Maximum Wage Law - Corbyn

I wonder if this maximum wage for public sector contracts would apply to public sector employees as well. Civil Servants, Health Service, BBC presenters, Railtrack, Local Government, Arts Council, MOD, Social Services, Quangos etc etc. I would be good to hear the reasoning (excuses, NIMBY) why it wouldn't apply if it ever came to fruition!
 
Can't wait for Scotland to jog off and have its own country.

The fact Jimmy Crankie got 59 times as many seats as UKIP with 1/4 of their vote is a joke. Scots are totally over represented as usual and she never fucking shuts up.

Agreed, but it was 56 seats out of a possible 59. Just sayin'.
 
They are allowed because it designed to make sure that all constituencies are the same size in terms of population.
Ok, so it might make sense for each MP to represent roughly the same amount of people in Westiminster - however it does not make sense for the interests of an area (from the population's viewpoint).

Moston for example will be with Oldham - inner city area vs. a section of a different town. Drolysden similarly but with another section of Oldham including Saddleworthian Springhead. Will be better examples but why have say, rural areas with inner city areas... and why split up towns where each section is likely to vote similarly? It's not effective for the people of an area to get their voice heard - one MP's concerns are diluted by different interests within their constituency. I take it that the main interest in such a system is so that large constituency's don't have more say than smaller ones in national matters e.g. general elections but this isn't the fairer system, which would be similar voting regions (e.g. a town or similar adjacent suburbs) being best represented. This then builds up nationwide to best represent the number of working class votes vs. upper class votes in a basic example. If there are more working class in the country, they rightly should have more influence on nationwide matters - that would be fairest in my view. This doesn't just apply to "class" of course but any shared interests.

This shows the proposed English changes for any interested http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32695546
 
Ok, so it might make sense for each MP to represent roughly the same amount of people in Westiminster - however it does not make sense for the interests of an area (from the population's viewpoint).

Moston for example will be with Oldham - inner city area vs. a section of a different town. Drolysden similarly but with another section of Oldham including Saddleworthian Springhead. Will be better examples but why have say, rural areas with inner city areas... and why split up towns where each section is likely to vote similarly? It's not effective for the people of an area to get their voice heard - one MP's concerns are diluted by different interests within their constituency. I take it that the main interest in such a system is so that large constituency's don't have more say than smaller ones in national matters e.g. general elections but this isn't the fairer system, which would be similar voting regions (e.g. a town or similar adjacent suburbs) being best represented. This then builds up nationwide to best represent the number of working class votes vs. upper class votes in a basic example. If there are more working class in the country, they rightly should have more influence on nationwide matters - that would be fairest in my view. This doesn't just apply to "class" of course but any shared interests.

This shows the proposed English changes for any interested http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32695546
What you say you want to happen is exactly what does happen.

Without boundary changes 100,000 in an inner city area would have only the same amount as say as 30,000 in a suburb which would go against what you wish.

Ps there about about 1,000 "upper class" votes nationwide. It's not exactly a key voter demographic and half of them aren't allowed to vote as they are already peers.
 
Sorry I had 5mins to think and post before leaving work. I guess this is what they came up with after the last election people wanted voting reform. 100,000 inner city = 1 MP, 10,000 rural = 1 MP in the current/old system but I think my point still stands due to the dilution of voting interest in new constituencies - I'm not saying the current system doesn't do this either but the proposed is more obvious. You are also more obviously right however since if those 2 examples voted differently it wouldn't be equal representation, I dont think either system is perfect for it unless the proposed has lumped together what may be different types of areas but have still voted the same in the past. I think its a balance that needs to be achieved right but of course populations changed so they'd have to review territories every so often?
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.