Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Corbyn on Brexit: UK can be better off out of the EU Watch

    Online

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I'd be in favour of ratios. Say that if the execs got a pay rise over a certain amount, then his staff were also to be given a pay rise of a certain amount.

    There are huge draws to the UK and London in particular and this policy wouldn't make businesses flock, just like the minimum wage didn't.

    The Premier League football example would be a good example of why a continental approach of countries working together and having the same policy would work. They couldn't just go to Spain if their was the same cap there.

    I do however think that a wage cap would make football less dominated by a handful of clubs.
    Even if all the European leagues agreed on a common policy (and how likely is that?!) some country would see the financial possibilities of stealing all the best talent. China, Japan, the US, the Gulf States.

    The Premier League is a huge British success story. One of the few left where we are truly the global leader. Go anywhere in the world and you will see it on television.

    Why destroy it all just because its stars are paid obscenely, and many of them behave repulsively?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    Even if all the European leagues agreed on a common policy (and how likely is that?!) some country would see the financial possibilities of stealing all the best talent. China, Japan, the US, the Gulf States.

    The Premier League is a huge British success story. One of the few left where we are truly the global leader. Go anywhere in the world and you will see it on television.

    Why destroy it all just because its stars are paid obscenely, and many of them behave repulsively?
    I don't have a problem with players wages although I do have a problem with the clubs paying their staff peanuts.

    If they can afford £50 million transfer fees and to pay £100,000 a week wages then surely they can afford to pay all staff a decent wage.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I don't have a problem with players wages although I do have a problem with the clubs paying their staff peanuts.

    If they can afford £50 million transfer fees and to pay £100,000 a week wages then surely they can afford to pay all staff a decent wage.
    & reduce ticket costs although that's a different argument all together I'll admit!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Do you actually have evidence for this claim, or are you just assuming that not allowing vast numbers of poor foreigners in must be axiomatically bad?

    The fact is that the sectors where low wage foreign workers are exploited are ones which are, (a) hugely profitable, (b) competitive and (c) buoyed by substantial underlying demand.

    If you are Tesco and you have high profit margins but also exist in a competitive market, and the flow of cheap foreign workers slows to a trickle, then you have two choices; reduce your output and let your competitors take your market share, or maintain output to keep market share (and pay higher wages) and accept a lower profit margin.

    Businesses will accept a lower profit margin rather than a smaller market share because with a lower margin they're still making money. The claim that if we don't make available large numbers of cheap workers then the service industries and agriculture will collapse is ********. In competitive markets, prices won't rise; instead, profit margins will be squeezed. Where you do have price rises, they are offset by increasing wages and overall (because of market competition), you will see more profit squeezing than price rises and thus it is the workers and the consumers that win.

    I still can't get over how lazily some left-wingers accept the neoliberal mentality and lies about "lazy" British workers, and fearmongering about collapsing markets if we don't allow them a large exploitable low-wage workforce.
    You seem to imagine that the supermarket's choice is between low cost and high cost British vegetables or meat. Of course, it isn't. It's between low cost British and low cost imported foodstuffs. You give the example of Tesco - it's difficult to think of any retailer that has done more to inject cheap imports into every level of their supply chain - it even came out that they were importing chickens from Vietnam at one time!

    Clearly what will happen in the no-Single Market and no-E. European migrant worker world is that UK food production will move even more intensively abroad than it already is. This will of course also increase food miles and leave us prey to the low food production standards that operate elsewhere. But what does that matter when weighed against the burning zeal to reduce migration numbers?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Brexit: A policy so obviously correct that even the man who thinks Diane Abbot is a feasible Home Secretary supports it.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    That's a right-wing, neoliberal fallacy.

    Yes, many British people do not want to work in a freezing field at the crack of dawn for £7.25 an hour. Fact is, if they paid £25,000 to do cleaning work or agricultural work then you wouldn't have any problem finding British workers to do it.

