6 Comments
User's avatar
glass1278's avatar

Very good article. People say "national security" and then, it's just magic, a bad decision becomes a good decision.

M Harley's avatar

I do find it odd that there seems to be intense focus on rescuing steel instead of the factors that hampers its production. You’d think energy costs would be considered a national catastrophe

Anton Howes's avatar

Fantastic piece. Instant, *instant* subscribe.

Archie Hall's avatar

Very kind, Anton!

general woundwort's avatar

Political consensus often something to be suspicious of.

Lauren Gilbert's avatar

Yes, strong agree - if we (do I get to say we? I am a tax payer) are going to pour money into something for security reasons, I would rather it be energy-related. For a start, I think it is much more likely that the global gas supply is significantly disrupted than the global steel supply (as gas supply already has been disrupted by Ukraine).

But also annual losses of 233 million (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2025/apr/13/british-steel-emergency-law-passed-business-secretary-speaks-labour-conservatives-uk-politics-latest-updates-news) isn't terrible; I'd prefer the UK government doesn't spend *much* time thinking about 0.16% of annual spending.