To support current commercial nuclear operations, plus 300 GW of new nuclear capacity for a total of roughly 400 GW by 2050, all fueled domestically, the country would need to invest between $105 billion and $170 billion across the entire nuclear fuel cycle.

Is it still called a bottleneck if the entire industry is the problem? 

The consulting firm McKinsey & Company used the most aspirational scenario from the Trump administration’s May 2025 executive orders as its benchmark for their recent report. That means rebuilding capacity from mining and milling through conversion, enrichment, fabrication, and even reprocessing.

It’s looking more and more like the $2.7 billion award from the DOE for domestic enrichment barely scratches the surface:

• $15-20 billion for mining and milling
• $30-45 billion for conversion
• $30-40 billion for enrichment
• $10-20 billion for fabrication
• $20-45 billion for reprocessing

These figures assume a mix of new and existing reactors, including Gen IV designs that will demand high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU).

We have documented the vulnerabilities for months. Today the United States imports about 99 percent of the raw uranium ore needed for its commercial fleet… 

With milling capacity effectively nonexistent and conversion limited to a single operating facility… 

And enrichment capacity covers only about one-third of domestic needs…

The gaps leave utilities exposed to geopolitical risks and price volatility, a point we highlighted when uranium spot prices pulled back earlier this year even as long-term supply deficits widened…

Uranium: the next gold pic.twitter.com/2SSjvRkdSg

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) December 12, 2025

Progress is

Uranium: the next gold pic.twitter.com/2SSjvRkdSg

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) December 12, 2025 “>accelerating, however. We reported on the DOE’s Nuclear Fuel Cycle Defense Production Act Consortium, which has met repeatedly to map out a seven-year “Nuclear Dominance – 3 by 33” plan covering every link from mining to reprocessing. 

DOE has also awarded nearly $3 billion for enrichment projects, including $900 million each to Centrus Energy and General Matter, while the Export-Import Bank has backed up to $4.2 billion in additional financing. Centrus recently committed $560 million to scale centrifuge manufacturing in Oak Ridge, and we covered its joint-venture discussions with Oklo for HALEU deconversion services.

The private sector is also making progress on their own, not wanting to wait for the government to sort itself out and attempt to take market share while it’s up for grabs. 

Uranium Energy Corp is expanding ISR mining and advancing conversion licensing. New entrants like FluxPoint Energy and LIS Technologies are targeting conversion and next-generation laser enrichment facilities, aiming for commercial operations before 2030. 

We also noted Goldman Sachs’ updates showing persistent supply-demand mismatches that continue to support higher uranium prices over the coming decades.

McKinsey stresses that capital alone will not suffice. Permitting reform, infrastructure build-out, workforce development, and advanced technologies will prove critical to compressing the long lead times inherent in fuel-cycle projects. The firm acknowledges 100% domestic sourcing will prove challenging, yet the analysis underscores that options exist if stakeholders maintain focus.
 

By Bas van Geffen, senior macro strategist of Rabobank

Concerns about the Middle East continued to dictate markets yesterday. The Strait of Hormuz remains closed, and there were no signs that this will change soon. Oil prices rose further. Dated Brent jumped 5% on the day to top $111.

Alongside the rise in benchmark energy prices, yields increased too. 10y US Treasury yields closed around 5bp higher, and 10y German Bund yields rose 6bp to 3.1%, dragging broader EUR yields up. Equities struggled. European bourses closed around 1.5% lower, but the S&P pared most of its losses after the European close, so the Euro Stoxx index may catch up to its US counterpart today.

This reversal happened after oil prices came off their intraday highs, and as news broke that Nvidia CEO Huang will join the US delegation to China. President Trump indicated that he wants to focus on economic issues during his summit with President Xi, more so than on geopolitical issues in the Middle East. Markets certainly seem hopeful that Trump and Xi will discuss B200 chips rather than B-2 bombers.

Of course, the Iran war complicates negotiations between the two leaders. China agrees to oppose any toll scheme for safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz, according to the US State Department. Meanwhile, Iraq and Pakistan have reportedly made deals with Iran to safeguard oil and LNG shipments from the Gulf – underscoring that Iran is able to effectively control the flow of energy through the Strait of Hormuz. China has also further diversified its oil imports. This may make China more resilient to prolonged disruptions in Hormuz, while it also cuts off more potential income for Iran.

