One of the secretaries would come round and hand them out depending how many working days in the month. That’s where my negotiating skills started to take hold. I soon learnt if I made her a cup of tea every day and asked her if that was a new dress, or have you had your hair done it would mean at least a fiver extra!!
Surely a round-robin tournament with a third team of sensible centrists
They would only disappoint, again.
They would probably win every time and then get kicked out because it was “boring” and “not what the people want”. Even though they win again and again.
The policy is supposed to make work pay. The massive irony is work does not pay enough for people not to have to claim top up benefits. Isn't the employer supposed to avoid wage subsidy from the government? I know there are issues with part time work and such, but ought a person doing an honest 40 hours a week be able to live on that? If there is a problem then I suppose prices as well as taxes ought to go up. I get the argument above about choosing shelter and food before supposed luxuries, the TV and mobile phone were poor examples though. However not all claimants or poor people are feckless, many have genuinely fallen on hard times and it is a pity so many in society resent helping them rather than being glad and privileged to do so.
Not when the government set and tell the employer what the minimum they have to pay is and many small business are solvent because of it. For all the problems having a minimum wage solved back in 98 it caused a whole heap more that has rolled on and rolled on so is now the norm and in part leads us to where we are now, wages being paid that aren't enough to live on.
It must have been a conscious policy with the advent of in work benefits that employers wouldn't pay enough, otherwise there wouldn't be the need for the majority of in work benefits.
We are a way down the path now so it is difficult to unravel, but not impossible. A Government could increase minimum wage to nearer a true living wage, but at the same time they would need to cut employers NI and change, again, the benefit system. None of which I suspect will be a vote winner so unlikely, but it's what they should do in my view.
You could rightly argue big business could take the hit, but I suspect the average small business would struggle to survive with a decent increase in minimum wage.
The other extreme is to scrap almost all benefits and pay every adult a minimum wage from the state (like a state pension for under 65's). The money that would save in the system cost of managing the benefit system would be huge (BUT would make a hell of a lot of public sectors workers unemployed although of course they would get that 'wage'), then just adjust the taxation rates up and probably remove any form of tax free allowance to balance out.
It seems to me that the big business' are the ones taking the piss with wages though R7L, not so much the smaller ones?
I don't think it's quite that simple or black and white and does depend how you define big business but broadly agree they are the worst.
Many sectors, take retail, some big businesses on both turnover and number of employee's but who are all the time going under or make a loss, stick the minimum wage up to £12 and I suspect many more would go under. As consumers we all play a part in this.
You'll also I'm sure find smaller businesses with smaller turn overs but making a good profit who also only pay minimum wage as well as the larger ones we all know about and read about.
McDonlads are in the press a lot lately, they pay only slightly above the minimum at the bottom rung according to the press, although my daughter seems to earn about £1 more an hour than minimum so not sure how that all works through. But think the bigger issue is on zero hour contracts that doesn't work for everyone.
The other problem with raising the minimum wage is that then everyone wants a payrise, why work a high stress job if the difference in pay between that and stacking shelves has been greatly reduced.
Because it’s still more.
And part of it is around future earning potential.
I can remember when I started work a bottom of the rung office job paid about the same or less than a supermarket till job. But it was more around the future prospective earnings.
It’s a tough one with this, because undoubtedly there are professions that pay more, but if you make a good crack at working in a supermarket role and move up the ladder, you can also get on good money. I’d be interested to see stats on how many people rise up through the shop floor to management positions, or do they syphon off those roles for their graduates etc. I think the whole world of work will need a rethink in the future on so many levels. AI, machine learning, flexible working, apprenticeships, going to uni, grad schemes, I think the whole thing might need tearing up and being rewritten to meet the future
My basic when I started in telesales back in August 06 was £15k p.a plus commission. Obviously as Rob7lee highlights you can look at potential, but not many people stick at it let alone do well. If I hadn’t have been living at home with my dad when I came back from uni there is no way in the world I could’ve of moved to London on that and found somewhere to live. London really is now a place for those on grad schemes or well paid roles if you want any sort of life.
Bloody whipper snappers, did I really start work 17 years before you..... (£5,016 P.A. no commission but a £1 luncheon voucher a day!)
