Repulsive Thatcher haters give her final victory

Social liberal: Thatcher voted to decriminalise homosexuality, legalise abortion

The left’s vitriol and violence was predictable.

In Bristol and Brixton, hundreds took to the streets to drink champagne, vandalise a Barnardo’s charity shop, burn council property and attack the police as part of their celebrations of Margaret Thatcher’s passing.

Left-wing pin-up, MP George Galloway, blogged: “The wicked witch is dead. Tramp the dirt down."

Former London Mayor, Labour’s Ken Livingstone said “every real problem we face today” is her legacy.

The National Union of Miners issued a press statement saying “Good Riddance.”

In New Zealand, prominent left-wing blogger Malcolm Harbrow wrote: “Her victims will rightly be lining up to piss on her grave.”

Radio New Zealand reported that she had won three elections, never lost one, and had been Britain’s longest-serving prime minister of the 20th century.  But the news-writers couldn’t help but add oxymoronically that she was always very unpopular, despite British polling showing her to be the most popular prime minister since 1945, ahead of even Churchill.

Bryan Gould – who failed to win even 4% of the union vote, and less than 3% of the membership vote when he stood as the Bennite candidate for Labour’s leadership in 1992 – was trotted out in the New Zealand media.  He declared that Baroness Thatcher lacked empathy, something at odds with those who actually worked with her and somewhat unlikely given she was able to convert such a big chunk of the skilled working class to the Conservative cause for the first time.

Economically unsustainable
Baroness Thatcher was always lucky that her opponents were so truly awful.

The first were the wet Tory toffs who loathed her working-class background and conviction that free markets deliver growth and social mobility.

The second were the unions and Labour left, represented again so eloquently this week on Bristol and Brixton’s streets.

What bound the landed gentry and left together was their common belief that someone else should pay – middle-class taxpayers – for them to live in an economically unsustainable way.

This is what the haters refuse to acknowledge: that by the late 1970s, the economic model in the UK, Australia and New Zealand had become utterly unsustainable.

The UK had already had to be bailed out by the International Monetary Fund.  It was failing to produce things that others wanted to buy.  Strikes were endemic.  The dead were going unburied.

Baroness Thatcher’s opponents wanted that world to be maintained.  The left’s message is and never was anything more than: Give me stuff for free.

Classical Liberalism
That the left’s hatred of Baroness Thatcher is personal rather than policy-based is evident from examining her actual record.  It does not support their narrative of a heartless, conservative warmonger.

On personal morality, she was always a liberal, being one of the few Conservatives in the 1960s to vote to decriminalise homosexuality and legalise abortion.

As education minister, she established more comprehensive schools than anyone before or after and doubled the number of students attending them.

For all the left’s wailing of cuts to Britain’s welfare state, total government spending during her tenure as prime minister rose in real terms and fell marginally as a percentage of GDP only because economic growth was faster.

Home ownership went from 55% to 67% and share ownership from 7% to 25%.

Union membership fell from 13 million to 10 million, consistent with the global trend.  But there was no calculated attack on unions except for the National Union of Miners, which was funded by Libya and the Soviet Union and whose 1984/85 strike was not about improving pay and conditions but seeking to overthrow the legitimately elected government.

Perhaps surprisingly, Baroness Thatcher was an early warmist, arguing nuclear power should be used to save the planet from carbon dioxide.

On military deployments, she was conservative.  Even in the Falklands conflict, she vetoed plans to attack airfields on the Argentine mainland, worrying that would dangerously escalate the situation.

She fell out with Ronald Reagan over both his intervention in Grenada and his raid on Libya, arguing they were inconsistent with international law.  Had she and President Reagan been in power in 2001, it is extremely unlikely they would have invaded Afghanistan and unthinkable they would have considered George Bush and Tony Blair’s adventure in Iraq.  She was first to pursue peace with Mikhail Gorbachev.

The baroness did, of course, refuse to deal with Gerry Adams, Bobby Sands and other Irish terrorists when they were killing people in central London.

There is really not much here that any thinking leftist should get too upset about.

In 1975, Baroness Thatcher said: "I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left." 

She has won the final victory because, 34 years after she took charge of a country ruined by socialism, her repulsive opponents don’t.

This article is tagged with the following keywords. Find out more about My Tags

Post Comment

69 Comments & Questions

Commenter icon key: Subscriber Verified

Good stuff, lefties are losers

Reply
Share

Good stuff, sloganeers are stupid.

