Safe Speed Forums

That's known reserves that can be economically extracted at the current price level.

It doesn't, for example, take account of things like oil shales and tar sands.

See:

http://www.abd.org.uk/carbon_reserves.htm

(although unfortunately the link to the BP website is dead)

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Jesus - are you missing what I'm saying? The most draconian legislation regarding personal freedom in recent history (Criminal Justice/Public Order Act 1994) was brought in by a Conservative government. Business should be regulated because it can't be trusted to regulate itself... self-regulation in business increases financial inequality and leads to unsustainable boom-bust economics on a national scale.

Don't you think everyone's entitled to some kind of service as opposed to those wealthy and lucky enough to own businesses/cars/whatever? Personally speaking, I do.



Yes, I value that freedom. But I recognise that we've had it too good for too long and are going to have to tighten our belts if we don't want to screw up our kids' existences. The right-wingers in the States are trying desperately to pretend it will all go away, but it won't.

Also I think that *everyone* should be entitled to go where they will, not just those wealthy enough to run a car.



And consumption is actually increasing exponentially. PeterE - I don't like it, but I do believe that a curb in car usage is inevitable and to resist it purely for the sake of individual enjoyment is selfishness writ large.

Addendum to try to force it on topic : Until we give these kids something to actually *do* (and I mean stuff that they can really engage in - *not* a return to National Service), then this problem is not going to go away easily.

Tc.

Yet most expert opinion suggests that the biggest contribution that the present Chancellor made to getting rid of "boom-bust" economics was to remove the task of setting the Minimum Lending Rate from the Treasury and putting it into the hands of the Bank of England - essentially "business" - which is making a far better job of it!

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

A business with limited remit though - i.e. regulated. BoE has a vested interest in a stable economy whereas the Treasury (especially under Conservative rule) has a habit of stacking the numbers game in favour of the obscenely wealthy.

Anyway, we're so far off-topic we're wading into the sea, so let's stick this in another thread or agree to disagree?

J.

I'm a believer in the "Cockup v Conspiracy Theory".. I reckon that the Treasury mismanage the economy through general ineptitude rather than malice..

I think the latter..

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

There can be little doubt that the Conservative governments of the 80's shaped the way Britain is today. If you are in your mid to late 30s you are almost certainly one of Thatchers children and your life is modelled around Tory ideals.
Furthermore, Margaret Thatcher was a PM who brought this country something it desperately needed after years of weak labour rule...a proper leader. She fought off much of the BS from Europe and stood up for Britain. I can well recall the famous exchange she had in the house of commons with Neil Kinnock who was sarcastically congratulating her on being the only man in her team. Maggies riposte was swift and cutting..
"Well that's one more than you've got in yours" Brilliant.
Anyway, much of the Thatcher legacy still remain, and the aspirations that drive many people today (even Blairites) stem from Tory initiatives. They pushed the ethos of hard work for just rewards, to look after oneself and not rely on the state for support. Our urge to own our own homes, to have a foreign holiday and to fill our homes with consumer goods are legacies of the 80's. Take a look around, how many of us live in (admittedly soul-less) Barratesque homes built since 1982?
The problem was that the Tories looked at things in too simplistic a manner - if you were out of work, get off your lazy arse and go and find it, viz Michael Hesletines* famous "Get on your bike" quote. Fine if you are from a good stable background, with a supportive family in an area where expectations are even moderate. But if you're not - you were stuffed.
Since Labour have come to power the've tried to redress the balance but have perhaps gone too far the other way. There is a general perception that they are anti-family and weak on the issues that seem to matter and are milking middle England to pay for its extravagances. That said we have experienced several years of economic growth and a feel-good factor not felt since the heady days when Duran Durand and Spandau Ballet topped the charts.
Having said all that....I'd never vote Labour, not even with the last controlled motion with my right hand propelled by the last gasp of breathe in my body.

<*Edit - I meant Norman Tebbit>

I usually agree with all you say Rigpig, but.........

I'm afraid I don't share the same slightly rose tinted view of the Thatcher years.

My memories of those years, Toxteth, Broadwater Farm, Brixton, Handsworth, St Pauls....., Falklands conflict, (a war for ratings) - General Belgrano, The Cold War, Greenham Common, the bullying of the unions, the twenty fold increase in prescription charges, rampant greed and consumerism and the widening of the divide between the haves (loads a money!) and have nots, the ghettoing and excluding of those have nots, creating the momentum for the irretrievable social and racial divides of today. The development of the wedge between Britain and Europe.

