O/T The Price Of Coal 1977 BBC Drama

[ragingpup]

I told you when I was going to be getting back to you. Perhaps you missed that bit?

I am not certain that any party offers the 'best solutions'. I'm not sure that the Tories are offering any at all at the moment given their preoccupation with Brexit. I was at a loss to decide who to vote for last year and would be again if there were an election tomorrow.

OK. So despite your lengthy and repeated arguments on here about the benefits of cutting corporation tax in order to stimulate economy, you still wouldn't vote for the party that makes cutting this tax a flagship policy? Why wouldn't you vote Conservative?

What do they have to do to get your vote? What would any party have to do to get your vote?

And I ask again, I understand your vitriol against the new Labour "10% plan". But what do giusto see as an alternative policy to address the UK's poor productivity performance. At least Labour are proposing an idea. What would you propose?

[rolymiller]

He's not gonna answer is he pup? This is where his anonymity comes in. Everything he says on here every self respecting tory would back and yet he is not a tory voter. The gms, twincats, lastermans, sotas etc must think he is wonderful because he puts across their own tory views a lot better than they could.Well I say he should not only vote tory but also join the buggers as well!! Get yourself signed up for Mrs May and her boys Kerr. Lets make an honest man of you at least.

IF he is not a tory why doesn't he argue with the tories on here like he does the labour supporters ie being critical of tory policy as well. Or could he really be a tory but know that there is no way he could defend their policies which would make you wonder why he would be a tory in the first place!

What he does is totally irrational and just adds to the view that he is a fake. Its all very odd...

[KerrAvon]

If you're intent on reading Ian MacGregors book : ' enemy within ' here's a few hints....
It's naturally biased to the Government, why wouldn't it be. It has very little in it that actually tells why the strike happened or the implications of literally ending coal production and if you haven't done so already KerrAvon you ought to read....

Settling Scores : The Media, the Police and Miners Strike.
Be warned though it may come across as biased towards the Unions. It does reveal files of that strike and identified files that Governments don't usually want us to see.

Thanks for the recommendation. I will add it to my reading list.

Within my work, I am generally presented with two (or sometimes more) versions of the same incident and whilst it is generally not my job to try to determine which is accurate, I have to deal with bias and keep a weather eye on that in order to do my job.

[KerrAvon]

OK. So despite your lengthy and repeated arguments on here about the benefits of cutting corporation tax in order to stimulate economy, you still wouldn't vote for the party that makes cutting this tax a flagship policy? Why wouldn't you vote Conservative?

What do they have to do to get your vote? What would any party have to do to get your vote?

And I ask again, I understand your vitriol against the new Labour "10% plan". But what do giusto see as an alternative policy to address the UK's poor productivity performance. At least Labour are proposing an idea. What would you propose?

Have patience, raging. I will get to the Labour part nationalisation when I said I would. Patience shouldn't be too much to ask given that you joined in with MMM’s catty comments about me posting whilst on holiday (even if you did quickly think better of it and take your post down) .

Your comments about Corporation Tax are bizarre. Do you really take a look at a single aspect of policy and decide how to vote on that alone? If that were so, I would be voting Labour following their conference as I quite liked what they said about home insulation (climate change will only be addressed by dealing with both supply and demand), but that would mean be buying into the insanity of many of their other policies.

As I have also mentioned before, the situation for me is complicated by the identity of my sitting (Tory) MP, who is not someone who I could vote for under any circumstances, given my previous experiences of that person.

[KerrAvon]

He's not gonna answer is he pup? This is where his anonymity comes in. Everything he says on here every self respecting tory would back and yet he is not a tory voter. The gms, twincats, lastermans, sotas etc must think he is wonderful because he puts across their own tory views a lot better than they could.Well I say he should not only vote tory but also join the buggers as well!! Get yourself signed up for Mrs May and her boys Kerr. Lets make an honest man of you at least.

IF he is not a tory why doesn't he argue with the tories on here like he does the labour supporters ie being critical of tory policy as well. Or could he really be a tory but know that there is no way he could defend their policies which would make you wonder why he would be a tory in the first place!

