The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by MatureStudent36
When it impacts on a companys competitiveness is does. And that's what happened to a lot of the heavy industry Thatcher got the blame for that we lost


If I own a popcorn company, it impacts on my company's competitiveness if I'm prevented from going into cinemas, setting up a stall and selling popcorn for lower prices than the cinema's own vendors are selling it for. So should I be allowed to do it?

Original post by anarchism101
If I own a popcorn company, it impacts on my company's competitiveness if I'm prevented from going into cinemas, setting up a stall and selling popcorn for lower prices than the cinema's own vendors are selling it for. So should I be allowed to do it?


Yes you should. What we've had since Post WW2 with the World Trade Organisation is you're company being allowed to go into the cinema to sell you're popcorn and undercut the in house popcorn supplier. What that is meant to create is a competitive market place whereby both popcorn suppliers compete for the business.

What we had in the 70's was your popcorn company coming inside the cinema to sell it's popcorn, and the Cinema's own popcorn seller throwing a hissy fit (Trade Unions) and going on strike,and then wondering why the cinema decided just to get all of its popcorn from you.
Original post by MatureStudent36



Yes you should. What we've had since Post WW2 with the World Trade Organisation is you're company being allowed to go into the cinema to sell you're popcorn and undercut the in house popcorn supplier. What that is meant to create is a competitive market place whereby both popcorn suppliers compete for the business.

What we had in the 70's was your popcorn company coming inside the cinema to sell it's popcorn, and the Cinema's own popcorn seller throwing a hissy fit (Trade Unions) and going on strike,and then wondering why the cinema decided just to get all of its popcorn from you.


You could do with reading up on trade unions too.
Original post by MatureStudent36



Yes you should. What we've had since Post WW2 with the World Trade Organisation is you're company being allowed to go into the cinema to sell you're popcorn and undercut the in house popcorn supplier.


Except you can't actually do this because the cinema is private property and they're allowed by law to ban other sellers there, and even to ban you taking in food from outside (though often they don't enforce the latter).

None of which is to say I'm against abolishing private property; I'm very much for it, in fact if it didn't exist then we wouldn't need unions in the first place.
Reply 844
Original post by billydisco
What an UTTER lot of nonsense!

Why do Tories unofficially support Grammar schools if they are champions of the aristocracy? Why is Kent getting a new Grammar school because of it's Tory MP and Tory Kent County Council?

You do realise a couple of etonians at the top doesnt mean major conspiracy, right?



A few old Etonians and Kent County Council? Just because you back your facts up with empirical evidence from a few people that you personally have heard of, doesn't mean we all do mate. Get out of your goldfish bowl.

And as for a conspiracy theory, Tories favouring the prosperity of the elite over the common-man is called the history (in all major countries, yes, I'm an IR major, I have researched them) and philosophy (try A-level Gov& Pols, or Political Philosophy 101 at uni) of conservatism.

Btw, you don't even know what the official Tory line is. The official Tory line is "give to the rich and it promotes trickle-down economics to the poor". This line of arguing, is of course, completely fallacious, but you don't even know the official Tory line of argument.

I'm starting to find it comical that you're using tiny examples, when the entirety of global history provides swathes of evidence to your contrary :biggrin:, but I'll humour you and refute them.

You're using grammar schools as evidence that Tory support of them means Tories are promoting social fairness?

Grammar schools counter elitism by your argument? Grammar schools :biggrin:?!?!

When we had grammar schools they upheld stratisfying society into levels and enforced where people were going to sit for the rest of their lives in the social pecking order before they were even teenagers.

And before you say they promote social mobility, of course they don't. It's still more than possible to get into great universities with a comprehensive background. It also means that if you panicked on the day of your 11-plus and messed it up at age 11, you're not going to become a manual worker for the rest of your years.

Please, become globally and historically informed.
Reply 845
Well everyone says the UKIP vote in Eastleigh was merely a 'protest', well I'll tell you something, if Labour get in 2015, it'll be merely a 'protest'; people are sick of cuts. That's about it.
Original post by J_89
You're using grammar schools as evidence that Tory support of them means Tories are promoting social fairness?