Reply
Share

Well put

Reply
Share

Too true!
The lefts constant rhetoric and the majority of MSM attempting to paint Thatcher as living evil... who then get trumped by all manner of inconvenient, impertinant facts, reminds me very much of the orchestrated and coordinated attacks on Key /National and Labours / Greens attempted smears... Only for them to be left eating humble pie when official statistics and factual information complete refutes their slathering rhetoric.

The orchestrated and manufactured "hate" by the MSM in both examples only demonstrates just how left leaning the majority of the MSM actually are and how bereft of credibility most of them are.

The weeks of the Horrid and TV3 trying to smear Key over his decision to appoint anyone he has the right and legal mandate to employ, compared to the insipid, superficial patsy questioning of Shearer about the "forgotten" funds suddenly discovered whilst doing "tax returns" weeks before the end of the tax year and weeks before banks have sent interest certificates for taxation purposes - clearly demonstrates an orchestrated propaganda attempt that even Kim in North Korea would be proud of.

One wonders now with demonstrated proof of systemic and institutionalised bias and political cronyism by the leftie MSM - what will the BSA and media standards authorities do to curb this rampant corruption of factual news and events? The public deserve better... And the watchdog is washing itself between the legs completely ignorant or completely ignoring the massive attempts by some to hood-wink the public.

How is the BSA curbing the rampant propaganda often spouted by biased repeaters and force-fed to us as "factual news"?

Reply
Share

People are allowed to express their disagreement and anger at perceived hurts even when a person dies. Deal with it and thank god we tolerate it to protect more important freedoms (even if we disagree with the etiquette of their criticism at this sad time for the family, as I do).

And anyone who puts themselves out in the public arena and contributes with bold change knows they will be criticized even in death - Baroness Thatcher would have simply treated it with a smile and let it run off her back.

Reply
Share

"reminds me very much of the orchestrated and coordinated attacks on Key /National and Labours / Greens attempted smears"-

Solidarity, I think you will find it is the job of the opposition parties to "oppose" the government of the day and hold them to account, not be their cheerleaders. That is how our Westminster style Parliamentary works.

Reply
Share

Oppose and combat with credible alternative policies... Fully costed and detailed ... Yes!

Oppose with smear campaigns and coordinated, orchestrated media beat ups with no evidence, proof or credibility... Like Shearer's GCSB tape and his mate Roofus Paynter doesn't hold any government to account, it only demonstrates how bereft of credible alternatives the left are... And that certainly doesn't help build a better government for NZ inc.

Reply
Share

True to a point, Solidarity. But as in this time and place John Key is the National Party/The National Party is John Key, from a tactical point of view it makes sense for the opposition to take the legs out from under Key as that undermines the Nats as a whole. I would contend that National's hold on power is linked far more to how much the voters like Key, rather than any overall agreement in their policies. Personally, I like him but find him him far too casual in the way he reacts to these problems - he does hold the highest office in the land, after all. I'm afraid it's a glaring weakness the opposition are right to exploit.

Reply
Share

A minor point, but as you point out systemic bias and rampant corruption of factual news and events are bad.

I would have thought it more likely that a US bank would send its tax certificates out after the end of the US financial year, which hey might be December rather than fitting it around the NZ tax year. So perhaps it landed on Shearer's desk at the start of this year, maybe even around the time the whole story blew up?

So who's orchestrating propaganda here?

It was sloppy that he forgot about it, but let's not get carried away trying to make up facts to fit your perception.

Reply
Share

Yes, but it has happened for Shearer several years in a row. It was not to do with tax that is the issue, it was the non declaration of financial interests to Parliament that all MPs have to do. I believe Shearer has filed his tax returns properly each year .

Reply
Share

These facts you talk of, please enlighten us.... please do so, though, without using propaganda and rhetoric as this post seems to be rather full of it.

Reply
Share

No-one seems to have observed that the reason for Mrs T trying to curb the power of the unions was simply because the unions were destroying Britain. Clearly, voters supported her.

Reply
Share

Exactly, over and over and over again until she got the job done. Now that, for the bitter Left, IS an inconvenient truth.

Reply
Share

The leftist cowards and losers crawl out of their holes at the death of Maggie to rave and rant about their defeats at her hand - truly a fitting tribute to the Iron Lady.