What he does is totally irrational and just adds to the view that he is a fake. Its all very odd...

I’m not the BBC or Channel 4, Roly. I am not bound by principles of editorial impartiality. If I see lunacy in Labour policy, I will comment upon it. If you think I get it wrong, you should try arguing with me instead of trying to silence me.

[KerrAvon]

Here's the thing, once again your utter ignorance shines through, of course you're correct that mines have a finite amount of economically viable coal....that's a given....in the years prior to the strike pits closed,and through consultation with the unions terms agreed etc etc, the gov't abandoned all that and basically lied through their teeth when saying they were closing 22 pits(fact, as i've already told you) they went on to close them all, fact. When Silverwood closed it had been breaking production records year on year, indeed, it closed in 1994 at christmas, and had already made a huge profit up till then.....as had many others...your 'economic' argument is blown out of the water, you won't take no heed though will you, this was just miners, not barristers or lawyers, miners can't have rational sense can they??

Funny you mention twincat, a fellow tory, whose comments have been scrubbed from this thread, and who is always going to take the tory line, as gullible as you are.

There's no contradiction in my words, none whatsoever, t's pathetic of you to say so, there's no contradiction for me to say that i supported the strike and the future of the coal industry 34 years ago, but how things have changed globally in terms of climate change 34 years later and how i see it now, none whatsoever, times move on Kerr, though you're still in the 1970's arent you...

Ok. I’ve taken some time out to look for some figures, which wasn’t a quick job.

As I understand it, your position is that the pit closures that followed the strike were not carried out on economic grounds. Why do you think they were closed? The NUM was a spent force after 1985 and it is inconceivable that they could turn out the lights in the fashion that they had before.

As previously mentioned, the pit closures of the 80s followed many more closures over previous decades. It was an industry in decline – gas production from coal ended with the tapping of North Sea reserves. Iron and steel production in the UK were in decline:

In 1963, 63% of the energy used in the UK was derived from coal. By 1973 that figure had fallen to 37.6% and by 1983, it had reached 35.6%. And that is despite steps taken by the government to prop the industry up. In 1980 alone, the Thatcher government paid out £50m in subsidies to stop companies switching from coal to oil for their energy.

The profitability of coal had also fallen. In 1976/77 5 of the 12 NCB areas were loss making. By 79/80 that figure was up to 9 out of 12. By 1982/83, just two areas were in profit – North Notts and North Derbyshire (with only North Notts being consistently in profit). 75% of pits were loss making and the industry had to be propped up by the government to the tune of £875m - £2.3m per day – a lot of money in 1980s terms.

And all of the above has to be considered in light of the fact that the British coal market was rigged in favour of British miners. Whilst there was no actual legislation in place to force it to do so, the government had required the CEGB to enter into an agreement with the NCB whereunder 95% of the coal it used to generate electricity had to be from British mines. That is despite the fact that British coal was more expensive that coal available on the world market from Australia, South Africa and America.

I can’t see how anyone could really think the situation above could be allowed to continue. It makes no sense on any level unless the NCB was to be turned into a giant job creation scheme.

I am also not sure that there were any prospects of any consultation over closures in 1984. As you have noted earlier the thread, there had been change of management at the NUM, with the moderate Gormley being replaced by the not quite so moderate Scargill. No government could possibly provide the guarantee that no pits would be closed on economic grounds that he demanded. Couple that ridiculous demand with your admission that ‘miners don't back down’ and it is hard not to conclude that there was no room for any reasonable discussion.

I have looked at Silverwood and you are right, it was a gem amongst British mines. In 1982/3 it was highly productive and making a profit of £15.10 per tonne – significantly better that its nearest rival – Manton at £6.60 per tonne. To put those figures into context the worst performer in that year was Abertillery, which was losing at the rate of £63.10 per tonne. Despite that, the guarantee demanded by Scargill would have required that Abertillery be kept open….

I can’t find figures for the year that Silverwood was closed, but note that in effect, it was closed a part of a consolidation exercise, with the coal that was being mined from there being accessed from Maltby. You will be aware that Maltby was closed five years ago in 2013 in the light of adverse geological conditions.

