The Truth about Pit Closures

[James]

After Nationalisation of the Coal Industry in 1947 all collieries located between the River Blyth and the River Wansbeck  were part of the "Bedlington Group" with the Group Offices situated at Bedlington A colliery. The collieries were -

Barmoor - closed 1962

Netherton - closed 1974 

Bedlington A (The Aad Pit) - closed 1971

Bedlington D (The Doctor Pit) - closed 1968

Bedlington E (The Winnin') - closed 1962

Bedlington F ( Bomarsund) - closed 1965

Choppington A (The Low Pit)- closed 1966

Choppington  B (The High Pit) -closed 1966

Cambois - closed 1968

The Labour party were in power from 1964 to 1970 and again from 1974 to 1979 and during that time, they closed or planned the closure of almost all the collieries around Bedlington. Harold Wilson's hatchet man was "Old King Coal" - Lord Robens who, prior to his appointment had been Labour MP for Blyth. (His Daimler had the registration 'NCB 1'). They called it a Rationalisation Programme citing "market forces" as the reason for their actions.

This was the pattern throughout all the mining areas in Northumberland and of the 50 collieries or so that were operating in 1960, only 7 were open by the time Thatcher's government came to power in 1979. In the 11 years she was PM only 5 pits in Northumberland were closed.

Neither political parties tried very hard to create new jobs for the thousands of miners thrown out of work and in 20 years the Shire was transformed from a region where everyone who left school was virtually guaranteed a job to a place of high unemployment and little likelihood of the situation changing.

[Adam Hogg]

Lord Robens who, prior to his appointment had been Labour MP for Blyth.

James, Lord Robens (Alfred Robens if people think he did not deserve the title of Lord) was also MP for Wansbeck before it became Morpeth in 1950 then he became MP for Blyth in 1950 till 1960 when he became chair of the NCB.

[tomtom]

..and to think that some people though Margaret Thatcher was bad!

[Maggie/915]

The question is 'Does power corrupt? '

[Malcolm Robinson]

I think you have to be susceptible in the first place don't you Maggie?

Had first hand experience of a classic case recently.

[threegee]

The question is 'Does power corrupt? '

 

In a democracy the worst deeds are done in trying to hang on to it.  When the levers of power are to hand it takes a very decent person not to use them to their own advantage.

 

Contrast and compare: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11277432/Jeremy-Thorpe-scandal-New-claims-over-plot-to-murder-Norman-Scott.html

 

A reasonable conclusion might be that the British establishment has always had things off to a much finer art than our transatlantic cousins.  What the Torygraph article fails to point out is that presiding over much of this was a Labour home secretary!

[Maggie/915]

The other important question is

'Do we need strong government' and by that do we need a government to fight for us on a national and international level.

Is that where the problems start.

Self interest is a whole subject in itself.

Subjective viewpoint not objective.

We can all claim to be the good guys but there must come a time when we can become evil.

The Faustian Pact maybe.

Someone says something or does something, reported by gossip and we all jump to the defence of the ''Underdog' without allowing for two sides to the story.

Was it Dylan who sang about 'God on our Side'

I wish I knew the answer.

The older you get the 'Devil' does make sense.

We search for truth but all too often we only get a glimpse of it.

Colour Bar by Susan Williams is interesting.

Alexander McCall Smith claims it as a story 'as relevant today as when the whole drama was being played out'

[threegee]

If by "strong government" you mean throwing our weight around in the rest of the world, then the answer is a decisive no!  Beware the politico who warns we will lose influence. Influence in what; who controls that influence and to precisely what aim?  It generally reduces to influence for him, or his party!  Producing the right kind of goods or services at the right price is the only kind of influence any country needs; cartels are to be avoided, they all end in tears.

 

We search for truth but all too often we only get a glimpse of it.

 

Really?!  The British establishment builds entire careers out of avoiding it!  Take "the deficit" for example: they are not talking about reducing the debt we all have to pay interest on, they are simply talking about reducing the rate that debt is increasing. Try that out on your bank manager!  That's just one of many ways of avoiding the truth - because they believe that if they did tell the truth they wouldn't get elected!

[Maggie/915]

Interesting comments threegee.

On strong government I merely posed the question.

Here is another one:-

Do governments need to lie because the electorate cannot cope with the truth?

Mass panic maybe.

We all need that 'Fluffy Bunny Story'

Is it the case that when the government says there is nothing to worry about, then that is exactly the time to worry.

Really really wish I knew the answers and not the questions.

Sorry to be irritating.

I used to be indecisive and now I am not sure.

[threegee]

Here is another one:-

Do governments need to lie because the electorate cannot cope with the truth?

Mass panic maybe.

We all need that 'Fluffy Bunny Story'

 

Well... it's certainly a fluffy bunny story to pretend that allowing a foreign city the size of Newcastle full of shiny golden cupolas to build every five years in your small country is a jolly good thing to do!  Multiculturalism is a historical and logical absurdity.  When the birth rate of that foreign culture is well in excess of the host culture the hosts are saying goodbye to their hard won history and whatever made them who they are today.  They are giving the 'v' sign to their ancestors.and everything their own country ever stood for. And, to exactly what purpose or agenda you might ask.

