I know you were arguing that people should join trade unions and vote labour (and I agree with you). I just found it funny that you managed to argue that without mentioning unions and the labour party
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Post Match Thread: Election 2017
- Thread starter Damocles
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I know you were arguing that people should join trade unions and vote labour (and I agree with you). I just found it funny that you managed to argue that without mentioning unions and the labour party
I know you were arguing that people should join trade unions and vote labour (and I agree with you). I just found it funny that you managed to argue that without mentioning unions and the labour party
A few lines before the line you quoted I wrote:
"Workers only enjoy the protections that they now do (40 hour week, a minimum wage, health and safety standards etc) because they organised in unions and politically through the Labour Party to win those protections."
A few lines before the line you quoted I wrote:
"Workers only enjoy the protections that they now do (40 hour week, a minimum wage, health and safety standards etc) because they organised in unions and politically through the Labour Party to win those protections."
sorry missed that
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately perhaps 5 billion people disagree with you, and whilst we don't control what the rest of world pays, the problems I highlighted will exist. We can seek to stop trade in order to protect ourselves, but when did you last hear the expression "one of the world's great non-trading nations"? We apply sanctions to undesirable states, for this very reason.you are assuming that people are currently earning, in the sense of value delivered, what they deserve. I would argue that, in terms of value delivered, that the majority of the low paid are paid less than they earn, therefore the only long term solution is to pay them more.
Protectionism makes people poorer, and paying people too much - more than the value they deliver compared to what others deliver - makes businesses uncompetitive and puts people out of work.
Unfortunately perhaps 5 billion people disagree with you, and whilst we don't control what the rest of world pays, the problems I highlighted will exist. We can seek to stop trade in order to protect ourselves, but when did you last hear the expression "one of the world's great non-trading nations"? We apply sanctions to undesirable states, for this very reason.
Protectionism makes people poorer, and paying people too much - more than the value they deliver compared to what others deliver - makes businesses uncompetitive and puts people out of work.
Its not 5 billion that disagree. Its just that 5 billion are willing to be paid even less because they are being exploited even more.
so in your world view the poor are part, and have to remain part, of the the world low wage economy. There are no options and they just have to accept that they are poor, will remain poor and have shitty lives. From what you have previously posted you think the only way out they have is via education and training, which they cant afford and the government cant provide because the government cant afford it in these times of austerity.
It seems to me unfettered world trade makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. What you need are trade rules that mitigate the excesses of capitalism and a robust enforcement of those rules.
have i got your views wrong? Have I misunderstood what you have posted?
what about my other points from post #2308, want to address them?
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Its not 5 billion that disagree. Its just that 5 billion are willing to be paid even less because they are being exploited even more.
what about my other points from post #2308, want to address them?
On a mobile and out with the Mrs, no thanks.
Ask 5 billion people what they think of our minimum wage and they would think it was paradise.
On a mobile and out with the Mrs, no thanks.
Ask 5 billion people what they think of our minimum wage and they would think it was paradise.
Only if you were offering that money in the place they are currently living, not if you explained to them the cost of living where that wage is paid
On a mobile and out with the Mrs, no thanks.
Ask 5 billion people what they think of our minimum wage and they would think it was paradise.
and yet you still find time to comment and repeat what you have already said
seems to me its more likely you dont have answers, but thats OK chippy.
If I am wrong then I will happily debate further once you are no longer "out with the Mrs"
Just to add to the debate.
Look up the Naylor Review.
Its a review and proposal supported by Theresa May.
It proposes that the majority of the funding needed for the NHS trusts should be raised by selling off land and assets currently held by the trusts and that the government will match the money raised with funding from central government.
Whats wrong with this?
