Rincewind Posted 10 January 2016 Posted 10 January 2016 It is not as bad as it used to be. It is more subtle as it cannot be open inequality.
MooseBreath Posted 10 January 2016 Posted 10 January 2016 That's what you and Mattp said. wood and trees comes to mind. Oh, you've you've confused the gender pay gap with inequality. Usually when people talk about "inequality" they're talking about the gap in wealth between the richest and the poorest in society, something that logically must exist but which has debatable causes and consequences. Previously we were discussing the gender pay gap, which is the gap in pay between males, females, and if you like, transgender individuals. They are two seperate issues.
Guest Posted 10 January 2016 Posted 10 January 2016 Oh, you've you've confused the gender pay gap with inequality. Usually when people talk about "inequality" they're talking about the gap in wealth between the richest and the poorest in society, something that logically must exist but which has debatable causes and consequences. Previously we were discussing the gender pay gap, which is the gap in pay between males, females, and if you like, transgender individuals. They are two seperate issues. So you got confused. I brought up the problem of inequality for women in the UK. that includes pay - which you are wrong about - as well as opportunity, violence etc... At least you realise that you've made a mistake now.
Thracian Posted 10 January 2016 Posted 10 January 2016 He didn't seem to have a problem signalling his virtue in that post. And I'm not suggesting Thrace is a racist - I'm more than happy to accept his word that he's not - but the old chestnut, how can I be racist, I've got black friends? is really not much of an argument. a) I'm not particularly virtuous in any way. Helping people is more to do with the options of opportunity than virtue. A pathway is opened to us and we can take it or choose another route. b) I don't need to collect racial brownie points, thanks. If I like a person it's of no consequence where they come from. If I don't it's just the same. It's the quality of friendship that counts and I've been more than lucky in that department.
Thracian Posted 10 January 2016 Posted 10 January 2016 Oh, you've you've confused the gender pay gap with inequality. Usually when people talk about "inequality" they're talking about the gap in wealth between the richest and the poorest in society, something that logically must exist but which has debatable causes and consequences. Previously we were discussing the gender pay gap, which is the gap in pay between males, females, and if you like, transgender individuals. They are two seperate issues. Some people still argued the world was flat even when it was proved otherwise. I suspect your efforts will be wasted.
Thracian Posted 10 January 2016 Posted 10 January 2016 It is not as bad as it used to be. It is more subtle as it cannot be open inequality. It's not always easy to weigh in all the factors either. Employment situations vary so much and can be so flexible now. There needs to be principles but the flexibility (for employee and employer) can be just as important as hourly rates.
davieG Posted 10 January 2016 Posted 10 January 2016 The problem with equality rules well any rules is they have unforeseen negatives/counter productive impacts. A few years ago i was responsible for all the training for a public organisation and because of the equality rules I had to ensure that everyone got an equal share of the training budget irrespective of whether they needed the training it just had to be seen to be fair but it was nothing but a waste of valuable, limited funds because a large proportion didn't even bother to turn up for the training.
MooseBreath Posted 10 January 2016 Posted 10 January 2016 So you got confused. I brought up the problem of inequality for women in the UK. that includes pay - which you are wrong about - as well as opportunity, violence etc... At least you realise that you've made a mistake now. OK, FIF. Whatever you need to believe matey.
Guest Posted 10 January 2016 Posted 10 January 2016 Some people still argued the world was flat even when it was proved otherwise. I suspect your efforts will be wasted. No. people were educated that the world was flat.
Rincewind Posted 10 January 2016 Posted 10 January 2016 FIF why are you so opposed to facts? Everyone cannot be as right as you. https://www.facebook.com/185180654855189/photos/a.389966974376555.89655.185180654855189/1098421863531059/?type=3&theater Life is too short to waste on fighting a losing battle against the strong.
Bettsj2 Posted 11 January 2016 Posted 11 January 2016 McKinnon resigns from the shadow cabinet. Corbyn surely cant stay for much longer!
Rincewind Posted 11 January 2016 Posted 11 January 2016 Or he will have loyal party members that believe in the values and principles of the Labour Party. There are many ways of looking at it depending on your political stance. I'm a wait and see and don't panic.
Guest MattP Posted 11 January 2016 Posted 11 January 2016 Are the values and principles of the Labour party in line with Corbyn then? I don't remember Kier Hardie wanting unilateral nuclear disarmament, wanting to surrender British territory and making any excuse under the sun for anyone who wants to attack the Western World?