Ah - there is the difference between left and right in a nutshell. I have no idea what my first salary was. Almost 30 years on, you know yours to the last £.
The policy is supposed to make work pay. The massive irony is work does not pay enough for people not to have to claim top up benefits. Isn't the employer supposed to avoid wage subsidy from the government? I know there are issues with part time work and such, but ought a person doing an honest 40 hours a week be able to live on that? If there is a problem then I suppose prices as well as taxes ought to go up. I get the argument above about choosing shelter and food before supposed luxuries, the TV and mobile phone were poor examples though. However not all claimants or poor people are feckless, many have genuinely fallen on hard times and it is a pity so many in society resent helping them rather than being glad and privileged to do so.
Not when the government set and tell the employer what the minimum they have to pay is and many small business are solvent because of it. For all the problems having a minimum wage solved back in 98 it caused a whole heap more that has rolled on and rolled on so is now the norm and in part leads us to where we are now, wages being paid that aren't enough to live on.
It must have been a conscious policy with the advent of in work benefits that employers wouldn't pay enough, otherwise there wouldn't be the need for the majority of in work benefits.
We are a way down the path now so it is difficult to unravel, but not impossible. A Government could increase minimum wage to nearer a true living wage, but at the same time they would need to cut employers NI and change, again, the benefit system. None of which I suspect will be a vote winner so unlikely, but it's what they should do in my view.
You could rightly argue big business could take the hit, but I suspect the average small business would struggle to survive with a decent increase in minimum wage.
The other extreme is to scrap almost all benefits and pay every adult a minimum wage from the state (like a state pension for under 65's). The money that would save in the system cost of managing the benefit system would be huge (BUT would make a hell of a lot of public sectors workers unemployed although of course they would get that 'wage'), then just adjust the taxation rates up and probably remove any form of tax free allowance to balance out.
It seems to me that the big business' are the ones taking the piss with wages though R7L, not so much the smaller ones?
I don't think it's quite that simple or black and white and does depend how you define big business but broadly agree they are the worst.
Many sectors, take retail, some big businesses on both turnover and number of employee's but who are all the time going under or make a loss, stick the minimum wage up to £12 and I suspect many more would go under. As consumers we all play a part in this.
You'll also I'm sure find smaller businesses with smaller turn overs but making a good profit who also only pay minimum wage as well as the larger ones we all know about and read about.
McDonlads are in the press a lot lately, they pay only slightly above the minimum at the bottom rung according to the press, although my daughter seems to earn about £1 more an hour than minimum so not sure how that all works through. But think the bigger issue is on zero hour contracts that doesn't work for everyone.
The other problem with raising the minimum wage is that then everyone wants a payrise, why work a high stress job if the difference in pay between that and stacking shelves has been greatly reduced.
Because it’s still more.
And part of it is around future earning potential.
I can remember when I started work a bottom of the rung office job paid about the same or less than a supermarket till job. But it was more around the future prospective earnings.
It’s a tough one with this, because undoubtedly there are professions that pay more, but if you make a good crack at working in a supermarket role and move up the ladder, you can also get on good money. I’d be interested to see stats on how many people rise up through the shop floor to management positions, or do they syphon off those roles for their graduates etc. I think the whole world of work will need a rethink in the future on so many levels. AI, machine learning, flexible working, apprenticeships, going to uni, grad schemes, I think the whole thing might need tearing up and being rewritten to meet the future
My basic when I started in telesales back in August 06 was £15k p.a plus commission. Obviously as Rob7lee highlights you can look at potential, but not many people stick at it let alone do well. If I hadn’t have been living at home with my dad when I came back from uni there is no way in the world I could’ve of moved to London on that and found somewhere to live. London really is now a place for those on grad schemes or well paid roles if you want any sort of life.
Bloody whipper snappers, did I really start work 17 years before you..... (£5,016 P.A. no commission but a £1 luncheon voucher a day!)
Ah - there is the difference between left and right in a nutshell. I have no idea what my first salary was. Almost 30 years on, you know yours to the last £.
Vive la difference...
And weren't LVs a tax free payment. Plus ça change.
Rees Mogg claiming that Handel didn’t need Freedom of Movement to write his Messiah in London. Actually Jacob, he needed an Act of Parliament.
