Chip

Still 16 here in Wales anyway. Think its 17 in England unless you go into either FTE of an apprenticeship, surely not a bad thing, or would you rather they leave at 16 and go straight on the dole?

Edmondo

I feel suitably chastised lololol..............give it a year or 2 and some of those that are tory voters will start to regret it - but not man enough to own up..........as Fraser from Dads Army used to say - "we're doomed"

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Nah, people like that will never see when the Tories are wrong, it will always be someone else's fault. They'll probably still blame Labour for anything that goes wrong

jonc

Like those who continually blame Thatcher!

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

I'd rather it stayed at 16, yes.

I have mates in FTE, and they are saying it's ruined it at a stroke. The classes they had full of eager kids who WANTED to be there, wantred decent qulaifications, wanted training and NEEDED it, now full of sullen 17 year olds who don't.

It was a Liebour scam to get unemployment down just before the last election.

Those kids should be in WORK, or training, NOT forced to be in school learning useless stuff and gaining, perhaps, useless qualifications.
Or just fukcing up the chances of those who want/need etc

Edmondo

of course........problem with people today - part of the "I am suing" culture - everything is someone else's fault and take responsibility for nothing

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Liebour....again, the Socialist nanny state syndrome.

Edmondo

Or the Tory - If you are old, Ill or poor then tough luck

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

There you go breaking your little rule again! Careful or I might call you a name and then you can whinge about it for ten posts

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Precisely

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

At least the Tories don't aim to control EVERY festering thing we do.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

No they want to let the Town Halls control it instead

jonc

Labour already did that with their pension raid; targeted the old, made them poorer and likely to have made significant number ill because of it.

Edmondo

neither do I - but then I have Cancer and don't get any financial help despite paying tax and N.I for 30 years....my mum and dad are pensioners and don't get any help despite both being in poor health and spend 50 years working and paying Tax and N.I - so the tory workhouse for us then!!!!!!!!!!!!

borat52

To explain what he meant (which was a very misleading thing to band about given how it could easily misquoted):

In the last 2 years net migration has increased by 50,000.

So he means if for example 200,000 people were coming to the UK net in 2012, then in 2014 it was 250,000 net (people who come minus people who leave).

The point he was trying to make was that the old people who are retiring later are taking up far more jobs due to the pension changes than migration is increasing. Don't worry we're still taking in hundreds of thousands each year net, and largely they are finding jobs, which the home grown unemployed population don't seem able to hold down.

I'm not pro unrestricted immigration for the record, and I'm very understanding that Thatcher wrecked large swathes of old industry - which was not in itself a bad thing, as it was costing the tax payer to keep it going. It would probably have been wise in hindsight to pick some strategic industries to finance properly in order for them to succeed, just like Rolls Royce.

Look at JLR, a basket case until TATA threw cash at them to produce a decent product, and now its essentially a money tree, and that profit gets repatriated to India, because no one in the UK could/would provide sufficient finance - how many other examples of failed industry would not be thriving with finance?

dpb

Difficult when its cheaper to produce abroad , and/or the public perceive a less than reliable product

borat52

Rolls Royce was bankrupt, before the government bailed it out - could have easily gone under and people would have said "bad management, poor quality" (the Lightning engines never worked reliably)
And Jaguars from the 70's 80's and largely 90's are terrible cars - doesn't stop JLR making oodles of cash today because they invested heavily in refining a good quality product.

Water under the bridge though, the current state in the North has far more to do with successive failures to deal with the problems than thatcher, I mean no one would be working down the pits in 2015 anyway, so she just ended it sooner rather than later. The failure was not investing in an alternative and instead signing everyone off sick.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

What are you basing your statement that "no-one would be working down the pits in 2015 anyway....", on?

When I studied resources for my degree, the coal we had was slated to last another 300 years. (1975)

Chip

Because there are much cleaner fuels around these days.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Really? Like what?

