economic situation is dire

[meregreen]

Alas its cheap imported Russian coal ... Sadly labours policy of accelerating pit closures in the 60's left us no choice but to import it

.

Simply not true.Labor did shut many pits' you are right about that. But it was done in a carefully managed way , with full consultation with the NUM. Heavy investment was put into the remaining pits, so that within a few years Britain had the most efficient deep mined coal in the world. We were actually self sufficient with the coal stocks we had, the only way foreign coal could compete was by importing from countries that either paid their miners a pittance ie Poland and China, or was mined cheaply by strip mining from opencast mines, the most environmentally destructive. Germany always took the attitude that coal mining was a strategic industry and so warranted subsidies to support it, that's why coal mining still exists on a fairly substantial scale there. We still have enough coal stocks under our feet in this country to last 400 years. Tory industrial vandalism means that unfortunately it will stay there.

[chrisp65]

 

Alas its cheap imported Russian coal ... Sadly labours policy of accelerating pit closures in the 60's left us no choice but to import it

.

Simply not true.Labor did shut many pits' you are right about that. But it was done in a carefully managed way , with full consultation with the NUM. Heavy investment was put into the remaining pits, so that within a few years Britain had the most efficient deep mined coal in the world. We were actually self sufficient with the coal stocks we had, the only way foreign coal could compete was by importing from countries that either paid their miners a pittance ie Poland and China, or was mined cheaply by strip mining from opencast mines, the most environmentally destructive. Germany always took the attitude that coal mining was a strategic industry and so warranted subsidies to support it, that's why coal mining still exists on a fairly substantial scale there. We still have enough coal stocks under our feet in this country to last 400 years. Tory industrial vandalism means that unfortunately it will stay there.

 

 

...and I don't really have a tin bath either...

[Awol]

 

. We still have enough coal stocks under our feet in this country to last 400 years. Tory industrial vandalism means that unfortunately it will stay there.

 

 

You think we should be opening up the pits and burning more coal again?  Not sure the environmentalists would approve..

[thetrees]

On the topic of energy, I have just read a Green Peace anti-fracking petition. Part of the reasoning was that the many wells that will need to be sunk will scar the landscape. This statement immediately made me think of wind farms!

I am neither pro or anti fracking, by the way, because I haven't read enough about it.

[tonyh29]

 

Alas its cheap imported Russian coal ... Sadly labours policy of accelerating pit closures in the 60's left us no choice but to import it

.

Simply not true.Labor did shut many pits' you are right about that. But it was done in a carefully managed way , with full consultation with the NUM. Heavy investment was put into the remaining pits, so that within a few years Britain had the most efficient deep mined coal in the world. We were actually self sufficient with the coal stocks we had, the only way foreign coal could compete was by importing from countries that either paid their miners a pittance ie Poland and China, or was mined cheaply by strip mining from opencast mines, the most environmentally destructive. Germany always took the attitude that coal mining was a strategic industry and so warranted subsidies to support it, that's why coal mining still exists on a fairly substantial scale there. We still have enough coal stocks under our feet in this country to last 400 years. Tory industrial vandalism means that unfortunately it will stay there.

 

 

Appreciate you went to a bit of trouble to reply but my post was just Chris and I having a bit of fun  around VT stereotypes

 

( your post contains a rather lob sided view of events though )

[tonyh29]

On the topic of energy, I have just read a Green Peace anti-fracking petition. Part of the reasoning was that the many wells that will need to be sunk will scar the landscape. This statement immediately made me think of wind farms!

I am neither pro or anti fracking, by the way, because I haven't read enough about it.

 

I saw a story the other day with a huge Headline about "earthquake caused by Fracking "

 

followed by the main article saying the earthquake in question wasn't caused by fracking

 

 

does seem to be a certain a amount of scaremongering going on   , as their often is with controversial issues

[Eames]

 

Alas its cheap imported Russian coal ... Sadly labours policy of accelerating pit closures in the 60's left us no choice but to import it

.

Simply not true.Labor did shut many pits' you are right about that. But it was done in a carefully managed way , with full consultation with the NUM. Heavy investment was put into the remaining pits, so that within a few years Britain had the most efficient deep mined coal in the world. We were actually self sufficient with the coal stocks we had, the only way foreign coal could compete was by importing from countries that either paid their miners a pittance ie Poland and China, or was mined cheaply by strip mining from opencast mines, the most environmentally destructive. Germany always took the attitude that coal mining was a strategic industry and so warranted subsidies to support it, that's why coal mining still exists on a fairly substantial scale there. We still have enough coal stocks under our feet in this country to last 400 years. Tory industrial vandalism means that unfortunately it will stay there.

