What we've lost

[Jacob]

......
Thatcher didn't destroy one bit of it,.....

Yes we realise she didn't destroy everything, past present and future - it just feels like it!

the do gooders who nationalised the coal industry did that by taking over the coal production and raising the prices to 'market levels,' thus removing the cheap fuel that all the others relied upon..

Those pesky do gooders, they don't half spoil things for everybody!
A major tipping point towards nationalisation of coal was the Gresford Colliery disaster in 1934 where appalling management of coal resulted in the death of 266 miners. There were 591 widows, children left.
The wage packets of the dead miners were docked quarter of a shift's pay for failure to complete the shift. Those were the days!
It's been downhill ever since what with do gooders, elf n safety, minimum wage, benefits, NHS, unions etc.

 

[Digit]

As usual Jacob you take the all or nowt route. I pointed out that nationalisation may well have been broadly good, but the usual leftist one size fits all view, what was good for south Wales must be good for Shropshire, helped nobody.
I would also point out that the local employers, the Leveson-Gowers did more for local people, schools, sports facilities, hospital etc, than the NCB ever did.
Because one mine owner is lousy doesn't make all mine owners lousy anymore than one good one makes them all good ones.
Nationalisation did not have to be sweeping in its application.

Roy.

 

[Jacob]

...
Because one mine owner is lousy doesn't make all mine owners lousy....

Basically they and the whole system were &hite, why argue?

 

[Digit]

Basically they and the whole system were pineapple

Were they? All of them? That Jacob is typical, the broad view, the 'I know best', view.
A whole community was destroyed because the Government of the day held that view, and they were wrong!

Roy.

 

[Jacob]

Basically they and the whole system were pineapple

Were they? All of them? That Jacob is typical, the broad view, the 'I know best', view.
A whole community was destroyed because the Government of the day held that view, and they were wrong!

Roy.

You shouldn't waste your time lazily having opinions if you can't be bothered to look at the background.
Gresford wasn't a one off, it was a particularly severe example of what was typical throughout the industry. Bear in mind that it had "improved" enormously, children and women were no longer pulling loaded trucks on their hands and knees.
Digit- you should pull your digit out.

 

[Digit]

You shouldn't waste your time lazily having opinions if you can't be bothered to look at the background.

Absolutely! The same applies to your previous comment as you appear to know nothing about the Leveson-Gower family Jacob.
We have 100 mine owners. 99 of them are dreadful so we take over all 100?
Explain to me how a rule is more important than the life of a community.
One chap who was made redundant commented, 'huh! If I'd known the job was only going to be temporary I'd never have joined in the first place!'
He'd been employed by the company, including through the depression, for 50 yrs!

Roy.

 

[Modernist]

I have indeed read "Back to the Grindstone" and it is an odd tome. On the one hand it accurately describes the appalling and dangerous working conditions and absence of social security, in the literal sense, which required a degree of social cohesion in order for people to survive. There is little justification for the rose tinted tales of the little mesters we hear peddled by the grinders of today. On the other hand, as Jacob points out, the individual writer was relatively successful in that he and his male mates could spend at least 3 full days and 4 part days in the pub. No doubt their wives and families were grateful in this socialist utopia.

I was stirred to hit the keyboard by mention of my favourite whippee Maggie T. Whilst it is true she was not personally responsible for much of the demise of manufacturing industry, which was brought about by poor and uneducated management, fuelled more than a little by the class system, what she did was change the perception of society and destroyed much of the cohesion which had previously held communities together. This was only possible owing to the inherent weakness of the remaining industry but she created divisions which remain with us today. What would Gill know about the families split by the miner's strike, or indeed mining itself, again, like the little mesters, high on legend by those who have never been involved.

With regard to mine owners it might be easier to enquire if anyone heard of a good one. Certainly many apparently philanthropic actions took place, such as the building of housing and sometimes community facilities but this was mainly to provide a convenient workforce for the industry. The crumbling palaces of the coal barons remain as a testament to their wealth. I was disappointed to discover recently that the real reason for the demise of the coal industry was the clean air act of the 1950's immediately prior to which coal production was still within reach of the all time high. This resulted in a steep decline, terminated by the privatisation of power, with thatcher having only a minor influence towards the end. Much as I despise her at least she had policies I could disagree with, unlike the present lot who are lost in space without a practical idea between them.

