry back under democratic accountability.

Critics will inevitably raise the spectre of the 1970s, warning of inefficiency and taxpayer burden. But this ignores the reality that modern nationalised industries in countries like France, Germany, and South Korea operate with both commercial discipline and strategic vision. It also conveniently forgets the £500 million the government has already offered Jingye—public money that would be better invested in public assets.

The Cross-Party Consensus Emerging to Save British Steel

The cross-party support emerging for intervention reveals an important truth: the ideological battle against state ownership is losing its grip. Labour’s maverick Baron Maurice Glasman recognised the significance of the moment, stating simply: “This is the beginning of a proper industrial strategy.” Meanwhile, Chris Williamson, deputy leader of The Workers’ Party Great Britain, cut to the heart of the matter: “The only sensible solution is to bring the British Steel industry back into public ownership. The neoliberal privatisation experiment, which was supported by all the mainstream political parties, has been an unmitigated disaster. Britain needs a radical rethink on industrial and economic policy to reverse the damage inflicted by globalisation that’s hit working class communities particularly hard.”

He’s not alone in this assessment. Reform UK’s Deputy Leader Richard Tice called the parliamentary recall “a step in the right direction” while warning the plans “don’t go far enough.” Even Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey, whose party has rarely been accused of socialist tendencies, promised to “work constructively with the government” and acknowledged that nationalisation should not be off the table.

Perhaps most tellingly, Green Party MP Ellie Chowns explicitly endorsed “public ownership of key strategic industries when it’s in the national interest to do so,” adding there is a “strategic need” for the UK government to take an interventionist role to save British Steel.

When political voices spanning from the Workers’ Party to Reform UK find common ground on the need for state intervention, something fundamental has shifted in our political landscape. The old orthodoxies are crumbling under the weight of reality.

Roy Rickhuss of Community Union put it plainly: “We can’t allow Britain to become the only G7 country without primary steelmaking capacity.” This isn’t mere industrial sentimentality—it’s basic national security. A country that cannot produce its own steel is a country vulnerable to supply chain disruptions, international pressure, and strategic blackmail.

Here at Labour Heartlands, we’ve campaigned to nationalise British Steel for the last six years. Finally politicians are waking up to the necessity. 

Green Steel or No Steel: Why Nationalisation Is Key to Decarbonisation

Even Greenpeace—hardly a bastion of industrial nostalgia—recognises that a just transition to green steel requires robust government involvement. Their warning against repeating the mistakes of Port Talbot should ring in the ears of Labour ministers who may be tempted to split the difference between intervention and market solutions.

The global context makes public ownership not just desirable but inevitable. Trump’s 25% tariff on steel exports to the US is just one sign of a fragmenting global trading system. As nations increasingly prioritise strategic independence and resilience over theoretical market efficiency, Britain cannot afford to cling to outdated economic dogmas. 

Keir Starmer’s government now faces a defining choice. It can use these emergency powers as a stepping stone to full nationalisation—creating a British Steel Corporation fit for the 21st century, investing in green technology, securing thousands of skilled jobs, and maintaining crucial industrial capacity. Or it can attempt a complicated balancing act that satisfies neither the needs of the industry nor the legitimate expectations of workers and communities.

The path forward is clear. The parliamentary debate should not be about whether to nationalise British Steel, but how to do it effectively, with proper investment and a clear strategy for decarbonisation. This isn’t radical—it’s rational. It isn’t ideological—it’s practical. Most importantly, it isn’t a retreat from modernity, but an essential step toward a more resilient, sustainable industrial future.

For too long, Britain has been unique among major economies in its willingness to surrender strategic industries to market forces and foreign ownership. The emergency legislation before Parliament offers a chance to begin correcting this historical error. Nationalisation isn’t just an option for British Steel—it’s the only credible long-term solution.

The question for Labour isn’t whether they can afford to nationalise. It’s whether they can afford not to.

