Mrs Thatcher - rather different from todays politicians
Discussion
Gargamel said:
He was indeed a war correspondent, but also during the conflict then joined the Army
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2094822/Ph...
I was responding to some fool who suggested Winston invented Concentration Camps.
So was I http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2094822/Ph...
I was responding to some fool who suggested Winston invented Concentration Camps.
Much of the coal from abroad, such as from Poland and many other countries, was heavily subsidised to bring in money. There was no way even the most efficient British coal mines could compete. Things have changed since then and there are more regulations, brought in by the EU amongst others, which protect jobs by banning such behaviour to an extent. Don't we all want free trade?
Scargill must have known the reality of the situation but went for those policies which would make our coal even dearer. I always reckoned it was he who destroyed the coal industry in this country.
Whether we should dig it all up now or not is open to argument. It's a bit like wine: it might well be worth more in a few years.
Scargill must have known the reality of the situation but went for those policies which would make our coal even dearer. I always reckoned it was he who destroyed the coal industry in this country.
Whether we should dig it all up now or not is open to argument. It's a bit like wine: it might well be worth more in a few years.
As a few posters have already said, Thatcher had some luck on her side. She was so unpopular until the Falklands war and then North Sea oil came along. Exemplary P.R. in overdrive (now called spin I believe) secured her Premiership. Some say she was steadfast in decision making, whilst others will say she was not listening to advise offered by Cabinet.
Caulkhead said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Do you see Blair, Gordo or even Cameron doing that ?
What examples do you have of Gordon Brown being on the take? I wasn't aware he was implicated at all in any financial impropriety. He certainly hasn't exploited his life in politics for financial gain since leaving office. If you know otherwise, let's hear it.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-exp...
This was not him exploiting his position
It was just him being a bit thick
TheHeretic said:
Rhetorical? Are you suggesting that we should pay however much extra to extract our own coal, meaning that our industry makes a loss for patriotic, or daft reasons? Really? We could not mine efficiently because many other countries can utilise open face mining, which is significantly cheaper, and easier to get at than sending some grumpy Welshmen down a shaft for a few miles hacking away at a seam a few inches across. It is simple economics. Add to that the forcing of the energy companies to buy that expensive coal, the money given to the coal industry to offset the losses, and the miners asking for more money than is possible, and yes, you end up with imports from abroad, and a failed coal industry.
We may be able to extract in the future, bit at the time, it was just retarded to continue. Private enterprise was more than welcome to try, but the taxpayer was rightly stopped from paying for the industries losses.
Point me to where I have suggested that we should pay much extra to extract our own coal, or is this just an opportunity for you to have an arguement on the internet? We may be able to extract in the future, bit at the time, it was just retarded to continue. Private enterprise was more than welcome to try, but the taxpayer was rightly stopped from paying for the industries losses.
Open face mining does reduce costs, as does massively subsidising your own product as Derek has pointed out.
Bosshogg76 said:
Point me to where I have suggested that we should pay much extra to extract our own coal, or is this just an opportunity for you to have an arguement on the internet?
Open face mining does reduce costs, as does massively subsidising your own product as Derek has pointed out.
Because you seem to think that the importing of coal was wrong, and that somehow we never had our heads screwed on because we never used our own. It is simple economics. As I have said, the taxpayer was subsidising the losses that the coal industry was creating, and the energy companies were essentially forced to buy, at an inflated price, the coal produced by the coal industry. Open face mining does reduce costs, as does massively subsidising your own product as Derek has pointed out.
"However a country that is sitting on over a 100million tons of coal and can't mine that efficiently needs its head looked at."
Market forces, simply market forces.
As for "opportunity to have an argument"... Grow up.
TheHeretic said:
Because you seem to think that the importing of coal was wrong, and that somehow we never had our heads screwed on because we never used our own. It is simple economics. As I have said, the taxpayer was subsidising the losses that the coal industry was creating, and the energy companies were essentially forced to buy, at an inflated price, the coal produced by the coal industry.
Market forces, simply market forces.
As for "opportunity to have an argument"... Grow up.
Market forces, simply market forces.
As for "opportunity to have an argument"... Grow up.
Sorry my eye sight is failing me could you be so kind as point out to me where I have said that importing coal was wrong?
