Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Hays...........richmond wesley malom and howarth.

Royds Hall Secondary.

Harold Wilson used to go their but was a grammer school in his days.

and they would have taught him the difference between "their" and "there" and also how to spell "grammar" in those days too!

cynic
Are you still away?

Talking of Harold Wilson, he closed more pits than Thatcher.

came back from jersey on saturday morning ...... sunny but very windy made for some great but testing conditions

yes yes hays, but they were un- economic in other words on their last feet.

Thatcher closed down economic mines that could have shipped to Belgium and India.

cynic yes such a good boy for spoting my useless use of the English language. 10 brownie points and a slap on the arse from your FAG.

I bet you miss him or was that him caddying for you last week?.

Ah yes! You were hitting and chasing that poor little white ball.

Is it a different time zone there?

It would probably be the only place I have never been to in Europe. I went to Gothenberg for a day once. Up in the middle of the night and back the same, just for a business meeting. It was middle of winter and bloody freezing.

I have been passed the Channel Islands a few times on a ferry to France.

ps, bright boys (cynic and hays) who is the brainiest mp in parliament today........going on educational achievements.

clue........ link to Harold.

Thatcher closed uneconomic pits. The test was different under Thatcher as she stopped state subsidies. Wilson kept pits open that were really uneconomic by the trick of subsidies. Wilson wanted to close a lot more, but the unions wouldn't put up with it so he had to continue the state handouts. That stupid attitude took us into the 1970s when all the state run industries were losing money hand over fist. State subsidies were stopped and then industry had to pay its way. The next step was privatising and reprivatising of badly run state industries.

Rt Hon Dr Oliver LETWIN, MP Conservative Dorset West; son of Professor W Letwin, and Dr S R Letwin (d 1993); born 19 May 1956; Educ Eton, Trinity College, Cambridge (MA, PhD); married 1984, Isabel Grace, daughter of Professor John Frank Davidson, FRS; 1 son (Jeremy John Peter) 5 July 1993, 1 daughter (Laura Shirley – twin);

Career visiting research fellow Princeton University 1980-81; research fellow Darwin College, Cambridge 1981-82; special adviser Department of Education and Science 1982-83; member Prime Minister’s Policy Unit 1983-86; director N M Rothschild and Sons Ltd 1991- (joined 1986); MP (Conservative) Dorset W 1997-; opposition front bench spokesman on constitutional affairs 1998-99; Shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury 1999-2000; Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury 2000-2001; Shadow Secretary of State for Home Affairs 2001-; FRSA 1991; made a Privy Councillor 2002; Publications Ethics, Emotion and the Unity of the Self (1984), Privatising the World (1987), Aims of Schooling (1988), Drift to Union (1990), The Purpose of Politics (1999); numerous articles in learned and popular journals; Recreations philosophy, walking, skiing, tennis; Clubs St Stephen’s Constitutional.

.

Explain the difference between state subsidies and "welfare benefits having to be paid" to inadequately paid workforces who working for some private companies, who often have grossly different pay levels for management and directors of same companies.

Ie. the tax-payers are subsidising "uneconomical" companies and the living standards of incompetent management, shares holders or owners of those "companies".

(Unfortunately, subsidies were a necessary evil for a period after WW2. (And also, for some areas or companies with high R&D.)

It should have bought a period for reorganisation of industry, allowing for gradual closing of the uneconomical "industries" and replacement with alternative forms of "industry" for those who would have lost jobs. (A planned economy.)

Also, during that period, private "companies" could have invested more in "capital and new plant" etc..

But like now, they didn't.

The major reason being that "private capital investors" didn't trust the government of that period and are demonstrating that they don't trust the present one.

With the level of incompetence being demonstrated by the coalition government, I don't blame them.

piss off sticky :-)

1) my school didn't have fags
2) i don't have a caddy either nor even a trolley of any description - i may be old, but still carry a full set of clubs
3) "brainiest" is often misunderstood ..... many of the so-called brainiest shouldn't be allowed to cross the road on their own let alone run a business

You couldn't gradually remove subsidies. When Thatcher came in the country was in a mess and virtually bankrupt. She did what was necessary. Labour couldn't do it as they were in the grasp of the unions (and still are).

Spot on Fred, no mention by Hays about high unemployment and less tax collected.

Cynic he he at last Ive got to you. Was only pulling your leg.

Hays wrong.......... 2nd clue its a she.

3rd clue its not Teresa May.

Cyners yep your right about brainy, lets says economicaly qualified.

what ho sticky - you obviously couldn't see either and missed the :-)

the prob with all economic forecasting, especially on a larger scale, is that at best it can only ever be educated guesswork based on assorted computer models and similar ..... any number of things can throw those calcs off course

if you're USA, then it seems you just spend and spend and spend, building up ever larger debt ..... i confess i have never really understood how they could get away with that for so long

anyway, if the answers were simple or even short odds-on, then you'ld have little genuine argument between the political parties ..... mind you, that always presupposes integrity in all its forms

jersey - employment rules
i think i heard this right while i was there, and if so, it is a very interesting and clever concept, albeit that jersey's economy is minute

if a pole or other eastern european (it must surely be more wide-ranging than that) wants to work in jersey and is properly qualified as say an accountant, they still have to do their first 5 years "probation" in the hospitality industry in some role or other .... i assume i don't need to explain the benefits to the jersey economy any further

surely one of our "friends" here will be able to advise whether the above is at least broadly correct?

"Friends"?

I would hate to meet the enemy!