37p

[Disillusioned]

Cheapskates (http://education.independent.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=613141)

I can't believe nothing is been done about that. 37p for a meal is disgusting. I bet more is spent on prison food...If we can afford to spend billions of pounds in Iraq surely we could do a bit better than 37p and start giving children decent food. Go Jamie Oliver!

[Kermit]

More is indeed spent on prison food, the stats showed that not so long ago.

It is yet another reason why poor people are less healthy: kids on free dinners have to eat that slop when richer parents can afford good packed lunches, for instance.

Jamie Oliver, despite being a Mockney twat, actually seems to be a sound bloke on a lot of things.

[lukesh]

I was on Free dinners. I had chips everyday, when I had something. I some times missed them as I was sick ofit.I could only have chips and beans, they wouldn't let us have anything else like a drink. Though some nice dinner ladies let me have a milk.

[wheresmyplacebo]

and as you could see none of the kids ate the stuff jamie made them cause well what do you expect if you feed kids crap day after day, they get used to it

i mainly blame the parents for poor taste buds in bringing up the kids, no harm in sweets and all, every child has had them through time, just encourage them to eat a variety

[Mad Mac]

Cheapskates (http://education.independent.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=613141)

I can't believe nothing is been done about that. 37p for a meal is disgusting. I bet more is spent on prison food...If we can afford to spend billions of pounds in Iraq surely we could do a bit better than 37p and start giving children decent food. Go Jamie Oliver!
37P? fuckin hell! didnt realise they spent that much...i live on that per week! :)

[budda]

I'm actually quite for extending primary education hours, giving the kids two decent meals and then making them do more PE.

And giving schools 50p at least for every meal.

[JsT]

Our school has 35p per meal, then charges the kids £1.60 for the priviledge. Some bastard is making a quick buck somewhere.

[budda]

I think there might be some sort of parallel here with hospital cleaners, both were farmed out to contractors and both are now shite.

[Olive]

after hearing how little they spend on school dinners, my kids will definitely have packed lunches.

even if it's just a sandwich with 18p value bread and an apple a day, at least i'll know what they're eating. i'll grow my own chuffing veg if i have to.

[budda]

after hearing how little they spend on school dinners, my kids will definitely have packed lunches.

even if it's just a sandwich with 18p value bread and an apple a day, at least i'll know what they're eating. i'll grow my own chuffing veg if i have to.

If only all parents actually cared about what their kids eat.

The generation that are kids now arent going to live longer than their parents, that should be distressing to everyone in the country.

[wheresmyplacebo]

My mum couldn't be bothered with the whole packed lunch thing as soon as I got into high school. I had free dinners and I ate shit. All I ate was chips, chips and erm...chips. Schools don't serve decent food at all.


with the state of other 'food' they have, youre better off with the chips anyway

i had chips done me no harm, i eat sweets still, and i eat greasy food and i eat mcdonalds etc, however i dont overdo it, and i eat good food as well as the 'bad' foods, even tohugh theres no definate thing as a 'good food'

food nazi's piss me off nothing wrong with pigging out here and there, just dont do it constant, and remember, most kids tastebuds and suited to what their parents have brought them up on. This tend to continue, if parents introduced their kids to a variety of foods from a young age, theyd be more willing to try foods
if you saw jamies school dinners, youd see, he made them nice and healthy food, they wouldnt touch it though. Mainly cause theyve never seen it before and have been brought up eating the same foods over and over again rarely trying new food, and thus wont try it.

[budda]

So just because they are used to crap at home we should only feed them crap? Thats maddness.

[k@tie]

Do private schools still have to abide by the 37p rule?

Cos my school dinners are great and reasonably healthy. In saying that though, it's much easier to go into town for a Burger King or Greggs than queue up with all the snotty, wingy kids. :rolleyes:

[Kazbo]

Hmm iw as always given packed lunches for school dinners but always hated that and would have much prefered to be able to go to the canteen and hae chips or pizza everyday. Good healthy food bored me. I had that every night at home. i wanted something bad and I suppose to be like all my friends durin the day.