This idiot gets far too much exposure and gets away with lying because people are gullible and assume he knows what he’s talking about.
Rees Mogg is far from gullible and, alongside Johnson and Farage is playing to an agenda to be delivered after we leave the EU next March, albeit we may well stay in the Customs Union and enjoy a longer transition period taking us to the next election? These people thrive on having power to influence without any responsibility. Thus they seek to blame the Brexit outcome on both May and the EU as part of their narrative to swing the UK to the right.
Rees Mogg claiming that Handel didn’t need Freedom of Movement to write his Messiah in London. Actually Jacob, he needed an Act of Parliament.
This idiot gets far too much exposure and gets away with lying because people are gullible and assume he knows what he’s talking about.
Rees Mogg is far from gullible and, alongside Johnson and Farage is playing to an agenda to be delivered after we leave the EU next March, albeit we may well stay in the Customs Union and enjoy a longer transition period taking us to the next election? These people thrive on having power to influence without any responsibility. Thus they seek to blame the Brexit outcome on both May and the EU as part of their narrative to swing the UK to the right.
The policy is supposed to make work pay. The massive irony is work does not pay enough for people not to have to claim top up benefits. Isn't the employer supposed to avoid wage subsidy from the government? I know there are issues with part time work and such, but ought a person doing an honest 40 hours a week be able to live on that? If there is a problem then I suppose prices as well as taxes ought to go up. I get the argument above about choosing shelter and food before supposed luxuries, the TV and mobile phone were poor examples though. However not all claimants or poor people are feckless, many have genuinely fallen on hard times and it is a pity so many in society resent helping them rather than being glad and privileged to do so.
Not when the government set and tell the employer what the minimum they have to pay is and many small business are solvent because of it. For all the problems having a minimum wage solved back in 98 it caused a whole heap more that has rolled on and rolled on so is now the norm and in part leads us to where we are now, wages being paid that aren't enough to live on.
It must have been a conscious policy with the advent of in work benefits that employers wouldn't pay enough, otherwise there wouldn't be the need for the majority of in work benefits.
We are a way down the path now so it is difficult to unravel, but not impossible. A Government could increase minimum wage to nearer a true living wage, but at the same time they would need to cut employers NI and change, again, the benefit system. None of which I suspect will be a vote winner so unlikely, but it's what they should do in my view.
You could rightly argue big business could take the hit, but I suspect the average small business would struggle to survive with a decent increase in minimum wage.
The other extreme is to scrap almost all benefits and pay every adult a minimum wage from the state (like a state pension for under 65's). The money that would save in the system cost of managing the benefit system would be huge (BUT would make a hell of a lot of public sectors workers unemployed although of course they would get that 'wage'), then just adjust the taxation rates up and probably remove any form of tax free allowance to balance out.
It seems to me that the big business' are the ones taking the piss with wages though R7L, not so much the smaller ones?
I don't think it's quite that simple or black and white and does depend how you define big business but broadly agree they are the worst.
Many sectors, take retail, some big businesses on both turnover and number of employee's but who are all the time going under or make a loss, stick the minimum wage up to £12 and I suspect many more would go under. As consumers we all play a part in this.
You'll also I'm sure find smaller businesses with smaller turn overs but making a good profit who also only pay minimum wage as well as the larger ones we all know about and read about.
McDonlads are in the press a lot lately, they pay only slightly above the minimum at the bottom rung according to the press, although my daughter seems to earn about £1 more an hour than minimum so not sure how that all works through. But think the bigger issue is on zero hour contracts that doesn't work for everyone.
The other problem with raising the minimum wage is that then everyone wants a payrise, why work a high stress job if the difference in pay between that and stacking shelves has been greatly reduced.
Because it’s still more.
And part of it is around future earning potential.
I can remember when I started work a bottom of the rung office job paid about the same or less than a supermarket till job. But it was more around the future prospective earnings.
