***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 6 *****
Continuing debate about Maggie's recent death.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 28 Apr 13 at 00:11
|
If you read the Daily Mail you may want to look away now...
>> 'Held the country to ransom' is the favourite buzzphrase to this day for opponents any form of industrial action.
Exactly, Bromptonaut! Well said!
If anyone could truly be described as "holding the country to ransom" since the war it is the banksters with their greedy gambling on dodgy derivatives and reckless, unchecked lending.
They were able to do this and get away with it because they were deemed "Too big to fail". In effect, truly "holding the country to ransom".
And they have put us in a bigger mess than any trade union ever did.
|
>
>> And they have put us in a bigger mess than any trade union ever did.
Nah, they have put us in the same mess as the unions did, its just they have been much quicker about it.
|
|
Remind me under which party the bakers finally and truly messed up.
|
|
When the bakers mess up we will all be on the breadline...
|
|
The bakers messed up and spent all the money and now we all knead dough.
|
>> Remind me under which party the bakers finally and truly messed up.
>>
Certainly! The Tory Party (Labour division). Led by the "heir to Thatcher" himself, the Rt Hon Anthony Charles Lynton Blair.
|
All the parties are rubbish and do rubbish stuff.
The rubbish that the Tories do bothers me less than the rubbish that the others do. Quite a lot less, actually.
But none of them do good.
And mostly that's because what a politician [Government] needs to do to get or stay elected is completely at odds with what they need to do to fix stuff.
And that goes for UKIP as much as it does anyone else.
Margaret Thatcher was a politician, and consequently someone to be regarded with suspicion and skepticism. I basically agree with her direction, but she was no saint.
However, there were things that needed to change, and she changed them. If the Labour minister of the time had been prepared to neuter Scargill et al, then he would have done just as well.
And even if you were 28 miles left of the most left person in the country, if you have half a brain then it must have occurred that Scargill, Robbo and the others were detrimental to the state of our industries.
Bromp - do you believe that the mining industry would now be well and fine if Scargill had been given control? If so, how? And if not, then where was MT wrong?
What do you believe was wrong with Poll Tax?
What do you believe should have been done with British Leyland? What should have been done with Steel & Mining?
And lets not go with the normal crap, specifically what do you believe should have been done, and why would that have worked?
|
>> And even if you were 28 miles left of the most left person in the
>> country, if you have half a brain then it must have occurred that Scargill, Robbo
>> and the others were detrimental to the state of our industries.
>>
>> Bromp - do you believe that the mining industry would now be well and fine
>> if Scargill had been given control? If so, how? And if not, then where was
>> MT wrong?
>>
>> What do you believe was wrong with Poll Tax?
>>
>> What do you believe should have been done with British Leyland? What should have been
>> done with Steel & Mining?
>>
>> And lets not go with the normal crap, specifically what do you believe should have
>> been done, and why would that have worked?
MArk,
I'm a long way from being 28 miles to the left of etc. For the record I'd place myself on what used to be called the moderate or soft left. My poltical text of choice would be Tony Crosland's 'The Future of Socialism'.
I'd seperate Scargill from Red Robbo. Scargill was what it said on the tin. Robbo always struck me a more of a cartoon character, largley a product of how the media portrayed him. Bit like AC sees Abu Qutada.
Putting Scargill in charge of coal is, with respect, a straw man question. He was a Union leader, it wasn't his job to run the industry.
What would I put forward as alternatives is a big question. Answering it involves work and research which I certainly don't have time for today. Half of me says I havn't the time to get involved but the other half says that attitude makes me look, in the Magsters own word 'frit'. On the third hand, given an audience largely derived frm a Telegraph linked site I'm never going garner much support.
In brief a more consensual approach, leading to German style industrial democracy. No need to destroy and demonise the opposition as she did, repeatedly. Private investment/shares in some state industries (telecoms, steel, BL). Gas, leccy and water remain under state control. North Sea Oil revenue used as the Norwegians did in a long term to establish a Sovereign Wealth Fund rather than frittering it on tax cuts an current expenditure.
If the Poll Tax had emerged as what was intended, a low level flat rate service charge it might have been viable. Somewhere along the lines that concept fell apart and we ended up with levys in many area that were simply unaffordable. She was warned but didn't listen.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 19 Apr 13 at 11:07
|
Yep, they ran off with all the dough. They said they kneaded the bread but couldn't prove it. I think they were taking the rise out of ordinary people earning their crust. Thanks to them the economy is now toast.
|
|
Well you can't blame me, I was just trying to earn a crust.
|
>>You can't accept that she was popular because she had the balls to confront serious >>problems head-on.
>>Instead of wondering how difficult it must have been to take the decision to send >>British troops 8,000 miles to kick Galtieri off our front lawn you turn it into a cheap >>comment that it "gifted" her more support than she deserved.
Being popular doesn't make her right or put her record beyond criticism.
Comment about electoral system was a reflection part of Xileno's post. The Falkland's factor undoubtedly influenced 1983's result. The electoral system, as it later did for Blair, gave her a majority out of al proportion to her share of the popular vote.