[wheresmyplacebo]

So just because they are used to crap at home we should only feed them crap? Thats maddness.


no but if you made the food something theyre not used to, they just wont eat it, theyll go chippy or something, like i did cause my school dinners were overpriced pieces of crap

not all vegetables arent nasty, theyre just brought up on badly cooked ones, i was for sure. When i started cooking for myself, i didnt boil them until there was no goodness left in them for example

chips for school dinner = fine staple food really
pasta = good too, if it aint stcky
FRESH salad = good
simple nicely cooked vegetables = nice
fruit = good
burgers, should be on there, but not the quality at my old school which was offal quality

see at my school we got lunch, and instead of it being a meal it probably paid for chips and something to go with it, so you got the most filling nice one possible. It should be you get a choice of staple food like chips, rice, pasta or jacket potato(rotate them around), with 2 choices of greens out of salad, vegetables, fruit or fruit juice and something else like say erm some meat or pizza or usual school dinner food, but not as shit quality, dont have to be amazing, just not shit! oh and as much water as you want. if that cost under £2 id encourage my kid to take it up as main thing :thumb:

[budda]

Do private schools still have to abide by the 37p rule?

Cos my school dinners are great and reasonably healthy. In saying that though, it's much easier to go into town for a Burger King or Greggs than queue up with all the snotty, wingy kids. :rolleyes:

Schools dont HAVE to spend 37p, thats all they get from the government, anything else has to be taken from their ordinary budget. I presume private schools do just that.

[budda]

chips for school dinner = fine staple food really
pasta = good too, if it aint stcky
FRESH salad = good
simple nicely cooked vegetables = nice
fruit = good
burgers, should be on there, but not the quality at my old school which was offal quality


How can you say chips are fine? They have no goodness in them at all and are packed full of fat and salt.

The rest I agree with though.

[wheresmyplacebo]

How can you say chips are fine? They have no goodness in them at all and are packed full of fat and salt.

The rest I agree with though.

did you make out the paragraph at the bottom, what do you think?

and chips actually do have nutrients, depends on how u make them and how many processing steps theyve gone through.... you can buy chips that have been made with minumum amount of salt, and well fat isnt good for you, but half a plate of chips isnt gonna kill you either, theres worse things out there...

i eat chips when i cant be bothered to cook, which is half the time but mixing it in with a good mix of food is quite good...

[budda]

did you make out the paragraph at the bottom, what do you think?

and chips actually do have nutrients, depends on how u make them and how many processing steps theyve gone through.... you can buy chips that have been made with minumum amount of salt, and well fat isnt good for you, but half a plate of chips isnt gonna kill you either, theres worse things out there...

i eat chips when i cant be bothered to cook, which is half the time but mixing it in with a good mix of food is quite good...

Yes, but do you buy the cheapest crappiest chips and then deep fry them?

School chips are the worst of the worst, yes you can make healthier chips but schools dont.

[Man Of Kent]

How can you say chips are fine? They have no goodness in them at all and are packed full of fat and salt.

There is nothing wrong with chips, if they form part of a balanced diet. Sadly this isn't always the case.

It's also worth noting that fresh vegetables and fruit are not an expensive option, however more effort is required in their preparation. Unfortunately this sometimes puts parents off this option.

[budda]

There is nothing wrong with chips, if they form part of a balanced diet. Sadly this isn't always the case.

It's also worth noting that fresh vegetables and fruit are not an expensive option, however more effort is required in their preparation. Unfortunately this sometimes puts parents off this option.

I know there is nothing wrong with them as an occasional food, but he described them as a 'staple' thats clearly not a good idea for a kid.

[twisted_trinity]

37p buys you what these days??? an apple? is that a healthy balanced meal? yes it's healthy in it's self but not on it's own.

i went to a CoE school near glastonbury once, and there were no school meals, the only people who got meals from the school were the kids that got free meals. and they were good meals, a proper freshly made sandwich, a fruit drink, a piece of fruit, maybe a baby bell type thing and something sweet. thats not exspencive to make, nor is it unhealthy. And this wasn't in a rich community either. half the village were on benefits, it was very muti cultural, we had a huge mix of muslims, pagans, christians, i think there might have even been a jewish family.....all of this in a village of no more than 5000. the village school only had 120 pupils. and it all worked.

yes i do agree, it's mainly down to parents, but 37p isn't enough. why not give schools allotments, on which they can not only use for classes, but for growing food on too?.....

[Man Of Kent]

37p buys you what these days??? an apple?

Economies of scale means that bulk purchasing will buy you more than that.

Seriously, this isn't much less than hospitals have to feed patients... all day for about £1, if I'm not mistaken.

why not give schools allotments, on which they can not only use for classes, but for growing food on too?.....