It’s a tough one with this, because undoubtedly there are professions that pay more, but if you make a good crack at working in a supermarket role and move up the ladder, you can also get on good money. I’d be interested to see stats on how many people rise up through the shop floor to management positions, or do they syphon off those roles for their graduates etc. I think the whole world of work will need a rethink in the future on so many levels. AI, machine learning, flexible working, apprenticeships, going to uni, grad schemes, I think the whole thing might need tearing up and being rewritten to meet the future
My basic when I started in telesales back in August 06 was £15k p.a plus commission. Obviously as Rob7lee highlights you can look at potential, but not many people stick at it let alone do well. If I hadn’t have been living at home with my dad when I came back from uni there is no way in the world I could’ve of moved to London on that and found somewhere to live. London really is now a place for those on grad schemes or well paid roles if you want any sort of life.
Bloody whipper snappers, did I really start work 17 years before you..... (£5,016 P.A. no commission but a £1 luncheon voucher a day!)
Ah - there is the difference between left and right in a nutshell. I have no idea what my first salary was. Almost 30 years on, you know yours to the last £.
Vive la difference...
And weren't LVs a tax free payment. Plus ça change.
Was taking advantage of tax efficiencies even then
Surprised others don't know their first salaries, @cabbles is clearly a righty......
The policy is supposed to make work pay. The massive irony is work does not pay enough for people not to have to claim top up benefits. Isn't the employer supposed to avoid wage subsidy from the government? I know there are issues with part time work and such, but ought a person doing an honest 40 hours a week be able to live on that? If there is a problem then I suppose prices as well as taxes ought to go up. I get the argument above about choosing shelter and food before supposed luxuries, the TV and mobile phone were poor examples though. However not all claimants or poor people are feckless, many have genuinely fallen on hard times and it is a pity so many in society resent helping them rather than being glad and privileged to do so.
Not when the government set and tell the employer what the minimum they have to pay is and many small business are solvent because of it. For all the problems having a minimum wage solved back in 98 it caused a whole heap more that has rolled on and rolled on so is now the norm and in part leads us to where we are now, wages being paid that aren't enough to live on.
It must have been a conscious policy with the advent of in work benefits that employers wouldn't pay enough, otherwise there wouldn't be the need for the majority of in work benefits.
We are a way down the path now so it is difficult to unravel, but not impossible. A Government could increase minimum wage to nearer a true living wage, but at the same time they would need to cut employers NI and change, again, the benefit system. None of which I suspect will be a vote winner so unlikely, but it's what they should do in my view.
You could rightly argue big business could take the hit, but I suspect the average small business would struggle to survive with a decent increase in minimum wage.
The other extreme is to scrap almost all benefits and pay every adult a minimum wage from the state (like a state pension for under 65's). The money that would save in the system cost of managing the benefit system would be huge (BUT would make a hell of a lot of public sectors workers unemployed although of course they would get that 'wage'), then just adjust the taxation rates up and probably remove any form of tax free allowance to balance out.
It seems to me that the big business' are the ones taking the piss with wages though R7L, not so much the smaller ones?
I don't think it's quite that simple or black and white and does depend how you define big business but broadly agree they are the worst.
Many sectors, take retail, some big businesses on both turnover and number of employee's but who are all the time going under or make a loss, stick the minimum wage up to £12 and I suspect many more would go under. As consumers we all play a part in this.
You'll also I'm sure find smaller businesses with smaller turn overs but making a good profit who also only pay minimum wage as well as the larger ones we all know about and read about.
McDonlads are in the press a lot lately, they pay only slightly above the minimum at the bottom rung according to the press, although my daughter seems to earn about £1 more an hour than minimum so not sure how that all works through. But think the bigger issue is on zero hour contracts that doesn't work for everyone.
The other problem with raising the minimum wage is that then everyone wants a payrise, why work a high stress job if the difference in pay between that and stacking shelves has been greatly reduced.
Because it’s still more.
And part of it is around future earning potential.
I can remember when I started work a bottom of the rung office job paid about the same or less than a supermarket till job. But it was more around the future prospective earnings.
It’s a tough one with this, because undoubtedly there are professions that pay more, but if you make a good crack at working in a supermarket role and move up the ladder, you can also get on good money. I’d be interested to see stats on how many people rise up through the shop floor to management positions, or do they syphon off those roles for their graduates etc. I think the whole world of work will need a rethink in the future on so many levels. AI, machine learning, flexible working, apprenticeships, going to uni, grad schemes, I think the whole thing might need tearing up and being rewritten to meet the future
My basic when I started in telesales back in August 06 was £15k p.a plus commission. Obviously as Rob7lee highlights you can look at potential, but not many people stick at it let alone do well. If I hadn’t have been living at home with my dad when I came back from uni there is no way in the world I could’ve of moved to London on that and found somewhere to live. London really is now a place for those on grad schemes or well paid roles if you want any sort of life.
