Baroness Thatcher has died.

[newbiejim]

I disagree, but agree to differ.

The figures that refer to the subsidies and so on are a matter of public record. The figures on support are also a matter of public record. There are plenty of sources that corroborate the situation of British Mining in the 1980s (and before) and the vast amounts of public money being spent to keep it afloat, these measure (some bought in by Thatcher) included investing £50m in industries so they could subsidise buying expensive British Coal over cheaper Oil, banning the import of cheaper foreign coal, forcing generating companies to buy British coal subsidised by the taxpayer, early retirement payments to Miners were increased to £36,000, British Coal was costing £44 per metric tonne to mine, when it was costing £32 to buy from foreign markets. British Coal was losing £1.2m a day, a grant of £876m was given to the NCB. It cost the taxpayer £30m alone just to finance the stockpiling of foreign coal in Rotterdam just to stop it coming here (it was bought by various companies including the Central Electricity Generating Board.

These figures taken in isolation without any explanation or reason as to why the british mines were unprofitable is unfair imho, I remember at the time a credible case being that underinvestment etc resulted in loss of productivity and competitiveness.

I did not mention the viabiltiy of individual mines.

I don't know why you said that

You cannot find any substantive records online of wages for miners in the 1980s because their earnings were decided locally and were dependent on local conditions and pit profitability. The point raised by Dimple about the comparative wages of miners is not necessarily unreasonable, you have not offered any substantive evidence (you made a self confessed guess) yourself, and I admitted that it was anecdotal and you could ignore if you wished (I have said this several times now so I do not know why you are belabouring a point I already conceded I could not corroborate).

Because claiming miners made wages of £800 surely is hugely contentious.

This doesn't change the public perception of the time however, which is what I was referring to and what Dimple was illustrating...again this is verifiable:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners'_strike_(1984–1985)#cite_note-King-29

British Political Opinion 1937-2000: The Gallup Polls. Compiled by Robert J. Wybrow. Politico's Publishing.

I am afraid that most of what I have said is corroborated to one degree or another, I already explained the only part to which I cannot corroborate outside of anecdote...

I massively disagree with this, at the time the full weight of the media and state were massively against the unions, not surprising polls like this were touted as valid.

There you are making this personal again, you are implying that I am immoral and am acting dishonestly in my posting style, I don't feel that is respectful....

You say that like criticising your posting style is a huge crime

I still do not know what someone said to you directly about whatever posts or actions you have made has anything to do with me or the discussion we are having.

Surely you should read the thread.

If you have an issue with the poster, whoever it was that you claim threatened you then I suggest you take it up with the moderation team, it is their bailiwick, not mine..whatever your opinion is on whose responsibility it may be.

I merely asked your opinion, a fairly innocuous request.

 

[Castiel]

These figures taken in isolation without any explanation or reason as to why the british mines were unprofitable is unfair imho, I remember at the time a credible case being that underinvestment etc resulted in loss of productivity and competitiveness.

Those figures are not taken in isolation. They are representative of the actual position of the industry at the time...if you read the entirety, you will see there was huge investment in the industry and if you read further you will also see that the production costs were higher than the selling prices on the international market...Thatcher in fact did attempt at investing hundreds of millions into the mining industry but without NUM support it was never going to work, and unfortunately the NUM betrayed its very membership on the political whims and prejudices of its leader....personally I would be more concerned with the aftermath in the regions and the lack of investment in other industries and re-training post-strike than in disseminating the reasons why massive taxpayer underwriting was necessary to operate the NCB.

Perhaps you can share this credible case that you refer to?

Some mines were profitable, as I mentioned before, Nottinghamshire for example. Many mines closed post strike, not because of their previous profitability but because a lack of maintenance due to the NUM refusing to allow engineers to cross pickets etc meant that some mines were subsequently unviable after the strike action.

I don't know why you said that

You mentioned the viability of mines....I never made any comment on the viability of any mine.

Because claiming miners made wages of £800 surely is hugely contentious.

