Baroness Thatcher dies overnight [Archive] - Page 2

BoristheBiter

25th April 2013, 12:31

Cable TV in most European countries are available in each house when renting (renting is the standard default in pretty much all european countries)....(i was much suprised in Holland to find I had cable without any extra charges and that was in 1999).
Clothes can be found easily in second hand stores, thrift shops, charity shops, and car booth sales.

Expensive Cars......what makes a car expensive? Buy a new car that is cheap to run, or buy a cheap car that cost an arm or a leg to run.

If I horrendously generalize about you ....i come to the conclusion that you must be of a lazy mind to just simply generalize how poor people are the answer and the reason as to why we are in this fucked up society.

Wow what a pointless answer. I'll continue with my horrendous generalizing and say you must be one of those lazy people with no mind that just makes excuses and blames someone else for all life's problems.

So advertising works?
Some people want to live whilst they're alive. I understand that. Why save for a future that may never come? If you have enough money to save that is.

Don't get me wrong I love spending my money and someone else's even more but it all comes down to choice.
When I was in the UK I lived week to week and sometimes day to day but it was my choice to party every night, get shitfaced pass out and do it all the next day. never once did I blame anyone for not having enough money to buy food or electric.

Oscar

25th April 2013, 12:35

And your excuse is what exactly? I guess your being a twat is just natural?

No, I tend to react at the same level as the idiots that I'm baiting.

Oscar

25th April 2013, 12:38

My mother passed away two years ago.

Btw. I am still waiting on your response to my erstwhile question. What business are you doing that has profited so much under the current National Policies?

Which question?

"May I ask what you do for a living?"

No.
No you may not, as it isn't germane to my previous statement.
I would be happy digging ditches under Key as it means that Clarke and her mob have gone.

mashman

25th April 2013, 13:03

Don't get me wrong I love spending my money and someone else's even more but it all comes down to choice.
When I was in the UK I lived week to week and sometimes day to day but it was my choice to party every night, get shitfaced pass out and do it all the next day. never once did I blame anyone for not having enough money to buy food or electric.

I agree, but even without sky, a car, cigs, boozes etc... there are still people living week to week/day to day. I doubt it's their choice and it ain't exactly easy to get out from under that. Tis a shame that we feel that people living like that is their fault.

No, I tend to react at the same level as the idiots that I'm baiting.

Like I said, you're a twat.

BoristheBiter

25th April 2013, 13:30

I agree, but even without sky, a car, cigs, boozes etc... there are still people living week to week/day to day. I doubt it's their choice and it ain't exactly easy to get out from under that. Tis a shame that we feel that people living like that is their fault.

I never blame someone for where they came from only there laziness.

mashman

25th April 2013, 16:03

I never blame someone for where they came from only there laziness.

I guess that's another generalisation, but without them the jobs that pay fuck all that the "lazy" do wouldn't get done. We get the society that we're willing to pay for, so I blame us.

Swoop

25th April 2013, 16:26

This govt. will go down in the anals of history as one of the worst we have ever endured.
Odd, since we are riding out a global recession with rather comfortable standards compared to other countries. Luckily we are not led by the labourite sect and their Lunatic Fringe friends during these times.

I do, however, agree with your Muldoon comments.

bluninja

25th April 2013, 16:44

I guess that's another generalisation, but without them the jobs that pay fuck all that the "lazy" do wouldn't get done. We get the society that we're willing to pay for, so I blame us.

The point is the lazy would rather collect their benefits (if its' not too much trouble) than work hard on a low paid job. I disagree that we get the society that we are willing to pay for. Were it that capitalist, we could sell certain sections of society off like so much toxic loans :bleh:

Ocean1

25th April 2013, 16:47

According to this almost half of the country are living pay to pay... I wouldn't exactly call them well off. All govts, including this one, have their share of the "blame" to take for that scenario.

If there's blame to be had it's with those that spend more money than they've got. And most of those have the head start of a negative tax profile.

I agree, but even without sky, a car, cigs, boozes etc... there are still people living week to week/day to day. I doubt it's their choice and it ain't exactly easy to get out from under that. Tis a shame that we feel that people living like that is their fault.

You doubt it's their choice? It's a shame you feel it's someone else's fault, because it's not.

I never blame someone for where they came from...

...only where they choose to go.

Odd, since we are riding out a global recession with rather comfortable standards compared to other countries. Luckily we are not led by the labourite sect and their Lunatic Fringe friends during these times.

Real luck would mean not having had them completely empty the till before they got slung out.

BoristheBiter

25th April 2013, 17:01

I guess that's another generalisation, but without them the jobs that pay fuck all that the "lazy" do wouldn't get done. We get the society that we're willing to pay for, so I blame us.

No and no.

You are either happy with what you have or you're not.
If you aren't and don't do anything about it you only have yourself to blame.

The welfare in this country will help anyone wanting to get ahead, the only problem is it also helps those that don't.

And I blame you.

mashman

25th April 2013, 18:26

So you guys are pissed off at those who live off of share income? After all, they do fuck all to "earn" their money and can still claim the dole.

The point is the lazy would rather collect their benefits (if its' not too much trouble) than work hard on a low paid job. I disagree that we get the society that we are willing to pay for. Were it that capitalist, we could sell certain sections of society off like so much toxic loans :bleh:

Why should anyone work in a low paid job? And there are bound to be unemployed people where there aren't enough jobs (something just about every govt in the world has admitted).

If there's blame to be had it's with those that spend more money than they've got. And most of those have the head start of a negative tax profile.

You doubt it's their choice? It's a shame you feel it's someone else's fault, because it's not.

You mean those who have millions in assets that mysteriously appreciate so they can borrow hundreds of millions against value that doesn't really exist?

It is our fault because we do not provide the society that offers them the ability to climb out of that hole. You said so yourself in the other thread "Anyway, so, the reason they can't afford a 1 pound house is the same reason they don't have a job. No marketable skills.". Not their fault eh. Imagine you are the average employer, what chance do those on the dole etc... have of getting a job that pays "well"?

No and no.

You are either happy with what you have or you're not.
If you aren't and don't do anything about it you only have yourself to blame.

The welfare in this country will help anyone wanting to get ahead, the only problem is it also helps those that don't.

And I blame you.

Ahhhhh, a child of Thatcher. Your argument ignores that there are finite jobs. If even 20% of the "lazy" decided not to be "lazy" and go and earn some qualifications, they'd then come out of uni with a huge debt and potentially put someone else out of a job. All you're doing is trading one person for another and then you'll go on to blame the person that is now on the dole for being "lazy" when they have difficulty getting another job. If everyone lived to your way of thinking the world would be in utter chaos.

