Baroness Thatcher dies overnight

[oldrider]

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]

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]

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]

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 ...)

One of your better posts IMHO unless TPTB created jobs by constructing an up to date modern wide gage efficient ring line railway system on both islands, railway in this country is a dead duck!

Full employment has a very high price tag, the good old days of subsiding prices on everything like petrol electricity etc and make work schemes all over the country are long gone and never more to return!

[SPman]

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]

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]

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/pr...x-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]

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]

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!

[Brian d marge]

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]

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]

Climate change gives them a bob each way!

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]

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]

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]

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/glob...ulf_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 ...