Mailwatch(ed) Forum

The nationalisation of steel is just plane wrong.

The reality is that there is virtually no demand for British steel anywhere in the UK, let alone the rest of the world.

I can understand that the government is doing this as a strategic policy. But what will happen in around six or even 12 months time when we could see facilities at both Scunthorpe and Port Talbot could close with vital jobs being threatened?

Many commentators will look on this as the worst deal any government could have made.

*Plain

Isn’t the point that once those blast furnaces shut down, you can’t get them going again unless you build new at humungous expense. Oh, and there’s that pesky dramatically altered geo-political situation that means the UK crucially needs to retain its own steel production facilities. Oh and then there’s all the steel that will be needed for building new housing and infrastructure projects and stimulating the economic growth that is desperately needed. So not “just plane (sic) wrong” at all.

NevTheSweeper wrote: ↑Sat Apr 12, 2025 7:45 pm The nationalisation of steel is just plane wrong.

The reality is that there is virtually no demand for British steel anywhere in the UK, let alone the rest of the world.

I can understand that the government is doing this as a strategic policy. But what will happen in around six or even 12 months time when we could see facilities at both Scunthorpe and Port Talbot could close with vital jobs being threatened?

Many commentators will look on this as the worst deal any government could have made.

There's a strategic case if national steel industries in other countries are becoming more insular to serve their own domestic market. We could reach a point where there's limited capacity exported on the open global market so prices rocket. And there's the matter of the owners and Tata in Port Talbot shaking down the government every 18 months with closure threats. Want another subsidy? Well you pay with your assets.
Otherwise I share your scepticism. Are we going to saddle the manufacturering sector with overpriced British steel? And there can come a point when the price is so high to keep this plant open that the money could be used to create far more employment in other sectors.

If they hadn't, he'd be wittering on about this shameful betrayal of Labour's industrial roots.

You're a bit fucking visible, Nev.

As far as I know, you can't make rails for railway tracks from recycled steel.

NevTheSweeper wrote: ↑Sat Apr 12, 2025 7:45 pm The nationalisation of steel is just plane wrong.

The reality is that there is virtually no demand for British steel anywhere in the UK, let alone the rest of the world.

I can understand that the government is doing this as a strategic policy. But what will happen in around six or even 12 months time when we could see facilities at both Scunthorpe and Port Talbot could close with vital jobs being threatened?

Many commentators will look on this as the worst deal any government could have made.

Didn't you say we need to prepare for war Trig? Steel is needed if you want us to prepare for war.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Thu Apr 10, 2025 3:02 pm How is this arsehole allowed to present Sky's flagship Sunday show? If this were somebody on the BBC sticking it to the Tories, they'd have been off current affairs in 5 seconds. And, in this case, rightly.

Trevor Phillips, who is now a Sky News presenter, told Times Radio that the government’s move was “obviously political”.

“People in government who are responsible for this, who are in other ways completely decent people, should really be ashamed of themselves, because it’s so obvious that they’re not doing this because of the demographic of the people involved, as Katie Lam, the Tory MP, said yesterday, largely Pakistani Muslim in background, and also in Labour-held seats and councils who would be offended by it,” he said.

The Tories not holding these inquiries must have been too spare offence to Labour councillors, eh Phillips? I'm glad Cooper told him to fuck off.

I notice that all these right-wing gobshites never bothered to demand we hold a national inquiry when the Tories were in power.

If the Tories and Reform want a conversation about who and what is responsible for a steep rise asylum applicants and south Asian Muslim immigration this decade, give them one. Andy Burnham appears up for it.

He was a bit more Kippery when he was asking for votes from Wigan, I seem to recall.

He sort of still is while doubling his money with Remainers.

Is it really much of a point that Brexit caused the increase in immigration? I thought that was down to Bozo making a serious assessment of who we needed to fill vacancies. We had those when we were in the EU, because lots of vacancies weren’t attractive even to Bulgarians.

Is it really much of a point that Brexit caused the increase in immigration?

When Farage and the Tories have the gall to pin the rise on Labour it is.

With that lot everything is down to immigration so the harder we fight back on it the better.

This would be very positive.

David Henig's been a good antidote to the "just rejoin NOW" tendency on Bluesky. Funny, I was told that Europhilia was all fake, put together by centrists who couldn't stand the thought of Jez buying water companies. It's very real, and hasn't spared Starmer at all. The difference is that keeping the UK in the EU was a cakewalk compared with getting it back in after all the trouble we caused them.

One point Henig and others make is about the negotiation style. They all hate in, lack of clear negotiating aims etc. Does that matter? I thought that was the point of diplomats, who can say "we'd like this, think it's good for you too, don't worry if sometimes say stuff to keep our godawful newspapers off our back" etc.

By contrast see this and the responses. My reading is that you don't do EU court oversight of food checks if you're not serious and Starmer's just trying to get US tariffs off. The bar on what constitutes a "US trade deal" has already been set very low by Badenoch as Trade Secretary (memo with Indiana, etc). Starmer needn't go any further than that.

UK is subject to many international arbitration courts so what difference does subjecting itself to the ECJ make? There's an EFTA court that sorts out Norwegian and Icelandic disputes in conjunctionn with the ECJ in order to placate sovereignty fetishists. It's just a slight of hand in practice.

I see Vance is being kissy arse to the UK and the EU this week but it's now going to take years for the US to rebuild trust. Same as the UK with the EU.

Underrated policy here. Though as Chaminda also points out, Knowsley's surplus is partly down to not being able to attract staff, so services there will not be great. Will anybody notice the extra money?

More on local government funding here. The change in the formula to favour poorer areas is substantial, and the complete opposite of the Tory years. Despite this, I doubt anybody will give them any credit. I'm sure some of these places getting extra money will be swinging Kipper anyway. Interesting to think what might happen in the richer areas. You'd expect the Lib Dems to do well in local elections in them, but see how they cope with the cuts. One thing that might help them is they don't have the "Labour administering Tory cuts, class traitors!" element to piss them about.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org. ... d-councils

Another positive change, albeit belated.

DWP to overhaul carer’s allowance checks after overpayment scandal

I see Ed Davey wants the whole £250m written off, but that's going to be a big freebie to some people who went a long way over the limit and should have known what they were doing. I think there's some middle ground here where relief is concentrated on people who went small amounts over, had irregular earnings etc.