Robert Taylor

25th April 2013, 18:46

So you guys are pissed off at those who live off of share income? After all, they do fuck all to "earn" their money and can still claim the dole.

Why should anyone work in a low paid job? And there are bound to be unemployed people where there aren't enough jobs (something just about every govt in the world has admitted).

You mean those who have millions in assets that mysteriously appreciate so they can borrow hundreds of millions against value that doesn't really exist?

It is our fault because we do not provide the society that offers them the ability to climb out of that hole. You said so yourself in the other thread "Anyway, so, the reason they can't afford a 1 pound house is the same reason they don't have a job. No marketable skills.". Not their fault eh. Imagine you are the average employer, what chance do those on the dole etc... have of getting a job that pays "well"?

Ahhhhh, a child of Thatcher. Your argument ignores that there are finite jobs. If even 20% of the "lazy" decided not to be "lazy" and go and earn some qualifications, they'd then come out of uni with a huge debt and potentially put someone else out of a job. All you're doing is trading one person for another and then you'll go on to blame the person that is now on the dole for being "lazy" when they have difficulty getting another job. If everyone lived to your way of thinking the world would be in utter chaos.

We are in chaos. Much of that is because Governments ( of all types ) around the world failed to put the brakes on and electorates at large always want ''the sun to be shining''. Why are we where we are at? Oversimplistically, GREED. Endemic at all levels of society. From the blue collar paid up union member who wants shorter hours for more pay ( often unsustainable ) to the CEO with an unrealistically fat salary and huge bonuses. We are all to blame.

Ocean1

25th April 2013, 19:51

You mean those who have millions in assets that mysteriously appreciate so they can borrow hundreds of millions against value that doesn't really exist?

No. I mean those who cost the taxpayer more than they contribute.

It is our fault because we do not provide the society that offers them the ability to climb out of that hole. You said so yourself in the other thread "Anyway, so, the reason they can't afford a 1 pound house is the same reason they don't have a job. No marketable skills.". Not their fault eh. Imagine you are the average employer, what chance do those on the dole etc... have of getting a job that pays "well"?

Yeah. It doesn't get any more true the more often you say it. There are plenty of jobs out there in the real world, and they pay up to a little under the value contributed by the amployee. The reason they're not being filled is because those that should be working them aren't actually worth their asking price. And the fault there lies in exactly the same place as the lack of marketable skills: those who didn't get them.

mashman

25th April 2013, 20:06

We are in chaos. Much of that is because Governments ( of all types ) around the world failed to put the brakes on and electorates at large always want ''the sun to be shining''. Why are we where we are at? Oversimplistically, GREED. Endemic at all levels of society. From the blue collar paid up union member who wants shorter hours for more pay ( often unsustainable ) to the CEO with an unrealistically fat salary and huge bonuses. We are all to blame.

Agreed... as much as I don't want to agree, not with you, but with the situation and who's to blame, I have to take my share of the blame. Removing the mechanism for the greed would go a long way to redressing the balance, but that seems to be unthinkable for some strange reason.

mashman

25th April 2013, 20:12

No. I mean those who cost the taxpayer more than they contribute.

Yeah. It doesn't get any more true the more often you say it. There are plenty of jobs out there in the real world, and they pay up to a little under the value contributed by the amployee. The reason they're not being filled is because those that should be working them aren't actually worth their asking price. And the fault there lies in exactly the same place as the lack of marketable skills: those who didn't get them.

Hmmmmm that's interesting. Some of the banks around the globe did the same and took bailouts. Are you saying that irrespective of the billions that they make each year that they hadn't overspent and cost the tax payer more than they put in?

In which case, get off their backs and let them do what they choose to do. Where's the issue in that? They cost more than they put in? Even those working... in which case pay them more for the jobs.

BoristheBiter

25th April 2013, 21:40

Ahhhhh, a child of Thatcher. Your argument ignores that there are finite jobs. If even 20% of the "lazy" decided not to be "lazy" and go and earn some qualifications, they'd then come out of uni with a huge debt and potentially put someone else out of a job. All you're doing is trading one person for another and then you'll go on to blame the person that is now on the dole for being "lazy" when they have difficulty getting another job. If everyone lived to your way of thinking the world would be in utter chaos.

May she rest in peace.

My argument has nothing to do with how many jobs there are, my argument is about bettering yourself and correct use of your income.

Oh and horrendously generalizing.

mashman

25th April 2013, 21:59

May she rest in peace.

My argument has nothing to do with how many jobs there are, my argument is about bettering yourself and correct use of your income.

Oh and horrendously generalizing.

How many jobs there are matters in regards to having an affect on how much effort a person will put in to finding a job in many cases.

:rofl: I'd never do anything like that.

BoristheBiter

25th April 2013, 22:09

How many jobs there are matters in regards to having an affect on how much effort a person will put in to finding a job in many cases.

I think we are on different tracks here. you don't need a job to better yourself or budget what you have.

mashman

25th April 2013, 22:17

I think we are on different tracks here. you don't need a job to better yourself or budget what you have.

You do if the resources you require cost money that you don't have. Such as bus fare to get to the library along with childcare to look after your family whilst you go to the library, or if you've cut back so far that you have no net access etc... even worse if you're trying to hold a job down or if you have kids etc... We are on different tracks in ways, but they both lead to the same place.

Hinny

25th April 2013, 22:57

.... it was my choice to party every night, get shitfaced pass out and do it all the next day.

Oh! that explains it then.

Hinny

25th April 2013, 23:31

Real luck would mean not having had them completely empty the till before they got slung out.

You are ignorant of recent history.
Without the stewardship of Michael Cullen there would not have been a rainy day fund available for Bill English to squander.
As he said, to Don Brash and his boy who were advocating tax cuts, "the good times are not going to continue".
They then had to weather the global financial crisis which NZ and Australia were able to weather better than most.
This govt came in and gave away the rainy day fund, sold the country on the lie that the financial crisis was still with us on one hand and then stood up in Parliament and argued that their tax cut plan was working and the tax take was up. Classic case of trying to have your cake and eat it too. .
They have had a booming economy to help their tax take with record commodity prices resulting in the best balance of payments in 37 years. These facts are completely ignored by Nat supporters who continue to try and say we are in tough financial times because of the rest of the world. Get real. The tough times are because we have inexperienced, ideologically misguided, plonkers running the show.
THEIR POLICIES DON'T WORK AND HAVE NEVER WORKED ANYWHERE ELSE ON EARTH.
Why they continue to try and implement them and expect a different outcome is beyond me.
Or do they expect a different outcome?
Running the country into the ground, spreading the income gap to create a class system may be exactly the outcome they want. Certainly is a feasible explanation for their actions.
I haven't heard any other credible one.

Suspended their contributions to the super fund... At least they didn't go as far as Muldoon and steal it.