Falklands were hardly our front lawn Kevin. I struggle for a real analogy that won't. perhaps rightly, be regarded as offensive to those who died recovering the islands. There remains a reasonable question about how, with announced withdrawal of Endurance and failure to react as Callaghan did to early threats with a show of force, she might have avoided the need for conflict.
|
>> There remains a reasonable question about how, with announced withdrawal of Endurance and failure to react as
>> Callaghan did to early threats with a show of force, she might have avoided the
>> need for conflict.
>>
There's always a reasonable doubt, but hindsight has the benefit of 20/20 vision. Reaction may be seen as provocation.
I was working for MOD at the time and there was no second-guessing of any of it! It was also appreciated by all staff that Michael Foot gave one of the great parliamentary speeches, whereby he backed the Government's line to stand up to the illegal invasion while hinting that the handling of the lead-up to it was handled less than perfectly.
hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1982/apr/03/falkland-islands
Last edited by: Londoner on Fri 19 Apr 13 at 15:08
|
>> Falklands were hardly our front lawn Kevin. I struggle for a real analogy that won't.
>> perhaps rightly, be regarded as offensive to those who died recovering the islands.
Although they may be far away I always find it hard to understand those that worry about the distance. We have a responsibility to defend them. I don't think there is a limit in mileage terms to that.
There remains a reasonable question about how, with announced withdrawal of Endurance and failure to react as Callaghan did to early threats with a show of force, she might have avoided the need for conflict.
Possibly although not a great question to ponder over. Unless you think she risked an invasion to then win it back to then get a boost and win a GE.
More likely the signs were misread by the FO and thought there was little risk to removing Endurance, and the moves within Arg weren't to be taken serious.
I often think it's a little unfair to claim the FI aren't that important and claim at the same time that a more robust defence of the FI should have been taken at the time.
|
>Being popular doesn't make her right or put her record beyond criticism.
I don't recall anyone saying that being popular made her right or beyond criticism. I'm just getting fed up of your constant need to belittle everything she did.
Instead of recognising the courage it took to send a task force to kick the Argentinians out of the Falklands you talk as if it was political opportunism. You seem to ignore the fact that she was being told that a military response held very significant risk of failure and success was far from assured. A defeat would have finished her and she could have taken the easy option and gone whinging to the UN but she didn't.
>Falklands were hardly our front lawn Kevin.
The Falklands are British sovereign territory. That is our front lawn. Now you may consider their invasion by a foreign power to be trivial but I don't.
>I struggle for a real analogy that won't. perhaps rightly, be regarded as offensive to those who died recovering
>the islands.
I find that statement disturbing but not surprising from you.
|
>> >Being popular doesn't make her right or put her record beyond criticism.
>>
>> I don't recall anyone saying that being popular made her right or beyond criticism. I'm
>> just getting fed up of your constant need to belittle everything she did.
>
>> I find that statement disturbing but not surprising from you.
I'm almost gratified that you need to focus on me rather than the message.
Politically and socially I'm outwith her camp. A Yorkshireman with family roots in the coal industry and with socialism in my blood, at least on my Father's side. Frankly I find next to nothing she did on the larger stage that I don't feel was bad or, as in the case of the Falklands, the avoidable consequence of her own and her Minister's arrogance or prior neglect of advice.
That's me. If you don't like my posts them put me on your ignore list.
I suppose if you want me to find an achievement I agree that she liberalised the regime for Motorway services in a way that freed them from shackles placed in the sixties.
|
>> A Yorkshireman with family roots in the coal
>> industry and with socialism in my blood, at least on my Father's side.
So...where you came from, the past employment of your relatives and your blood connection to some family... forms all/part/some of your political views?
How about thinking for yourself.
If your father thought 'x'...why wouldn't you with an open mind think 'y'?
>> Frankly I
>> find next to nothing she did on the larger stage that I don't feel was
>> bad or, as in the case of the Falklands, the avoidable consequence of her own
>> and her Minister's arrogance or prior neglect of advice.
Frankly, I think your views are incredibly blinkered. You do not want to see it, so stick your head in the sand. Why do you think all the political parties and our Head of State have just attended a near State funeral?
>> I suppose if you want me to find an achievement I agree that she liberalised
>> the regime for Motorway services in a way that freed them from shackles placed in
>> the sixties.
Is that it? Do you truly think that?
|
WP
I was, as it were, talking to Kevin but since you've joined in.
I tried to set a scene to counter the 'Bromp is Dave Spart' narrative of just speaking the usual leftie carp.
Of course where you come from, your family histor and your experiences in life affect how you see things.
Whoever you are.
As a kid and youth I visited relatives in the Yorkshire coalfield and moved in a small way in their community. Like those who've been BiB you don't get a group together long before they're talking about their work. Their interdependence underground and above was almost palpable. There was such a thing as society and it lived and breathed at the Miner's Welfare. My Mother at 86 fully understood the bitterness of the effigy burners in Grimethorpe.