But China will probably want something in return. President Trump will reportedly discuss US weapons sales to Taiwan with Xi, breaking with a decades-long US tradition. US allies in Asia are alarmed that Trump may agree to Xi’s request to delay or stop deliveries. That’s a longer-term geopolitical risk, but markets may shrug off any such potential concessions if the US and China report progress on economic issues.

And any optimism from the Trump-Xi summit may be overshadowed by developments in the Middle East. It’s unlikely that tensions will flare up again during the summit, but that’s only two days of respite. On his way to China, President Trump told reporters that stopping Iran’s nuclear programme outweighs Americans’ economic pain. The US presidents’ comments add to concerns that tensions in the Middle East may flare up again after the summit.

Adding further unease about the US’ next steps in the Middle East, the Wall Street Journal reports that the US president spoke with his U.A.E. counterpart to discuss “mutual interests.” This news follows on the WSJ’ report that the United Arab Emirates had secretly carried out military strikes in Iran.

Elsewhere, gilt yields’ rollercoaster ride continues, as domestic politics stack on top of geopolitical risks. Even the BBC is talking about intraday moves in gilts now, which is never a sign that things are going well. Pressure on a defiant PM Starmer is building. Several ministers resigned from their posts yesterday, after dozens of MPs had already called on Starmer to resign. Today, the 11 unions that support the Labour party are expected to issue a joint statement that calls for a roadmap to a new party leader into the next general elections.

Uncertainty about the UK’s leadership continues to weigh on both UK sovereign yields and the currency.

Submitted by Charles Kennedy of OilPrice.com

Qatar has requested LNG vessels near its Ras Laffan LNG port to switch off their transponders as part of safety measures at the key export port of the world’s second-largest LNG exporter before the war, anonymous sources with knowledge of the plan told Bloomberg on Tuesday.  

The de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz has trapped about 20% of daily global LNG flows, mostly those previously shipping out of Qatar and part of the UAE’s LNG flows. 

In addition, Iranian drone and missile strikes on energy infrastructure in the region has damaged Qatar’s key LNG liquefaction complex Ras Laffan, the world’s single largest such facility. Due to the attacks, QatarEnergy has been forced to declare force majeure for up to five years on some long-term LNG contracts and has advised that full capacity could take up to five years to restore following extensive damage from the strikes. 

The waters around Qatar have seen increased security threats since the war began on February 28. After more than two months of total blockage of Qatari shipments out of the Strait of Hormuz, the major Gulf LNG exporter is now apparently seeking to avoid being targeted. 

At least nine LNG tankers that were anchored near Qatar stopped sending signals via their Automatic Identification System from May 11, vessel-tracking data compiled by Bloomberg showed, in a sign that Qatar may have indeed asked ships to go dark to avoid being targeted. 

A tanker laden with LNG from Qatar successfully passed the Strait of Hormuz this weekend, the first such transit since February 28.

Crude tankers have also successfully exited the Strait in recent days, after going dark, according to shipping data cited by Reuters. 

“Commercial shipping and maritime security activity around the Strait of Hormuz are increasingly shifting into dark or emissions-controlled conditions,” maritime intelligence firm Windward said on Monday.  

As president Trump was on his way to China, a Chinese tanker appears to have exited the Strait of Hormuz as it sails toward an area where the US has enforced a blockade, ahead of talks between US President Donald Trump and counterpart Xi Jinping, Bloomberg reported today, citing ship-tracking data showing the VLCC moving south along the eastern side of the chokepoint.

The supertanker which sailed past Iran’s Larak island, and into the Gulf of Oman, is Yuan Hua Hu, owned by Cosco, and would be only the third tanker carrying oil for China from the Persian Gulf that has traversed Hormuz since the start of the war. The vessel is broadcasting its Chinese origin and crew, Bloomberg said, as other vessels have done previously to secure safe passage.

Yuan Hua Hu’s draft indicates it’s fully loaded with oil, or close to the vessel’s 2 million barrel capacity. It was seen lifting from Iraq’s Basrah terminal in early March, according to ship-tracking data. The vessel was chartered by Unipec, the trading arm of Chinese state refining giant Sinopec, according to a fixture seen by Bloomberg.

In April, two very large Chinese crude carriers were allowed to pass the Strait of Hormuz under Iran’s toll system that demands payment of $2 million per supertanker to pass. One of those was the same Yuan Hua Hu that is currently moving along the strait.

