Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
We were trying to debate the effect of tax on wealth creation - you said the trickle down effect wasn't working: when I asked you to back that up, you produced no independent evidence and went on about unfairness by picking two sets of people at the opposite end of the income spectrum and claiming that made it all unfair...mamba80 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
I've told you the point Im making but yet again you keep trying to widen this out into a general moan about how unfair it all is. If you stick to the point I'll answer...mamba80 wrote:
what do you think a HCA should earn? more or less than an Accountant? and why?
They are paying more look at the total amount and the trend :roll: Although the uncomfortable truth is when you ask for too much, the tax take goes down - see Wallaces poi.t about the Laffer curve which backs up my 25 years experience in tax.
i do not doubt that the rich pay more, that is obvious, 20% of £1m is alot more than 20% of £18k and if the rich are getting richer, then it stands to reason they pay more tax, unless they evade it.
why do i have to stick to your point all the time? i disagree with you, so why dont you answer my point about HCA's pay?
maybe one day you or me will have a stroke and need well motivated and hardworking HCA's to clean us up and i d like to think that society would value their input into making peoples lives bearable slightly more than an IT bod or an Accountant.
And then you accuse me of dodging questions :roll:"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
ATFQStevo 666 wrote:
So it's the poor who create most jobs is it?mamba80 wrote:Like it or not the trickle down of income from the very wealthy, isnt working.
Evidence for your claim please...
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:Maybe I'm not representative but I'd probably use myself as a decent example of why that isn't the case, coming from a very ordinary family in a bit of an armpit of a seaside town in the North East. No bleating about 'not having a voice' (we've all got a vote) or 'feeling ignored' (do something about it and get yourself noticed), just got on with making the best I could have my own situation. I'm nothing special so don't see why more people can't do this - more about attitude than anything else.
As for the point about who your parents are, any parent will tell you it's the most natural thing in the world to give your kids the best start in life you can. In my view if you work hard and do well, you've earned that right.
the problem here is that stating "why cant more people do what i did etc etc" is that we are not all the same, we dont all have good role models or opportunities, maybe your parents could read and write, maybe you made a better choice as a kid in your friendship groups? or perhaps your mum wasnt a smack head or prostituted her kids to pay for the next wrap?
and what is "doing well...." ? has nt the HCA also earned that right but will struggle to her dying days, as they ll have no money, poor health outcomes and the benefits system will take away his/her pride?
Perhaps you need to develop a little more empathy for those who weren't born with your drive and determination or who have not had your opportunities.0 -
Holding nose and jumping
Trickle down? Shades of Reaganomics. I'd be interested in seeing any evidence that trickle down is/was anything more than political dogma referencing Chicago school theory. Quality evidence mind you, not some vested interest scribbling in the Telegraph or the like.Stevo 666 wrote:...We were trying to debate the effect of tax on wealth creation - you said the trickle down effect wasn't working: when I asked you to back that up, you produced no independent evidence...0 -
@ Orraloon. The trickle down effect is self evident in terms of who creates jobs. It's equally self evident that people in jobs are on the whole better off than those without jobs. QED. Unless you have evidence to the contrary?Stevo 666 wrote:
So it's the poor who create most jobs is it?mamba80 wrote:Like it or not the trickle down of income from the very wealthy, isnt working.
Evidence for your claim please...
Mamba dodged this one, see if you can have a go..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
bobmcstuff wrote:Teach First (whose mission statement is "How much you achieve in life should not be determined by how much your parents earn") ... are a charity who try to place excellent teachers into schools in disadvantaged areas.
That sounds like a great organisation. It would ideally be expanded to cover kids before they even get to school, as there is already a huge difference between the development of kids by socio-economic group by the time they start school, and gaps between attainment levels tend only to get wider as kids progress through school.
