Thatcher

[samextra]

Your first post and you waste it on this thread. Displaying poor judgement imo...

.......Interesting, so by your logic I would have to post somewhere near your 9,201 posts on other epic threads (like the more pertinent "joke of the day" or the popular classic "what are you listening to now", before I am able to post wastefully on this, according to you 'wasteful thread' which you not only seem to be posting repeatedly on, but also paying a disproportionate amount of attention to.
I am wondering what this says about your judgement ? :whistling

As a newbie of course I welcome the opinion of a longstanding member of this site, as I welcome the warmth of the welcome, you have extended to what was my first post.
It is a timely reminder that there is a difference between long standing and respected :smart: , and that I should be careful to sort the wheat from the chaff, as there's clearly more old chaff here than there are seasoned competent and respected contributors and contributions. Thank you



As for room 101, yes very good, wise decision well executed. Who could possibly argue otherwise.

Thank you. Yay! :clap:
And errm (who could argue?), I'm not sure but I'd imagine it would be someone who saw the total and complete pathetic irony of a part time trader on a site called 'trade2win' decrying Thatcher, when she was responsible for the same deregulation of financial markets that allowed the said trader to trade, (by abolishing the elitist old boy networks that used to dominate), on a level playing field in a free market on a meritocratic basis.
I'd guess a person that saw that irony could argue otherwise. I do not see it, but I am sure many of MT's supporters do. I'm sure their toes would curl at the thought of pikey's wandering through their wood-panelled halls, admiring their old masters, and squinting to pretend admiration of the arts, and an understanding of its nature.
Me, well I see the irony...in their irony



Not sure what you mean about abuse? You guys are so touchy touchy. Apply some ointment on your delicate skins. If condition doesn't approve in two weeks go see your doctors.

Well..I respectfully suggest you re-read your earlier posts....I know I can't be bothered to, so entirely understand your reluctance to do the same .
Incidentally in case you ever do....can I point you towards point 2. underneath your signature line no less...(here it is....lest you forget )

"2. 80% of what happens to you can be attributed to 20% of your behaviour"

Physician...heal thyself :cheesy:



Enjoy all that you do

....Ooooh but I dooo
I just wish you could too.

One way to do so of course, would be to take my reply in the playful sense of mischief that it is indeed intended and show the kind grace to refrain from commenting further....as I have to agree .....this is Indeed a most wasteful thread, and I now need to go in search of something more enriching

 

[Atilla]

Evening Standard comment: Breaking the grip of the energy giants

Who could have believed the privatised industries who were supposed to provide more competition and cheaper prices could be referred to the Competition and Markets Authority? Unbelievable stuff. NO **** SHERLOCK! comes to mind :idea: Big question - why the 30+ years and 120 tariffs???



It did not take long for the big energy companies to react badly to the regulator’s plans to refer them to the Competition and Markets Authority. One of the big six, Centrica, has warned that Ofgem’s move could cause delays to investment and an increasing risk of blackouts. In fact, any blackouts will probably be due to the companies’ underinvestment in capacity. This is just one of the problems with an industry that has contrived to alienate its customers through a succession of excessive price rises. Last winter, the big six companies raised their prices by up to 11 per cent even though wholesale prices rose by only 1.7 per cent in the year, according to Ofgem.

The energy giants combine generation and distribution in a way that makes it difficult to determine whether there is cross-subsidy between the two parts. The connection between the two — which the Scottish company SSE broke yesterday — may indeed make it more difficult for new entrants to break into the market. It’s also possible, though not proven, that the companies may contribute to price rises by withholding supplies when it suits them. Ofgem has not said the big companies operate as a cartel; what it does say is that there may be “possible tacit co-ordination” between them when it comes to the size and timing of price rises. The investigation is intended to “clear the air” once and for all as to whether there are barriers to competition.

Yet energy is not well suited to the model of competing suppliers. There is no difference in the nature of the gas and electricity supplied to consumers, just the price.

A competitive market makes sense when there is a difference in the price, quality and nature of the products and the customer can work out which factor matters most. That’s not true of energy: what we want is for it to be reliable and cheap. That is what most consumers suspect they are not getting from the system now. A review is overdue.

What???? Not suited to competing suppliers. You mean like it is a sort of a natural monopoly?

Rail, gas, electricity and water :idea:

Tell Sid or give him £500 to shut him up.


You gotta laf guys. Especially as this article was in the Evening Standard - a bastion of a Conservative paper in the City of London.


Loved the budget, gets the thumbsup from me