Russian Gas

[Confused52]

2 hours ago, Observer II said:

Cost has been the main driver for energy importation,  labour costs etc are cheap; so when Maggie closed down our pits and imported Polish coal we were goosed, hundreds of years of coal had to remain underground.  Then came Bliar who let in cheap Polish and EU labour, again all based on cost savings rather than National long term economic security.   As I've said; until we have Governments that can think and plan beyond a 30yr time frame, we'll forever bump from one crisis to the next.   😠

The case against British coal presented by the NCB was simple. The price was being pushed up by by the unions, who could not be controlled, and so it was cheaper to import Chilean coal. This saga is in the public domain under the 30 year rule. The person who closed the pits was Arthur Scargill. The CEGB couldn't afford to keep the lights on. Maggie, who by the way I could not stand, fought the unions because the Nationalised Industries told her there was no choice not because of some whim. 

The only government with longer timescales have been communist ones and there plans have never survived contact with reality since they are based on inhumanity to their subjects. I am not referring to Russia here, which these days is a state controlled by Robber Barons and is more accurately described as a medieval dictatorship by the mafia.

Blair's immigration project, by the way, is documented as an attempt to introduce grateful folk who would vote Labour to keep the Tories out. So just Gerrymandering; it didn't work because the people who turned up were more enterprising than he had expected and they were not sufficiently grateful to Labour. That was a long term strategy by Blair but I don't see you praising that one. 

[Observer II]

The Thatcher strategy was to close down British Industry in total, as it's workers had the audacity to aspire to a better standard of living, so we ceased making things and promoted the service sector and the City of London, which of course favoured the wealthy.  British Industry was old and inefficient, not having had the investment and re-tooling provided by the US, unlike Germany.  Bliar's wasn't a long term plan at all,  it was a knee jerk, thoughtless response to signing up to EU free movement, which he didn't have to do at the time.  He told us only 15,000 Poles would arrive, but more than ten times that did;  depressing the wages of his core supporters, and feeding into middle class lifestyles of his new elite hangers on..   But we digress !      

[Confused52]

This article is informative and doesn't just repeat propaganda, I hope it is useful

A Scholar of Stalin Discusses Putin, Russia, Ukraine, and the West | The New Yorker

You might find this interesting too

Rogue state Russia cannot be redeemed or rehabilitated - Reaction

Your reaction (no pun intended) will be informative

[Observer II]

Can't say any of that provides a safe solution for us, possibly makes matters worse.   The only glimmer of hope, was the suggestion of providing Putin with a "golden bridge" to allow a retreat without loss of face.   The worst option is to place him in a lose - lose situation, as that would threaten his political survival and thus drive him down a road to mutual destruction.   💀

[ninearches]

Putin seems to be trying to attract Syrian & Libyan troops & Chinese aid & equipment while getting closer & closer to NATO member states with his firepower. Is he trying to start a world war ?

[Observer II]

Think his recourse to M/Eastern troops, is to provide some expendable cannon fodder in lieu of his inexperienced conscripts, given the high casualty rates arising from urban warfare.  Not sure he's trying to start WW3, that option remains with NATO, and should be imo, the paramount consideration of all our moves on the chess board.  💀

[Observer II]

Just a question -  whilst it seems obvious that we should open up North Sea oil production, the object being, energy security for the UK;  I  believe that the North Sea Oil Companies are private Corporations and can sell their product on the world market, which means that we don't have exclusive access to it's use ?     

[Bill]

That’s true or at least I believe so. Most of the oil and gas fields were sold off to the private sector way back, and short of taking them back into public ownership, we have little or no say on what these companies do or who they supply our natural resources to.

You say we should open up North Sea production and yet I think I heard the other day that Shell (Dutch owned) were forced to ditch plans to develop a new potential oil and gas field. How crazy is that, but even more crazy is the fact that the decision wasn’t taken by the privately owned company but by British bureaucrats. The only way this could make any sense is that we want to prevent a Dutch company having control over who gets the oil.

Looks like a case of if we can’t have it, then neither can you.  

 

Bill 😊

[ninearches]

I believe the HQ of Shell is now in London . Wasn't one problem with North Sea oil that it was too high grade for general use ? 

[Observer II]

Well, it seems to me that, whilst the tax revenue can go to the UK,  there's no control over who gets the oil.  So making it available to the highest bidder, rather than keeping it to ensure OUR security. Which brings the debate down to it's nationalist fundementals, stuff globalism and look after ourselves. Sounds like we need to Nationalise these companies ?  😠