On climate change, you should have been paying more attention to Mrs Thatcher:

https://theecologist.org/2018/aug/24...climate-change

Her speech to the UN in 1989 included:

We are seeing a vast increase in the amount of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere. The annual increase is three billion tonnes: and half the carbon emitted since the Industrial Revolution still remains in the atmosphere.

At the same time as this is happening, we are seeing the destruction on a vast scale of tropical forests which are uniquely able to remove carbon dioxide from the air.

Every year an area of forest equal to the whole surface of the United Kingdom is destroyed. At present rates of clearance we shall, by the year 2000, have removed 65 per cent of forests in the humid tropical zones.

The consequences of this become clearer when one remembers that tropical forests fix more than ten times as much carbon as do forests in the temperate zones...

Let me quote from a letter I received only two weeks ago, from a British scientist on board a ship in the Antarctic Ocean: he wrote, “In the Polar Regions today, we are seeing what may be early signs of man-induced climatic change. Data coming in from Halley Bay and from instruments aboard the ship on which I am sailing show that we are entering a Spring Ozone depletion which is as deep as, if not deeper, than the depletion in the worst year to date. It completely reverses the recovery observed in 1988. The lowest recording aboard this ship is only 150 Dobson units for Ozone total content during September, compared with 300 for the same season in a normal year.” That of course is a very severe depletion.

He also reports on a significant thinning of the sea ice, and he writes that, ''in the Antarctic, Our data confirm that the first-year ice, which forms the bulk of sea ice cover, is remarkably thin and so is probably unable to sustain significant atmospheric warming without melting. Sea ice, separates the ocean from the atmosphere over an area of more than 30 million square kilometres. It reflects most of the solar radiation falling on it, helping to cool the earth's surface. If this area were reduced, the warming of earth would be accelerated due to the extra absorption of radiation by the ocean.''

[millmoormagic]

Ok. I’ve taken some time out to look for some figures, which wasn’t a quick job.

As I understand it, your position is that the pit closures that followed the strike were not carried out on economic grounds. Why do you think they were closed? The NUM was a spent force after 1985 and it is inconceivable that they could turn out the lights in the fashion that they had before.

As previously mentioned, the pit closures of the 80s followed many more closures over previous decades. It was an industry in decline – gas production from coal ended with the tapping of North Sea reserves. Iron and steel production in the UK were in decline:

In 1963, 63% of the energy used in the UK was derived from coal. By 1973 that figure had fallen to 37.6% and by 1983, it had reached 35.6%. And that is despite steps taken by the government to prop the industry up. In 1980 alone, the Thatcher government paid out £50m in subsidies to stop companies switching from coal to oil for their energy.

The profitability of coal had also fallen. In 1976/77 5 of the 12 NCB areas were loss making. By 79/80 that figure was up to 9 out of 12. By 1982/83, just two areas were in profit – North Notts and North Derbyshire (with only North Notts being consistently in profit). 75% of pits were loss making and the industry had to be propped up by the government to the tune of £875m - £2.3m per day – a lot of money in 1980s terms.

And all of the above has to be considered in light of the fact that the British coal market was rigged in favour of British miners. Whilst there was no actual legislation in place to force it to do so, the government had required the CEGB to enter into an agreement with the NCB whereunder 95% of the coal it used to generate electricity had to be from British mines. That is despite the fact that British coal was more expensive that coal available on the world market from Australia, South Africa and America.

I can’t see how anyone could really think the situation above could be allowed to continue. It makes no sense on any level unless the NCB was to be turned into a giant job creation scheme.

I am also not sure that there were any prospects of any consultation over closures in 1984. As you have noted earlier the thread, there had been change of management at the NUM, with the moderate Gormley being replaced by the not quite so moderate Scargill. No government could possibly provide the guarantee that no pits would be closed on economic grounds that he demanded. Couple that ridiculous demand with your admission that ‘miners don't back down’ and it is hard not to conclude that there was no room for any reasonable discussion.

I have looked at Silverwood and you are right, it was a gem amongst British mines. In 1982/3 it was highly productive and making a profit of £15.10 per tonne – significantly better that its nearest rival – Manton at £6.60 per tonne. To put those figures into context the worst performer in that year was Abertillery, which was losing at the rate of £63.10 per tonne. Despite that, the guarantee demanded by Scargill would have required that Abertillery be kept open….