China imports the bulk of its energy from the Middle East, and while it has amassed substantial crude oil stockpiles that are helping it weather the worst of the crisis – anecdotally over 1.4 billion barrels – restoring normal flows from the Persian Gulf is important for one of the world’s top energy importers.

Earlier in the war, reports emerged that Beijing had pressured Iranian officials to stop attacking vessels carrying crude oil and LNG via Hormuz. Judging from later events that involved Iranian strikes on vessels in the chokepoint, Tehran did not yield to the pressure.

The moment is delicate for relations between the United States, China, and Iran as President Trump heads to Beijing for talks with President Xi on topics that are bound to include traffic via the Strait of Hormuz. According to media reports, President Trump plans to have “a long talk” with President Xi about Iran, even as he told news agencies he did not need China’s help in resolving differences with Iran.

Bloomberg ship-tracking specialist Stephen Stapczynski has identified two empty Qatari LNG tankers, Al Gattara and Fraiha, transiting north toward the Gulf area after idling near Mauritius.

This movement comes just days after a Qatari LNG carrier successfully transited the Strait of Hormuz, suggesting that Doha may be engaged in backchannel discussions with Tehran about a gradual normalization of LNG flows through the maritime chokepoint.

Al Gattara and Fraiha could be returning to Qatar to load LNG cargoes. If confirmed, this would mark a notable development after a Qatari LNG tanker sailed through the Hormuz chokepoint over the weekend, the first seaborne LNG export from Qatar since the war began in late February. However, no empty Qatari LNG tankers had yet returned through the critical waterway for loading operations.

As of Wednesday, Hormuz tanker flows remain highly disrupted, as the U.S. and Iran have yet to agree on a deal. President Trump landed in China earlier today, and the Trump-Xi summit will focus on unfreezing the world’s most critical waterway.

Polymarket:

We have pointed out that a one-month countdown is underway. If Hormuz traffic does not resume, the real energy crisis will begin after June. 

President Trump and his Air Force One entourage have arrived in Beijing on Wednesday, greeted by a lavish red carpet welcome. The American president was received by Chinese Vice President Han Zheng, China’s ambassador to Washington Xie Feng, Executive Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxuong, and US envoy to Beijing David Perdue.

Reports describe the extravagant welcoming ceremony as made up of a military honor guard and band, as well as about 300 Chinese youths waving alternating Chinese and American flags.

“We’re the two superpowers,” Trump had told reporters just before departing to China the day prior. “We’re the strongest nation on Earth in terms of military. China’s considered second.”

This is Trump’s first visit there in nearly nine years, and an array of pressing issues will be discussed over the next two days of a packed-out schedule.

Official events with President Xi Jinping will kick off Thursday at 10am (local) with a formal welcoming ceremony at the Great Hall of the People, leading into the first meeting with Xi, after which the Chinese leader will host Trump for a state banquet at 6pm.

⚡️ Trump has arrived in China — the first visit by a U.S. president to Beijing since 2017

A day earlier, the U.S. president said Washington does not need China’s help on Iran.

According to Trump, the U.S. will “win one way or another — peacefully or otherwise.”

A meeting… pic.twitter.com/2QWYQZc5q8

— NEXTA (@nexta_tv) May 13, 2026

Also looming large over the historic visit is the ongoing Iran conflict. Just before departing Washington Trump while talking to reporters raised eyebrows in remarking that the financial situation for Americans was not a factor in his decision-making when it comes to Iran and dealing with the nuclear issue. 

“Not even a little bit,” he said in the remarks at a moment Americans continue to face rising gas and food prices, connected to the war.

A day earlier, the U.S. president said Washington does not need China’s help on Iran. According to Trump, the U.S. will “win one way or another — peacefully or otherwise.”

Meanwhile, over in the Strait of Hormuz:

A Chinese supertanker carrying two million barrels of Iraqi crude has passed through the Strait of Hormuz, according to ship-tracking data.

The Yuan Hua Hu crude carrier is now anchored off the Gulf of Oman near where the US navy has set up a blockade of Iranian vessels. It marks the third known passage by a Chinese oil tanker through the waterway since the US-Israeli war on Iran began.

Trump has landed in Beijing. Motorcade en route to hotel. pic.twitter.com/PkN5XKz7QB

— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) May 13, 2026

While Iran and Taiwan remain pressing geopolitical challenges between the US and China, and for the whole globe really, Trump appears ready to focus on major business deals, per the Associated Press:

But Trump appeared firmly focused on business deals, with Nvidia chief Jensen Huang boarding the plane at the last minute in Alaska and Tesla’s Elon Musk also traveling on the presidential jet.

