Labour's $1 billion train set now worthless

[Tank]

In the news this evening

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10560007

Labour government, which bought the railway from Toll and renamed it KiwiRail, had made a string of commitments which added up to about $3 billion but it allocated only about $120 million.

"The Government is now the owner of a business which probably has no value, in fact negative value, having just eight months ago paid almost a billion dollars for it," Mr English said in Parliament.

"We will have to keep this business and try to make it work, because no one in their right mind would be prepared to pay anything like what the taxpayer put into it."


I sit here waiting waiting for Skyryder to tell me how this is Nationals fault as well.



ACC at $1.5 Billion - say another $2 Billion for the train set - What a great legacy the left the country with.

[Hitcher]

This plus the ACC debacle. Labour really didn't have any intention of winning the election, now did they.

[JimO]

they were probably hoping they wouldnt

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

I sit here waiting waiting for Skyryder to tell me how this is Nationals fault as well.

me 2......

[nallac]

was Jon key elected prime minister or Liquidater of the country?,
thanks to labour....

[hospitalfood]

so let me get this straight. the party in power is blaming the previous party for something?
who would have thought? surely that cant be right ? they would never do that !
thats like saying they will be blaming the previous party for failing on their election promises!

wise up suckers!!!!!!!!!
and no i did not vote labour.

[Tank]

so let me get this straight. the party in power is blaming the previous party for something?
who would have thought? surely that cant be right ? they would never do that !
thats like saying they will be blaming the previous party for failing on their election promises!

wise up suckers!!!!!!!!!
and no i did not vote labour.

You really have no understanding at all do you.

[sidecar bob]

so let me get this straight. the party in power is blaming the previous party for something?
who would have thought? surely that cant be right ? they would never do that !
thats like saying they will be blaming the previous party for failing on their election promises!

wise up suckers!!!!!!!!!
and no i did not vote labour.

No, i dont think theyre blaming them at all. I think the facts speak for themselves.

[hospitalfood]

You really have no understanding at all do you.

i cannot be bothered Tank.

[Winston001]

This plus the ACC debacle. Labour really didn't have any intention of winning the election, now did they.

Many a true word said in jest. The election victory is becoming a hospital pass to National. Seriously, they could be out on their ear in 3 years. Voters have short memories and the government accounts look grim. Plus Treasury are saying we won't recover growth until 2013.

So let me get this straight. the party in power is blaming the previous party for something?

Who would have thought? surely that cant be right ? they would never do that !

The thing is, this is real money, not fancy accounting. Labour really did buy NZ Rail, they really did know about the $Billion+ loss for ACC, and they also bought Air NZ which has just announced a big drop in profits.

The blame isn't anything to do with gay marriage, smacking, prostitution or the other social engineering carried out by Labour - those things can always be argued.

This is simple facts and cold hard cash. Yours and mine.

[hospitalfood]

No, i dont think theyre blaming them at all. I think the facts speak for themselves.

what facts, all you have to go on is one side of an argument that remains unproven at this stage.

and anyway, the investment in rail was never a short term thing ( same goes for the investment made in coastal shipping ) it was made because the cost of oil will continue to rise as it is a limited resource. when it gets to a certain price rail and costal shipping will be very valuable assets for the people of NZ to own.

it is no surprise that one party takes the short term view to bag another party, but do not think the current party in power is unaware of the motivation of the previous one, or doubts the wisdom of the previous one. its just about scoring points against each other, they are probably doing all they can to bag the previous party because they are going to do something soon that nobody will like.

[Headbanger]

and anyway, the investment in rail was never a short term thing ( same goes for the investment made in coastal shipping ) it was made because the cost of oil will continue to rise as it is a limited resource. when it gets to a certain price rail and costal shipping will be very valuable assets for the people of NZ to own.

The logic in acquiring it is obvious, its the price paid for junk that hurts.

[hospitalfood]

the other thing that is important to consider in political budgets ( as with any business ) is overall profit and loss.
you can still win losing $20 on potatoes when you are making $80 on rice.

so really the whole thread is pointless without knowing the overall profit/loss of the previous party in power.
and believe me when i say that the party in power will not inform you of the previous party's winnings.

[hospitalfood]

The logic in acquiring it is obvious, its the price paid for junk that hurts.

i tend to agree with this, it is a shame we sold it in the first place.
it was then asset stripped, then pissed about with, and now we have to pick up the bits and start again.

[Winston001]

and anyway, the investment in rail was never a short term thing ( same goes for the investment made in coastal shipping ) it was made because the cost of oil will continue to rise as it is a limited resource. when it gets to a certain price rail and costal shipping will be very valuable assets for the people of NZ to own.

Accepted. But as Headbanger says, it's the price that was paid. Seriously - who else was going to buy a bankrupt railway in the remote South Pacific? The NZ Government was always the only real bidder. If they'd been patient they could have bought it for $1. Plus liabilities, so there'd be a bigger cost on top, but not $500 million.