Setting aside the question of industry for a moment, the UK does not produce enough food to feed its population. Even pre-industrial Britain was vulnerable to famine, as any fule kno who has gone beyond school-level history.
Indeed. We've not produced enough food to feed our population since at least the 16th century.
Surely you have learned the lesson? Reality, when inconvenient, can be safely ignored. Anyone who is killed by this is too insignificant to merit any consideration. Only the survivors are ever significant.
Isn't that the whole point of tariffs - to make steel produced elsewhere more expensive thus removing the inability for domestic producers to compete on price, which leads to more customers buying locally, which in turn provides the market and finances for domestic producers to increase their output to meet domestic need?
And raises the prices for end users of the product of course as now British manufacturers using steel will pay higher prices.* They will then have to pass them onto consumers.
True. But there's an argument that outsourcing steel production to countries that have lower wages and poor or nonexistent worker safety legislation just so that our own consumers can continue to pay artificially low prices is a strategy that was always going to fail sooner or later - be it through deteriorating political relationships with those countries or simply because those countries end up improving worker safety and remuneration, driving up prices - and that when that happens we'll be left either without access to raw steel or paying the same high prices anyway but without a manufacturing sector to prop up our economy.
Now you're changing the topic and implying that Britain has higher worker safety legislation than the countries you are competing with.
The main reason British steel (and manufacturing in general) is more expensive is higher wages and the costs of H&S legislation.
Isn't that the whole point of tariffs - to make steel produced elsewhere more expensive thus removing the inability for domestic producers to compete on price, which leads to more customers buying locally, which in turn provides the market and finances for domestic producers to increase their output to meet domestic need?
And raises the prices for end users of the product of course as now British manufacturers using steel will pay higher prices.* They will then have to pass them onto consumers.
True. But there's an argument that outsourcing steel production to countries that have lower wages and poor or nonexistent worker safety legislation just so that our own consumers can continue to pay artificially low prices is a strategy that was always going to fail sooner or later - be it through deteriorating political relationships with those countries or simply because those countries end up improving worker safety and remuneration, driving up prices - and that when that happens we'll be left either without access to raw steel or paying the same high prices anyway but without a manufacturing sector to prop up our economy.
Now you're changing the topic and implying that Britain has higher worker safety legislation than the countries you are competing with.
The main reason British steel (and manufacturing in general) is more expensive is higher wages and the costs of H&S legislation.
Which as I am sure this post is saying is a good thing. I want to be paid properly and make sure I am safe at work. So should everyone
...The main reason British steel (and manufacturing in general) is more expensive is higher wages and the costs of H&S legislation.
According to UK Steel (in last Saturday's news release), energy costs are a significant factor:
UK industrial power prices are notoriously expensive, and UK Steel’s research shows that steelmakers pay up to 50% more than Germany and France. New policy solutions are essential to delivering affordable energy, securing industry competitiveness, and strengthening the UK’s steel production, thereby enhancing economic resilience and national security.
Unlike many steel-producing countries - such as France, Italy, Spain and the UAE - the UK does not have a mechanism to protect energy-intensive industries (EIIs) from high wholesale prices
They also noted that:
The Labour Government stated in its manifesto that “British industry is also held back by high electricity costs, which has often made investing here uncompetitive. Labour’s clean energy mission will drive down those bills, making British businesses internationally competitive [...]”. Today, UK Steel has provided the Government with the mechanism for how it can deliver on its manifesto commitment.
When I came back to the thread I found a long draft post I'd never got round to posting -
It had a negative effect on political media.
There was an uptick in charlatans and confident liars being booked and platformed as 'balance' in the media.
They said things that, if fact checked, turned out to be downright nonsense- but presenters often didn't properly challenge them and they were presented as on a par with experts or others who did know the facts.
Irish border fantasists were a case in point. A political programme we'd listened to for years suddenly seemed to have a contributor every week who filled a role we jokingly termed 'the designated liar' and we marvelled at the confidence and fluency with which they spouted stuff that was provably untrue.
I stopped reading The Guardian because they were platforming Lexiters who I knew to be talking nonsense and moved to reading the Financial Times so I could be better informed, but switching from something effectively free to something very expensive but with greater concern for accuracy isn't a realistic prescription for many people.
It was probably always the case that to avoid being misinformed by free or cheap media you had to put in some work to know what things were about but it suddenly became much harder because more misinformation and more serious misinformation was about and it was bring circulated on previously reputable sources.
-
Thinking about it now in the light of the debacle of Rachel Reeves and her budget cuts attacking disabled people, I also think that after Labour adopted Brexit a lot of media scrutiny of how destructive and self- harming Brexit was fell away - it was treated as done and over with and not a subject of debate as both Labour and Tories agreed, so Labour were never properly held to account for having embraced absolute economic quackery and poison - waffling that they were going to magically produce 'growth' without addressing Brexit and undoing the massive economic harm it caused.
Comments
Indeed. We've not produced enough food to feed our population since at least the 16th century.
The main reason British steel (and manufacturing in general) is more expensive is higher wages and the costs of H&S legislation.
Which as I am sure this post is saying is a good thing. I want to be paid properly and make sure I am safe at work. So should everyone
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/mar/22/brexit-key-factor-worst-uk-drug-shortages-in-four-years
When I came back to the thread I found a long draft post I'd never got round to posting -
It had a negative effect on political media.
There was an uptick in charlatans and confident liars being booked and platformed as 'balance' in the media.
They said things that, if fact checked, turned out to be downright nonsense- but presenters often didn't properly challenge them and they were presented as on a par with experts or others who did know the facts.
Irish border fantasists were a case in point. A political programme we'd listened to for years suddenly seemed to have a contributor every week who filled a role we jokingly termed 'the designated liar' and we marvelled at the confidence and fluency with which they spouted stuff that was provably untrue.
I stopped reading The Guardian because they were platforming Lexiters who I knew to be talking nonsense and moved to reading the Financial Times so I could be better informed, but switching from something effectively free to something very expensive but with greater concern for accuracy isn't a realistic prescription for many people.
It was probably always the case that to avoid being misinformed by free or cheap media you had to put in some work to know what things were about but it suddenly became much harder because more misinformation and more serious misinformation was about and it was bring circulated on previously reputable sources.
-
Thinking about it now in the light of the debacle of Rachel Reeves and her budget cuts attacking disabled people, I also think that after Labour adopted Brexit a lot of media scrutiny of how destructive and self- harming Brexit was fell away - it was treated as done and over with and not a subject of debate as both Labour and Tories agreed, so Labour were never properly held to account for having embraced absolute economic quackery and poison - waffling that they were going to magically produce 'growth' without addressing Brexit and undoing the massive economic harm it caused.