 

[Digit]

One of the problems with trying to be a good employers is, of course, the existance of competition.
If your competitors cut corners you either have to follow suit or go bust, which doen't help your employees, thus taking over the mines was a damn site more expensive to the tax payer, miners included, than bringing in regulations to improve conditions at the expense of the employer.

Roy.

 

[Jacob]

..
We have 100 mine owners. 99 of them are dreadful so we take over all 100?

Yes. If it'd been 50/50 then perhaps a rethink.

Explain to me how a rule is more important than the life of a community.

Community life in NCB towns and villages was excellent and now sorely missed. Thanks Maggie.

One chap who was made redundant commented, 'huh! If I'd known the job was only going to be temporary I'd never have joined in the first place!'...

Old jokes never die.
Divorced after 50 years - "I knew that marriage wouldn't last" :roll:

 

[Modernist]

One of the problems with trying to be a good employers is, of course, the existance of competition.
If your competitors cut corners you either have to follow suit or go bust, which doen't help your employees, thus taking over the mines was a damn site more expensive to the tax payer, miners included, than bringing in regulations to improve conditions at the expense of the employer.

Roy.

Not necessarily. You could design it better so that more people wanted to buy your product. Seemed to work for Germany and resulted in better conditions and higher wages. Pity about the food.

 

[Jacob]

.... bringing in regulations to improve conditions at the expense of the employer.

Roy.

What's wrong with that? Seems like a bloody sensible idea to me (and several million other people around the world). I see you are getting the idea Digit. Just keep working on it! Anything you need to know just ask.

 

[Digit]

Not necessarily. You could design it better so that more people wanted to buy your product

Then they wouldn't be competition Brian, also not all things can be improved without raising the cost, another way of commiting commercial suicide.

Yes. If it'd been 50/50 then perhaps a rethink.

So your rules are more imprtant than one of the destroyed mining communites, thank God you're not in government!

Community life in NCB towns and villages was excellent and now sorely missed. Thanks Maggie.

Community life was created pre the NCB Jacob, so you support the NCB destroying a community but condemn Maggie as doing the same thing. Isn't that a bit hypocritcal?

Your 'joke' is recorded in the official history of the community Jacob.

So why didn't the government bring in such regs rather than taking over, and I have never suggested that there should not be controls for the benefit of employess have I?
Try again.

Roy.

 

[Sawyer]

One of the problems with trying to be a good employers is, of course, the existance of competition.
If your competitors cut corners you either have to follow suit or go bust, which doen't help your employees,

Voila! Precisely why I recommended Tressell's 'The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists' , which explains this excellently.

thus taking over the mines was a damn site more expensive to the tax payer, miners included, than bringing in regulations to improve conditions at the expense of the employer.
Roy.

In theory perhaps, but employers will go to great lengths to circumvent the regs. (ie. avoid 'expense'), which are useless unless rigorously enforced. In this present time of a 'bonfire of the quangos' that's really going to happen isn't it? After all, the HSE is but a quango: not yet flung into the flames entirely, but subject to cuts. Yet the HSE was a dog with too few teeth in the first place. Current employers can flout regulations with the balance of probabilities being that they won't be troubled by the HSE and as for this 'self-regulation' by large companies urged by currently influential think tanks - need I say more. :roll:

Since literature and mining have both come up, another recommendation from France: Emile Zola's Germinal. Insight into the world of privately-owned mines and an excellent read, to boot.

 

[Digit]

Current employers can flout regulations with the balance of probabilities being that they won't be troubled by the HSE

Not with a decent Shop Steward they can't.

Roy.

 

[Sawyer]

Current employers can flout regulations with the balance of probabilities being that they won't be troubled by the HSE

Not with a decent Shop Steward they can't.

Roy.

Very true Roy! Not enough of them though.

 

[Digit]

One of the finest men I have ever met was a Steward, as was one of the worst!
I've dealt with union matters from both sides and unfortunately too often the Steward has been the one with a big voice and small brain, which is a great shame.

Roy.