Written By:
notices and features - Date published:
9:00 am, April 30th, 2019 - 36 comments
Categories: Economy, International, tax, uk politics -
Tags:
It may be 'just common sense' but it's reasoning which makes no impression on the greedy!
A brilliant ad – oh how I wish out left-wing parties were similarly innovative and bold.
If UK Labour win the upcoming election on the back of this message and they get the mandate to effect real change….how long do you think it will take for NZ Labour to get on board?
I agree….a bold ad, and quite possibly pivotal.
Its normal for parliamentary type ( in anglo based systems) parties to campaign on the left ( or right) when running for office and then if they win to govern from the centre.
If you look at UK politics over a longer period, Thatcher moved the Tories to the right and the result was when Blair became PM the labour had moved to the centre to take that 'political space'
Cameron when he became PM moved the Tories to the centre,as a result labour and Corbyn accentuate the left political space.
Yep. It reminds me of the brilliant "Yes Minister" and "Yes Prime Minister". It's not really the politicians who run the country. It's the Sir Humphreys.
As Rosemary suggests, they're creating a platform and positioning themselves 'on the back of" a pivotal message going forward
https://www.google.com/search?q=weird+dances&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=L3v1BKoNThI_YM%253A%252CvtXuBBxb5vircM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kT0Ow-iNXqhroZov4mp2AXFnr_0Wg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjL7LmazfbhAhXIdn0KHfEECk4Q9QEwAHoECAsQBg#imgrc=L3v1BKoNThI_YM:
And Paula is going to reply with
https://www.google.com/search?q=weird+dances&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=L3v1BKoNThI_YM%253A%252CvtXuBBxb5vircM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kT0Ow-iNXqhroZov4mp2AXFnr_0Wg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjL7LmazfbhAhXIdn0KHfEECk4Q9QEwAHoECAsQBg#imgdii=-wFLcfM1mB3aWM:&imgrc=L3v1BKoNThI_YM:&vet=1
Not to mention Seymour's response
https://www.google.com/search?q=weird+dances&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=L3v1BKoNThI_YM%253A%252CvtXuBBxb5vircM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kT0Ow-iNXqhroZov4mp2AXFnr_0Wg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjL7LmazfbhAhXIdn0KHfEECk4Q9QEwAHoECAsQBg#imgrc=5NEg6br3zcyyAM:&vet=1
Cameron moved the Tories to the centre?!? He implemented the austerity programme that has been responsible for thousands of deaths, immigration controls, Libya, Brexit…not sure what you are getting at there.
As a result labour and Corbyn accentuate the left political space….I think you miss the point..and its Corbyns super power..he has always, consistently and boldly been 'Left'. Its not a reactive position , its a personal belief. That gives him a credibility that holds him in good stead under the all out war campaigned against him by the Labour Centrists, who sure as eggs aren't happy with his actual commitment to Leftish positions…like our own Labour they would probably like Corbyn alot more if they could be sure this was all just some branding exercise and that he wouldn't actually carry through with these policies.
yes , Im not suggesting Corbyn has 'moved', its more he has moved the party more to the left than before. And often that authentic side of politics matters a lot to voters.
"…like our own Labour they would probably like Corbyn alot more if they could be sure this was all just some branding exercise and that he wouldn't actually carry through with these policies."
Heh! Judging by the shenanigans going on with UK Labour they are totally panic stricken that Corbyn's promises just might win the election. I hope he has a plan to hit the ground running should this happen…while his fellow party members are in shock.
If he loses…
Feudalism? Revolution?
In Napier there is a hill where a perfectly good hospital used to be. It was closed thanks to the then-National Government's desire for tax cuts.
That seems to have been a trend…
On Whangarei hospital grounds there is a large, empty, two level hospital ward building in good condition, just down Maunu Rd a little, is a recent Hospital Admin and Executive building, loaded to the gunwales with the bloated DHB admin layers that would not know a patient if they tripped over one.
Sorry to be pedantic, but is it really "verses" as in poetry, or "versus" as in competing or opposing?
You are quite right Rosemary – I find it a jarring, glaring error. There are many on the Right who will scorn us if we leave such glaring errors in big headlines.
Pedantry if about a normal comment – not when it is an embarrassment as a headline.
Perhaps it was a deliberate mistake so that people notice. That could be a feature for signs in protests, just some will take notice of the one that says ten people have died from ….the fever du jour today, but if you spell it dye, all the tut-tutting will add a 1,000 clickbait effect.
Perhaps in this case the learned and humorous could make up a limerick about verses and versus. Brighten us up. Maybe this.
There is a difference between verses and versus
But school only drove me to nurses.