Hinny

25th April 2013, 23:38

Lefto hippies like you can get bent...

It has been argued that the Hippy era made the greatest contribution to world societies of any in history.
As for getting bent that was argued by Alexei Sale as being the preserve of Tories - "wacking each others dicks in a drawer".
I think I'll pass on that.

Ocean1

26th April 2013, 07:59

You are ignorant of recent history.

Your wee tantrums aren’t what rational observers might take for a balanced view on history, dude.

Let’s see if I can distil the facts down to something a little less convoluted, eh?

Labour presided over the largest economic boom in NZ history, from 1999 to 2008. Their economic oversight didn’t create it, but it did obliterate every trace of the surplus that should have been there for the bad times.

Hinny

26th April 2013, 09:29

Your wee tantrums aren’t what rational observers might take for a balanced view on history, dude.

Let’s see if I can distil the facts down to something a little less convoluted, eh?

Labour presided over the largest economic boom in NZ history, from 1999 to 2008. Their economic oversight didn’t create it, but it did obliterate every trace of the surplus that should have been there for the bad times.

Labour has historically presided over booms and National have historically presided over busts.
That is history dude not histrionics.
Using figures provided by the Dept. of Statistics would show you where you were wrong.

Bill English years down the track conceded that Michael Cullen had done a good job.
Where you get the idea that Labour had emptied the coffers is anybody's guess but it is not reality.

A bit like the argument that Margaret Thatcher had turned Britains fortunes around.
The statistics don't give credence to that view either.

Swoop

26th April 2013, 15:30

Where you get the idea that Labour had emptied the coffers is anybody's guess but it is not reality.
Cullen blew the surplus on the broken train set. What remained he used in treaty settlements to which he managed to feather his own nest with consultancy work.
He spent up large at a time when preparing for the GFC would have been paramount and prudent. The incoming government inherited the poison chalice. Do we all remember the "opening of the books"?

Brian d marge

26th April 2013, 15:52

Ocean1

26th April 2013, 18:02

Labour has historically presided over booms and National have historically presided over busts.

No government can claim to have made the money they spend, taxpayers do that.

If you have another look at your labour-led gdp you'll see there's some serious hysteresis going on there, the good times roll before labour gain office and dive again before they leave office. Only a very buoyant economy can afford them.

There’s only one thing saving Cullen from appearing in history books as an abject failure, he did indeed blow the largest series of surpluses this country has ever seen but at least he paid down public debt. If he’d refrained from trying to re-make history by massively overpaying the Aussies for Kiwirail and one or two other idiocies and invested in some of our better performing industries our debt levels might not now be back where they were before he started.

oldrider

26th April 2013, 20:34

Every time there is a change of government the purchasing power of our retirement income total plummets! :angry2:

I just hope we don't outlive our money and become another burden on society! :doctor: :eek5:

Edbear

26th April 2013, 20:39

Hinny

26th April 2013, 22:50

No government can claim to have made the money they spend, taxpayers do that.

If you have another look at your labour-led gdp you'll see there's some serious hysteresis going on there, the good times roll before labour gain office and dive again before they leave office. Only a very buoyant economy can afford them.

There’s only one thing saving Cullen from appearing in history books as an abject failure, he did indeed blow the largest series of surpluses this country has ever seen but at least he paid down public debt. If he’d refrained from trying to re-make history by massively overpaying the Aussies for Kiwirail and one or two other idiocies and invested in some of our better performing industries our debt levels might not now be back where they were before he started.

You got some stats to support this assertion?

Hinny

26th April 2013, 23:03

Cullen blew the surplus on the broken train set. What remained he used in treaty settlements to which he managed to feather his own nest with consultancy work.
He spent up large at a time when preparing for the GFC would have been paramount and prudent. The incoming government inherited the poison chalice. Do we all remember the "opening of the books"?

The train set would probably not have been broken if it had not been given to private enterprise to run.

The actions which he took are what resulted in NZ weathering the GFC better than all other economies.
The incoming government inherited a big rainy day fund - months into office Bill English declared the rainy day had come - the rainy day was the forgoing of revenue policy which bought them the votes of the sheeple.
They were told by Cullen and Peters that the country could not afford tax cuts but it fell on deaf ears.
John Key making the historic gaffe on the televised debates getting his figures all wrong was memorable... for me. Went past most people.

Hinny

26th April 2013, 23:08

Anybody know what Thatcher spent the proceeds of assets sales on?

Berries

26th April 2013, 23:36

Anybody know what Thatcher spent the proceeds of assets sales on?
Dole cheques and the YTS.

Brian d marge

27th April 2013, 02:28

Fiscal Outlook1
$ billion
June years Actual Estimate Forecast
1995/96 1996/97 1997/98
Total revenue 35.1 35.1 35.7 36.7 38.6
Ratio to GDP (%)7 38.6 37.2 36.1 35.0 34.8
Total expenses 31.7 33.0 34.6 35.4 36.7
34.9 34.9 35.0 33.8 33.2
Ratio to GDP (%)
Operating Balance 3.3 2.4 1.5 1.9 2.6
Ratio to GDP (%) 3.6 2.6 1.5 1.8 2.3
Net worth 3.3 6.0 7.6 9.5 12.1
Ratio to GDP (%) 3.7 6.4 7.6 9.0 10.9
Gross Crown debt 41.5 34.8 34.3 33.8 32.5
Ratio to GDP (%) 45.7 36.9 34.7 32.3 29.4
Net Crown debt 28.6 25.6 25.2 24.3 22.7
Ratio to GDP (%)31.5 27.1 25.5 23.2 20.5
1 Economic forecasts were finalised on 21 May 1997, fiscal projections on 10 June 1997.
2 Production-based measure (March years).
3 HLFS unemployment as a percentage of the labour force, seasonally adjusted, March quarter.

the government was ;

The 45th New Zealand Parliament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/45th_New_Zealand_Parliament) continued. Government was The National Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_National_Party), led by Jim Bolger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Bolger), in coalition with New Zealand First (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_First), led by Winston Peters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Peters).

as for Debt .....hmmmm

See below , as it doesnt want to insert !

Stephen

from the budget releases Nz treasury 1997 to 2012 brought to you by facts-r-us

Swoop

27th April 2013, 10:52

can ya point me towards the info on this one , I should really get familiar with the spending in the 1990 2000 period
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/taxpayers-pay-big-labour%E2%80%99s-rail-dream

The train set would probably not have been broken if it had not been given to private enterprise to run.
The train set was asset stripped by the aussie owners and then sold off since they could not get it to make a profit.
The price paid is the major issue, as Cullen should have brought it for a pittance, but he did not... Even letting the company go bust and purchasing it from the receivers would have been cheaper (but not good practice).
Wasting a billion NZ Roubles on something valued at 400mil?

