Mrs Thatcher - rather different from todays politicians
Discussion
ArmaghMan said:
Caulkhead said:
TheHeretic said:
ArmaghMan said:
Pity she didn't show as much compassion for 10 sons of Ireland as she did for her own son
:
And pray tell what special treatment should terrorists receive? Bosshogg76 said:
Caulkhead said:
You and I want cheap electricity, British coal miners wanted high pay - cheap electricity won.
You'll be telling me next you're happy to pay twice as much for stuff made here instead of China. If you do well done, but you're in a minority.
Given that the average Ozzie miner earns on average AUS$ 110,00 a year, they probably weren't to far short with their aspirations (actually the Pilbarra crane ops went on strike for earning only AUS$ 190,000, so miners will be earning more) . Investment in mining efficiently may have yielded cheaper coal and in turn bigger salaries, that's just speculating though.You'll be telling me next you're happy to pay twice as much for stuff made here instead of China. If you do well done, but you're in a minority.
It will return though, just as its doing in the oil industry. Wells once deemed unprofitable, now have us re worklng them at $750,000 a day, thats just a deap water rig, not including support vessels, helicopters, a nice new drill ship will cost a lot more than that to hire.
Edit to change 120,000 to 190,000...what was I thinking, drive a crane for that pittance you'd be mad
Edited by Bosshogg76 on Saturday 29th December 00:21
thinfourth2 said:
Caulkhead said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Do you see Blair, Gordo or even Cameron doing that ?
What examples do you have of Gordon Brown being on the take? I wasn't aware he was implicated at all in any financial impropriety. He certainly hasn't exploited his life in politics for financial gain since leaving office. If you know otherwise, let's hear it.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-exp...
This was not him exploiting his position
It was just him being a bit thick
Caulkhead said:
thinfourth2 said:
Caulkhead said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Do you see Blair, Gordo or even Cameron doing that ?
What examples do you have of Gordon Brown being on the take? I wasn't aware he was implicated at all in any financial impropriety. He certainly hasn't exploited his life in politics for financial gain since leaving office. If you know otherwise, let's hear it.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-exp...
This was not him exploiting his position
It was just him being a bit thick
In Brighton, pre privatisation, there was just the one bus supplier in town. There was a large depot in the centre where other buses and coaches from outside, long distance ones, used to turn up, but in practice there was just the one. It was subsidised to an extent. Come privatisation everything changed. The depot was sold and, er, that was it. So a waste of money but still a much better job done than railways as the service is only a little worse although it costs more in fairs.
Thatcher, miners' strike aside, was best when she had to react without planning. Falklands in particular, but there were many other examples. Can't let her response to the Grand Hotel bombing go without a mention. She was brilliant at times.
But she was dreadful at planning political moves: poll tax, selling council houses, and privatisation. All three were done to gain votes. There was argument that those who benefitted most from rates paid nothing and, it was assumed, voted labour. Selling off council house at a lower than market rate was designed to make more people homeowners and more likely to vote tory and read the DM. Privatisation was intended to turn the population to shareholders. This last was doomed to failure as many predicted. Many of those who did buy shares at the much reduced prices sold them on. Money went to the rich City bods.
So the household silver was sold at a price below what the market would have paid. I sold my shares after a couple of months both times. I can't remember how much I made but it was very useful. And I had voted for her, so a waste as far as I was concerned.
In a crisis, I'd pick her against any other PM we've had since the war. For planning she was 'variable' at best. She wasted a fortune with privatisation.
Thatcher, miners' strike aside, was best when she had to react without planning. Falklands in particular, but there were many other examples. Can't let her response to the Grand Hotel bombing go without a mention. She was brilliant at times.
But she was dreadful at planning political moves: poll tax, selling council houses, and privatisation. All three were done to gain votes. There was argument that those who benefitted most from rates paid nothing and, it was assumed, voted labour. Selling off council house at a lower than market rate was designed to make more people homeowners and more likely to vote tory and read the DM. Privatisation was intended to turn the population to shareholders. This last was doomed to failure as many predicted. Many of those who did buy shares at the much reduced prices sold them on. Money went to the rich City bods.
So the household silver was sold at a price below what the market would have paid. I sold my shares after a couple of months both times. I can't remember how much I made but it was very useful. And I had voted for her, so a waste as far as I was concerned.