There you go again....I refer you to my previous answers in relation to this belaboured point. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? You have offered only anecdotal opinion, so that I have done the same on this singular point is in-keeping with the nature of the discussion.

I have found some evidence of apprentice wages in 1978, the man in the following article states that he was paid £27.10 as a 16 year old apprentice in 1978...given subsequent pay increases durin the next five years to 1983 and the ability of some apprentices to earn overtime at full shift pay it may well be possible for an apprentice in a profitable mine to earn the £60 a week that Dimple mentioned in his post.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-15445418

Of course, this is technically anecdotal and the chap in the article could be exaggerating!

I massively disagree with this, at the time the full weight of the media and state were massively against the unions, not surprising polls like this were touted as valid.

Rhetoric and supposition...the polls are as valid as any poll....do you have anything substantive, other than your subjective opinion to support this conspiracy?

You say that like criticising your posting style is a huge crime

I say it to illustrate that you are reliant on ad hominem instead of objective discussion, and to point out that despite your claims to the contrary you are indeed conducting the discussion with very little respect for those you are speaking to.

If you do not like my posting style then use the ignore facility or report it to the moderation team if you think it is 'trolling' which is what you are implying is it not?

Alternatively you could refrain from character assassination and actually discuss the topic and offer some corroboration to support your refutation of mine.

Surely you should read the thread.

And how will that make me responsible for everything everyone has said in this thread?

As I said, if you have an issue with anything anyone has said then contact the moderation team or RTM the offending posts. It is not in my purview to police this forum, there are others whose job it is.

I merely asked your opinion, a fairly innocuous request.

No you didn't, You attempted to push the discussion away from what I was discussing and subsequently you made an accusation in an attempt to attack my character.

My opinion, if you actually want it and keeping in mind that I have already given my opinion on the statement, is that if you are offended by or feel the post (or posts) was against the stated rules then report it. I don't really know what else I can say.

 

[estebanrey]

Polly Toynbee is banging on about Thatcher being anti-woman and pulling up the ladder after her because she only promoted one woman in her reign to the cabinet.

Serious question, how many black people has Barrack 'hero of the left' Obama promoted to his 'cabinet' (or whatever the US equivalent is)?

 

[Biohazard]

Polly Toynbee is banging on about Thatcher being anti-woman and pulling up the ladder after her because she only promoted one woman in her reign to the cabinet.

Serious question, how many black people has Barrack 'hero of the left' Obama promoted to his 'cabinet' (or whatever the US equivalent is)?

Why is it even a comparison?

I have no idea, but there are a couple in there. Not that I see any connection. This is about Thatcher, not Obama.

 

[estebanrey]

TBecause claiming miners made wages of £800 surely is hugely contentious.

There you go again....I refer you to my previous answers in relation to this belaboured point. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

If you watch the video I posted earlier, at 17:10 the guy talks about their bonuses.....


No he doesn't mention what the basic wage unfortunately but you wouldn't expect them to earn more in bonus than their basic wage (only bankers have that luxury).

He claims that at Harworth, Nottingham they were earning £90 a week in bonuses but at his pit, Hatfield, they averaged £18 a week. He then says "and that was 100% bonus" but not sure if he meant he was on £18 basic and the extra £18 bonus was 100% raise or that £18 was the [100%] maximum bonus he could earn.

Either way, I doubt any miner was on anything near to £800 a week but then it really depends on what the basic was.

 

[Biohazard]

I don't believe it either. It's sounds increadibly fanciful. But, even accepting it, why is it so wrong but the system that we've arrived at today is right in comparison?

Interesting video btw.

 

[estebanrey]

Why is it even a comparison?

I have no idea, but there are a couple in there. Not that I see any connection. This is about Thatcher, not Obama.

Because Toynbee always speaks glowingly of Obama and yet on QT she's slating Thatcher for not using her position as female Prime Minister to give more woman a leg up.

Just pointing out a possible hypocrisy.

 

[Castiel]

If you watch the video I posted earlier, at 17:10 the guy talks about their bonuses.....