My father was involved, as a student in late forties, in politics far to left of my own. There was plenty of political literature on the bookshelves. Not just Willie Gallacher's 'The Case for Communism' but Churchill and Ian Paisley too. OTOH we lived on an estate populated by doctors, lawyers and company directors. There were plenty of other influences.
I'm well aware others might think my view blinkered. We all wear blinkers of one sort or another. I'd suggest you wear some based on a career in the Met.
I'm not going to start another stuchie by exploring why MT was given a state funeral. Suffice to say the influence of Blair and fear of the right wing press have much to do with it.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 21 Apr 13 at 17:02
|
>>I'm not going to start another stuchie by exploring why MT was given a state funeral
He says as...
>> the influence of Blair and fear of the right wing press have much to do with it.
as he then begins to do so.
I also come from a mining family, although South Wales not the frozen North, from a small, introverted and poor village mostly populated by people with the same surname as me, living with uncles and aunts who did not speak English, didn't like London and would have nothing to do with England.
Just nobody told me that meant I had to be left wing.
|
>> I'm not going to start another stuchie
OT, but another what?
>>
>>
|
>> >> I'm not going to start another stuchie
>>
>>
>> OT, but another what?
Scots expression one of several I've picked up from a colleague of ten years plus.
Roughly translates as a scrap or minor brawl.
Nippy sweetie is another...
In the Glasgow area an irritable sharp-tongued person may be described as a nippy sweetie.
|
>> Of course where you come from, your family histor and your experiences in life affect
>> how you see things.
>>
>> Whoever you are.
Yes...that's very true...and some of your own thoughts could easily be subliminal...but I'm talking about the principle of thinking for yourself, not automatically following your forebears.
>>
>> As a kid and youth I visited relatives in the Yorkshire coalfield and moved in
>> a small way in their community. Like those who've been BiB you don't get a
>> group together long before they're talking about their work. Their interdependence underground and above was
>> almost palpable. There was such a thing as society and it lived and breathed at
>> the Miner's Welfare.
Yes...and all of that is positive....but at some point that industry was going to come to an end. It had to, the coal would run out. At some point it would be uneconomic to continue mining it, there'd still be coal down the hole, but it would cost too much in the big scheme of things, to mine it. That point was reached. Should the rest of the country eventually pay miners to play cards at the social club?
My Mother at 86 fully understood the bitterness of the effigy burners
>> in Grimethorpe.
Sad. Good, honest, hard working people..led astray by rabble rousers and people with an agenda.
|
By the way.
I was at the miner's strike, seven different times.
At the time, as a young man, it was a jolly, something exciting....but...
When I got there, it shocked me. The intolerance and pigheadedness of some who were absolute bullies.
Some miners did not wish to strike...yet they felt they had to, because of the intimidation of others. They had no choice but to be in the Union, it was a closed shop. The physical violence and damaged caused was unreal. Some brave souls did continue working, but others tried their best to have them and their families lives made an absolute misery.
Looking back at that time...I am absolutely proud of my small role in ensuring democracy prevailed...and that if one individual or several or many wished to go to work and ignore the baying mob..then they could do so.
Don't forget the hardships caused (initially) was by whole communities going on strike and refusing to work. No doubt there would have been hardships ahead..but that needs forward planning and a potential career change, not a head in sand hope it all goes away mentality.
Last edited by: Westpig on Sun 21 Apr 13 at 18:16
|
WP
I've no real argument with the Lions led by a Donkey argument where Scargill was concerned.
|
>> Yes...and all of that is positive....but at some point that industry was going to come
>> to an end. It had to, the coal would run out. At some point it
>> would be uneconomic to continue mining it, there'd still be coal down the hole, but
>> it would cost too much in the big scheme of things, to mine it. That
>> point was reached. Should the rest of the country eventually pay miners to play cards
>> at the social club?
Of course not. But OTOH would mandating the use of UK coal for power generation be reasonable? Strategic self sufficiency in fuel and good for the balance of payments?
Arguably more sense then where we are now. Ordinary customers paying over the odds for electricity so as to pay a subsidy to those with the spare cash to put solar cells on their roof.
|
>> Of course not. But OTOH would mandating the use of UK coal for power generation
>> be reasonable? Strategic self sufficiency in fuel and good for the balance of payments?
Good point...but so is 'leaving the coal down the hole when it's not worth a great deal...and still having it there when it is'.
>>Ordinary customers paying over the odds for
>> electricity so as to pay a subsidy to those with the spare cash to put
>> solar cells on their roof.
Stick a note in your diary. Sunday 21st April 1831 hours......we agree on something...;-)
|
Ordinary customers paying over the odds for
>> electricity ....
We did that already when the industries were nationalised. Coal was subsidised to the hilt, and paid for twice by the customers; through their taxes and through the merchants. It was also given away in vast quantities to serving and retired miners, and their relicts, as a benefit in kind. Again subsidised, albeit indirectly, by the taxpayer.
I'll offer the following analogy. If Tesco turned round to the government and said they'd keep on selling cheap groceries provided the government paid their employees wages, they'd quite rightly be told to get stuffed. Yet it was OK for nationalised industries to do exactly the same thing.
|
>> Arguably more sense then where we are now. Ordinary customers paying over the odds for
>> electricity so as to pay a subsidy to those with the spare cash to put
>> solar cells on their roof.