I can’t find figures for the year that Silverwood was closed, but note that in effect, it was closed a part of a consolidation exercise, with the coal that was being mined from there being accessed from Maltby. You will be aware that Maltby was closed five years ago in 2013 in the light of adverse geological conditions.

On climate change, you should have been paying more attention to Mrs Thatcher:

https://theecologist.org/2018/aug/24...climate-change

Her speech to the UN in 1989 included:

We are seeing a vast increase in the amount of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere. The annual increase is three billion tonnes: and half the carbon emitted since the Industrial Revolution still remains in the atmosphere.

At the same time as this is happening, we are seeing the destruction on a vast scale of tropical forests which are uniquely able to remove carbon dioxide from the air.

Every year an area of forest equal to the whole surface of the United Kingdom is destroyed. At present rates of clearance we shall, by the year 2000, have removed 65 per cent of forests in the humid tropical zones.

The consequences of this become clearer when one remembers that tropical forests fix more than ten times as much carbon as do forests in the temperate zones...

Let me quote from a letter I received only two weeks ago, from a British scientist on board a ship in the Antarctic Ocean: he wrote, “In the Polar Regions today, we are seeing what may be early signs of man-induced climatic change. Data coming in from Halley Bay and from instruments aboard the ship on which I am sailing show that we are entering a Spring Ozone depletion which is as deep as, if not deeper, than the depletion in the worst year to date. It completely reverses the recovery observed in 1988. The lowest recording aboard this ship is only 150 Dobson units for Ozone total content during September, compared with 300 for the same season in a normal year.” That of course is a very severe depletion.

He also reports on a significant thinning of the sea ice, and he writes that, ''in the Antarctic, Our data confirm that the first-year ice, which forms the bulk of sea ice cover, is remarkably thin and so is probably unable to sustain significant atmospheric warming without melting. Sea ice, separates the ocean from the atmosphere over an area of more than 30 million square kilometres. It reflects most of the solar radiation falling on it, helping to cool the earth's surface. If this area were reduced, the warming of earth would be accelerated due to the extra absorption of radiation by the ocean.''

Firstly, lauding over something Thatcher said about climate change in 1989 while supportig fracking makes you a massive hypocrite, plainly.
To add, i find it absolutely atrocious that Thatcher, who was in a position to do something about it even then, did absolutely nowt, cheap words from a cheap tory....

Once again you're using bluff and bluster, covering your tracks in bull, (sorry if thats comes across as catty) i'll address the points hidden among the stockpile of blah....

"British coal was more expensive than Australian, South African and American"

Correct, it also had much less blood on it due to union won safety procedures, and union won conditions, British mines were as safe as they could be, that came at a cost, in the UK that cost was monetary, in those other country's that cost came as human deaths and injury, happy with that then Kerr, happy that if it's cheap it doesn't matter how dangerous it is to those who dug it, typical of a tory that, typical of the workhouse mentality you want us to go back to, pathetic.

One last thing about profitability in coal mines, in many pits they could be profitable for 5 years then hit geological problems affecting profitability, those geological problems wernt endless in most cases, you had to work through them to get back on track, suited the tories to claim all sorts though didn't it, i see they're still flannelling the ignorant gullibles...

[ragingpup]

Have patience, raging. I will get to the Labour part nationalisation when I said I would. Patience shouldn't be too much to ask given that you joined in with MMM’s catty comments about me posting whilst on holiday (even if you did quickly think better of it and take your post down) .

Your comments about Corporation Tax are bizarre. Do you really take a look at a single aspect of policy and decide how to vote on that alone? If that were so, I would be voting Labour following their conference as I quite liked what they said about home insulation (climate change will only be addressed by dealing with both supply and demand), but that would mean be buying into the insanity of many of their other policies.

As I have also mentioned before, the situation for me is complicated by the identity of my sitting (Tory) MP, who is not someone who I could vote for under any circumstances, given my previous experiences of that person.

