I guess I must be a tad older than you, I was thinking more along the lines of the early Stones, Animals, Kinks, Yardbirds, Small faces , Spencer Davies.
never really a beatles fan.
All good music in the 70’s …
i played this the other nite on u-tube … my 13 year old daughter came in laughing …“dad wit ye watching”"…
ten mins later i heard her listing to it her self…lol…
Look Lads,in the TruckNet regiment Carryfast is the only soldier marching “in time” the rest of us are permanently out of step. Cheers Bewick.
del949:
I guess I must be a tad older than you, I was thinking more along the lines of the early Stones, Animals, Kinks, Yardbirds, Small faces , Spencer Davies.
never really a beatles fan.
I’d guessed that del.I think the music,at least of the early-mid 1970’s,was a reflection of the times in which all the best things about the 1960’s were still there and were being taken forwards unlike a lot of what happened in the late 70’s 
.But I’d agree with you that most of the Beatles stuff was overrated .
news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date … 515917.stm
news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date … 541085.stm
Praise be 
No, wheelnut, don’t remember that group!
del949:
No, wheelnut, don’t remember that group!
The Ezralights
Scar music and Nat Ion Coal
Wheel Nut:
BBC ON THIS DAY | 9 | 1972: Miners strike against governmentnews.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date … 541085.stm
Praise be
All of course followed by Thatcher’s idea of stitching the miners up by shutting down the pits instead of paying them what they’re worth and become a net importer of energy instead 
.But as I remember it the government was all for a so called ‘social contract’ when it came to limiting wages but it wasn’t so keen on one to limit prices to the same level which is why we’re where we are now.
Wheel Nut:
del949:
No, wheelnut, don’t remember that group!The Ezralights
Scar music and Nat Ion Coal
Thatcher and the zb kickers.
By the way I wish I’d bought some shares in Russian gas suppliers at the time. 
I only went to Clacton, Bognor, Minehead & Pwhelli when I was a kid.
Anyone remember if Ayr, Filey, Barry Island, Mosney & Skegness were any good?
I think Ayr had a chairlift, and Skegness had a monorail 'cos I remember going through the brochure with my parents rating each prospective place to stay on the basis “It had to have both”!!! 
(Minehead won, and got our booking! - Spent the next fortnight handing in my chalet keys for a snooker cue & bits in the beachcomber building if memory serves…)
Nostalgia ain’t what it used to be! 
Carryfast:
Wheel Nut:
BBC ON THIS DAY | 9 | 1972: Miners strike against governmentnews.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date … 541085.stm
Praise be
All of course followed by Thatcher’s idea of stitching the miners up by shutting down the pits instead of paying them what they’re worth and become a net importer of energy instead
Were we subsidising the mines then? And if so was it cheaper for us to subsidise miners wages (and make the mine owners even richer) or pay their dole?
schrodingers cat:
Carryfast:
Wheel Nut:
BBC ON THIS DAY | 9 | 1972: Miners strike against governmentnews.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date … 541085.stm
Praise be
All of course followed by Thatcher’s idea of stitching the miners up by shutting down the pits instead of paying them what they’re worth and become a net importer of energy instead
Were we subsidising the mines then? And if so was it cheaper for us to subsidise miners wages (and make the mine owners even richer) or pay their dole?
I think that was the type of logic that Thatcher was using.
As it stands we’re now a net importer of energy.Which just adds to the trade deficit and therefore the financial deficit because there’s no way to pay for imports using money earn’t from a service industry based economy which produces zb all for export.Which leaves the choice of use indigenous supplies or borrow and print the money used to pay for the imports.In which case it’s not just a case of paying for out of work miners’ dole money and benefits.You need to add to that the costs of the financial deficit and interest payments,of importing coal and gas,using borrowed money,to pay foreign miners and make foreign coal producers richer,instead of using the money to pay our own miners and domestic producers,thereby keeping the money in the domestic economy,instead of getting ourselves into debt to make the Russian economy richer.
Carryfast:
schrodingers cat:
Carryfast:
Wheel Nut:
BBC ON THIS DAY | 9 | 1972: Miners strike against governmentnews.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date … 541085.stm
Praise be
All of course followed by Thatcher’s idea of stitching the miners up by shutting down the pits instead of paying them what they’re worth and become a net importer of energy instead
Were we subsidising the mines then? And if so was it cheaper for us to subsidise miners wages (and make the mine owners even richer) or pay their dole?
