O/T The Gov, Not Fit for Fracking Purpose!!!

[animallittle3]

Just seen that about Tony Blair coming back to politics, that might help if that happens especially if he brings that nice chap Alistair Campbell back with him.

He can make a comeback when he's served 20 years for war crimes .

[KerrAvon]

Ok, i'll have a go, firstly, as you know full well, you're just being cheeky, UK coal production and it's demise wasn't brought to an end by economics, moreso politicsas you're well aware. Secondly, what costs were induced by the highly unionised nature of the industry and the 'percieved' militancy of that union?

I'm not being cheeky. It's 30 years on and it's about time that there was a grown up debate about the Miner's Strike and the subsequent demise of the industry rather than it being treated like some sort of sacred cow when it is raised on here.

Of course there was a political dimension to the strike. The NUM leadership wanted the confrontation as much as the government. That is demonstrated by their willingness to ignore UK employment law and the NUM constitution by failing to hold a national ballot. The only logical reason for that is that they were afraid that they wouldn't get the answer that they wanted so much. They were driven by an ideological hatred for the government and were, perhaps, seduced by the notion that the union had brought down the Heath government in 1974. Whether such notions were the motivation for the miners who took part is a moot point.

The NUM was a body representing a tiny proportion of UK citizens. With that being the case, it is hard to imagine how any government of any political hue could realistically tolerate the challenge to their authority that the actions of Scargill and his cronies represented. Challenges to authority aside, it is hard not to believe that there was also an element of revenge from elements of the Tory party for the events of 1974.

Put bluntly, the NUM, acting without the even the democratic mandate that its own constitution required, took on a democratically elected government and lost.

Perhaps – and I put it no higher than that – the NUM could have obtained a softer landing for the coal industry had it taken a less directly confrontational stance. I certainly don’t think anyone could realistically argue that it achieved anything with the strike.

Economics was the primary factor in the downfall of the UK coal industry, however. UK pits were heavily subsidised by the UK government. There is an argument for the subsidisation of a strategic industry, but coal was becoming ever less important by the 80s. It was approaching the end of its time generally and had passed the point at which the use of public funds to keep it on its feet was deemed to be justified.

I don’t doubt the tragedies, both individual and for communities, of the demise of the coal industry. How could I as I come from South Yorkshire? Times change, however. Thatcher’s surname indicates that she had ancestors involved in that trade, which was decimated by the introduction of mass produced roof tiles. Sedge and reed cutters (many of whom would have been based close to Sandringham) would have been similarly put out of work, but is anyone seriously suggesting that we should all have kept thatched roofs? History is full of trades that were overtaken by time.

The costs associated with union militancy were detailed within my post – the regular acts of economic vandalism perpetrated by the NUM. That is amply demonstrated by Orgreave. Had the NUM been allowed to succeed there it could have wrecked large sections of the iron and steel industries. Did the NUM care? Apparently not, it was merely concerned with its own ends.

[KerrAvon]

Typical ignorant stupid Bolox as always ....

Then again we are talking about something 'black'

I once read that a fool is someone who is thick, but lacks the self-awareness to know that. I often think of that when I read your posts.

[KerrAvon]

Coal mining certainly isn't viable anymore, all the coal-fired power stations are being closed due to environmental regulations whereas fracking is much cleaner (and less of a blot on the landscape than those awful windmills as well).

I'm not that convinced by the notion that fracking is cleaner in any sense other than it not involving the production of spoil heaps or open case eye sores. It involves the recovery and subsequent burning of fossil fuels to release CO2.

I can see six windmills as I type and find them rather graceful.

[KerrAvon]

Some interesting views, but what amazes me is how easily folks are taken in by the Greenpeace waffle. In my working career I met quite a few Greenpeace folks the majority of which were basically mouthy tree huggers with very little experience of real life.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of it all, remember this, HM Government is a democratically elected body, Greenpeace isn't.

Your comments about Greenpeace are jolly rude. Nobody has suggested that Greenpeace are an elected body. They are a campaign group, the existence of which is an important element of a properly functioning democracy.

[millmoormagic]

I'm not being cheeky. It's 30 years on and it's about time that there was a grown up debate about the Miner's Strike and the subsequent demise of the industry rather than it being treated like some sort of sacred cow when it is raised on here.

Of course there was a political dimension to the strike. The NUM leadership wanted the confrontation as much as the government. That is demonstrated by their willingness to ignore UK employment law and the NUM constitution by failing to hold a national ballot. The only logical reason for that is that they were afraid that they wouldn't get the answer that they wanted so much. They were driven by an ideological hatred for the government and were, perhaps, seduced by the notion that the union had brought down the Heath government in 1974. Whether such notions were the motivation for the miners who took part is a moot point.

The NUM was a body representing a tiny proportion of UK citizens. With that being the case, it is hard to imagine how any government of any political hue could realistically tolerate the challenge to their authority that the actions of Scargill and his cronies represented. Challenges to authority aside, it is hard not to believe that there was also an element of revenge from elements of the Tory party for the events of 1974.

Put bluntly, the NUM, acting without the even the democratic mandate that its own constitution required, took on a democratically elected government and lost.

Perhaps – and I put it no higher than that – the NUM could have obtained a softer landing for the coal industry had it taken a less directly confrontational stance. I certainly don’t think anyone could realistically argue that it achieved anything with the strike.

Economics was the primary factor in the downfall of the UK coal industry, however. UK pits were heavily subsidised by the UK government. There is an argument for the subsidisation of a strategic industry, but coal was becoming ever less important by the 80s. It was approaching the end of its time generally and had passed the point at which the use of public funds to keep it on its feet was deemed to be justified.

