What can we do to change the minds of decision makers and people in general to actually do something about preparing for the forthcoming economic/energy crises (the ones after this one!)?
Choose anyone but Jeremy Corbyn for Labour leader, says Alastair Campbell
Former No 10 communications director changes his mind about intervening in campaign, saying party would head for ‘car crash’ under Islington MP.
In a lengthy blogpost, the former Downing Street head of communications and strategy urged the party to choose “anyone but Corbyn”, despite having previously said he would not intervene in the contest.
He changed his mind about intervening because he believes the party would head for a “car crash, and more” under the Islington MP’s leadership.
“Whatever the niceness and the current warm glow, Corbyn will be a leader of the hard left, for the hard left, and espousing both general politics and specific positions that the public just are not going to accept in many of the seats that Labour is going to have to win to get back in power,” Campbell wrote.
In stark terms, he said that Labour’s consideration of Corbyn must stop if it wants to be a serious party of power rather than just a “party of protest that marches, campaigns, backs strikes, calls for ministerial resignations, more money for every cause going, shouts and bawls and fingerjabs”.
A Labour Party victory in 2020? No chance! Internal rivalries will see to that.
That blog makes the error on concentrating on the total debt rather than the deficit. When there is a deficit the deficit is added to the debt each year.
Because of the multiplier effect it is advisable not to cut the deficit to zero in one year. That gradual change, however, does mean that the debt grows substantially as a result of large deficits.
cubes wrote: ......................
WTF? No way. No how. Those politician bastards aren't laying a finger on my money no matter who they are. In addition, it does pretty much stop any new party from getting a foothold either, well done!
With that statement you are guaranteeing that Corporatism will continue to flourish as these major financiers of the political system will control our governments in the future. Those "politician bastards" might not get your money but you can bet you will be a lot poorer because those "corporation bastards" will get it instead and to a far greater degree!
If you are buying or renting a house you will certainly be getting screwed by them; if you are buying anything else you a certainly being screwed by them as higher property costs add to the cost of everything you buy: same with eating out: your taxes are higher because of the cost of bailing out their often fraudulent business schemes; your taxes are higher because they arrange the taxation system so that they don't have to pay any taxes to fund the cost of defending their businesses, educating their workers, keeping their worker fit and well, funding the legal protections that their operations enjoy, funding the costs of the artificially low wages that they pay, funding the cost of the high rentals that they are able to charge in the protected housing market that they have engineered.
So! Would you still prefer for them to fund your political system, Cubes?
Yvette Cooper is the only candidate who looks like a prime minister
As head of Manchester council, I might be expected to support local MP Andy Burnham. But only Cooper has the strength and determination to win in 2020.
No thanks Richard. We've already had a mad-eyed tyrannical cow as Prime Minister and she was a ******* disaster.
johnhemming2 wrote:That blog makes the error on concentrating on the total debt rather than the deficit. When there is a deficit the deficit is added to the debt each year.
Because of the multiplier effect it is advisable not to cut the deficit to zero in one year. That gradual change, however, does mean that the debt grows substantially as a result of large deficits.
I'm sure that Simon knows the difference between debt and deficit. As you can see from the graph, there was no particular problem at that point,
Peter.
Does anyone know where the love of God goes when the waves turn the seconds to hours?
Another possibility would be for donations to be made anonymously to parties/politicians via the returning officer. This would still suffer from the ability of corporations to be able to make a blanket donation across the constituencies and just tell the parties what they had given and demand commensurate access to policy making. Even removing the ability of corporations to donate would not work as they could simply route the donation through an individual.
Public payment is, I think, the only way forward but with some mechanism for the funding of new parties and of the fringe.
johnhemming2 wrote:That blog makes the error on concentrating on the total debt rather than the deficit. When there is a deficit the deficit is added to the debt each year.
Because of the multiplier effect it is advisable not to cut the deficit to zero in one year. That gradual change, however, does mean that the debt grows substantially as a result of large deficits.
I'm sure that Simon knows the difference between debt and deficit. As you can see from the graph, there was no particular problem at that point,
I think it would be better if a lot less money was spent.
When we ran the Green Party election campaign we spent close to no money. One needs £500 for the deposit, which you get back with 5% of the vote. You need to print a leaflet for each household - the post office deliver it for free. Hustings are arranged for free by church groups and suchlike. The local paper gives you all the publicity you need to let everybody know who you are, rosettes you can sew together yourself, a few quid for some posters and job's a good'n.
If all parties had to do the same, election time would probably be pleasanter all round.
johnhemming2 wrote:That blog makes the error on concentrating on the total debt rather than the deficit. When there is a deficit the deficit is added to the debt each year.
Because of the multiplier effect it is advisable not to cut the deficit to zero in one year. That gradual change, however, does mean that the debt grows substantially as a result of large deficits.
I'm sure that Simon knows the difference between debt and deficit. As you can see from the graph, there was no particular problem at that point,
Peter.
The graph is of the debt, not the deficit.
Are you suggesting he picked the wrong graph when he made his point?
Peter.
Does anyone know where the love of God goes when the waves turn the seconds to hours?
Yvette Cooper is the only candidate who looks like a prime minister
As head of Manchester council, I might be expected to support local MP Andy Burnham. But only Cooper has the strength and determination to win in 2020.
No thanks Richard. We've already had a mad-eyed tyrannical cow as Prime Minister and she was a ******* disaster.
That is sexist. Also, the mad cow you refer to directly spent 11 years in government, so she can't have been that bad.....
Saying that, I can't imagine Yvetter Cooper doing much good. If she gets in, you might as well vote for the Conservative Party.