As the global AI race hots up, China is currently banned from purchasing the cutting-edge chips that Huang’s company produces under US export rules that Washington says are to protect national security.

Trump said in a social media post en route that he would be “be asking President Xi, a Leader of extraordinary distinction, to ‘open up’ China so that these brilliant people can work their magic.”

But this is how Beijing is going to read this….

Pretty hilarious of him to say that he’s going to China with Jensen Huang to ask them to “open up,” when the whole issue is that it’s the U.S. that banned the sale of advanced Nvidia chips…

You can’t ask China to reverse your own policies 🤷‍♂️ pic.twitter.com/B6jSLZxRik

— Arnaud Bertrand (@RnaudBertrand) May 13, 2026

Apparently very few of the CEOs were on Air Force One, with the rest flying presumably on private jets…

The US has banned an array of Chinese technology imports, citing national security, and so it’s likely that China will only see this as having to go the other way – that it is the United States which must ‘open up’ to more Chinese business and tech.

The Chinese foreign ministry meanwhile stated Wednesday it “welcomes” Trump’s visit and that “China stands ready to work with the United States… to expand cooperation and manage differences.”

The Pentagon is considering renaming the war with Iran from “Operation Epic Fury” to “Operation Sledgehammer” if President Trump orders a renewed full-scale bombing campaign against Iran, according to an NBC News report published Tuesday.

The report came on the eve of day 75 since the US and Israel launched the conflict. US sources touted to NBC that the United States now has greater military capabilities in the region than it did before the US and Israel launched the war on February 28. But US intelligence is now also suggesting Iran’s missile capability is getting back up and running as well.

After Iran had clearly withstood the shock and destruction of the opening days and couple weeks of major American and Israeli bombing raids over its cities and airbases, Trump belatedly ordered more warships, carriers, and troops into the region (Marine Expeditionary Force) – after which the blockade of Iranian ports was eventually put in place.

Now amid the heavier US naval and combined forces build-up in the CENTCOM area, “We are in a better spot now than on February 27,” a US official said to NBC. “We have more firepower and capability.”

The reported name change appears part of the Trump administration’s effort to navigate around the War Powers Resolution, which is the 1973 law designed to limit executive war powers and reinforce Congress’s constitutional authority to declare war.

According to NBC, the name change would be to underscore how seriously the administration is considering resuming the war, and could allow Trump to argue that it restarts the 60-day clock that requires congressional authorization for war, by way of the name change loophole.

While Republicans hold control of the Senate and have a slim majority in the House, there have lately been signs of bipartisan frustration at how the war is going, and the coming financial impact on the American public.

Also, even though the Pentagon has its assets in place if fighting were to resume, fresh reporting in NY Times and elsewhere indicates that Iran too has re-armed and regrouped.

“U.S. Intelligence Shows Iran Retains Substantial Missile Capabilities. Secret new assessments say Iran has operational access to 30 of its 33 missile sites along the Strait of Hormuz, suggesting that its military remains far stronger than President Trump has asserted,” NY Times reports.

The report also indicates, “The Trump administration’s public portrayal of a shattered Iranian military is sharply at odds with what U.S. intelligence agencies are telling policymakers behind closed doors, according to classified assessments from early this month that show Iran has regained access to most of its missile sites, launchers and underground facilities.”

This further opens up the possibility that US forces could sink into protracted quagmire should the White House choose to escalate the conflict through a renewed bombing campaign, or else launching some kind of ultra high-risk ground operation to recover Iran’s nuclear material.

Interesting how U.S. intelligence reports are fluctuating, one moment Iran’s military is obliterated, another it’s retaining its capabilities. No leadership, then reports of serious cracks in the system, then a conclusion that Mujtaba is consolidating power. That’s completely… https://t.co/3iZAfMhZel

— Ali Hashem علي هاشم (@Alihashem) May 12, 2026

Trump is still insisting on taking Iran’s “nuclear dust” out of the country, but how that precisely happens is anyone’s guess – and would likely prove to be a long shot.

On Tuesday, speaker of Iran’s parliament, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, said  his country’s military stands ready to “teach a lesson” to any aggressor as Trump has said the ceasefire is hanging by a thread. “Our armed forces are ready to respond and to teach a lesson for any aggression,” he said on social media. “A bad strategy and bad decisions always lead to bad results – the world already understands this.”