RIP, Margaret Thatcher, the World owes you a debt of gratitude for restoring self reliance and self respect for the individual.

Reply
Share

Without Thatcher the UK's economy would now be worse than Greece's.

Reply
Share

Right now the UK is on the edge of a triple dip recession,they are printing money and the whole nation is defined along class lines. What a legacy she left.

Reply
Share

I think if you do a bit of research you'll find she left power over 20 years ago.

The UK's current issues are nothing to do with her and everything to do with Blair and Brown, but the current government haven't done a great job either.

Reply
Share

For a legacy to be lasting it must have inter-generational benefits. The only beneficiaries of Thatcher were the corporates, big business and the rich. She was an old-fashioned classist, imperialist. Left and right thinking simply divides and hands rule to the quiet elite who make obscene profits while we are distracted by the squabbling they divide us with. Love, compassion, empathy and a sense of community are our hope.

Reply
Share

Matthew thank you for reminding us of just how great she was and what the left are really seeking

Reply
Share

While your point about the disgraceful actions of a minority in "celebrating" her death is correct, you conveniently paper over the reasons for the division in British society that were created during Thatcher's time in power with the usual posturing of the right that anyone who didn't agree with her were nothing but losers and agitators.
Her economic reforms were needed without a doubt especially allowing more freedom for workers, and ending Britain's reliance on primary industries such as coal mining and steelworks as they would have undoubtedly been destroyed by globalization anyway. She was right to back Reagan against the old Communist Bloc (although when the Berlin Wall fell she bizarrely opposed the German Unification). Where Thatcher went wrong was she had no empathy for those who were suffering from her policies. If you were one of Maggie's millions unemployed, well that was your fault. When she broke the miner's strike she could held out the olive branch and taken the road of reconciliation with the communities that were struggling, but instead she spat on them and vilified the miners and their families with no remorse. During Thatcher's time in government Britain could have benefited from the North Sea Oil money windfall by investing in infrastructure, but instead she squandered it on tax cuts - hence why the Blair/Brown Labour Government had to allocate so much spending to fix schools, hospitals and public transport. Once the Tory party was seen as Britain's "One Nation" party politically, now it is the party of the English south, barely wins a seat in England's North, can't win a seat at all in Scotland. Also, while Thatcher may have voted for homosexual law reform in the sixties, while PM in the eighties she backed the infamous (in Britain) Section 28 of the Local Authorities act which allowed local councils to discriminate against gay and lesbian groups - strange contradiction that.
Yes Thatcher was a great leader of transformation, but I can understand why she has left a bitter taste in many people's mouths.

Reply
Share

The 'division' you speak of existed long before Thatcher came to power. All that happened during her time was that the winners and losers changed sides. To the overall betterment of Britain.

Reply
Share

To the overall betterment of Britain's economy certainly, not it's society however. I lived there for 13 years, and while there is much I love and miss about Britain, there was a definite current of something bad just underneath the surface of Britain's everyday life. Whether they intended to or not, Thatcher & her acololytes allowed the "I'm all right jack, @#$% the rest of you" mentality to come to the fore. In big and small UK cities it is common for people to not even know their neighbors by sight let alone name. And as for asking a hand from someone to paint a shared fence or similar, forget it.
And if the self proclaimed heirs to her legacy, the UKIP party, gain a toe hold on power then it could become a very ugly place indeed as they close the doors to immigration/flow of labour and integration, two of the key tenants of globalisation.

Reply
Share

Sorry you couldn't cut it in Britain. I am sure Mosgiel is much more your style.

Reply
Share

Thank you for a rational analysis that isn't full of emotional ravings and irrelevant attacks.

Reply
Share

You're welcome.

Reply
Share

You have to think she would have a wry smile at all the vitriol from the left. You know if you have pissed them off this much you have done something right!

Reply
Share

Just the language and behaviour of her critics and opponents makes you wonder about the kind of people they are, and to worry about them leading a nation.

Reply
Share

Very similar to the language she used about her opponents when she was in power, I'd say. Rest assured, idiots like George Galloway are as far away from the keys of power as we would hope them to be be. The actual leader of the UK left, if such a thing exists, who may well lead a nation, British Labour leader Ed Miliband, gave a very balanced and dignified speech in Westminster about Mrs T and her legacy which was roundly applauded and praised by right-wing commentators and the Tory Party.

