It's all Thatchers fault.

Rochdale_Pioneers

stephen163 wrote: »

The UK produces about a third of the coal it uses (around 20m tonnes) and imports the rest (about 43m tonnes). This is the most economic thing to do. A lot of people ignore that the UK was practically self sufficient for coal until the late 90's, i.e., we produced what we needed, but did not export. How can we export coal when the wholesale price is less than our producion costs? Should the taxpayer, from a moral standing, really be expected to cover the shortfall so 170,000 coal miners can stay in their job?.

Market forces should decide if we mine coal or not, not a perverse system of social wefare.

We aren't talking about export are we? We're talking about the 43m tonnes of coal we now have to import because "market forces" dictated that its cheaper to ship coal from Brazil than to dig it up next to the power station. The situation we have now is economically illiterate and a national disaster for our energy policy.

Firstly, there is NO free market. The coal we buy from abroad is subsidised. If we offer non-subsidised coal up against subsidised coal of course ours will be more expensive! And what is the cost of losing control over energy policy? Coal and gas are thanks to "market forces" now something we have to import, having burned the gas in record time in order to generate profits for the foreigners who own our industry, and having locked away the coal. If we want to burn more gas, we're reliant on uninterrupted supply from Russia and a price we can afford - neither is attainable. If we want to bun more coal we're reliant on supplies from elsewhere - again with a price that we have to pay regardless of how much it rises. That leaves us with more nuclear or renewables - the "free market" has us over a barrel.

JayScottGreenspan

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

I like Frank Field he is one of the few honest MP's imo.

He is for welfare reform - one of the things he wants is a 2 tier benefits system for the unemployed, one rate for those that have worked all of their lives and paid into the system for 10, 20, 30 years and a lower rate for those who have never paid into the system.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/18/welfare-unemployment-and-employment-statistics

I'd vote for that too.

baileysbattlebus

stephen163 wrote: »

Banks are like the police force or the fire service, a country need them. The developed world's banking system has collapsed, nationalisation is a necessary evil as a temporary fix before a better regulatory framework is in place.

Coal is different. You can pick it up on the open market for wholesale price.



Social implications of coal? We can discuss that but you can't have it all your own way. Coal is a massive pollutant and its market price is set ridiculously low compared to the true cost it imposes on society. I could go on...



First fact is that the profitable mines did stay open. Second fact is that there was absolutely nothing stopping the prvate sector getting involved. If coal, as you say, was so profitable, why didn't a large mining company step in to exploit this pot of gold? The fact is, comparative advantages in other countries mean that no amount of investment would make coal viable in most of the mines. Now, the scenario is different because the price has skyrocketed...and, as you would expect, the private sector and expressing interest in re-opening the mines. This is the free market at work.



Where did you get billions from? The UK produces about a third of the coal it uses (around 20m tonnes) and imports the rest (about 43m tonnes). This is the most economic thing to do. A lot of people ignore that the UK was practically self sufficient for coal until the late 90's, i.e., we produced what we needed, but did not export. How can we export coal when the wholesale price is less than our producion costs? Should the taxpayer, from a moral standing, really be expected to cover the shortfall so 170,000 coal miners can stay in their job?.

Market forces should decide if we mine coal or not, not a perverse system of social wefare.

Do not blame Thatcher for the decline in British coal or manufacturing, bame the global economy, blame the private sector for allocating resources efficiently....

You are quite right you can pick up coal on the open market. Infact we pick up over half of our imports from Russia, some from China and some from Columbia amongst other places.

I don't particularly want to discuss the social cost of coal - I was alluding to the social cost of mining closures on communities as I am sure you are aware.

But there is a social cost to coal, the conditions and safety records of some the countries we import from are shocking. In the Ukraine there are about 7 deaths per million tonnes, in China it is 4 and Columbia use child labour. The last time the UK saw 4 deaths per million tonnes was the 1920's. Life is cheap in some countries. You are quite correct that is the free market working.

No where did I say British coal was profitable - what I said was we have plenty of coal - which we do.

And I'm sure in the future we will use it.

And I meant to type millions of tonnes not billions - sorry.

bo_drinker

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

I'd vote for that too.

Me too, the scum need sorting out it's 3rd and maybe 4th generation now. Needs nipping in the bud.:mad:

Rochdale_Pioneers

The welfare state was never intended to be a means of sustaining an underclass of dossers. The problem with taking benefits away from the scroungers is that you punish their kids as well. There has to be a way to ensure they stay fed and healthy if we took benefits/housing off the dossers?

marklv

tomterm8 wrote: »

Hmph, he lost us our empire.

Intelligent observation. He should have ignored AH and let him fight it out with the Commies. Then we'd have been sitting pretty while the guys in the east beat their own faces out and destroyed their economies in the process.

marklv

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

I'd vote for that too.

I would prefer a system where people could pay more into the state system and then get more out when they needed to claim.

marklv

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

The welfare state was never intended to be a means of sustaining an underclass of dossers. The problem with taking benefits away from the scroungers is that you punish their kids as well. There has to be a way to ensure they stay fed and healthy if we took benefits/housing off the dossers?

Yes - the workhouse. Most of these kids will soon become juvenile delinquents, so it's best to get them working as early as possible. The devil makes work for idle hands.

olly300

marklv wrote: »

Yes - the workhouse. Most of these kids will soon become juvenile delinquents, so it's best to get them working as early as possible. The devil makes work for idle hands.

In what jobs?

Those are the sort of kids who would have done manual labour with pride, and that includes dangerous and poorly paid jobs like fishing and mining.

WhiteThierry

olly300 wrote: »

In what jobs?

Those are the sort of kids who would have done manual labour with pride, and that includes dangerous and poorly paid jobs like fishing and mining.

i dunno about fishing, but i was under the impression mining was quite well paid, because of the dangers, any ex miners on here???