tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.comments2023-10-27T07:50:27.411+01:00Next LeftTom Hampsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05917325958130851128noreply@blogger.comBlogger3801125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-37480674787746203532012-02-25T09:34:05.467+00:002012-02-25T09:34:05.467+00:00It is nice to see the Fabians coming off the fence...It is nice to see the Fabians coming off the fence and speaking again about the Left, sadly it's a bit to late .Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05186557603493331701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-3838440158373255182012-02-19T14:01:54.638+00:002012-02-19T14:01:54.638+00:00Read this request please :
http://noreinodadinama...Read this request please :<br /><br />http://noreinodadinamarca.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/fur-eine-europaische-burgerschaft-por-uma-cidadania-europeia-for-an-european-citizenship/André Baratahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02027999441309317122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-75493849373663006142012-02-16T15:21:33.637+00:002012-02-16T15:21:33.637+00:00I cannot for the life of me see a reason to vote l...I cannot for the life of me see a reason to vote labour at this moment in time.<br /><br />It really does need to have some socialism in it's blood the name labour is now seen more Tory then Labour red.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05186557603493331701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-59819538262054067282012-02-15T21:20:18.330+00:002012-02-15T21:20:18.330+00:00A neat summary of an interesting poll but I challe...A neat summary of an interesting poll but I challenge your diagnosis of the anti-EU drift. For three decades after World War Two, Western Europe managed capitalism well with a Christian democratic version of the secular welfare state in Britain. But under pressure for more freedom from the US, supported by many on the Right, it changed. Free capital, the euro and free labour restored true, international capitalism the inadequacies of which led to Soviet communism and Nazis fascism before the War. In a phase, freemarketeers took over.<br /> <br />Keynes foresaw this and designed his Clearing Union to keep current accounts in balance and ensure capital served its people. Then national governments could manage their economies. This required a supranational currency, controls on capital and restraints on trade. But the euro is international, controls on capital are no more and free trade is idealised. And things are turning nasty, as happened a century ago.<br /> <br />I attribute these failings to ignorance and immaturity in politicians and the electorate that could be traced back to amoral, fact-based education and the idealisation of human nature by the Enlightenment. I doubt more democracy at the EC level will fix this. I see the destruction of a culture by self interest, or if you are religious, by the devil.George CA Talbothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18239480745401938873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-15415916546422819302012-02-06T22:49:52.653+00:002012-02-06T22:49:52.653+00:00Worth a thought for the future http://epetitions.d...Worth a thought for the future http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/19654Tachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644702298372266346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-79531829019032353862012-02-04T19:58:00.644+00:002012-02-04T19:58:00.644+00:00Have to disagree with both your criticisms of loca...Have to disagree with both your criticisms of localism here.<br /><br /><b>1)</b> You point out that regulation of banks can't be handled locally but I've yet to hear a single promoter of localism go to the extremes of saying financial regulation should be handled locally. Bit of a strawman?<br /><b>2)</b> You claimed that localism leads to a postcode lottery. I think it's quite the opposite. Yes, localism will lead to postcode <b>difference</b> but since people will have the power to change things through local politics then at least the power is in their hands.<br /><br />Compare this to the overly centralised system we have where there's still postcode differences, but rather than determined by local voters they're determined either by Whitehall civil servants who may not understand your local community at all, or a government of national politicians, possibly from a party that your local community strongly disagrees with. <br /><br />There's going to be postcode differences in either system, but with localism it's determined by local voters rather than by factors beyond their control. It's the centralised system that leads to a postcode lottery!<br /><br />Localism has many advantages over centralisation.<br />• It allows radical new ideas to be tested on a small scale before being attempted on a more national scale.<br />• It ensures that decisions about towns/villages are made by people who understand the area rather than civil servants reading abstract reports in a London office.<br />• Different parties are prominent in different areas. It'll be quite likely that the preferred party of a local area is different to the one that's in government. Giving more powers to local democracies will shield their voters from suffering too much from a national government that they oppose.<br /><br />I personally feel that many of Blair's failings came from the belief that to make positive change he needed to control the world from Whitehall. If Labour wish to progress in battling the ills they face, learning to better trust local governments chosen by local voters.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00260062183800916162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-29269054349418212372012-01-31T15:41:06.890+00:002012-01-31T15:41:06.890+00:00The greatest private fraud of human history.