I hate to think about what the Lunatic Fringe would waste money on if they ever become a government in their own right.

mashman

27th April 2013, 10:56

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/taxpayers-pay-big-labour%E2%80%99s-rail-dream

The train set was asset stripped by the aussie owners and then sold off since they could not get it to make a profit.
The price paid is the major issue, as Cullen should have brought it for a pittance, but he did not... Even letting the company go bust and purchasing it from the receivers would have been cheaper (but not good practice).
Wasting a billion NZ Roubles on something valued at 400mil?

I hate to think about what the Lunatic Fringe would waste money on if they ever become a government in their own right.

Is that after the nats revaluation of the assets? Same thing they did to back up claims that ACC was in trouble?

BoristheBiter

27th April 2013, 17:00

Oh! that explains it then.

What's your's :bleh:

Robert Taylor

27th April 2013, 20:47

This thread is about Maggie! Now what would Britain be like now had James Callaghan been re-elected in 79? Food for thought?

Brian d marge

27th April 2013, 21:54

This thread is about Maggie! Now what would Britain be like now had James Callaghan been re-elected in 79? Food for thought?

Hasnt someone told you

she died a few weeks back , some were happy some were sad ,,,then we moved on

Stephen

ps , looking st the budgets, i cant see ant evidence of the train set, there is mention of increased transport costs in 2009 , but they are more concerned with the rise in super

Stephen

Hinny

27th April 2013, 22:34

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/taxpayers-pay-big-labour’s-rail-dream

The train set was asset stripped by the aussie owners and then sold off since they could not get it to make a profit.
The price paid is the major issue, as Cullen should have brought it for a pittance, but he did not... Even letting the company go bust and purchasing it from the receivers would have been cheaper (but not good practice).
Wasting a billion NZ Roubles on something valued at 400mil?

I hate to think about what the Lunatic Fringe would waste money on if they ever become a government in their own right.

So the Govt. didn't pay a billion dollars for Kiwi Rail it paid $690,000.
The assett stripping that I know of - selling off all the land around railway stations, wasn't undertaken by the Aussie owners.
What assett stripping are you talking about?

Well it's bad enough that the lunatic fringe are in there with the the majority that they have.
Selling off State assetts and spending a quarter of the early, optimistic, estimated sales proceeds on building a new prison doesn't make much sense to me.
Nor does wasting money upgrading roads, bridges etc. to enable 52 ton trucks to ply the roads. (in competition with rail)

Stephen Joyce's assessment shows the Nats. simplistic measure of success is growth. It's not a very good measure of well-offness.
Increasing our population would probably result in 'growth'. The end game in that scenario is dire. Look at Thatcher's Bloody Britain. Or India etc.

Usarka

27th April 2013, 22:42

Coming from the Guardian ( a left leaning newspaper not even good enough for toilet paper) that is of course what you'd expect.

Its also worth mentioning that Harold Wilson ( a two time Labour priminister ) closed down more coalmines during his two tenures than did Maggie. Where is the vilification against his name? Even he recognised it was a twilight industry that was becoming economically unviable.

For me Maggie is second only to God and I will always have fond memories of her. And God is an Anglican.

I'm glad you mentioned god because that post makes you sound like a religous fanatic.

I heard a good interview of Sir Max Hastings (war historian/journalist) on RNZ the other day. He was an admirer of thatcher, but had some realistic/sensible views on the appropriateness of the public funeral. Go to 10:50 (or listen to the whole thing!) http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/anzacday/audio/2553047/sir-max-hastings.asx

Hinny

27th April 2013, 22:45

as for Debt .....hmmmm

See below , as it doesnt want to insert !

Stephen

from the budget releases Nz treasury 1997 to 2012 brought to you by facts-r-us

I think the actual debt is up to 33% of GDP.
Their forecast was actually a little optimistic even though looking at the graph one might think it was pretty pessimistic.

Swoop

28th April 2013, 14:11

the Govt. didn't pay a billion dollars for Kiwi Rail it paid $690,000.
The aditional investment required in the rail system was believed to be a billion. Bringing things back up to standard. I wonder if the Gisborne section of line will ever be rebuilt?

The Labour government bought TranzRail from Toll on July 1 2008 for $690m. A provisional valuation in the government financial statements in September 2008 put the value at $442m.

Today Transport Minister Steven Joyce said the final valuation by PriceWaterhouseCoopers was $388.29m.

A Treasury report said a fair value for KiwiRail at the purchase date would have been $369.54m.

"This results in a final financial loss on acquisition of Toll NZ Ltd of $320m," the report said.

In Parliament Mr Joyce said a further $210m was spent on loans and $90m on operational subsidies.

"It's quite obvious to anyone looking at this transaction that the previous government significantly overpaid for KiwiRail and paying that much handicaps its future," he said.

The public was not told about the large financial burden including the backlog of needed expenditure before the purchase was made, he said.

Progressive MP Jim Anderton pointed out that a National government had sold the rail in the first place and it had been stripped by the buyers and had subsequently suffered from lack of investment.

Mr Joyce said that was ancient history.

"No one in their right mind would pay the kind of money for KiwiRail that the previous government paid."

The previous government said $1b was needed to bring the rail back up to standard. Mr Joyce said any investments would need to be sensible (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2553607/KiwiRail-only-worth-369-million).

oldrider

28th April 2013, 21:49

Trying to reason with socialists is like trying to teach pig's to fly ... it isn't ever going to happen and it only agitates and excites the pig's! :Pokey:

BoristheBiter

28th April 2013, 22:00

Trying to reason on a KB thread is like trying to teach pig's to fly ... it isn't ever going to happen and it only agitates and excites the pig's! :Pokey:

Fixed that for ya.

Hinny

29th April 2013, 02:07

[QUOTE=Swoop;1130537889] [I]The Labour government bought TranzRail from Toll on July 1 2008 for $690m. ...

Mr Joyce said any investments would need to be sensible/QUOTE]

And spending millions on upgrading roads etc. for 52 ton trucks to operate in competition with the railways is sensible?
Not to mention the ongoing maintenance costs operation of said trucks will cause. Tote that up and add in projected costs as you have with the railways and you are looking at billions.
The loss of human life is another major factor.
One report I read said trucks were involved in the majority of road fatalities in NZ. Another said that a spot check campaign on trucks revealed 40% of them had substandard brakes.
52 ton trucks require a huge increase in braking distance over the trucks presently allowed.
All this has been previously discussed as well.

