Join the Labour Party and save your country!

Lookyhere

Stevo 666 wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

The Tories equally didnt have in the their manifesto that they would close down every single deep coal mine in the country either but they did and at such a cost to the communities involved.

They did say in 1983 "the interests of the whole country require Britain's massive coal industry, on which we depend for the overwhelming bulk of our electricity, to return to economic viability."

Funny that, doesnt apply to Nuclear energy or fossil fuels
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -subsidies

but i think the point i was making is that the Tories are very good at tearing down things without any idea of the consequences, i wonder what they ll take away from us next?

One would hope it's your utter lack of understanding as to why it's not a good idea to continually prop up long term economically unviable industries

I wonder about you, you are either thick as xxxx or just deliberately so?

So, we cant prop up the coal industry and run it down in a controlled manner, giving communities time to adapt and re-skill but we pour billions into subsidy for Nuclear and fossil fuels, a never ending exercise.

You are also too stupid to pick up on my last comment that the tories are taking away from us the benefits of the EU, again with no vision or plan.

Stevo_666

Lookyhere wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

The Tories equally didnt have in the their manifesto that they would close down every single deep coal mine in the country either but they did and at such a cost to the communities involved.

They did say in 1983 "the interests of the whole country require Britain's massive coal industry, on which we depend for the overwhelming bulk of our electricity, to return to economic viability."

Funny that, doesnt apply to Nuclear energy or fossil fuels
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -subsidies

but i think the point i was making is that the Tories are very good at tearing down things without any idea of the consequences, i wonder what they ll take away from us next?

One would hope it's your utter lack of understanding as to why it's not a good idea to continually prop up long term economically unviable industries

I wonder about you, you are either thick as xxxx or just deliberately so?

So, we cant prop up the coal industry and run it down in a controlled manner, giving communities time to adapt and re-skill but we pour billions into subsidy for Nuclear and fossil fuels, a never ending exercise.

You are also too stupid to pick up on my last comment that the tories are taking away from us the benefits of the EU, again with no vision or plan.

Resorting to insults is usually a sign that you've run out of decent arguments.

Maybe you should look at the facts before you spout off: Labour closed more mines than the tories:
http://peoplescharter.org/pit-closures-were-a-labour-policy-wilson-shut-twice-as-many-as-thatcher/
So spare us the abusive leftiebollox and try again

You could start by showing me some evidence that Nuclear is uneconomic. Then you can explain how coal is different from fossil fuels

tangled_metal

I can't believe that Lookyhere talked about no subsidies for coal but they're willing to subsidise fossil fuels. I thought coal was a fossil fuel too. I also understand it was heavily subsidised. The dash for gas I reckon was subsidised but once in place became economic. Nuclear? No idea but at least it's reliable unlike green energies. Clean? Not really.

Destroying communities? Industries come along, grow and die out. Ppl have to be flexible and move on. Harsh? Well as someone who did a degree that most graduates went into coal I had to reinvent my career. Look at steel now, there'll be more industries come and go. Why is coal mining worth protecting when nations let others die out? Can we keep the internal combustion engine for ever because there's a lot of people employed in that industry?

Stevo_666

Tangled Metal wrote:

I can't believe that Lookyhere talked about no subsidies for coal but they're willing to subsidise fossil fuels. I thought coal was a fossil fuel too. I also understand it was heavily subsidised.

And he calls me thick

Stevo_666

Tangled Metal wrote:

.

Destroying communities? Industries come along, grow and die out. Ppl have to be flexible and move on. Harsh? Well as someone who did a degree that most graduates went into coal I had to reinvent my career. Look at steel now, there'll be more industries come and go. Why is coal mining worth protecting when nations let others die out? Can we keep the internal combustion engine for ever because there's a lot of people employed in that industry?

Have you never tried explaining that to a lefty?

No, businesses are charities, which exist only to pay workers their wages for as long as they want to be paid; whether or not its economically viable and regardless of whether anyone wants to buy the stuff. Nothing must ever change except for annual pay rises and everyone can do the same job they've always done. :roll:

Welcome to leftie la-la land. And a lot of people voted for politicians who actually think this is a viable industrial strategy...

Stevo_666

Oh dear. Corbyn trying to weasel word his way out of condemning his pal Maduro and the Venezuelan state:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40853378

Understandable really as it would criticising a person and country that he holds in such high regard.

mamba80

For some one who likes to use RTFP RTFT .... he said running coal down in a controlled manner...... not forever propping it up. Insults uncalled for.
I thought the only way Hinckley can be built is promising a fixed rate price for many years, the consumer picking up the tab in the form of inflated prices... the consumer subsidying edf and the Chinese.

orraloon

Here's more lefty-bollox from that radical rag The Telegraph on Hinkley Point C.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... rges-50bn/

Cracking deal for UK bill payers there Gromit.

surrey_commuter

orraloon wrote:

Here's more lefty-bollox from that radical rag The Telegraph on Hinkley Point C.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... rges-50bn/

Cracking deal for UK bill payers there Gromit.