As for your "grow up" .....Your mother, skinchies and no comebacks.
Did you post this?
I'll say again, market forces. So you asked, I answered.
As for your childish response...
Bosshogg76 said:
Use a lot of electricity do you? Yes? Me too
As we only mine 38% of the coal required for our coal fired powerstations I wonder why the pits closed. Self sufficient country providing employment or cheap imports...
I think you did. You are pondering, are you not, why the pits were closed. They were closed because of market forces. Cheaper coal from elsewhere, combined with subsidies the taxpayer could ill afford, and a union pushing for wages above and beyond what the industry could afford.As we only mine 38% of the coal required for our coal fired powerstations I wonder why the pits closed. Self sufficient country providing employment or cheap imports...
I'll say again, market forces. So you asked, I answered.
As for your childish response...
TwigtheWonderkid said:
What examples do you have of Gordon Brown being on the take? I wasn't aware he was implicated at all in any financial impropriety. He certainly hasn't exploited his life in politics for financial gain since leaving office. If you know otherwise, let's hear it.
Trough swilling incompetentIt is hard to defend the indefensible, but is also dutifully still suckling at the teat of public money too, much like his associate B-liar.
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Saturday 29th December 15:15
Let's keep the personal squabbles to a minimum. They destroy the thread.----
It is not really market forces though, is it. If one government exports its coal at below cost price because it wants sterling then it becomes politics. The price of Polish coal was decided not by the market or the costs of production but by politicians.
That said, miners were paid a good wage. Up until Scargill they had lots of support from the public but he squandered it, and in short shrift. If the miners had had a leader with a bit of sense then things could have been so different. If he'd worked with the TUC rather than, apparently, seeming to fight it then they might well have put a little pressure on the steel workers to repay their debt to them. (Rather than, as some have suggested, putting pressure on them not to.)
There was a feeling that the TUC, after taking a responsible position, might have earned a place as a lobby. The TUC leaders were under threat from the trotsky factions as much as the labour party were. They were looking towards the German model. Who knows what might have happened. We moan about Crow but he is a product of the political realities.
king disgusting anyway. Frozen in the winter, curdled in the summer. Even today I can imagine the foul smell, it put me off drinking milk on its own for life.TheHeretic said:
I think you did. You are pondering, are you not, why the pits were closed. They were closed because of market forces. Cheaper coal from elsewhere, combined with subsidies the taxpayer could ill afford, and a union pushing for wages above and beyond what the industry could afford.
I'll say again, market forces. So you asked, I answered.
As for your childish response...
You think I did...then you would have thought wrong then wouldn't you? I'll say again, market forces. So you asked, I answered.
As for your childish response...
But thanks for re-posting it I re-read it.. can't quite find the exact point where I said "Importing cheap coal was wrong"
I did say:
Bosshogg76 said:
Self sufficient country providing employment or cheap imports...
You clearly don't understand to rules to skinchies, so allow me riposte to your much more adult response of
with a 
please add you're own raspberry sound effect. Derek Smith said:
----Let's keep the personal squabbles to a minimum. They destroy the thread.----
It is not really market forces though, is it. If one government exports its coal at below cost price because it wants sterling then it becomes politics. The price of Polish coal was decided not by the market or the costs of production but by politicians.
That said, miners were paid a good wage. Up until Scargill they had lots of support from the public but he squandered it, and in short shrift. If the miners had had a leader with a bit of sense then things could have been so different. If he'd worked with the TUC rather than, apparently, seeming to fight it then they might well have put a little pressure on the steel workers to repay their debt to them. (Rather than, as some have suggested, putting pressure on them not to.)
There was a feeling that the TUC, after taking a responsible position, might have earned a place as a lobby. The TUC leaders were under threat from the trotsky factions as much as the labour party were. They were looking towards the German model. Who knows what might have happened. We moan about Crow but he is a product of the political realities.
I wasn't squabbling, merely disdain at his remarks about me. It is not really market forces though, is it. If one government exports its coal at below cost price because it wants sterling then it becomes politics. The price of Polish coal was decided not by the market or the costs of production but by politicians.
