Hating the police

[coley]

I suspect that it's mainly based around coley getting his water, leccy and gas cheaper. He's nothing if not instrumentalist.

Gas? i should be so lucky, but as nearly everything is based on energy prices then a cheap, possibly subsidised, energy sector in everyones intrests, is it not?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Doesnt alter the fact that after our hammering there was little enthusiasm by the remaining unions to take the tories on does it? and the National strike envisaged by scargill never even came close

By early 1985 there was already legislation against so-called "secondary picketing" (originally set out in a white paper in 1982 but not legislated until late '84), which was probably the single greatest militator against a national strike. Add to that the fact that the TUC (which is supposed to be the talking shop of the affiliated TUs) often acted at cross-purposes to the unions themselves, and a national strike would have been no more of an actual national strike than 1926 was.
You say "little enthusiasm", but that's bollocks too. I was at Wapping; I saw what happened at the docks in Kent, Sussex and Hampshire, with the steel-workers throughout the UK and the car-makers. Don't take the piss.

 

[equationgirl]

They funded the banks bail out quickly enough, mebbes a bit more QE?

Right, so you expect the government to foot the bill then.

So, how much do you think would be needed to buy out all the utilities and then keep them running? Would you want to buy all the power network infrastructyre too? Only if you do you know it needs upgrading and overhauling, so that's going to cost a lot too.

Put it this way, the £26bn (at least) owed in tax to the HMRC won't go very far at all.

You really are clueless, coley.

 

[coley]

Right, so you expect the government to foot the bill then.

So, how much do you think would be needed to buy out all the utilities and then keep them running? Would you want to buy all the power network infrastructyre too? Only if you do you know it needs upgrading and overhauling, so that's going to cost a lot too.

Put it this way, the £26bn (at least) owed in tax to the HMRC won't go very far at all.

You really are clueless, coley.

Aye, thats why its called nationalisation and I wouldnt expect the govt to pay top dollar either, more or less just what was paid for them when they were privatised and I am sure once they are re-nationalised all the juicy profits currently being enjoyed by the shareholders could be used to upgrade the infrastructure, I wouldnt expect nationalised industries to run at a loss but I doubt the govt would introduce eye popping rises during a financial crisis.

 

[coley]

By early 1985 there was already legislation against so-called "secondary picketing" (originally set out in a white paper in 1982 but not legislated until late '84), which was probably the single greatest militator against a national strike. Add to that the fact that the TUC (which is supposed to be the talking shop of the affiliated TUs) often acted at cross-purposes to the unions themselves, and a national strike would have been no more of an actual national strike than 1926 was.
You say "little enthusiasm", but that's bollocks too. I was at Wapping; I saw what happened at the docks in Kent, Sussex and Hampshire, with the steel-workers throughout the UK and the car-makers. Don't take the piss.

Isolated piece meal support, apart from the print unions, and they were unstinting, and while I will always be grateful to those who did their best to offer us support, there was no real enthusiasm, nowhere was there the massive upswell of support Scargill confidently told us to expect.

 

[equationgirl]

Aye, thats why its called nationalisation and I wouldnt expect the govt to pay top dollar either, more or less just what was paid for them when they were privatised and I am sure once they are re-nationalised all the juicy profits currently being enjoyed by the shareholders could be used to upgrade the infrastructure, I wouldnt expect nationalised industries to run at a loss but I doubt the govt would introduce eye popping rises during a financial crisis.

There is no way shareholders would agree to the utilities being bought for what they were worth 20+ years ago. I cannot believe you have seriously suggested such a thing.

As I pointed out, upgrading the infrastructure will cost billions and certainly could not be funded by 'profits being enjoyed by shareholders'.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Aye, thats why its called nationalisation and I wouldnt expect the govt to pay top dollar either, more or less just what was paid for them when they were privatised and I am sure once they are re-nationalised all the juicy profits currently being enjoyed by the shareholders could be used to upgrade the infrastructure, I wouldnt expect nationalised industries to run at a loss but I doubt the govt would introduce eye popping rises during a financial crisis.

You're mixing up a lot of different things here.

1) "Top dollar" is tricky to get away from, as shown by the court actions after the failure of Railtrack, A "fair price" (i.e. market value at time of proposal) has to be paid, or you'll be looking at the govt spending tens of millions in the courts.