No he doesn't mention what the basic wage unfortunately but you wouldn't expect them to earn more in bonus than their basic wage (only bankers have that luxury).

He claims that at Harworth, Nottingham they were earning £90 a week in bonuses but at his pit, Hatfield, they averaged £18 a week. He then says "and that was 100% bonus" but not sure if he meant he was on £18 basic and the extra £18 bonus was 100% raise or that £18 was the [100%] maximum bonus he could earn.

Either way, I doubt any miner was on anything near to £800 a week but then it really depends on what the basic was.

Do you have a link as my ipad won't play the embedded video....

But going by what you say, it certainly seems unlikely any miner could earn £600 a week, let alone £800, the much higher bonus rate at Nottinghamshire pits corroborates what I was saying about local conditions setting the incomes of miners, it all depends, like you say, on their basic and whatever overtime rates were available at the time......perhaps I misheard what my wife's Uncle said (it was in passing when he retired)...I've texted him to find out.

However, if we just take a Nottingham miners bonus of £90...his bonus alone was more than the average wage (dependent on which source you use) so perhaps Dimples point isn't as far fetched as Jim is claiming?

 

[Castiel]

I don't believe it either. It's sounds increadibly fanciful. But, even accepting it, why is it so wrong but the system that we've arrived at today is right in comparison?

Interesting video btw.

It's not wrong, I think miners today earn around twice the national average if the articles to be found on the Internet are any judge. As long as the industry is independently profitable then we should have no issue with what someone gets paid, it only becomes an issue when public money is subsidising it excessively...like the issue of bonuses and salaries in the nationalised banks.

 

[Biohazard]

Because Toynbee always speaks glowingly of Obama and yet on QT she's slating Thatcher for not using her position as female Prime Minister to give more woman a leg up.

Just pointing out a possible hypocrisy.

From what I've picked up from the last week's analysis of her impact, other than being an inspiration for some there was a criticism that she done little tangible, and that her style alienated some. Thatcher was said to enjoy the company of men of the kind that Parliament attracted, while she could pick them apart in the chamber or bully them to exasperation or use the best weapon in the book, her sexuality, she did little to change the 'pin stripe suit' culture.

That's my take on the feminist discussions that have taken place, I couldn't pass judgement myself although I can see valid arguments on both sides. Oddly enough..

 

[Biohazard]

It's not wrong, I think miners today earn around twice the national average if the articles to be found on the Internet are any judge. As long as the industry is independently profitable then we should have no issue with what someone gets paid, it only becomes an issue when public money is subsidising it excessively...like the issue of bonuses and salaries in the nationalised banks.

That's fine, that's your opinion, but I don't get that overriding feeling from the thread, or certain politicians et al.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTzEYq8W0fs

 

[Castiel]

That's fine, that's your opinion, but I don't get that overriding feeling from the thread, or certain politicians et al.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTzEYq8W0fs

Thanks for the link....that is some disparity in bonuses between pits, £18 a day opposed to £18 a week....

On a side bar, is there any coal industry left in Scotland, and if so do the SNP have any plans to revive or expand it if they should gain independent power?

And something unrelated, I was asked the other day whether if Scotland gained independence would there be a Scottish general election to determine the first Scottish Independent Govt, or would the SNP automatically assume power for a term of governance? I didn't know, but said I knew a man who probably did....

 

[Biohazard]

Thanks for the link....that is some disparity in bonuses between pits, £18 a day opposed to £18 a week....

On a side bar, is there any coal industry left in Scotland, and if so do the SNP have any plans to revive or expand it if they should gain independent power?

Open cast of which we make up about 50% of the UK's production, no pits. All flooded through lack of maintenance and investment, economically unviable notwithstanding some global shift in market balance. Longannet was the last, severely flooded and bankrupted the company back in 2002. I've seen a few pits close, it effects the men and families very hard.

I don't think reviving coal is economically viable even in the medium term, there is a lot of coal left mind you, although it isn't particularly in keeping with greenhouse emission targets and the principles that lie behind them until we can perfect and drive down costs on carbon capture at least. That would be a paradigm shift.