Interesting to see how strongly British Gas is defending it's price increase by pointing out how much the Govt has loaded onto our energy bills in the last two years. These stealth taxes could be about to get a little less stealthy

Stevo_666

orraloon wrote:

Here's more lefty-bollox from that radical rag The Telegraph on Hinkley Point C.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... rges-50bn/

Cracking deal for UK bill payers there Gromit.

Maybe we should buy some Venezuelan oil instead?

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

For some one who likes to use RTFP RTFT .... he said running coal down in a controlled manner...... not forever propping it up. Insults uncalled for.
I thought the only way Hinckley can be built is promising a fixed rate price for many years, the consumer picking up the tab in the form of inflated prices... the consumer subsidying edf and the Chinese.

Corbyn wants to open the mines up again...

I wonder how many decades a controlled run down would take if they had the chance to go back in time. And how would you do it? Shut a mine at a time or just dig less out of each one while incurring pretty much all the costs of keeping them open? And subsidised by who?

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Here's more lefty-bollox from that radical rag The Telegraph on Hinkley Point C.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... rges-50bn/

Cracking deal for UK bill payers there Gromit.

Maybe we should buy some Venezuelan oil instead?

I remember having a beer with a guy in cafe royal who'd just put his entire career reputation of some 25 years on 4 big oil asset in Venezuela in the summer of 2014. He raised a lot and it was some funky structure but he had a lot of skin in the game.

I mentioned the rumours of shale slamming the price, and he looked at me and very calmly but surely told me that there was no way oil would go down less than $75 a barrel.


I got out of commodities before I got round to meeting him again. Eugh. Grim.

orraloon

Stevo 666 wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Here's more lefty-bollox from that radical rag The Telegraph on Hinkley Point C.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... rges-50bn/

Cracking deal for UK bill payers there Gromit.

Maybe we should buy some Venezuelan oil instead?

Classic deflection there, toryboy666

Stevo_666

orraloon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Here's more lefty-bollox from that radical rag The Telegraph on Hinkley Point C.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... rges-50bn/

Cracking deal for UK bill payers there Gromit.

Maybe we should buy some Venezuelan oil instead?

Classic deflection there, toryboy666

You changed the subject first Leftieloon, I was talking about Venezuela and Corbyn

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Here's more lefty-bollox from that radical rag The Telegraph on Hinkley Point C.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... rges-50bn/

Cracking deal for UK bill payers there Gromit.

Maybe we should buy some Venezuelan oil instead?

I remember having a beer with a guy in cafe royal who'd just put his entire career reputation of some 25 years on 4 big oil asset in Venezuela in the summer of 2014. He raised a lot and it was some funky structure but he had a lot of skin in the game.

I mentioned the rumours of shale slamming the price, and he looked at me and very calmly but surely told me that there was no way oil would go down less than $75 a barrel.


I got out of commodities before I got round to meeting him again. Eugh. Grim.

I think that's what he might call a 'Black Swan' event.

orraloon

Stevo 666 wrote:

You changed the subject first Leftieloon, I was talkingt about Venezuela and Corbyn

Not me mister, I was following on from mamba's mention of Hinkley Point.

Views on a contract which guarantees a furrin no less company a MWh rate twice the current commercial rate for 30+ years? Say it had been a deal done by one G Brown formerly of that parish or, stretching credibility somewhat, a Corbynista government would you be quite so sanguine about it?

Suspect answer would be 'no', and phrasing along lines of 'couldn't run a corner shop' might be to the fore, eh?

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Here's more lefty-bollox from that radical rag The Telegraph on Hinkley Point C.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... rges-50bn/

Cracking deal for UK bill payers there Gromit.

Maybe we should buy some Venezuelan oil instead?

I remember having a beer with a guy in cafe royal who'd just put his entire career reputation of some 25 years on 4 big oil asset in Venezuela in the summer of 2014. He raised a lot and it was some funky structure but he had a lot of skin in the game.

I mentioned the rumours of shale slamming the price, and he looked at me and very calmly but surely told me that there was no way oil would go down less than $75 a barrel.


I got out of commodities before I got round to meeting him again. Eugh. Grim.

I think that's what he might call a 'Black Swan' event.

Nah.

Prices go up, prices go down.

Also, as general rule; if the headhunter knows about it, the cat's out of the bag!

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I think that's what he might call a 'Black Swan' event.

Nah.

Prices go up, prices go down.

Also, as general rule; if the headhunter knows about it, the cat's out of the bag!

It was for him by the sound of it.

mamba80

orraloon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

You changed the subject first Leftieloon, I was talkingt about Venezuela and Corbyn

Not me mister, I was following on from mamba's mention of Hinkley Point.