Who ...The greatest private fraud of human history.<br /><br />Who are the great fraudsters who are becoming the murderers of the human kind? How does the economy "illness" threaten Democracy and the freedom of people?<br /><br />http://eamb-ydrohoos.blogspot.com/2012/01/global-debt-crisis.html<br /><br />---------------------------------<br /><br />By knowing what happened in indebted Greece, where loan sharks created “bubbles” and the current inhuman debt, one can understand the inhuman plan in total ...understand where this plan started just to bring all states at the same end ...understand how this type of plans are established...<br /><br />by PANAGIOTIS TRAIANOUΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΣhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01619168132386984975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-44490845856808269922012-01-26T22:56:14.120+00:002012-01-26T22:56:14.120+00:00I wanted to comment on your blog concerning PM Dav...I wanted to comment on your blog concerning PM David Cameron. We were asked to read an address by David Zaresky to the Rhetoric Society of America in 2008. He puts forth three responsibilities of rhetoric. As he puts it:"People are naturally divided and fragmented; it is the task of rhetoric to unite them, to lead them to see themselves not as isolated individuals but as a community. Rhetoric brings a public or community into being.(Zarefsky,Plenary Address,2008,p.16). <br />Especially since this is an blog concerning English politics and we are in an election year, I found this interesting. The empty rhetoric of PM Cameron seems to be anything but responsible in your viewpoint. Instead he set out an aim for a “socially responsible and genuinely popular capitalism. One in which the power of the market and the obligations of responsibility come together.” It would seem that you see him as pandering to his audience without having real substance or solutions in his speech. "To expect businesses to sacrifice profit in order to regulate their own ‘fairness’ is deluded. However deluded is something that we know Cameron is not; he has shown himself to be politically astute and carefully manipulative." By this, I am assuming that you view him as telling his audience what it wanted to hear, hardly "responsible" rhetoric, in the form of which I was speaking. One of the other of Zarefskys' responsibilities of rhetoric is to:"promote public reason about and idea or issue"(p.16). This sounds more confusing than promoting understanding or reason to his audience. The last part is your opinion of his type of capitalism as being:"Most importantly they must make it obvious that Cameron’s capitalism is not responsible, fair, better or moral." This would lead one to believe that he doesn't inspire the third responsiblity either which was basically:"that is should inspire people to work towards goals by presenting visions of what might be"(p.18). I am not that familiar with English politics or PM Cameron's policies, but blogs are all about opinions so I found this one an interesting read. <br />Greg StocktonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-28239021306642142872012-01-22T23:38:18.360+00:002012-01-22T23:38:18.360+00:00I'm not sure if all these colours matter if yo...I'm not sure if all these colours matter if your colour blind to the labour red then sadly your following the Tories which Miliband is doing.<br /><br />I'm disabled so for me labour after 46 years is more Tory then labourRoberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05186557603493331701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-52390141376956653582012-01-13T12:06:41.429+00:002012-01-13T12:06:41.429+00:00Surely your argument is a lost cause. You talk of ...Surely your argument is a lost cause. You talk of the 'Markets' as if they were an entity to worry about. These are the same 'markets' that New Labour courted throughout its tenure and aided in creating the 'deficit' that the Tories have jumped all over as an excuse to attack the Welfare State and the Working Class in general. Now is the time for a new way to think of economics; to move away from the concept of 'markets' and towards a societal answer to a capitalist problem. No one seems to ask the fundamentals: Where does the 'markets' get its money from? How can the 'derivative markets' have a value 11 times greater than the entire world economy? What real costs does this impose on economic losses within specific societies? How do we rid New Labour of its core 'Right Wing' Ideologies? Why aren't we investigating opposing economic models? Can we really trust politicians who have no experience of the consequences of their policies? How can we be led by an individual whose Father was a Communist, yet taught his son to be a capitalist? How should economic 'growth' really be measured? These are the fundamentals needed to take humanity out of the cyclical boom and bust that is paramount for the design within the Capitalist doctrine. <br />Words and talk are cheap, ingenuity and endeavour cost. So to rehash the same old same old does nothing for the advancement of human development. May be it is time you threw away such childish follies and became a man. Economics based on market forces can only deliver prosperity for the minority. This is an evident fact, demonstrable by the chasm that has developed between the 99% and the 1%. The British public's (99%) wage levels are now lower than they were in the 1970's taking into account industrial disputes and 'reported' low productivity. <br />A thought. Why not get yourself a manual job in a factory creating nonsensical, useless goods and try to survive on the penury they call wages? This may aid in eradicating your blind-spot on what 'Market' economies truly mean and deliver.