Coal CleanBurn Technology has come a LONG way...and could go further with more research.
Which is why the Germans have decided to phase out all their nuclear stations and phase in...coal!

daviee

Rolls Royce went bust because the RB211 was cutting edge using Carbon fibre fan assembly that went on to fail, the development cost doubled and penalty clauses on late enging was the straw that broke the camels back. The fan assembly was replace with titanium and aluminium and was probably the finest jet enging produced. The modern RR Trent engines are a tweeked RB211.

dpb

Just bizarre lol, maybe we could learn some lessons .


Anyway no matter France has plenty nuclear we can buy

Chip

Gas, nuclear, wind, solar, hydro etc.

borat52

I'm basing on the fact that if people can't hold a job down which is clean and safe (ie office admin or shelf stacking) for min wage, they are unlikely to be willing to dig coal out from the earth for the same money, and risk their lives.

Add that to the fact that coal can be imported cheaply, and is being phased out in favour of gas and renewables and you don't have a viable industry there. The fact that no large sale coal extraction is occuring in the UK highlights this, look at fracking - they are queuing up to invest in that, not so for coal even though the extraction is easier and it's a proven quantity.

jonc

CleanBurn wasn't available/viable back then, even now it is still a lot more expensive than other forms of fuel. Besdes, carbon capture was only part of the problem; the unions also helped with screwing up the industry too.

borat52

The Germans phased out nuclear as a political decision after Fukushima and had no way of replacing the lack of capacity so opted to go heavily into wind, which doesn't blow all the time, backed up by the easiest tech to get online quickly which is coal and lignite at that - the dirtiest form:
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/on_the_...rty_coal/2769/

As for RR - you'll find that it wasn't just the choice of fan in the RB211 that didn't work, the first engines were very problematic and it's unlikely that they would have got the RB211 out of the door without a bail out even if they chose titanium up front.

If the G invested the RR money in coal, coal would still have gone to the wall, but there were enough other RR's out there to keep British industry alive. look at the UK auto industry as a whole - it's fine with foreign investment, but you can't get a product from no investmentZ

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

LOL, Gas is no cleaner than CleanBurnCoal, and we HAVE NO gas left.
The rest? In fifty years maybe, but at present? Nope, unless you want power cuts?

borat52

There is an abundance of gas both in Russia, the middle east and the USA, and if we frack there will be an abundance of Gas here too. The reason Gas is favoured is becuase it's proven, cheap and its got far lower CO2 emmisions than coal. Clean coal at the moment is unproven anywhere in the world. As for capture, the German greens think a sudden release of stored CO2 is a bigger human health danger than pollution (sudden suffocation of people in the affected area)

Read the link below it's extremely interesting:
"Lignite emits far more CO2 than other fossil fuels — 1,100 grams per kilowatt-hour, compared to between 150 and 430 grams for natural gas. It is the main reason why German CO2 emissions have started rising"

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/on_the_...rty_coal/2769/

Chip

Just 50% less carbon dioxide than coal. Doesn't leave feckin great slag heaps either.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Where is this less carbon dioxide than coal coming from?

Natural gas is methane, a hydrocarbon, coal is the same, a hydrocarbon, although long-chain.
Plus we USED to get lots of other useful chemicals from coal that we no longer can, and have to import as oil.

It's all very well stating that we can import cheaper than we can mine our own.
Unfortunately, those who composed the figures simply looked at the cost of the coal.

they FAILED to take into account the miners out of work, no longer paying taxes but drawing benefits, their families drawing benefits etc etc, which significantly adds to the cost of importing instead of mining. The decision was made on political grounds, NOT economic...and yes, I'm well aware of the role played by the NUM etc....shameful and stupid.

Add to that: each colliery also employed engineers, smiths, carpenters, electricians, groundsmen, maintenance, and safety workers...all now out of work too.

And that's before we look at the mining areas, where homes became unsaleable, shops, pubs and local businesses went bust and closed...it all adds up.

And what of the railways? Before, we had trains which had to be maintained and driven, visiting local collieries, now we have one large train visiting a port. More job losses. And the haulage companies? I could go on, but I have a feeling I'm talking to deaf ears.

But if all you are interested is the politics, it's OK.