Views on a contract which guarantees a furrin no less company a MWh rate twice the current commercial rate for 30+ years? Say it had been a deal done by one G Brown formerly of that parish or, stretching credibility somewhat, a Corbynista government would you be quite so sanguine about it?

Suspect answer would be 'no', and phrasing along lines of 'couldn't run a corner shop' might be to the fore, eh?

yep i guess the best example of state aid given to a failing industry would be the financial crash but thats all ok, those fcuking miners and their families/towns and communities dont matter a jot, so instead of an orderly wind down... fcuk em all, because we dont agree in supporting failed industries...unless it suits us.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

You changed the subject first Leftieloon, I was talkingt about Venezuela and Corbyn

Not me mister, I was following on from mamba's mention of Hinkley Point.

Views on a contract which guarantees a furrin no less company a MWh rate twice the current commercial rate for 30+ years? Say it had been a deal done by one G Brown formerly of that parish or, stretching credibility somewhat, a Corbynista government would you be quite so sanguine about it?

Suspect answer would be 'no', and phrasing along lines of 'couldn't run a corner shop' might be to the fore, eh?

yep i guess the best example of state aid given to a failing industry would be the financial crash but thats all ok, those fcuking miners and their families/towns and communities dont matter a jot, so instead of an orderly wind down... fcuk em all, because we dont agree in supporting failed industries...unless it suits us.

:roll:

So FS, our largest export generator and possibly largest business sector, is a failed industry?

tangled_metal

I can't see how the 80s coal industry compares to banking sector. IIRC there was a dash for gas then and other factors most noticeably the cheaper coal from overseas that indicates coal was dead.

I believe the financial crash was much more about failures in regulation and oversight than a failed industrial sector. Right now it's probably driving the economy in the south quite nicely judging by the figures I half remember about pay being back run-up pre crash levels there but not many other areas of the UK.

Could be wrong though. Coal could have staged a Lazarus comeback if the UK / Tory government had decided it would haemorrhage cash on the v risky prospect of saving a highly unionised, militant and hard left workforce that was in the mining sector back then. Can't see any issues with that idea. Politically, ideologically and financially. IMHO it's a no brainer to have let UK coal sector die.

I would view steel sector as different since we aren't in as dire a mess there, or shouldn't be. Plus steel has no alternatives and we actually are capable of doing it well in a competitive marketplace. It's also needed in such a wide range of sectors.

Still I can see the argument for a long, expensive and ultimately pointless wind down in the coal sector just so the workforce can end up with the same lack of jobs/prospects as before with the same break up of strong mining communities. A really good idea.

A counter was to go looking for a job where the work is. Or accept what you can get in your own little pond. I think most people tend to move with work.

tangled_metal

BTW please feel free to pick holes in the above. Depending on your ideology you'll agree or disagree. I doubt I've changed anyone's minds on this and I doubt you will. It's just a thread, afterall, to state your own political ideology, not a debate or exchange of ideas in any meaningful way!

orraloon

S666, any views on the Camoron / Maybot government deal to give EdF and the Chinese a massive state subsidy for 30+ years?

surrey_commuter

Tangled Metal wrote:

I can't see how the 80s coal industry compares to banking sector. IIRC there was a dash for gas then and other factors most noticeably the cheaper coal from overseas that indicates coal was dead.

I believe the financial crash was much more about failures in regulation and oversight than a failed industrial sector. Right now it's probably driving the economy in the south quite nicely judging by the figures I half remember about pay being back run-up pre crash levels there but not many other areas of the UK.

Could be wrong though. Coal could have staged a Lazarus comeback if the UK / Tory government had decided it would haemorrhage cash on the v risky prospect of saving a highly unionised, militant and hard left workforce that was in the mining sector back then. Can't see any issues with that idea. Politically, ideologically and financially. IMHO it's a no brainer to have let UK coal sector die.

I would view steel sector as different since we aren't in as dire a mess there, or shouldn't be. Plus steel has no alternatives and we actually are capable of doing it well in a competitive marketplace. It's also needed in such a wide range of sectors.

Still I can see the argument for a long, expensive and ultimately pointless wind down in the coal sector just so the workforce can end up with the same lack of jobs/prospects as before with the same break up of strong mining communities. A really good idea.

A counter was to go looking for a job where the work is. Or accept what you can get in your own little pond. I think most people tend to move with work.

FS props up the whole country - the idiots should stop moaning and write letters of thanks.

One of the problems the steel industry has is the relatively high cost of electricity which is caused by the govt meddling in the market QED.

One of the other problems for the steel industry is the pension issues which are a legacy of their public ownership. Now imagine if the public sector pension had it's liabilities valued on a similar basis to BT, BA etc

Jez mon

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

I can't see how the 80s coal industry compares to banking sector. IIRC there was a dash for gas then and other factors most noticeably the cheaper coal from overseas that indicates coal was dead.