So sick I became
I had to go hame
And my spelling just got even worsus.
Yep, quite possible.
I believe the error was unintentional and I’ve changed it.
But, but, it could have been either! A talking point at the very least, and it inspired Greywarshark to wax lyrical.
(And the new editing thingy appears to lack spell assist. I have got very lazy, utilising autocorrect. Having to think about correct spelling has made me grumpier…)
Sorry to spoil the fun; if it was intentional, it will be reverted to its original.
Anyway, I’ve got a thing about waxing
oh nos.
You prefer the previous version of verses or versus rather?
The verses version or the versus version?
Whatever provokes a limerickial response from a clearly talented greywarshark.
26 V the rest of us. It's soak-the-rich, or pitchfork time.
A sobering new report by the charity Oxfam has laid bare the stunning levels of global wealth inequality.
According to the report, published Monday, billionaires have never had it better. The combined riches of the world’s 26 most wealthy billionaires equals $1.4 trillion — this is equal to the total wealth of the bottom 3.8 billion of the world’s population.
Billionaires have increased their wealth by 12 percent this year, the report states, while at the same time the wealth of the poorest half of the world has fallen by 11 percent.
This consolidation is happening at a rapid rate even for the billionaire class, which according to the report has doubled in size since the 2008 financial crisis. In 2016, 61 billionaires controlled half of the world’s wealth, then in 2017 that number was 43, before becoming 26 in 2018.
https://thinkprogress.org/26-billionaires-own-as-much-wealth-as-half-the-world-6948c7e2d411/
Makes me wonder which will tip us, the great unwashed, into combined action: the rising inequality or the rising waters…
Thanks Joe90 – could any 'ordinary' person/politician resist a billion dollar bribe?
Just imagine the good one might do with all that lovely money!
Yep, or as I put it at times:…
Push wealth to the top and society weakens and fails
Push wealth to the bottom and society strengthens and prospers
simple
I think it's reasonably well understood, though often deliberately ignored by economists, that the marginal utility of money decreases according to how much one has.
Some related stuff on UBIs here:
https://basicincome.org/basic-income/history/
Results of basic income experiments have been quite positive.
I think that is good to remind us Stuart M – the marginal utility of anything is an economic rule? that should be taught at primary school. Kids need to learn certain at present advanced things, early on, and others can wait for later. Another social affect that responds to marginality is women and education pushing a country forward. Naturally when you start with 1% who can read, write and do formal sums, and you take that to say 80% it's a steep climb in advancement, then after that other factors need to be considered – like do we need so many university trainees? Or should we all have a little tertiary training that stretches our minds and encourages curiosity not conformity.
It really comes back to Liebig, I think, and his law of the minimum.
He derived it from plant growth, in which the least available nutrient constrains the growth rate of the whole, and its obverse – that supplying the restricted nutrient produces the greatest possible improvement in growth. But he came to recognize that he had (like Murphy) discovered a universal principal – the same phenomena are observable in chemical reactions, but also in complex processes, and in things like education.
In an environment with abundant education, it is not likely to be the growth restricting factor, but where education access is restricted small improvements produce exceptional results. So too with money supplies in struggling economies, or technical knowhow or materiale in environments that lack them.
Unfortunately, out models of tertiary education have not been developed in the enlightened best interests of society for some time; managerialism and bureaucratic convenience have snuck in under the neoliberal model. The whole sector needs a bit of a rethink: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=288423555100778
Going back to money, poor people are reliably restricted by their lack of it, so small improvements for them produce disproportionately positive results. And in the UBI experiments, also have serendipitous effects, reducing things like domestic violence.
Excellent stuff! Hope Corbyn becomes PM and sets a great example of government for the many and not the few.
Robert Reich recently released a video debunking the typical lies used to defend low tax on the rich:
[struggling with this new comment editor a bit…]
Wow! I've been waiting so long for someone in the mainstream to make the very obvious connection between government spending and economic stimulation. We've been talking about taxes for decades now as if the money just gets poured into a hole in the ground and lost whereas it genuinely stimulates economic activity for people at the bottom of the ladder.
lol…it is indeed a very good ad…..and its theme is great…except it promotes growth, bugger
Good point! Still stuck on the falsehood that growth is in itself a virtue.
When the real point is – if wealth is distributed, you can have a vibrant economy and society – with much less growth required.
Wow, that's 2.40 of my life I won't get back.
It's completely ass backwards. Consumption, whether via Government largesse on not, does little for economic growth. Over time, productivity increases are all that really matter for growth (apart from simply more people) and it comes from private savings and investment (at least with a modicum of efficiency).
Not to worry though, I'm sure UK Labour have plenty of people who don't understand simple economic realities to vote for them.