Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Geoffrey Howe RIP – Remember this sensational speech that e

13»

Comments

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,915

    It's quite amazing how I could sign up to twitter now, say something incendiary about a world event, and it would be in the Daily Mail within a couple of hours.

    The moral being I think we should wait until the Turkey story is verified - it may turn out to be hot air, much like the 'civilian casualty' tweets and the 'missiles landing in Iran' reports.

    " ... and the 'missiles landing in Iran' reports."

    I'm tempted to believe them, at least in part. Even the US can not be sure of every missile reaching its target, and they've had much more experience of using cruise missiles in anger. And if it does not reach its target, it'll either self-destruct or fall on a transiting country.

    Put it this way: I'd be surprised if every one reached its target, especially as the Kalibr is a relatively recent system. And given the amount of Iran they had to transit, they would more than likely have fallen on Iran.
    Being tempted to believe them isn't the same as there being evidence for them. Any evidence - pictorial, eye witness, etc. Yet it still all gets reported as news.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,531

    malcolmg said:

    The Russians have been playing with fire with this one. They've allegedly done - I think - two incursions into Turkish airspace this week, and I think one of those is certain as they admitted it, and said it would not happen again.

    But the Turks have not been reticent in shooting down Syrian aircraft that invade their airspace:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26706417

    And Syria have done the same:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2012_interception_of_Turkish_aircraft

    What do the Russians expect?
    Turkey got a death wish, if true they will pay big time.
    Why?

    If it's as reported and Turkey did shoot it down, then it's in neither sides interest to escalate this. Russia has already admitted incursions into Turkish airspace this week, and they should have known better. It was bound to happen if they continued this aggression.
    mg being as silly as ever.
    Reality , nothing silly about it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591

    Floater said:

    antifrank said:

    Hmmm. I've been looking online, and it would be good to get a confirmed source for that alleged Russian plane shootdown.

    It seems to have started circulating on social media yesterday, and neither Turkey nor the Russians have confirmed it, which strikes me as odd.

    It may well suit neither to confirm it.
    Agreed - we need Yokel to offer his thoughts on this
    Yes, I always find his recycled website stories delivered with the air of one who knows more than he can say extremely entertaining.
    Maybe you should copy the style, as it is more convincing than suggesting everyone but the author are fools to propaganda.
  • malcolmg said:

    I would seriously hope we would intervene yes. I would be absolutely disgusted and appalled with our nation if we appeased Putin and didn't honour our commitments to our allies.

    Guaranteed to be appalled, we could not beat a carpet.
    Said about Chamberlain as we first stood back and did nothing about the Anschluss (Ukraine), then Czechoslovakia (Turkey). If we stand back and do nothing if Russia were to go to war with a NATO member then NATO would be meaningless, Russia would have a green light to expand through force however they want.
    The Anschluss was Austria. AKA Greater Germany. TBH, some historical justification, although really the other way!
    I understand that fully which is why its a very apt analogy. While not only was Ukraine a part of the USSR but Crimea itself was considered Russian as recently as the 1950s. So some historical justification there just like the Nazis did with the Anschluss.
  • malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    The Russians have been playing with fire with this one. They've allegedly done - I think - two incursions into Turkish airspace this week, and I think one of those is certain as they admitted it, and said it would not happen again.

    But the Turks have not been reticent in shooting down Syrian aircraft that invade their airspace:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26706417

    And Syria have done the same:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2012_interception_of_Turkish_aircraft

    What do the Russians expect?
    Turkey got a death wish, if true they will pay big time.
    Don't be a dingbat. Turkey is a NATO member and has been for over half a century. Russia is not going to war with Turkey.
    Next you will be telling me we would intervene. Plenty can be done without war.
    I would seriously hope we would intervene yes. I would be absolutely disgusted and appalled with our nation if we appeased Putin and didn't honour our commitments to our allies.
    Guaranteed to be appalled, we could not beat a carpet.
    Said about Chamberlain as we first stood back and did nothing about the Anschluss (Ukraine), then Czechoslovakia (Turkey). If we stand back and do nothing if Russia were to go to war with a NATO member then NATO would be meaningless, Russia would have a green light to expand through force however they want.
    Gosh this is moronic.
    No it would be seriously moronic to let NATO be shown to be an Emperor with no clothes.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited October 2015
    HYUFD said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    The Russians have been playing with fire with this one. They've allegedly done - I think - two incursions into Turkish airspace this week, and I think one of those is certain as they admitted it, and said it would not happen again.

    But the Turks have not been reticent in shooting down Syrian aircraft that invade their airspace:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26706417

    And Syria have done the same:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2012_interception_of_Turkish_aircraft

    What do the Russians expect?
    Turkey got a death wish, if true they will pay big time.
    Don't be a dingbat. Turkey is a NATO member and has been for over half a century. Russia is not going to war with Turkey.
    Next you will be telling me we would intervene. Plenty can be done without war.
    I would seriously hope we would intervene yes. I would be absolutely disgusted and appalled with our nation if we appeased Putin and didn't honour our commitments to our allies.
    Guaranteed to be appalled, we could not beat a carpet.
    Said about Chamberlain as we first stood back and did nothing about the Anschluss (Ukraine), then Czechoslovakia (Turkey). If we stand back and do nothing if Russia were to go to war with a NATO member then NATO would be meaningless, Russia would have a green light to expand through force however they want.
    The Anschluss was Austria. AKA Greater Germany. TBH, some historical justification, although really the other way!
    It was Russia declaring war on Austria-Hungary after Austria Hungary invaded Serbia which really started WW1, if Russia invaded Turkey I can't imagine there would be much appetite amongst western public opinion to attack Russia in support of Turkey. Though the most that is likely to happen is Putin will send a few Cruise Missiles to hit Istanbul and Ankara if Turkey has downed a Russian jet
    Russia is a part of NATO and an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all. If Russia invades NATO then Russia is declaring war on all of NATO including us. Otherwise the whole of NATO is rendered defunct and meaningless.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,531
    edited October 2015

    HYUFD said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    The Russians have been playing with fire with this one. They've allegedly done - I think - two incursions into Turkish airspace this week, and I think one of those is certain as they admitted it, and said it would not happen again.

