Grangemouth dispute: Ineos says petrochemical plant will close

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

Yes indeed that would have been a good idea.

Maybe if huge sums of money weren't being spent policing riots every day then thought could have been expended on other things

Maybe Thatcher should have invited Scargill to tea and biscuits to chat over things and come to an amicable agreement.

Maybe some-one could have encouraged Honda or Toyota to open factories here .. things like that you mean?

Maybe if Maggie was so intent on destroying the NUM and enter reasonable discussions all of that could have been avoided.

If you were a miner would have been happy to lose your job with no chance of another and just held yours arms up and said fair enough.

Loughton_Monkey

ukcarper wrote: »

Maybe if Maggie was so intent on destroying the NUM and enter reasonable discussions all of that could have been avoided.

If you were a miner would have been happy to lose your job with no chance of another and just held yours arms up and said fair enough.

As I recall, the NUM members had no say in it. Bullied and dictated to by Scargill, the sensible ones drifted away to the Union of Democratic Mineworkers - a union with which the government could negotiate.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

Maybe if Maggie was so intent on destroying the NUM and enter reasonable discussions all of that could have been avoided.

If you were a miner would have been happy to lose your job with no chance of another and just held yours arms up and said fair enough.

You still long for the days when nearly everyone worked on the land and there were no tractors or mechanical seed sowers or harvesters?

I'm sure many people were displaced and disadvantaged when technology or changing economics caused job loses. This continues today and I'm sure will continue for the foreseeable future.

We adapt or decline and die: the world doesn't wait for us.

I don't think the 'solution ' is to resist change and strike.

If you truely believe that Scargill would have entered meaningful negotiations (say like in 1974 or 1983) then so beit: many would find that difficult to credit that he would have agreed to major job loses.

MFW_ASAP

CLAPTON wrote: »

You still long for the days when nearly everyone worked on the land and there were no tractors or mechanical seed sowers or harvesters?

I'm sure many people were displaced and disadvantaged when technology or changing economics caused job loses. This continues today and I'm sure will continue for the foreseeable future.

We adapt or decline and die: the world doesn't wait for us.

I don't think the 'solution ' is to resist change and strike.

I guess it depends on whether the change in direction is the correct one. The government decided to close pits and coal fired power stations and move to natural gas. Now we are in the position where we might end up with rolling blackouts and a huge investment in Nuclear that won't come online for a decade.

Had we instead invested in technologies to store carbon (much safer than storing plutonium) then we could have secured our energy supplies and been world leaders in carbon storage technologies, something that China with its vast coal reserves would have been very interested in acquiring.

Perhaps the miners were right all along and we should have found a way to work with the natural resources we have, rather than decimating an industry and the towns that relied on that industry to use an energy source that is now in short supply. We have enough coal for 300 years, and that's with just proven reserves.

CLAPTON

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

I guess it depends on whether the change in direction is the correct one. The government decided to close pits and coal fired power stations and move to natural gas. Now we are in the position where we might end up with rolling blackouts and a huge investment in Nuclear that won't come online for a decade.

Had we instead invested in technologies to store carbon (much safer than storing plutonium) then we could have secured our energy supplies and been world leaders in carbon storage technologies, something that China with its vast coal reserves would have been very interested in acquiring.

Perhaps the miners were right all along and we should have found a way to work with the natural resources we have, rather than decimating an industry and the towns that relied on that industry to use an energy source that is now in short supply. We have enough coal for 300 years, and that's with just proven reserves.

Certainly can't fault the logic that if things were different then they would be different.

If we have SUCCESSFULLY found a cost effective way of storing carbon

or if we had found a way of using nuclear fusion

or if we had found a way of storing bulk electricity

or capturing better solar power

or invested in better insulation for houses

or invested in technology of the future and now owned Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Twitter etc

or invested in mobile phone and flat screen technology
etc

then indeed life would have been different:


However, producing UK coal was (is) not cost effective and we would still have closed the pits and imported coal just as we do today.

The government didn't decide to close down pits; it decided to stop subsidising them: miners, unions, private businesses were completely free to buy and run the pits : as indeed did happen to some extent until the last significant pit was closed this year.


If in the future, UK coal becomes a cost effective energy solution and replaces gas then I expect you will on this board arguing that no jobs in the gas industry should be lost because people lives will be affected etc etc.

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

Certainly can't fault the logic that if things were different then they would be different.

If we have SUCCESSFULLY found a cost effective way of storing carbon

or if we had found a way of using nuclear fusion

or if we had found a way of storing bulk electricity

or capturing better solar power

or invested in better insulation for houses

or invested in technology of the future and now owned Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Twitter etc

or invested in mobile phone and flat screen technology
etc

then indeed life would have been different:


However, producing UK coal was (is) not cost effective and we would still have closed the pits and imported coal just as we do today.

The government didn't decide to close down pits; it decided to stop subsidising them: miners, unions, private businesses were completely free to buy and run the pits : as indeed did happen to some extent until the last significant pit was closed this year.


If in the future, UK coal becomes a cost effective energy solution and replaces gas then I expect you will on this board arguing that no jobs in the gas industry should be lost because people lives will be affected etc etc.

Twitter what aworthwhile medium.

grizzly1911

antrobus wrote: »

I believe that Clapton is referring to the fact that Wilson closed more pits than Thatcher.:)

Perhaps they were simply empty or virtually empty makes closure more acceptable.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

You still long for the days when nearly everyone worked on the land and there were no tractors or mechanical seed sowers or harvesters?

I'm sure many people were displaced and disadvantaged when technology or changing economics caused job loses. This continues today and I'm sure will continue for the foreseeable future.

We adapt or decline and die: the world doesn't wait for us.

I don't think the 'solution ' is to resist change and strike.

If you truely believe that Scargill would have entered meaningful negotiations (say like in 1974 or 1983) then so beit: many would find that difficult to credit that he would have agreed to major job loses.

You might feel different if it was you losing your job with no chance of another.

And stop letting your imagination run away with itself I worked in an industry were the workforce was dramatically reduced by new technology we a had strong union presents but the technology was introduce with in the main part cooperation from the union and it's members.

ukcarper

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

As I recall, the NUM members had no say in it. Bullied and dictated to by Scargill, the sensible ones drifted away to the Union of Democratic Mineworkers - a union with which the government could negotiate.

Do you really think that Scargill could bully a load of rough tough miners perhaps he just pandere to their needs and tried to use them for his own agenda.

MFW_ASAP

CLAPTON wrote: »

Certainly can't fault the logic that if things were different then they would be different.

If we have SUCCESSFULLY found a cost effective way of storing carbon

or if we had found a way of using nuclear fusion

or if we had found a way of storing bulk electricity

or capturing better solar power

or invested in better insulation for houses

or invested in technology of the future and now owned Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Twitter etc

or invested in mobile phone and flat screen technology
etc

then indeed life would have been different:


However, producing UK coal was (is) not cost effective and we would still have closed the pits and imported coal just as we do today.

The government didn't decide to close down pits; it decided to stop subsidising them: miners, unions, private businesses were completely free to buy and run the pits : as indeed did happen to some extent until the last significant pit was closed this year.


If in the future, UK coal becomes a cost effective energy solution and replaces gas then I expect you will on this board arguing that no jobs in the gas industry should be lost because people lives will be affected etc etc.

Clearly you think that it was the right decision to move away from coal to natural gas. I wonder if you'll still have that view in 10 years time.

A major weakness of democracies is the short-termism of decisions. For something as long-term as securing energy supplies, perhaps politicians aren't the best placed to make these decisions. Nor should a country's life-blood be left to the tender mercies of private enterprise.