logo
Let British Steel deliver the final blow to Red Ed

Let British Steel deliver the final blow to Red Ed

Yahoo13-04-2025

During the debate on Scunthorpe steel, Ed Miliband tweeted: 'Very proud to be in the House today to see my colleagues… standing up for British steelworkers.' Now that is some Trump-level trolling. Ed's net-zero fanaticism isn't what de-industralised Britain, but it makes it a billion times harder to reverse the trend – presenting Keir Starmer with a tricky a choice. Does he want to be green or to grow? Put another way: is it time to decommission Ed Miliband?
I have history with Scunthorpe. Back in 2010, I still harboured the hopeless dream of becoming a Labour MP. In a last roll of the dice, I submitted my name for the Scunthorpe nomination.
Why that seat? Steel. I might've been moving to the Right on immigration, but I remained a Bennite on economics (friends say: 'nothing's changed') – so I wrote a letter to constituents laying out a detailed case for tariffs. The selection meeting did not go well ('Ooo are ya?' they asked. 'I'm sorry, I can't understand the accent,' I replied), but the letter got rave reviews. In retrospect, I was ahead of my time.
I could see that manufacturing was getting screwed by both Right and Left. The Tories let it die in deference to the economic laws of nature. They asked: why should we make stuff we can import cheaper?
Because British steel has never competed in a truly free market. Because even if we don't have an industrial policy, other countries do. Our competitors protect, subsidise and dump their products on us; and there's a suspicion in Westminster that the Chinese bought Scunthorpe with the deliberate intention of running it down. Workers even blocked access to the site lest their owners try to sabotage it.
Right-wing globalisation went hand-in-glove with Left-wing greenery, allowing politicians to impoverish their countries while feeling good about it. Fly to an anti-carbon summit! Be serenaded by grateful Polynesians! Meanwhile, Britain's energy costs went up-and-up – a killer for steel, which is highly-productive (potentially profitable) but also energy-intensive.
Green policy and taxes played a key role in that price hike, and when Labour came into power last year, it also vetoed a new Cumbrian mine that could've supplied coking coal to Scunthorpe. Net zero is utterly surreal. To avoid pollution at home, we import it from abroad, stretching supply lines now threatened by global conflict.
Enter Ed Miliband, whose answer to such problems is to go greener, faster: end reliance on expensive fossil fuels, corner a new market first.
But to decarbonise and grow is often contradictory. The entire ethical basis for environmentalism is to conserve by reducing outputs – and the effect of any technological revolution is to reduce inputs by increasing efficiency. Were the Government to save Scunthorpe, the assumption is that the old furnace would be replaced with an electric version that requires less manpower, and fewer jobs. This transition might be necessary, but it will also be painful, and the insistence that we can all get richer by becoming greener increasingly sounds as unrealistic as 'diversity is our strength.' Milibandism is antithetical to the instincts and experience of working-class voters, who usually come off worse from change.
It's also increasingly antithetical to a Treasury desperate to kickstart growth. Hence Ed has been embarrassed three times since the new year: on airport expansion, a softened transition to electric vehicles and, now, the robust defence of an industry that depends on coal – but then Labour cannot alienate voters ahead of the local elections.
According to the polls, its position resembles an upturned iceberg: a vast parliamentary majority above water, a slither of popular support underneath. And like the real icebergs, it is melting. Starmer's instinct is to detach himself from all pre-election commitments and float free – as if he, alone among the world's statesmen, is dictating policy without ideology and solely in the 'national interest'.
By that logic, No 10 must be considering sacking Miliband. Downing Street denies it; Ed's people laugh off talk of resignation. But the fact that the press keeps asking indicates a direction of travel. The Government cannot trot out its mindless slogan 'backing the builders, not the blockers' while continuing to employ a man who can't pass a bulldozer without the temptation to lie down in front of it.
Miliband appears to be wildly popular with the membership, being a rare minister with personality and a sense of mission. But though Ed's enthusiasm is charming to true believers, many voters feel – as they did when they read his disingenuous tweet from the Commons – as if someone is having a laugh. Every video he puts out of him singing a love song to a turbine, or blowing kisses a solar panel, suggests he's enjoying his job a bit too much – that it's not Britain's project so much as Ed's project, that we're spending vast sums of money so that he can feel he's accomplishing something. Miliband has come to resemble one of those ancient nationalised industries the state once bankrolled because it couldn't face the political costs of shutting it down. Ed is a white elephant; the human equivalent of British Rail.
And he's a recruiting sergeant for the opposition. Reform has spotted an opportunity, a party staffed by free market liberals quickly rebranding itself as pro-nationalisation – plus anti-net zero, making it the natural go-to for the disaffected working-class. Never mind the English locals, all eyes are on the Welsh Assembly elections next year, where the southern part of the country might be facing its 2019 Red Wall moment.
Reform and Plaid Cymru are both asking why, when 2,800 jobs were at risk in Port Talbot, Starmer didn't consider nationalisation, yet for Scunthorpe, anything is suddenly possible? With the SNP making similar noises about the future of Grangemouth in Scotland, it's striking that the most compelling threat to Labour comes from competing forms of nationalism. Progressive with Plaid and the SNP, conservative with Reform; in all cases, anti-globalisation.
It's taken 15 years, but the country has basically come around to my position – too late, alas, for me to enter Parliament in 2010. My only other application for a seat that year was to Barrow-in-Furness, which I tried to impress with a letter about the benefits of nuclear disarmament. That's how I learnt, the hard way, that Barrow is where they make the submarines.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Medicaid enrollees fear losing health coverage if Congress enacts work requirements
Medicaid enrollees fear losing health coverage if Congress enacts work requirements