One thing I'd change in the mission statement above would be to change "earn" to "care about your education". Even parents with very little money can make a huge difference to their kids' development, so long as they can be bothered. My comment above about reading to/with kids was alluding to this. This has nothing to do with how much parents earn; it's just a case of parents prioritising the activity over other things. (Many was the evening where I'd sooner have watched TV than force two tired kids to do their reading at bedtime.)0 -
True, not everyone has the same drive and determination. But plenty have it within themselves to do better - this what we should encourage. Its not a question of lacking empathy, I remember where I came from - you may be assuming this based on Tory sterotypes.mamba80 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:Maybe I'm not representative but I'd probably use myself as a decent example of why that isn't the case, coming from a very ordinary family in a bit of an armpit of a seaside town in the North East. No bleating about 'not having a voice' (we've all got a vote) or 'feeling ignored' (do something about it and get yourself noticed), just got on with making the best I could have my own situation. I'm nothing special so don't see why more people can't do this - more about attitude than anything else.
As for the point about who your parents are, any parent will tell you it's the most natural thing in the world to give your kids the best start in life you can. In my view if you work hard and do well, you've earned that right.
the problem here is that stating "why cant more people do what i did etc etc" is that we are not all the same, we dont all have good role models or opportunities, maybe your parents could read and write, maybe you made a better choice as a kid in your friendship groups? or perhaps your mum wasnt a smack head or prostituted her kids to pay for the next wrap?
and what is "doing well...." ? has nt the HCA also earned that right but will struggle to her dying days, as they ll have no money, poor health outcomes and the benefits system will take away his/her pride?
Perhaps you need to develop a little more empathy for those who weren't born with your drive and determination or who have not had your opportunities.
As for opportunities, I made most of my own. I believe a lot of others can too."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:Teach First (whose mission statement is "How much you achieve in life should not be determined by how much your parents earn") ... are a charity who try to place excellent teachers into schools in disadvantaged areas.
That sounds like a great organisation. It would ideally be expanded to cover kids before they even get to school, as there is already a huge difference between the development of kids by socio-economic group by the time they start school, and gaps between attainment levels tend only to get wider as kids progress through school.
One thing I'd change in the mission statement above would be to change "earn" to "care about your education". Even parents with very little money can make a huge difference to their kids' development, so long as they can be bothered. My comment above about reading to/with kids was alluding to this. This has nothing to do with how much parents earn; it's just a case of parents prioritising the activity over other things. (Many was the evening where I'd sooner have watched TV than force two tired kids to do their reading at bedtime.)
Well there is a bit of that. My girlfriend was telling me that there is a general problem with getting men to teach primary and early years - these teachers are overwhelmingly female. In some areas having a good male teacher can be really important because some of these kids may not have a single positive male role model otherwise.
These kind of things are all wrapped up together, income has the strongest single correlation to how much educational support you get from outside of school. Also when you start putting things in about how much your parents care about your education you do risk getting people's backs up a bit more...0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
@ Orraloon. The trickle down effect is self evident in terms of who creates jobs. It's equally self evident that people in jobs are on the whole better off than those without jobs. QED. Unless you have evidence to the contrary?Stevo 666 wrote:
So it's the poor who create most jobs is it?mamba80 wrote:Like it or not the trickle down of income from the very wealthy, isnt working.
Evidence for your claim please...
Mamba dodged this one, see if you can have a go...
See evidence of suck up not trickle down, e.g. yon fat bleeper Green of BHS infamy, yon other fat bleeper Ashley of Sports Direct dodgy working practices infamy. Creating minimum wage, or below min wage if can get away with zero hours on permanent call contract jobs is not the same as wealth, rewards and riches somehow escaping the tax dodgers', sorry planners' grasp and appearing in the pocket of the Scunthorpe 'Spooner.
As an aside, memories come back of Manc33's tactic of making an assertion, however ill founded, and saying there you go, prove me wrong.
No doubt will be back to this, but meantime got a bike to ride and fruit to pick.0 -
Only my assertion is not at all outlandish - it's what generally happens in the real world and we can see it for ourselves. Totally different from Manc33 type theories and you know it.orraloon wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
@ Orraloon. The trickle down effect is self evident in terms of who creates jobs. It's equally self evident that people in jobs are on the whole better off than those without jobs. QED. Unless you have evidence to the contrary?Stevo 666 wrote:
So it's the poor who create most jobs is it?mamba80 wrote:Like it or not the trickle down of income from the very wealthy, isnt working.