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-12943899222958302512012-01-11T11:34:37.967+00:002012-01-11T11:34:37.967+00:00Taking into account that New Labour were responsib...Taking into account that New Labour were responsible for the lowering of men's wages to accommodate the disparity with female workers incomes. Can you really stay straight-faced about feminism within the New Labour project? <br />Surely the issue is the political and economic framework that we all toil within. Capitalism will always create inequalities, that's it's design. Therefore, to argue that certain funding would negate these biases is unrealistic and unachievable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-45665351460444655352012-01-11T10:11:28.010+00:002012-01-11T10:11:28.010+00:00I agree with Christian. Good capitalism generates ...I agree with Christian. Good capitalism generates growth. And our economic model is based on that (and has been since the industrial revolution).<br />The thing we need to address is to start educating business, government and the wider society on the idea that growth doesn't necessarily mean 'volume'.<br />Efficiency gains, doing better with less and revenue from recycling is about growth..just not about volume..Alexandra Sturdzahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02699095368301651970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-17680134790706833272012-01-10T13:56:14.514+00:002012-01-10T13:56:14.514+00:00While I agree with a lot of what's said here, ...While I agree with a lot of what's said here, it's important to remember that for publicly traded firms CSR is only legal in so far as it is designed to garner greater profits and maximise investor value in the long-run. There is an in-built legal imperative in the corporate form to maximise shareholder rather than societal value, which is exacerbated by corporate personhood which insulates shareholders from the debts of the company which they own. In other words, if a company can legally manoeuvre to avoid tax, they are legally obliged to do so. While placing employees on renumeration committees and the kind of social engagement the writer talks about are both welcome, we need to also re-examine the legal nexus in which corporations operate and look muhc more towards the creation of societal, rather than simply shareholder value.Stephen_Boylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15582003661448372723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-39239657556695822882011-12-30T13:09:49.480+00:002011-12-30T13:09:49.480+00:00I'm just now about to sit down and read throug...I'm just now about to sit down and read through it. I have a keen interest in this, though I came at it through an economics background. <br /><br />The US has an astonishingly high rate of imprisonment, perhaps five times that of the highest in Europe. The costs of keeping those people in prison, the effects on family members, spouses and children of the imprisoned, and the nature of the racial and economic profile involved are all deeply damning.<br /><br />Inexorably prisoners are taken from similar places, geographically, culturally and economically and their experience of violence, of absence from parenthood, and of economic privation swiftly contribute to growing structures of nested criminality, resistent to incremental policy solutions and easily feared and reviled by those more fortunately placed.<br /><br />Of course the US has a lot of unusual traits, but some it shares with us, including, notably, the higher than normal level of inequality.<br /><br />In the wake of the riots earlier this year, I know we've all turned our minds more than ever to the deep causal questions which lie at the centre of justice policy. I look forward to reading the pamphlet, and thanks for the introduction to it.Renideohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05988871258733540665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-52668744873180521152011-12-30T12:57:19.569+00:002011-12-30T12:57:19.569+00:00I think optimism is less important than clarity. T...I think optimism is less important than clarity. The tory message is very well established, their narrative on the roots of the crisis, on labour's profligacy and mismanagement, and their habit of tying Ed Balls in with that have been pretty successful, to put it mildly.<br /><br />I'm a big fan of Ed Balls on the whole, but I think back to a Newsnight programme a few weeks ago, where they discussed the small difference in reality between labour's spending plans and the government. Now, of course, Labour would not have started from this position, and the difference between spending money on welfare and reduced tax take, and what we might call actual spending, is a real one.<br /><br />But in the public's mind talk of structural deficits vs overall deficits, fallacies of composition, etc, do not have a lot of impact.