Reply
Share

Actually, if you think about it, Janine, it's just the sort of language that Solidarity and Alan Wilkinson use when talking about anyone who opposes the Nats or proposes alternative ideas...

Reply
Share

Silly Tosh, Tom. I've opposed the Nats myself many times. I treat each issue on its individual merits unlike the Left-bred Orcs whose abusive screechings infest so many debates.

It is, of course, exactly typical that this mob attacks Thatcher personally rather than identifying any particular issues in a rational manner. And here you are attacking individuals in the same pathetic way.

Reply
Share

Totally agree.
Play the ball, not the man. Something Shearer was supposedly going to do... No more "gotcha" politics... But then with 40% controlling interest.... The leopard can not change its spots....

Reply
Share

If you guys haven't woken up to the irrelevance of left vs right arguments yet then you are fossilised thinkers. Its all about common HUMAN values.

Reply
Share

Life is never all about just one thing. That's a silly statement. The Left is a mob rather than an idea. When they are not abusing everyone else they are abusing each other. Just look at the Labour party.

And I regard myself as a classic liberal, not a right winger.

Reply
Share

Values based actions are not just about one idea. They encapsulate an entire global history of human wisdom and life on this planet. Think on love for a day or two and see where it takes your thinking. If you can.

Reply
Share

You two should really take a good hard look at yourselves. Your language tells us everything about you. You are identified because of the consistent abusive, emotionalised comments you make. Yet somehow you manage to deceive yourselves into thinking that it's not you that says such things - only those who disagree with you. You must have great conversations with yourselves.

Reply
Share

Tom, your content tells enough about you to show you know nothing about us and have nothing to offer but personal attacks.

Reply
Share

Have a look at the language and Vitriol that flows at that leftie web site "The Standard" - and that's the articles.

And the comments are worse...

Like our current opposition, very shrill and with no credible alternatives...

Reply
Share

Seriously, you think The Standard is 'lefty'... oh, that is priceless... That's like calling Bernard Ingham a socialist. I'm glad you have such a balanced view of the media landscape, though, and have obivously done all your own research thoroughly - well done.

Reply
Share

But it says right on their website: "The Standard - The New Zealand voice of the left and the labour movement"...

Reply
Share

Lefties doing what lefties do. And anybody is surprised?

Reply
Share

Extremely well written and well put. There's a modern day lesson for what's left of the lefties in NZ as well!

Reply
Share

Yes we have the same problem in NZ, all of our problems are the legacy Halan left, the Socialist give aways!! we still don't have enough tax payers to fund them!! luckilly we can still shower and turn a light bulb on she didn't quite get them through, not to metntion all of the others that were in the pipeline.

Reply
Share

All of our problems? What about the Nats' 1997 to undermine mine regulation that led to the Pike River disaster and all the other examples of the perils of deregulation where a government fails to protect its citizens?

Reply
Share

You can't be serious! Are you saying that Pike River is the Government's fault? Next you will be telling us it's "Key's" fault that chocolate fish can't swim.

Reply
Share

Under which Governemt were mining safety inspections deregulated? Under which Government were all the issues raised about Pike River before the explosion (eg, gas levels, no second exit, etc) ignored?

Reply
Share

Actually, if you check your facts, the mine regulation and corresponding reduction in the number of mine inspectors were actively reduced between 2002-05, i.e. during the term of the Labour Government.

As the Pike report said, the loss of 7 inspectors during this created a "significant numerical reduction, and resulting in a feeling, perceived or otherwise, that the critical mass of inspectors necessary to carry forward work other than normal compliance and investigative work is no longer there".

Using your logic, we can all now see based on factual information taken from the Pike River report that the Labour Government were clearly responsible for the Pike River disaster.

Reply
Share

Despite your reasoning, the govt of the day did not run/operate the mine. It happens in all workplaces, people don't abide by the rules. Sure, the govts are responsible for the regulations, but they cannot be responsible for the day-to-day implementaion of them, just like you do unless you are the local goody goody two shoes. I bet every day you break a rule/law in your day-to-day living. Hell, I know I do, whether it be 5km too fast in my car or the like. Why is everyone obsessed with blaming someone somewhere?

Reply
Share

Exactly my subtle point too, Shirley. The government is simply a veneer that sits above a never-changing layer of beauracrats who make these policies.

Reply
Share

If you regulate, you take accountability for your regulations being enforced. If you deregulate, you take accountability for what happens as a result.

Politicians have to take accountability for the policies they introduce. Public servants simply implement those policies, with Governments accountable for ensuring they are implemented properly.

Reply
Share

So nobody will ever!! be a politician or work for a Govt dept, simply because or the responsibilty and accountability would be astronomical, and they would be constantly resigning or receiving a DCM, it would be impossible to perform at the required standard, and not just here it would be world wide.

Reply
Share

Absolute rubbish! That is just an excuse to do nothing. Internationally, in western developed economies, managers and Governments take responsibility and accountability for much higher levels of regulation than we have here. Fines etc are much higher. Levels of inspection are much higher. People who ignore complaints are held accountable. It's not bureaucracy, it's about ensuring safe businesses that protect the safety of workers and any implications for wider environments. Why is it you keep believing that New Zealand should be different?

Reply
Share

I would love to see any staff under you cowering in the corner.

Reply
Share

Doesn't happen. They know what they have to do within what boundaries. They understand responsibility and their managers understand that they are accountable for their staff and what they do. They actually have enormous freedom within those boundaries and are paid additional bonuses for achieving their outcomes. Staff turnover is less than 3%. Try it some time.

Reply
Share

Sorry to burst your fragile thought bubble but have you looked at how much national is borrowing at the moment? Make the most of your showers (unless you go solar) and your light bulb power is about to get much more expensive. They are crippling future generations of NZ tax payers with debt. Oh and did I mention the tax cuts and the give aways to SCF, Warner brothers et al ad nauseum. Both Thatcher and Key's legacy's are divided nations. Yesterdays protests were just the start.

Heard about Aston Marton's hydrogen powered performance car? And National want to mine for coal on the Denniston Plateau. (Yup that's the stuff that tore the UK apart 30 years ago.) National are unimaginative, brain dead and locked in the 1950's.

Reply
Share

In terms of the belief that Thatcher's policies created to increase social mobility and have that effect. They were never expected to increase social mobility by Thatcher or Hayek. In fact, social mobility by working class and non-working whites in England stopped about the time Thatcher was elected. Certain groups of immigrants say Hong Kong Chinese have achieved social mobility in Thatcher's England but that is a different issue.
In relation to claim that Thatcher stopped the extension of the Falklands War to the Argentine mainland territory. The answer is only by accident, as a homicidal raid on the Entendad base on the Sth Argentine base was attempted and aborted only because of faults in the Sea King helicopter carrying the commandoes. Secondly, the Commander of the RN SSN submarine Spartan or Splendid claim he would have sunk the Argentine aircraft in coastal Argentine territorial waters with 4 mile range WW2 torpedoes on the legal pretext he would be firing the torpedoes from just outside the 12 mile territorial zone - if he had had a precise fix on his position - at the moment he had the carrier in his periscope sites, ( Victor 607-Rowland White)
In terms of the claim that the wet Tory Etonians were awful and inept, I judge that Lord Hailsham would have been a far more effective and marketable leader than Heath. Hailsham appears in a one-minute burst of YouTube and manages a soundbite which encapsulates the entire Tory, nat, aus-lib position. You could adapt to the one minute incisive soundbite to any right centre speech.
Thatcher was not a notable parliamentary debater - like Muldoon, all her best lines where written by comics or speechwriters.

Reply
Share

There are many instances in world history where steps have been taken for the (apparent) greater good that have had profoundly bad outcomes for a smaller group in society. It is unreasonable for such people who have had such adverse experiences to forgive and forget, no matter how much good was done for the greater community. Histiory only tends to judge objectively once the author of the subject matter has perished. Let the evaluation commence.

Reply
Share

All this Left v Right vituperation is simply disgraceful. The woman died...let her family and friends grieve for her and go on.

Reply
Share

Agree entirely. Have some grace, there is no need to go dancing on her grave. If the British miners, etc, think they would still be competitive in today's world then they are sadly deluded. She did them all a favour and saved Britain from what is happening to the Club Med countries.

Reply
Share

Disagree. There is nothing disagreeable about the debate over her legacy. It's not as if this is taking place at her funeral, with the family in earshot.