.............and to put useless, expensive wind turbines on their land, generating large rental incomes from so doing.
David Cameron's father-in-law comes to mind!
My (personal ) view is that essential utilities should remain under the control of the State, not be flogged off to foreign companies, thus reducing our independence!
Mind you, that does give an awful lot of power to the State itself.
Coming back to Libertarianism, mentioned elsewhere, do you trust the State?
Now THAT is the big question.
|
>> My (personal ) view is that essential utilities should remain under the control of the
>> State, not be flogged off to foreign companies, thus reducing our independence!
Now that's a difficult one........because.....State run institutions are grossly inefficient.
So what's worse, a State run outfit, constantly draining the public purse..or..a foreign owned one with all the profits going abroad?
I'd marginally go for the latter....with the proviso that some things should always be the State's responsibility, inefficient or not.
>> Mind you, that does give an awful lot of power to the State itself.
>> Coming back to Libertarianism, mentioned elsewhere, do you trust the State?
>> Now THAT is the big question.
Depends.
Do I think they are looking closely at you and me and we have anything to fear? Absolutely not.
Do I think it is very inefficient, wasteful and not to be trusted with my taxes...yes.
|
Utilities is a tricky one, mostly because there is only a single infrastructure to point of delivery.
Phone and internet services works well and is very competitive, with a (more or less if you exclude cable) single delivery infrastructure.
The much maligned railways are actually a vast improvement over the old BR days, Better more reliable and punctual services, with a vastly improved choice of routes albeit at the expense of a complex timetable for the consumer, and increased costs.
Water should not be nationalised, its a vital resource and requires national planning to ensure continuity of supplies.
Gas and power? the real conundrum. They need to be competitive, need to have global influence to ensure good price and supply, but needs national planning and control to ensure continuity of supply..
I have no idea how to ensure thats done economically.
|
>> Water should not be nationalised
I presume you mean it should not be privatised? Slip of the keyboard?
|
|
Indeed. Damn keyboard. I blame Christopher Latham Sholes.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 22 Apr 13 at 13:37
|
>> Water should not be nationalised, its a vital resource and requires national planning to ensure
>> continuity of supplies.
>>
>> Gas and power? the real conundrum.
Water? An essential supply where shareholder profit has no place. At least in Gas and Electric there's the infrastructure for competition even if it's not working right now.
|
>> Now that's a difficult one........because.....State run institutions are grossly inefficient.
Efficiency is about operating models and how the outfit is managed, not ownership.
East Coast, run by Dept for Transport's Directly Operated Railways, is showing Virgin et al a clean pair of heels in terms of it's subsidy/premium.
www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/apr/14/east-coast-mainline-bids-branson?INTCMP=SRCH
|
they are just one operator on that line, making no investment or planning for the future. I note you fail to point out the upcoming investment need on that service.
The OHLE on the ECML is up and down more times than a w****s drawers, because it was thrown up on the cheap. The whole lot needs to come down and be restrung. Is East Coast going to contribute to those costs?
The ECML could be a cracker of a ultra high speed route. Its basically as straight as an arrow, flat as a witches tit, with little in the way of complex junctions and lots of width for multiple lines.
|
>> The OHLE on the ECML is up and down more times than a w****s drawers,
>> because it was thrown up on the cheap. The whole lot needs to come down
>> and be restrung. Is East Coast going to contribute to those costs?
>>
>> The ECML could be a cracker of a ultra high speed route. Its basically as
>> straight as an arrow, flat as a witches tit, with little in the way of
>> complex junctions and lots of width for multiple lines.
In spite of being a follower of Uncle Roger I've never got my head round track access charges on expired v renewed infrastructure. Can you enlighten?
|
|
no - its too complex for my head as well. There is a whole raft of payments in and out Network Rail. I don't suppose they understand it either.
|
>I'm almost gratified that you need to focus on me rather than the message.
Selective editing of my post to flatter yourself is silly Bromp. My original post is still there for all to see.
>Politically and socially I'm outwith her camp. A Yorkshireman with family roots in the coal industry and with
>socialism in my blood, at least on my Father's side.
Oh, you want the focus to be on you. Well, start your own thread, this one's about MT.
>Frankly I find next to nothing she did on the larger stage that I don't feel was bad or, as in the case of
>the Falklands, the avoidable consequence of her own and her Minister's arrogance or prior neglect of advice.
Good, back to the subject momentarily.
What arrogance or prior neglect of who's advice?
A Govt. historian on TV last week was showing intelligence and diplomatic correspondence from that period that concluded that Argentinian threats were bluster and an invasion of the Falklands was unlikely. He recounted that MT was horrified at the stupidity of the invasion.
>That's me. If you don't like my posts them put me on your ignore list.
You'd like that wouldn't you? Well it isn't going to happen. I'll respond whenever I feel like it thank-you.