I think that was the type of logic that Thatcher was using.
As it stands we’re now a net importer of energy.Which just adds to the trade deficit and therefore the financial deficit because there’s no way to pay for imports using money earn’t from a service industry based economy which produces zb all for export.Which leaves the choice of use indigenous supplies or borrow and print the money used to pay for the imports.In which case it’s not just a case of paying for out of work miners’ dole money and benefits.You need to add to that the costs of the financial deficit and interest payments,of importing coal and gas,using borrowed money,to pay foreign miners and make foreign coal producers richer,instead of using the money to pay our own miners and domestic producers,thereby keeping the money in the domestic economy,instead of getting ourselves into debt to make the Russian economy richer.
Ok but at some point new technology and mining techniques will make it profitable (and efficient) to extract the mineral resources that we stopped mining back in your dreaded Thatcher years, at that point we may become neutral or at best net exporters of energy. Because our mines were closed due to becoming unprofitable, there will at least be minerals left for the future.
But at least I (and I mean that quite Conservitavely) wont have been working to pay to help line the pockets of the owners of a loss making industry and the pockets (I’m afraid) of the thousands of (very well paid) workers that were risking their lives to make a loss which I was subsidising.
Perhaps you need to stop looking at the past and maybe the future will become a bit brighter for you.
schrodingers cat:
Carryfast:
schrodingers cat:
Carryfast:
Wheel Nut:
BBC ON THIS DAY | 9 | 1972: Miners strike against governmentnews.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date … 541085.stm
Praise be
All of course followed by Thatcher’s idea of stitching the miners up by shutting down the pits instead of paying them what they’re worth and become a net importer of energy instead
Were we subsidising the mines then? And if so was it cheaper for us to subsidise miners wages (and make the mine owners even richer) or pay their dole?
I think that was the type of logic that Thatcher was using.
As it stands we’re now a net importer of energy.Which just adds to the trade deficit and therefore the financial deficit because there’s no way to pay for imports using money earn’t from a service industry based economy which produces zb all for export.Which leaves the choice of use indigenous supplies or borrow and print the money used to pay for the imports.In which case it’s not just a case of paying for out of work miners’ dole money and benefits.You need to add to that the costs of the financial deficit and interest payments,of importing coal and gas,using borrowed money,to pay foreign miners and make foreign coal producers richer,instead of using the money to pay our own miners and domestic producers,thereby keeping the money in the domestic economy,instead of getting ourselves into debt to make the Russian economy richer.
Ok but at some point new technology and mining techniques will make it profitable (and efficient) to extract the mineral resources that we stopped mining back in your dreaded Thatcher years, at that point we may become neutral or at best net exporters of energy. Because our mines were closed due to becoming unprofitable, there will at least be minerals left for the future.
But at least I (and I mean that quite Conservitavely) wont have been working to pay to help line the pockets of the owners of a loss making industry and the pockets (I’m afraid) of the thousands of (very well paid) workers that were risking their lives to make a loss which I was subsidising.
Perhaps you need to stop looking at the past and maybe the future will become a bit brighter for you.
I think that’s exactly what Thatcher said at the time.We’re in the ‘future’ now as it was at that point and the economy doesn’t seem all that bright from the point of view of trade deficits and the debt mountain which that logic has built up so far.However £28 per week to do the job of a coal miner certainly wasn’t ‘very well paid’ and nor was the rate that they managed to get to settle the 1972 and 73 strikes when the price led inflation which took place after that time was taken into account.
The fact is the industry wasn’t a loss making industry at all it was just starved of investment and the price being charged for it’s product was based on cheap foreign imported coal which was subsidised at a much higher level and mined using cheap low paid labour and/or sold/dumped on the British market at less than cost price.In other words a predatory pricing loss leader to get the British industry out of the frame,in order to create a monopoly in the British market,for imported coal.Which just leaves the question as to why would Thatcher have wanted to wreck the British coal mining industry (and then our manufacturing industries) to benefit the Russian and Chinese economies .
If you want to know the reasons as to why the economy is in the state it is now the reasons are all contained in the past and you’ll need to go back to where the government took the wrong fork in the road to get back on the right one. 
