Margaret Thatcher, R.I.P.?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

But as you are squarely middle class, you wouldn't have known anything about that

Well, I must be if a survey on the BBC website says so, eh?
And even if I were, I don't see how that would mean me not knowing anything about it.

Because everybody knows that the middle class prefer to peep through their nets when the working class are about. And if the beeb says you are, you must be

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Yes, but thats because the privatisation and franchise system in place is a monumental f*ck up. With the highest priced tickets in Europe, haven't we? We must be doing something wrong. Quite fundamentally.

The price of the tickets isn't necessarily the evidence you'd need to declare a feck up.

In some places it's cheap but costs the state a fortune to subsidise.

Total cost per passenger mile travelled might be an interesting one.

And then the question of whether it's funded out of general taxation or by the users themselves is stage 2.

[BWFC_Insane]

Yes, but thats because the privatisation and franchise system in place is a monumental f*ck up. With the highest priced tickets in Europe, haven't we? We must be doing something wrong. Quite fundamentally.

The price of the tickets isn't necessarily the evidence you'd need to declare a feck up.

In some places it's cheap but costs the state a fortune to subsidise.

Total cost per passenger mile travelled might be an interesting one.

And then the question of whether it's funded out of general taxation or by the users themselves is stage 2.

I think that subsidies and ticket prices are both (in relative terms) higher than when it was a nationalised industry though.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Yes, but thats because the privatisation and franchise system in place is a monumental f*ck up. With the highest priced tickets in Europe, haven't we? We must be doing something wrong. Quite fundamentally.

The price of the tickets isn't necessarily the evidence you'd need to declare a feck up.

In some places it's cheap but costs the state a fortune to subsidise.

Total cost per passenger mile travelled might be an interesting one.

And then the question of whether it's funded out of general taxation or by the users themselves is stage 2.

I think that subsidies and ticket prices are both (in relative terms) higher than when it was a nationalised industry though.

How have passenger numbers changed since then (and, therefore, infrastructure requirements)?

But let's gently explore this point about international comparisons first.

[Lord Kangana]

You don't need to think BWFCi, they are higher.

And yes, passenger numbers have increased, but its absurd to suggest that an expanding service that requires bigger government subsidy is the sign of the success of privatisation. And it totally overlooks other mitigating factors, such as the growth of passenger numbers in the SE because its impractical to get a car into London, or the rise in petrol prices that has diven people to alternative means of transport. Or that much more of the public transport infrastructure in London is still partly or wholly publically owned.

[as]

I'm possibly moving to the smoke in the summer - I can't wait to get out of these Northern slums!
The streets are paved with gold and the women haven't met a real man in years (man bags - pah!), yum yum yum

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

You don't need to think BWFCi, they are higher.

And yes, passenger numbers have increased, but its absurd to suggest that an expanding service that requires bigger government subsidy is the sign of the success of privatisation. And it totally overlooks other mitigating factors, such as the growth of passenger numbers in the SE because its impractical to get a car into London, or the rise in petrol prices that has diven people to alternative means of transport. Or that much more of the public transport infrastructure in London is still partly or wholly publically owned.

Actually I'm not trying to argue that privatisation of rail travel has been a success - just trying to establish some parameters and numbers to work it out fairly.

[Bijou Bob]

Surely LLS, the BBC graph shows that despite the closures of pits and massive reduction in miners, productivity remaimed static. Ergo, the industry itself was massively inefficient and needed radical reform.

My point about mining communities, in fact communities per se, is that there never has been a golden age and there was in fact, no community that could be ruined.

I'm sorry that you felt the need to stoop to personal insults. I have a different opinion to you. That doesn't and wouldn't stop reform respecting you as an individual.

[Bijou Bob]

Surely LLS, the BBC graph shows that despite the closures of pits and massive reduction in miners, productivity remaimed static. Ergo, the industry itself was massively inefficient and needed radical reform.