    The solution to this is to increase wages, rather than bring in large numbers of foreign workers who will work for low wages in crap conditions, who don't join trade unions, who are less likely to complain about wages and conditions. And wages would naturally rise in those sectors so that the wages would be competitive, if it weren't for the neoliberal policy of having a "reserve army of labour", of itinerant workers who move wherever the work is thus creating huge profits for the capitalist rentier class

    Frankly, it's shocking how willing middle-class liberals are to buy into this right-wing neoliberal crap about "lazy" British workers and how we need to compete with the third-world in a race to the bottom.
    You are wrong. You can't increase wages in one sector without a knock on effect in another. Try increasing the pay of cleaners or canteen workers in any organisation, say a factory and the other workers will also want pay rises to maintain their differential. If the factory refuse, they will be taken to an industrial tribunal and lose.

    Increasing wages will increase inflation and the cost of goods and services which leads to more demands for wage increases and it goes on.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    That won't work either.

    Just as Premier League footballers (highly mobile, skills scarce and in great demand, a global market for their talent) would leave for La Liga, Serie A, and the Bundesliga once their contracts were up, if there were a wage cap, so would the best CEO's.

    The obscene amounts footballers (and CEOs) make sticks in my craw as much as the next man's but there is no way of stopping it without killing the goose that lays the golden egg.



    .
    The economics of footballers and CEOs is not the same as can be seen by comparing the distributions of their salaries.


    If you look at football salaries across all levels within clubs and between clubs operating at different levels in the game, there is what you expect to see; salary differentials relating to ability as a player and position of the employer.

    In general business management you do not see that. There is an enormous gulf between chief executives and other executives and chief executives of small unimportant businesses earn far more than non-chief executives running large important divisions of much larger businesses.

    It is as if the star striker of Sutton Utd would earn more than the second string left back at Manchester Utd

    The reason is that star footballers have no control of other footballers' wages. CEOs have captured control of the pay mechanism of companies they do not own. CEOs over-reward themselves, not in relation to the office cleaner but in relation to their senior subordinates.
    Online

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    The economics of footballers and CEOs is not the same as can be seen by comparing the distributions of their salaries.


    If you look at football salaries across all levels within clubs and between clubs operating at different levels in the game, there is what you expect to see; salary differentials relating to ability as a player and position of the employer.

    In general business management you do not see that. There is an enormous gulf between chief executives and other executives and chief executives of small unimportant businesses earn far more than non-chief executives running large important divisions of much larger businesses.

    It is as if the star striker of Sutton Utd would earn more than the second string left back at Manchester Utd

    The reason is that star footballers have no control of other footballers' wages. CEOs have captured control of the pay mechanism of companies they do not own. CEOs over-reward themselves, not in relation to the office cleaner but in relation to their senior subordinates.
    That is incorrect.

    CEO's report to the Board of Directors of the Company (in the UK). Their performance is managed by their Chairman, and their packages are determined by the Remuneration Committee, using objective external market data.

    Most crucially a large proportion of their total on target compensation comprises stock options. If they are successful in generating revenue and profits, and the stock price improves they will receive the financial reward for that. If they don't, and the share price declines below the strike price, the options will lapse and they will receive nothing.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    That is incorrect.

    CEO's report to the Board of Directors of the Company (in the UK). Their performance is managed by their Chairman, and their packages are determined by the Remuneration Committee, using objective external market data.
    Please do not quote the formal structure on what is essentially an economic question. Instead please read up on Board Capture Theory.

    You may not agree that it is right, but you cannot dismiss it, by reference to constitutional arrangements. That is like disputing that Barbados is a less powerful nation than the USA by reference to their equal sovereignty.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Please do not quote the formal structure on what is essentially an economic question. Instead please read up on Board Capture Theory.

    You may not agree that it is right, but you cannot dismiss it, by reference to constitutional arrangements. That is like disputing that Barbados is a less powerful nation than the USA by reference to their equal sovereignty.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I don't think it is right.