Bloody whipper snappers, did I really start work 17 years before you..... (£5,016 P.A. no commission but a £1 luncheon voucher a day!)
Ah - there is the difference between left and right in a nutshell. I have no idea what my first salary was. Almost 30 years on, you know yours to the last £.
Vive la difference...
And weren't LVs a tax free payment. Plus ça change.
Was taking advantage of tax efficiencies even then
Surprised others don't know their first salaries, @cabbles is clearly a righty......
The policy is supposed to make work pay. The massive irony is work does not pay enough for people not to have to claim top up benefits. Isn't the employer supposed to avoid wage subsidy from the government? I know there are issues with part time work and such, but ought a person doing an honest 40 hours a week be able to live on that? If there is a problem then I suppose prices as well as taxes ought to go up. I get the argument above about choosing shelter and food before supposed luxuries, the TV and mobile phone were poor examples though. However not all claimants or poor people are feckless, many have genuinely fallen on hard times and it is a pity so many in society resent helping them rather than being glad and privileged to do so.
Not when the government set and tell the employer what the minimum they have to pay is and many small business are solvent because of it. For all the problems having a minimum wage solved back in 98 it caused a whole heap more that has rolled on and rolled on so is now the norm and in part leads us to where we are now, wages being paid that aren't enough to live on.
It must have been a conscious policy with the advent of in work benefits that employers wouldn't pay enough, otherwise there wouldn't be the need for the majority of in work benefits.
We are a way down the path now so it is difficult to unravel, but not impossible. A Government could increase minimum wage to nearer a true living wage, but at the same time they would need to cut employers NI and change, again, the benefit system. None of which I suspect will be a vote winner so unlikely, but it's what they should do in my view.
You could rightly argue big business could take the hit, but I suspect the average small business would struggle to survive with a decent increase in minimum wage.
The other extreme is to scrap almost all benefits and pay every adult a minimum wage from the state (like a state pension for under 65's). The money that would save in the system cost of managing the benefit system would be huge (BUT would make a hell of a lot of public sectors workers unemployed although of course they would get that 'wage'), then just adjust the taxation rates up and probably remove any form of tax free allowance to balance out.
It seems to me that the big business' are the ones taking the piss with wages though R7L, not so much the smaller ones?
I don't think it's quite that simple or black and white and does depend how you define big business but broadly agree they are the worst.
Many sectors, take retail, some big businesses on both turnover and number of employee's but who are all the time going under or make a loss, stick the minimum wage up to £12 and I suspect many more would go under. As consumers we all play a part in this.
You'll also I'm sure find smaller businesses with smaller turn overs but making a good profit who also only pay minimum wage as well as the larger ones we all know about and read about.
McDonlads are in the press a lot lately, they pay only slightly above the minimum at the bottom rung according to the press, although my daughter seems to earn about £1 more an hour than minimum so not sure how that all works through. But think the bigger issue is on zero hour contracts that doesn't work for everyone.
The other problem with raising the minimum wage is that then everyone wants a payrise, why work a high stress job if the difference in pay between that and stacking shelves has been greatly reduced.
Because it’s still more.
And part of it is around future earning potential.
I can remember when I started work a bottom of the rung office job paid about the same or less than a supermarket till job. But it was more around the future prospective earnings.
It’s a tough one with this, because undoubtedly there are professions that pay more, but if you make a good crack at working in a supermarket role and move up the ladder, you can also get on good money. I’d be interested to see stats on how many people rise up through the shop floor to management positions, or do they syphon off those roles for their graduates etc. I think the whole world of work will need a rethink in the future on so many levels. AI, machine learning, flexible working, apprenticeships, going to uni, grad schemes, I think the whole thing might need tearing up and being rewritten to meet the future
My basic when I started in telesales back in August 06 was £15k p.a plus commission. Obviously as Rob7lee highlights you can look at potential, but not many people stick at it let alone do well. If I hadn’t have been living at home with my dad when I came back from uni there is no way in the world I could’ve of moved to London on that and found somewhere to live. London really is now a place for those on grad schemes or well paid roles if you want any sort of life.