2) "Upgrade"? For a lot of customers, just having the infrastructure properly maintained would be an improvement on current standards!

3) Shareholder profits: The big problem here is that governments are just as likely to use profits from national utilities as they did previously, rather than reinvestment in that particular national utility - in other words, profit from one sector would be used to finance other sectors that aren't particularly profitable, but are a "social good", and that will leave such industries open to attack by free-marketeers and other economic illiterates.

4) Unless a nationalised power generation industry could find funding for a massive increase in our gas and oil storage capacity, we will always be prey to these ridiculously-high eye-popping rises - we don't have enough capacity to even gently blunt the pain of those rises. Our gas capacity is just over 3 weeks' supply, and that's after it's been increased! We need to do what the Scandinavians do - have enough stored gas to cover half of autumn and all of winter, 20 weeks supply.

 

[coley]

There is no way shareholders would agree to the utilities being bought for what they were worth 20+ years ago. I cannot believe you have seriously suggested such a thing.

As I pointed out, upgrading the infrastructure will cost billions and certainly could not be funded by 'profits being enjoyed by shareholders'.

I wasnt actually suggesting we asked the shareholders, they took advantage of a particular brand of right wing dogma in fashion at the time, it was daylight robbery and all I am suggesting is we do the same to them, something as important to the country and our economy should not be in the hands of the private sector or do you think an 18% rise is justified?

 

[equationgirl]

I wasnt actually suggesting we asked the shareholders, they took advantage of a particular brand of right wing dogma in fashion at the time, it was daylight robbery and all I am suggesting is we do the same to them, something as important to the country and our economy should not be in the hands of the private sector or do you think an 18% rise is justified?

Do you have any idea how corporations are structured? Even if privitisation of the utilities was wrong at the time the government legally can't just say 'we're re-nationalising this industry because thatcher was wrong'.

And where's this 18% figure come from all of a sudden?

 

[coley]

You're mixing up a lot of different things here.

1) "Top dollar" is tricky to get away from, as shown by the court actions after the failure of Railtrack, A "fair price" (i.e. market value at time of proposal) has to be paid, or you'll be looking at the govt spending tens of millions in the courts.

2) "Upgrade"? For a lot of customers, just having the infrastructure properly maintained would be an improvement on current standards!

3) Shareholder profits: The big problem here is that governments are just as likely to use profits from national utilities as they did previously, rather than reinvestment in that particular national utility - in other words, profit from one sector would be used to finance other sectors that aren't particularly profitable, but are a "social good", and that will leave such industries open to attack by free-marketeers and other economic illiterates.

4) Unless a nationalised power generation industry could find funding for a massive increase in our gas and oil storage capacity, we will always be prey to these ridiculously-high eye-popping rises - we don't have enough capacity to even gently blunt the pain of those rises. Our gas capacity is just over 3 weeks' supply, and that's after it's been increased! We need to do what the Scandinavians do - have enough stored gas to cover half of autumn and all of winter, 20 weeks supply.

On your first point I would suggest legislation to protect the govt from drawn out court battles, proper investment could alleviate a lot of unemployment and be a very useful boost to the economy, the legislation I suggest could 'lock in' a given proportion of the profits for maintanence and upgrades as for storage, while I agree its important why not go the whole hog and forget renewables and imported energy and do what Chinas doing and generate from a homegrown resource.....coal and shale gas

 

[equationgirl]

On your first point I would suggest legislation to protect the govt from drawn out court battles, proper investment could alleviate a lot of unemployment and be a very useful boost to the economy, the legislation I suggest could 'lock in' a given proportion of the profits for maintanence and upgrades as for storage, while I agree its important why not go the whole hog and forget renewables and imported energy and do what Chinas doing and generate from a homegrown resource.....coal and shale gas

It's quite clear you know nothing about the energy industry, legislation or government. I think you should stick to reading the Daily fail, it's clear where you get your material from.

 

[coley]

Do you have any idea how corporations are structured? Even if privitisation of the utilities was wrong at the time the government legally can't just say 'we're re-nationalising this industry because thatcher was wrong'.

And where's this 18% figure come from all of a sudden?