That said, miners were paid a good wage. Up until Scargill they had lots of support from the public but he squandered it, and in short shrift. If the miners had had a leader with a bit of sense then things could have been so different. If he'd worked with the TUC rather than, apparently, seeming to fight it then they might well have put a little pressure on the steel workers to repay their debt to them. (Rather than, as some have suggested, putting pressure on them not to.)
There was a feeling that the TUC, after taking a responsible position, might have earned a place as a lobby. The TUC leaders were under threat from the trotsky factions as much as the labour party were. They were looking towards the German model. Who knows what might have happened. We moan about Crow but he is a product of the political realities.
It is market forces. It matters not that a foreign government was subsidising their industry. The costs for the energy industry here is what counts, and the market forces that determine what makes economic sense to them is what counts, as well as the market forces that determine wages, etc. The unions by artificially inflating those wages pushed prices even higher, pushing customers to use the foreign, cheaper coal. It is all about the money, and very little else. It all boils down to what we can afford, or what we are willing to pay to retain a foothold in a market, (subsidies). We were not, or could not, so imports were the solution.
Derek Smith said:
----Let's keep the personal squabbles to a minimum. They destroy the thread.----
It is not really market forces though, is it. If one government exports its coal at below cost price because it wants sterling then it becomes politics. The price of Polish coal was decided not by the market or the costs of production but by politicians.
That said, miners were paid a good wage. Up until Scargill they had lots of support from the public but he squandered it, and in short shrift. If the miners had had a leader with a bit of sense then things could have been so different. If he'd worked with the TUC rather than, apparently, seeming to fight it then they might well have put a little pressure on the steel workers to repay their debt to them. (Rather than, as some have suggested, putting pressure on them not to.)
There was a feeling that the TUC, after taking a responsible position, might have earned a place as a lobby. The TUC leaders were under threat from the trotsky factions as much as the labour party were. They were looking towards the German model. Who knows what might have happened. We moan about Crow but he is a product of the political realities.
Sorry Derek you're right personal squabbles should be kept to a minimum..I was merely showing my "disdain" for his inability to point out where I said cheap imports were wrong. He can talk around a question without answering it quite well though. It is not really market forces though, is it. If one government exports its coal at below cost price because it wants sterling then it becomes politics. The price of Polish coal was decided not by the market or the costs of production but by politicians.
That said, miners were paid a good wage. Up until Scargill they had lots of support from the public but he squandered it, and in short shrift. If the miners had had a leader with a bit of sense then things could have been so different. If he'd worked with the TUC rather than, apparently, seeming to fight it then they might well have put a little pressure on the steel workers to repay their debt to them. (Rather than, as some have suggested, putting pressure on them not to.)
There was a feeling that the TUC, after taking a responsible position, might have earned a place as a lobby. The TUC leaders were under threat from the trotsky factions as much as the labour party were. They were looking towards the German model. Who knows what might have happened. We moan about Crow but he is a product of the political realities.
TheHeretic said:
Bosshogg76 said:
Point me to where I have suggested that we should pay much extra to extract our own coal, or is this just an opportunity for you to have an arguement on the internet?
Open face mining does reduce costs, as does massively subsidising your own product as Derek has pointed out.
Because you seem to think that the importing of coal was wrong, and that somehow we never had our heads screwed on because we never used our own. It is simple economics. As I have said, the taxpayer was subsidising the losses that the coal industry was creating, and the energy companies were essentially forced to buy, at an inflated price, the coal produced by the coal industry. Open face mining does reduce costs, as does massively subsidising your own product as Derek has pointed out.
"However a country that is sitting on over a 100million tons of coal and can't mine that efficiently needs its head looked at."
Market forces, simply market forces.
As for "opportunity to have an argument"... Grow up.
crankedup said:
From a purely simplistic bottom line approach you are no doubt correct. However, as we have found to our cost, the need to import fuels from private enterprise has seen the mine closures and privatisation of our water and electricity suppliers to be a economic and Social failure.
Why has it? JensenA said:
crankedup said:
From a purely simplistic bottom line approach you are no doubt correct. However, as we have found to our cost, the need to import fuels from private enterprise has seen the mine closures and privatisation of our water and electricity suppliers to be a economic and Social failure.
Why has it? Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff