Unpalatable as it may be for some, the state owned industries weren't exactly models of efficiency and public responsibility were they. Under the previous system, much of our infrastructure had been neglected for decades and the massive investment it required could only be paid for in 2 ways - more taxes under state ownership or more profits under private ownership. Successive governments not surprisngly chose the latter since they'd then be able to claim any credit but have private companies to absorb any resulting flak. Both systems of ownership have been seen to have been flawed to an extent but whichever one you take it's ultimately the public who pay either through tax or price increases. At the time the coal industry was rationalised it was largely uneconomic since coal could be imported far cheaper from elsewhere. How many people back then would have wanted to pay more in tax to subsidise UK coal and who could have foreseen oil at $150 a barrel and circumstances under which that coal would be again viable? Still, I do think more effort should have been made to preserve the existing investment in coal since we're built on it.
---------- Post added at 08:31 ---------- Previous post was at 08:11 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
Both parties do have many things in common, they going after the middle class family voters......
|
Hmm funny way of showing it! Still with mass redundancies likely at New Labour HQ, here's Jack's latest bandwagon:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...do?expand=true
Some of the comments make intersting reading.
and on the subject of their HQ, here's one I'd missed from a while back:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...ty-427849.html
More double standards!