My point about mining communities, in fact communities per se, is that there never has been a golden age and there was in fact, no community that could be ruined.

I'm sorry that you felt the need to stoop to personal insults. I have a different opinion to you. That doesn't and wouldn't stop reform respecting you as an individual.

[thebish]

My point about mining communities, in fact communities per se, is that there never has been a golden age and there was in fact, no community that could be ruined.

I don't believe anyone said that there had been a "golden age" - and, yes - pit-community life can be romanticised - and has been in films (How Green was my Valley!)

BUT - I iknow enough about the string of pit villages up the NE coast to tell you emphatically that there certainly were strong and bonded communities that WERE ruined. To suggest there were no communities to be ruined is simply not true.

i don't know exactly what their future might have been under different circumstances - but they were undoubtedly communities - strong and bonded with common identity - that were ruined by the no-safety-net brutal dismantling of the mining industry.

[seanworth]

Went to a school in an old coal mining town on Vancouver Island. The last mine shut down the first year of my schooling, and most of the other mines had shut down 10-20 years beforehand. Still remember that town as being the closest tight knit community I've ever seen. Still remnants of that community spirit remain over 40 years later.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

that were ruined by the no-safety-net brutal dismantling of the mining industry.

A question that often occurs to me in the context of these discussions is what people think would have been the best, fairest and least painful way to introduce a policy of non-subsidisation of loss-making in nationalised industries? Something one often hears is that the problem wasn't so much what was done, but the lack of compassion exhibited in the way it was done.

The other thing I have often wondered, with the dangerous thing that is a tiny bit of relevant knowledge, is whether we could have got away with subsidising loss-making industries in the 90s, given the prohibition of state aid contained in our obligations in relation to EU law (see cases like this one, for example, concerning punishing the French for subsidising coal production in the 90s: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex ... 41:EN:HTML" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

[Worthy4England]

Surely LLS, the BBC graph shows that despite the closures of pits and massive reduction in miners, productivity remaimed static. Ergo, the industry itself was massively inefficient and needed radical reform.

My point about mining communities, in fact communities per se, is that there never has been a golden age and there was in fact, no community that could be ruined.

I'm sorry that you felt the need to stoop to personal insults. I have a different opinion to you. That doesn't and wouldn't stop reform respecting you as an individual.

I disagree with that conclusion on productivity.

All that shows is the total produced remained static (which it hasn't done since, it's declined further). This was of course in part to do with moving to other forms of energy production. There seems to be an underlying assumption that total production should be maximised, but that's not how it worked or needed to work, production was capped based on demand (which in part is why it was static).

Production per miner was at about 250/300 tonnes in 1950 and prior to that. This increased dramatically through the 70's and 80's and went from 506 in 1979 to 805 in 1983. The notion we weren't getting any better at it is fallacious.

It improved further in the late 80's, and over the course of the 90's and 00's (it actually dropped some in the 00's).

Part of the reason for the improvements is certainly down to working practice, but it should be acknowledged that a smaller demand means you can focus your efforts on pits that are much easier to get coal out of (so you'd expect better productivity).

The main issue wasn't productivity, but low cost imports caused by opening markets up. That there was no safety net in place, when we followed this political dogma (impacted most manufacturing), was shit. That's the real issue (not whether we were any good at it)

[Harry Genshaw]

The Govt have pretty much won the economic debate and I think most in the country have come to accept the cutting in public expenditure, along with the closure of post offices, end of final pension salary schemes, cuts to benefits and charities etc etc

So it made for pretty depressing viewing this morning watching William Hague, a chap I've always quite liked, justifying huge public expense on giving Thatcher a-not-quite-state-funeral.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

So it made for pretty depressing viewing this morning watching William Hague, a chap I've always quite liked, justifying huge public expense on giving Thatcher a-not-quite-state-funeral.

Yes, hearing him relate the cost to the rebate from the EU wasn't his finest moment, was it?

