Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just now, zerosum said:

People can do anything man. You don’t have to be made of sterner stuff to go to say night classes or something to better your chances etc There’s all sorts people can change even with a tiny bit of effort.

 

20% of people in this country have or have shown signs of depression and anxiety, thus making their fight to 'do something to better their chances' far harder than someone who didn't go through that. What about them?

 

https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/statistics/mental-health-statistics-depression

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 24.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • ewerk

    2605

  • Rayvin

    2524

  • Christmas Tree

    2253

  • Dr Gloom

    1842

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

But surely.....    

Roses are red Violets are blue Please vote for Labour Unless you're a Jew

Posted Images

1 minute ago, Rayvin said:

 

Not having a dig at you personally btw, just the view.

 

And by and large I think the money does go where it's needed. Who is it that you think doesn't need it?

 

Its not that it’s not needed. It’s that taking too much away from those who worked hard to get there, will end up with people thinking what’s the point?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rayvin said:

 

20% of people in this country have or have shown signs of depression and anxiety, thus making their fight to 'do something to better their chances' far harder than someone who didn't go through that. What about them?

 

https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/statistics/mental-health-statistics-depression

 

Then they fall under the people who need help bracket. A genuine reason 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, zerosum said:

 

Its not that it’s not needed. It’s that taking too much away from those who worked hard to get there, will end up with people thinking what’s the point?

 

Yeah I see what you're saying, but not investing in poor communities and increasing social mobility has led us to exactly the same place. People going 'what's the point?' There is no point without a more level playing field and more equal spreading of wealth, not for those starting at the bottom.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, zerosum said:

 

Then they fall under the people who need help bracket. A genuine reason 

 

Well in that case I'd say we're broadly aligned on who actually needs help and just talking ideology which, when we're pragmatically aligned, is a little pointless.

 

I think money should be creamed off the super rich over and above anyone else. I do think inheritance should be looked at, since it flies in the face of "people worked hard to get where they are" (no they didn't, their dad did - in those cases).

 

I don't believe McDonnell should start taking away homes from people who have worked hard and are just well off, but I do think that people with excessive property portfolios making places like London unaffordable for normal people absolutely should be dealt with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, zerosum said:

 

Theres affordable options for people though. And if that means moving location, or doing something in advance to create a bit of extra capital (if the individual is determined enough to own something or invest) then it can be done. 2nd jobs, a side hustle.. it’s not beyond motivated people.

 

A lot of people are just comfortable where they are, happy with the jobs they have, don’t want to improve their lives or their future.. that’s fine. But that should not be taken from those who were the opposite imo.

 

Iif people are hungry enough to change their personal circumstances.. the same opportunities are available to everyone who is fit and able. It takes effort, risk, uncertainty.. but it’s there.. if you look.

They need to get on their bike and look for work?

Edited by ewerk
Link to post
Share on other sites

Love how the same people who think everyone can just make themselves better, normally from the generation where social mobility was actually a great deal easier, also seem to think it’s some sort of divine right that the property they own should increase in value in real terms year on year. Whilst, at the same time, failing to realise the latter is a massive obstacle to the former. 

Edited by Alex
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So this Thomas Cook collapse is going to cost the government £600m to repatriate everyone but could have been avoided had the government provided £200m in contingency funding.

In what world did it not make sense for the government to step in and help the company survive?

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, ewerk said:

So this Thomas Cook collapse is going to cost the government £600m to repatriate everyone but could have been avoided had the government provided £200m in contingency funding.

In what world did it not make sense for the government to step in and help the company survive?

 

Apparently Thomas Cook owed 1.7 billion, the £250 million bailout wouldn't have lasted more than a few weeks according to the Transport secretary. I still can't believe the Execs were taking millions of pounds in bonuses when the company was in financial disarray. It should be illegal that after seeing so many go down the pan in recent times.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Anorthernsoul said:

 

Apparently Thomas Cook owed 1.7 billion, the £250 million bailout wouldn't have lasted more than a few weeks according to the Transport secretary. I still can't believe the Execs were taking millions of pounds in bonuses when the company was in financial disarray. It should be illegal that after seeing so many go down the pan in recent times.

That's the government line. The money requested was a contingency fund that would have allowed a takeover by the multi-billion pund company Fosan. The idea that this was inevitable is being exaggerated by the government for spin purposes.

The same banks who were demanding the contingency fund ironically happened to be bailed out themselves by the government in the past.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even really see these as the main goals for the next Labour government, there's far more achievable things they can set their sights on without having to go for the super radical stuff.

 

All this shit is going to do is scare the moderates.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

I don't even really see these as the main goals for the next Labour government, there's far more achievable things they can set their sights on without having to go for the super radical stuff.

 

All this shit is going to do is scare the moderates.

I agree - I've always said the way to solve education and health in the UK is to abolish the private option as the powers that be would take 5 minutes to fix them if they had to use them but that would have to be done gradually. 

 

As you say it will frighten people who think of themselves as middle income (they aren't) and bow down to privilege. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

I don't even really see these as the main goals for the next Labour government, there's far more achievable things they can set their sights on without having to go for the super radical stuff.

 

All this shit is going to do is scare the moderates.

It is. Have they costed this stuff again. I would fucking love to work 4 days a week but it's not happening, is it? I'd be happy just going back to my workload of a few years back tbh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...