Can poor people be admitted to Grammar schools? Yes


Original post by J_89
Grammar schools counter elitism by your argument? Grammar schools :biggrin:?!?!

Where did I say Grammar schools counter elitism? Where did I even say elitism was bad? I said the Conservatives do not simply represent the aristocracy....


Original post by J_89
When we had grammar schools they upheld stratisfying society into levels

and? You trying to suggest dumb people will live, work and breathe with the super-smart when they are older?

Original post by J_89
and enforced where people were going to sit for the rest of their lives in the social pecking order before they were even teenagers.

Exactly the same as GCSE exams then?


Original post by J_89
And before you say they promote social mobility, of course they don't.

So the fact that any poor bright person can get into a Grammar school doesn't promote social mobility? But good comprehensive schools, where the catchment area average house price is £350k do promote social mobility? :rolleyes:


Original post by J_89
It's still more than possible to get into great universities with a comprehensive background.

1) Was this before the Government blackmailed the universities into accepting comprehensive pupils?
2) How many of these good universities is the average house price in the catchment area £100k?


Original post by J_89
It also means that if you panicked on the day of your 11-plus and messed it up at age 11, you're not going to become a manual worker for the rest of your years.

1) and if you panic on your GCSE Maths exam you're equally screwed
2) and if you panic on your GCSE A Level exam you're equally screwed
3) Never heard of the 13+ exam? Thought not.... pupils from other schools can sit the 13+, submit some of their year 7 and 8 work and apply to go to a grammar school aged 13. Oops- just took a sledge hammer to your argument!
4) Never heard of the appeal process?


Got to laugh at *****s like you:

"Selection is bad- grammar schools are bad........ oh but you're allowed internal selection for sets within a comprehensive school....." haha!!!!

So if a comprehensive school has ability sets for all subjects- and the sets were relatively the same across all subjects, then what is the difference between comprehensive sets and a grammar school? The bright kids don't share the playground and assemblies with the dumber kids?


Original post by J_89
Please, become globally and historically informed.

Are you for real? We're talking about the BRITISH conservative party. What happens globally has FA to do with global history. You think what republican "conservatives" believe influences a conclusion about british conservatives? Are tories now bible bashers because the "global conservatives" in the US are?
(edited 11 years ago)
I'll vote Labour when they get Nick Griffin as their leader.
Reply 848
Original post by Otkem
I shall never forgive the Labour party for what they put my family through during 2009-10. I am interested though in seeing what motivates people to vote for such a damaging party. They damaged the economy, they damaged family values, they damaged people's trust in their government. They damaged everything you can imagine basically. What motivates you to want another Labour Govt? My opinion of Labour voters is that they are extremely selfish and do not care about the good of the long-term economy, as long as they get their handouts courtesy of the taxpayer. Now of course this isn't representative of all Labour voters, but I am at a loss as to explain why they won so many local council seats, and am quite frankly damn worried.


what did they do to your family?
Reply 849
Original post by BHS12
Lets be honest here- in some way or another every government f*ks us over, its the way of life.

I offically couldn't care less who wins- as long as the country IS FAIR ie not spending millions of £s on doing up a train station that they admitt won't be big enough, spending money on slightly less sensitive doors on the tube trains at the cost of a couple million and instead giving that money to people who need it or putting it into community services like schools, after school clubs etc.


Sadly it does matter - TfL lost £410m in a failed PPP scheme when metronet collapsed
The great part about the Conservative party is that they never do as they say. In 1979 they got in power using the slogan 'Labour isnt working 1.4m unemployed'. Once in power the country thought they were going to lower the unemployment number instead they made 4 million people unemployed when they dismantled the manufacturing industry.

Pretty much the same has happened this time round. They got in power and everyone thought we would be repaying the national debt. In reality they have run up a huge bill, over £1trillion we are now in debt.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/02/david-cameron-rebuked-for-telling-porkies-about-the-national-debt/

The bottom of the line is this. The Tory party don't work for the man in the street they work for corporations and banks.
What a question...

I vote labour because I come from a working class family and they seem the best of a bad bunch. However, sometimes I feel like the parties really merge togother on many issues, so there isn't a massive difference. This is only how I feel though, so no offence intended :smile:
Original post by Cheshire1990
What a question...

