OT: Kellingley pit shuts and causes leftist dilemma

[Cursitor Doom]

And even less probably when dug up by prisoners doing hard labour in China for a bowl of rice a day. Ain't globalisation wonderful?

[Cursitor Doom]

Never mind; the old smokestack industries were an anachronism anyway. Thank goodness we've been able to replace them with an innovative and thriving financial services sector that, er, um, almost destroyed the entire global economy in 2007.

[Cursitor Doom]

And much needed, too. It's a national embarrassment that our British trees are so hopelessly unproductive and fire-resistant.

[brightside S9]

I think you will find that there were other countries "financial services sector" involved in the "destruction of the global economy" (as you put it) in 2007, seeded by that denocratic idiot Clinton.

[michael adams]

The above statement was brought to you courtesy of somebody who thinks that the demise of the horse drawn transport was the result of globalisation -

" And I don't know what you mean by "victims" of globalisation. Unless you think that people who used to make a living off horses (like blacksmiths, horse-whip makers, etc) are victims too. " Tim Streater

michael adams

[Bill Wright]

The government accepts highly uneconomic methods of electricity generation in the name of environmentalism. So why are they prepared to import coal with all the CO2 that produces? Why not put some of the silly windmill money into subsidising UK mining, and keep UK miners in jobs?

Bill

[harry]

Simple. Because it's you that's silly.

[Tim Watts]

I see no problem in import taxes.

We are a rich nation with people who have money and people who need to earn (relatively) good money to buy anything. Therefore buying, at least certain things, from places with very much cheaper cost of labour is going to skew our economy.

The hard bit is making the decision as to what gets taxed.

I guess by this stage, we're all happy to import highly affordable large screen TVs from China as we would not even have the capability to manufacture that stuff 100% in house anymore.

But where do you draw the line? I'd say local food production should be encouraged. Maybe we've missed the boat on deep mining - or have we?

The extra it costs us to pay for local mining is partly saved by a) less benefits for now unemployed miners; b) benefits to society overall in having busier employed towns rather than depressed unemployed ones.

[Brian-Gaff]

Actually one thing I noticed when they spoke to some of the miners from pits already closed was that the job was dangerous and shortened lives, and thank god its gone. The future of mining could well be robotic, and thank goodness for that. Sending people down holes in that heat and dust and gas etc, is really not what we should be doing in this century. Lets hope all countries follow suit. Brian

[Mike Lander]

More fool you.

That's not correct with those on benefits.'

Therefore buying, at least

The economy has always included imports.

Makes no sense of it is substantially cheaper when imported.

That makes no sense when open cast imports are much cheaper.

Those numbers are so low as to be irrelevant.

b) benefits to society overall in

[Andrew Gabriel]

That's not true. UK is still competitive in many areas, but they are mostly high skilled. UK doesn't generate the skills necessary through our education system (at least, nowhere near enough of them), so we are highly dependant on migrant workers in many of these areas. It's the usual choice of one of the following:

1. Import the skilled migrants and sell the products,
2. Export the work and jobs and import the products instead, or
3. Radically change our education system (not deliverable by any government). Currently we do 1, but there's a real danger of switching to 2. Then we're in the shit.

It stops you from being able to export anything. Then you don't need a workforce, and you have to figure out how to support a large unemployed population with no money (like many of the Eurozone countries).

[Andrew Gabriel]

Actually, they're showing they don't, even in the face of a large uneducated green movement pushing hard for it.

It's your money. Do you want to pay to subsidise a non-viable industry? Bare in mind that foreign coal is going to get very rapidly cheaper as the markets for it reduce - you will have to spend increasing amounts over time subsidising a non-viable industry - it's not something that can ever be fixed to be viable again. No - it's a non-starter.

Miners are hard workers of a type that are in short supply in much of the UK. The country needs them to be doing something that is profitable, not loss making. I would hope retraining is available, and I have no problem with that being funded out of my taxes.

[Mike Lander]

It hasn't been about manufacturing for a long time now.

It's far from clear that that would change anything even if it was possible.

[Andrew Gabriel]

I didn't say anything about manufacturing (but we do have a small niche in that area in high tech - again requiring high skills).

You either train your skilled workforce, or you import your skilled workforce. The third option is no skills, then you're sunk.

[Martin]

£13,000 compensation for 35 years in the mine isn't going to last very long.

[Martin]

Not to mention degree qualified shelf stackers on zero hour contracts

[Tim Streater]

You think they were paid an average of just over £370 per annum for working in the mine?

[Martin]

Most of the miners who have lost their jobs in the past never worked again.

[Martin]

[Tim Streater]

And it shouldn't do.