>I suppose if you want me to find an achievement I agree that she liberalised the regime for Motorway services
>in a way that freed them from shackles placed in the sixties.
Couldn't resist another childish swipe could you?
|
Kevin,
I don't rate her as a person or a politician and view as a bad and divisive leader. That's a perfectly rational point of view. One held by a significant chunk of the population.
You chose to focus on me rather than the views I expound and I explained where those views were forged.
Other political perspectives are of course available. You are, I suspect, at the other end of the scale.
We're not going to agree whatever examples either of us put forward either way and it's not my way to attack you personally by describing your views as childish or annoying.
I'm not tired or annoyed by those who regard her as Britain's saviour. I simply seek to present an alternative narrative to 'we're all Thatcherites now' and similar.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 21 Apr 13 at 19:21
|
>I don't rate her as a person or a politician and view as a bad and divisive leader. That's a perfectly rational
>point of view. One held by a significant chunk of the population.
Perfectly rational, but not held by everyone which is why this thread is interesting.
>You chose to focus on me..
No I didn't.
You ignored the parts of my post opposing your earlier statement that she was gifted the election by Galtieri. Instead, you chose to selectively edit my post and then try to spin it as if I was focusing on you.
>..rather than the views I expound and I explained where those views were forged.
I addressed your view of the effect of the Falklands war on her popularity but you chose to ignore that. You also chose to ignore my dismissal of your argument that is was "hardly our front lawn". British sovereign territory is British sovereign territory no matter where it is. Most people understand that.
But, if it has any relevance. I was born and raised between Sheffield and Barnsley in the heart of the Yorkshire coalfields.
>Other political perspectives are of course available. You are, I suspect, at the other end of the scale.
Actually, I'm not at the other end of the scale. I just disagree with your view that everything MT did was wrong.
>We're not going to agree whatever examples either of us put forward either way and it's not my way to attack you
>personally by describing your views as childish or annoying.
Your flippant comment that the only achievement you agree with was liberalisation of Motorway service areas was childish. I'm sorry but there isn't any other way to describe it. If you view that as a personal attack then don't offer the ammunition.
>I'm not tired or annoyed by those who regard her as Britain's saviour. I simply seek to present an alternative
>narrative to 'we're all Thatcherites now' and similar.
And I'll pick holes in your narrative.
|
@Kevin
What I said (Previous volume 20:33 18/04/2013 in response to Xileno) was 'that FPTP combined with Galtieri and others gifted her majorities out of all proportion to her popular support'. That statement was a summary, admittedly mine, of an earlier post from Xileno.
You surely cannot deny that the 'Falklands Factor' was partly responsible for her victory in 83. Other factors including Labour policy that they'd failed to reconcile with public opinion and the SDP braincell.
While the Falklands are UK sovereign territory they are a historic legacy and lack any strategic value. Successive governments had rightly sought to reach an accommodation with Argentina over them. The failure to pursue negotiation actively or to respond as Callaghan did in 77 meant she was painted into a corner.
The comment about m/way services may look flippant but it's one I've held since sometime in her second term, not something thought up for this thread
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 21 Apr 13 at 23:27
|
>You surely cannot deny that the 'Falklands Factor' was partly responsible for her victory in 83.
Bromp, no-one could deny that the Falklands Factor was partly responsible for her '83 victory. After years of being embarrassed to admit they were English she'd given people something they could show a little pride in.
What I do have a problem with is your attempt to characterise the Falklands invasion as a gift to MT when it was far from it, as I posted above.
|
I'm glad for our armed services that MT was top dog at the time of the Falklands crisis, must have been a Godsend for them to have a supportive and decisive PM in charge and backing them all the way.
Also compare her attitude during the aftermath of the Belgrano sinking with interviews of other PMs in more recent and often unjustifiable wars.
No desperate searches for scapegoats, no dodgy dossiers, no fabled WMD type rhetoric.
Her decision, her responsibility, the buck stopped there and she shouldered it without complaint or whining.
No i didn't agree with MT on everything, but i respected her in spades and still do for her honesty honour decency and straightforward way, and i heartily wish for another MT to appear and take charge of the country, but sadly i only see grey suited clones of little use to man or beast in The Party of three heads.
|
|
When it ends in tears we're all toast.
|
See all the puns you can make when you use your loaf.
(Providing that you don't make half-baked comments, that is)
|
These are the figures for the sharply declining number of coal mines open each year under those Labour Governments.
1964 545
1965 .. 504
1966 .. 442
1967 .. 406
1968 .. 330
1969 .. 304
1974 .. 250
1975 .. 241
1976 .. 239
1977 .. 231
1978 .. 223
1979 .. 219
These are the figures for the Thatcher years:
1979 .. 219
1980 .. 213
1981 .. 200
1982 .. 191
1983 .. 170
1984 .. 169
1985 .. 133
1986 .. 110
1987 .. 94
1988 .. 86
1989 .. 73
1990 .. 65
Add 'em up, The coal mining industry was doomed and Maggie did the Labour Party a big favour by taking all the flak. There'd be no mining industry now no matter who was in power, Workers Revolutionary Party excepted.
|
>> Add 'em up, The coal mining industry was doomed and Maggie did the Labour Party
>> a big favour by taking all the flak. There'd be no mining industry now no
>> matter who was in power, Workers Revolutionary Party excepted.