    CEO's haven't "captured" independent Boards of Directors. The average life span of a CEO is little more than two years so a good many of them have been fired by these supposedly "captive" bodies before their office seat is even warm.

    Don't believe all the theoretical rubbish spouted by Business Schools and Economics
    Faculties. The reality is much more messy and complicated.

    You will be telling me markets are "efficient" next. :rolleyes:
    Online

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)

    Clearly what will happen in the no-Single Market and no-E. European migrant worker world is that UK food production will move even more intensively abroad than it already is. This will of course also increase food miles and leave us prey to the low food production standards that operate elsewhere. But what does that matter when weighed against the burning zeal to reduce migration numbers?
    I would be prepared to pay more for British raspberries as it goes, but you are probably right. We will import cheaper fruit from abroad.

    And that is fine. Better to import fruit than people. Strawberries don't have to live anywhere, they don't send their kids to schools, put pressure on the NHS or compete with indigenous workers in a race to the bottom..

    You just eat them.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    put pressure on the NHS or compete with indigenous workers in a race to the bottom..
    Just a point - "indigenous" does not mean the same as "native". The former refers only to non-dominant native groups.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Just a point - "indigenous" does not mean the same as "native". The former refers only to non-dominant native groups.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    indigenous
    ɪnˈdɪdʒɪnəs/adjective
    1. originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native."the indigenous peoples of Siberia"synonyms:native, aboriginal, local; More
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    First speech of 2017 will make clear that Labour is not wedded to free movement and supports ‘repatriating powers’ from Brussels


    Jeremy Corbyn will use his first speech of 2017 to claim that Britain can be better off outside the EU and insist that the Labour party has no principled objection to ending the free movement of European workers in the UK.

    Setting out his party’s pitch on Brexit in the year that Theresa May will trigger article 50, the Labour leader will also reach for the language of leave campaigners by promising to deliver on a pledge to spend millions of pounds extra on the NHS every week.

    He will say Labour’s priority in EU negotiations will remain full access to the European single market, but that his party wants “managed migration” and to repatriate powers from Brussels that would allow governments to intervene in struggling industries such as steel. Sources suggested that the economic demands were about tariff-free access to the single market, rather than membership that they argued did not exist.

    Corbyn’s speech and planned media appearances represent the first example of a new anti-establishment drive designed by strategists to emphasise and spread his image as a leftwing populist to a new set of voters. They hope the revamp will help overturn poor poll ratings across the country, particularly with a looming byelection in Copeland, Cumbria.

    Speaking in Peterborough, chosen because it is a marginal Tory seat that voted heavily in favour of Brexit, and which Labour is targeting, Corbyn will lay into May’s failure to reveal any Brexit planning, and say that Labour will not give the government a free pass in the negotiations.

    After comparing the prime minister’s refusal to offer MPs a vote on the final Brexit deal to the behaviour of Henry VIII in a Guardian interview, Corbyn will say: “Not since the second world war has Britain’s ruling elite so recklessly put the country in such an exposed position without a plan.”

    In a town that has experienced high rates of change in terms of migration, he will use his strongest language yet on the subject.

    “Labour is not wedded to freedom of movement for EU citizens as a point of principle. But nor can we afford to lose full access to the European single market on which so many British businesses and jobs depend. Changes to the way migration rules operate from the EU will be part of the negotiations,” he will say.

    “Labour supports fair rules and reasonably managed migration as part of the post-Brexit relationship with the EU.”

    Corbyn will also say, however, that there will be no “false promises on immigration” and that his party will not echo the Conservatives by promising to bring the numbers down to the tens of thousands.

    Instead, he will repeat an argument that action against the undercutting of pay and conditions, closing down labour loopholes and banning jobs being exclusively advertised abroad could bring down the amount of people travelling to the UK.

    “That would have the effect of reducing numbers of EU migrant workers in the most deregulated sectors, regardless of the final Brexit deal,” he will say.