 

I assume here you meant to write "permission from"

[drat01]

 

 

Alas its cheap imported Russian coal ... Sadly labours policy of accelerating pit closures in the 60's left us no choice but to import it

.

Simply not true.Labor did shut many pits' you are right about that. But it was done in a carefully managed way , with full consultation with the NUM. Heavy investment was put into the remaining pits, so that within a few years Britain had the most efficient deep mined coal in the world. We were actually self sufficient with the coal stocks we had, the only way foreign coal could compete was by importing from countries that either paid their miners a pittance ie Poland and China, or was mined cheaply by strip mining from opencast mines, the most environmentally destructive. Germany always took the attitude that coal mining was a strategic industry and so warranted subsidies to support it, that's why coal mining still exists on a fairly substantial scale there. We still have enough coal stocks under our feet in this country to last 400 years. Tory industrial vandalism means that unfortunately it will stay there.

 

I assume here you meant to write "permission from"

 

YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNN

 

Ignoring the Trolling that is seemingly going on from some of the Tory VT'ers there was a good example of statistics / spin yesterday that I saw in respect to changes announced re tax and benefit reforms - there were a lot of patting on backs about how people would be better off but ignoring the bigger picture. Not sure if anyone can see this image but it shows that any small changes are easily swamped by massive decreases that people have suffered - and data is from Institute for fiscal studies

 

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BelXpsKCEAAVnd0.jpg:large

[drat01]

IDS really is a total and utter gob shite isn't he? As a total failed leader of the Tory party how he can continue imposing some of the most disgusting policies ever is amazing. He now is claiming that his crusade against benefits is a way of getting rid of slavery !!

 

"

Iain Duncan Smith compares being on benefits to slavery and suggests he is acting in tradition of abolitionist"

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iain-duncan-smith-compares-being-on-benefits-to-slavery-and-suggests-he-is-acting-in-tradition-of-abolitionist-9080982.html

[snowychap]

On the topic of energy, I have just read a Green Peace anti-fracking petition. Part of the reasoning was that the many wells that will need to be sunk will scar the landscape. This statement immediately made me think of wind farms!

I am neither pro or anti fracking, by the way, because I haven't read enough about it.

I'm probably just being a weirdo but I quite like the rather imposing look of them (whilst accepting that they may not suit in some locations).

[Eames]

Drat,

 

I'm fairly sure arbitrarily grouping people is against the forum rules is it not? I'm surprised given your willingness to remind others of the guidlines that you appear to have neglected to follow them yourself?  

 

I'm sure the impact of the cuts hasn't been as bad generally as Labour would have people believe, and that the Tories have over exaggerated their message as well. But then....thats politics.

[Eames]

IDS really is a total and utter gob shite isn't he? As a total failed leader of the Tory party how he can continue imposing some of the most disgusting policies ever is amazing. He now is claiming that his crusade against benefits is a way of getting rid of slavery !!

 

"

Iain Duncan Smith compares being on benefits to slavery and suggests he is acting in tradition of abolitionist"

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iain-duncan-smith-compares-being-on-benefits-to-slavery-and-suggests-he-is-acting-in-tradition-of-abolitionist-9080982.html

Agree the comparisons are laughable...but why then if the policies are so "disgusting" why won't Labour commit to repealing them? Why don't the make any policy suggestion as an alternative?

 

So far Eds solution to his "cost of living crisis" is to wipe billions off the share prices of energy companies, which, far from upsetting a few fat cat shareholders knackers everyone's pensions whilst creating a climate where energy companies won't invest because they may not be able to make a return on their investments.

 

The general principles of IDS reforms are not unreasonable. Those being...."If the state is supporting you by providing a house, it is not unreasonable that that house is the right size for the size of your familiy." A better way of introducing this policy would have been for example "changes effective on all moves from April 2014" and at least then you don't stress out the disabled and vulnerable in the short term.

 

Benefits should be sufficient to support those who are unable to work however, it should not be a long term solution for those who are able to do so and chose not too. You should ALWAYS be better off working than not unless you are unable to do so.  

 

Tax evasion should be tackled equally - regardless of scale. No deals with Vodafone to reduce liabilty - the same enforcement  for all. The tax code should be made as simple as possible to remove loopholes and dodges.

 

Sadly every political party of every persuasion is guilty of failure on one or more of the above.

[MakemineVanilla]

 

IDS really is a total and utter gob shite isn't he? As a total failed leader of the Tory party how he can continue imposing some of the most disgusting policies ever is amazing. He now is claiming that his crusade against benefits is a way of getting rid of slavery !!

