Steel Resolve: Why Nationalisation Is Not Just Necessary, But Inevitable

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. 

– Paul Knaggs

Paul Knaggs