With right hand men of Tebbit and Fowler, the "Get on your bike" speech was indicative of how much they were out of touch with those who were being detached from society.

About the only good thing Thatcher did was introduce the poll tax!
I believe we owe a great debt of gratitude to the verbal dagger of Geoffrey Howe.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

I have to say I agree wholeheartedly with Rigpig on this one. In the late 70s Britain was going down the pan, with strikes all the time. Rarely a week would go by without some essential industry being on strike - which came to a head in the Winter of Discontent (early 1979). It was dreadful!

Maggie was by no means perfect, but she gave us back determination and the will to win. We now have a far more prosperous and vibrant economy thanks to her.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Thatcherism was extreme and could be brutal, but has to be seen in the context of what preceded it. The early seventies were dogged by Industrial disputes which had more or less brought the country to its knees. Remember the 3 day week, black outs, rampant inflation and a spiralling national debt. For our economy to have a future the unions' stranglehold needed to be broken, and the bare truth was that the only way to do that was to elect a firm leader who would tackle them head on. Thatcher was that leader, and be honest, who else would have achieved that at that time?

Thatcher rejected the socialist dogma of the unions and replaced it with the belief that the free market was king, and as Rigpig says, that doctrine is pretty well imprinted on our society now, to the continuing benefit of our economy.

The problem of course was that the strength of character that was needed to correct the previous ills inevitably over-corrected, leading to the social unrest and two-tier society of the eighties - as Harry Enfield so beautifully caricatured!

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Rose tinted? I did try to balance it up by pointing out it didn't work for everyone. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind Ian, that the way you live your life today and some of your own hopes and aspirations see their roots in the Thatcher years.



Consumerism was not a good legacy. I well recall the 2p in the pound reduction in tax we all got in the mid 1980s. Did we all go and put it into pensions and savings as the government wished? Erm no. We caused a house price boom and went out buying consumer goods made in Japan. Korea, Taiwan, China.....

As for the Falklands, have you ever been there Ian? We couldn't just abandon them I'm afraid. And the General Belgrano...well as someone who spent 6 weeks bobbing about on a container ship throwing his ring up up every half an hour only to be moved to an aircraft carrier to cack his pants each time the tannoy sounded, I have a slightly different view of the sinking of that particular vessel. The container ship I was on...I think it was called the Atlantic Conveyer, or something like that

Mrs. Thatcher had one solution to every problem - brutality. So now we have a brutal society, and we should not be shocked by that.

Brutal force had to be the only solution, because she had much ambition but little cunning. For example, Helmut Kohl and Ronald Reagan both signed up to her monetarist ideas, then went home and kept their heavy industry running (!), while Mrs. Thatcher scrapped ours!

We'll have to wait a little to read her obituary, before we can be sure how harshly history will judge her, but brutality begets brutality, and she had many enemies. One good act of her's was to severely diminish the Tory party. God bless her for that, at least!

_________________
I stole this .sig

I know we'll have to agree to disagree, but I find/found the whole Thatcher experience very depressing.

Her determination to achieve her goals was so blinkered, she did not care who she trampled in order to get what she wanted.

It could be argued that she created a strong economic framework for us to inherit. But on the back of disempowered unions and the tolerance of a sweatshop economy, her economic tsunami created a massive peak and trough style economy, (October 1987) followed by massive increases in house prices, and hundreds of thousands on the financial dumptruck as result of negative equity.
We have struggled for some kind of economic stability ever since, and I don't believe the credit card debt ridden economy of today has any hallmarks of stability.

Her policies also exacerbated the problems of social exclusion for which we are now still paying the price.

She promoted the family unit. However her desire for us to endorse consumerism made it almost impossible for the average family to rely on a single wage earner, and for similar reasons the non nuclear family unit became sidelined.

Overall, I believe that socially, economically culturally and compassionately, her 'reign' was negative and IMO achieved much more harm than good.



I did say 'slightly rose tinted' with a 'wink'

You are right, I'm sure I would not be doing what I'm doing today were it not for Mrs Thatcher.

But my hopes and aspirations, although many were founded in those years, I'd like to think that they were despite her philosophy. I like to think of myself as ambitious in terms of family, but I have no particular drive to climb any social or class ladder. Maggie did nothing for me I'm afraid.