Indeed, this sounds an eminently sensible idea. Provided that such space is available, and didn't affect sports facilities...

[Kermit]

Oliver has managed to get another extra £150,000 out of the LEA budget, which equates to 13p per meal. This is so that the staff can be paid the extra hour of preparation time that good food requires.

Chips and burgers can be cooked in minutes, it's why fast food is bad for you.

[Fiend_85]

why not give schools allotments, on which they can not only use for classes, but for growing food on too?.....

At a time schools are selling sports pitches? You want to waste time growing food?

[BlackArab]

I think there might be some sort of parallel here with hospital cleaners, both were farmed out to contractors and both are now shite.

Privatisation.

Can you lot believe I and every child in the country used to receive half a pint of milk free every day because the government thought it was good for us.

37p? For a rich Western European country with a booming economy. Sick.

[Man Of Kent]

Can you lot believe I and every child in the country used to receive half a pint of milk free every day because the government thought it was good for us.

"Thatcher, Thatcher, milk snatcher..."

Oh, and it was 1/3 pint.

[BlackArab]

"Thatcher, Thatcher, milk snatcher..."

Oh, and it was 1/3 pint.

My first political slogan, I must have been about 8 :hyper:

Was it really? shows how everything seems bigger in memory!

Edited to add: If you young un's ever wonder why people over thirty are so bitter about Maggie this is one of the reasons.

She took our milk away when we were infants and we will not forgive :crying: :impissed:

[Man Of Kent]

everything seems bigger in memory!

*sighs*

Tell me about it ;)

Edited to add: If you young un's ever wonder why people over thirty are so bitter about Maggie this is one of the reasons.

She took our milk away when we were infants and we will not forgive :crying: :impissed:

That and the loss of hope.

"There is no such things as society"

3m unemployed

The Poll Tax

End of mining industry.

Rise of Murdoch.

I could go on...

[BlackArab]

*sighs*

Tell me about it ;)

:lol:

That and the loss of hope.

"There is no such things as society"

3m unemployed

The Poll Tax

End of mining industry.

Rise of Murdoch.

I could go on...

Oh I didn't want to start on the rest as I'm in a good mood. The milk was her little warm up the next 15 years. :eek2:

I don't know whats worse her milk-snatching without a care or Blair's 37p dinners and side order of fake sincerity :confused:

[Kermit]

I was having milk at school when I was in primary school, and that was 1994.

For the record, like.

[Man Of Kent]

That would have been down to your local authority and local taxpayers.

And for the record, I was married with one child by then :(

[Olive]

we had free milk until the year before i went to middle school (1988). the boy who sat next to me in class that year was lactose intolerant, but they wouldn't believe him, and forced him to have his bottle of milk every day. and then every afternoon, without fail, he would be sick everywhere. i got a new spelling book at least once a week. scarred for life, much?

i remember being REALLY happy when they stopped it.

that aside, it was great. especially when it was cold and your bottle froze. loads of fun.

[Kentish]

I had free milk at primary school too. Back in the late 80s when I was in the juniors. My parents had to pay for my brother to have milk though, and that was 7 years later.

Some schools are bringing in fruit for the kids these days. Just goes to show that parenting hasn't improved in all these years...

[Jazza]

Our food contracters (http://www.fuelzone.co.uk) - Take a lok at the menu :/

In primary we used to get pretty balanced meals. A lot of them werent that great but they were still good. I got free meals and was given milk every day. Can't remember how much it was but now in Secondary it's £1.15 for the basics and whatever you want is extra. Fruit is about 30p, juice/pop is 45p and a small packet of chips is 55p. Rip-off

[wheresmyplacebo]

and with real food it normally isnt about the food itself, but how fresh it is and how well its prepared so seeing 'salad' means sod all

[groovechampion]

Jamie Oliver, despite being a Mockney twat, actually seems to be a sound bloke on a lot of things.

Jamie Oliver is an awesome guy, he gives a lot back to the community. He spends a lot of time and his own money helping kids.

[ShyBoy]

my schools catering: http://www.initial-catering.co.uk/

it's all processed, and expensive. For a turkey burger (including one reconstituted microwaved turkey burger, one processed bap with sesame seeds) it's 97p. + another 9p if you have salad cream on it.

the maggie thatcher milk: milk is still free in primary schools up to a certain age just not after that. Also, the mining industry was making a loss, but they should have thought of ways of closing it sustainably. Note that lots of call centres are opening up near mining towns because they get grants for bringing jobs to the area.