And something unrelated, I was asked the other day whether if Scotland gained independence would there be a Scottish general election to determine the first Scottish Independent Govt, or would the SNP automatically assume power for a term of governance? I didn't know, but said I knew a man who probably did....

The former.

 

[Castiel]

Open cast of which we make up about 50% of the UK's production, no pits. All flooded through lack of maintenance and investment, economically unviable notwithstanding some global shift in market balance. Longannet was the last, severely flooded and bankrupted the company back in 2002. I've seen a few pits close, it effects the men and families very hard.

I don't think reviving coal is economically viable even in the medium term, there is a lot of coal left mind you, although it isn't particularly in keeping with greenhouse emission targets and the principles that lie behind them until we can perfect and drive down costs on carbon capture at least. That would be a paradigm shift.


The former.

Thanks.

 

[Amp34]

Maybe a little sideball for the discussion at the moment in this thread but I have just been reading Ken Livingstones article in the guardian about Thatcher myths. Aside from the usual expectation of bias from a staunch labour politician he is perpetuating myth as well...

Thatcher did not destroy the UKs manufacturing industry...

Yes, less people work in heavy industry such as steel making, and it is a smaller part of our economy, that doesn't mean it hasn't expanded since the 80s...

Why do we insist on insisting that the only manufacturing worth anything is heavy industry? Let others do the low profitable steel making and we can carry on with what we are better at, high tech manufacturing...

On the other hand maybe we should stick with loss making low productivity industry while other western nations specialise in the high tech stuff?

Edit: and the important point, industry has increased in profitability in 53 of the last 50+ years, with it being far more productive now, mostly because they aren't employing thousands of low skilled workers and using machinery and a few highly skilled workers instead.

 

[newbiejim]

Those figures are not taken in isolation. They are representative of the actual position of the industry at the time...if you read the entirety, you will see there was huge investment in the industry and if you read further you will also see that the production costs were higher than the selling prices on the international market...Thatcher in fact did attempt at investing hundreds of millions into the mining industry but without NUM support it was never going to work, and unfortunately the NUM betrayed its very membership on the political whims and prejudices of its leader....personally I would be more concerned with the aftermath in the regions and the lack of investment in other industries and re-training post-strike than in disseminating the reasons why massive taxpayer underwriting was necessary to operate the NCB.

Perhaps you can share this credible case that you refer to?

Some mines were profitable, as I mentioned before, Nottinghamshire for example. Many mines closed post strike, not because of their previous profitability but because a lack of maintenance due to the NUM refusing to allow engineers to cross pickets etc meant that some mines were subsequently unviable after the strike action.

I disagree, and I dont need to prove anything as you havent. In addition most mines had maintenance cover, far from the picture you attempt to paint.

You mentioned the viability of mines....I never made any comment on the viability of any mine.

I cba checking what I said about viability, you seem to allege I said it in a manner that demanded you refute it.

There you go again....I refer you to my previous answers in relation to this belaboured point. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? You have offered only anecdotal opinion, so that I have done the same on this singular point is in-keeping with the nature of the discussion.

I disagree, when you make SUCH a huge point and quote figures it is not unreasonable to expect there to be some shred of evidence.

I have found some evidence of apprentice wages in 1978, the man in the following article states that he was paid £27.10 as a 16 year old apprentice in 1978...given subsequent pay increases durin the next five years to 1983 and the ability of some apprentices to earn overtime at full shift pay it may well be possible for an apprentice in a profitable mine to earn the £60 a week that Dimple mentioned in his post.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-15445418

Of course, this is technically anecdotal and the chap in the article could be exaggerating!

Yes that is all very well, and EVEN if it is in this extreme set of circumstances was possible it was not prevalent or the norm. However the bigger point here is you have failed to read the post correctly, Dimple said 1974 not 1978.

Rhetoric and supposition...the polls are as valid as any poll....do you have anything substantive, other than your subjective opinion to support this conspiracy?