In a crisis, I'd pick her against any other PM we've had since the war. For planning she was 'variable' at best. She wasted a fortune with privatisation.
colonel c said:
Caulkhead said:
thinfourth2 said:
Caulkhead said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Do you see Blair, Gordo or even Cameron doing that ?
What examples do you have of Gordon Brown being on the take? I wasn't aware he was implicated at all in any financial impropriety. He certainly hasn't exploited his life in politics for financial gain since leaving office. If you know otherwise, let's hear it.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-exp...
This was not him exploiting his position
It was just him being a bit thick
TheHeretic said:
Wasted, or saved?
I think it is all gone now.There was no way a nationalised phone service could have coped with mobiles so some form of privatisation was essential. Not only no problems with that but I agree with it. However, the price of the shares shot up after the float, and by some distance. If a private company did that on advice then the advisors would have been in for some strong words.
Anyone can get the price wrong I suppose, but one of the reasons given for buying the shares was that they would increase in value dramatically.
TheHeretic said:
Well, I only asked as like the coal board, it was losing half a billion a year. If the other nationalised entities were inefficient, and wasteful, then even taking in the possible loss made upon sale, we could save in the long run.
I read one report which suggested we were paying more to the railways than we did before privatisation. This is a statistic and was, not doubt, calculated to prove the calculator's point. But then we do still sub the railway companies yet the fares have risen by 50% in real money since we decided to sell them (give them away virtually).The problem with nationalised industries, like the railways, is that politicians get a say. I had a neighbour who was a railway fanatic. Nice bloke but you had to be careful when conversations turned deisel. He would wax lyrical about some post war steam trains that had a life expectancy of 50 years but were sacked (pun, get it?) after five. He was a big fan of modern engines but was violent in his criticism of the electrification process which cost the railways an unnecessary fortune.
The desing of the engines was so good that some of the trains are still running (well, 15 years ago they were) despite poor maintenance in India and other countries. (Only repeating what I was told so if it is wrong be gentle.)
He was of the opinion that electrification so quickly was political and gave rise to all sorts of problems.
Nothing wrong with nationalisation of the railways as long as you could keep politicaians away.
Derek Smith said:
Nothing wrong with nationalisation of the railways as long as you could keep politicaians away.
Nationally owned, but not run.There was a good programme on recently about one of the firms which is basically nationally owned. It was running at a profit, being arms length from politicians in the current 'we own them but not really' world.
The only one which seems to have been a success was telecommunications. Energy and transport were frack-ups, and imo 'necessities' shouldn't be held in the hands of private groups.
ArmaghMan said:
LostBMW said:
ArmaghMan said:
Pity she didn't show as much compassion for 10 sons of Ireland as she did for her own son
You are Gerry Adams aicmp.Do you have pics of H Block as your screen saver?
TheHeretic said:
Well, I only asked as like the coal board, it was losing half a billion a year. If the other nationalised entities were inefficient, and wasteful, then even taking in the possible loss made upon sale, we could save in the long run.
Even taking inflation into account half billion was a pittance (no pun intended)Loosing a whole National industry for such a paltry sum is a scandal IMO. Strange that we are now 'happy' to throw thirteen billion overseas in the name of aid and yet wouldn't support our own industry. crankedup said:
Even taking inflation into account half billion was a pittance (no pun intended)Loosing a whole National industry for such a paltry sum is a scandal IMO. Strange that we are now 'happy' to throw thirteen billion overseas in the name of aid and yet wouldn't support our own industry.
*sigh*Our coal industry was in decline long before the subsidies were removed, (see the production stats). Do you genuinely think that it is better to thrown good money after bad in the vain hope of propping up an industry that is failing?
Edited by TheHeretic on Monday 31st December 12:10
TheHeretic said:
crankedup said:
Even taking inflation into account half billion was a pittance (no pun intended)Loosing a whole National industry for such a paltry sum is a scandal IMO. Strange that we are now 'happy' to throw thirteen billion overseas in the name of aid and yet wouldn't support our own industry.
*sigh*Our own I dusted was in decline long before the subsidies were removed, (see the production stats). Do you genuinely think that it is better to thrown good m EU after bad in the vain hope of propping up an industry that is failing?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff