As someone who subscribes to the idea that free markets are the most effective economic system for raising the absolute living standard for the vast, vast majority of people, no failing banks should have been bailed out, and so neither should "British" Steel (btw if it was called Hinduja Steel no one would give a flying hoot).
Profits and losses are economic signals for new entities to move in or out of sectors. If Steel is a loss making industry that can't compete with what we can buy internationally then that is a very clear signal to mothball steel operations so those resources can be redeployed to other areas.
By saving the banks all that we did long term was to prevent the dissolution of a fundamentally unproductive assets which would otherwise be better deployed on other projects. That these entities still exist do not create wealth or raise living standards, the may be profitable for those within the industry but that comes at the cost of holding back other areas of the economy and so are actually value-destroying on the whole.
Henry Hazlitt's wrote that "the good economist is one who considers what is both seen and unseen, while the bad economist only considers what is seen."
If anyone has time (and I appreciate maybe this is a big ask), I would highly recommend his book Economics In One Lesson:
