Nah you can scale it right back to the bottom end of the scale if you ask me. I don't earn "a lot", but my pay is considerably more than, for example, someone working in a busy fast food place.

Full disclosure; I don't work anywhere near as hard as they do. :shrug: I don't work anywhere near as hard as my own min wage cleaner 90% of the time!

Could I be doing better if I had worked harder? Maybe / probably but basically, the idea that "harder working people are the ones who earn more" is just nonsense. There are a lot of rich lazy people in the world; and even more very hard working people just scraping by.

The highest earners, most of the time, get where they are through a combination of luck and privilege. Knowing or getting to know the right people, being in the right place at the right time. It's not that hard work isn't involved - - I'm sure people then have to work to make the most of those opportunities - - but having them in the first place takes more than "hard work".

As I said in my first post, its a fascinating subject that cannot be easily summed up. I think its an area where neither left wing or right wing economics are correct, and again as I said in my first post, you have to take the best ideas from each economic theory to get the best result.

The point was that it was not her husband, therefore he was not initially the one who 'worked hard'.
How can your 'worked hard' theory be transferable down the generations?

The answer to Brexit turmoil is staring us in the face
 

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...c-britain-efta

Is this the answer? Thoughts?

To sum up, joining Efta would mean the end of EU powers over UK trade policy; the UK would regain the flexibility in free trade it has always fought for (sometimes literally). It would mean the end of ECJ jurisdiction and the boosting of sovereignty in a useful, rather than a rhetorical (or theoretical) way. It would mean substantially reduced UK contributions to the EU – perhaps by 60%, if the Swiss contributions are anything to go by. And it means Brexit can be completed with the least disruption to the UK’s economic relationship with Europe, avoiding the chaos that seems increasingly inevitable given the timescale remaining before departure.

Brexiteers and Remainers will identify downsides. But creating much-needed certainty will help restore confidence, and may even help restore some trust in our politicians. Joining Efta provides a solid foundation for dealing with other sensitive issues, such as the Irish border and the role of the City of London.

But it’s not only the optimal solution: it’s optimistic as well. The UK would be welcomed by Efta, if the Efta court’s president’s words are to be believed. Efta, he said, could be the “natural home for the UK post-Brexit”. And he’s right.

EFTA=European Free Trade Association.

Corbyn - yet another u-turn
 

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2...od-post-brexit

He caved in to pressure then, I knew he would. First he u-turns on clearing all student debt, then he u-turns on pledge to axe benefit freeze and now he is doing a u-turn on Brexit, the single market and open borders. And people complained about May. She was more honest than him. Basically he has sacrificed his 'principles' to further his career and be PM. Pathetic man.

People aren't stupid and most leavers will not be impressed by his dishonesty and open border policy. We will see if this desperate attempt at winning power will work!

You could have just added this to the end of one of your other twentyfive anti-corbyn threads but na u love a good spam.

That never happened, maybe he has just listened to advice hmmm?... Not that that will stop your anti Corbyn raving.

hes a dangerous fool...I agree may has been way ore straight and lets face it the economy is booming compared to the usual disaster labour left us in

Oh ffs sake
Because Theresa May and tbis Torie Government have NEVER U-Turned on anything :

Exactly - and look at the stick she got from Corbyn supporters. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy here you know!

May (whatever some think of her) was at least more honest than Corbyn in not making lots of rash promises to win the election. May pretty much stuck with her 'austerity' policies, with a few changes, which understandably did not go down well with much of the electorate. She was forced to soften her approach due to public opinion but, unlike Corbyn, she did not make bold, irresponsible promises, some of which Corbyn has already reneged on, purely to win the election. And he hasn't even got in yet, imagine what other u-turns he may carry out if he actually does and no longer needs to curry favour to win an election.

She tried to stick to her party's policies of reducing the public deficit in order to improve the economy long term - whatever peoples' view on that. She should have done more for the NHS - but that's not my point, my point is she was more honest and not just saying what people desperately wanted to hear after years of austerity.

In my book Corbyn, and all his promises, is one big con for desperate people looking for better times. It would simply be a repeat of Labour's tainted history of plenty of broken promises. We have seen it all before. All talk and no action as usual.

May has also announced that she will resign on 30th August 2019 after she has seen Brexit through, no doubt bowing down to public opinion and giving the party a better chance at the next election. Couldn't see Corbyn doing that - he is too desperate for power, as was demonstrated by his refusal to stand down as Labour leader after several demands he do so by his own party.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/846...acob-Rees-Mogg

B-but he's a decent and principled man!!!111

Not an ambitious politician like the rest of them!!

Another misleading thread.
Labour has been got at over the last 2 years for NOT saying what its brexit policies actually are.

Now after talking to people,business and other sources it spells one out more clearly.
Then is accused of a u-turn.

All Parties including the govt.are having to re think what they have said,looked for and planned.

What may come as to any final deal is unpredictable for any Party or anyone to say at this time.
As to these plans, if there has to be a short or longer proposed transition period,then that in itself means the UK has not then yet fully left.

So it makes perfect sense to me to remain with all the in place benefits and issues until full severance.
I see nothing wrong at all with this announcement and there will also be plenty changes of thinking coming from the govt.too as to what they were briefly outlining a year ago.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7913876.html

He is cranking it up a notch now. Desperate measures and all that!

Apart from anything else Britain isn't large enough for a federal government, which is commonly believed to work better in large countries such as the America.

You were one of her biggest critics for her u-turns, but singing a different tune when it's Corbyn! No surprise there! :roll eyes:

The calling of the election is what I ridiculed her for in the main.

How can you u turn on something you havent yet finally decided totally on anyway.
Which is the Brexit hope and idea of all Parties still yet having to all re think their positions as to it.

When you equally criticise May and the govt for u turns and wrongs maybe then I'll take notice of any possible legitimate criticism of Labour.
Which the one in this thread in my view,falls well short of being.

But Corbyn has always been against EU membership and supported a hard Brexit with no single market - a soft Brexit is the next best thing to remaining in the EU. Recently there has been a lot of pressure from his party and certain papers to soften his approach to help his chances at the next election and opt for a 'soft Brexit'.

It amounts to 'screw principles' and go with what gives you the best chance of winning the next election. Most importantly it ultimately ignores the referendum result which is what many remainers have wanted all along! Somehow, I wonder why, it always comes back to that - remainers getting their way even if it means overturning a democratic vote. How very undemocratic of a supposedly democratic socialist party!

Do you understand what a democratic government means? Party leaders in this country aren't a one man band and if and when they do become PM, they don't become 'supreme leaders' like they do in the U.S. They have to pay attention to their shadow cabinet.

If Corbyn has listened to his own party regarding a softer Brexit, that makes him Democratic. It really isn't any more complicated than that.

One example, another is bowing down to pressure. Your version is a whitewash in my opinion.

Less of the 'do I understand' patronising attitude please - no need for it.

As a Lib Dem I welcome this. Still wouldn't trust either Corbyn or May as far as I could throw them.

In a tactical vote now though, I'd be more willing to choose Labour over Tories purely for SM.

Exactly, you also put it far better than I would have.

i have no issue with political parties changing direction based on informed feedback, whatever its source, provided its benefiting the country. No-one should.

People will always moan if they can't stand the political party, no matter if they are doing it for the best of reasons, that's where it gets childish and serves little purpose

Depends if that 'informed feedback' is based on an agenda i.e. Winning an election at all costs. It should also never attempt to overturn a public vote which it is now doing.

no-one was completely informed at the time of the vote, so no-one could vote for anything more than a principal. The principle was that we are leaving the EU, that is happening, the details of that MUST be worked out for the maximum benefit of the country, not to satisfy individuals lust for whatever agenda they may have.