Why not? she robbed us blind, whats to stop us introducing legislation to undo that? (apart from our membership of the EU that is) the 18% is the figure being bandied about for the total rise in energy prices over the last year.

 

[coley]

It's quite clear you know nothing about the energy industry, legislation or government. I think you should stick to reading the Daily fail, it's clear where you get your material from.

While I dont read the daily mail, from what I have heard mentioned I doubt it is the kind of rag that would support nationalisation of any kind. and while I dont claim expertise in any particular field the job of goverment is to protect the country and its citzens and having large proportions of the population drop into fuel poverty is hardly doing that.

 

[Proper Tidy]

You don't need the shareholders to agree. It's not an acquisition, it's nationalisation.

 

[Pickman's model]

While I dont read the daily mail, from what I have heard mentioned I doubt it is the kind of rag that would support nationalisation of any kind. and while I dont claim expertise in any particular field the job of goverment is to protect the country and its citzens and having large proportions of the population drop into fuel poverty is hardly doing that.

do you think we live in a representative democracy?

you've been drinking too much of the xmas spirits

 

[coley]

do you think we live in a representative democracy?

you've been drinking too much of the xmas spirits

Once upon a time and give me another half an hour

 

[Curmudgeon3]

Gas? i should be so lucky, but as nearly everything is based on energy prices then a cheap, possibly subsidised, energy sector in everyones intrests, is it not?

Off topic: Happy New Year, Coley..from a dissenter from Orange. Female, not British!!

 

[equationgirl]

Off topic: Happy New Year, Coley..from a dissenter from Orange. Female, not British!!

Welcome to the boards, curmudgeon3. And Happy Hogmanay.

 

[ViolentPanda]

On your first point I would suggest legislation to protect the govt from drawn out court battles...

Being a realist, I'll say what I always say when someone suggest something sensible that might benefit people - how the fuck do you convince the government 9and the political classes as a whole) to legislate something that'll upset their corporate paymasters?

...proper investment could alleviate a lot of unemployment and be a very useful boost to the economy, the legislation I suggest could 'lock in' a given proportion of the profits for maintanence and upgrades as for storage, while I agree its important why not go the whole hog and forget renewables and imported energy and do what Chinas doing and generate from a homegrown resource.....coal and shale gas

I'd love to see British-mined coal being used as a power generation source again. Unfortunately, there'd have to be a massive volume of state investment just to put many mines back in operational condition, bearing in mind that the mines weren't "mothballed", they were stripped and sealed - pumps switched off, allowed to flood, and in a fair number of cases where geological data is available, to collapse.
Of course, we now have the added turd on the doorstep of the government rowing back from their promises on "clean coal" technology.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Do you have any idea how corporations are structured? Even if privitisation of the utilities was wrong at the time the government legally can't just say 'we're re-nationalising this industry because thatcher was wrong'.

And where's this 18% figure come from all of a sudden?

That's the average rise for gas prices, as I recall

 

[ViolentPanda]

While I dont read the daily mail, from what I have heard mentioned I doubt it is the kind of rag that would support nationalisation of any kind. and while I dont claim expertise in any particular field the job of goverment is to protect the country and its citzens and having large proportions of the population drop into fuel poverty is hardly doing that.

What a sweet little fantasy you have about government.

In case you hadn't noticed, "the government" (in fact the political classes as a whole) resiled from the social compact about 30 years ago, and have been increasingly blatant about it as the years have passed. We have an electoral system that gives us no way to ensure that the representative we elect actually carries out the wishes of the constituents, a party system where each party have the same ideological base, and just sprinkle a slightly different flavour on the shit they sell us, in order to get us to buy it, and a parliamentary system that is consistently revealed to work in the interests of corporations far more willingly than in the interests of the electorate.

 

[coley]

Off topic: Happy New Year, Coley..from a dissenter from Orange. Female, not British!!

Mmm, a familiar style? but all the best to you and yours.......yours sincerely, clueless

 

[ViolentPanda]

You don't need the shareholders to agree. It's not an acquisition, it's nationalisation.

Unfortunately, parliament set a precedent with Railtrack that any half-competent brief can spin through the courts like shit through a goose and ensure that shareholders get their (probably more than a) pound of flesh.

