James York: We should embrace ‘provenance’ as an immovable economic requirement but too many Tories have forgotten why

James York is a member of the Beaconsfield Conservative Association and a policymaker in the insurance industry. 

Provenance, Power and Position – lest we forget?

In the great battle for modern ideological prominence, nothing could be more relevant than political stances on British Steel. Whilst all other major parties seem largely aligned on their support for nationalisation from its Chinese owners – the Conservative tones are far less supportive. Has the party forgotten about provenance?

Here’s why it needs to be remembered, and fast.

Another day passes and, regardless of whether you’re reading this shortly after it’s published or in the future, Trumpism is shaking the globe and norms are flying into the air as we speak. Trumpism is an oddity of modern politics; described by those on the left as fascist, those in the centre as populist and by those in it as, well, anything but woke. Let’s leave political historians to unpack that dark yoke.

An epoch has died, and a new one is being born. Birth is never easy. You can expect complications as the global anarchy of nations bash shoulders. We already had a major war in Europe, the challenge of mass migration, the insidious hum of radical islam and the inexorable rise of Chinese power. Now the West has been shaken (awake perhaps).

In the aftermath of it all the currency reserves needed will not be soft-power. The leverage will not be tax rates and alignment. The only position will be power. That’s what precedes the new system, always. Those with the power will then decide the next system. That’s definitely the table we need a seat at.

Instead of recognising the risk of this paradigm shift a couple of decades out – even latterly through the pre-tremors of 2008 and Covid  – where just-in-time could as easily mean out-of-time – Conservatism gobbled up the success of our services industry. Certainly an important part of a state’s three course meal; but arguably the wine list, the starter and the desert – could it ever be the main?

What is undebatable is that Trumpism is upending the norms of that globalised World, within which the privatisation era happened, and with it the so-called “rules-based system”. Trump’s shade of patriotism leans heavily towards strategic autarky – reshoring industry, severing over-reliance on peer-competitors and thumping allies in the gut as they reach out their hand.

Has he taken it too far? Autarky has never been a realistic strategy – so yes. But is there some method to the madness within which we can find wisdom? Perhaps, if we can recycle sewage, anything is possible, so let’s try to unpack it.

Globalism arrived after the post-war settlements. It was something the British mercantilist instinct leapt upon. Free markets! Rules we could adhere to (and show we were the best at adhering to rules, of course), international laws, treaties for our diplomats to enforce and update. As an empire [mostly] peacefully deflated, a new empire of sorts emerged, full of resources, but without the overhead and moral guilt. It was US hegemony, of course, and we were their self-appointed bezzies.

Yet as our economy shifted from a post-war over-industrialised base, to a [financial] services-powered engine, the Conservative reflex was, perhaps, to associate making physical things with the rot of state subsidy, union strikes, streets lined with bin bags and miners’ riots.

The privatisation of industry may have weaned these companies off the teet of state support, it may have forced them to innovate and compete in World markets – but it also exposed them, weak as they were from their addiction, to predators. Survival of prey beasts is only feasible if they can run away. An ideological default was that we should “let the market decide”, but under the sunlight (or shadow) of Globalism, we should allow these marques and brands to be acquired. Some might say devoured – as was the case with ICI, Pilkington, Invensys, MG, Gallaher or British Aluminium. Their echoes remain – but their corporate power is elsewhere.

Was it worth it? Survival of the fittest or corporate massacre?

Between 1980 and 2025, Conservatives have held power 71.06 per cent of the time.

In hindsight, the reflex to run from any state support for industry and heavy manufacturing looks less a flinch and more a phobia. One that may bite us all. For now, we face the very real prospect of being the first nation to develop steel-making, only to be unable to make it. Steel being somewhat critical to making arms. Arms being what we’re being told we need more of. Even before Trumpism is done or Climate Change arrives in full force. Conservatism’s response is to reach into its ideological knapsack and pull out not a chequebook or credit line – but a middle finger.

Now our flagship deterrent is being built with French steel. Let’s hope that the Entente Cordiale holds up a little better than the Special Relationship seems to be fairing, huh?

Conservatism rightly argued that the state should not be distorting private markets. Yet we don’t seem to have come to a consistent position on it. It’s seemingly been fine for a Chinese company to fund a nuclear power station; or a French company to buy a British train manufacturer? Or better still – an American firm (formerly of the special relationship variety) to buy the arms firm that makes the radar for our deterrent submarines made of French steel.

Can you see the wound? Because there really is one. Trumpism is just the backdrop, the catalyst. The scab was already there.

For forty years now, conservatism has turned a blind eye to the erosion of a kind of private sector power that matters. Provenance. Does anyone seriously believe that a British multi-generational family would be as quick to shut down a steel plant as Tata or Jingye? Do we really believe that BMW are going to protect Mini’s Oxford facility as vehemently as they will their facility in Wackersdorf; if you find someone who thinks this, do ask them to tell you how they learned to breathe sand, would you?

Ideally, the privatisation of nationalised manufacturers and heavy industries should have been domestic. The majority shareholding should have been legally required to remain in UK hands. Be that by UK Plcs with British nationals as the majority on their board – or some other means. But no, instead we sent these shaking giants on state-capital remission out into this globalising World. It was akin to a taxi dropping someone off from their stint at a rehab centre just next to a night club in a dodgy area of town.

Now, as we return to the aftermath of Hurricane Trump, Earthquake Putin, Cyclone Covid and Climate Change China; we might begin to ponder whether a developed nation is going to be developed for long if it cannot produce steel, build tanks, manufacture fighter planes or print microchips.

As we sip that bitter cocktail, we might also grimace at the realisation that we pioneered many of these heavy industries. That instead of being the acquirers of global market share and competitors, with sprawling corporate HQ power here on our shores  – we allowed them to be acquired, sliced, diced, hollowed, bored and broken.

British Steel looks to be the last gulp of breath left in our nation’s mighty industrial tenure. Why can’t Conservatism reach out an arm, pull it back onto the strategic boat? Embrace provenance as an immovable economic requirement.

You can’t survive in the kind of world Trump’s creating with spreadsheets alone.