    But the Turks have not been reticent in shooting down Syrian aircraft that invade their airspace:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26706417

    And Syria have done the same:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2012_interception_of_Turkish_aircraft

    What do the Russians expect?
    Turkey got a death wish, if true they will pay big time.
    Don't be a dingbat. Turkey is a NATO member and has been for over half a century. Russia is not going to war with Turkey.
    Next you will be telling me we would intervene. Plenty can be done without war.
    I would seriously hope we would intervene yes. I would be absolutely disgusted and appalled with our nation if we appeased Putin and didn't honour our commitments to our allies.
    Guaranteed to be appalled, we could not beat a carpet.
    Said about Chamberlain as we first stood back and did nothing about the Anschluss (Ukraine), then Czechoslovakia (Turkey). If we stand back and do nothing if Russia were to go to war with a NATO member then NATO would be meaningless, Russia would have a green light to expand through force however they want.
    The Anschluss was Austria. AKA Greater Germany. TBH, some historical justification, although really the other way!
    It was Russia declaring war on Austria-Hungary after Austria Hungary invaded Serbia which really started WW1, if Russia invaded Turkey I can't imagine there would be much appetite amongst western public opinion to attack Russia in support of Turkey. Though the most that is likely to happen is Putin will send a few Cruise Missiles to hit Istanbul and Ankara if Turkey has downed a Russian jet
    Russia is a part of NATO and an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all. If Russia invades NATO then Russia is declaring war on all of NATO including us. Otherwise the whole of NATO is rendered defunct and meaningless.
    Dream on Philip, there would be much waving of bits of paper if it was real. I seriously doubt Turkey is stupid enough to do it.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903

    HYUFD said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    The Russians have been playing with fire with this one. They've allegedly done - I think - two incursions into Turkish airspace this week, and I think one of those is certain as they admitted it, and said it would not happen again.

    But the Turks have not been reticent in shooting down Syrian aircraft that invade their airspace:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26706417

    And Syria have done the same:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2012_interception_of_Turkish_aircraft

    What do the Russians expect?
    Turkey got a death wish, if true they will pay big time.
    Don't be a dingbat. Turkey is a NATO member and has been for over half a century. Russia is not going to war with Turkey.
    Next you will be telling me we would intervene. Plenty can be done without war.
    I would seriously hope we would intervene yes. I would be absolutely disgusted and appalled with our nation if we appeased Putin and didn't honour our commitments to our allies.
    Guaranteed to be appalled, we could not beat a carpet.
    Said about Chamberlain as we first stood back and did nothing about the Anschluss (Ukraine), then Czechoslovakia (Turkey). If we stand back and do nothing if Russia were to go to war with a NATO member then NATO would be meaningless, Russia would have a green light to expand through force however they want.
    The Anschluss was Austria. AKA Greater Germany. TBH, some historical justification, although really the other way!
    It was Russia declaring war on Austria-Hungary after Austria Hungary invaded Serbia which really started WW1, if Russia invaded Turkey I can't imagine there would be much appetite amongst western public opinion to attack Russia in support of Turkey. Though the most that is likely to happen is Putin will send a few Cruise Missiles to hit Istanbul and Ankara if Turkey has downed a Russian jet
    Russia is a part of NATO and an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all. If Russia invades NATO then Russia is declaring war on all of NATO including us. Otherwise the whole of NATO is rendered defunct and meaningless.
    Turkey?
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    malcolmg said:

    Floater said:

    malcolmg said:

    The Russians have been playing with fire with this one. They've allegedly done - I think - two incursions into Turkish airspace this week, and I think one of those is certain as they admitted it, and said it would not happen again.

    But the Turks have not been reticent in shooting down Syrian aircraft that invade their airspace:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26706417

    And Syria have done the same:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2012_interception_of_Turkish_aircraft

    What do the Russians expect?
    Turkey got a death wish, if true they will pay big time.
    Should smaller countries always let bigger countries walk over them Malc?

    Certainly (if true ) not a good idea to shoot down their planes when they are not intending any harm, just crap at reading maps.
    How do they know they are not intending harm? . Pull em over and say " hi there Vlad you seem to be in the wrong place let me give you directions to the nearest war zone and gas station?" The Russians know precisely to the cm on the earths surface where they are and always do. I would suggest you stop digging that hole it's getting embarrassing now.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,915
    I'm not aware (and I could be wrong) of Russia flying any MIGs in Syria. If this jet has been shot down, I suspect it's a Syrian jet.

    I also think we should remember that Turkey has
    -targeted Syrian army targets within Syria before in 'retaliation' for rebel rockets landing in Turkey
    -moved its border 5 miles into Syrian territory
    -plotted a false flag attack on the tomb of Sulemein (sp?) Shah to justify a ground invasion of Syria (leading to the shut down of twitter in Turkey to contain the story)
    -abetted the flow of ISIS fighters in both directions over the Turkish border with Syria
    -are currently in the process of a brutal put down of a Kurdish uprising - the whole reason we claim to want to get rid of Assad

    My point being that they are not to be trusted in any way shape or form, and the idea that British blood or treasure should be sacrificed in 'defending' them from 'aggression' makes me faintly nauseous.

    Again, if this incident has happened, the likeliest scenario is that this was a Syrian jet, over Syrian territory (the reported crash zone is well within Syria), but perhaps closer to Turkey than had hitherto been attempted due to increased confidence in Russian air cover. Turkey shot it down perhaps to ratchet up tensions - if there's a retaliatory action it will be a lead in for NATO forces to attack Russia.
  • HYUFD said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    The Russians have been playing with fire with this one. They've allegedly done - I think - two incursions into Turkish airspace this week, and I think one of those is certain as they admitted it, and said it would not happen again.

