British coal mining - what's the legacy?

Great Debates
21

But that’s the time frame I’m talking about - over the next few decades.

See this report by the EIA as an example, page 4: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2013).pdf

It shows that even in the worst-case scenario, coal generation drops to 2015 - that critical point I mentioned - and then increases again, slowly, in terms of GW*hr of generation. In terms of percentage of electric production, the graphs below show that only in the high oil and gas resource and GHG15 scenarios does coal’s percentage decrease significantly. The high oil and gas resource scenario seems kind of unlikely, but the real answer may be between it and reference IMO.

22

Some of us can…

23

Is there another insult in there besides deliberately mispronunciating her name? The implications of “ray gun” I understand; is there a Britishism or UK understanding that makes “thatchler” meaningful?

24

Hitler. Sometimes “Herr Thatchler”.

25

As gracer said, it’s likening her to Hitler.

26

WSJ had an interesting article on this point. TL : DNR- it is going out in East Kentucky, specifically.

And don’t get me started on solar grid parity.

27

Does that make more sense with some sort of English accent? Because it seems like a real stretch in my American one.

I can’t decide if I’m too young, too isolated, or too something else to really understand why coal still has the power it has in the United States. I can understand King Coal historically but I can’t understand the hold on Appalachia these days.

28

Have been interested to find absolutely no mention of Harold Wilson who presided as Labour Prime Minister over more pit closures than Maggie Thatcher. Whilst some were closed for economic reasons, as many were not closed because they were in Labour-held constituencies despite being uneconomic.

29

It’s a little bit of a stretch just as it is in BrE as well, but more recognisable if you say “Herr Thatchler”, and certainly if you joke a German accent around what you’re saying. Once you’ve heard it it becomes more recognisable, I think. It wasn’t the only time the joke was made, people knew the joke.

30

In British English it’s just changing the last syllable of her name to “ler” making it the same as the last syllable of Adolf’s surname. It’s a piss poor insult and despite having lived in the North during the miner’s strike I never even noticed that Scargill did that and nor have I ever heard anyone else doing it.

31

(missed edit)

But I agree asterion, if I were mean to you and you were to say “phhsh gracler” - I probably wouldn’t get it.

If you were to say “Vell, Herr Gracler got out on ze rrrong side of ze bed zis morning!” - then I’d get it.

32

I suspect Quartz is misremembering. The “Thatchler” thing was a feature of a comic strip in the satirical magazine Private Eye Battle for Britain (Private Eye) - Wikipedia

33

Hi Una,

Thanks for the reply and the link to the Annual Energy Outlook. I took a look at page 4, and read through the exec summary. I offer the following two comments:

  • First, from page 4, only the reference scenario shows coal’s total contribution to energy supply stay constant, and that’s in terms of BTU’s. Presumably, since gas’s (and renewable’s) contribution grows, coal’s would presumably shrink as a percentage.

  • Second, both the reference and the natural gas scenario assume no change in policy - ie, no carbon tax, no cap and trade, and no further EPA regulation of CO2 as a pollutant. That’s the part I have difficulty believing. The GPG 15 scenario shows a significant decrease of coal’s contribution to energy under a smallish CO2 tax ($15/ton, growing 5% per year.) While I don’t know - and you don’t know - how similar a future policy change will look to that assumption, I still maintain that it’s more realistic to look at scenarios that posit some policy change over those that assume none at all.

To reflect on it another way, I don’t know that the EIA report is saying that the reference scenario is what will happen. Rather, they are saying that under certain assumptions, this is what will happen. You, on the other hand, I read as saying in this thread that the EIA’s reference scenario is what will happen over the next few decades. And I continue to disagree.

34

At the time I was working and living in Port Talbot, West Glamorgan, near Swansea, and I remember well the day a taxi driver was killed.

The longer I live the more I realize the stated or ostensible purpose of any human organization has little to do with their real objective which is just to perpetuate itself and become more powerful.

Workers Unions in pretty much any western country are good examples of organizations whose only objective is to grow and become powerful. To that end they sell a lot of rethoric regarding workers’ welfare but in fact they are pretty much legalized mafias which want to preserve the status quo and object to any change or progress.

They sell their rethoric but in fact the union workers are just pawns so that the union leaders may have power.

Any country that allows labor unions to grow too much will fall behind in economic productivity.

Labor unions are like a cancer in that they tend to keep growing at the expense of the host country.

In the UK Thatcher dealt the miner’s union a much needed correction.

Soon in the USA Reagan did the same with the air controllers.

Spain has not done it and the labor unions in Spain have way too much power and are one important cause of why Spain is in the shitty situation it is in. Governments in Spain are too weak and public opinion is too ignorant and supports unions so Spain continues to muddle through shit while others move forward.

