Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Miners Strike

mrtambourineman said:
Surely most people now accept the coal industry in Britain would have come to an end at some point in the last 30 years, however it was played.

We all accept that, don't we?
Click to expand...
no we fucking well do NOT.
There is actually quite a bit more coal than that. just not coal which can be mined 'economically' i.e. at a profit.
screw profit. this is a national asset. Let's get it out. it's not like we're overladen with energy assets.
 
there were a lot of torys didn't consider coal a secure engergy source with the NUM a militant union prone to strikes baseing the energy needs of the nation on a resource that could be turned off did'nt make much sense.
 
likesfish said:
there were a lot of torys didn't consider coal a secure engergy source with the NUM a militant union prone to strikes baseing the energy needs of the nation on a resource that could be turned off did'nt make much sense.
Click to expand...

Your thesis is made a nonsense of by the fact that we're now hostage to gas and oil imports for power generation, and at prices whose fluctuation we can't control (which we could do with domestically-mined coal.

The tories may have acted as you say, but the facts don't really support anything more than them wrecking the miners for purely ideological reasons rather than economic reasons.
 
Red Jezza said:
no we fucking well do NOT.
There is actually quite a bit more coal than that. just not coal which can be mined 'economically' i.e. at a profit.
screw profit. this is a national asset. Let's get it out. it's not like we're overladen with energy assets.
Click to expand...

But it's not just a question of saying "screw profit", is it? I don't think it would even break even. If it costs more, in terms of paying the men's wages and for all the machinery etc used in mining it, than the resulting coal can be sold for, who is to pay the difference? The government? (i.e. everyone, through taxes)

When it makes economic sense to mine it (which will happen in time as cheaper resources get used up), I'm sure it will be mined. Until then, there's no point.

Giles..
 
Red Jezza said:
crap. If you believe in bairirte social democracy, then - and only then - has that piece any value

There is actually quite a bit more coal than that. just not coal which can be mined 'economically' i.e. at a profit.
screw profit. this is a national asset. Let's get it out. it's not like we're overladen with energy assets.
Click to expand...

I believe strongly in Social Democracy, under Blair or otherwise. I don't think spending govt money to subsidise unprofitable mines is the best way to create jobs.

Anyway, without wanting to derail this thread totally,in a line, your alternative to social demcocracy would be.....???
 
mrtambourineman said:
I believe strongly in Social Democracy, under Blair or otherwise. I don't think spending govt money to subsidise unprofitable mines is the best way to create jobs.
Click to expand...
The problem is that "unprofitable" is a somewhat flexible concept.
What was "unprofitable" 20 yrs ago, when we could buy dirty lignite for a few quid a tonne from South America and the Eastern Bloc, may not be "unprofitable" now in the face of far stricter environmental regulation, rising prices on oil and gas imports, and little possiblity of filling the power gap via nuclear generation.
Perhaps if a little money had been spent "mothballing" rather than closing mines...
But hey, that wouldn't be "profitable", would it?
 
mrtambourineman said:
But would you seriously want to go back to a world where all men went down the mine, and all women were stay-at-home housewives.

(not saying the whole thing wasn't handled in an appalling way, but that world *had* to die, was already dying 20 years ago)
Click to expand...

The world has it existed then and is now is imposed from without. If the miners and the womens support groups (ahead of the miners at the most crucial times) had won a victory, then the outcome would be progressive - no going back and certainly not dead.
 
ViolentPanda said:
The problem is that "unprofitable" is a somewhat flexible concept.
What was "unprofitable" 20 yrs ago, when we could buy dirty lignite for a few quid a tonne from South America and the Eastern Bloc, may not be "unprofitable" now in the face of far stricter environmental regulation, rising prices on oil and gas imports, and little possiblity of filling the power gap via nuclear generation.
Perhaps if a little money had been spent "mothballing" rather than closing mines...
But hey, that wouldn't be "profitable", would it?
Click to expand...

I would agree that the mines should have been "mothballed" so as to minimise the cost of future re-opening.

The way things are going with oil prices and worries over stability of gas supplies, it may not be long before more home-produced coal is needed.

Giles..
 
mrtambourineman said:
I believe strongly in Social Democracy, under Blair or otherwise. I don't think spending govt money to subsidise unprofitable mines is the best way to create jobs.

Anyway, without wanting to derail this thread totally,in a line, your alternative to social democracy would be.....???
Click to expand...

It's interesting that you make a link with Blair and social democracy. I say that because Blair has been instrumental in expunging any idea of social and democracy from the Labour Party.
 
I got one text from an old mate and ex-miner.
‘I see Scotland are pardoning the miners for stuff during the strike? It will never happen here, they will hound us to our graves.’
This lad spent six weeks in Armley, he was arrested on the picket line for affray, he was given bail on condition he didn’t return to any picket line. He managed a week before he was arrested again and promptly sent to Armley. He was sacked soon after the strike was over for allegedly assaulting a scab at work.
No justice for the miners, they won’t even contemplate an Orgreave Inquiry.
I would be hearing a lot more if I was working at the moment. I work near Goldthorpe alongside many ex-miners.
 
Last edited:
Streathamite said:
no we fucking well do NOT.
There is actually quite a bit more coal than that. just not coal which can be mined 'economically' i.e. at a profit.
screw profit. this is a national asset. Let's get it out. it's not like we're overladen with energy assets.
Click to expand...

Seriously? Coal is a national asset to be used?
 
platinumsage said:
Yes, just like during the 1980s, some people believe we should permanently mine coal at a massive loss just so we can employ miners. Perhaps when the coal has run out we can switch them to mining random rocks.
Click to expand...

OK, we dig it out. What then? In striving for a carbon neutral society there really is no place for coal.

We have gas on standby, but even that is being used as sparingly as possible.

For me, biomass is the problematic one. How can something which absorbed carbon fifty years age, and releasing it now, be described as 'carbon neutral'?

4QiXz8G.jpg
 
You are quoting a fifteen year old post.
We just import coal from the opposite side of the planet, well this week.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Wilf
Durham Miners 2025
Replies
24
Views
898
charlie mowbray
C
Bingoman
Autumn of Strikes?
Replies
4
Views
190
danny la rouge
danny la rouge
kebabking
Multiple stabbings at Synagogue in Greater Manchester 02/10/25
28 29 30 31 32
Replies
939
Views
27K
Flavour
Flavour
tim
  • Poll Poll
Who will replace Keir Starmer as Prime Minister and Labour leader?
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
196
Views
6K
Elpenor
Elpenor
ElizabethofYork
Met Police to Stop Non-Crime Hate Investigations
2 3
Replies
84
Views
1K
A380
A380
Back
Top Bottom