I vote labour because I come from a working class family and they seem the best of a bad bunch. However, sometimes I feel like the parties really merge togother on many issues, so there isn't a massive difference. This is only how I feel though, so no offence intended :smile:



Hi, just wondering what you think labour will do to benefit the working class that the tories dont already do? Tories are pretty much hitting the middle class right now so i dont see why labour is still seen as a working class party.
Reply 853
Original post by That Bearded Man
Put your family through? And this would not have occurred under a Tory government? I vote Labour because the Tories a simply a bunch of thieving, cowardly billionaires that couldn't give a toss about me. Privatisation is a failed concept, watch and see the NHS implode if the Tories succeed. Damaged family values? Like the childcare benefit? University was in theory a great idea, but they encouraged too many applicants. Selfish ay? You say this in same breath as you watch Tories targetting pensioners, students, all while charging money to see our local elected PM?

Madness


True dat^^^ #that****cray


Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 854
Original post by Jordan-James
Hi, just wondering what you think labour will do to benefit the working class that the tories dont already do? Tories are pretty much hitting the middle class right now so i dont see why labour is still seen as a working class party.


Both parties have done things that harmed the working class.

But don't you think minimum wage, redistributive measures like working tax credits, child tax credits, EMA etc did help the working class?

I would say Labour abandoned the working class mostly when they startrd being europhophiles and allowing mass immigration which depressed wages.
Original post by bkeevin
Both parties have done things that harmed the working class.

But don't you think minimum wage, redistributive measures like working tax credits, child tax credits, EMA etc did help the working class?

I would say Labour abandoned the working class mostly when they startrd being europhophiles and allowing mass immigration which depressed wages.


I agree with your last point but a Europhile is the wrong word :P

That means you hate the EU and are against it.

I guess you mean they were in favour of the EU, and yeh i hate the EU aswell.
Original post by Jordan-James
I agree with your last point but a Europhile is the wrong word :P

That means you hate the EU and are against it.

I guess you mean they were in favour of the EU, and yeh i hate the EU aswell.


Europhile means likes Europe, if you hated Europe you'd be a europhobe. Think paedophile - likes children. Arachnophobia- scared of spiders.


Posted from TSR Mobile
It is foolish to attack the people that vote solely on the grounds that they are so called 'scroungers' and that they are selfish. like wise it is foolish to say that the tories are a bunch of toffs who don't care about the working class. Instead lets look at the facts. What have the tories done to help the working man, 1. the conservative party has raised the tax allowance to take the lowest paid out of tax (effectively giving everyone else a pay rise). 2. the tories have put more emphasis on local private businesses improving the local economy, creating more wealth creators and creating more employment. 3. The tories banned declaring that your pay was a loan from your employer so stop tax avoidance. 4. hedge funds cannot set themselves up in other countries now they must pay tax.

Ok so tuition fee's are up, but now universities are better equipped, there are more people from poorer back grounds in uni than ever before and the units are properly funded. (side note, why should I pay for your education? fair enough if its a medical or engineering degree something like that, but why should i contribute taxes to people studying things like drama)

NHS, the nhs is a piece of ****, partial privatisation would do it the world of good, again it would be properly funded so we might actually have some ambulances when they're needed. The quality of the equipment would be better, as would the service. I agree things like midwifery, cancer and serious illness treatment should be free, as should health care for the elderly, but if your 36 and want a wart removed you'll have to claim on insurance. with partial privatisation there will be more money for the old and the seriously ill, they will get the best possibly drugs and treatment. But the tories aren't even doing this because most people are to uneducated on the matter to understand it. People in germany and france and dying in the streets because they don't have an NHS in fact thhe german health service is much better than our own.
Original post by belkin17th
there are more people from poorer back grounds in uni than ever before

Yes because we have a record-number of **** universities accepting anyone!
Original post by belkin17th
It is foolish to attack the people that vote solely on the grounds that they are so called 'scroungers' and that they are selfish. like wise it is foolish to say that the tories are a bunch of toffs who don't care about the working class.


Its true for Labour and not true for Tories.

The majority of Labour's supporters are losers who havent achieved in life.
The majority of Tory supporters are not toffs, but the middle class.

Latest

Trending

Trending