After yesterday’s hotter than expected CPI (driven in large part by Energy, but seeing some contagion into Services costs), this morning’s Producer Price print for April was expected to show a major surge in annual wholesale inflation.

With the eight straight monthly increase, PPI rose by a massive 1.4% MoM (vs +0.5% MoM exp) – the biggest MoM jump since March 2022, lifting PPI by a stunning 6.0% YoY (vs 4.8% YoY exp). That is the hottest PPI YoY since Dec 2022…

Source: Bloomberg

Services and Energy saw the biggest rise (while construction costs actually deflated very modestly)…

Core Producer Prices spiked 1.0% MoM (more than triple the +0.3% exp) smashing Core PPI YoY up 5.2% (also the hottest since Dec 2022)…

Source: Bloomberg

And finally, one could argue this is as bad as it gets for the energy component as oil prices have stabilized…

Source: Bloomberg

But of course, the pipeline of those energy costs is perhaps only just starting to trickle into the rest of the economy.

PPI triggered a spike in 2Y yields…

Now back above 4.00% at their highest since March with the market now pricing in a 50% chance of one rate-hike in 2026…

It appears any chance of Warsh cutting rates (as per Trump’s expectations) are off the table… for now.

Finally, there is perhaps a silver lining from this ugly PPI report. Other than airfares (which rose 3%) the components that feed through into PCE inflation were pretty tame; portfolio management fees dropped 2.4% and the various medical-care components showed a maximum rise of 0.3%.

That may mitigate the impact of the report, but it’s still hard to totally ignore the risk that inflation becomes a more pressing concern moving forward. 

Nuclear waste remains one of the most misunderstood aspects of modern energy production in the United States. Critics continue to portray it as a dangerous, unsolvable problem, yet the country has managed it safely and effectively for decades with an impeccable safety record. 

Spent fuel from commercial reactors sits securely in pools and dry casks at more than 70 sites across 35 states. Transportation casks have traveled millions of miles without any releases. Not that there was ever a concern for one of these casks breaking open, considering their testing involves being dropped from helicopters and struck by a rocket-propelled locomotive…

Nuclear waste shipping casks have been through a hell of a lot of testing. Now with Red Alert music. pic.twitter.com/D28AgF9Zgp

— Nick Touran (@whatisnuclear) January 17, 2026

France reprocesses the vast majority of its used fuel, demonstrating viable technology at commercial scale. In the United States, no significant radiation releases have occurred from commercial nuclear waste storage or handling in over half a century.

We previously covered Visual Capitalist’s depiction of nuclear waste around the world and how the most dangerous waste represents less than a quarter of one percent of the total nuclear waste. 

A recent Utility Dive article highlights shifting approaches to this issue and examines the Department of Energy’s proposal for “Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses.” These facilities would manage the entire nuclear fuel cycle, including reprocessing or recycling of the nation’s approximately 95,000 metric tons of spent fuel, which increases by roughly 2,000 tons each year. 

The campuses aim to combine waste management with regional economic benefits, creating long-term jobs and revenue streams for host states. Interest has already emerged from several states, including Utah, South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington, Idaho, and Nebraska.

TN is the global epicenter of nuclear energy, & we’re grateful for a new opportunity to lead the nation with a proposal to locate a @ENERGY Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus in Oak Ridge.

Link: https://t.co/019O2Hu3Sc pic.twitter.com/26NfsQahP4

— Gov. Bill Lee (@GovBillLee) April 2, 2026

U.S. taxpayers currently bear the costs for waste management and legacy cleanup. The DOE’s Environmental Management program operates with an annual budget exceeding $8 billion, while the federal government’s liability for permanent disposal now stands at more than $56 billion. The Trump administration also recently asked for an expansion of the funding. 

Yet this material increasingly looks like a valuable resource rather than solely a liability. Private companies are beginning to compete aggressively for access to spent nuclear fuel. The DOE recently awarded over $19 million to firms including Oklo, Curio Solutions, Flibe Energy, and SHINE Technologies to advance recycling, transmutation, and isotope-harvesting technologies. 

Startups view the material as a feedstock for new reactor fuel, medical isotopes, and industrial applications rather than waste. As demand grows for high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) and specialized isotopes, competition for this resource is expected to intensify.

Nuclear waste is incredibly hazardous, if mishandled. But, America has not mishandled it. With private-sector innovation now treating spent fuel as a strategic asset, the longstanding “problem” is transforming into an economic opportunity.
 