Bloody whipper snappers, did I really start work 17 years before you..... (£5,016 P.A. no commission but a £1 luncheon voucher a day!)
Ah - there is the difference between left and right in a nutshell. I have no idea what my first salary was. Almost 30 years on, you know yours to the last £.
Vive la difference...
And weren't LVs a tax free payment. Plus ça change.
Was taking advantage of tax efficiencies even then
Surprised others don't know their first salaries, @cabbles is clearly a righty......
You lot don’t even want to know the starting salaries for moderators on here. Plus I’m the newest member of the team. I actually have to pay AFKA £13 a month just to have my username misappropriated and buy him a kilo of crab flavoured sticks every quarter just to keep the role
The policy is supposed to make work pay. The massive irony is work does not pay enough for people not to have to claim top up benefits. Isn't the employer supposed to avoid wage subsidy from the government? I know there are issues with part time work and such, but ought a person doing an honest 40 hours a week be able to live on that? If there is a problem then I suppose prices as well as taxes ought to go up. I get the argument above about choosing shelter and food before supposed luxuries, the TV and mobile phone were poor examples though. However not all claimants or poor people are feckless, many have genuinely fallen on hard times and it is a pity so many in society resent helping them rather than being glad and privileged to do so.
Not when the government set and tell the employer what the minimum they have to pay is and many small business are solvent because of it. For all the problems having a minimum wage solved back in 98 it caused a whole heap more that has rolled on and rolled on so is now the norm and in part leads us to where we are now, wages being paid that aren't enough to live on.
It must have been a conscious policy with the advent of in work benefits that employers wouldn't pay enough, otherwise there wouldn't be the need for the majority of in work benefits.
We are a way down the path now so it is difficult to unravel, but not impossible. A Government could increase minimum wage to nearer a true living wage, but at the same time they would need to cut employers NI and change, again, the benefit system. None of which I suspect will be a vote winner so unlikely, but it's what they should do in my view.
You could rightly argue big business could take the hit, but I suspect the average small business would struggle to survive with a decent increase in minimum wage.
The other extreme is to scrap almost all benefits and pay every adult a minimum wage from the state (like a state pension for under 65's). The money that would save in the system cost of managing the benefit system would be huge (BUT would make a hell of a lot of public sectors workers unemployed although of course they would get that 'wage'), then just adjust the taxation rates up and probably remove any form of tax free allowance to balance out.
It seems to me that the big business' are the ones taking the piss with wages though R7L, not so much the smaller ones?
I don't think it's quite that simple or black and white and does depend how you define big business but broadly agree they are the worst.
Many sectors, take retail, some big businesses on both turnover and number of employee's but who are all the time going under or make a loss, stick the minimum wage up to £12 and I suspect many more would go under. As consumers we all play a part in this.
You'll also I'm sure find smaller businesses with smaller turn overs but making a good profit who also only pay minimum wage as well as the larger ones we all know about and read about.
McDonlads are in the press a lot lately, they pay only slightly above the minimum at the bottom rung according to the press, although my daughter seems to earn about £1 more an hour than minimum so not sure how that all works through. But think the bigger issue is on zero hour contracts that doesn't work for everyone.
The other problem with raising the minimum wage is that then everyone wants a payrise, why work a high stress job if the difference in pay between that and stacking shelves has been greatly reduced.
Because it’s still more.
And part of it is around future earning potential.
I can remember when I started work a bottom of the rung office job paid about the same or less than a supermarket till job. But it was more around the future prospective earnings.
It’s a tough one with this, because undoubtedly there are professions that pay more, but if you make a good crack at working in a supermarket role and move up the ladder, you can also get on good money. I’d be interested to see stats on how many people rise up through the shop floor to management positions, or do they syphon off those roles for their graduates etc. I think the whole world of work will need a rethink in the future on so many levels. AI, machine learning, flexible working, apprenticeships, going to uni, grad schemes, I think the whole thing might need tearing up and being rewritten to meet the future
My basic when I started in telesales back in August 06 was £15k p.a plus commission. Obviously as Rob7lee highlights you can look at potential, but not many people stick at it let alone do well. If I hadn’t have been living at home with my dad when I came back from uni there is no way in the world I could’ve of moved to London on that and found somewhere to live. London really is now a place for those on grad schemes or well paid roles if you want any sort of life.