Reply
Share

Ignoring the ridiculous sentiment of the article as typically anti-leftist rant with no basis for fact, do you think Britain’s economic decline reversed under Thatcher? It’s hard to find a compelling argument to back that up.
Checked the high streets lately? Seen the dole queue numbers and long-empty factories?
Once Thatcher’s government had fuelled the first housing boom in the early 80s, they took the proceeds from selling off the British telecom, Gas, Electric, water, to bolster the exchequer. After that, economic frailties have been masked by North Sea oil, and then by banking deregulation which generated vast sums, but now we realise at a horrific cost - and those policies follows ad-nausea around the world.
When the banks failed they came back to the electorate to bail them out. And the electorate is now reacting to those policies through her death.

Nope! Thatcher change Britain, but definitely not for good.

Reply
Share

Just think of it as the left's final shrieks as they are being flushed out the door into the dustbin of history. North Korea demonstrates the pinnacle achievement of leftist thinking in the modern day.

The era of the big State is coming to and end and Maggie was just the harbinger of the beginning of the end. The next phase will be spectacular, devastating and final. The indebtedness of the welfare State and the bankrupt notions of central banking debt-based money has reached its moment of denouement. Now that is an idea whose grave I shall have no shame to dance upon.

Reply
Share

To be more factual, your comment should read the "corporate welfare" state. 400,000 sick, unemployed or single parents in NZ do not break a healthy country's budget. They just give bigots someone to hate. Yes, a debt-to-multinational-banks based economy can and has dealt to plenty of countries. Iceland, Greece, Cyprus, Ireland and Portugal are a few that have already mortgaged their people's futures for generations so the bankers can get richer. Spain, Italy, the UK and the USA are still precariously poised. New Zealand under National has borrowed vast amounts of money and spent it on tax cuts for the wealthy and corporate welfarism. Why do people not discuss it? It's a fact. Treasury details that core Crown debt is higher today than it has been since 1992. Interestingly, that was under a National government, too.

Reply
Share

Yeah, so loved by her party that they sacked her as leader mid-term. Historical revisionism usually fails at the most basic of facts.

Reply
Share

Mid Term?

Nope - after 2 full terms and only in her third term.

Fair enough too as she had gotten too arrogant and righteous by then.

But she was still loved by the Party rank and file.

Get your facts right.

Reply
Share

The welfare bill rose slightly because there was a huge increase in unemployment during Thatcher's time in office. The fact it only rose marginally is because she did cut benefits. Growth in the year she left office was lower than the year she became prime minister. Right to buy took a large number of homes out of the social housing pool and with councils unable to reinvest in more social housing (thanks to Thatcher) we are now in the state we are in, with a large housing benefit bill and not enough social housing (70% of right to buy is now in the buy to-let market). Section 28. Deregulation of financial markets, I think we all know how that turned out.

I could go on but at least if there is an afterlife she will be reunited with her good friend Augusto Pinochet.

Reply
Share

Not as repulsive as the torture and violence of Thatcher's mate Pinochet.

Reply
Share

There are plenty of lefties here. Anyway, I think she was a great leader, not perfect. But who is perfect?

Reply
Share

Obviously, Alan Wilkinson thinks he is. Probably Solidarity as well.

Reply
Share

"The left’s message is and never was anything more than: Give me stuff for free."
What a ridiculous generalisation. I guess what it really means is you've never bothered to take any notice of (or could understand) anything the "left" actually have to say.

Reply
Share

Post New comment or question

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

NZ Market Snapshot

Forex

Sym Price Change
USD 0.7876 0.0000 0.00%
AUD 0.9228 -0.0001 -0.01%
EUR 0.6299 0.0001 0.02%
GBP 0.4989 0.0001 0.02%
HKD 6.1056 0.0326 0.54%
JPY 92.6460 -0.0010 -0.00%

Commods

Commodity Price Change Time
Gold Index 1196.6 -0.500 2014-11-26T00:
Oil Brent 80.1 -0.140 2014-11-25T00:
Oil Nymex 73.7 -0.400 2014-11-26T00:
Silver Index 16.6 0.000 2014-11-26T00:

Indices

Symbol Open High Last %
NZX 50 5457.4 5462.1 5457.4 -0.09%
NASDAQ 4760.2 4788.0 4758.3 0.61%
DAX 9894.6 9942.7 9861.2 0.55%
DJI 17812.2 17833.8 17814.9 0.07%
FTSE 6731.1 6765.0 6731.1 -0.03%
HKSE 23833.2 24176.6 23843.9 1.12%
NI225 17310.5 17328.9 17383.6 -0.36%