OK Kerr. So far, so shifty. Leaving aside your dislike for your local Conservative mp, what Conservative policies do you dislike and would stop you voting for them on a more general scale?

Please be really clear because I'm an idiot...

I do appreciate your point that anyone's vote is worth more than a single issue such as corporation tax but you put such repeated emphasis in so many posts, and with such, erm, "enthusiasm" it does seem hard to believe that this wouldn't be a huge factor in winning your vote.

So fair play, I'll buy it. Tell us about the tory manifesto policies that stopped you voting for them?

And of course I am very much looking forward to your alternative ideas in solving the UK productivity problem as identified above.

[Exiletyke]

OK Kerr. So far, so shifty. Leaving aside your dislike for your local Conservative mp, what Conservative policies do you dislike and would stop you voting for them on a more general scale?

Please be really clear because I'm an idiot...

I do appreciate your point that anyone's vote is worth more than a single issue such as corporation tax but you put such repeated emphasis in so many posts, and with such, erm, "enthusiasm" it does seem hard to believe that this wouldn't be a huge factor in winning your vote.

So fair play, I'll buy it. Tell us about the tory manifesto policies that stopped you voting for them?

And of course I am very much looking forward to your alternative ideas in solving the UK productivity problem as identified above.

@Kerr
Patience shouldn't be too much to ask given that you joined in with MMM’s catty comments about me posting whilst on holiday (even if you did quickly think better of it and take your post down)



And he says I stalk him

[KerrAvon]

Firstly, lauding over something Thatcher said about climate change in 1989 while supportig fracking makes you a massive hypocrite, plainly.
To add, i find it absolutely atrocious that Thatcher, who was in a position to do something about it even then, did absolutely nowt, cheap words from a cheap tory....

Once again you're using bluff and bluster, covering your tracks in bull, (sorry if thats comes across as catty) i'll address the points hidden among the stockpile of blah....

"British coal was more expensive than Australian, South African and American"

Correct, it also had much less blood on it due to union won safety procedures, and union won conditions, British mines were as safe as they could be, that came at a cost, in the UK that cost was monetary, in those other country's that cost came as human deaths and injury, happy with that then Kerr, happy that if it's cheap it doesn't matter how dangerous it is to those who dug it, typical of a tory that, typical of the workhouse mentality you want us to go back to, pathetic.

One last thing about profitability in coal mines, in many pits they could be profitable for 5 years then hit geological problems affecting profitability, those geological problems wernt endless in most cases, you had to work through them to get back on track, suited the tories to claim all sorts though didn't it, i see they're still flannelling the ignorant gullibles...

Could Thatcher have done more on climate change? Probably, but you have to bear in mind that the science was fairly new in 1989. In addition, you have to bear in mind that she was gone a year or so after giving the UN speech, as not being a very nice person caught up with her in the form of Geoffrey Howe. Perhaps she would have done more had she stayed in post. Trying to stay calm for ten seconds and trying to be objective in your response, had she survived the coup within the party and announced an accelerated pit closure programme to help to address climate change in say, the early 90s, would you have supported that or would you have denounced the science as a Tory trick and pushed for another strike?

On the question of doing more to address climate change, this site has recently seen a poster saying that he could easily do more, but declining to do so. I also noted your comments about pies on the 'Is football fixed' thread. Are the pies you enjoy climate friendly vegetarian ones?

The ‘bluff and bluster’ are figures coming from NCB accounts and from a Monopoly and Mergers Commission investigation into the coal industry. The industry was losing money hand over fist. That had to be addressed.

I agree that coal from South Africa would have been a concern given that country was an apartheid regime at the time, but Australia and America? Come on.

I agree that geological problems were not necessarily endless, but the Tories had nothing to do with the decision to close Maltby. It was owned at the time by Hargreaves Services Ltd, who had shelled out £21.7m for it in 2007. It wasn't an asset that they would lightly dispose off. Indeed, their share price took a serious kicking in the face of the problems:

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...ion-hitch.html

Your concerns that it could suit the Tories to cite geological problems bring me back to the question I asked earlier; if you think economic reasons were not behind the ending of the mining industry in the UK, what do you think was?