I'm still waiting for you so-called facts to show that Thatch hasn't anything to do with the present problem.

I refer you to:
Who closed mines that had tonnes of coal left, making it impossible to reach it now?
Who privatised the leccy, and gas?
Who allowed them to be sold to foreign competitors?
Whose government was the first to come up with so-called global warming and so precipitated the greeny policies?

Hmmmm? No knee-jerk commentsd there, just a hatred of the witch that started it all.

Now get back and grovel to her shrine, you Tory.......

 

can you give examples of other countries/economies that allow the sale of important infrastructure assets to foreign owned companies in the same scale as the UK

 

The whole flooded mine thing - *surely* its got to be easier to drain/pump an existing mine than find other new resources - I mean they were kept relatively dry for years whilst they were being worked.... so surely a few pumps, a big **** off hose and a year or two should see it pretty dry .... or am I missing something here?

 

I don't know, but look at it this way. If the area shown in the photograph here (for example) https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...levant_count=1 is full of water, along with miles and miles of other roadways, that's a lot of water. Old working were sealed off, in some cases with sandbags and walls IIRC - how do you know what's behind the wall if you wish to reopen it?

In a new mine, I doubt you'll never hit an open space like that, and thus no nasty surprises, except of course, the last mine to close in the North East, but that mentions old workings again.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/4208195.stm

 

And if Thatcher did nothing with the miners union, as was the case with the previous Governments, and the coal mines were still open, how do you think the UK would look today? How could we have sustained such costly industry bearing in mind the first clean burn power station appeared in 2008. Should the country be be governed by an elected power or by an unelected power.

Looking back at the state of the economy pre-Thatcher era, how was this country going to drag itself out the mire it was stuck in? Remember the UK was in a dire state with a stagnent ecomony and was the "sick man of Europe". Our ailing manufacturing industry was uncompetitive, unprofitable and was goverened by powerful unions who did nothing but in the interest for themselves.

Where else was the investment going to come from? Do you think it could have come from within the UK given the state of the economy.

Have a read up on the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and tell me if this was of no benefit. Global warming was only small part of the problem at the time. More pressing was general atmospheric and evironmental pollution and waste disposal. Remember acid rain (produced from burning coal!) and CFC's and ozone depletion?

I'm genuinely interested in your responce, no ad hominem, just a civilisted and a mature discussion.

 

1. Look if you make a contention it is up to you to back it up.
2. If coal is uneconomic to extract it wont get extracted, do you understand that simple point?
3. Conservative Gvmt. Whats your point? Are you saying state run industries are better than privately owned. That experiment has been tried and the results are in. Answer: State FAIL
4. Conservative Gvmt. But what's your point? Is somehow UK ownership different to foreign? It is a heavily regulated industry, that cant just do what they want, so ownership i.e who holds the shares in the company makes naff all difference
5. Yes MT did first mention it, but again context is important, as she later went on to say how it became clear it was a load of tosh and debunked it

And Im a UKIP guy thx!

 

Why is that relevant to anything?

 

you seemed to suggest that someone articulating the view that national infrastructure assets should, where possible, remain in national hands, was not living in the real world

the inference then, surely, is that this model of national asset ownership is not widely used, since people proposing it are living in cloud cuckoo land

I simply asked, in light of the above, if you can give examples of other countries/economies that allow the sale of important infrastructure assets to foreign owned companies in the same scale as the UK as done.

since it must be the dominant model for national asset ownership

That’s all

 

No arguments that SOMETHING had to be done with the miners, and other, unions.

But I stand firm in that what she did was too much and driven by spite.

In what other CIVILISED country is it illegal to withdraw your labour if a judge says so?

Yes, we should be governed by an elected power, but don't let's go there. Her government had no more mandate to do the things they did than Bliar's or the one we now have. They represent less than half the population......


I agree...but had she done something about the unions and stopped, we might now be in a better position.