<br /><br />Labour is in a sense currently stuck between being labelled an irresponsible tax-and-spend party, and on the other side, simply being so close to the tories that the public don't see an alternative vision or plan at all.<br /><br />That problem will not be solved with vague promises or minor pronouncements. I hope we can find a clear vision in the coming weeks.Renideohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05988871258733540665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-75601088072948645402011-12-21T18:26:17.197+00:002011-12-21T18:26:17.197+00:00when you start backing uk uncut stop tax havens th...when you start backing uk uncut stop tax havens then I will vote for youw macveanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12739063203304674463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-66915222703029543562011-12-21T18:25:19.939+00:002011-12-21T18:25:19.939+00:00when you start backing uk uncut stop tax havens th...when you start backing uk uncut stop tax havens then I will vote for youw macveanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12739063203304674463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-50901533900008147922011-12-16T13:05:08.216+00:002011-12-16T13:05:08.216+00:00I suspect the people will say Labour view is basic...I suspect the people will say Labour view is basically the Tory view, and we may just as well stick with the Tories, you had your chance Black Blue Purple all the same excuses for being New labour.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05186557603493331701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-36941523567753906822011-12-16T12:16:01.345+00:002011-12-16T12:16:01.345+00:00"In truth he would have agreed to let the Eur..."In truth he would have agreed to let the Eurozone do what it wanted as long as the UK was not involved, while believing the course of action extremely unwise."<br /><br />Er, so exactly what David Cameron did, then.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01312476399443150686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-2788714642281781352011-12-11T18:41:44.415+00:002011-12-11T18:41:44.415+00:00Perhaps you, or someone leaving another comment he...Perhaps you, or someone leaving another comment here could explain to me exactly how the UK could have been 'strong' and 'positive' when this entails signing up to a treaty on fiscal union, which is not part of Conservative policy. You, and all of Cameron's critics, paint a picture whereby he has simply walked out, almost as if for no reason. The only way he could have stayed is by signing. The onus should be on the EU to justify their intended policy of taking over control of national budgets, not on the Conservatives to defend their belief - a belief shared by a majority in the UK - in national economic control, rather than control by an outside agency. The onus is ever more pertinent because virtually all of the signatories did not consult their parliaments let alone their citizens, simply and arrogantly thinking they know best. There are many millions of people in Europe who do not agree to fiscal union, yet the debate today in the UK has created a narrative whereby a single man, Cameron, messed things up and stood in the way of everyone in Europe, when the reality is that he evoked the ire of the EU leaders, and in fact has the support of huge numbers of European citizens.<br /><br />As far as I can see, all the criticism of the veto is empty rhetoric, ignoring the true question: do you wish to have fiscal union, with the EU having powers over nation budgets?_https://www.blogger.com/profile/08019716357184085787noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-33122293269197016572011-12-11T00:38:50.214+00:002011-12-11T00:38:50.214+00:00What a curious perspective. Why is it a problem, f...What a curious perspective. Why is it a problem, from a New Labour perspective, that the Conservatives may be damaged by the veto?<br /><br />And there's something odder and much more important. You seem to regard the summit as a success. But why exactly? <br /><br />Firstly what's been reached is pretty clearly an agreement to wreck still further the economies of the countries perceived to be at risk. (Even presuming that deficits are in fact the cause of the eurozone’s woes, not everyone does, the proposed mechanism will probably renew the problem recursively rather than resolve it.) So a more likely scenario than a 'soaring euro' might be exit by the surplus countries within the German economic sphere (Yanis Varoufakis is predicting precisely this, and sooner rather than later) followed by a currency collapse, since the euro would then belong to those countries economically unable to leave it.<br /><br />Secondly the agreement would impose on all participating countries a set of obligations overruling normal democratic processes. Since I'm in favour of democracy that seems to me a bad thing.<br /><br />Paul Krugman in the NYT describes Cameron as having acted 'as a spoiler to protect the wheeler-dealers, poisoning EU politics' in the process. Which seems to be broadly your point. But he calls the summit disastrous. Meanwhile on Reuters Felix Salmon, who worked with Roubini, goes further, referring to it bleakly as 'one of the most disastrous summits imaginable'.Zio Bastonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18066899839752174167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-22314491076909614632011-12-10T05:41:16.381+00:002011-12-10T05:41:16.381+00:00A voice of sanity (the main blog, not the Lindsay ...A voice of sanity (the main blog, not the Lindsay comment).