Evidence for your claim please...
Mamba dodged this one, see if you can have a go...
See evidence of suck up not trickle down, e.g. yon fat bleeper Green of BHS infamy, yon other fat bleeper Ashley of Sports Direct dodgy working practices infamy. Creating minimum wage, or below min wage if can get away with zero hours on permanent call contract jobs is not the same as wealth, rewards and riches somehow escaping the tax dodgers', sorry planners' grasp and appearing in the pocket of the Scunthorpe 'Spooner.
As an aside, memories come back of Manc33's tactic of making an assertion, however ill founded, and saying there you go, prove me wrong.
No doubt will be back to this, but meantime got a bike to ride and fruit to pick.
As for you picking out a couple of the worst examples of the Green/Ashley variety that are big populist stories in the media and implying that is the norm or a reason why the whole system has to change - well you should be able to see why that is a weak argument. I can. I've worked in the corporate world for a long time and in quite a few multinationals and have not come across behaviour like that in any organisation where I have worked."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Is trickle down about the rich making money which then filters down the income brackets to the bottom? Rich get rich but the poor also raise their incomes too? Hmmmm! I'm not sure the evidence supports that theory. Prove me wrong. Minimum wage goes up with cost of living not anywhere near the rise in the remuneration of top execs in percentage terms I'd bet
It also seems that stevo believes the low wage earners should be grateful to the rich for having invested into a business that employs them. That kind of follows the a similar flawed idea that the minimum wage earners where I work have. They say that they make the money for the bosses. They say it actually.more eloquently if a little less politely than me. Along the lines of... "without us you'd not get anything, we make the money". There's a kind of logic since they're making stuff, adding value in a hard, tangible way. As management the bosses are more overheads. However without both groups the company wouldn't make money.
This idea that the wealth creators come from the wealthy not the workers on the shopfloor isn't 100% accurate across the industries. Investors make more money but that's off the back of the actual producers.
Perhaps a naive view but the wealthy need the poor, minimum wage earners. Trickle down isn't right. There's more of a torrent going back the other way. Money and wealth is aggregating in an increasingly smaller percentage of society. But that group needs those below them. The idea of symbiosis between rich and poor isn't as strong. It's become more parasitic. Simplistic? Well I'll admit I'm just a simple man.0 -
I feel some people are debating income differentials and others are arguing that everybody is better off. If so then everybody is correct and we need a debate about how to measure poverty.
Post war poverty was measured by such things as % of households with an indoor toilet, telephone or car ownership. on such a measurement then economic propsperity has benefited all. Have the rich got richer? Probably not, there are just more of them and they do not have the discretion of the likes of the Duke for Westminster.0 -
Regarding the trickle down effect I am very much a liberal economics type person but in order to get that effect I do agree you need some sort of workers protection.0
-
Trickle down? Thank the gods for low interest rates/inflation. If it wasn't for these I would be totally goosed. Time was our parent's generation could rely on pay increases as they progressed through their careers. Those careers may have been with a big local employer. No longer.
Still, that's what we have. I'm glad I'm not an 18 year old starting out in life. And I'm glad I don't have kids. Don't fancy them living in the house until they're 40.Ecrasez l’infame0 -
Top execs are not equal to the population of wealth creators - it includes large numbers entrepreneurs, business owners business investors etc - for example.Tangled Metal wrote:Is trickle down about the rich making money which then filters down the income brackets to the bottom? Rich get rich but the poor also raise their incomes too? Hmmmm! I'm not sure the evidence supports that theory. Prove me wrong. Minimum wage goes up with cost of living not anywhere near the rise in the remuneration of top execs in percentage terms I'd bet
It also seems that stevo believes the low wage earners should be grateful to the rich for having invested into a business that employs them. That kind of follows the a similar flawed idea that the minimum wage earners where I work have. They say that they make the money for the bosses. They say it actually.more eloquently if a little less politely than me. Along the lines of... "without us you'd not get anything, we make the money". There's a kind of logic since they're making stuff, adding value in a hard, tangible way. As management the bosses are more overheads. However without both groups the company wouldn't make money.