The mining industry in Spain has been affected by the same factors as that in Britain and other countries but where Thatcher just put her foot down the successive Spanish governments have just caved to the miners one after another. Spanish coal mining is not competitive so it has been subsidized for decades. The more coal they extract the more money we lose on it. The EU has ruled it illegal and has demanded the subsidies cease. The miners turn violent and attack even the police in violent clashes. Nobody does anything. It is chaos and the way to bankruptcy but Spain just does not have strong enough governments. It is a mess and a disaster.

The UK was lucky to have Thatcher stand up to the unions.

In Spain the miners want to continue to have high salaries to do an unneeded job while subsidized by the rest of the country (which is bankrupt) and while the union leaders just flex their muscle power in the face of the government which does not have the guts, courage or support to stand up to them.

And then recently there was a big mining accident with six dead and that caused more protests. So what do they want?

In Spain labor unions are just a part of the corrupt system. They extort money legally and they serve their leaders. That’s it. It’s a legal racket.

Thatcher put her foot down and avoided that fate for Britain. Of course, Britain had their heyday of labor union abuse earlier, in the seventies, so public opinion was more in favor of putting an end to that.

If you want to know what it would be like in Britain if unions grew unchecked you only have to look at Spain and see the sorry state of affairs there.

35

No, it was a speech Scargill gave in Moscow.

36

You cannot see an reasonable argument to put up against this rather simple complaint?

What purpose to banks serve? what purpose does industry serve? what purpose do politicians serve? Why do we have a class system? What is the point of almost every single religion? What is the objective of just about every nation on earth?

Some of these have only one objective, to become powerful, others have only one objective which is to maintain their existing power. You see all of the complaints, including the murder of people can just as readily be levelled at governments, rulers companies and religions - but that’s all right just as long as they make a profit or because God says so - and the way that the industries and insurance companies have fought against compensation claims over asbestos related disease and conditions is as near to mass killing as one can get.

In such a world where everyone else is trying to ensure they have power it would be pretty stupid for the workers who provide the means to produce power and impose it at the behest of their masters not to wrest some of this aside for their own interests. The alternative is just to sit on the sidelines while the power games go on and hope their masters will throw them a crumb or two.

The real maturity of the representatives of labour is when they understand what is, and what is not in their interests, the interests of workers, and all those other groups should never be compromised merely because of ideology - workers do have an interest in the success of their employers - fact is that the NUM did not see this at all

Its just a pity that business does not seem capable of it, we see huge incentives for market traders to lie about the security of investments in order to give themselves a short term boost when bonuses are paid. Right now we have a world where recession is everywhere, where currencies cannot retain their value or market confidence, where regulators, banks and governments have all lied for years about the security of their accounts, that statements were true, and yet we find they all lied, and lied and lied.

I don’t see those financial institutions being crushed, or shut down, or being allowed to fail - yet underperforming industries have been allowed to collapse around the world with huge adverse effects of the drones keeping those industries going.

Seems there is one set of financial rules for those at the lower reaches of the heap, where the workers must pay the consequences of tax evasion on international scales, whilst workers lose their work and bear the brunt of all the recessions.

Just as workers organisations should not get too far above themselves, and be sensible in understanding how to share power, the same applies to all the other power interests, from governments through to corporations through to religious orders - at the moment the accountability seems to have gone, when banks screw up, well they are to big to fail, errant city traders just laugh it off like overgrown schoolboys, and continue to pay themselves large bonuses just as before.

Just as unions have been brought to heel, the upward spiral of financiers incomes also needs to be brought under control - whenever some sort of control is mooted, we are assailed with the idea that the traders will move elsewhere because it is an international market - how about if they don’t like the new terms, they can sod off and we can readily find others who would be quite happy to work for less - there are always others waiting in the wings. Frankly, my view is that since they have screwed up our economy, it would be no loss to us if we let them go elsewhere and screw up someone else’s economy.

Why is the Spanish economy in the pisser by the way? Could it be that their leaders borrowed far more than they could cover? Could it be that they lied in their own self interest to get re-elected? Could it be that city financiers were quite willing to continue lending on this basis? Or that Greece, Italy and others seem to think that the payment of taxation is only for the little people?

We should put the blame of Spanish poor performance where it truly lies, which is a system riddled with self interest, of lies and distortions from the markets through to the politicians who rule the country - the reaction of unions has been unhelpful - but not too surprising given that all the other greedy little piggies had their snouts in the trough and their front trotters in the monetary swill right up to their necks.

