The Student Room Group

Labour kiss goodbye to any chance of being elected

Scroll to see replies

Original post by nutz99
Corbyn's brain, if there is one, is either very devious or very under-worked. If he ever got to a position where he could implement this (realistically there is more chance of Peter Sutcliffe getting a knighthood) he would probably ring-fence certain salaries - MPs for example. There would be a huge drain of talent out of the UK and Corbyn would then implement his plan to bring in migrants to replace the outgoing Brits. Corbyn openly wants more immigration into the UK. This would give him that opportunity.


Original post by Inexorably
I think they kissed goodbye when they actually elected Corbyn in the first place.

Well here's to another 10+ years of conservative power. :cheers:


Original post by Drewski
Corbyn declares there should be a maximum earnings limit

But doesn't declare what it should be, naturally.



People forget governments can govern too long, they get tired, people get bored with them. Ok for a short time in 2010 the Tory coalition might have been an exciting new change for some after 13 years of labour.

But in six years the Tories have done nothing good at all. Public service cuts, austerity and misery.


People are fed up of the tired Tories! If anything then a labour led coalition is the most likely and sensible outcome of a general election.

We need change!
Original post by yudothis
"morally understandable"? You jest.


Then explain how someone who flips burgers should morally earn as much as someone who runs a chain of fast food restaurants?
Reply 22
Avatar for Drewski
Drewski
OP
19
Original post by Ambitious1999
We need change!


A hung parliament is more likely.

Any election that elects Labour will be less sensible than one that elects Trump.
Reply 23
Avatar for nutz99
nutz99
19
Original post by Ambitious1999
We need change!
Not from bad to worse.

We need another party. Labour are rock bottom, Liberals have disappeared and Tories are doing what Tories have always done. Tories will win the next election by a landslide as there is no real opposition.
Original post by MildredMalone
Then explain how someone who flips burgers should morally earn as much as someone who runs a chain of fast food restaurants?


Explain how someone who saves lifes like a police officer or paramedic should morally get so much less than some managers.
Original post by HopelessMedic
What a ridiculous statement. Income inequality is not a problem, it is the consequence of people making good and bad life choices in the vast majority of cases.

The problem is when people aren't put in the position to be able to make those good choices, which is inequity and something that should be addressed.


Every CEO needs his workforce. If everyone made the "right" choices, who would work for all the managers, CEOs, high earners?
Original post by cbreef
That's not that bad lol.


The average July highest is 18C, with an average wind of about 9mph - which is very cooling and makes that average feel much cooler.
Original post by HopelessMedic
These situations that people create never happen, so it's pointless considering them.

The facts are that there will always be people who work hard and there will always be people who don't. As along as they both had the same opportunity then there is no problem with one earning significantly more.


You think the only measure is "hard work"?
Original post by HopelessMedic
Measure of what exactly?


You quite clearly implied that people who work hard get those high paying jobs and those that don't work hard get low paying jobs.

"The facts are that there will always be people who work hard and there will always be people who don't. As along as they both had the same opportunity then there is no problem with one earning significantly more."
The policy is aimed at limiting the wages of the bankers, CEOs, and business people who contribute 22% of Britain's GDP. If you destroy the biggest contributor to Britain's GDP, the individuals who will be hit the hardest are the individuals at the bottom.
Original post by HopelessMedic
I stand by that and it's pretty much common sense. Obviously there are some exceptions but for the vast majority of people the job you work has a direct correlation with how hard you work, not just in school but in other areas. Someone who is lazy and just plays video games all day won't, and shouldn't in my opinion, receive a high paying job.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, do you think people who don't work hard should get the same pay as those who do?


I am more thinking of those that have to work multiple jobs in the so-called richest country, because the wages the rich pay are so low.
They did that in 2008. :lol:
Original post by Mathemagicien
But for an example of a country and city much more densely populated than the UK, Japan's infrastructure copes even better than the UK's.


Yes.

Japan is interesting in other ways, though. It has had virtually zero immigration throughout its entire history.

Yet despite its ageing, declining population, it still prefers cultural homogenity to immigration leading to naturalisation. They are allowing some foreigners in, now, but only as residents.

Fascinating, huh?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/30/japan-says-it-must-look-after-its-own-before-allowing-syrian-refugees-in

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you