 

[coley]

Being a realist, I'll say what I always say when someone suggest something sensible that might benefit people - how the fuck do you convince the government 9and the political classes as a whole) to legislate something that'll upset their corporate paymasters?

I'd love to see British-mined coal being used as a power generation source again. Unfortunately, there'd have to be a massive volume of state investment just to put many mines back in operational condition, bearing in mind that the mines weren't "mothballed", they were stripped and sealed - pumps switched off, allowed to flood, and in a fair number of cases where geological data is available, to collapse.
Of course, we now have the added turd on the doorstep of the government rowing back from their promises on "clean coal" technology.

Get back to you next year on this in the meantime, all the best

 

[equationgirl]

I'd love to see British-mined coal being used as a power generation source again. Unfortunately, there'd have to be a massive volume of state investment just to put many mines back in operational condition, bearing in mind that the mines weren't "mothballed", they were stripped and sealed - pumps switched off, allowed to flood, and in a fair number of cases where geological data is available, to collapse.
Of course, we now have the added turd on the doorstep of the government rowing back from their promises on "clean coal" technology.

I think clean coal is a viable technology and the government should be supporting it more, especially as they backtracked on their promises. I think shale gas, although promising cheap gas, could turn out to be an environment disaster especially given the results from the preliminary drilling in morecambe bay, and a portfolio of energy generation technologies is needed. However, there are two big issues in my mind that need to be addressed:

1) Replacement of base load power provided by coal-fired and nuclear power stations.

2) Grid upgrading and fuel storage.

 

[coley]

I think clean coal is a viable technology and the government should be supporting it more, especially as they backtracked on their promises. I think shale gas, although promising cheap gas, could turn out to be an environment disaster especially given the results from the preliminary drilling in morecambe bay, and a portfolio of energy generation technologies is needed. However, there are two big issues in my mind that need to be addressed:

1) Replacement of base load power provided by coal-fired and nuclear power stations.

2) Grid upgrading and fuel storage.

Well whatever option they choose they need to get a move on, we will be facing a 40% power shortage over the next ten years as older stations go off line and the promise of 'renewables' to fill the gap is, quite frankly, laughable

 

[equationgirl]

Well whatever option they choose they need to get a move on, we will be facing a 40% power shortage over the next ten years as older stations go off line and the promise of 'renewables' to fill the gap is, quite frankly, laughable

Where do you get 40% from?

Renewables such as wind cannot be used to replace base load power sources such as coal, as wind is intermittent.

 

[coley]

Where do you get 40% from?

Renewables such as wind cannot be used to replace base load power sources such as coal, as wind is intermittent.

i know, but it doesnt stop that idiot hulme from claiming they will play an important role in filling the energy gap, The figure is from various articles which are predicting a shortage of between 30, 40 % if the building of new plant doesnt start immediately.
and, just as an aside, why has the subsidy for solar been cut by half and not the subsidy for wind? couldnt be be joe soap benefits from solar while big business fills its pockets from wind?

 

[Meltingpot]

Where do you get 40% from?

Renewables such as wind cannot be used to replace base load power sources such as coal, as wind is intermittent.

How about wave and tidal power, which depend on the tides which in turn is a dependable energy source?

 

[equationgirl]

How about wave and tidal power, which depend on the tides which in turn is a dependable energy source?

Wave & tidal power are considered good candidates for base load replacement but at the moment they are too far away from large-scale commercialisation to be considered. There is also the issue of offshore substations ( more are needed) and offshore cables to get the power back to shore.

i know, but it doesnt stop that idiot hulme from claiming they will play an important role in filling the energy gap, The figure is from various articles which are predicting a shortage of between 30, 40 % if the building of new plant doesnt start immediately.
and, just as an aside, why has the subsidy for solar been cut by half and not the subsidy for wind? couldnt be be joe soap benefits from solar while big business fills its pockets from wind?

So it's 30-40% shortfall, not an absolute 40%? Why didn't you just say that?

The Feed-In Tariff for solar changed, as best I can remember, because 'big business' was jumping on the bandwagon and building mid-scale PV installations at the cost of residential solar installations. Sorry, my notes are at work.

And just so we're on topic (suddenly realised we weren't) I don't hate the police.