For me there's a much more simple point which is that we already own the carriages, emply the soldiers ect, so the vast majority of the extra cost is simply police and security - i.e. the cost of keeping those of us who work or live in central London safe when there's a public event on.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Surely LLS, the BBC graph shows that despite the closures of pits and massive reduction in miners, productivity remaimed static. Ergo, the industry itself was massively inefficient and needed radical reform.

My point about mining communities, in fact communities per se, is that there never has been a golden age and there was in fact, no community that could be ruined.

I'm sorry that you felt the need to stoop to personal insults. I have a different opinion to you. That doesn't and wouldn't stop reform respecting you as an individual.

I thought you were the one to stoop to personal insults when I'd outlined that my f-i-l had died last week and that his community had been devastated. You then more or less accused him and his community of being racist,homophobic, nepotist, misogynist wife beaters. That's why I called you a moron. If you're withdrawing that uncalled for slur I'll withdraw my remark with apologies. Down to yourself really.

[BWFC_Insane]

The Govt have pretty much won the economic debate and I think most in the country have come to accept the cutting in public expenditure, along with the closure of post offices, end of final pension salary schemes, cuts to benefits and charities etc etc

So it made for pretty depressing viewing this morning watching William Hague, a chap I've always quite liked, justifying huge public expense on giving Thatcher a-not-quite-state-funeral.

I'm pretty sure the polls show that is not the case.

[bobo the clown]

Surely LLS, the BBC graph shows that despite the closures of pits and massive reduction in miners, productivity remaimed static. Ergo, the industry itself was massively inefficient and needed radical reform.

My point about mining communities, in fact communities per se, is that there never has been a golden age and there was in fact, no community that could be ruined.

I'm sorry that you felt the need to stoop to personal insults. I have a different opinion to you. That doesn't and wouldn't stop reform respecting you as an individual.

I thought you were the one to stoop to personal insults when I'd outlined that my f-i-l had died last week and that his community had been devastated. You then more or less accused him and his community of being racist,homophobic, nepotist, misogynist wife beaters. That's why I called you a moron. If you're withdrawing that uncalled for slur I'll withdraw my remark with apologies. Down to yourself really.

Regretably, as I said yesterday, these debates never change views, lead to bitterness and end up with personal insults.

Both you guys are better than that.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Surely LLS, the BBC graph shows that despite the closures of pits and massive reduction in miners, productivity remaimed static. Ergo, the industry itself was massively inefficient and needed radical reform.

My point about mining communities, in fact communities per se, is that there never has been a golden age and there was in fact, no community that could be ruined.

I'm sorry that you felt the need to stoop to personal insults. I have a different opinion to you. That doesn't and wouldn't stop reform respecting you as an individual.

I thought you were the one to stoop to personal insults when I'd outlined that my f-i-l had died last week and that his community had been devastated. You then more or less accused him and his community of being racist,homophobic, nepotist, misogynist wife beaters. That's why I called you a moron. If you're withdrawing that uncalled for slur I'll withdraw my remark with apologies. Down to yourself really.

Regretably, as I said yesterday, these debates never change views, lead to bitterness and end up with personal insults.

Both you guys are better than that.

You're a very wise clown. Because Bobo has pointed out the error of my ways I shall universally withdraw my insults personally directed at anybody on here. I still hate Thatcher, but I shall leave it at that and pisx off to other more deserving threads and never set foot in this one again. Consider it done
.

[thebish]

So it made for pretty depressing viewing this morning watching William Hague, a chap I've always quite liked, justifying huge public expense on giving Thatcher a-not-quite-state-funeral.

Yes, hearing him relate the cost to the rebate from the EU wasn't his finest moment, was it?

For me there's a much more simple point which is that we already own the carriages, emply the soldiers ect, so the vast majority of the extra cost is simply police and security - i.e. the cost of keeping those of us who work or live in central London safe when there's a public event on.

aye... but then there is no real obvious reason that her funeral should be a public event, is there?