I believe the financial crash was much more about failures in regulation and oversight than a failed industrial sector. Right now it's probably driving the economy in the south quite nicely judging by the figures I half remember about pay being back run-up pre crash levels there but not many other areas of the UK.

Could be wrong though. Coal could have staged a Lazarus comeback if the UK / Tory government had decided it would haemorrhage cash on the v risky prospect of saving a highly unionised, militant and hard left workforce that was in the mining sector back then. Can't see any issues with that idea. Politically, ideologically and financially. IMHO it's a no brainer to have let UK coal sector die.

I would view steel sector as different since we aren't in as dire a mess there, or shouldn't be. Plus steel has no alternatives and we actually are capable of doing it well in a competitive marketplace. It's also needed in such a wide range of sectors.

Still I can see the argument for a long, expensive and ultimately pointless wind down in the coal sector just so the workforce can end up with the same lack of jobs/prospects as before with the same break up of strong mining communities. A really good idea.

A counter was to go looking for a job where the work is. Or accept what you can get in your own little pond. I think most people tend to move with work.

FS props up the whole country - the idiots should stop moaning and write letters of thanks.

One of the problems the steel industry has is the relatively high cost of electricity which is caused by the govt meddling in the market QED.

One of the other problems for the steel industry is the pension issues which are a legacy of their public ownership. Now imagine if the public sector pension had it's liabilities valued on a similar basis to BT, BA etc

So the FS issues are caused by a lack of proper government oversight, and Steels issues are caused by Govt oversight in the electricity market?

surrey_commuter

Jez mon wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

I can't see how the 80s coal industry compares to banking sector. IIRC there was a dash for gas then and other factors most noticeably the cheaper coal from overseas that indicates coal was dead.

I believe the financial crash was much more about failures in regulation and oversight than a failed industrial sector. Right now it's probably driving the economy in the south quite nicely judging by the figures I half remember about pay being back run-up pre crash levels there but not many other areas of the UK.

Could be wrong though. Coal could have staged a Lazarus comeback if the UK / Tory government had decided it would haemorrhage cash on the v risky prospect of saving a highly unionised, militant and hard left workforce that was in the mining sector back then. Can't see any issues with that idea. Politically, ideologically and financially. IMHO it's a no brainer to have let UK coal sector die.

I would view steel sector as different since we aren't in as dire a mess there, or shouldn't be. Plus steel has no alternatives and we actually are capable of doing it well in a competitive marketplace. It's also needed in such a wide range of sectors.

Still I can see the argument for a long, expensive and ultimately pointless wind down in the coal sector just so the workforce can end up with the same lack of jobs/prospects as before with the same break up of strong mining communities. A really good idea.

A counter was to go looking for a job where the work is. Or accept what you can get in your own little pond. I think most people tend to move with work.

FS props up the whole country - the idiots should stop moaning and write letters of thanks.

One of the problems the steel industry has is the relatively high cost of electricity which is caused by the govt meddling in the market QED.

One of the other problems for the steel industry is the pension issues which are a legacy of their public ownership. Now imagine if the public sector pension had it's liabilities valued on a similar basis to BT, BA etc

So the FS issues are caused by a lack of proper government oversight, and Steels issues are caused by Govt oversight in the electricity market?

FS seems a cop out to blame the Govt though the whole culture of too big to fail plays a part. I think hubris and incompetence has to be taken into consideration. I imagine Goodwin had shares and options worth tens of millions yet he still made decisions that ended up reducing their worth by 70% (?)

Jez mon

Is Fred Goodwin in a better place now, having led RBCS to being the worlds 5th largest bank by stock market value (according to wiki), than he would have been had he adopted a more conservative strategy, and then been ousted by shareholders to be replaced by someone with a more aggressive growth plan.

surrey_commuter

Jez mon wrote:

Is Fred Goodwin in a better place now, having led RBCS to being the worlds 5th largest bank by stock market value (according to wiki), than he would have been had he adopted a more conservative strategy, and then been ousted by shareholders to be replaced by someone with a more aggressive growth plan.

I have no idea - his pension rights acct for (or did) an enormous part of his wealth.

Reputation seems to be a surprisingly big thing for these people.

Stevo_666

orraloon wrote:

S666, any views on the Camoron / Maybot government deal to give EdF and the Chinese a massive state subsidy for 30+ years?

Give me a link with some facts rather than your slightly biased version and I might be able to make a sensible comment.

kingstongraham

Stevo 666 wrote:

orraloon wrote:

S666, any views on the Camoron / Maybot government deal to give EdF and the Chinese a massive state subsidy for 30+ years?

Give me a link with some facts rather than your slightly biased version and I might be able to make a sensible comment.

You can google "Hinkley strike price".