 

The execrable Harriet Harman has just been on the radio, once again pedalling the lie (aided and abetted by a willing liberal-elitist BBC) that mass immigration is good for our country. It is being done on economic grounds we are told, as she cherry picks from a report that ignores the demographic (the possibility that immigrants - like ourselves - get old and make increasing demands on social services), and the cost of the necessary infrastructure to support the ever increasing population. In Harriet's world immigrants don't have dependant families, or any of the same aspirations as us.

 

The real fluffy bunny story is that she is not working against the very interests of the social group she claims to represent, and not "working hard" to sell her own country out.

 

Is it the case that when the government says there is nothing to worry about, then that is exactly the time to worry.

Really really wish I knew the answers and not the questions.

Sorry to be irritating.

I used to be indecisive and now I am not sure.

 

That's pretty much the way it works.  If politicos find a need to put "Democratic" in some name, you can be sure that it's fundamentally undemocratic, or that that democracy is strictly reserved for an elite.

 

By extension if we are being warned about something catastrophic then it's principally about control by the elites.  The War on Terror being a interesting recent example of this.  It's masterful that we plebs can't be told what's really going on (or more importantly what's not really going on) in the national interest.

[Malcolm Robinson]

After all that the truth about pit closures is..................

They are closed.

[Symptoms]

But just imagine Mal ... had there been proper investment at the time it's likely we'd now have working 'clean coal' technology.  Folks seem to forget that there's 200 to 300 years worth of RECOVERABLE coal beneath Blighty - stuff Putin, stuff shale, stuff imports.

[threegee]

The elites don't like coal - clean or otherwise - it creates that horrible CO² stuff that only plants like!  Let's throw our money at things which create jobs in China, and only work when it's warm and sunny, or windy and wet.  Coal burning is only for those foreign folk, so's they can use the coal-fired energy to make solar panels that Ed. can subsidise with other people's money, to make him feel good about his green credentials.

 

 

...the energy subsidies that Ed Miliband introduced when he was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change have exploded in cost. Mr Miliband introduced subsidies of household solar panels and wind turbines when he was in Gordon Brown's Cabinet. Although the efficiency of many of these green energy sources has declined the subsidy of them has increased dramatically.

 

The Telegraph reports that the cost of these subsidies over the course of the parliament may add up to one billion pounds. That will be paid for by taxpayers and by people who can hardly afford to heat their homes. The Coalition has cut the feed-in tariffs that new green energy installations receive but the taxpayer is contractually bound to honour the subsidies that Ed Miliband promised to those who took up his programme when he was the responsible Cabinet minister.

 

Mr Raab commented:

"Ed Miliband's flagship green subsidies have proved a ludicrously expensive way of backing inefficient technology. If he can do that for energy policy, just think what damage he would wreak on the economy. The solar subsidies inherited from Labour have been nothing short of a giant boondoggle. It's crazy for politicians to try to pick scientific and commercial winners. It just ends up hiking energy bills paid by hard-pressed households and business, without making us more energy efficient.”

 

See reports in the Mail and Telegraph.

 

I wonder what the alternatives to this are?  Ah, yes, those fruitcakes and loonys are the only ones to differ from the proven wisdom of our ruling elites:

 

UKIP believes that the UK's current energy policy, dictated by Brussels, with its heavy reliance on wind, is seriously undermining the UK economy, and is driving jobs, industry and investment off-shore.  It is forcing millions of households and pensioners into fuel poverty.  And over-dependence on renewables threatens security of supply, and raises the probability of electricity shortages by the end of the decade.

 

The UKIP statement draws attention to recent studies indicating that emissions savings achieved by wind power, after allowing for the necessary conventional back-up, are somewhere between trivial and zero.  It also addresses claims that "the green economy” generates jobs and has the potential to aid economic recovery.  We draw attention to a number of studies showing that by driving up energy costs, renewables actually destroy jobs in the real economy.  As I like to put it, "We're not talking green jobs.  We're talking green unemployment”. 

 

UKIP proposes instead a policy based on proven and economic technologies: gas, coal and nuclear.  This implies a rejection of EU policy and particularly of the EU's Large Combustion Plant Directive, which seeks to ban coal.  The policy statement points out that ironically, our approach could in fact achieve the emissions reductions called for by green lobbyists more effectively and more cheaply than a policy based on renewables.  UKIP also calls for urgent investigation and exploitation of domestic energy sources including shale gas (which has achieved a 50% reduction in gas prices in the USA).

 

UKIP's common-sense policy is based on reliable, secure and affordable energy technologies, in stark contrast to the three old parties, which all endorse a flawed renewables strategy.  Our strategy can ensure that households have access to affordable energy, while underwriting the competitiveness of British industry.

[Adam Hogg]

After all that the truth about pit closures is.................. They are closed.

Not all of them Malcolm, there are a few hanging on here and there.