This idea that the wealth creators come from the wealthy not the workers on the shopfloor isn't 100% accurate across the industries. Investors make more money but that's off the back of the actual producers.
Perhaps a naive view but the wealthy need the poor, minimum wage earners. Trickle down isn't right. There's more of a torrent going back the other way. Money and wealth is aggregating in an increasingly smaller percentage of society. But that group needs those below them. The idea of symbiosis between rich and poor isn't as strong. It's become more parasitic. Simplistic? Well I'll admit I'm just a simple man.
The other point is the concept of risk and reward. The more risk you take, the higher your return - so those who risk 'the shirt on their backs' so to say get a higher return than those who turn up and do something risk free. So you expect the higher income brackets to increase more than the low. But as long as there is a reasonable minimum for the low end, why is everyone fixated with the gap? Seems like jealousy to me.
People are free to take risks and potentially make higher returns. Or skill up and get paid more."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
There are large amounts of regs on employment rights, so I think we do have a pretty reasonable level of workers protection. It's a case of striking a balance.bobmcstuff wrote:Regarding the trickle down effect I am very much a liberal economics type person but in order to get that effect I do agree you need some sort of workers protection."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
There are large amounts of regs on employment rights, so I think we do have a pretty reasonable level of workers protection. It's a case of striking a balance.bobmcstuff wrote:Regarding the trickle down effect I am very much a liberal economics type person but in order to get that effect I do agree you need some sort of workers protection.
yep Ashley's treatment of his workers........ docking 15min pay for being a min or 2 late, sacking for being ill, strip searches, in workers own time, all completely legal.
Workers cannot bring tribunal cases against employers because of the up front fees involved and any worker can be sacked without due cause for the first 2 years of employment or any redundancy payment.
sounds like we ve a perfect balance ?0 -
Mamba, I said the above to Orraloon and I'm saying it again to you because the same point applies to your last statement.Stevo 666 wrote:As for you picking out a couple of the worst examples of the Green/Ashley variety that are big populist stories in the media and implying that is the norm or a reason why the whole system has to change - well you should be able to see why that is a weak argument. I can. I've worked in the corporate world for a long time and in quite a few multinationals and have not come across behaviour like that in any organisation where I have worked.
The irony of it is that in countries with overly strong employment laws, unemployment is higher. Take France or Italy as an example. Partly because employers are reluctant to hire knowing how difficult it is to change things if business circumstances change. Borne out by my real life busibess experiences on several occasions."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
And out in the world of politics. a Labour split looks increasingly likely:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/29/labour-rebels-plan-to-elect-own-leader-and-create-alternative-gr/
More good news
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
Mamba, I said the above to Orraloon and I'm saying it again to you because the same point applies to your last statement.Stevo 666 wrote:As for you picking out a couple of the worst examples of the Green/Ashley variety that are big populist stories in the media and implying that is the norm or a reason why the whole system has to change - well you should be able to see why that is a weak argument. I can. I've worked in the corporate world for a long time and in quite a few multinationals and have not come across behaviour like that in any organisation where I have worked.
The irony of it is that in countries with overly strong employment laws, unemployment is higher. Take France or Italy as an example. Partly because employers are reluctant to hire knowing how difficult it is to change things if business circumstances change. Borne out by my real life busibess experiences on several occasions.
you said "There are large amounts of regs on employment rights, so I think we do have a pretty reasonable level of workers protection. It's a case of striking a balance"
i am pointing out that if we had a reasonable level of employment protection, Ashley etc would be able to exploit, all perfectly legally, their workers, that is all, the balance is in favour of the employer, maybe we need to re look at this, you ll never get the best out of people, if they feel insecure and are unhappy, UK has very low rates of productivity, lower than France for example.