[BlackArab]

my schools catering: http://www.initial-catering.co.uk/

it's all processed, and expensive. For a turkey burger (including one reconstituted microwaved turkey burger, one processed bap with sesame seeds) it's 97p. + another 9p if you have salad cream on it.

the maggie thatcher milk: milk is still free in primary schools up to a certain age just not after that. Also, the mining industry was making a loss, but they should have thought of ways of closing it sustainably. Note that lots of call centres are opening up near mining towns because they get grants for bringing jobs to the area.

I stand corrected if some areas continue to provide free milk.

Not all mines were making a loss, profitable mines were still closed. It wasn't just the issue of profitability but also the methods of execution that maintain the bitterness.

It's great if call centres are now opening up (even though the wage difference doesn't come close to those in mining), trouble the years in between have left massive problems which will continue for years. These places and people were just abandoned after providing the power to Britain's industrial wealth for 200 years.

[Kermit]

Go to Easington in County Durham and tell me that "call centres" are a good thing for a community.

The sad thing is that there is always the faint air that the miners brought it on themselves. The BCB were always going to rationalise the mines, but the miners striking about it meant that they lost all sympathy and allowed the BCB to do it quicker. By striking they lost their jobs.

Militant trade unionists were not popular in the early 80s, it's why Thatcher was elected so strongly after Heath and Callaghan. Leaving bodies to rot because of strikes, and having the telly go off at 10pm because of strikes meant that people wanted the unions destroyed.

It's good that they lost their strangehold, but we do still need them.

[wheresmyplacebo]

I stand corrected if some areas continue to provide free milk.

Not all mines were making a loss, profitable mines were still closed. It wasn't just the issue of profitability but also the methods of execution that maintain the bitterness.

It's great if call centres are now opening up (even though the wage difference doesn't come close to those in mining), trouble the years in between have left massive problems which will continue for years. These places and people were just abandoned after providing the power to Britain's industrial wealth for 200 years.

we shut the coal mines down cause it was cheaper to ship it all the way from australia to an english coal fired plant or wherever, than it was to mine it here

its called competition, and well the australian have less deep mines and more surface mining thus it is cheaper

[Blagsta]

Go to Easington in County Durham and tell me that "call centres" are a good thing for a community.

The sad thing is that there is always the faint air that the miners brought it on themselves. The BCB were always going to rationalise the mines, but the miners striking about it meant that they lost all sympathy and allowed the BCB to do it quicker. By striking they lost their jobs.

This is utter cock. The miners had massive support for their strike. Thatcher was bent on closing the mines, striking prolonged the battle, it did not make them lose their jobs.

Militant trade unionists were not popular in the early 80s, it's why Thatcher was elected so strongly after Heath and Callaghan. Leaving bodies to rot because of strikes, and having the telly go off at 10pm because of strikes meant that people wanted the unions destroyed.

This is such a childishly simplistic reading of it. How old were you at the end of the 1980's?

It's good that they lost their strangehold, but we do still need them.

The unions are totally powerless now, which is a very bad thing. All mine does is try and sell me insurance. :mad:

[Blagsta]

we shut the coal mines down cause it was cheaper to ship it all the way from australia to an english coal fired plant or wherever, than it was to mine it here

its called competition, and well the australian have less deep mines and more surface mining thus it is cheaper

Another childishly simplistic interpretation of events.

[wheresmyplacebo]

This is utter cock. The miners had massive support for their strike. Thatcher was bent on closing the mines, striking prolonged the battle, it did not make them lose their jobs.

This is such a childishly simplistic reading of it. How old were you at the end of the 1980's?

The unions are totally powerless now, which is a very bad thing. All mine does is try and sell me insurance. :mad:

the NUS is worse, full of career politicians and rip off prices :(

my uni's union is hopefully going to disaffilate from them soon so :D we get most of our funding from our university anyway

[ShyBoy]

Another childishly simplistic interpretation of events.

It's what it comes down to though. Mining in the UK was not economically viable - it was actually loss making.

[Blagsta]

It's what it comes down to though. Mining in the UK was not economically viable - it was actually loss making.