However it’s got absolutely zb all to do with any so called ‘very well paid workers’ who were making any so called ‘loss’.You can make any profitable domestic industry look like a loss making one by comparing the profit margins on imported,subsidised products,sold in a developed,mature,economy at cheap communist/underdeveloped economy type prices.That is just so long as you leave out all of the hidden direct and indirect costs of the resulting trade deficits and unemployment in the domestic economy.
What I can remember though is that our local coal retailers got a lot richer out of the coal which we were using in our coal fired central heating during the 1970’s than the miners who’d dug it out of the ground ever did and it’s that type of upside down logic,concerning the definition of ‘profitable’ and who deserved to earn the most from the mining and sale of British coal,that helped to wreck the industry.Not the NCB or the miners.
But it’s no surprise that the shop keepers’ daughter took the shop keepers’/retailers’ view of how to run an economy not those who actually produced the stuff which the shop keepers/retailers’ were selling. 
@ Carryfast taken from the bbc website:- Sweeping concessions by the National Coal Board and swift intervention by the new Employment Secretary, Michael Foot, ensured the settlement on offer was quickly increased.
The NCB’s original offer of £45 million a year for the miners was at first doubled to £90m.
But following further negotiations this was then increased to nearly £113m.
As a result underground workers will now receive a new rate of £36 a week which is £8.71 more than their current level of pay.
Face workers meanwhile will be paid £45 per week - £8.21 more than their present wages.
So enough to buy a house every five years at that time bit better than the £28 per week you were suggesting though.
Truth is the unions thought they could influence government and government crushed them. As a result of unions trying to get into politics manufacturing suffered, see any parallels with the present day?
As long as Labour is funded by unions it will cause hell for this country whenever a union unapproved party gets in charge.
schrodingers cat:
@ Carryfast taken from the bbc website:- Sweeping concessions by the National Coal Board and swift intervention by the new Employment Secretary, Michael Foot, ensured the settlement on offer was quickly increased.The NCB’s original offer of £45 million a year for the miners was at first doubled to £90m.
But following further negotiations this was then increased to nearly £113m.
As a result underground workers will now receive a new rate of £36 a week which is £8.71 more than their current level of pay.
Face workers meanwhile will be paid £45 per week - £8.21 more than their present wages.
So enough to buy a house every five years at that time bit better than the £28 per week you were suggesting though.
Truth is the unions thought they could influence government and government crushed them. As a result of unions trying to get into politics manufacturing suffered, see any parallels with the present day?
As long as Labour is funded by unions it will cause hell for this country whenever a union unapproved party gets in charge.
Firstly those wage settlements weren’t negotiated on the basis of price levels at the time of the demand but on the basis of the rate of price increases which were being projected forward because the value of the next settlement is only as good as the wage level that it’s based on from the previous one.While the idea of the wage demands in industry at the time were all about keeping living standards ahead of price increases and therefore protecting wage levels from erosion by making sure that price increases weren’t allowed to outrun wage increases.
The fact is the miners were only on £ 28 per week in 1972,then £45 per week until 1975 at which time the next increase only got them up to around £60 per week.The government seemed to make a big thing about the percentage rate in the increases but that rate only looked a lot because of the zb level of the starting point.None of those actual pay rates were anything special when compared to what most other workers in other industries were getting at the time in many cases in far easier working conditions.
You seem to think that the idea of keeping wage levels ahead of price increases was/is a bad thing.Whereas the economy as it stands now shows that it was the union action like that of the NUM at that time,in following that idea, that kept the economy on track,unlike the total opposite idea as followed by all governments,including the so called Labour Party,from the late 1970’s on.
However on the issue of the miners as I’ve said the fact is the local coal retailers were earning more just for getting the coal from the local rail head to the customer than those who were actually doing the difficult and dangerous job of getting the stuff out of the ground.Probably not surprising considering the shopkeeper mentality of the British system in which retailers seem to think that they deserve at least as much out of selling stuff as those who produce it or more than those who dug it out of the ground in the case of coal.
On the issue of a so called union funded Labour Party exactly what was it that Callaghan or Blair ever did to increase the living standards of any trade union member at any time considering both leaders’ ideas concerning union power and pay restraint policies from the late 1970’s on which were exactly the same as Thatcher’s .It’s that policy of the low wage global free market economy that has caused economic hell for this country,of workers trying to make ends meet,using loads of worthless borrowed money,ever since the late 1970’s.