Those are figures for individual mines which fail to differentiate small or worked out pits from those that had prospects and investment. There was an agreed closure programme in sixties/seventies which included Swillington's Primrose Hill where my maternal Grandfather worked. The whole area was subsequently trawled by open cast techniques.
Mostly now a housing estate for Leeds commuters.
The closure of the remaining pits many of which had vast workable reserves wa a different question.
|
>> The closure of the remaining pits many of which had vast workable reserves wa a
>> different question.
No its not, they were not economic and had no future. The market for coal in Europe is effectively dead.
|
The market for coal in Europe is effectively dead.
>>
Till the gas runs out.
|
>> The market for coal in Europe is effectively dead.
>> >>
>>
>> Till the gas runs out.
Havent you heard? we are cracking up the earth under our feet. Standby for a 7.5 on the richter scale around fleetwood.
|
>> Till the gas runs out.
Yes.
It's a comforting thought, sort of, that this country, if it still belongs to us and is under some sort of recognisably rational management, will still have enormous accessible coal reserves in deep seams which aren't worth digging up given the current cost of opencast Aussie stuff delivered.
Tree huggers like my daughter complain about it, and capitalist enterprise does trample rather on ancient Aboriginal burial grounds and so on, but opencast is no real problem in a big empty place like Australia. Wouldn't go down too well in today's Britain though.
Our 400 years' worth of deep coal (at current consumption levels) can be dug up when it's needed. Not for a while it seems.
|
>>Our 400 years' worth of deep coal (at current consumption levels) can be dug up when it's needed. Not for a while it seems.
When it was $10 per barrel, my father used to say that we should be buying oil and putting it INTO the ground, saving it for later.
|
>> When it was $10 per barrel, my father used to say that we should be
>> buying oil and putting it INTO the ground, saving it for later.
Thats the sort of forward planning so rarely seen that we need he should have been PM, gas should similarly have been used more sparingly, its the perfect home fuel, burning it by the millions of tonnes (however you measure the stuff) to generate electricity has been one of the worst wastes of the last 20 years IMO.
|
>> No its not, they were not economic and had no future. The market for coal
>> in Europe is effectively dead.
They were not economic because, at prevailing exchange rates and with cheap North Sea Gas, there were lower cost fuels for electricity generation.
No long term view.
Once upon a time capital would take such a view. But right now only next year's results matter.
|
So, Conservatives closed all the pits killing an industry. No, they closed less than half of what was closed.
Ah, all the ones closed by Labour needed to be closed, whereas those closed by the Conservatives represent a gross mistreatment?
You don't think that you might be just a tad blinkered on this one?
|
Belgium, First pits closed in 1980 - last pit closed in 1992,
France, Started mine closures in 1983 - Last one closed in 2004.
Germany 5 pits left, all to be closed by 2015.
Poland, tonnage mined is half the level in 1989.
Most UK mines were exhausted, the coal that is left is very difficult and expensive to bring to the surface.
Miners all over europe out of work, Maggies fault as well?
|
>> So, Conservatives closed all the pits killing an industry. No, they closed less than half
>> of what was closed.
>>
>> Ah, all the ones closed by Labour needed to be closed, whereas those closed by
>> the Conservatives represent a gross mistreatment?
>>
>> You don't think that you might be just a tad blinkered on this one?
They're mines. Some are worked out or subject to extremities of flooding, gas etc that mean they're never going to be economic.
The management go through a process, redeploy the workforce and close them.
Others have huge reserves which are relatively straightforward to work and might provide long term national self sufficiency in electricity generation. A combination of exchange rates and short term gas supplies mean they're not cheapest fuel right now or until the gas runs out in five years.
So you close the coal mines right now.
Rational or not?
|
Bromp,
I'm not going to try to convince you, clearly you feel strongly. But I do think a bit of an inward glance might be worthwhile.
|
>> Bromp,
>>
>> I'm not going to try to convince you, clearly you feel strongly. But I do
>> think a bit of an inward glance might be worthwhile.
Neither am I going to turn you into a socialist
So best I an say is
Whatever.
|
>>Neither am I going to turn you into a socialist
Go and wash your mouth out with soap. The very idea.....!
|
>> >>Neither am I going to turn you into a socialist
>>
>> Go and wash your mouth out with soap. The very idea.....!
>
Jeez - we cant even make him a tiny bit social, let alone socialist.
|
>
>> Others have huge reserves which are relatively straightforward to work and might provide long term
>> national self sufficiency in electricity generation. A combination of exchange rates and short term gas
>> supplies mean they're not cheapest fuel right now or until the gas runs out in
>> five years.
No they dont. If they did the coal would be cheap to bring to the surface wouldn't it. It would be cheaper than strip mined and shipped from Australia wouldn't it.
>> So you close the coal mines right now.