CBS News

time7 minutes ago

  • CBS News

Medicaid enrollees fear losing health coverage if Congress enacts work requirements

It took Crystal Strickland years to qualify for Medicaid, which she needs for a heart condition. Strickland, who's unable to work due to her condition, chafed when she learned that the U.S. House had passed a bill that would impose a work requirement for many able-bodied people to get health insurance coverage through the low-cost, government-run plan for lower-income people. "What sense does that make?" she asked. "What about the people who can't work but can't afford a doctor?" The measure is part of the version of President Donald Trump's "Big Beautiful" bill that cleared the House last month and is now up for consideration in the Senate. Trump is seeking to have it passed by July 4. The bill, as it stands, would cut taxes and government spending — and also upend portions of the nation's social safety net. For proponents, the ideas behind the work requirement are simple: Crack down on fraud and stand on the principle that taxpayer-provided health coverage isn't for those who can work but aren't. The measure includes exceptions for those who are under 19 or over 64, those with disabilities, pregnant women, main caregivers for young children, people recently released from prisons or jails, or during certain emergencies. It would apply only to adults who receive Medicaid through expansions that 40 states chose to undertake as part of the 2010 health insurance overhaul. Many details of how the changes would work would be developed later, leaving several unknowns and causing anxiety among recipients who worry that their illnesses might not be enough to exempt them. Advocates and sick and disabled enrollees worry, based largely on their experience, that even those who might be exempted from work requirements under the law could still lose benefits because of increased or hard-to-meet paperwork mandates. Strickland, a 44-year-old former server, cook, and construction worker who lives in Fairmont, North Carolina, said she could not afford to go to a doctor for years because she wasn't able to work. She finally received a letter this month saying she would receive Medicaid coverage, she said. "It's already kind of tough to get on Medicaid," said Strickland, who has lived in a tent and times and subsisted on nonperishable food thrown out by stores. "If they make it harder to get on, they're not going to be helping." Steve Furman is concerned that his 43-year-old son, who has autism, could lose coverage. The bill the House adopted would require Medicaid enrollees to show that they work, volunteer or go to school at least 80 hours a month to continue to qualify. A disability exception would likely apply to Furman's son, who previously worked in an eyeglasses plant in Illinois for 15 years despite behavioral issues that may have gotten him fired elsewhere. Furman said government bureaucracies are already impossible for his son to navigate, even with help. It took him a year to help get his son onto Arizona's Medicaid system when they moved to Scottsdale in 2022, and it took time to set up food benefits. But he and his wife, who are retired, say they don't have the means to support his son fully. "Should I expect the government to take care of him?" he asked. "I don't know, but I do expect them to have humanity." About 71 million adults are enrolled in Medicaid now. And most of them — around 92% — are working, caregiving, attending school or disabled. Earlier estimates of the budget bill from the Congressional Budget Office found that about 5 million people stand to lose coverage. A KFF tracking poll conducted in May found that the enrollees come from across the political spectrum. About one-fourth are Republicans; roughly one-third are Democrats. The poll found that about 7 in 10 adults are worried that federal spending reductions on Medicaid will lead to more uninsured people and would strain health care providers in their area. About half said they were worried reductions would hurt their ability or their family to get and pay for health care. Amaya Diana, an analyst at KFF, points to work requirements launched in Arkansas and Georgia as keeping people off Medicaid without increasing employment. Amber Bellazaire, a policy analyst at the Michigan League for Public Policy, said the process to verify that Medicaid enrollees meet the work requirements could be a key reason people would be denied or lose eligibility. "Massive coverage losses just due to an administrative burden rather than ineligibility is a significant concern," she said. One KFF poll respondent, Virginia Bell, a retiree in Starkville, Mississippi, said she's seen sick family members struggle to get onto Medicaid, including one who died recently without coverage. She said she doesn't mind a work requirement for those who are able, but worries about how that would be sorted out. "It's kind of hard to determine who needs it and who doesn't need it," she said. Lexy Mealing, 54 of Westbury, New York, who was first diagnosed with breast cancer in 2021 and underwent a double mastectomy and reconstruction surgeries, said she fears she may lose the medical benefits she has come to rely on, though people with "serious or complex" medical conditions could be granted exceptions. She now works about 15 hours a week in "gig" jobs but isn't sure she can work more as she deals with the physical and mental toll of the cancer. Mealing, who used to work as a medical receptionist in a pediatric neurosurgeon's office before her diagnosis and now volunteers for the American Cancer Society, went on Medicaid after going on short-term disability. "I can't even imagine going through treatments right now and surgeries and the uncertainty of just not being able to work and not having health insurance," she said. Felix White, who has Type I diabetes, first qualified for Medicaid after losing his job as a computer programmer several years ago. The Oreland, Pennsylvania, man has been looking for a job, but finds that at 61, it's hard to land one. Medicaid, meanwhile, pays for a continuous glucose monitor and insulin and funded foot surgeries last year, including one that kept him in the hospital for 12 days. "There's no way I could have afforded that," he said. "I would have lost my foot and probably died." ___ Associated Press writer Susan Haigh in Hartford, Connecticut, contributed to this article.