The easy answer to all of your arguments so far is that if you need to manufacture, then you need to be able to compete in that market, wages for workers wages for management and costs of raw materials all factor in. The trouble is we are competing with counries like China and India where wages are negligable so they already have an advantage.
The reason our country is screwed is because we encourage everyone of working age in a family to work, that work is paid and taxed on equal terms. That results in the cost of living to rise, not only to pay the high wages of the workers, but also pay for the childcare of those who should be looking after their children (and would love to) but can’t afford to. Of course a two wage family can afford to pay more for a house than a single wage family can so house prices rise.
We also have to look after the living stadards of those who take advantage of the lack of available work (because of the aforementioned encouragement of everyone of working age being in employment) so with the help of your socialist friends have a living a hell of a lot better than the average working family.
You know what Carryfast lets all follow your socialist propoganda and we’ll do ■■■■ all for a living just like the Russians did, we can all enjoy their living conditions then, can’t we?
P.S. I think our bankers should all be paid for the amount of work they actually do which is ■■■■ all. So maybe we aren’t that far apart.
I also think that our current govenment are a bunch of ■■■■■■■ but labour were ■■■■■ as well, where do you go? 
schrodingers cat:
The easy answer to all of your arguments so far is that if you need to manufacture, then you need to be able to compete in that market, wages for workers wages for management and costs of raw materials all factor in. The trouble is we are competing with counries like China and India where wages are negligable so they already have an advantage.
The reason our country is screwed is because we encourage everyone of working age in a family to work, that work is paid and taxed on equal terms. That results in the cost of living to rise, not only to pay the high wages of the workers, but also pay for the childcare of those who should be looking after their children (and would love to) but can’t afford to. Of course a two wage family can afford to pay more for a house than a single wage family can so house prices rise.
We also have to look after the living stadards of those who take advantage of the lack of available work (because of the aforementioned encouragement of everyone of working age being in employment) so with the help of your socialist friends have a living a hell of a lot better than the average working family.
You know what Carryfast lets all follow your socialist propoganda and we’ll do [zb] all for a living just like the Russians did, we can all enjoy their living conditions then, can’t we?
P.S. I think our bankers should all be paid for the amount of work they actually do which is [zb] all. So maybe we aren’t that far apart.
I also think that our current govenment are a bunch of [zb] but labour were [zb] as well, where do you go?
Your first paragraph concerning the issue of competing in the global free market economy is enough and explains everything.We don’t have to compete with low wage countries like China etc at all.You just need trade barriers and import tarrifs.
There’s nothing socialist about my ideas at all they are just based on sound capitalist (Fordist) economics of the type which turned out products like Ford Mustangs for the domestic US market in numbers which British industry could only dream of and in which US workers were being paid enough to buy what they were producing and then some with no issues whatsoever of cheap foreign imports existing in the market place at the time throwing a spanner in the works.
Your first paragraph concerning the issue of competing in the global free market economy is enough and explains everything.We don’t have to compete with low wage countries like China etc at all.You just need trade barriers and import tarrifs
.
As an addition to the trade barriers / tariffs argument, we also need to stop multi -national companies removing profits made in Britain to other countries where they are used to subsidise their industries.
For example.
In America (some states, possibly not all) before electricity prices can be increased there has to be a full consultation between all parties. This obviously makes it difficult to increase the cost of power.
So, one large power supplier (American owned) in the UK takes its profits from here and subsidises its American operation.
Thus, the American industry straight away gets an advantage over home grown industry.
We need to ensure that profits from British customers are reinvested in Britain, not syphoned off to other countries in order to subsidise thier industries.
So what in your view is the difference between Fordism and Socialism, they both rely on relatively high wages to workers and as such reduce competition (and we are in competition with other countries).
I agree that our senior management is overpaid and that maybe reducing their wages would help our competativeness but how the hell do we deal with that? More strikes that hurt our economy even more? Who would that hurt? It would just reinforce our crap and previous crap Government that what we need to concentrate on is financial services.
How about a reduction in taxes with the result that the wasters that make the decision to have children to get a guaranteed pay rise (child poverty ffs) have to actually find a job so they haven’t got time to spread their thighs as a lifestyle option.
But WHO do you vote for? Who looks after the working majority of this country no-one thats who ■■■■ the lot of them.