Yes exactly, they are as valid as any other poll, I am merely giving you some context as you seem to be hell bent on going to the n'th degree in an attempt to bolster your entrenched position. As can be seen above you dont bother to read the thread or the posts pertaining to the points you make so how on earth can we trust your diligence on the plethora of figures you post.

I say it to illustrate that you are reliant on ad hominem instead of objective discussion, and to point out that despite your claims to the contrary you are indeed conducting the discussion with very little respect for those you are speaking to.

If you do not like my posting style then use the ignore facility or report it to the moderation team if you think it is 'trolling' which is what you are implying is it not?

No, I'm not implying you are trolling, honestly I`m not. I feel though it IS ok to opine on your posting style without reporting you or ignoring you, I can do this instead of following your advice y?

Alternatively you could refrain from character assassination and actually discuss the topic and offer some corroboration to support your refutation of mine.

Or you could try to be objective instead of putting a huge amount of effort into attempting to prove ridiculous points with spurious claims, in fact despite all this effort you still get it wrong, 1974 Dimple claimed NOT 1978.

As I said, if you have an issue with anything anyone has said then contact the moderation team or RTM the offending posts. It is not in my purview to police this forum, there are others whose job it is.

No

No you didn't, You attempted to push the discussion away from what I was discussing and subsequently you made an accusation in an attempt to attack my character.

I dont think I attacked your character, thats quite a theatrical claim.

My opinion, if you actually want it and keeping in mind that I have already given my opinion on the statement, is that if you are offended by or feel the post (or posts) was against the stated rules then report it. I don't really know what else I can say.

I asked your opinion, the fact you refuse to opine gives an insight and in my opinion that you are not fair minded.

 

["andy"]

Why do we insist on insisting that the only manufacturing worth anything is heavy industry? Let others do the low profitable steel making and we can carry on with what we are better at, high tech manufacturing...

any profit is great at the moment. even more so when it would give so many people employment and remove them from the benefits system.

why cant we do both ?

our high tech manufacturing using German and Japanese machinery only lines the pockets of those in charge. we should have spent the lates 80 early 90s using our experienced and skilled workforce to design and build those machines , export them , use them . germany beat us to it when we shut up shop

 

[scorza]

Glenda: I had to speak out to stop history being re-written

I think she's right, if you'd listened to the tributes coming from the Daily Mail and Tory backbenchers you might believe that Mrs Thatcher was the greatest PM ever, whereas in reality it's clear that she's the most decisive ever.

Also, what's going on with this funeral? The Queen has apparently questioned the use of the military in the funeral due to a long standing arrangement that the military take part in royal funerals, but not for politicians.

 

[deuse]

Glenda: I had to speak out to stop history being re-written

I think she's right, if you'd listened to the tributes coming from the Daily Mail and Tory backbenchers you might believe that Mrs Thatcher was the greatest PM ever, whereas in reality it's clear that she's the most decisive ever.

Also, what's going on with this funeral? The Queen has apparently questioned the use of the military in the funeral due to a long standing arrangement that the military take part in royal funerals, but not for politicians.

I agree with Glenda Jackson.

I think it maybe DC is making this bigger than what it is it's just another nail in his party's coffin.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

1974 Dimple claimed NOT 1978.

Yes, I had it confirmed again last night.
Here in STOKE ON TRENT a COAL MINING APPRENTICE could earn £60 (maybe more) by working after their 8 to 5 Mon to Fri apprenticeship which other apprentices here in STOKE ON TRENT didn't have the luxury to do.

Mrs Dimple reminded me of a story from 1983 when we went out and bought a top of the range Grundig stereo TV for £500. We had won £300 on the Pools, we'd got £100 saved and we had £100 on the knock. My mate came round and he is the type who still to this day will see what gadget I've bought and then have one himself. He asked how much it was, there was a debate with his wife and she said "Have it with your next weeks wages" When I clarified the point he said he could buy it with one weeks wages, now that wasn't £800 that Castiel mentioned but sounded more than £500.

Or the story could be untrue and I made it up.