Bloody whipper snappers, did I really start work 17 years before you..... (£5,016 P.A. no commission but a £1 luncheon voucher a day!)
Ah - there is the difference between left and right in a nutshell. I have no idea what my first salary was. Almost 30 years on, you know yours to the last £.
Vive la difference...
And weren't LVs a tax free payment. Plus ça change.
Was taking advantage of tax efficiencies even then
Surprised others don't know their first salaries, @cabbles is clearly a righty......
You lot don’t even want to know the starting salaries for moderators on here. Plus I’m the newest member of the team. I actually have to pay AFKA £13 a month just to have my username misappropriated and buy him a kilo of crab flavoured sticks every quarter just to keep the role
and can I be the first to say you deserve every penny you pay him.
Now can you remove the puerile and mistaken Flags from my account?
If the Conservative party loses the One Nation Tories it becomes UKIP. Where do they go? There is somebody for the right wing Tories to go - clue in first line.
Says "Struggling homeowners, working single parents and the disabled will be among the hardest hit under the government’s new benefits system". No mention of TV watchers and mobile phone users though, hopefully those bastards will be got anyway.
What has changed with Tory leadership plotting James Forsyth
Ever since Chequers there has been almost constant speculation about an attempt to remove Theresa May but with nothing actually happening. So it is tempting to ignore it all, to conclude that those agitating against Mrs May are all hat and no cattle. But this weekend, something does appear to have changed. Whether it leads to anything remains to be seen, but the shift in the mood does seem worth relating.
Yesterday, I received a phone call from a former Cabinet Minister who had never told me before that May should go. This time, he was clear not only that she should, but that there was an active effort underway to bring this about.
The thing that I was struck most about was this former Secretary of State’s anger, there was much Anglo-Saxon language and talk of national humiliation. This was someone who believed that things were going so badly that removing the Prime Minister couldn’t make them go any worse.
Then, this morning, someone who has form when it comes to removing Tory leaders got in touch to suggest a way to replace May without having to ballot Tory members in the country, which would allow a leadership contest to be concluded far more quickly. The theory goes that May would be left as party leader but replaced as Prime Minister. Her successor as PM would promise to face the members soon as possible after Britain has formally left the EU on 29th March, 2019.
Now, this plan has its flaws. It would require all the possible candidates to replace May to accept either a coronation or only MPs voting. Would those, such as Boris Johnson and David Davis, who stand their best chance with the members really go along with this? I doubt it. Also, who could Tory MPs agree on as a replacement PM? It is still not obvious who would be acceptable to the three different Brexit factions within the party.
But the fact that ideas like this are doing the rounds is a reminder that Tory panic is growing. Mrs May urgently needs some progress in the negotiations to shore up her position.
I think Theresa may is doing a very difficult job, very badly. But this is just too much, no wonder people are losing/have lost faith in politicians. Which just leads to Brexit/Trump/Farage.
I think Theresa may is doing a very difficult job, very badly. But this is just too much, no wonder people are losing/have lost faith in politicians. Which just leads to Brexit/Trump/Farage.
completely agree it's unacceptable, have we learnt nothing from the assassination of jo cox?
I think Theresa may is doing a very difficult job, very badly. But this is just too much, no wonder people are losing/have lost faith in politicians. Which just leads to Brexit/Trump/Farage.
Can anyone be surprised when you look at the deplorable standard of our political strata?
Neither side could govern a desert island, let alone the UK.
They use shock tactics to keep themselves in the media and measure success as the number of times they appear on Twitter, etc. Complete and total ineptitude. I can't believe that a 'centrist' party has not yet evolved.
