Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 314 posts

Re: British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

#81

Post by pjc50 »

pydry wrote: post #67
mr_toad wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Half of all steel in the UK is imported anyway, and there are many places to obtain it. Unless the UK goes to war with most of the world at the same time, it’s not going to have trouble getting steel.

If there is a large war, those countries will prioritize domestic consumption and the UK will immediately stop being able to produce weapons. Domestic steel production is an essential element of being sovereign, as opposed to being the handpuppet of a larger power (like the US).

Now check where the inputs to steel production come from.

The UK built a lot of refining to use local iron ore and coal deposits. It used those deposits. They are now substantially used up. Subsurface mining is uneconomic, and open mining is politically unthinkable.

There is actually a really high quality government review of the whole subject: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/690b868714b04...

Lots of discussion of moving to EAF/DRI from traditional blast furnaces.

Re: British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

#82

Post by tikkabhuna »

graemep wrote: post #11
Closi wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disturbing? In what sense? Other news sources are paywalled and UK citizens have to pay in tax.

The annoying thing about the BBC paywall is that it is implemented by using different domains, so (for example here) people in the UK go to bbc.com instead of bbc.co.uk

Do you have that the wrong way round? In the UK, you go to bbc.co.uk (and bbc.com redirects to bbc.co.uk). From memory, in the US you get pushed to bbc.com.

Re: British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

#83

Post by nradov »

RandomLensman wrote: post #71
pydry wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there is a large war, those countries will prioritize domestic consumption and the UK will immediately stop being able to produce weapons. Domestic steel production is an essential element of being sovereign, as opposed to being the handpuppet of a larger power (like the US).

I don't see how the UK could generally be self-sufficient in any large war.

It certainly wasn't self-sufficient in the last two large wars.

Re: British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

#84

Post by petcat »

zmmmmm wrote: post #62

One more tiny piece of the global system of international order falling apart. There was a time when people would have felt safe enough to rely on the multiplicity of strongly allied nations with steel production capability. Now that is not considered safe. Now steel production has to be protected because nations that were previously considered reliable strategic partners no longer are behaving that way. It will happ…

> There was a time when people would have felt safe enough to rely on the multiplicity of strongly allied nations with steel production capability. [...] nations that were previously considered reliable strategic partners no longer are behaving that way.

Is this supposed to be referring to the US? Because as far as I know USA has never really exported much steel to the UK at all. It's an importer of British steel.

Maybe it's referring to European allies? Or South Korea?

Re: British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

#85

Post by nephihaha »

flir wrote: post #72
traceroute66 wrote: post #32

This reminded me of an article in The Economist published last year, April 2025: "Zombie politics: how Dead Man dominates British politics"[1] Two prescient paragraphs related to today's news: If British politicians worship voters who are no longer among the living, it is natural that they do the same to a version of the British economy that has long departed. “There are people in this country who love to talk down o…

Fishing holds similar role in the UK and France (at least). Tiny components of the overall economy, giant patriotic feels. I still think some manufacturing is simply strategic, and you should maintain a capability even at a (financial) loss though.

That is because fishing has multiple other factors. For one, it is a major component of certain towns and villages, so while it isn't important to big cities, it is on the smaller scale in particular areas. It keeps harbours open and is also a draw for tourists, so I would say it has different implications than, say, shoe manufacturing.

The British chocolate industry was a major employer in some places but has been decimated. British chocolate was certainly not the best in the world but it was better than what it has been turned into in the last few years, thanks to palm oil, international take overs etc.

Re: British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

#86

Post by 0x3f »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #78
0x3f wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't most of these contingencies apply to steel in the first place?

Nope. The entire point here is facing the decision on which of these contingencies will apply.

Why can't steel be recycled or taken by force?

Re: British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

#87

Post by pjc50 »

nialv7 wrote: post #77
traceroute66 wrote: post #32

This reminded me of an article in The Economist published last year, April 2025: "Zombie politics: how Dead Man dominates British politics"[1] Two prescient paragraphs related to today's news: If British politicians worship voters who are no longer among the living, it is natural that they do the same to a version of the British economy that has long departed. “There are people in this country who love to talk down o…

what a bizarre article, completely disconnected from reality. in what world is manufacturing, a sector that has been neglected for decades at this point, having any sway on politics in Britain. why does The Economist have so much disdain of manufacturing and people who work in it? look at China, look at their manufacturing industry and what they are able to do with it. then look at the UK, who is struggling to build…

The point is that manufacturing is a relatively small part of both the economy and the job market; AND the popular view of manufacturing (large plant staffed by a large number of men being the dominant employer of a nearby town or city) doesn't look anything like the reality of modern manufacturing (small run boutique high value stuff like satellites and turbines, highly automated and professionalized, relatively small number of employees).

This leads to stupid decisions like gutting the university sector, which is a major export industry.

Re: British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

#88

Post by cucumber3732842 »

0x3f wrote: post #37
Deukhoofd wrote: post #22

It's probably not a bad idea. Steel is one of the things that an industrialized country needs to produce to protect its own sovereignty. Letting it shut down and just hope you'll always be able to import enough steel from other countries is a bad long-term strategy. You'd be left unable to fend for yourself.

You can make this same argument about a great number of things. Why is steel any more critical than food or vaccines or the like? Indeed we got caught short of vaccines recently, and had some nontrivial consideration of running a military op against NATO member over it.

>Why is steel any more critical than food or vaccines or the like?

Countries that import large shares of their food and medical supply chains are constantly trying to develop domestic capacity.

Re: British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

#89

Post by pjc50 »

0x3f wrote: post #74
traceroute66 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> much of the electorate worships the same. They all have parents too, naturally. Well, yes. But not many of them worship the generation who were mostly responsible for voting in favour of Brexit (60% support among those aged 65 and over at the time of the vote).

I think they do, actually. They just have a disconnect about it. But e.g. removing the triple lock is unpopular not just among those of an age to be affected by it.

The triple lock actually benefits everyone not currently retired, just .. not until they actually retire.

Re: British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

#90

Post by XorNot »

0x3f wrote: post #63
matt727 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The food example, is the exact reason for large farming subsidies in the European Union. These were implemented as a founding initiative, due to the experience of food shortages during the second world war. A great number of things could be considered critical. Due to the nature of when access could be cut off, the main thing countries likely worry about being able to access, is things humans need to stay alive, and…

Farming subsidies are one of the most criticized parts of the EU. My comment isn't in support of it. But even so, subsidy is quite different from compulsory purchase. The question is: why is steel special. Not in a no-action-vs-some-action way, but why so aggressive? Ironically I think it's the same for both steel and farmers: they provide votes.

Because like, every basic war machine is made from it? Like how is this a question?

There's been two world wars and access to or stockpiling of steel has been a critical strategic factor in both.

Most consumable military assets are made from steel, for example and it underpins most machine tools and factory components as well.

Post reply on HN