Trump's 'big beautiful bill' would end EV subsidies: Could this kill Tesla?
Trump's 'big beautiful bill' would end EV subsidies: Could this kill Tesla?

USA Today

time19 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Trump's 'big beautiful bill' would end EV subsidies: Could this kill Tesla?

Trump's 'big beautiful bill' would end EV subsidies: Could this kill Tesla? Show Caption Hide Caption Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' aims at cutting EV tax credits President Donald Trump's tax bill includes a measure to kill an Obama-era electric vehicle tax credit. Billionaire Elon Musk is fighting to make sure federal tax incentives for electric vehicles (EVs) -- a key subsidy that makes buying EVs more affordable -- remain in place. President Donald Trump's new bill seeks to eliminate these tax incentives, which would otherwise be in place until 2032. Musk's company Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) has already seen sales struggle to grow across many key geographies. Deliveries last quarter fell by 32% quarter over quarter, and by 13% year over year. Could the elimination of EV tax credits be a lethal blow to the struggling automaker? You might be surprised by the answer. Is Tesla struggling financially? When it comes to potential regulation "killing" an operating business like Tesla, the first thing investors must consider is the effect on sales growth. Already, demand growth has been stagnating for Tesla. And while the company has teased new potential revenue sources like its robotaxi venture, there aren't many high-visibility milestones ahead that will meaningfully boost revenue over the next year or two. Analysts expect the company to refresh its existing lineup, but details are scarce on releasing any brand new models in 2025 or 2026. Even if a new model is released, it's unlikely that production will scale meaningfully over the next 12 to 24 months. Is Tesla coming out with a new model soon? Where does this leave Tesla over the near term? In the same position it is in today, attempting to stoke demand for an increasingly stale lineup. Making the company's vehicles $4,000 to $7,500 more expensive -- the range of federal incentives that Trump is proposing to eliminate -- could ultimately accelerate sales declines for Tesla. Any potential demand boost from releasing a more affordable Model Y or Model 3, meanwhile, could be completely offset by eliminated tax credits, resulting in minimal net savings for customers. In return, Tesla may need to compress its profit margins in order to keep demand growth on track. Does Tesla have a lot cash on hand? Fortunately, Tesla has the capital to withstand a multiyear stagnation in sales growth. It has $16 billion in cash and equivalents on the books, more than every other competitor. Its profit margins are also positive -- a rarity in the EV world -- meaning it can afford to cut profits a bit without going into the red. It should be mentioned, though, that Tesla has also relied on selling automotive regulator credits -- earned by selling carbon-free vehicles -- to maintain profitability. The company earned $595 million last quarter by selling these credits versus a net income of $409 million. But most of this "free" income from selling credits comes from states like California and New York, as well as incentive programs in the E.U., making them unlikely to be cut should U.S. federal incentives change. Still, Tesla's biggest advantage is its $1 trillion market cap. Tesla could easily double the cash levels on its balance sheet while diluting shareholders by just 1% to 2%. This makes it very unlikely for the company to go under anytime soon. In fact, the elimination of EV tax credits could be a secret win for Tesla. Eliminating EV tax credits could actually help Tesla Many investors might be surprised to learn that ExxonMobil wishes for a carbon tax to be implemented. A carbon tax would make its output more expensive to buyers, potentially limiting demand. But if production costs rise, it's possible that many small competitors can't compete, leaving more of the market for well-capitalized behemoths like Exxon. The same may prove true for Tesla. Most of its EV competition comes from unprofitable companies with minimal room for error like Rivian and Lucid Group. These EV makers are roughly 99% smaller than Tesla, with limited ability to tap the market for more capital at will. The elimination of EV tax credits would hurt them more than Tesla, potentially leaving more long-term market share for Musk and his investors. Of course, the immediate effect will be negative for Tesla and the rest of the industry. But it should be stressed that bills are not laws. The EV tax credit may end up in place until 2032 like previously planned. But the elimination of these subsidies certainly won't "kill" Tesla. In fact, there's an argument that it could be a long-term advantage due to lessened competition. Ryan Vanzo has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Tesla. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. The Motley Fool is a USA TODAY content partner offering financial news, analysis and commentary designed to help people take control of their financial lives. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY. Don't miss this second chance at a potentially lucrative opportunity Offer from the Motley Fool: Ever feel like you missed the boat in buying the most successful stocks? Then you'll want to hear this. On rare occasions, our expert team of analysts issues a 'Double Down' stock recommendation for companies that they think are about to pop. If you're worried you've already missed your chance to invest, now is the best time to buy before it's too late. And the numbers speak for themselves: Nvidia: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2009, you'd have $368,190 !* if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2009, !* Apple: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2008, you'd have $37,294 !* if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2008, !* Netflix: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2004, you'd have $653,702!* Right now, we're issuing 'Double Down' alerts for three incredible companies, available when you joinStock Advisor, and there may not be another chance like this anytime soon. See the 3 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025