    But the Turks have not been reticent in shooting down Syrian aircraft that invade their airspace:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26706417

    And Syria have done the same:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2012_interception_of_Turkish_aircraft

    What do the Russians expect?
    Turkey got a death wish, if true they will pay big time.
    Don't be a dingbat. Turkey is a NATO member and has been for over half a century. Russia is not going to war with Turkey.
    Next you will be telling me we would intervene. Plenty can be done without war.
    I would seriously hope we would intervene yes. I would be absolutely disgusted and appalled with our nation if we appeased Putin and didn't honour our commitments to our allies.
    Guaranteed to be appalled, we could not beat a carpet.
    Said about Chamberlain as we first stood back and did nothing about the Anschluss (Ukraine), then Czechoslovakia (Turkey). If we stand back and do nothing if Russia were to go to war with a NATO member then NATO would be meaningless, Russia would have a green light to expand through force however they want.
    The Anschluss was Austria. AKA Greater Germany. TBH, some historical justification, although really the other way!
    It was Russia declaring war on Austria-Hungary after Austria Hungary invaded Serbia which really started WW1, if Russia invaded Turkey I can't imagine there would be much appetite amongst western public opinion to attack Russia in support of Turkey. Though the most that is likely to happen is Putin will send a few Cruise Missiles to hit Istanbul and Ankara if Turkey has downed a Russian jet
    Russia is a part of NATO and an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all. If Russia invades NATO then Russia is declaring war on all of NATO including us. Otherwise the whole of NATO is rendered defunct and meaningless.
    Turkey?
    Yes sorry. Turkey is a part of NATO ...
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited October 2015
    malcolmg said:

    HYUFD said:

    Said about Chamberlain as we first stood back and did nothing about the Anschluss (Ukraine), then Czechoslovakia (Turkey). If we stand back and do nothing if Russia were to go to war with a NATO member then NATO would be meaningless, Russia would have a green light to expand through force however they want.

    The Anschluss was Austria. AKA Greater Germany. TBH, some historical justification, although really the other way!
    It was Russia declaring war on Austria-Hungary after Austria Hungary invaded Serbia which really started WW1, if Russia invaded Turkey I can't imagine there would be much appetite amongst western public opinion to attack Russia in support of Turkey. Though the most that is likely to happen is Putin will send a few Cruise Missiles to hit Istanbul and Ankara if Turkey has downed a Russian jet
    Russia is a part of NATO and an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all. If Russia invades NATO then Russia is declaring war on all of NATO including us. Otherwise the whole of NATO is rendered defunct and meaningless.
    Dream on Philip, there would be much waving of bits of paper if it was real. I seriously doubt Turkey is stupid enough to do it.
    You doubt Turkey is stupid enough to be invaded? Odd logic.

    I doubt Russia is stupid enough to invade a NATO nation but if it does we must respond militarily.
  • Here's a question for you numb heads - what is the real purpose behind the living wage
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    edited October 2015
    Floater said:

    MikeK said:

    Guido Fawkes ‏@GuidoFawkes 12m12 minutes ago
    Guardian Writer on Jewish Journalist: “F**k Him, They Should Cut His Throat” http://order-order.com/2015/10/08/guardian-writer-on-jewish-journalist-fk-him-they-should-cut-his-throat/

    There is so much bile and hate on the left.

    I am still reeling from "it's ok to spit on tories"
    We have a local labour councillor on a picture of Boris and Cameron, puts one word, Vermin. This isnt a like or a share of someone else's post. Just his own post on Facebook

    So much misery was carried out by human beings to other human beings in the last century. The permission to carry out such vile acts was achieved by dehumanising the people you were going to brutalise. If you dont see them as human, they are no longer protected by our own sense of morality.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,915
    kle4 said:

    Floater said:

    antifrank said:

    Hmmm. I've been looking online, and it would be good to get a confirmed source for that alleged Russian plane shootdown.

    It seems to have started circulating on social media yesterday, and neither Turkey nor the Russians have confirmed it, which strikes me as odd.

    It may well suit neither to confirm it.
    Agreed - we need Yokel to offer his thoughts on this
    Yes, I always find his recycled website stories delivered with the air of one who knows more than he can say extremely entertaining.
    Maybe you should copy the style, as it is more convincing than suggesting everyone but the author are fools to propaganda.
    Well it seems to convince people here certainly.
  • Here's a question for you numb heads - what is the real purpose behind the living wage

    Boost low wages. I would think that would be self-obvious so can only assume you're trying to lead somewhere.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited October 2015

    MattW said:

    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    My favourite teenage politico has to have been Emily Benn.

    I know young Ms Benn. She does do stuff other than politics and is a very nice and thoughtful person.

    I'm sure she is and that she does.
    That background most resembles a cross between the Milibands and Charlie Gilmour, though perhaps more sensible than the latter.

    Massively connected / privileged, and many millions cascading down the generations.

    Who were the last 3 members of the family who worked in normal jobs outside the political or public sectors?
    I've always wondered about the transmogrification of the first Viscount Stansgate into Anthony Wedgwood-Benn, then Tony Wedgwood-Benn then Tony Benn. Did this voluntary travel down the escalator of class signify a growing realisation of the virtue of humility and a better understanding of the problems facing the hoi poloi?
    Tony Benn was not the first Viscount Stansgate but the second. He succeeded his father in 1960. During his life he was (via Wiki) :

    Anthony Wedgwood Benn, Esq. (1925 – 12 January 1942)
    The Hon. Anthony Wedgwood Benn (12 January 1942 – 30 November 1950)
    The Hon. Anthony Wedgwood Benn, MP (30 November 1950 – 17 November 1960)
    The Rt Hon. the Viscount Stansgate (17 November 1960 – 31 July 1963)
    Anthony Wedgwood Benn, Esq. (31 July – 20 August 1963)
    Anthony Wedgwood Benn, Esq., MP (20 August 1963 – 1964)
    The Rt Hon. Anthony Wedgwood Benn, MP (1964 – October 1973)
    The Rt Hon. Tony Benn, MP (October 1973 – 9 June 1983)
    The Rt Hon. Tony Benn (9 June 1983 – 1 March 1984)
    The Rt Hon. Tony Benn, MP (1 March 1984 – 7 June 2001)
    The Rt Hon. Tony Benn (7 June 2001 – 14 March 2014)

    ........................................................................................