Guest MattP Posted 11 January 2016 Posted 11 January 2016 Paula Sheriff also resigns. If Corbyn makes it to 2020 it might only be him and his Islington set left in the party.
Bettsj2 Posted 11 January 2016 Posted 11 January 2016 Paula Sheriff also resigns. If Corbyn makes it to 2020 . Do you mean the time or the year?
Rincewind Posted 11 January 2016 Posted 11 January 2016 Put it this way. If the Tories were in opposition would you want them to stand together to oppose the government in power or speak against their own members to cover their arses? I do not agree with everything Corbyn says but believe he is right when saying the party should unite instead of fighting amongst themselves. Is that not the sensible approach?
Strokes Posted 11 January 2016 Posted 11 January 2016 Put it this way. If the Tories were in opposition would you want them to stand together to oppose the government in power or speak against their own members to cover their arses? I do not agree with everything Corbyn says but believe he is right when saying the party should unite instead of fighting amongst themselves. Is that not the sensible approach? Its his job to unite them ken, he needs to go or labour are in real trouble.
Guest MattP Posted 11 January 2016 Posted 11 January 2016 Betts. Ken how can the party unite behind a leader who is driving them off a cliff? In the long term it will far better for moderate Labour MP'S to fight for what they believe rather than fully get behind a shadow cabinet that is turning them from a potential government to a hard left student union style protest movement. If the Tories were in opposition and a load of people signed up paying 3 quid to make someone like Nick Griffin leader the last thing I would expect is unity. The Corbynistas have consistently blamed everyone but themselves and JC for the problems they are having. He's not even bothering to turn up to the PLP meeting tonight.
Jon the Hat Posted 11 January 2016 Posted 11 January 2016 Put it this way. If the Tories were in opposition would you want them to stand together to oppose the government in power or speak against their own members to cover their arses? I do not agree with everything Corbyn says but believe he is right when saying the party should unite instead of fighting amongst themselves. Is that not the sensible approach? The guy is just way out of his depth Ken, and the only reason he made it this far is that Labour have completely ****ed themselves with this idea that the party members should select the leader. The people elect MPs, not party members, and to then let those members - a tiny minority vs all those who voted Labour - to **** it up like this is insane, and damaging not only to Labour but to the country, which needs a functioning opposition. No Government should have the lack of scrutiny this one is getting.
Rincewind Posted 11 January 2016 Posted 11 January 2016 So the opposition should go along withe the government policies and not challenge them? I am just looking at this as a neutral. We just had 5 years of Tory rule with the opposition letting them walk all over them resulting in the Tories being re elected. Corbyn has only said they should do what they never did before. He may not be the leader to win the next election but at least he has got the party members to wake up. Unite now, challenge the government then reassess at a later date.
Frank to be Posted 11 January 2016 Posted 11 January 2016 So the opposition should go along withe the government policies and not challenge them? I am just looking at this as a neutral. We just had 5 years of Tory rule with the opposition letting them walk all over them resulting in the Tories being re elected. Corbyn has only said they should do what they never did before. He may not be the leader to win the next election but at least he has got the party members to wake up. Unite now, challenge the government then reassess at a later date. Correct. People seem to be forgetting that labour lost the last election heavily. What we were doing before didn't work, so now we want change. Part of that change is going to be people leaving and new people coming iin . City fans didn't care when Jermaine Beckford left, real labour fans don't care when the tory-lite faction leaves. We'll be better off without them in the long run.
Guest MattP Posted 11 January 2016 Posted 11 January 2016 Labour were at 28% in the last Yougov poll, what would it have to get to before you start to wonder if the direction you have too is the right one. 5 years of Tory rule Ken? It was 5 years of a coalition with an opposition that did actually try and hold it to account. What you are going to see now is 5 years of Tory rule while Labour goes towards a hard left brand of politics that in reality very few people want to see in this country. Don't say you haven't been warned, the red tinted spectacles are strong on this lot, they will blame everyone from "closet Tories" to the Murdoch press before they blame what actually the real problem is.
Rincewind Posted 11 January 2016 Posted 11 January 2016 Correct. Which is why I said they should unite against that problem instead of squabbling amongst themselves.
Guest MattP Posted 11 January 2016 Posted 11 January 2016 But if you don't agree on something how can you unite behind it?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.