1.Not all NHS trusts will have the same assets available (bit of a postcode lottery, thought the tories were against that)
2.It does not take into account future needs. For example 41 years ago Addenbrookes Hospital moved from centre of Cambridge to its current site and purchased 10 times the amount of land it needed, because it was aware that in the coming century it would need room to expand. That has allowed the Rosie Maternity hospital and Papworth Hospital to move to the same site with brand new facilities with huge savings to the NHS. It has also allowed other new facilities to be built cheaply at the site so reducing the cost to the NHS (Brain imaging centre and MRI to name but 2). It has sold some land to the University ,to the MRC , to AstraZeneca and to Abcam, but knowing the hospital will benefit from their research.
Half the land is still fields.
Under these proposals the government would expect the trust to sell that land with no account taken of future requirements
3.It does not take into account the effect of cramming hospital facilities into the smallest possible spaces. Narrow corridors, low ceilings, beds crammed together and alack of outside space is not conducive to good healthcare
Its taken me 5 minutes to come up with those objections, I am sure there are more
Look up the Naylor Review.
Its a review and proposal supported by Theresa May.
It proposes that the majority of the funding needed for the NHS trusts should be raised by selling off land and assets currently held by the trusts and that the government will match the money raised with funding from central government.
Whats wrong with this?
1.Not all NHS trusts will have the same assets available (bit of a postcode lottery, thought the tories were against that)
2.It does not take into account future needs. For example 41 years ago Addenbrookes Hospital moved from centre of Cambridge to its current site and purchased 10 times the amount of land it needed, because it was aware that in the coming century it would need room to expand. That has allowed the Rosie Maternity hospital and Papworth Hospital to move to the same site with brand new facilities with huge savings to the NHS. It has also allowed other new facilities to be built cheaply at the site so reducing the cost to the NHS (Brain imaging centre and MRI to name but 2). It has sold some land to the University ,to the MRC , to AstraZeneca and to Abcam, but knowing the hospital will benefit from their research.
Half the land is still fields.
Under these proposals the government would expect the trust to sell that land with no account taken of future requirements
3.It does not take into account the effect of cramming hospital facilities into the smallest possible spaces. Narrow corridors, low ceilings, beds crammed together and alack of outside space is not conducive to good healthcare
Its taken me 5 minutes to come up with those objections, I am sure there are more
1.618034
Well-Known Member
Just to add to the debate.
Look up the Naylor Review.
Its a review and proposal supported by Theresa May.
It proposes that the majority of the funding needed for the NHS trusts should be raised by selling off land and assets currently held by the trusts and that the government will match the money raised with funding from central government.
Whats wrong with this?
1.Not all NHS trusts will have the same assets available (bit of a postcode lottery, thought the tories were against that)
2.It does not take into account future needs. For example 41 years ago Addenbrookes Hospital moved from centre of Cambridge to its current site and purchased 10 times the amount of land it needed, because it was aware that in the coming century it would need room to expand. That has allowed the Rosie Maternity hospital and Papworth Hospital to move to the same site with brand new facilities with huge savings to the NHS. It has also allowed other new facilities to be built cheaply at the site so reducing the cost to the NHS (Brain imaging centre and MRI to name but 2). It has sold some land to the University ,to the MRC , to AstraZeneca and to Abcam, but knowing the hospital will benefit from their research.
Half the land is still fields.
Under these proposals the government would expect the trust to sell that land with no account taken of future requirements
3.It does not take into account the effect of cramming hospital facilities into the smallest possible spaces. Narrow corridors, low ceilings, beds crammed together and alack of outside space is not conducive to good healthcare
Its taken me 5 minutes to come up with those objections, I am sure there are more
This was posted earlier in the thread and seems appropriate...
It not only recommends a sale of the property but, according to this guy's interpretation, basically a "fire sale" at a fraction of the cost and as soon as possible.
So the way the NHS gets more funding is by selling it's assets at half price. Then the government will match that lower value, meaning the NHS gets back two halves, which is obviously equal to the original value???
So who, I wonder, wins from this "deal"?
The NHS obviously gets half of the money from the government and half from the sale, but it loses all of those assets. No real gain.
So basically what has happened is that the tax payers will have paid for the private investors to get something cheap. Why is that not surprising?
I'm happy to be educated if this is a wrong interpretation...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.