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.

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!

as they say in the old arabian proverb, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"

Morning Friends -):

They have a 5 years probation period on the Isle of Man I heard when I was over there, but don't know if it has similarities with the CIs one. One point was that if you were convicted of a crime then that would count against you. Thought it sounded good on the surface but I didn't investigate further.

the jersey model is based on the concept that the mainstay of CIs true economy (as opposed to tax-free haven add-ons) is the tourist industry ..... by imposing the 5-year probation per above, you ensure that (a) the would-be immigrant workers are "serious" and (b) it ensures a supply of good quality employees in the hospitality industry

Oz unions to fight automation plans
brings back happy memories of the militant dockers unions in uk all those years ago whose over-riding objection was the removal of chances to steal more than (inevitable) job losses

is this the true face of the labour party?
is the labour party being dragged back into being the puppet of the more militant unions?
i only ask the question

=============

Ed Miliband has become embroiled in a bitter row with Labour's biggest donor after a union chief threatened to withdraw its support.
The Labour leader accused Unite general secretary Len McCluskey of a "reprehensible" bid to divide the party after he made an outspoken attack on key frontbenchers.
Mr McCluskey declared that Mr Miliband would be "cast into the dustbin of history" if he was "seduced" by Blairite members of his team.
He called for Labour to adopt a stronger anti-austerity approach and appeared to indicate he wanted three shadow ministers sidelined.
Mr McCluskey warned that unions would have to "sit down and consider their situation" if the party fails to emerge as "the authentic voice of ordinary working people".
Mr Miliband, who was elected as leader thanks to union votes and receives millions in funding from Unite, later sanctioned a public slapdown of the union boss.

The story above tells you everything about Labour, the way the unions chose Ed Miliband and their expected control of the Labour party. Can you imagine how they would behave if Labour were elected and they felt they could dictate policy.

Hays - i'm afraid that at the moment, unfairly or otherwise, you are painted from head to toe in royal blue (perhaps you have lilac-tinted hair too!) .... it would do no harm for you to removed your rose-tinted glasses occasionally and actually admit that the present crew have made some pretty ghastly mistakes ..... no, i am NOT saying that the austerity programme is/was wrong, and indeed, only (even further) time will show whether or not it was the right course ..... certainly spending/borrowing the country's way out of recession would have had truly terrifying results, even if very short term it would have sung the sirens' song

It is good to see the chief has added another "old boy" to advise him on his thiefdom.

I am sure this will go down well with the party faithful, probably the wrong word for a party of camp followers and "posh" boys of the Nasty Party.

Mind they have really turned the party economics around with a little bale out from far off isles.

Pity they haven't lived up to their own promises for the country, or perhaps they intend to plunder it later.==

=====

Mind with the problems coming home to roost for the gang members he needs another posh boy to help out!

Boris Johnson's brother Jo given Downing Street policy role The prime minister has appointed Jo Johnson - the younger brother of Mayor of London Boris Johnson - as the head of his policy unit.
Jo Johnson, like his brother and David Cameron, was educated at Eton and Oxford
Jo Johnson was elected as MP for Orpington, in London, in May 2010.
Mr Cameron, who is also setting up a new advisory board on policy, has been accused of failing to listen to his MPs and Tory activists in the past.
Boris Johnson said it was "great there is finally a Johnson in Number 10" and said his brother would be "superb".


------------------

Just heard, the looney right want more heavier cuts and larger tax cuts to get the
economy moving.

Hays, what haveyou swallowed to write the the tripe you do?

=============

Back to the garden with the gnomes, even though they are dumb, they don't seem as dumb as some.

whatever it is fred, you share a similar rotting portion

what thoughts do you have on your "pal" mccluskey and his threats?
i doubt even you would dare claim he was misrepresented!