    Benn's elder brother Michael would have inherited the title but died on active service during WWII. In 2014 Tony Benn's eldest son Stephen succeeded to the title as the third Viscount. His younger brother is former Labour cabinet minister Hilary.

    The Benn's are also in remainder to the Benn baronetcy of The Old Knoll in Surrey.




  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34496583

    Russia is increasing the number of air strikes against Islamic State in Syria, its defence ministry has said.

    So far there is no hard news or confirmation that Russia has lost a plane to Turkish or any other forces.

    I'm not saying it didn't happen, but it may be wishful thinking from countries and/or groups.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293

    Here's a question for you numb heads - what is the real purpose behind the living wage

    To give cover to wean huge numbers of people off tax credits.
  • Here's a question for you numb heads - what is the real purpose behind the living wage

    Boost low wages. I would think that would be self-obvious so can only assume you're trying to lead somewhere.
    Why would I do that...it's self obvious isn't it? Anyone else want to try?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,062

    HYUFD said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    The Russians have been playing with fire with this one. They've allegedly done - I think - two incursions into Turkish airspace this week, and I think one of those is certain as they admitted it, and said it would not happen again.

    But the Turks have not been reticent in shooting down Syrian aircraft that invade their airspace:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26706417

    And Syria have done the same:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2012_interception_of_Turkish_aircraft

    What do the Russians expect?
    Turkey got a death wish, if true they will pay big time.
    Don't be a dingbat. Turkey is a NATO member and has been for over half a century. Russia is not going to war with Turkey.
    Next you will be telling me we would intervene. Plenty can be done without war.
    I would seriously hope we would intervene yes. I would be absolutely disgusted and appalled with our nation if we appeased Putin and didn't honour our commitments to our allies.
    Guaranteed to be appalled, we could not beat a carpet.
    Said abo
    The Anschluss was Austria. AKA Greater Germany. TBH, some historical justification, although really the other way!
    It was Russia declaring war on Austria-Hungary after Austria Hungary invaded Serbia which really started WW1, if Russia invaded Turkey I can't imagine there would be much appetite amongst western public opinion to attack Russia in support of Turkey. Though the most that is likely to happen is Putin will send a few Cruise Missiles to hit Istanbul and Ankara if Turkey has downed a Russian jet
    Russia is a part of NATO and an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all. If Russia invades NATO then Russia is declaring war on all of NATO including us. Otherwise the whole of NATO is rendered defunct and meaningless.
    Not if we are also engaged against ISIS who are presently in combat with NATO planes. By failing to oppose ISIS Turkey have also broken any covenant we have with them. If Russia invades Turkey that is a different matter but if Russia sends some missiles in response to a plane being downed the West will do nothing militarily
  • notme said:

    Here's a question for you numb heads - what is the real purpose behind the living wage

    To give cover to wean huge numbers of people off tax credits.
    Almost...it's to pass on the burden of financing tax credits from the Government to the population as a whole
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    Here's a question for you numb heads - what is the real purpose behind the living wage

    To buy beer, cigarettes and porn.
  • GeoffM said:

    Here's a question for you numb heads - what is the real purpose behind the living wage

    To buy beer, cigarettes and porn.
    Og Geoff, so you're on the living wage are you?
  • notme said:

    Here's a question for you numb heads - what is the real purpose behind the living wage

    To give cover to wean huge numbers of people off tax credits.
    Almost...it's to pass on the burden of financing tax credits from the Government to the population as a whole
    The benefit being to provoke a behavioural response on the part of the employer. That may mean increased unemployment but it should also drive productivity.
  • GeoffM said:

    Here's a question for you numb heads - what is the real purpose behind the living wage

    To buy beer, cigarettes and porn.
    Who *buys* porn these days?
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789

    notme said:

    Here's a question for you numb heads - what is the real purpose behind the living wage

    To give cover to wean huge numbers of people off tax credits.
    Almost...it's to pass on the burden of financing tax credits from the Government to the population as a whole
    You seem to have misunderstood how taxation operates.
  • notme said:

    Here's a question for you numb heads - what is the real purpose behind the living wage

    To give cover to wean huge numbers of people off tax credits.
    Almost...it's to pass on the burden of financing tax credits from the Government to the population as a whole
    The benefit being to provoke a behavioural response on the part of the employer. That may mean increased unemployment but it should also drive productivity.
    Think about who benefits from the policy? Is it the worker...the consumer...the Government...the employer?
  • matt said:

    notme said:

    Here's a question for you numb heads - what is the real purpose behind the living wage

    To give cover to wean huge numbers of people off tax credits.
    Almost...it's to pass on the burden of financing tax credits from the Government to the population as a whole
    You seem to have misunderstood how taxation operates.
    Really? I think the problem here is that too many of you don't know how tax credits work.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited October 2015

    notme said:

    Here's a question for you numb heads - what is the real purpose behind the living wage

    To give cover to wean huge numbers of people off tax credits.
    Almost...it's to pass on the burden of financing tax credits from the Government to the population as a whole
    This has to be the single most economically illiterate post I've ever read here and that is saying something.

    Who do you think finances the government, where is its money coming from? The population ie taxpayers as a whole.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,915

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    The Russians have been playing with fire with this one. They've allegedly done - I think - two incursions into Turkish airspace this week, and I think one of those is certain as they admitted it, and said it would not happen again.