>>
>> Rational or not?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-22225943
Cant blame maggie for this, she died
|
John Vidal
The Guardian, Wednesday 5 March 2008
The government insists that the UK has "considerable" coal reserves, but declines to be more precise. However, reserves are clearly nothing like what they were believed to be less than 30 years ago.
In 1980, the UK claimed "proved recoverable reserves" of 45bn tonnes to the World Energy Council (WEC). This figure has been continually revised downwards to only 0.22bn tonnes in the WEC's last report.
|
Now that's odd because I have a vague recollection from when I was in the NCB that there was only 30 years coal. Maybe it was 300. Though I think 30, because I recall thinking I won't see out my working life here. That would have been economically mine-able as opposed to theoretical reserves.
Mind you, techniques change - they were working on underground gasification in the 70s I think, certainly the 80s, which as far as I remember would have served district heating schemes. I suspect my memory is playing tricks though...
|
> I suspect my memory is playing tricks though...
I don't think so smokie. Mid 70s I think.
I can remember a fellow student talking about pumping super-heated steam through coal. Is that the method you're thinking about?
|
>> John Vidal
>> The Guardian, Wednesday 5 March 2008
>>
>> The government insists that the UK has "considerable" coal reserves, but declines to be more
>> precise. However, reserves are clearly nothing like what they were believed to be less than
>> 30 years ago.
>>
>> In 1980, the UK claimed "proved recoverable reserves" of 45bn tonnes to the World Energy
>> Council (WEC). This figure has been continually revised downwards to only 0.22bn tonnes in the
>> WEC's last report.
The key word is recoverable. Once the shafts are capped, the workings flooded and the skills of the workforce cast to the winds the recoverable becomes inadmissible.
|
>> The key word is recoverable. Once the shafts are capped, the workings flooded and the
>> skills of the workforce cast to the winds the recoverable becomes inadmissible.
The key word is your swing on it. It did not include capping the shafts, flooding the workings or the loss of the skills. Anyway the workforce had no skills they were manual labour. Overpaid and unreliable manual labour to boot.
|
>>Anyway the workforce had no skills they were manual labour.
Amen. There was little or no skill other than simply learning a job. Not that much difference between a miner and a road sweeper, just more rules - according to my Grandfather, who would know.
|
>> Amen. There was little or no skill other than simply learning a job. Not that
>> much difference between a miner and a road sweeper, just more rules - according to
>> my Grandfather, who would know.
I'm going wild here but if you had to learn the job then maybe it had some skills. Reading the seam and knowing how to cut it; knowing how to use props; reacting proportionately to risk like gas or unexpected movement.
Hard manual labour for sure but not unskilled.
|
>> The key word is your swing on it. It did not include capping the shafts,
>> flooding the workings or the loss of the skills. Anyway the workforce had no skills
>> they were manual labour. Overpaid and unreliable manual labour to boot.
If you believe faceworkers were unskilled manual labour you need to do some reading or talking to ex-miners.
|
>> If you believe faceworkers were unskilled manual labour
I do,
>>you need to do some reading,
I have
>> talking to ex-miners.
I have. The wife comes from a family of Welsh Miners.
|
The old categories of 'blue collar' work included skilled manual labour. I'd put faceworkers but perhaps not those at the pit bottom in same category. See my response to Mark for identification of some of the skills.
Same goes for drivers or firemen on the railway. They laboured bloomin hard physically but needed brains, learning and experience too.
|
>>If you believe faceworkers were unskilled manual labour you need to do some reading or talking to ex-miners.
Would my Father & Grandfather do? (more before them, but they were dead before I turned up).
Hard? For sure. Brutal in fact. But skilled? Not really.
|
>> The key word is recoverable. Once the shafts are capped, the workings flooded and the
>> skills of the workforce cast to the winds the recoverable becomes inadmissible.
>>
That's not what's happening to some Cornish tin mines.
If something becomes valuable enough, it'll be worth the time and effort to recover it and train new workers.
|
>> That's not what's happening to some Cornish tin mines.
>>
>> If something becomes valuable enough, it'll be worth the time and effort to recover it
>> and train new workers.
Understand that and seen it over years. Suspect however, without reading into the subject, that tin mines are a more benign environment than coal pits.
|
>> Others have huge reserves which are relatively straightforward to work and might provide long term national self sufficiency in electricity generation. A combination of exchange rates and short term gas supplies mean they're not cheapest fuel right now or until the gas runs out in
>> five years.
>>
>> So you close the coal mines right now.
>>
>> Rational or not?
>>
I'm not sure gas is that short term. I know it's not enormous but it's still a big area that a lot of money is involved in. I'm pretty sure about BP pumping a lot of money into the N Sea. I know a lot of people that have gone to work out on the rigs there's no shortage of money out there.
I'm not sure coal is the long term answer either, from what I remember gas is much cleaner. I'm not sure how lots of coal fired power stations will help us met the targets we have been set. Whether you agree with them or not pretty much the concenus is to aim for them.
|
SWMBO has had ''Margaret; Death of a Revolutionary'' running in the background on her 'puter on 4oD, i've been part listening.