Reporting Stephen Joyce as though his words were doctrine is naive. He is a skillfull politician, bright but misguided and often disingenuous in the extreme.
The same can be said of Nick Smith. Do you consider it acceptable to quote him as though his words were gospel as well? ACC ? ? ?
I suspect Joyce is merely rehashing the lines provided by Tony Friedlander to justify the changing of the law to suit his members.
Self interest above public good and at the expense of the public.
Public expenditure for private profit is something this govt. is good at.

The discussion of the railways purchase has been well done and dusted.
To promote road transport is to ignore the the tenuous nature of fuel supply and global warming among a raft of other considerations
About as sensible as wanting Auckland to grow and build more motorways to allow the punters to commute. To commute to their service industry jobs looking after each other. Only the short-sighted would consider that a sensible option.
FFS if they want societies like that why don't they just fuck off to countries that already have that setup.
Don't wreck what we have.
The damage this non-sensical expenditure will create will be irreperable. To argue that we have to accept this as unavoidable is head in the sand mentality. Governments are supposed to operate for the good of its citizens. Not for the good of foreign corporations. Freedom / Serfdom. Take your pick.
Who wouldn't want to go back to the Forty hour week, Only one parent working, 1/4 acre sections, Sport on Saturdays, Family holidays with room to move, Clean rivers etc.
Where are we headed?
What future do the Nats. see for New Zealanders?
The Mainland cheese ad showing the industrialisation of a Southern landscape could have been a representation of the Muldoon govt. plan for Otago.
Their stated objective was to create another Ruhr Valley. Muldoon famously took a German industrialist he was in talks with over this plan to an Anzac day service. The man in question was a former SS officer. Did not go down well.
Is a plan like that what people want for NZ?
Would create jobs. Would create growth.
Would make some people rich.
Would utilise an unused resource - brown lignite coal.
Is this a desirable future for NZ?

BoristheBiter

29th April 2013, 09:06

To promote road transport is to ignore the the tenuous nature of fuel supply and global warming among a raft of other considerations

You do know they've stopped calling it global warming.

oldrider

29th April 2013, 11:34

I don't mind the trucks on the roads but why are so many of them (Truck and trailer units) turning over on easy sections of road?

I must admit that truck tyres pumping the water off the wet road are a real hazard to other road users, especially motorcyclists!

Sort of still on topic? ...... No not really!

Swoop

29th April 2013, 16:30

Well it's bad enough that the lunatic fringe are in there with the the majority that they have.
The Lunatic Fringe are the "green" party.

And spending millions on upgrading roads etc. for 52 ton trucks to operate in competition with the railways is sensible?
Allowing larger trucks to operate is another issue entirely.

We have been through the use of rail as a primary distributor many years ago. It is a very good concept but fails miserably in practice, or most certainly did when the union strong (strangle) hold was in force. The saying went "if you want it crushed beyond recognition - send it by rail!".

It would be fantastic to have bulk distribution done by rail and then truck to the warehouse, but we are getting further away from this system as it quite simply too slow with our "need it now" logistics system.

Banditbandit

29th April 2013, 16:37

Yeah .... Naa ... the problem of using rail is that if you are a manufacturer, then you produce something, load it onto a truck, (a loader and a driver - two jobs minimum) .. take it to the rail, load it into a wagon (at least one job of loader and then engine driver ...) Get to the other end, load it onto a truck (another two jobs - loader/new truck driver) unload the truck and the recipient end (another one job ...

A minimum of fvie jobs to get it to the right point (not to mention all the rail staff needed to run the train)

Why not just load it onto a truck (two jobs - loader and driver) drive the truck to the other end and unlod (another job) - 3 jobs only huge cost savng ... bigger profit for the manufacturer

But if yuou want to know why we have high unemployment and the social costs in this country - that's because the jobs have gone and the costs have been shifted from the manufacturer to the Government social support systems - which are paid for by the taxpayer ... (and there are less of them becuase the jobs have gone ...)

oldrider

29th April 2013, 17:50

SPman

29th April 2013, 17:51

You do know they've stopped calling it global warming.No they haven't - you might have.

Coming from the Guardian ( a left leaning newspaper not even good enough for toilet paper) that is of course what you'd expect. Sorry Robert - the Guardian is a red neo-con paper - just like "New Labour". The only time it gets a left lean these days is in a force 10 gale with all sheets on the yardarms....

Robert Taylor

29th April 2013, 18:12

This thread is about Maggie! Now what would Britain be like now had James Callaghan been re-elected in 79? Food for thought?

The silence is deafening, and the thread is not about our failed train system, comprehensively botched up by both sides of the house.

Will anyone here of more of a left wing persuasion care to theorise what would have become of the UK had they returned the incumbent Government in 79? This request is a respectful one, out of interest. There were many colourful characters in the UK Labour party at that time, I even had a grudging respect for Michael Foot as he was a gentleman, as was James Callaghan.

Robert Taylor

29th April 2013, 18:24

I'm glad you mentioned god because that post makes you sound like a religous fanatic.

I heard a good interview of Sir Max Hastings (war historian/journalist) on RNZ the other day. He was an admirer of thatcher, but had some realistic/sensible views on the appropriateness of the public funeral. Go to 10:50 (or listen to the whole thing!) http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/anzacday/audio/2553047/sir-max-hastings.asx

Not at all, I only attend Churches for hatched matched and despatched. I will though confess to being baptised as an Anglican but am aghast at some of their more recent liberalisation ( but lets not go there ) Moreover it was conclusively proven on Top Gear that C of E is the top religion. Ministers of the main faiths were invited to set a laptime and not unexpectedly C of E won! I pointed that out to a noisy Muslim activist at Speakers corner in Hyde Park last October, erupting the attending crowd into laughter at his expense.
Unashamedly pro Monarchy, yes. But thats another debate for another thread.

BoristheBiter

29th April 2013, 19:01

No they haven't - you might have.

.

I think you will find it is now called climate change as the warming part has been shown as false.

oldrider

29th April 2013, 20:44

I think you will find it is now called climate change as the warming part has been shown as false.

Climate change gives them a bob each way! :rolleyes:

Brian d marge

29th April 2013, 22:37

The silence is deafening, and the thread is not about our failed train system, comprehensively botched up by both sides of the house.

Will anyone here of more of a left wing persuasion care to theorise what would have become of the UK had they returned the incumbent Government in 79? This request is a respectful one, out of interest. There were many colourful characters in the UK Labour party at that time, I even had a grudging respect for Michael Foot as he was a gentleman, as was James Callaghan.

Good question

need to think a little about this ,

but , off the top of me head , they had no money , old and useless equipment badly needing investment
The unions, lets just say they needed to work WITH business not against it , There were instances of this happening and the workers doing rather well out of it , one particular transport company did well !