I don't subscribe to the philosophy that all's fair in love and war. I'll always believe that the attack on the Belgrano was wrong. No Rigpig, I haven't been to the Falklands, but I do know what it's like to feel scared sh**less .

I do not want to come across as being highly politicised... I'm not.

We needed a strong leader to move on from the mess of the 70s, but one with a social conscience would have given us a better Britain today.

If only Gordon Brown had been available to lead the country then rather than trying to teach me politics .

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

Have you ever read criticism of a police operation that, perhaps, ended up going horribly Pete Tong and asked yourself.."How the hell could these armchair critics possibly understand what those officers went through/were faced with"? That's how I feel about the critcism of the Belgrano incident.
The Falklands was the first real TV war and such reporting has given viewers (and attention seeking politicians such as Tam Dalyl) 'instant expert' status complete with 20:20 hindsight. Of course, we only got to see it after we returned, Brian Hanrahan with his "Counted them all out report" and the admittedly sickening, almost gleeful way the sinking of the Belgrano was reported by the Sun, but Rigpig's mummy only gave birth to one body, and it's all I have. As far as I was (and still am) concerned, any South American manning a ship with bloody big guns, flying a plane equipped with bombs or Exocet missiles, or armed with a weapon with intent to harm wasn't around those islands for a spring break.
The way things are going, any future conflicts involving British troops may just as well be conducted by TV viewers using their interactive remote control buttons to decide whether or not Gun Emplacement X poses an immediate threat to the troops on the ground and if it should be attacked or not.
Sorry if that appears a little aggressive, talk of those events in 1982 (and minor ones in 1983) still get the brown adrenelin flowing

I'm totally with Rigpig on this one.

While it was outside the "total exclusion zone", the Belgrano was an enemy warship in the general area of the Falklands and in my view the Navy were fully entitled to attack and sink it.

And bear in mind that, after the Belgrano was sunk, the Argentinian fleet never put to sea again, even though they had an aircraft carrier of their own and a number of modern destroyers and frigates. It was left to their air force to pursue the war - which they did with considerable courage and daring.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I’ve revisited this controversy, done some reading, and It’s concession time, I’m happy to eat humble pie on the legality of the attack on the basis of what I’ve read.

But it still leaves me angry.

I would not have been the only one who was left feeling that Maggie had her own motives for the Belgrano attack. And I still feel that way.

I still feel that the appalling way the decision was defended by the Tory party led many to believe that the government was embarrassed about its real reasons for the attack. Whether this was the case or not, we’ll probably never know. As a military decision, I’ll accept it was a decision to be taken on the basis of military information, but why were we, myself and many of my social group left feeling that we as a country had unnecessarily killed over 300, and kick started a war for which a diplomatic solution was still achievable. Did we not try to offload the Falklands to Argentina some 15 years earlier?

I’m afraid my gut feeling on this attack will remain the same The logistical nightmare had been overcome, we had got all our forces down there. Thatcher’s approval of the decision to torpedo the Belgrano will always in my opinion have been more to do with;

1. Let's stop the posturing and switch on this war. Here’s a good opportunity.
2. This will deflect attention from all the domestic flak.

So whether or not it was the correct move in the war sphere, I still believe that the behaviour of the Conservative party after the event made it obvious to me that Thatcher’s personal political motives were uppermost in this decision.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

I think we all should have watched the recent Satelite showing of Bob Ballard's (discoverer of the Titanic) attempt to find the Belgrano.

On board with the expedition were an English sailor, from Conqueror, and a survivor from the Belgrano.
The ship was not found in the time alloted to Ballard's crew, but the interaction between the two sailors was a tribute to the lot of fighting men (and women) the world over, and the manner in which the "footsoldiers" handle the moral climate they find themselves in.

The two men clearly formed a bond which you would'nt find under any other circumstance.
A mutual experience from two differeing perspectives, but each saw the other's standpoint and responsibilities without criticism.

Somebody once said, "Politicians START wars, soldiers merely die in them." or something similar. These two men proved it.

The Belgrano did not leave port on a cruise, she was going to war - a type of war for which she was not equipped.
Conqueror WAS equipped for such a war, which was started by a dictatorship, ruling without the authority of it's people, who tried to annexe a sovereign territory, against the wishes of the inhabitants.

It was in the papers again today - the garrison has just been increased from 3000 to 5000 troops.Maybe somebody thought while the cats away [in Iraq] the mice will play?

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!