Whitey Grandad

Of course trade would continue but it is a hell of a lot more bother. Everybody would be happy to sell to us but when it comes to buying our products it's a different story. I hate trying to trade outside the EU, it's a pain in the bottom. The difference between shipping something to France or Germany and sending it to Switzerland is enough to make you give up. The thing is Wes, building a long-term relationship with overseas agents is difficult enough without customs getting in the way. Some people still think of trade as hauling bags of coffee and sugar up out of ships' holds where they can be traded in commodity markets and it doesn't matter if the price floats up and down because the end user will absorb all the differences, but what matters are price stability, security of supply, speed of delivery. We are stuck on an overcrowded island with all the associated transport costs and uncertainties and we have to persuade those on the mainland that it is better to buy from us rather than some low-cost eastern european company that's only a few hours lorry ride away. Nobody has to buy from us, we're just an afterthought these days.

Frank Field was the only one of them to talk any sense.

It is a lot more complicated dealing with countries outside the EU. At the moment all I have to do is chuck stuff in the car or in a van and drive it there, it's as easy as selling to someone in Manchester. Every time that I have to deal with countries outside I have to spend hours sorting out the customs paperwork and there are delays. I had £90k of shipment held up in Saudi Arabia for nearly 4 weeks waiting for customs. I don't want to go bak to the bad old days, thank you very much.

:confused:

Clegg is as much a public school toff as any of them, Blair included.

You see! We can agree on some things.

It's a bugger of a choice, I'll grant you that, and whoever gets in we're well and truly fooked on account of all the billions that Brown has spent (or wasted, as you wish) but hasn't had the balls to make us pay for yet, so he's gone and borrowed it all behind our backs and we're only just starting to realise how big the bill is going to be. In the meantime the interest bill is ramping ever upwards and our credit rating is going down the pan. No matter which party has the better plans for reducing the deficit, the only option in my opinion is to vote for the one that is at the very least not going to make things any worse. We are in for a very bleak decade or two and I pity today's young workers because they are the ones who are going to have to pay for it all, there simply isn't enough money amongst all the 'rich' even if you stripped them bare. I'm working in Strasbourg for the week so I shall miss all the fun but I've left a proxy with my neighbour even though his views are more extreme than mine. Have fun everbody, don't stay up too late on Thursday and let's hope the least worst wins! :toimonster:

Because there is always the possibility that decisions made whilst in office could be taken of the basis of maximising future income. The same applies to all government ministers and officials at all levels.

I don't think they have to be tories to be millionaires, have a look at the other parties. Whilst we're on the subject, does anybody feel the hatred to Tony Blair that I do when I read about all the millions he's making? He's only getting that because he was in public office and for no other reason. He should pay most of what he gets back to the British people.

Indeed. Often these polls are just the percentages of those that expressed an opinion. What about the undecided?

You can't vote for a person so you can't ask that person what their views are. You can vote, but you have no idea who will be representing you.

Losing one player would not be the break up of a squad. We've lost and gained several over the course of this season, and on the whole the replacements are better than those who have left, and I hope it will continue.

Did we ever get an answer to that?

Nobody knows because we stopped keeping a list of entries and exits in the early 1960s, which makes life difficult for future family historians, but has more serious consequences. Wasn't it at the commonwealth games where whole groups entered on 'athletics' visas but never left the country?

I think there are similarities bewteen the two situations but the credit crunch and the public sector deficit are two different entities.

I did, and I was only watching it.

Huddersfield away for me. If we had won that we would still have a chance now.

Unbelievable! Thanks.

The colour just sort of... drained out of it.

Found it:

Well, I'm in favour of a parent being at home to look after the children. There's something not right about going out to work to earn money to pay for someone to look after your children. What are you advocating? Taxpayer A gives money to parent B so that they can pay a childminder and go out to work? It's the phrase 'those who don't need it' that I always have trouble with. Does that include those who saved their money instead of smoking or drinking it? To them that have shall be taken away, and to them that have not shall be given.

Wasted on me, far too subtle. The name comes from my grandchildren and refers to my hair, what's left of it, and distinguishes me from the other grandad who has dark hair, and possibly more of it.

Not Papa?

I didn't say time & motion study, you must not let your preconceptions influence what you read. There's no harm in seeing things from an alternative perspective. You seem to judge my general comments about our vast public sector by your experience of an inner-city comprehensive. Even so, I'm sure you could take a look around next time you're working and you'll identify those who are strolling through their working life and those who are (I hesitate to put it this way but I can't think of a less confrontational expression) 'putting in a fair day's work'.

Good for you.