The "city " brings in cash and lots of it , when it isnt being moved it can be taxed , Though that cash is subjected to booms and busts

also a lot of incidentals have crept into government spending such as the fuel and heat allowance ,designed to help the oldies , this has crept up to 20 pounds a week odd ,,,, these all add up

So IF industry had been invested in aka Rolls Royce, I can see why Blighty would be in a similar state except with a stronger manufacturing base

Mrs T wasnt all bad ,,,,,,,,

But as I said this requires a little thinking about

Stephen

SPman

30th April 2013, 02:07

I think you will find it is now called climate change as the warming part has been shown as false.Only amongst those who refuse to look at what's actually happening, but, that's another thread!

Banditbandit

30th April 2013, 09:40

Climate change gives them a bob each way! :rolleyes:

Naaa .. a bob each way suggests it is wrong ... "Global Warming" gave people like you the wrong impression ...

Climate change involves a rise in the Earth's overall temperature (hence "global warming") ... however that means a rise in the amount of energy in the atmosphere .. so stronger winds (and so we already have stronger hurricanes in 'Merika) ... more evaporation from the oceans and more water in the atmosphere .. creating more clouds, more rain and floods ... (gee haven't we had a lot more floods around the world in the last couple of years) ... so a warmish, cloud-covered, windy, raining, flooding world is more likely than a hot desert.

Also, the Gulf Stream is driven by cold water in the northern hemisphere hitting the Arctic Ice and falling down the ocean (cold water sinks) - sucking warm water from the Carribean north .. bringing warmer air that warms Western Europe and the British Isles . as the Arctic Ice retreats there is less cooling of the sea water, less falling water and less warm water sucked from the Gulf .. if that all stops (and it may well stop) then the temperature in Western Europe and the British Isles would generally fall ... as it is is no longer warmed by the Gulf Stream ... so we could get a much colder Europe .. even ice forming as far south as Spain (if you think this sounds improbable go do a Google search - it's not hard to find ... )

So a colder Europe is not "Global warming' - that was always a misleading name .. (people were already saying "but it's getting colder so Global Warming is false and the scientists are wrong") ... so it was changed to Climate change .. which is much more accurate ..

BoristheBiter

30th April 2013, 11:01

Only amongst those who refuse to look at what's actually happening, but, that's another thread!

I think you need to read up on it.
You can start with BB post above.

But it don't care as it was a light hearted comment to Hinny.

carbonhed

30th April 2013, 19:47

Naaa .. a bob each way suggests it is wrong ... "Global Warming" gave people like you the wrong impression ...

Climate change involves a rise in the Earth's overall temperature (hence "global warming") ... however that means a rise in the amount of energy in the atmosphere .. so stronger winds (and so we already have stronger hurricanes in 'Merika) ... more evaporation from the oceans and more water in the atmosphere .. creating more clouds, more rain and floods ... (gee haven't we had a lot more floods around the world in the last couple of years) ... so a warmish, cloud-covered, windy, raining, flooding world is more likely than a hot desert.

Also, the Gulf Stream is driven by cold water in the northern hemisphere hitting the Arctic Ice and falling down the ocean (cold water sinks) - sucking warm water from the Carribean north .. bringing warmer air that warms Western Europe and the British Isles . as the Arctic Ice retreats there is less cooling of the sea water, less falling water and less warm water sucked from the Gulf .. if that all stops (and it may well stop) then the temperature in Western Europe and the British Isles would generally fall ... as it is is no longer warmed by the Gulf Stream ... so we could get a much colder Europe .. even ice forming as far south as Spain (if you think this sounds improbable go do a Google search - it's not hard to find ... )

So a colder Europe is not "Global warming' - that was always a misleading name .. (people were already saying "but it's getting colder so Global Warming is false and the scientists are wrong") ... so it was changed to Climate change .. which is much more accurate ..

Oh bravo! That's truly an epic level of Kiwibiker stupidity... there must be a particular bling colour for situations just like this... something in horseshit brown perhaps?

Banditbandit

1st May 2013, 09:45

Oh bravo! That's truly an epic level of Kiwibiker stupidity... there must be a particular bling colour for situations just like this... something in horseshit brown perhaps?

Yeah ???

Go here .. a good summary

http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarmingandweather/a/gulf_stream.htm

As I said .. go look ... the information is there .. I do agree that there is disagreement around Climate Change - the eveidence is startign to come in sugestng that it is real ... and there are fewer and fewer hard core denial positions . such as yours ...

But when the shit hits the fan and climate change is real . then it will be too late ...

oldrider

2nd May 2013, 17:33

The fact that it (climate change) is real has never really been in question, it is the "who why and what" that has mostly been in dispute! :scratch:

Brian d marge

2nd May 2013, 19:06

IMHO
Doesn't really matter if climate change is real or not , as the solutions are pretty much win win anyway
Stephen

BoristheBiter

2nd May 2013, 19:08

IMHO
Doesn't really matter if climate change is real or not , as the solutions are pretty much win win anyway
Stephen

What solution? charge for carbon credits? yeah top marks for that bollocks.

oldrider

3rd May 2013, 13:32

What solution? charge for carbon credits? yeah top marks for that bollocks.

Plus one to that! .... Another Nick Smith fumble! :brick:

Brian d marge

3rd May 2013, 13:35

Plus one to that! .... Another Nick Smith fumble! :brick:

not one of the better solutions , but still better than nowt

Stephen

BoristheBiter

3rd May 2013, 13:40

not one of the better solutions , but still better than nowt

Stephen

No it's not.
A company is charged for pollution so passes that cost onto end user. end user pays more, company is doing nothing different.

we still have the same pollution but now it costs us more.

Brian d marge

3rd May 2013, 15:47

No it's not.
A company is charged for pollution so passes that cost onto end user. end user pays more, company is doing nothing different.

we still have the same pollution but now it costs us more.

if that is true then that is bad ,

in the main , my original statement still stands

Stephen

oldrider

3rd May 2013, 16:01

I support your freedom to choose and be wrong so long as I am free to choose and be right! :niceone:

Clockwork

3rd May 2013, 17:00

This is the thread that keeps on giving.

Every day I log on, click to Rant or Rave and once again I'm reminded...

"Baroness Thatcher dies overnight"

Brian d marge

3rd May 2013, 17:06

I support your freedom to choose and be wrong so long as I am free to choose and be right! :niceone:
"
whose freedom are we talking about , because my "right" , is hand crafted by the finest Japanese craftsman and tends to be better than SAE 1010 wire used in stock control

Stephen

Berries

5th May 2013, 00:05

This is the thread that keeps on giving.

Every day I log on, click to Rant or Rave and once again I'm reminded...

"Baroness Thatcher dies overnight"
It does need the occasional bump though.

Robert Taylor

5th May 2013, 10:06

It does need the occasional bump though.