in the sort of organisations we work for, its no problem, i ve some some amazingly positive experiences by employers but Ashley is only one example, look at home care workers, forced to travel in their own time, at their own expense between visits, they dont make the head lines but it is still exploitation but by private companies, contracted by local government.0 -
Your continued use of Mike Ashley as the only example of why the system is wrong is telling us something - especially after I pointed this out to you before. Maybe the exception that proves the rule?mamba80 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Mamba, I said the above to Orraloon and I'm saying it again to you because the same point applies to your last statement.Stevo 666 wrote:As for you picking out a couple of the worst examples of the Green/Ashley variety that are big populist stories in the media and implying that is the norm or a reason why the whole system has to change - well you should be able to see why that is a weak argument. I can. I've worked in the corporate world for a long time and in quite a few multinationals and have not come across behaviour like that in any organisation where I have worked.
The irony of it is that in countries with overly strong employment laws, unemployment is higher. Take France or Italy as an example. Partly because employers are reluctant to hire knowing how difficult it is to change things if business circumstances change. Borne out by my real life busibess experiences on several occasions.
you said "There are large amounts of regs on employment rights, so I think we do have a pretty reasonable level of workers protection. It's a case of striking a balance"
i am pointing out that if we had a reasonable level of employment protection, Ashley etc would be able to exploit, all perfectly legally, their workers, that is all, the balance is in favour of the employer, maybe we need to re look at this, you ll never get the best out of people, if they feel insecure and are unhappy, UK has very low rates of productivity, lower than France for example.
in the sort of organisations we work for, its no problem, i ve some some amazingly positive experiences by employers but Ashley is only one example, look at home care workers, forced to travel in their own time, at their own expense between visits, they dont make the head lines but it is still exploitation but by private companies, contracted by local government.
I can give a number of example or employees in the UK exploiting the rules unfairly.
- Friends in business who face claims from disgruntled employees on spurious grounds with the claim set at the sort of level it would cost to go to tribunal so the employers often set to to avoid the hassle.
- Small numbers of tube drivers who are able to hold the whole of London to ransom over their pay claims and grievances.
- A member of one of my teams who knows he is protected by a specific piece of employment law and is basically doing sweet FA in the hope we try to get rid of him, knowing he could then make huge legal claim despite him being a deliberate underperformer. In the meantime the rest of the team have to take up the slack.
Fair?
The existence of example on both sides suggest that we are not too far to one end or the other of the spectrum."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
And going back to Labour's record on business:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/30/sadiq-khan-brands-labour-an-embarrassment-on-business-and-warns/
Note on the trickle down point who creates jobs - according to our Labour Mayor of London "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
And where does he use the "trickle down" phrase? Can't see it. Can see him say business people create jobs. Yip, fully on board with that. A very far cry from the BS spouted to justify tax reductions for the rich which in some magic beans sort of way means they will spend more on services and stuff so money 'trickles down' to the poor in society. Yeah, right.Stevo 666 wrote:And going back to Labour's record on business:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/30/sadiq-khan-brands-labour-an-embarrassment-on-business-and-warns/
Note on the trickle down point who creates jobs - according to our Labour Mayor of London
Anyway, back to the subject. Can you show us any evidence that 'trickle down' exists and has any positive effect on society? Mr Google provides all sorts of counter arguments.0 -
"I recognise that politicians don’t create jobs. Politicians create the environment in which business people create jobs."orraloon wrote:
And where does he use the "trickle down" phrase? Can't see it. Can see him say business people create jobs. Yip, fully on board with that. A very far cry from the BS spouted to justify tax reductions for the rich which in some magic beans sort of way means they will spend more on services and stuff so money 'trickles down' to the poor in society. Yeah, right.Stevo 666 wrote:And going back to Labour's record on business:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/30/sadiq-khan-brands-labour-an-embarrassment-on-business-and-warns/
Note on the trickle down point who creates jobs - according to our Labour Mayor of London
Anyway, back to the subject. Can you show us any evidence that 'trickle down' exists and has any positive effect on society? Mr Google provides all sorts of counter arguments.
