wrote:

It seems to me that all of the privatised industries that were sold
off were making a loss at the time of sale, however they are now
making a profit. Why couldnt this have been done while they were
nationalised????

In a nutshell, because they were run by public servants who were asking
themselves the wrong questions, knew they could rely on losses to be made up
by the taxpayer and were not incentivised to provide optimum solutions.

Hang on, you are a public servant too, aren't you?

In article ,
says...

What about all the other people???? Do you forget the miners strikes when
good ol MT decided to close all of the pits

When did MT decide to close all the pits?

so we imported cheap coal from
Africa. Now most of the pits have closed Africas coal price has risen
dramatically,

No. South Africa, which produces about 95% of African coal did get more
expensive in the last year, but that is from a very low base and SA coal
is still cheaper than it was in 1996.

As indeed it appears to be from all non-EU sources.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/eustmimp.html

oh yeah she was an absolute genius! Any 5 year old could have
seen that coming

If Britain had producted a major world market share of coal, the loss of
the pits could have indeed raised prices. However, since UK production
was 2.5% of global tonnage in 1992 and 0.7% by 2001, it seems deeply
unlikely that this was the case here.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/table53.html

The pits were shut because the coal they produced was too expensive and
recoverable reserves were only 0.2% of world totals. The loss of related
jobs is sad and painful. But it merely extends and prolongs the pain for
both miners and taxpayers to artificially support an industry which is
doomed.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/table82.html


rgds

David

wrote:

[this is a good'un!:]

Do you forget the miners strikes
when good ol MT decided to close all of the pits so we imported cheap
coal from Africa. Now most of the pits have closed Africas coal price
has risen dramatically, oh yeah she was an absolute genius! Any 5
year old could have seen that coming

History: 0/10
Geography: 0/10.

In article , Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
"Chris Jones" typed


Look at a map of Germany, and compare it to a map of this country. They have
motorways all over the place, yet they still have plenty of countryside to
enjoy.

They have *much* greater area of land and a similar population though.

Erm...

Germany - 349,223 sq km and 82,398,326

UK - 241,590 sq km and 60,094,648

(From the CIA World Factbook website)

Population densities of 235,9 people/sq km vs. 248,7

Not really a difference as huge as you seem to be suggesting.

Niklas
--
I was in the grocery store. I saw a sign that said "pet supplies". So I did.
Then I went outside and saw a sign that said "compact cars".
-- Steven Wright

On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 12:54:15 +0000, Huge wrote:
Particularly in the case of Government mandated monopolies.

Well red tape and government interference is always bad for prosperity,
But thats a whole other story

On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 13:39:01 +0000, Niklas Karlsson wrote:
(From the CIA World Factbook website)

The anti-car brigade here don't believe in the CIA factbook

On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 13:50:22 +0000, (Steve
Firth) wrote:

Paul Weaver wrote:

Traveling over land from the Mediterranean to the Channel in 12 hours is
evil.

I'll say, it takes me 11 hours to get from the southern Adriatic to the
Channel. To take as long as 12 hours from the Med, I'd have to be
driving a truck.

Southern Adriatic?

According to Sony route planner Europe, to Sangatte from:

Bari: = 20 hours

Rimini: = 14 hours

Rijeka: = 16 hours

Dubrovnik:= 24 hours.

DG

On 2 Nov 2003 12:54:15 GMT, (Huge) wrote:


Unions force the majority to bow to the whims of the minority by
intimidation - something that should be illegal.

Particularly in the case of Government mandated monopolies.

Quite, which makes the case for withdrawing from the social chapter and
outlawing strikes in the public sector unarguable.



greg
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

On 2 Nov 2003 11:32:26 GMT, (Huge) wrote:



Less than 3% of this country is built on *in* *total*. And most of that
is housing.

And around 15% of the area within 1 hours commute from central London. Of
course if one was to believe the CPRE nimbys, one would think that all of
the SE was like downtown Hong Kong.


greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 12:27:14 +0000, Paul Weaver
wrote:



In terms of motorway per area Germany has over twice as much. The
Netherlands over 4 times as much.

Which is an amusing rebuttal of the anti growth mobs lies considering the
population density of the Benelux region.

One would expect no better in the UK given the way the planning system has
been hijacked by vested interests.

The trusts which own great swathes of our cities do not want the value of
their holdings fall, as what happened in the interwar years when over 1.5
million new houses were built in suburbs up and down the country.

Of course this didn't suit labour either as home owners were less likely to
vote socialist, hence the nationalisation of the planning system with the
Town and Country planning act in 1947.


Until whitehall interference in planning is removed by force and handed
back to local authorities nothing will change.

greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.