A centrist party would be great, I'd vote for it as a chance to escape the extremes (I'm naturally left leaning on social issues, and would love a Scandinavian model, I just know full well it would be a non starter here). Can you imagine the noise from the left and right though? It'll be worse than it is now
A centrist party would be great, I'd vote for it as a chance to escape the extremes (I'm naturally left leaning on social issues, and would love a Scandinavian model, I just know full well it would be a non starter here). Can you imagine the noise from the left and right though? It'll be worse than it is now
The problem with centrist is they are either left leaning and probably currently in the Labour Party or right leaning and in the Tory Party, I can’t see them coming together unless either party gets more left or right.
Lib Dem’s is probably the nearest we have right now.
I’d agree on both points of the Nordics, can’t see it being a vote winner.
This is an area some of them need to change in. I scattered the ashes of my uncle in the Italian mountains in May. He was a socialist and wanted his ashes scatterred where he was based during the war with fellow socialists - many of whom died - fighting the Nazis. He nearly was killed himself. It is outrageous that people's ignorance of history is so poor they can make such an insulting statement publically. It is equally outrageous he has not been sacked on the spot.
Comments
Still wasn’t enough to eat AND buy a TV mind
Vive la difference...
Rees Mogg claiming that Handel didn’t need Freedom of Movement to write his Messiah in London. Actually Jacob, he needed an Act of Parliament.
This idiot gets far too much exposure and gets away with lying because people are gullible and assume he knows what he’s talking about.
For a very articulate appraisal of both the Tories and Corbyn led Labour please try this piece from Gary Younge:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/13/labour-jeremy-corbyn-british-politics-tories
The Tories now have a lower income than Labour as well as receiving more of their income from dead people than their membership.
Many think it unlikely that their alliance of one nation Tories and the Alt-right/ UKIP element will survive Brexit.
Surprised others don't know their first salaries, @cabbles is clearly a righty......
Now can you remove the puerile and mistaken Flags from my account?
Says "Struggling homeowners, working single parents and the disabled will be among the hardest hit under the government’s new benefits system". No mention of TV watchers and mobile phone users though, hopefully those bastards will be got anyway.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/10/what-has-changed-with-tory-leadership-plotting/
-----
What has changed with Tory leadership plotting
James Forsyth
Ever since Chequers there has been almost constant speculation about an attempt to remove Theresa May but with nothing actually happening. So it is tempting to ignore it all, to conclude that those agitating against Mrs May are all hat and no cattle. But this weekend, something does appear to have changed. Whether it leads to anything remains to be seen, but the shift in the mood does seem worth relating.
Yesterday, I received a phone call from a former Cabinet Minister who had never told me before that May should go. This time, he was clear not only that she should, but that there was an active effort underway to bring this about.
The thing that I was struck most about was this former Secretary of State’s anger, there was much Anglo-Saxon language and talk of national humiliation. This was someone who believed that things were going so badly that removing the Prime Minister couldn’t make them go any worse.
Then, this morning, someone who has form when it comes to removing Tory leaders got in touch to suggest a way to replace May without having to ballot Tory members in the country, which would allow a leadership contest to be concluded far more quickly. The theory goes that May would be left as party leader but replaced as Prime Minister. Her successor as PM would promise to face the members soon as possible after Britain has formally left the EU on 29th March, 2019.
Now, this plan has its flaws. It would require all the possible candidates to replace May to accept either a coronation or only MPs voting. Would those, such as Boris Johnson and David Davis, who stand their best chance with the members really go along with this? I doubt it. Also, who could Tory MPs agree on as a replacement PM? It is still not obvious who would be acceptable to the three different Brexit factions within the party.
But the fact that ideas like this are doing the rounds is a reminder that Tory panic is growing. Mrs May urgently needs some progress in the negotiations to shore up her position.
21 October 2018
1:47 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/22/tories-identify-mps-vile-language-theresa-may-yvette-cooper
I think Theresa may is doing a very difficult job, very badly. But this is just too much, no wonder people are losing/have lost faith in politicians. Which just leads to Brexit/Trump/Farage.
Neither side could govern a desert island, let alone the UK.
They use shock tactics to keep themselves in the media and measure success as the number of times they appear on Twitter, etc. Complete and total ineptitude. I can't believe that a 'centrist' party has not yet evolved.
Lib Dem’s is probably the nearest we have right now.
I’d agree on both points of the Nordics, can’t see it being a vote winner.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/25/syed-kamall-nazi-remark-shameful-german-socialist-leader-udo-bullmann