Guest Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 Remind me again, Grinder. Why did we stop digging COAL out of the ground? Did we run out of COAL? Did we run out of skilled people capable of digging COAL out of the ground? Did the government ban COAL? Or did KING COAL say "You have to do it on MY terms and if you don't - you can't have any."? He lost. And he cost a lot of people their jobs. The Nation didn't elect Arthur Scargill (and I doubt that the NUM would've made him 'president for life' had they been given an informed vote.) The person who killed coal (and cost many people their livelihoods) was Scargill. - He wasn't a 'hero '- he was a tosser. We stopped digging coal because, Thatcher fell for the classic ruse of Eastern Europe and Russia selling coal cheaper than we could dig it - they waited until we closed our industry and then put the price up. She also wanted to make an example of the Miners Union because the unions were the only organisations who stopped her doing exactly as she pleased. Those skilled people, who did a dangerous, dirty, and extremely hard & heavy job, were thrown on the scrap heap by Thatcher - the domino effect from that, threw out more skilled people in many other industries but Thatcher, who cared only about money and decided that "unemployment was a price worth paying" got her way and re-started the development of an underclass which the unions had fought for years to get rid of - the underclass which is growing again now. Scargill simply fought for good pay and conditions for the miners in recognition of the kind of job they did. Reflect on the fact that the MP's who backed her were on comparatively handsome salaries & pensions backed up by massive subsidies, and never got their hands dirty. They didn't (and still don't) know what a good days work means. Who was worth more to this country? Scargill didn't kill coal - Thatcher was determined to do that, with or without his help. Your statement about the NUM vote is your own fanciful conjecture. I was there, had friends in the coal industry and know the proper story. Where were you at the time? What do you know about hard, heavy and dangerous work? For a man who seems to have lived for 5 minutes in every country on this planet, you seem to be very well informed, or did it come from the Tory newspapers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 I am more now than I was before the election I don't think for one minute that the conservatives represent 100% of my political views, but I not so blinkered to defend my chosen political party without question. There are some policies I do not agree without on the whole, the conservatives are the best fit for my views, therefore I am a Tory and proud of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandad.Malky Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 Boris wants at least 50% of the union membership to vote, for a strike ballot to be valid. If the unions are confident their membership will back the leaderships' strike plans, this should not bother them. I assume Boris would be happy to stand town if 50% of Londoners didn’t vote in the election for his position. In any kind of election a abstentions go with the outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 Boris wants at least 50% of the union membership to vote, for a strike ballot to be valid. If the unions are confident their membership will back the leaderships' strike plans, this should not bother them. Good idea from Boris - by the same token, we should also have governments who have been elected by 50% of the people eligible to vote - every government we get, have been voted in by a minority - no doubt Boris was too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 To be replaced by what ……………. Oh ya. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8014295.stm Seen any of these new-fangled clean coal stations yet? Oh, it was just a political soundbite? Conventional thermal plants continue to provide the bulk of the electricity supply in the UK. According to the DECC, conventional thermal generation in 2009 consisted of natural gas (44 percent), coal (28 percent), oil (1 percent), and other (1 percent). The long-term trend in UK power generation has been a move from coal-fired plants to combined-cycle, gas-fired turbines (CCGFT). As a result, according to UK’s Department of Energy and Climate Change, electricity generation from CCGFTs increased from zero in 1989 to 161 Bkwh in 2009. My bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandad.Malky Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 A political sound bite Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh don’t tell any one . Coal-fired power stations win reprieveExclusive: Government's decision to put pollution standards 'on hold' raises possibility of dirtiest coal plants going ahead The coalition is watering down a commitment to tough new environmental emissions standards, raising the possibility of dirty coal-fired power stations such as Kingsnorth going ahead. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/15/coal-fired-power-stations-coalition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 We hardly have any oil left and we hardly have any gas left. If we rely on imports, we have no choice in how much we are going to pay for it. Oil is going to run out completely one day. Gas is going to run out completely one day. WE HAVE 400 YEARS OF COAL RESERVES IN THE UK! Successive governments have refused to invest enough money in clean burn technology but will have to face up to it eventually. What's YOUR alternative? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 I assume Boris would be happy to stand town if 50% of Londoners didn’t vote in the election for his position. In any kind of election a abstentions go with the outcome. Good idea from Boris - by the same token, we should also have governments who have been elected by 50% of the people eligible to vote - every government we get, have been voted in by a minority - no doubt Boris was too. The fundamental differences being that they are on a paid up list of members, mailed directly with a ballott paper to return by post, and voting on a yes or no issue. If +50% are indifferent to strike action, that should not be enough to inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 A political sound bite Indeed. In 2008 and by none other than Ed Milliband (according to your first link). http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/15/coal-fired-power-stations-coalitionIt's nothing the Libs and Cons didn't already warn about whilst still in opposition at the time. It's a bit rich, blaming the LibCons for failing to implement Labour's pipe dreams (especially when they denounced it for what it was at the time), don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandad.Malky Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 The fundamental differences being that they are on a paid up list of members, mailed directly with a ballott paper to return by post, and voting on a yes or no issue. What fundamentally different about that, if strike action is considered all those involved have to be balloted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.