    But the Turks have not been reticent in shooting down Syrian aircraft that invade their airspace:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26706417

    And Syria have done the same:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2012_interception_of_Turkish_aircraft

    What do the Russians expect?
    Turkey got a death wish, if true they will pay big time.
    Don't be a dingbat. Turkey is a NATO member and has been for over half a century. Russia is not going to war with Turkey.
    Next you will be telling me we would intervene. Plenty can be done without war.
    I would seriously hope we would intervene yes. I would be absolutely disgusted and appalled with our nation if we appeased Putin and didn't honour our commitments to our allies.
    Guaranteed to be appalled, we could not beat a carpet.
    Said about Chamberlain as we first stood back and did nothing about the Anschluss (Ukraine), then Czechoslovakia (Turkey). If we stand back and do nothing if Russia were to go to war with a NATO member then NATO would be meaningless, Russia would have a green light to expand through force however they want.
    Gosh this is moronic.
    No it would be seriously moronic to let NATO be shown to be an Emperor with no clothes.
    Yes, we must stop the Russians killing Islamists and flying on the edge of Turkey before it's too late.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited October 2015

    GeoffM said:

    Here's a question for you numb heads - what is the real purpose behind the living wage

    To buy beer, cigarettes and porn.
    Who *buys* porn these days?
    @CornishBlue - Apparently the Cornish blue movie scene flourishes as never before as some PB monikers indicate.

  • matt said:

    notme said:

    Here's a question for you numb heads - what is the real purpose behind the living wage

    To give cover to wean huge numbers of people off tax credits.
    Almost...it's to pass on the burden of financing tax credits from the Government to the population as a whole
    You seem to have misunderstood how taxation operates.
    Tax credits are withdrawn at a rate of 41 pence (soon to be 48 pence) for every pound earned. So coupled with basic rate PAYE of 20% and 12% NIC the worker loses 80 pence in the pound. So from this we can conclude that the beneficiaries are the Treasury
  • GeoffM said:

    Here's a question for you numb heads - what is the real purpose behind the living wage

    To buy beer, cigarettes and porn.
    Plus tattoos and Sky tv subscriptions.
  • matt said:

    notme said:

    Here's a question for you numb heads - what is the real purpose behind the living wage

    To give cover to wean huge numbers of people off tax credits.
    Almost...it's to pass on the burden of financing tax credits from the Government to the population as a whole
    You seem to have misunderstood how taxation operates.
    Tax credits are withdrawn at a rate of 41 pence (soon to be 48 pence) for every pound earned. So coupled with basic rate PAYE of 20% and 12% NIC the worker loses 80 pence in the pound. So from this we can conclude that the beneficiaries are the Treasury
    And that my friends is the REAL reason for creation of the living wage..sneaky, cynical Tories at it again
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    GeoffM said:

    Here's a question for you numb heads - what is the real purpose behind the living wage

    To buy beer, cigarettes and porn.

    Here's a question for you numb heads - what is the real purpose behind the living wage

    Here"s a question for u kracken. Why be so damned rude..? are you a hard lefty who spits as well?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,536

    It's quite amazing how I could sign up to twitter now, say something incendiary about a world event, and it would be in the Daily Mail within a couple of hours.

    The moral being I think we should wait until the Turkey story is verified - it may turn out to be hot air, much like the 'civilian casualty' tweets and the 'missiles landing in Iran' reports.

    " ... and the 'missiles landing in Iran' reports."

    I'm tempted to believe them, at least in part. Even the US can not be sure of every missile reaching its target, and they've had much more experience of using cruise missiles in anger. And if it does not reach its target, it'll either self-destruct or fall on a transiting country.

    Put it this way: I'd be surprised if every one reached its target, especially as the Kalibr is a relatively recent system. And given the amount of Iran they had to transit, they would more than likely have fallen on Iran.
    Being tempted to believe them isn't the same as there being evidence for them. Any evidence - pictorial, eye witness, etc. Yet it still all gets reported as news.
    Here's; a suggestion for you: why don't you go to Iran and look for yourself?

    You seem remarkably keen to accept any bit of 'news' on someone's blog when it suits your purposes, but castigate everyone else for accepting news that you disagree with. You accept what the Russians say openly, but reject everything the US says.

    Your view on 'evidence' seems rather odd, to say the least.

    Now, the US claims that four missiles landed on Iran. I have no way of proving or disproving this, and neither do you. But if you were to ask me if it is likely that there would have been no failures from the number fired, then I would find that hard to believe. And if they failed, they might well - indeed probably would - have failed over Iran.

    Of course, you would feel that Russian missile systems are infallible ...
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,572
    kle4 said:

    Off topic, I've no idea of the accuracy, but this time laps map video of 'important battles' of the last thousand years was an interesting experience, particularly when more modern wars like the Napoleonic Wars show up toward the end and dots appear all over the map at once.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hsDn2kNriI&index=1&list=FLg5SdxeHca5JpoZ1j9-RpJg

    Sobering!
  • JackW said:

    GeoffM said:

    Here's a question for you numb heads - what is the real purpose behind the living wage

    To buy beer, cigarettes and porn.
    Who *buys* porn these days?
    @CornishBlue - Apparently the Cornish blue movie scene flourishes as never before as some PB monikers indicate.

    Subscriptions to Merkel/Cameron slashfic sites don't come cheap you know....
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    JackW said:

    MattW said:

    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    My favourite teenage politico has to have been Emily Benn.

    I know young Ms Benn. She does do stuff other than politics and is a very nice and thoughtful person.

    I'm sure she is and that she does.
    That background most resembles a cross between the Milibands and Charlie Gilmour, though perhaps more sensible than the latter.

    Massively connected / privileged, and many millions cascading down the generations.