 

"

Iain Duncan Smith compares being on benefits to slavery and suggests he is acting in tradition of abolitionist"

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iain-duncan-smith-compares-being-on-benefits-to-slavery-and-suggests-he-is-acting-in-tradition-of-abolitionist-9080982.html

Agree the comparisons are laughable...but why then if the policies are so "disgusting" why won't Labour commit to repealing them? Why don't the make any policy suggestion as an alternative?

 

So far Eds solution to his "cost of living crisis" is to wipe billions off the share prices of energy companies, which, far from upsetting a few fat cat shareholders knackers everyone's pensions whilst creating a climate where energy companies won't invest because they may not be able to make a return on their investments.

 

The general principles of IDS reforms are not unreasonable. Those being...."If the state is supporting you by providing a house, it is not unreasonable that that house is the right size for the size of your familiy." A better way of introducing this policy would have been for example "changes effective on all moves from April 2014" and at least then you don't stress out the disabled and vulnerable in the short term.

 

Benefits should be sufficient to support those who are unable to work however, it should not be a long term solution for those who are able to do so and chose not too. You should ALWAYS be better off working than not unless you are unable to do so.  

 

Tax evasion should be tackled equally - regardless of scale. No deals with Vodafone to reduce liabilty - the same enforcement  for all. The tax code should be made as simple as possible to remove loopholes and dodges.

 

Sadly every political party of every persuasion is guilty of failure on one or more of the above.

 

 

I don't think that it is in any way contradictory to state that it might be true that unemployment is a form of disenfranchisement but that nevertheless IDS is almost certainly being disingenuous when he expresses his sympathies and moronic when he thinks up his solutions.

[snowychap]

So far Eds solution to his "cost of living crisis" is to wipe billions off the share prices of energy companies, which, far from upsetting a few fat cat shareholders knackers everyone's pensions whilst creating a climate where energy companies won't invest because they may not be able to make a return on their investments.

I think people ought to be very skeptical about Mr Massara's comments and perhaps cynical about the intent that lies behond them.

[Eames]

 

So far Eds solution to his "cost of living crisis" is to wipe billions off the share prices of energy companies, which, far from upsetting a few fat cat shareholders knackers everyone's pensions whilst creating a climate where energy companies won't invest because they may not be able to make a return on their investments.

I think people ought to be very skeptical about Mr Massara's comments and perhaps cynical about the intent that lies behond them.

 

That aside, the impact on shareprice and pensions is undeniably bad for the vast majority of "hard working people"

[drat01]

Drat,

 

I'm fairly sure arbitrarily grouping people is against the forum rules is it not? I'm surprised given your willingness to remind others of the guidlines that you appear to have neglected to follow them yourself?  

 

I'm sure the impact of the cuts hasn't been as bad generally as Labour would have people believe, and that the Tories have over exaggerated their message as well. But then....thats politics.

 

Eames you were Trolling - unless you actually believe that the NUM at that time had to provide permission - given that official records are freely available now for that time it would b good to see your evidence for your statement

 

I "liked" your second post specifically on certain points re Tax evasion, but there other bits in there I certainly do not agree with. You are seemingly going down a well worn path for Tory VT'ers of "ahh but Labour ...." in respect to your comment "Why wont Labour ....." etc. That is not nor is it ever the point but often gets used a distraction when people question Tory policies. IDS is an obnoxious man, has been for many years and continues to be so. His tenure as minister in charge of basically screwing the less fortunate has seen some of the most disgusting attacks on the most vulnerable in UK society all typically based on a flawed and very vindictive long term Tory ideology. See ATOS etc for perfect examples. Re your comment on the wiping of value from shares, that actually shows up so much of what is wrong in the UK society and specifically why the policy is certainly one that should be explored further.

 

You say that the IDS reforms are not unreasonable, I would love to see how you justify that because from where I am sitting and seemingly from so many comments from other members of society they certainly are not. It would be good to see and know what we are missing here. Genuinely can you tell us why you hold these views for at least discussion on a civil manner in here

[Eames]

 

Drat,

 

I'm fairly sure arbitrarily grouping people is against the forum rules is it not? I'm surprised given your willingness to remind others of the guidlines that you appear to have neglected to follow them yourself?  

 

I'm sure the impact of the cuts hasn't been as bad generally as Labour would have people believe, and that the Tories have over exaggerated their message as well. But then....thats politics.