I don't know...but I still maintain that to sell to our competitors was foolishness.

OUR leccy is dearer than the stuff I buy in France...from EDF.

OUR trainsd are WAY dearer than those run in GERMANY by DB.

So where do you think the profits are going?


I'm sorry, I have NO time for the bunkum that I see is Global Warming, Climate Change etc. My feet are, and will remain, firmly in the "it's bullsh!t" camp.

And as for a country the size of ours doing so much, when countries the size of India, China and the USA do little.....well, see above.

We've done something about acid rain. We could have done something else with coal. But it won't happen now.

And when the Germans are laughing at us from their warm, well-lit homes as we sit in the dark, watching our factories close because they want to move to where power ISN'T rationed, what then? because the Germans ARE building more coal-fired power stations.

 

1. I did.
2. It wasn't, she made it so.
3. No, but as asked elsewhere, who else would be soft enough to sell our state industries to competitor countries?
4. See above. It is when THEY use THEIR profits to subsidise their own country.
5. Immaterial...she laid the foundation for the lies that have been milking us as taxpayers for years and continue to do so.

 

Thatcher was the only PM to have the ***** to deal with the militant Unions was an unelected power that was literally holding successive Governments to ransom and was crippling and destroying the country and the economy. One could also argue this was also done out of spite. In any case she succeeded where many others had failed before her. Last I heard it is still legal to strike in this country, nothing has changed on that front. Is this country not in a better position without the militancy of the Unions? And at what point would it have been good point to stop? Do you really think Scargill would have stopped what he was doing too?

Thatcher's privatisation was not a sell off to foreign countries. Far from it, electricity was split in to Powergen and National Power, both UK companies, gas became British Gas PLC and privatisation of both of which saw impressive returns for UK investors, I remember people were registering their pets to get their hands on more shares of British Gas. Of course these companies are now in the hands of European owners, however, it that does not mean that this was what Thatcher intended. As far she was concerned they went to private British ownership and can hardly be blamed for the mis-management that happen longer after she left office. These British companies went to foreign investors under a Labour Government.

Sure some profits may go overseas, but iIf one invests, is it not reasonable to see a return on investments? Without the investment in our infrastructure this country would grind to a halt. Contracts are tendered, but if home grown investments are insufficient, where else is it going to come from.

I'm with you on the global warming situation, but with regards to sulphur pouring out of coal fired power stations, there was neither the means nor the technology at the time to deal with this pollution. Clean burn technology had not been invented and would have incurred massive costs converting coal powered generators. It was significantly cheaper and quicker for this country to build and maintain gas generated electricity and was much cleaner.

 

Heavily regulated in favour of the consumer. Not !

 

Well maybe. But that's a different thread.

 

Warren, when you hark on about how good privatisation is, you do realise some of our water companies are still in the public sector.........the German public sector, through foreign ownership...

 

As is part of the electricity, the railways etc etc...

 

Like I said before - I dont care who owns the shares. They probably own some for their pension funds. Again, SO WHAT?!

 

Not getting involved with this as we are way off topic, but this notion that Thatcher 'smashed' the unions is fairy tale Jackanory nonsense as no one seems to have noticed that she did it by getting rid of the industries they worked in... coal, car production, steel etc. Not exactly rocket science and not actually a lot of help quite frankly! Now if she'd removed their 'power', but left the industries functioning more efficeintly than before then even I would have been impressed.

 

Isn't that what successive Governments before tried to do? A cycle of failed negotiations to reform, let alone the attempt of removal of Union 'power' meant workers down tools and striked. It would have been near impossible to achieve with the militant union leaders who were literally running the country. You think Scargill was ready to give up power, I don't think so.

With regards to the car industry, Thatcher actually supported it and bailed out British Leyland with £2.9bn between '79 and '88 and also allowed foreign investments from other car manufacturers. We now have British built, Hondas, Nissans and Toyotas employing thousands of British workers.