No, not all. This assumes that the only reasons were economic. They weren't. It was a concerted effort to smash collective action in the working class to pave the way for a specific economic philosophy. You're view implies that it was the only course of action that could have been taken, that it was somehow "natural". It wasn't, it was the result of a very specific agenda.

[ShyBoy]

No, not all. This assumes that the only reasons were economic. They weren't. It was a concerted effort to smash collective action in the working class to pave the way for a specific economic philosophy. You're view implies that it was the only course of action that could have been taken, that it was somehow "natural". It wasn't, it was the result of a very specific agenda.

lol, im not talking about the action that was taken, i am talking about the economic situation then. It was loss making - it was run by the government more or less so miner's wages were from the government. Then when you look at it in black and white terms to continue mining in the UK was more expensive than to import. If there were other reasons influencing the decision then thats up to thatcher, but you do realise that because of the overly powerful mining union it actually prevent a slow transition. Wages had to be high, or they would strike. But normally wages would have been reduced since there was less demand for the stuff they were mining, until it would just be closed down all together, if that was the only possible alternative.

It was very much an all-or-nothing situation, and looking at the cost and benefit of either importing or mining at the levels they were, it was a good economic decision. Whether it has caused negative external effects due to the labour surplus in some areas is not the point. Would we have continued it for another 50 years, still loss-making?

[Blagsta]

lol, im not talking about the action that was taken, i am talking about the economic situation then. It was loss making - it was run by the government more or less so miner's wages were from the government. Then when you look at it in black and white terms to continue mining in the UK was more expensive than to import. If there were other reasons influencing the decision then thats up to thatcher, but you do realise that because of the overly powerful mining union it actually prevent a slow transition. Wages had to be high, or they would strike. But normally wages would have been reduced since there was less demand for the stuff they were mining, until it would just be closed down all together, if that was the only possible alternative.

It was very much an all-or-nothing situation, and looking at the cost and benefit of either importing or mining at the levels they were, it was a good economic decision. Whether it has caused negative external effects due to the labour surplus in some areas is not the point. Would we have continued it for another 50 years, still loss-making?


No, as I said, this is a very simplistic view. Decisions like this are not based entirely on economic terms. They are part of a much wider political picture. How much did it cost in terms of policing? Benefits payments? Redundancy payments? The social deprivation that followed?

[ShyBoy]

They are economic factors. If you're thinking of finance, no its not just that, but economics is:

The study of allocating our scarce resources among their alternate uses for the benefit of the largest number. The waiver justification for sufficient economic reason is based on when the use of another supplier would create an economic burden and not be in the best interest of the company, university, etc. Responsible economic procurement relieves the company, university, organization, etc. of potential additional expenses that would result from not making the purchase.

our scarce resource: money, we want the highest benefit of the largest number (society) - we do this by having more money. If we are spending more money than we need to and the negative effects of not spending that money are not so large that we'd be better off as we were, then we should choose that allocation. Economically speaking, involving the social welfare of society as a whole, it was a good decision. Those few who were affected wouldn't want it to happen, but the extra money we've saved and will continue to save (for every year we are not loss-making we have gained that extra x of resources) so we can put this money back into those affected areas (because there is a market failure in that they are not geographically and occupationally mobile - there are jobs in london but they wont move, and they dont have the skills to take up new employment easily where they live) and help them get jobs.

In the long run it's a good decision, certainly not a popular one, but an effective one. Becuase a few suffered the majority benefitted by a greater amount.

[Blagsta]

Yes I know what economics is thanks. Money is not the scarce resource btw. I stand by my original comments.

[ShyBoy]

Yes I know what economics is thanks. Money is not the scarce resource btw. I stand by my original comments.

You said the other things were not incorporated into an economic decision. And money isn't the scarce resource, it's how scarce resources are quantified! Money is only worth it's value.. but it's incredibly hard to say "2082342342 loaves of bread, 234234 tonnes of iron ore, 23489 syringes.." and list everything that will be effected by a decision, so if you use money and say how much each thing is worth in money (i.e. price) then you can easily quantify lots of things, and government can say how much money they have available and how they will use it. Printing more money off will not increase what we can buy with it because it's real value will decrease. But if you have a better way of quantifying the value of every single thing we have then please feel free.. just currency has done a good job for the past few hundred years (well, at least as far back as the romans with a standardised currency).