Job creation - the most important form of trickle down. Do I really need to justify how creating jobs is good :roll:
And you clearly don't understand the idea of using tax as annincentive to attract investment and incentivise wealth creation. Here are a few stats for you - tax receipts over time in the UK. Over the years, while UK Corp tax rates have fallen from 50% in the early 80's to the current 20/, and top ncome tax rates from 83% to 45% now.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/539194/Jun16_Receipts_NS_Bulletin_Final.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjs2u21yZ7OAhWBLMAKHey6CZkQFggjMAI&usg=AFQjCNE310s1EmIKHVmgmL5KBAV4up2OjQ
What you rather disparagingly call tax reductions for the rich do work.
This is what I see and do in real life. My last big project with my current group was to revise our tax policy to bring more income into the UK due to the rate arbitrage between the UK CT rates and those on the continent. The UK exchequer will be millions better off every year, at the expense of higher tax jusridictions. I am not the only one who is doing this - it is the reality of rate reductions increasing tax revenues.
Another episode of leftie mythbusters for you "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Perhaps worth reiterating that "trickle down" is in fact a pejorative term invented by anti-capitalist types, and has never been used seriously by free marketeers as a justification. If anything, the effect is actually trickle up - we all make our own decisions about what to spend our money on, and some of that money goes to the people who supply us with the things we want. If enough of us spend enough of our money on the goods and services they provide, they get rich.
And that provides spending, and jobs, and capital for new investment, as well as getting us the things we want (and even the things we need) far cheaper and more efficiently than managed economies (central planning, wages councils etc).
But we could always try an alternative - anyone fancy the new Venezuelan law that compels people to work where the government tells them (effectively as agricultural slave labourers), in a desperate attempt to alleviate the collapse in food production that is entirely caused by the government decreeing that people have to sell stuff for less than it costs them to make?0 -
Good point about the origins of the trickle down effect.
Although perhaps just as telling is the mindset of some on here that assumes 'the rich' have always been that way and forgets about people (like us) who are striving to be better off - and god forbid - even get rich."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
So does everyone think fining employees 15 minutes pay for being 5 minutes late unreasonable? We have that policy at work but nobody is bothered by it. You get in on time, no problem. You get in late, 15 minutes isn't a huge cost, no problem. This is the attitude of.minimum.wage workers at our place. Rather have a job than not.0
-
Tangled Metal wrote:So does everyone think fining employees 15 minutes pay for being 5 minutes late unreasonable? We have that policy at work but nobody is bothered by it. You get in on time, no problem. You get in late, 15 minutes isn't a huge cost, no problem. This is the attitude of.minimum.wage workers at our place. Rather have a job than not.
If any worker is continually late, yes, first instance would be to find out why (maybe they are late bacause they are dropping their kid off for Chemo?, happened to a girl on our support desk) and a verbal/written/final warning, if it continues but even Ashley though it would be unreasonable if this were to happen to his son but i guess the point is.....do they also pay them 15 min extra pay, if they work an extra 5min ? anyhow with Sports direct, it was 2mins late/15min pay cut.
good employers dont need this sort of policy, i ve worked across the IT, voice and data comms world and never come across it at any level.0 -
Manufacturing, yes there's still some of that going on, and for us it's either 5 minutes late for 15minutes docked or 2 minutes late. I can't remember. After a certain time you get sent home without getting paid. Then you get warnings and the like until ultimately you get sacked. It's applied surprisingly often. You get repeat offenders. Often related to late nights on the Saturday resulting in Monday late on. The repeat offenders do it a few times, get close to final warning then they're good for 6 months until warning is wiped.
It's all part of the process in the company rules. Legal and everyone knows about it.
I'm not sure what office based employers like IT and accountancies are like but I seriously doubt IT consultants and accountants are on minimum wage. Perhaps the more unfair practises (legal ones) are more related to minimum or low wage jobs. That's kind of targeting a sector of society.0 -
1. Members of your party get caught out with anti semitic behaviour.
2. Appoint a sympathetic supporter to carry out a review.
3. Review clears everyone of any wrongdoing and states there is no problem.
4. Reward reviewer with seat in Lords.0