    Who were the last 3 members of the family who worked in normal jobs outside the political or public sectors?
    I've always wondered about the transmogrification of the first Viscount Stansgate into Anthony Wedgwood-Benn, then Tony Wedgwood-Benn then Tony Benn. Did this voluntary travel down the escalator of class signify a growing realisation of the virtue of humility and a better understanding of the problems facing the hoi poloi?
    Tony Benn was not the first Viscount Stansgate but the second. He succeeded his father in 1960. During his life he was (via Wiki) :

    Anthony Wedgwood Benn, Esq. (1925 – 12 January 1942)
    The Hon. Anthony Wedgwood Benn (12 January 1942 – 30 November 1950)
    The Hon. Anthony Wedgwood Benn, MP (30 November 1950 – 17 November 1960)
    The Rt Hon. the Viscount Stansgate (17 November 1960 – 31 July 1963)
    Anthony Wedgwood Benn, Esq. (31 July – 20 August 1963)
    Anthony Wedgwood Benn, Esq., MP (20 August 1963 – 1964)
    The Rt Hon. Anthony Wedgwood Benn, MP (1964 – October 1973)
    The Rt Hon. Tony Benn, MP (October 1973 – 9 June 1983)
    The Rt Hon. Tony Benn (9 June 1983 – 1 March 1984)
    The Rt Hon. Tony Benn, MP (1 March 1984 – 7 June 2001)
    The Rt Hon. Tony Benn (7 June 2001 – 14 March 2014)

    ........................................................................................

    Benn's elder brother Michael would have inherited the title but died on active service during WWII. In 2014 Tony Benn's eldest son Stephen succeeded to the title as the third Viscount. His younger brother is former Labour cabinet minister Hilary.

    The Benn's are also in remainder to the Benn baronetcy of The Old Knoll in Surrey.

    Thanks for this exposition. I was relying on what I knew was a poor memory getting worse. It seems that most of the changes on the way up were automatic, and on the way down self generated (leaving aside whether he was an MP or not). My wonderment remains.
  • GeoffM said:

    Here's a question for you numb heads - what is the real purpose behind the living wage

    To buy beer, cigarettes and porn.
    Plus tattoos and Sky tv subscriptions.
    Nasty snobby opinions - you must be a kipper
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,536
    edited October 2015

    Yes, we must stop the Russians killing Islamists and flying on the edge of Turkey before it's too late.

    Flying over the edge of Turkey, as they admitted.
    The Russian Defence Ministry said on Monday that an SU-30 fighter aircraft had entered Turkish airspace along the border with Syria "for a few seconds" on Saturday
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/06/us-mideast-crisis-syria-turkey-russia-idUSKCN0RZ0FT20151006

    Now, I know that's Reuters, and therefore the MSM that you hate and disbelieve, but there it is for everyone else.

    And NATO's view from Al-j. I don't know if Al-j is an evil MSM outlet in your mind, but here goes:
    "I will not speculate on the motives ... but this does not look like an accident, and we have seen two of them," Stoltenberg said of the air incursions over Turkey's border with Syria. He noted that they "lasted for a long time".
    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/10/nato-rejects-russian-explanation-turkey-incursion-151006130012896.html
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    matt said:

    notme said:

    Here's a question for you numb heads - what is the real purpose behind the living wage

    To give cover to wean huge numbers of people off tax credits.
    Almost...it's to pass on the burden of financing tax credits from the Government to the population as a whole
    You seem to have misunderstood how taxation operates.
    Tax credits are withdrawn at a rate of 41 pence (soon to be 48 pence) for every pound earned. So coupled with basic rate PAYE of 20% and 12% NIC the worker loses 80 pence in the pound. So from this we can conclude that the beneficiaries are the Treasury
    And that my friends is the REAL reason for creation of the living wage..sneaky, cynical Tories at it again
    Its clear from the little you have written that you dont undrstand the basis of money.. there is no magic money tree... much as lefties might like to think that there is.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903

    notme said:

    Here's a question for you numb heads - what is the real purpose behind the living wage

    To give cover to wean huge numbers of people off tax credits.
    Almost...it's to pass on the burden of financing tax credits from the Government to the population as a whole
    The benefit being to provoke a behavioural response on the part of the employer. That may mean increased unemployment but it should also drive productivity.
    Think about who benefits from the policy? Is it the worker...the consumer...the Government...the employer?
    Who finances the government you tw@t?
  • matt said:

    notme said:

    Here's a question for you numb heads - what is the real purpose behind the living wage

    To give cover to wean huge numbers of people off tax credits.
    Almost...it's to pass on the burden of financing tax credits from the Government to the population as a whole
    You seem to have misunderstood how taxation operates.
    Tax credits are withdrawn at a rate of 41 pence (soon to be 48 pence) for every pound earned. So coupled with basic rate PAYE of 20% and 12% NIC the worker loses 80 pence in the pound. So from this we can conclude that the beneficiaries are the Treasury
    And that my friends is the REAL reason for creation of the living wage..sneaky, cynical Tories at it again
    Its clear from the little you have written that you dont undrstand the basis of money.. there is no magic money tree... much as lefties might like to think that there is.
    No there's no magic money tree...increased labour costs associated with the wage increases will be passed on to the consumer in higher prices in the shops....whats so tricky to understand?
  • GeoffM said:

    Here's a question for you numb heads - what is the real purpose behind the living wage

    To buy beer, cigarettes and porn.
    Plus tattoos and Sky tv subscriptions.
    Nasty snobby opinions - you must be a kipper
    And a big sloppy kiss to you too. Mwah!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,745

    kle4 said:

    Off topic, I've no idea of the accuracy, but this time laps map video of 'important battles' of the last thousand years was an interesting experience, particularly when more modern wars like the Napoleonic Wars show up toward the end and dots appear all over the map at once.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hsDn2kNriI&index=1&list=FLg5SdxeHca5JpoZ1j9-RpJg

    Sobering!
    With which version of history are we dealing. (West) European or world?
  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245

    matt said:

    notme said:

    Here's a question for you numb heads - what is the real purpose behind the living wage

    To give cover to wean huge numbers of people off tax credits.
    Almost...it's to pass on the burden of financing tax credits from the Government to the population as a whole
    You seem to have misunderstood how taxation operates.
    Tax credits are withdrawn at a rate of 41 pence (soon to be 48 pence) for every pound earned. So coupled with basic rate PAYE of 20% and 12% NIC the worker loses 80 pence in the pound. So from this we can conclude that the beneficiaries are the Treasury
    By treasury you mean tax payer.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,915

    It's quite amazing how I could sign up to twitter now, say something incendiary about a world event, and it would be in the Daily Mail within a couple of hours.