 

Eames you were Trolling - unless you actually believe that the NUM at that time had to provide permission - given that official records are freely available now for that time it would b good to see your evidence for your statement

 

I "liked" your second post specifically on certain points re Tax evasion, but there other bits in there I certainly do not agree with. You are seemingly going down a well worn path for Tory VT'ers of "ahh but Labour ...." in respect to your comment "Why wont Labour ....." etc. That is not nor is it ever the point but often gets used a distraction when people question Tory policies. IDS is an obnoxious man, has been for many years and continues to be so. His tenure as minister in charge of basically screwing the less fortunate has seen some of the most disgusting attacks on the most vulnerable in UK society all typically based on a flawed and very vindictive long term Tory ideology. See ATOS etc for perfect examples. Re your comment on the wiping of value from shares, that actually shows up so much of what is wrong in the UK society and specifically why the policy is certainly one that should be explored further.

 

You say that the IDS reforms are not unreasonable, I would love to see how you justify that because from where I am sitting and seemingly from so many comments from other members of society they certainly are not. It would be good to see and know what we are missing here. Genuinely can you tell us why you hold these views for at least discussion on a civil manner in here

 

No. I said the "general principles behind" the reforms were not unreasonable. I've also explained why in principle they are a good idea.... and then went on to say that the execution had been poor.

 

ATOS being another good example. Of course their needs to be some assessment of needs when it comes to disability benefit, but again, the execution of the policy has been terrible.

I fundamentally disagree that impact of Government policy has been a "disgusting attack" and therefore the result of a "vindictive ideology". Perhaps I am more charitable in believing they are unintended consequences of an incompetant political class. That said "vile" and "disgusting" pretty much does sum up some of the more er.....unusual figures in the Tory party... Michael Fabricant being one of them.

 

Can we also get away from the "Tory VTer" stuff. Its not helpful. I have voted Conservative in the past.... but I am pro-European and probably only small "c" conservative with a little bit of small "l" liberal thrown in. In fact.... a lovely shade of green if you will minus the lentil stuffing environment stuff.

[snowychap]

That aside, the impact on shareprice and pensions is undeniably bad for the vast majority of "hard working people"

Where are the share prices of RWE npower, BG and others today in relation to, say, the week before Miliband's comments?

Edit: Unless I've read the charts and data incorrectly (which I may have done), it would seem that only SSE (who have just announced an expected increase in profits and increased divis to shareholders despite quite a drop in customer numbers and consumption) of the top six suppliers has a lower share price now than just prior to Miliband's comments.

Edited January 24, 2014 by snowychap

[bickster]

On the topic of energy, I have just read a Green Peace anti-fracking petition. Part of the reasoning was that the many wells that will need to be sunk will scar the landscape. This statement immediately made me think of wind farms!

I am neither pro or anti fracking, by the way, because I haven't read enough about it.

I'm probably just being a weirdo but I quite like the rather imposing look of them (whilst accepting that they may not suit in some locations).

Its hilarious the outrage they cause. There is a proposal to build one near us in Ince Blundell and the inbred slack jawed locals are up in arms (each one with 5 fingers and 2 thumbs at the end of it). They go through the usual blot on the landscape arguments which as usual all look fine on paper until you actually look at this magnificent countryside thats its going to be a blight upon. Its the West Lancashire Plain, its as flat as a witches tit, a less inspiring landscape than even Norfolk, there's a bit of a hillock around Ormskirk which you can just about make out in the distance on a good day, its bloody perfect for a wind farm. Hell its more likely to become a tourist attraction and some clever individual might even open a shop there as a result, that'll save them a 2 mile drive for a loaf of bread but these dim wits would rather look out over miles and miles of diddly squat, then again electricity is rather a new fangled thing for them and as for gas, thats what the cows make.

[bickster]

ATOS being another good example. Of course their needs to be some assessment of needs when it comes to disability benefit, but again, the execution of the policy has been terrible.

You do realise there always was assessment before ATOS. ATOS never has been about proper assessment, its been about getting figures down by any means necessary, even if that means sending people still going through chemo and radiotherapy to meetings with ATOS when its difficult enough for them to get out of bed, let alone catch 2 trains and 5 buses to get to where ATOS deem to be a convenient place. Its certainly not about cutting costs, how can this system be more cost effective than a doctor (something ATOS rarely employ) saying, this person isn't fit for work. They sent Paddy (RIP) to an ATOS meeting with a brain tumour during his chemo cycle and he had to go miles by public transport otherwise he would have had his money stopped.

The whole ATOS thing is an attack on the vulnerable, nothing more nothing less. Has anyone worked out how much its cost vs how much its saved yet? And how many people have died as a result?