That's not the point though, my point is that the overall gain as a society was greater than the loss of the few individuals. Even though people are convinced it was the other way round - if that was true it wouldn't have happened. The economy is vital to the nation and any PM's duty is to see that the economy is growing and getting stronger. Thanks to hard decisions like this it has been growing and getting stronger. Imagine if they opened up the mining industry tomorrow again, you'd have to either pay extra tax or services would suffer. The nation is about the 60,000,000 or so people in the entire country, not the few hundred thousand who lost their jobs. That's the harsh truth of it. In a working economy they should get other employment, because no private firm in their right mind will do it because it's not economically viable, and the government came to its senses and did the same.

[Blagsta]

Many people would disagree that society gained. The government props up unprofitable businesses all the time. Thatcher took on the miners to pave the way for a neo-Liberal political agenda.

[ShyBoy]

Many people would disagree that society gained. The government props up unprofitable businesses all the time. Thatcher took on the miners to pave the way for a neo-Liberal political agenda.

Perhaps so, but perhaps that was better for society as well?

heres an interesting read
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3503545.stm

[Blagsta]

Perhaps so, but perhaps that was better for society as well?

I'd disagree.

[ShyBoy]

I'd disagree.

Why?

[Blagsta]

Because of the knock on effects that Thatcher's smashing of the unions has had, because of the social deprivation and poverty caused by unemployment, because money is not the measure of everything.

[ShyBoy]

Because of the knock on effects that Thatcher's smashing of the unions has had, because of the social deprivation and poverty caused by unemployment, because money is not the measure of everything.

It's not, but it means a lot. I don't know where the saved money went but I assume it went to the most needy people - so people like doctors could have jobs. Once they 'freed up' the money if it was best for society that those people are down there mining and contributing to society in that way then that's where it would have gone. It really doesn't do for an effective government to allocate resources in the wrong place.

Since no subsequent government has reopened the mine, that either indicates they agree that it was an inneffective allocation of resources or they are just weird :confused: perhaps a good political strategy would actually be to open those mines again and get all the miner votes - since its usually the minority groups that swing elections not the country as a whole.

[Blagsta]

It's not, but it means a lot. I don't know where the saved money went but I assume it went to the most needy people - so people like doctors could have jobs.

You think so? :eek:

Once they 'freed up' the money if it was best for society that those people are down there mining and contributing to society in that way then that's where it would have gone.

As I already pointed out, that's not the reason why the pits were shut.

It really doesn't do for an effective government to allocate resources in the wrong place.

Errr...

Since no subsequent government has reopened the mine, that either indicates they agree that it was an inneffective allocation of resources or they are just weird :confused: perhaps a good political strategy would actually be to open those mines again and get all the miner votes - since its usually the minority groups that swing elections not the country as a whole.

Subsequent governments are continuuing the same neo-liberal agenda.

[ShyBoy]

Subsequent governments are continuuing the same neo-liberal agenda.

Well society is better now than it was 30 years ago, not sure what you mean by neo-liberal agenda (new liberal? as in, a new way of making people have more freedom? whats wrong with that?) but if things do continue to improve then let them shut down more pits.

And whatever the reason she decided to shut them down, it was a good economic decision since the economy did benefit, and in turn so will the miner's families and society as a whole.

[Man Of Kent]

I don't know where the saved money went but I assume it went to the most needy people

Erm... tax cuts for a few actually...

Oh, and for information, the mining village where I live still gets grants from the Govt as a result of shutting the mines...

[Flashman's Ghost]

My understanding is that a lot of the mines which would have been economic were shut down after the strike because they were unsafe as no essential maintenance had gone on since the strikes had started.

[Blagsta]

Well society is better now than it was 30 years ago,

In what respects?

not sure what you mean by neo-liberal agenda (new liberal? as in, a new way of making people have more freedom? whats wrong with that?)

I thought you knew about economics?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-liberalism

but if things do continue to improve then let them shut down more pits.

And whatever the reason she decided to shut them down, it was a good economic decision since the economy did benefit, and in turn so will the miner's families and society as a whole.

What a load of toss. How exactly have miners families benefitted from their livelihoods and communities being destroyed?

[Blagsta]

My understanding is that a lot of the mines which would have been economic were shut down after the strike because they were unsafe as no essential maintenance had gone on since the strikes had started.

Where do you get that understanding from?

[Blagsta]

btw why do you think the nuclear energy industry gets a government subsidy, despite being totally uneconomic?

[Blagsta]

I hope you're watching Faith on BBC1 now.