    The speech comes as tensions grow within the Labour party as a number of high profile MPs, including the deputy leader, Tom Watson, and home affairs committee chair, Yvette Cooper, suggest that the party has to change its position on free movement.

    This weekend two MPs – Emma Reynolds and Stephen Kinnock – suggested the time had come for a two-tier system under which highly skilled workers such as doctors could travel to Britain for confirmed jobs, while there would be quotas for lower-skilled workers. They argued that the EU referendum “was a vote for change on immigration”, an argument that May has also made.

    Reynolds, who is a member of the select committee on leaving the EU, said she welcomed Corbyn’s commitment to managed migration but that the party had to understand what that meant.

    Corbyn has been criticised from within the party for failing to talk about free movement reform, often stressing the positive impact of migration instead. Some MPs fear the position could cost the party votes across the north of England and the midlands where voters have been deserting Labour over the past decade.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics...aged-migration

    Holy ****. I didn't expect that. Guardian readers feel betrayed.
    Well... if labour ever what to get elected again it seems they are gonna have to put on their Bennite hats when it comes to the EU question.

    A whole **** tonne of guardian readers are very left wing in a class based way. All of the above was not xenophobia/racism based, it was more routed in socialist type thinking (although it is saying a big **** you to poor foreign proles).

    I bet you are well jelly of us escaping Brits, Frenchy :aetsch:
    Online

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Well... if labour ever what to get elected again it seems they are gonna have to put on their Bennite hats when it comes to the EU question.

    A whole **** tonne of guardian readers are very left wing in a class based way. All of the above was not xenophobia/racism based, it was more routed in socialist type thinking (although it is saying a big **** you to poor foreign proles).

    I bet you are well jelly of us escaping Brits, Frenchy :aetsch:
    Labour is screwed either way.

    The top 20 most Leave constituencies have Labour MP's.

    And the top 20 most Remain.
    Online

    10
    ReputationRep:
    On the subject of Jezza he is the gift that keeps on giving.

    A new Tory attack ad will be launched for the Copeland By Election tonight. The constituency has a big nuclear power station in the works which will create thousands of jobs. The ad shows Jez with a megaphone saying "we must decommission all nuclear power stations and not build any new ones!"

    You couldn't make it up, it is hilarious! Tragedy returning as farce.

    Just for the record, the last time Labour lost a by election seat to a Tory under a Tory Government was way back in the twentieth century. The eighties...

    Complete this sentence puzzle if you will. Party Fcucked The Totally Labour Is.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    indigenous
    ɪnˈdɪdʒɪnəs/adjective
    1. originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native."the indigenous peoples of Siberia"synonyms:native, aboriginal, local; More
    Nope, there's an official international definition set by the UN:
    "Indigenous communities, peoples, and nations are those that, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing in those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop, and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems."
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    It's quite interesting to see the simultaneous disintegration of Socialist parties in Western Europe: Spain, Italy, Germany, Netherlands, France, and the UK.
    Online

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Nope, there's an official international definition set by the UN:
    "Indigenous communities, peoples, and nations are those that, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing in those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop, and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems."
    You are giving me some bs definition dreamt up by an organisation run by tin pot third world dictators over the good old English dictionary??

    Mate, I'll use the dictionary definition whenever I post, and the United Nations (and all the absurd and ridiculous post colonial studies Professors) can go fcuk themselves.

    Indigenous. A synonym for native.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)

    Holy ****. I didn't expect that. Guardian readers feel betrayed.
    It's not a huge shock. Whilst you were banging on about "remoaners", the vast majority of us have accepted the result and want to make it a success. Criticising Brexit is not us moaning, we are entitled to free speech.

    This rhetoric that remainers are somehow hoping brexit will fail is nothing more but some failed reverse psychology from the brexit and a fear that some day brexiters will be proven wrong. Grow up.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.