<br />There are no easy answers for the left, or even the centre-left, that's for sure. But my gut instinct the moment I heard the news yesterday morning was that this was a big, big moment, and that eventually this will be seen as Cameron's Munich moment. <br />http://pantteg.blogspot.com/2011/12/mrs-camerons-handbag.html<br /><br />I write from Wales. Not the least aspect of Cameron's ineptness is that his veto may have direly anti-Unionist repercussions.Ian & Nina Grahamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05979829048922350453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-9522999540762102952011-12-09T20:40:35.023+00:002011-12-09T20:40:35.023+00:00The Swedish Social Democrats are totally opposed t...The Swedish Social Democrats are totally opposed to the new Euro Pact, and Sweden has a hung Parliament. The Social Democratic parties of Scandinavia, please note, have a very well-policed left flank. We are talking about the parties of Ernest Bevin, Hugh Gaitskell, Douglas Jay, Peter Shore and Bryan Gould.<br /><br />The Attlee Government refused to join the European Coal and Steel Community on the grounds that it was “the blueprint for a federal state” which “the Durham miners would never wear”. Gaitskell rejected European federalism as “the end of a thousand years of history” and liable to destroy the Commonwealth. Most Labour MPs, and one Liberal, voted against Heath’s Treaty of Rome. Labour won the 1974 General Election after Enoch Powell had told his supporters to vote Labour because of Europe.<br /><br />The Parliamentary Labour Party unanimously opposed Thatcher’s Single European Act. 66 Labour MPs voted against Maastricht, including, in Bryan Gould, the only resignation from either front bench in order to do so, and outnumbering Conservative opponents by three to one. John Prescott and David Blunkett abstained rather than support Maastricht in the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party.<br /><br />Every Labour and Liberal Democrat MP, without exception, voted against the Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policies annually between 1979 and 1997. The 1997 General Election result kept the United Kingdom out of the euro, by making Gordon Brown Chancellor the Exchequer in place of Kenneth Clarke. Ed Miliband and Ed Balls were valiant in seeing off those who sought to take Britain into that ill-conceived currency while Tony Blair was Prime Minister.<br /><br />Half of the French Socialist Party successfully opposed the EU Constitution. Even before the most recent events, the euro was dealt an electoral blow in the Social Democratic heartland of North Rhine-Westphalia. Half of the UKIP vote, based on its geographical distribution, must be Old Labour or Old Liberal rather than Old Tory. The No2EU – Yes to Democracy list at the 2009 European Elections, in London included Peter Shore’s erstwhile agent, and in the North West included the immediate past Leader of the Liberal Party.<br /><br />Attlee denounced the referendum as “a device of demagogues and dictators”, a view echoed word-for-word by Thatcher as Prime Minister; it is Pythonesque that ostensible defenders of British parliamentary sovereignty and democracy demand the adoption of this foreign and deeply flawed device, rather than demanding that parliamentarians who would not simply say No to any erosion be replaced with parliamentarians who would.<br /><br />And Cameron could have dealt with 100 rebels, if there had been that many, on his own side. But not if they had marching into the division lobby behind the entire Parliamentary Labour Party. That was what would have happened. The man who has kept us out of this wretched new treaty, which makes fiscal expansion illegal, is Ed Miliband. Any chance of, so to speak, some credit?David Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06839882674758833524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-84820860345782482382011-12-06T21:10:07.715+00:002011-12-06T21:10:07.715+00:00Free health care at the point of sale is surely on...Free health care at the point of sale is surely one of the most fantastic, worldly ideas. Pharmecutical companies are the very opposite; the exploits of Monsanto, GSK, Pfizer etc, range from the shady to the horrifying. The NHS may be flawed but its ideals are worth preserving, let's not throw the baby out with the bath waterjake galeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00962037814590988689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-45827233468171677372011-12-02T23:07:05.713+00:002011-12-02T23:07:05.713+00:00Good piece, Olly and thanks for the mention. I'...Good piece, Olly and thanks for the mention. I'd just add that I heartily agree that there is no mileage in Labour distancing itself from unions, but what could certainly help would be for unions spend more time servicing their membership and making a compelling reason to join a union; and less playing politics in foreign countries at the behest of a handful of far-left members (Venezuela, Palestine). <br /><br />This indulgence is both hurting the good name of the labour movement and adding zero value to members (I have written extensively about union support for unpleasant regimes in both these countries at the <a href="http://thecentreleft.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">Centre Left</a>).Rob Marchanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11534810369839848312noreply@blogger.com