Yes, but it has strayed offthe core subject somewhat. Its also of note that no-one has been prepared to answer my ''what if ?'' question. I.e ''What if The Labour government in the UK had been re-elected to power in 79?'' ( instead of electing Maggie and therefore business as usual ) My friends on the left( who if you remove some of the emotion provide some plausible arguments ) have gone strangely silent

oldrider

5th May 2013, 10:13

mashman

5th May 2013, 12:43

Yes, but it has strayed offthe core subject somewhat. Its also of note that no-one has been prepared to answer my ''what if ?'' question. I.e ''What if The Labour government in the UK had been re-elected to power in 79?'' ( instead of electing Maggie and therefore business as usual ) My friends on the left( who if you remove some of the emotion provide some plausible arguments ) have gone strangely silent

I am politically agnostic. You may class my views as being left, but that's only coz you're leaning to the right ;). What would have happened. The right would have had to have waited another 4 to 7 years to put their plans into action. Meanwhile those who advise govt departments would have advised govt departments to do what was necessary for industry. We may not have seen Utility privatisation, but we would have certainly had some form of privatisation. Some unions would have had a brief stay of execution and we may well have seen the UK car industry survive (if only for a little longer). I think it would have been very much business as usual, borrowing would have remained relatively constant and communities would have been less decimated. The GFC would have started 4 to 7 years later. Having said that, elections are rigged anyway so it's a moot point :eek:.

Robert Taylor

5th May 2013, 15:06

I am politically agnostic. You may class my views as being left, but that's only coz you're leaning to the right ;). What would have happened. The right would have had to have waited another 4 to 7 years to put their plans into action. Meanwhile those who advise govt departments would have advised govt departments to do what was necessary for industry. We may not have seen Utility privatisation, but we would have certainly had some form of privatisation. Some unions would have had a brief stay of execution and we may well have seen the UK car industry survive (if only for a little longer). I think it would have been very much business as usual, borrowing would have remained relatively constant and communities would have been less decimated. The GFC would have started 4 to 7 years later. Having said that, elections are rigged anyway so it's a moot point :eek:.

Yes, my thoughts on it would be that the inevitable pain would have just been delayed and then been appreciably worse to get the UK back onto a sound financial footing. Almost certainly there would have been no attempt to retake the Falklands, making the UK an even bigger laughing stock. Galtieri certainly picked the wrong British priminister to take on.

Berries

5th May 2013, 15:48

Yes, but it has strayed offthe core subject somewhat.
What, that she karked it?

Its also of note that no-one has been prepared to answer my ''what if ?'' question. I.e ''What if The Labour government in the UK had been re-elected to power in 79?'' ( instead of electing Maggie and therefore business as usual ) My friends on the left( who if you remove some of the emotion provide some plausible arguments ) have gone strangely silent
Hmmm. I was ten years old in 79, what if's and hypothetical theories are pointless and a waste of time to me. Life in the UK was much different in the mid 80's when I left school. It was under her leadership, not Foot, Heath or any other potential hypothetical prime minister.

Brian d marge

5th May 2013, 18:11

bluninja

5th May 2013, 18:13

Hmmmm...what would New Zealand be like if Margeret Thatcher had been prime minister here?

mashman

5th May 2013, 18:35

Yes, my thoughts on it would be that the inevitable pain would have just been delayed and then been appreciably worse to get the UK back onto a sound financial footing. Almost certainly there would have been no attempt to retake the Falklands, making the UK an even bigger laughing stock. Galtieri certainly picked the wrong British priminister to take on.

:laugh:... I highly doubt the reds would have just handed over sovereignty of the Falklands... and in ways I'm surprised that Madge didn't just flog them off. Although war is more profitable. As for money. The reds would have found money in some other way as govts always do irrespective of their flag colour.

Swoop

5th May 2013, 19:47

Hmmmm...what would New Zealand be like if Margeret Thatcher had been prime minister here?

Thank fuck we haven't had a female prime minister apart from Jenny Shipley!

oldrider

6th May 2013, 15:04

Thank fuck we haven't had a female prime minister apart from Jenny Shipley!

NZ has never had an elected (by the electorate) prime minister, male or female, they have always been political appointees! :shifty: (Well, in my lifetime anyway!)

oneofsix

6th May 2013, 15:23

NZ has never had an elected (by the electorate) prime minister, male or female, they have always been political appointees! :shifty: (Well, in my lifetime anyway!)

Elected or not we have still had them and a Maori PM, although not a female. Maggie was no more elected by the electorate than our PMs are. So what was your point? :weird:

oldrider

6th May 2013, 18:10

Elected or not we have still had them and a Maori PM, although not a female. Maggie was no more elected by the electorate than our PMs are. So what was your point? :weird:

Exactly that, Prime ministers are political appointments rather than elected by the electorate!

How many of them would have been there (including Maggie Thatcher) if they were voted into that position by the electorate? :confused:

mashman

6th May 2013, 18:19

Exactly that, Prime ministers are political appointments rather than elected by the electorate!

How many of them would have been there (including Maggie Thatcher) if they were voted into that position by the electorate? :confused:

Thing is though noone trusts anything that bleeds for 7 days and doesn't die do they. Although having said that I'm sure she fed frequently.

Madmax

6th May 2013, 20:04

Thank fuck we haven't had a female prime minister apart from Jenny Shipley!

That was a female? i thougt it was a russian bear

Robert Taylor

6th May 2013, 21:30

That was a female? i thougt it was a russian bear

Neither have been pretty but at least Jenny was normal AND she didnt get rid of the Air Strike Force.

But back to Maggie. So many have vilified her but there has been precious little comment about how Britain would have fared had a person of her immense courage not been elected. Ive just recieved my copy today of ''Not for Turning'' and am very much looking forward to a good read.

oldrider

6th May 2013, 23:43

Neither have been pretty but at least Jenny was normal AND she didnt get rid of the Air Strike Force.

But back to Maggie. So many have vilified her but there has been precious little comment about how Britain would have fared had a person of her immense courage not been elected. Ive just recieved my copy today of ''Not for Turning'' and am very much looking forward to a good read.

The whole stadium sees the same game but not everybody sees it the same way, people's perception is their reality, "vive la difference"! :niceone: (damn it)

MisterD

7th May 2013, 08:32

there has been precious little comment about how Britain would have fared had a person of her immense courage not been elected

Ain't nothin' like a lefty when it comes to rewriting history Bob.

BoristheBiter

7th May 2013, 09:19

:laugh:... I highly doubt the reds would have just handed over sovereignty of the Falklands... and in ways I'm surprised that Madge didn't just flog them off. Although war is more profitable. As for money. The reds would have found money in some other way as govts always do irrespective of their flag colour.

The reds find money by raising tax's .