Authored by Ted Newson via CapX,

At its peak, Britain was known as the workshop of the world. Sheffield produced high-quality steel, Manchester still had a strong textiles sector and the West Midlands was world-renowned for its cars. Glasgow, Sunderland and Newcastle were shipbuilding hubs, Stoke-on-Trent produced ceramics.

Cities around Britain provided steady employment for skilled tradespeople, keeping communities together and wealth distributed around the country. In the 1980s and ’90s, this was underpinned by looser employment regulations and strong energy security through North Sea oil and gas. Businesses could hire who they wanted, for a wage they were comfortable paying and without soaring energy bills to worry about. Just ten years ago, electricity prices were around £31/MWh, today they have almost tripled to around £90/MWh. When competitors such as the United States don’t have a nationwide carbon tax while Britain has had a carbon price floor since 2013, it is easy to see how business can quickly become uncompetitive.

Britain’s industrial sector was promised lower energy bills through renewables; instead, it is paying higher prices and additional taxes to subsidise green policies. The Climate Change Committee recently forecast offshore wind electricity prices of £35/MWh by 2040, the reality suggests that this is unlikely. Using intermittent renewables to power energy-intensive industries brings with it its own problems, creating high energy prices in wind and solar droughts when domestic firm power isn’t readily available.

Even by 1990, around one-sixth of Britain’s GDP came from the manufacturing industry. The country was still in the top five global manufacturing powers and possessed competitive steel, car, and chemical industries. At this time, our industrial energy prices were reasonably similar to the rest of Europe, with allies like Germany and Italy paying more than the UK. Today, the UK’s industrial energy prices have risen by 669 percent—dwarfing increases of 389 percent in Germany and 544 percent in Italy. A driving force behind this is underinvestment in reliable electricity generation and the idealistic belief that intermittent renewables, backed up by government subsidies, can replace firm sources of power such as coal and gas.

In the pursuit of lowering carbon emissions, Britain has abandoned its manufacturing sector. As we have artificially inflated energy prices through policy costs and made employing people harder, our industries have shifted to countries with more business-friendly environments. While rising comparative wage rates naturally encourage industry to shift overseas, the British government has further pushed industry away through deliberate choices. This has created job losses and regional decline as former manufacturing towns lose historic businesses.

Energy-intensive industry such as steel manufacture cannot survive when industrial energy prices are four times that of the United States. In fact, Britain has the fewest steel plants left in the G7, with plummeting production capabilities, especially for virgin steel. No matter how low other input costs are, such high energy costs will repel investment. A recent example of this is the collapse of the long-established pottery firm Denby. While Britain remains gifted with abundant, high-quality clay, energy prices and the transition to electric kilns have rendered the sector unsustainable.

This problem is much the same across the rest of Britain’s manufacturing sector. Energy prices drive up unit costs, before government legislation further entrenches high wage bills and punitive taxes. From every direction, the business sector is attacked—and manufacturers, as the most energy-intensive type of industry, are most exposed. Britain’s deindustrialisation has many causes, but shortcomings in energy and workforce policy go a long way toward explaining why many once-prosperous enterprises are now shutting down. Britain has already lost a significant share of the manufacturing capacity that once formed the bedrock of its economy and national security, and the decline continues.

That does not mean more government is the answer. A laissez-faire approach to workforce policy was a key reason behind the prosperity of Britain’s manufacturing sector as late as the 1990s. Industrial towns created reliable paths into work for young people without the need for state intervention, strengthening communities and keeping regional employment rates across Britain healthy.

It is government policy that keeps getting in the way. A rising minimum wage has pushed businesses to cut back on hiring, while post-1990s legislation has made it easier to unionise, harder to fire staff, and capped working times. This has increased staff costs and has made turnover harder, slowing the jobs market.

An advanced economy can typically rely on productivity gains to offset higher energy prices and wage rates. However, Britain’s dismal productivity growth in recent years, compounded by chronic underinvestment, has made that much harder to achieve—and the scale of recent energy price increases has rendered those traditional offsets inadequate. Even advanced industries such as pharmaceuticals and chemicals are now considering moving abroad. This risks losing jobs and undermining strategic domestic production.

Bringing back manufacturing to Britain is by no means an easy task. But prioritising low energy prices, on-the-job training and less heavyhanded labour regulation would allow sustainable businesses a fighting chance. Only by significantly improving our industrial competitiveness can we have any hope of bringing back Britain’s great industries of the past.