    The moral being I think we should wait until the Turkey story is verified - it may turn out to be hot air, much like the 'civilian casualty' tweets and the 'missiles landing in Iran' reports.

    " ... and the 'missiles landing in Iran' reports."

    I'm tempted to believe them, at least in part. Even the US can not be sure of every missile reaching its target, and they've had much more experience of using cruise missiles in anger. And if it does not reach its target, it'll either self-destruct or fall on a transiting country.

    Put it this way: I'd be surprised if every one reached its target, especially as the Kalibr is a relatively recent system. And given the amount of Iran they had to transit, they would more than likely have fallen on Iran.
    Being tempted to believe them isn't the same as there being evidence for them. Any evidence - pictorial, eye witness, etc. Yet it still all gets reported as news.
    Here's; a suggestion for you: why don't you go to Iran and look for yourself?

    You seem remarkably keen to accept any bit of 'news' on someone's blog when it suits your purposes, but castigate everyone else for accepting news that you disagree with. You accept what the Russians say openly, but reject everything the US says.

    Your view on 'evidence' seems rather odd, to say the least.

    Now, the US claims that four missiles landed on Iran. I have no way of proving or disproving this, and neither do you. But if you were to ask me if it is likely that there would have been no failures from the number fired, then I would find that hard to believe. And if they failed, they might well - indeed probably would - have failed over Iran.

    Of course, you would feel that Russian missile systems are infallible ...
    You really are determined to make a fool of yourself over that blog link aren't you?

    Here's the BBC reporting on the same rallies if you insist on the totally obviously unfakeable videos being verified. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17391353

    If the US has evidence that the missiles landed in Iran, fine, let them back their claims up with that evidence. I don't see the issue. Don't claim it if you can't prove it.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903

    HYUFD said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    ...

    But the Turks have not been reticent in shooting down Syrian aircraft that invade their airspace:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26706417

    And Syria have done the same:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2012_interception_of_Turkish_aircraft

    What do the Russians expect?
    Turkey got a death wish, if true they will pay big time.
    Don't be a dingbat. Turkey is a NATO member and has been for over half a century. Russia is not going to war with Turkey.
    Next you will be telling me we would intervene. Plenty can be done without war.
    I would seriously hope we would intervene yes. I would be absolutely disgusted and appalled with our nation if we appeased Putin and didn't honour our commitments to our allies.
    Guaranteed to be appalled, we could not beat a carpet.
    Said about Chamberlain as we first stood back and did nothing about the Anschluss (Ukraine), then Czechoslovakia (Turkey). If we stand back and do nothing if Russia were to go to war with a NATO member then NATO would be meaningless, Russia would have a green light to expand through force however they want.
    The Anschluss was Austria. AKA Greater Germany. TBH, some historical justification, although really the other way!
    It was Russia declaring war on Austria-Hungary after Austria Hungary invaded Serbia which really started WW1, if Russia invaded Turkey I can't imagine there would be much appetite amongst western public opinion to attack Russia in support of Turkey. Though the most that is likely to happen is Putin will send a few Cruise Missiles to hit Istanbul and Ankara if Turkey has downed a Russian jet
    Russia is a part of NATO and an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all. If Russia invades NATO then Russia is declaring war on all of NATO including us. Otherwise the whole of NATO is rendered defunct and meaningless.
    Turkey?
    Yes sorry. Turkey is a part of NATO ...
    I know you knew and I know you knew that I knew. Now you know that I know you knew that you knew.
    An easy typo in that well known stream of consciousness world we live in
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,915

    Yes, we must stop the Russians killing Islamists and flying on the edge of Turkey before it's too late.

    Flying over the edge of Turkey, as they admitted.
    The Russian Defence Ministry said on Monday that an SU-30 fighter aircraft had entered Turkish airspace along the border with Syria "for a few seconds" on Saturday
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/06/us-mideast-crisis-syria-turkey-russia-idUSKCN0RZ0FT20151006

    Now, I know that's Reuters, and therefore the MSM that you hate and disbelieve, but there it is for everyone else.

    And NATO's view from Al-j. I don't know if Al-j is an evil MSM outlet in your mind, but here goes:
    "I will not speculate on the motives ... but this does not look like an accident, and we have seen two of them," Stoltenberg said of the air incursions over Turkey's border with Syria. He noted that they "lasted for a long time".
    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/10/nato-rejects-russian-explanation-turkey-incursion-151006130012896.html

    If not an accident, what purpose do NATO ascribe to them? I'm all ears.
  • saddened said:

    matt said:

    notme said:

    Here's a question for you numb heads - what is the real purpose behind the living wage

    To give cover to wean huge numbers of people off tax credits.
    Almost...it's to pass on the burden of financing tax credits from the Government to the population as a whole
    You seem to have misunderstood how taxation operates.
    Tax credits are withdrawn at a rate of 41 pence (soon to be 48 pence) for every pound earned. So coupled with basic rate PAYE of 20% and 12% NIC the worker loses 80 pence in the pound. So from this we can conclude that the beneficiaries are the Treasury
    By treasury you mean tax payer.
    If you prefer...the point being that this policy has nothing to do with alleviating poverty as the Tories would have the public believe and everything to do with tax giveaways for multi-nationals. It's a policy that will disproportiontely impact on small businesses who are not incorporated
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903

    saddened said:

    matt said:

    notme said:

    Here's a question for you numb heads - what is the real purpose behind the living wage

    To give cover to wean huge numbers of people off tax credits.
    Almost...it's to pass on the burden of financing tax credits from the Government to the population as a whole
    You seem to have misunderstood how taxation operates.
    Tax credits are withdrawn at a rate of 41 pence (soon to be 48 pence) for every pound earned. So coupled with basic rate PAYE of 20% and 12% NIC the worker loses 80 pence in the pound. So from this we can conclude that the beneficiaries are the Treasury
    By treasury you mean tax payer.
    If you prefer...the point being that this policy has nothing to do with alleviating poverty as the Tories would have the public believe and everything to do with tax giveaways for multi-nationals. It's a policy that will disproportiontely impact on small businesses who are not incorporated
    Pillock
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,536
    edited October 2015

    You really are determined to make a fool of yourself over that blog link aren't you?

    Here's the BBC reporting on the same rallies if you insist on the totally obviously unfakeable videos being verified. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17391353

    If the US has evidence that the missiles landed in Iran, fine, let them back their claims up with that evidence. I don't see the issue. Don't claim it if you can't prove it.

    Talk about changing the subject!

    LOOK SQUIRREL!

    You are utterly missing - willfuly - the point I was making about that blog

    Now, about those missiles ... ?
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    May I point fellow PBers in the direction of the new thread.
  • saddened said:

    matt said:

    notme said:

    Here's a question for you numb heads - what is the real purpose behind the living wage

    To give cover to wean huge numbers of people off tax credits.
    Almost...it's to pass on the burden of financing tax credits from the Government to the population as a whole
    You seem to have misunderstood how taxation operates.
    Tax credits are withdrawn at a rate of 41 pence (soon to be 48 pence) for every pound earned. So coupled with basic rate PAYE of 20% and 12% NIC the worker loses 80 pence in the pound. So from this we can conclude that the beneficiaries are the Treasury
    By treasury you mean tax payer.
    If you prefer...the point being that this policy has nothing to do with alleviating poverty as the Tories would have the public believe and everything to do with tax giveaways for multi-nationals. It's a policy that will disproportiontely impact on small businesses who are not incorporated
    Pillock
    Why? The corporation tax cuts were to compensate companies for the additional costs of meeting the living wage...it doesn't help sole traders and partnerships at all
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,536

    Yes, we must stop the Russians killing Islamists and flying on the edge of Turkey before it's too late.

    Flying over the edge of Turkey, as they admitted.
    The Russian Defence Ministry said on Monday that an SU-30 fighter aircraft had entered Turkish airspace along the border with Syria "for a few seconds" on Saturday
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/06/us-mideast-crisis-syria-turkey-russia-idUSKCN0RZ0FT20151006

    Now, I know that's Reuters, and therefore the MSM that you hate and disbelieve, but there it is for everyone else.

    And NATO's view from Al-j. I don't know if Al-j is an evil MSM outlet in your mind, but here goes:
    "I will not speculate on the motives ... but this does not look like an accident, and we have seen two of them," Stoltenberg said of the air incursions over Turkey's border with Syria. He noted that they "lasted for a long time".
    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/10/nato-rejects-russian-explanation-turkey-incursion-151006130012896.html

    If not an accident, what purpose do NATO ascribe to them? I'm all ears.

    All ears, but no eyes or sense.

    If not an accident, then on purpose, obviously.

    If the multiple incursions are accidental, then it doesn't say much for Russian airmanship, does it?
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108

    notme said:

    Here's a question for you numb heads - what is the real purpose behind the living wage

    To give cover to wean huge numbers of people off tax credits.
    Almost...it's to pass on the burden of financing tax credits from the Government to the population as a whole
    The benefit being to provoke a behavioural response on the part of the employer. That may mean increased unemployment but it should also drive productivity.
    Think about who benefits from the policy? Is it the worker...the consumer...the Government...the employer?
    There is very little limit to which a minimum wage can be pushed. It has no visible effect on the economy, although ideally there is probably a reasonable argument for trades agreements (as in Australia or Denmark) than a universal minimum wage. But even there, the general wage rate dictates the minimum wage for all sectors and in all instances it is artificial and not market led.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312

    GeoffM said:

    Here's a question for you numb heads - what is the real purpose behind the living wage

    To buy beer, cigarettes and porn.

    Here's a question for you numb heads - what is the real purpose behind the living wage

    Here"s a question for u kracken. Why be so damned rude..? are you a hard lefty who spits as well?
    He's a green eye, disgruntled, time serving financial services employee who's pissed off by having to help all those rich bastards avoid tax.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108

    matt said:

    notme said:

    Here's a question for you numb heads - what is the real purpose behind the living wage

    To give cover to wean huge numbers of people off tax credits.
    Almost...it's to pass on the burden of financing tax credits from the Government to the population as a whole
    You seem to have misunderstood how taxation operates.
    Tax credits are withdrawn at a rate of 41 pence (soon to be 48 pence) for every pound earned. So coupled with basic rate PAYE of 20% and 12% NIC the worker loses 80 pence in the pound. So from this we can conclude that the beneficiaries are the Treasury
    And that my friends is the REAL reason for creation of the living wage..sneaky, cynical Tories at it again
    Its clear from the little you have written that you dont undrstand the basis of money.. there is no magic money tree... much as lefties might like to think that there is.
    No there's no magic money tree...increased labour costs associated with the wage increases will be passed on to the consumer in higher prices in the shops....whats so tricky to understand?
    The tricky part is that the world does not work based on the Lie To Children economics taught in High School. It works based on a very complex system you seem to have no understanding of.

    The consumer element of minimum wages is tiny, almost unnoticeable and certainly nothing compared to the increase in average wages. The actual cost of minimum wages to any individual aspect of the economy is near zero.
Sign In or Register to comment.