Majority of Americans disapprove of Trump admin, but he leads on immigration: new poll
Majority of Americans disapprove of Trump admin, but he leads on immigration: new poll

USA Today

time30 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Majority of Americans disapprove of Trump admin, but he leads on immigration: new poll

Majority of Americans disapprove of Trump admin, but he leads on immigration: new poll Show Caption Hide Caption Trump salutes Army during military parade, fireworks light up DC sky President Donald Trump saluted the U.S. Army on it's 250th birthday with a military parade and live music. WASHINGTON – A majority of Americans say they disapprove of Donald Trump's second term – with even some Republicans hitting the president – as immigration remains his strongest policy issue. A new NBC News Decision Desk Poll, conducted along with SurveyMonkey, found that 45% of Americans approve of the way Trump is handling his job as president, while 55% disapprove. Those figures remain unchanged from an NBC News survey in April. Trump's rating differ along party lines. Among Republicans, 89% approve of the president's second term in office, compared to eight percent of Democrats and 35% of Independents. Approximately 12% of Republicans said they disapprove of the president's job, compared to 92% of Democrats and 65% of Independents. Republicans were five percentage points less likely to report that they strongly support the president's administration, compared to the survey results from April. Much of that shift came from respondents who say they identify with the president's MAGA – Make America Great Again – movement. The survey also found an intensity gap among Republicans and Democrats over how they feel about the Trump administration's actions. Pollsters asked respondents to pick one emotion from a list of responses: Thrilled, happy, satisfied, neutral, dissatisfied, angry and furious. Fifty-one percent of Democrats agreed that they feel "furious" about the Trump administration, compared to 23 percent of Republicans who agreed. GOP survey respondents also shifted seven percentage points away from feeling "thrilled" about Trump from earlier surveys: 25% of Republicans said they felt thrilled over Trump's actions in the latest poll, compared to 32% who said the same in April. Still, only one percent of Republicans said they felt furious over Trump's actions. The latest survey was conducted among 19,410 adults nationwide between May 30 and June 10. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.1 percentage points. Trump leads on immigration issue Trump has focused much of his presidency on advancing his immigration agenda, including deporting thousands of migrants to countries such as Colombia, Mexico and El Salvador. During his 2024 campaign, the sweeping deportations became his signature promise to voters. Now, Trump is leading on the issue. According to the survey, 51% of Americans approve Trump's handling of border security and immigration, while 49% disapprove. The survey was conducted as Trump had sent in National Guard troops to quell protests against immigration enforcement in the Los Angeles area, against California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom's wishes. Additional protests against the Trump administration's immigration actions have broken out across the country. On the economy, approximately 45% of Americans reported that "their personal financial situation" is about the same as it was last year, and 34% said it has gotten worse. Approximately 21% said their finances have improved over the last year, results that didn't see a major shift from NBC's April survey.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store