I don’t doubt the tragedies, both individual and for communities, of the demise of the coal industry. How could I as I come from South Yorkshire? Times change, however. Thatcher’s surname indicates that she had ancestors involved in that trade, which was decimated by the introduction of mass produced roof tiles. Sedge and reed cutters (many of whom would have been based close to Sandringham) would have been similarly put out of work, but is anyone seriously suggesting that we should all have kept thatched roofs? History is full of trades that were overtaken by time.

The costs associated with union militancy were detailed within my post – the regular acts of economic vandalism perpetrated by the NUM. That is amply demonstrated by Orgreave. Had the NUM been allowed to succeed there it could have wrecked large sections of the iron and steel industries. Did the NUM care? Apparently not, it was merely concerned with its own ends.

Ok, let me make a few points;

Sacred cow, that's is plainly not the case, but the miner's strike was a massive undertaking by many Rotherham folk, and not many wern't affected by it, it quite obviously affected many, myself included, in terms of police brutality and corruption, and from a larger scale, a group of British workers being deliberatly targetted by the gov't.

You talk of the NUM leadership 'wanting' the strike, personally i think that's bull, alongside your assumption that the strike didn't have a mandate, it did, and was voted on nationally months prior to the strike, although i can understand where you're coming from with that, as i believe the union should've voted again, as i think we would have had a victory there. This 'ideological hatred' you talk about is an historic thing where if you're a socialist with socialist beliefs, then you're going to be oppsed vehemently to tory party policies, arent you? You show a lack of understanding of the NUM to be labelling it as such.

Economics a prime factor? i'd put that secondary to Thatcher's gov't's willingness to crush a powerful union to be honest, UK coal mines heavily subsidised? no more so than German, French, American, etc etc etc. Coal becoming less important by the 80's? i suppose that's why we're still importing millions of tonnes to keep your laptop running then eh?

Times do change without doubt, but a forward thinking progressive gov't would've and should've had a plan in place to handle that change in terms of how you go about planning that change, rather than dumping thousands of communities and millions of people onto the scrap heap, therefore creating the problems you see today in those same communities. I can't really believe you've compared the UK coal industry to Roof repair, i'll leave that right there.

The costs of union militancy? ah, yes, all raging communists as well who only wanted a revolution, i'll tell you what that "militancy" really was about shall i? That militancy was about getting safe working conditions for all, preventing accidents and actively forcing the pit management to employ safe working practices, militancy was also about looking after yourself and your workmates, and in a broader sense other workforces who were being victimised by management practices. You talk of economic vandalism, a great soundbite that, and that's all it is, and to say the NUM was concerned with only itself is utter bull, again, you now nothing of it, i will tell you this, that when the steelworkers were on strike, before the miners, you remember? that the NUM and it's "militancy" stopped the use of British Steel during the dispute in support of the steelworkers, but you wouldn't 'get' that kind of support would you.

My final words on the subject, is this, and everyone who slags off the miner's strike and the reasons for it should read and take this in;

For a whole year, hundreds of thousands of men withdrew their labour, with no pay, no benefits, A WHOLE YEAR, men with families to feed and support. They didn't do this for pay rises, they didn't do this because one man told them to do this, or because an organisation told them to do this, they did this because they had the foresight to see what the gov't was doing, and what effect that would have on them, on their communities, on the country, you see all around you to this day the consequences of the miners losing that battle, but keep believing it was all Scargills fault, you're wrong, massively wrong Kerr.

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

Exactly, that's why we should be wary about their "facts"

Their views are one sided and predictable, a bit like asking a Millers fan if Sheffield Wednesday are a good football team.

They work on the basis of tell lies often enough then they become facts because the lazy journalists and media writers regurgitate their drivel. As their fracking "facts" demonstrate

(Edit, this was a reply to Kerr Avons message)

Edit to Millmoormagics reply, if the tree huggers were in place when coal mining started in the U.K. Then there would have been no coal mining industry to even discuss

Luddites rule ok

[animallittle3]

Pulling the drawbridge up and stuffing the generations to come is the only Tory show in town .

Social housing was another one of their gems , the youngsters today are paying that price and are at the mercy of slum landlords .

[sawmiller]

Exactly, that's why we should be wary about their "facts"

Their views are one sided and predictable, a bit like asking a Millers fan if Sheffield Wednesday are a good football team.

They work on the basis of tell lies often enough then they become facts because the lazy journalists and media writers regurgitate their drivel. As their fracking "facts" demonstrate

(Edit, this was a reply to Kerr Avons message)

Edit to Millmoormagics reply, if the tree huggers were in place when coal mining started in the U.K. Then there would have been no coal mining industry to even discuss

Luddites rule ok

And you think the Govt is impartial over this with their facts?

[millmoormagic]

Exactly, that's why we should be wary about their "facts"

Their views are one sided and predictable, a bit like asking a Millers fan if Sheffield Wednesday are a good football team.

They work on the basis of tell lies often enough then they become facts because the lazy journalists and media writers regurgitate their drivel. As their fracking "facts" demonstrate

(Edit, this was a reply to Kerr Avons message)

Edit to Millmoormagics reply, if the tree huggers were in place when coal mining started in the U.K. Then there would have been no coal mining industry to even discuss

Luddites rule ok

Grist, you're talking like "tree huggers" rule over everything, they don't unfortunately, because if they did, the world would be in a much cleaner, safer place for ALL that live in it.