And:

From Steel to Silicon: The Bold Plan to Build Britain’s Next Great City

Britain’s economy is spiralling, global trade is fracturing, and supply chains are snapping like cheap plastic. So, what’s Sir Keir Starmer’s master plan? Build a bloody theme park.

Yes, really. As tariffs rattle stock markets from Beijing to New York, and nation-states scramble to claw back manufacturing sovereignty, the Prime Minister’s idea of serious economic planning is to slap a rollercoaster on a failing economy and hope for the best.

Universal Studios will bring growth, jobs, and joy, he says — as if Britain’s collapse into deindustrialised irrelevance can be solved with popcorn and plastic mascots.

Meanwhile, here’s a radical suggestion: how about we build something real? Something that reflects the scale of the crisis we’re actually in. We don’t need another Disneyland of delusion — we need a bold new industrial vision.

The defenders of our current economic arrangement will argue that globalisation lifted millions from poverty (mainly in China) and delivered consumer abundance (mainly through debt). True enough, as far as it goes. But this argument conveniently ignores how these gains were distributed and at what cost to social cohesion, environmental sustainability, and national resilience.

What Britain needs isn’t theme parks or the reheated Thatcherite nostrums that Labour seems determined to serve up with a progressive garnish. What Britain needs is to rebuild – literally.

Imagine this: a brand-new city rising from the ashes of our abandoned industrial heartlands. AI helps find the location — say, somewhere between Rotherham and Doncaster. A purpose-built metropolis for the 22nd century. Connected, green, ambitious.

Why there? Because it already has the bones: rail, road, even an airport. And more importantly, it has communities still waiting for the economic revival politicians have promised for decades. Want to level up the North? Build the future there.

This wouldn’t be another bland housing estate or gimmicky “innovation hub.” It would be a living, breathing industrial strategy made concrete. A place where AI meets manual labour. Where engineers, builders, artists, and thinkers work side by side to manufacture Britain’s next chapter.

Solar panels in every structure. Green public spaces as standard. Real infrastructure powered by nationalised energy, with steel and materials made here, not bought from abroad at three times the cost.

While Labour talks theme parks and AI supremacy and offshore data centres, we could be training a generation of skilled workers, reviving steelworks, and rebuilding the country — from the ground up.

The economic benefits would be transformative. Hundreds of thousands of jobs created, not just in construction but across every sector of the economy. A powerful stimulus to British manufacturing, from steel to sustainable technologies. A training ground for a new generation of skilled workers. Not jobs serving overpriced coffee or scanning tickets at a theme park, but jobs making things of genuine value and utility.

“But where’s the money coming from?” the fiscal conservatives will wail, temporarily forgetting how quickly they found billions when banks needed bailing out or when pandemic contracts needed distributing to their friends. The truth is that money has never been the constraint – political will has.

This isn’t fantasy. It’s a choice: use public money to rebuild Britain, or use it to subsidise failure, prop up collapsing multinationals, and pretend a theme park is the answer to a trade war.

This government has been given a supermajority. Not to tinker at the edges. Not to play startup founder with taxpayer money. But to show ambition — real ambition. Not a rollercoaster economy, but a solid foundation of concrete, steel, and purpose.

The system has failed. Globalisation is in its death throes. Let the new era begin — not with fireworks at a theme park, but with cranes, steel, and the roar of machines building a future worth living in.

And:

As the clock ticks toward midnight in Washington, the next devastating phase of Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff offensive is about to slam into the global economy. With the White House confirming that increased duties on China will proceed as planned—pushing total tariffs to an unprecedented 104%—and approximately 60 other nations facing heightened levies, the trade war has officially escalated from skirmish to all-out economic conflict.

“President Trump has a spine of steel and he will not break,” declared press secretary Karoline Leavitt, signalling that despite market turmoil that has wiped trillions from global valuations, the administration remains unmoved. While US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent suggested the tariffs might be “temporary” bargaining chips, Trump himself cryptically noted they could be both “permanent” and the basis for negotiations—leaving trading partners in limbo.

The immediate market response has been brutal. Wall Street’s benchmark S&P 500 has crashed below 5,000 for the first time in over a year, with the tech-heavy Nasdaq plummeting 2.2% in a single day. Though London’s FTSE temporarily rallied 2.7%, this represents mere crumbs compared to the massive losses since “liberation day” was announced.

Trump says US taking in $2 billion a day from tariffs.

Deepening Pain for British Workers

For Britain’s working class, the implications of this escalation are increasingly dire. The 10% baseline tariff on UK exports to America—our largest single country trading partner—already threatened thousands of jobs in manufacturing, automotive, and food production. Now, as the trade war intensifies and supply chains fracture globally, secondary effects will compound the damage:

Accelerated Factory Closures: Companies with thin margins that initially hoped to weather temporary tariffs will now face pressure to permanently shut UK operations as the conflict appears more entrenched.

Rising Consumer Prices: Global supply chain disruption will push inflation higher across everyday essentials, from electronics to clothing, just as many families were beginning to feel relief from the cost-of-living crisis.

Energy Cost Vulnerability: Britain’s uniquely high energy costs—already the highest among Western nations—will become an even more severe competitive disadvantage as manufacturers seek lower-cost production locations to offset tariff pressures.

Job Market Destabilization: Beyond direct manufacturing losses, expect ripple effects through logistics, retail, and services sectors as economic uncertainty prompts businesses to freeze hiring or initiate redundancies.

The UK Government’s Inadequate Response

Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ response to this unfolding catastrophe betrays a dangerous complacency. Speaking to Parliament, she claimed markets are “functioning effectively” while rejecting calls for a “Buy British” campaign, stating “everyone will make their own decisions.” Her assertion that Britain shouldn’t become “inward-looking” represents precisely the outdated globalist thinking that has left our economy vulnerable.

This passive stance—hoping for negotiated solutions while offering no protective measures for British workers—contrasts sharply with the actions of every other major economy. America is rebuilding its industrial base behind tariff walls. China is doubling down on state-directed manufacturing. The EU is developing comprehensive countermeasures. Meanwhile, Britain appears content to be economic collateral damage.

Out on a Limb – What Britain Must Do Now

With Trump’s escalation, the window for half-measures has closed. Britain needs an emergency economic defence plan that includes:

Immediate Energy Cost Relief: National control of energy pricing for manufacturing to ensure British producers aren’t disadvantaged by the highest energy costs in the Western world.

Strategic Industry Protection: Targeted support for sectors most threatened by tariffs, including automotive, steel, pharmaceuticals, and food production—not through endless subsidies but through strategic market guarantees and procurement commitments.

Domestic Market Prioritisation: Government contracts and infrastructure projects should explicitly prioritise British-made materials and components, creating market certainty for manufacturers losing export opportunities.

Industrial Transition Fund: A major investment program to help threatened manufacturers pivot to products with domestic or non-US market potential, preserving skills and jobs while reducing American market dependency.

Emergency Retraining Initiative: For workers in communities facing immediate job losses, comprehensive paid retraining programs focused on sectors with growth potential, including green technology, construction, and food production.

The Coming Reckoning

Trump’s trade offensive marks not just a policy shift but the death of an economic paradigm. The globalisation model that outsourced production while hollowing out working-class communities has reached its inevitable endpoint. What replaces it will be determined by which nations act decisively to protect their productive capacity and working populations.

China has already made its position clear, calling Trump’s demands “naked extortion” and “blunt coercion dressed up as policy.” Their refusal to capitulate despite massive economic pressure represents recognition that economic sovereignty is non-negotiable.

For Britain’s working class, the coming months will reveal whether our government grasps the historic nature of this moment. Will we continue clinging to failed free-trade orthodoxy while our industrial base crumbles, or will we finally implement a serious industrial strategy that defends British jobs and rebuilds economic resilience?

As markets tumble and factories face uncertain futures, one thing is increasingly clear: the system that prioritised cheap imports over domestic production is collapsing.

The question isn’t whether this economic order will end—it’s whether ordinary working people will be sacrificed to preserve its final moments or protected through its painful transformation.