BoristheBiter

7th May 2013, 09:21

Things is though noone trusts anything that bleeds for 7 days and dies do they. Although having said that I'm sure she fed frequently.

Don't you mean "and doesn't die"

mashman

7th May 2013, 09:42

The reds find money by raising tax's .

And the blues don't? :killingme

Don't you mean "and doesn't die"

yup indeedy... will go back and edit appropriately. Muchos grassybum

BoristheBiter

7th May 2013, 10:23

And the blues don't? :killingme

yup indeedy... will go back and edit appropriately. Muchos grassybum

Never said they don't, just answered your question.

And I don't need to know what you're munching on.

mashman

7th May 2013, 12:24

Never said they don't, just answered your question.

And I don't need to know what you're munching on.

I didn't ask a question.

BoristheBiter

7th May 2013, 12:50

I didn't ask a question.

so you didn't.
One day i will learn to read:eek:

oneofsix

7th May 2013, 13:53

so you didn't.
One day i will learn to read:eek:

Another victim of education spending cuts? :corn:

mashman

7th May 2013, 14:09

so you didn't.
One day i will learn to read:eek:

When you've learned the secret, let me know would ya :niceone:

BoristheBiter

7th May 2013, 14:59

Another victim of education spending cuts? :corn:

no just not enough slate and chalk to go round.

BoristheBiter

7th May 2013, 14:59

When you've learned the secret, let me know would ya :niceone:

will do.:niceone:

Berries

25th May 2013, 23:24

This is the thread that keeps on giving.

Every day I log on, click to Rant or Rave and once again I'm reminded...

"Baroness Thatcher dies overnight"
Here you go.

Berries

7th July 2013, 16:17

This should interest a few people.

Margaret Thatcher Day (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23205132)

Robert Taylor

7th July 2013, 20:37

This should interest a few people.

Margaret Thatcher Day (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23205132)

Well I hope she gets a statue in Trafalgar square. Fully deserved as much as Gordon Browns image is appropriate on door mats

Brian d marge

7th July 2013, 23:51

Well I hope she gets a statue in Trafalgar square. Fully deserved as much as Gordon Browns image is appropriate on door mats

As much as i admired the lady for her skills as a polly

If at that level you can still sleep at night,Knowing what she knew

She and the others cannot be regarded as an average human in the same way I admire the german guy whose speaking skills were put to good use back in the day
and isnt widely respected by quite a few

Stephen

Berries

8th July 2013, 07:15

Well I hope she gets a statue in Trafalgar square. Fully deserved as much as Gordon Browns image is appropriate on door matsMy original post said "Robert Taylor in UK Parliament" but I changed it as everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

A statue in London or anywhere but some shitty little cul-de-sac in Grantham wouldn't last a week.

Robert Taylor

8th July 2013, 20:58

My original post said "Robert Taylor in UK Parliament" but I changed it as everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

A statue in London or anywhere but some shitty little cul-de-sac in Grantham wouldn't last a week.

I take it then you are not a tory?

Berries

9th July 2013, 00:14

I take it then you are not a tory?
I don't do politics. I left school in a mining village in the east midlands in 1983, prospects not that great so you can guess who I blame. Left the country as soon as I could, which took a few years, and never looked back. Never went back for more than a couple of weeks either. Can't blame her for the way things are over there now but I would certainly consider myself one of Maggie's millions, and I don't mean rabid supporters.

BoristheBiter

9th July 2013, 07:35

I don't do politics. I left school in a mining village in the east midlands in 1983, prospects not that great so you can guess who I blame. Left the country as soon as I could, which took a few years, and never looked back. Never went back for more than a couple of weeks either. Can't blame her for the way things are over there now but I would certainly consider myself one of Maggie's millions, and I don't mean rabid supporters.

The Unions for making unreasonable demands making more economical sense to shut them down and import coal or Arthur Scargill?

Robert Taylor

9th July 2013, 07:53

The Unions for making unreasonable demands making more economical sense to shut them down and import coal or Arthur Scargill?

I was there in 83 and earlier and it was clear then that coal was a twilight and highly uneconomic industry. And had been for some time. Maggie had the balls to do the obvious whereas all of her predecessors hadnt.
It was a huge bonus that she consigned that raving lunatic windbag Scargill to under the doormat, where he always belonged.
Just like many twilight industries that we currently have and a change in business methods its a matter of having to move with the times. That can be painful but the alternatives only delay that pain and make future generations pay for current profligacy.
The Conservative Government in the UK are making savage cuts and will likely have to increase taxes to pay for the previous Governments out of control spending. But it looks like what they are doing is not anywhere near enough ( in part to appease their Liberal partners ) and forseeably the UK will be in recession for at least another decade. Not helped of course by the Eurozone crisis, much if not all of it self inflicted

MisterD

9th July 2013, 08:23

The Conservative Government in the UK are making savage cuts

Don't believe the hype. A reduction in the rate of increase of government spending is not a "savage cut".

Robert Taylor

9th July 2013, 09:16

Don't believe the hype. A reduction in the rate of increase of government spending is not a "savage cut".

Yes you are correct, ''savage cuts'' was a poor choice of phrase. Absolutely, something very radical has to be done in the UK to reverse the rot reinstated by the last Government

oldrider

9th July 2013, 10:28

One only has to ask ... Was Britain better off because of Maggie Thatcher or would they have been better off without her? ... No contest!

Robert Taylor

9th July 2013, 19:17

One only has to ask ... Was Britain better off because of Maggie Thatcher or would they have been better off without her? ... No contest!

Lets put it another way, what if Jim Callaghan and his gutless Government got re-elected in 79?

Or go back further, if people including his own party took heed of Enoch Powells highly prophetic ''rivers of blood ''speech.

oldrider

9th July 2013, 23:10

Lets put it another way, what if Jim Callaghan and his gutless Government got re-elected in 79?

Or go back further, if people including his own party took heed of Enoch Powells highly prophetic ''rivers of blood ''speech.

Enoch had it right all along ... pommy do gooders shat all over him and ultimately the whole country and commonwealth! :brick:

It's not so much the immediate immigrants as it is a couple of generations later ... lookout New Zealand and Australia! :facepalm:

Brian d marge

10th July 2013, 12:47

Lets put it another way, what if Jim Callaghan and his gutless Government got re-elected in 79?

Or go back further, if people including his own party took heed of Enoch Powells highly prophetic ''rivers of blood ''speech.

we answered that question
Enoch may have had the idea right , A, ya cant say things like that , not because of freedom of speach etc , just that every loony and his dog will run with it ,(which is what happened ) B If you are going to say it , choose the language carefully , so that if it does go pear shaped ,,,,,

or not give a poo about your political carreer speak your mind and stand well back!!!

Stephen