37

My point is that unions do not serve the workers, they serve the union bosses, like political leaders do not serve those who voted them, they serve themselves and others with power. In Spain labor union leaders have done much more harm than good to the economy as a whole and to the workers they are supposed to represent. In Spain labor union leaders are like the leaders of communist countries who said they were serving the people but had just carved out a good position for themselves which they could only maintain with the fiction that they were serving the people and they had to have the people believe it.

Oh, man, don’t get me started. Spain has made its bed and now has to lie in it. Everybody is guilty, the whole culture is responsible. As they say, the Spanish deserve to get what they voted for and they deserve to get it good and hard. But that is another thread. The only thing here is that the labor unions in Spain are totally corrupt and are of no help to workers. Labor unions are in great part responsible for the state of the economy (together with other organizations like political parties). Labor unions are a huge hindrance in the creation of jobs in Spain. They are mafiosi who should be in jail in the company of many bankers and politicians but the Spanish people are ignorant and continue to follow their leader whoever he is and however crooked he may be. Labor unions have been exposed as stealing and cheating millions of euros and nothing happens, life goes on, the workers continue to support their corrupt leaders. It is human nature.

Many big strikes are not done for a particular end for the workers, rather they are political in nature and the union leaders choose to strike when and how it suits them best for their ends and many times the workers come out losing so the union bosses can exert their political power.

In 1997, a Teamsters strike shut down UPS. The strike had little to do with UPS and everything to do with the Teamsters union flexing their muscles. They cared little that they were using UPS workers for their own ends. This is all too common.

38

One of the problems of Spanish industry and business is that there is little social mobility, and very little meritocracy.

If UK posters think Britain is bad for this, they should try Spain - the system of favour paybacks reaches every single part of Spanish society in a way that is hard to imagine - it is not too important if someone else has done better at university than you did, or that someone else might be a better candidate for a particular post - what matters is that the favori system operates and that you have the right connections.

We are increasingly seeing the best of Spanish graduates seeking employment in Northern European nations simply because they do not see opportunities arising in Spanish organisations no matter how hard of how committed they are to their work.

This is a cultural matter, similar thing happens in Italy too - there is immense potential in both these countries and you often see vivid glimpses in talent in certain industries - but it seems to take a foreign corporation to step in and buy a company out to cut across these cultural practices and then the performance can be outstanding - look at Aprilia, or Ducati, or Lamborghini - all taken over and doing much better - the ideas and innovations were there, but it took another culture to make them bear fruit. Frequently this has also meant that the workforce representatives have been thrown out and labour relations have been given a new frame of reference.

Unions are not the cause of all these problems, but they are a part of it, but why is it that labour unions seem to have all the opprobrium heaped upon them when the truth is that there are others who are equally to blame - if not more.

Going back to the UK, company bosses were just as idiotic in their decisions - they would close down profitable projects in favour of those run by their own relatives - the British Motorbike industry was especially bad in this regard, and in terms of education - no British industry was as discouraging to the idea of employing degree qualified designers as shipbuilding. These were not labour union issues, but in a company of such incompetence it is hardly surprising that those industrial leaders simply lost power and control to the workforce representatives.

Bad management is to blame for almost all industrial problems, its the management that has the wherewithal to maintain its grip on its activities, it is bad management that makes stupid investment decisions, and its bad management that fails to understand when it should listen to the workforce and develop good practices and ideas, and when to wield the big stick effectively.

Its like running your own family, the parents need to keep control but must also be prepared to compromise and listen when appropriate. If the parents lose their control then the children will turn out bad, and if the parents nurture their children then they will be rewarded, as the children develop they can contribute but they should never be treated as idiots or abused - its not that much different in business and industry - don’t blame the workers, its the management that’s the problem.

39

Then a cite would be nice. Google is refusing to co-operate, and indeed the only evidence of a Moscow visit I can find is one that Scargill made in 1957, where he was unlikely to have mentioned Mrs Thatcher.

40

I strongly disagree but that is for another thread about Spain.

I will agree or disagree depending on what you mean. Do companies shrink or shut down due to poor decisions by management? Sure. Is there a better system like having the government or others co-manage? NO

If I risk my money to start a business and emply some workers for some months and then have to close down the workers still got paid for their work and I lost my investment. The purpose of a company is to try to provide a product or service which people will buy and pay money for. Only secondarily the purpose is to create jobs. Once you see the purpose of economic activity as creating jobs you’re fucked because you start subsidizing here and there to keep non-productive jobs and you enter a spiral of subsidies which is unsustainable. Is the economy willing to pay for the coal at market price? Yes or no? If yes then there is no problem. If no then the mine needs to be shut down pronto!

Spain today is just an endless story of strikes by workers that want to keep their unproductive jobs. That’s what fucks up the economy. People just want jobs, no matter how unproductive.