I've just heard a gem from Neil Kinnock.
If you want to hear the labour party trying its best to alienate the working class and lose the next election watch this program if you haven't already done so and listen carefully to what Kinnock says at 28.30 minutes about working class tory voters, its worth searching the program out just for this insult alone.
Well done Kinnock, still losing.
|
|
Just caught that on Youtube GB. What a pompous prat that man was and still is.
|
|
Hes a bitter man. He assumes he was the next working class hero and thinks someone snatched it away from him. Robbed.
|
He was wrong on all three counts. His policies didn't work, he had no class and even his missus ( a far more astute politician than he ever was a la Clintons) would never have considered him a hero.
If ever life imitated art it was when Kinnock fell on his backside on Blackpool beach.
|
>His policies didn't work..
He did quite well sorting out complaints of 'irregularities' in EU accounts though.
Sacking the auditor seems to have done the trick.
|
>> www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSrEpMYYpUs
An interesting take, particularly about her identification with the aspirational working classes. Then there's that bit about nationalisation at which point there's a loss of touch with reality.
Thomas Cook ended up in state ownership almost by accident. The nationalised pubs were a WW1 experiment limited to Carlisle. The nationalised car industry was BMC/BL, nationalised to save it from bankruptcy but te pictures were of the roads in general and very early BMC1100s in the factory yard.
The airlines were a national industry as in most of the rest of Europe. Aircraft manufacturing was nationalised as late as 1975. So why was the relevance of narrative about nationalised planemakers illustrated with a Viscount, the last of which left the factory in 1964?
Biggest state sector outside the USSR? PFD. just pretty typical of Europe in the post war era.
|
>> The airlines were a national industry as in most of the rest of Europe. Aircraft
>> manufacturing was nationalised as late as 1975. So why was the relevance of narrative about
>> nationalised planemakers illustrated with a Viscount, the last of which left the factory in 1964?
Probably because in 1975, the nationalised BEA was still using them. It was still an in service and manufacturer supported plane with BA till 1982. Would you mention Boeing with talking about a 707?
Dont let facts spoil a good left wing story tho will you.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 22 Apr 13 at 23:44
|
>> Probably because in 1975, the nationalised BEA was still using them. It was still an
>> in service and manufacturer supported plane with BA till 1982. Would you mention Boeing with
>> talking about a 707?
>>
>>
>> Dont let facts spoil a good left wing story tho will you.
Seriously Z you need to see it. It was a real case of not getting facts get in way of Thatchers prism.
Narrative is of Brits drinking nationalised beer in nationalised pubs booking their holidays with state travel agent to fly on the state airline in a state built airliner. They then drove to the (state) airport in their nationalised car.
In practice of course we drank Tetley's in their pubs. Booked Thomson holidays with a local agent and flew on a Britannia Airways Boeing. Oh and we drove to the airport, admittedly owned by the local councils, in a Ford.
The only reason the Viscount was shown was because it was old and British. The sound effect with one shot was of piston engines!!
Daily Mailesque in it's level of misrepresentation. If that's the perception we ive our young there's no wonder they don't understand the reality.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 23 Apr 13 at 11:32
|
>> Narrative is of Brits drinking nationalised beer in nationalised pubs booking their holidays with state
>> travel agent to fly on the state airline in a state built airliner. They then
>> drove to the (state) airport in their nationalised car.
Yes but the narrative is surely the fact that all those things were possible, which today beggars belief. Did they also say that state regulation of banks and money supply meant we could only take out £50 of travel money?
And who's to say without maggie and joining the EU all those things would still be going on.
|
>> Yes but the narrative is surely the fact that all those things were possible, which
>> today beggars belief. Did they also say that state regulation of banks and money supply
>> meant we could only take out £50 of travel money?
Aye they were possible but not as the narration suggested, commonplace and near universal.
Nationalised pubs were unique to Carlisle. Thomas Cooks came into state hands as a consequence of sequestration in UK after the French parent (CIWL) falling under German control in 1940.
Although you and I both well know the Govt intervention in post war aviation the only airliners launched after nationalisation were the BAE(HS)146 and the unlamented Avro 748 derived ATP.
The 1-11 and 748 were in production at time.
|
>>Thomas Cook ended up in state ownership almost by accident.
Perfect. The whole notion of the completely normal nature of state control. Can you imagine something being nationalised today, 'by accident'? Ah yes, you can. RBS and LBG. Both nationalised by accident by Gordon Brown. Lloyds should never have ended up in that position, it was HBOS that should have. Lloyds had a look at buying Northern Rock and it was obviously a dog; the government then bullied them into HBOS.
>>The nationalised pubs were a WW1 experiment limited to Carlisle.
That nobody had thought to end; state control was such a natural state of affairs. Quite ridiculous - a Soviet approach to running business.
|
Baroness Thatcher's funeral cost the taxpayer £3.6m
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22299372
Lady Thatcher's family paid for flowers and undertaking costs. No figure has been published for those.
Nice to see we didn't have to pay for everything then!
|
Baroness Thatcher - Volume 4 - Londoner
