|
Labour's policy tanks still operate in a broadly neoliberal policy space - the antineoliberalism is limited to rhetoric. Even the flagship rail renationalization is, under the surface, the rather less exciting idea of running the lines as individual for-profit government-owned companies. The rhetoric invokes the vision of plowing the nebulous "profits" into reduced fares, into rail investment, into higher wages, and into the NHS all at the same time, but functionally the idea is GLCs, not Clause IV. That's not actually going to change; the magic of Corbyn is in tricking the forgetful British left into believing that New New Labour is Old Labour, whether or not the likes of John goddamn McDonnell pens lengthy promises to reduce the deficit (noting that if you accept that basic constraint, your remaining policy options are very limited). Corbyn operates in a world of the OBR and the MPC, not the NCB and NUM; the proposals he can draw upon are limited - stuff like the People's QE that he picked up from niche advisors quickly became liabilities. Conversely, all the Labour right has to do is hold the line amongst the more cognizant members (i.e., those who accept the arguments that tuition fees are more egalitarian, that collective-welfare-through-collective-agreements really deserve to be shown the door,, that Britain in NI and the Falklands has settled into status quos which it is now committed to maintaining, etc.). I don't disagree that New Labour has run out of ideas - I've said so myself. But the present judo makes a twisted sort of sense, if you accept that the none of the actors are really committed to innovating new ideas inasmuch as innovating new political covers for the same ideas.
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 08:24 |
|
|
Without wading into the battle itself, I want to mainly point out that the rigors that created New Labour also filled Labour with a lot of the sort of pro-means-testing person who would rationalize that higher ed is overwhelmingly consumed by the upper-middle class, and hence, spending out of the general fund on it is highly suspect. The flaw in this argument is obvious - you probably shouldn't be completely indifferent to inequality between the 0.1% and upper-middle class. Nonetheless my point is not about what we should believe but about how the assorted factions in Labour are going to interact. ronya fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Jan 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:tony blair was personally a very good politician, and found a strategy that worked quite well in a short-to-medium term situation is the arc described here the late 60s New Left revolution as European socialist parties pretty much everywhere moved to abandon any vanguardist alignment, or the late 80s neoliberal revolution where labour market flexibility and state company privatization was being accepted as a fait accompli a lot of labour parties did not survive to the postwar era with a revolutionary mandate to begin with - UK Labour is somewhat niche in that regard. e.g., representing the workers in a permanent arrangement with the establishment has been Norwegian Labour's deal since the 1930s, it did not wait until the 1990s to abandon revolutionism. the Dutch Labour party, founded postwar, has never had a revolutionary mandate. the French Socialist party, founded well into the post-Algeria post-Prague-Spring situation, embraced the market economy from its genesis I mean, you're not wrong about the long-term secular decline, but that's tied to continental labour parties being affixed to assorted tripartite arrangements or coalitions that are shaky for long-term demographic/macroeconomic reasons, whereas the UK Labour Party relationship to tripartism is hostile at best V. Illych L. posted:people who talk about the time when the left dominated the labour party have a bizarre tendency to view Kinnock as a representative of the left of the party. for electoral purposes, Kinnock moved the party quite a ways towards the political 'centre' of his time, but failed to win. in my view, this is mainly because he just wasn't a very good politician Kinnock's main arc as Leader of the Labour Party is his dramatic showdown with the hard left, culminating in the expulsion of militant members did you mean the Wilson/Callaghan soft left period? ronya fucked around with this message at 06:14 on Jan 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
I'm not disputing that Kinnock moved the party to the center - I'm confused as to why Kinnock would be held to be representative of the party left at the time, when his main career arc is of battling said left in order to move the party center yes, by the time Blair wrangles his way to the top, Kinnock is to his left instead. But you'd have to have a pretty strange narrative of history for Kinnock to be not on the right circa Liverpool ronya fucked around with this message at 08:51 on Jan 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
the element of fascism that they're missing is extraparliamentary force to back up the neutering of formal procedural balances not that that's much comfort, I appreciate
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
the difference in fascism is that fascism distorts the legibility of society - by warping civil society's ability to read itself into concepts, so that conventional politics is unable to manufacture some consensus conventional wisdom; the hierarchy of superior street mobilization is all that remains. Charisma and violence. The form of a bureaucratic institutions exist, but in fascism, predicting how they would rule in some given case would turn on whether commandant John made a pass at commissar Smith's wife once. A formal police force that is defers to the rule of (authoritarian) law is not quite the same thing. That's just bog-standard authoritarianism. China aspires to it, Singapore immanentizes it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
It's good to understand the difference. Antifa works as an organized force because fascism requires the terror of arbitrary violence. Deny them the street in an organized manner, and fascism loses its bite. Electoral authoritarianism, on the other hand, coexists cheerfully with protest movements and populist opposition: they require an opposition that can be credibly said to be inexperienced, crazy, incompetent, etc., whilst nonetheless remaining active enough to give the incumbent government a democratic facade. The vast power accrued to the formal arms of government becomes legitimized because decentralized loci of power become arenas for symbolic politics out of proportion to any sensible interpretation of the scope of their powers (think city councils declaring themselves nuclear-free zones, at a time when Britain as a whole is steadfastly anti-disarmament - but with every sphere of politics rather than just one hobbyhorse). In that situation, no moderate asks "why don't we let local civil-social organization do X" because all the local civil-social organizations are either obedient state proxies or crazy. The government genially encourages the craziness, since it drives the median voter into its arms. The protesters double down on symbolic politics, since that defines how the protest vote is interpreted. The last time Labour was wandering the desert, it spent nearly two decades out of power. And this is how attacking the short money and electoral boundaries works: it allows a Tory in 2030 to say: look, even if our opponent's reformed manifesto is appealing, they're too inexperienced to handle power; vote for us, we'll remain in government but adapt to your grievances. In 2035: look, even if our opponent's reformed manifesto is appealing, they're too inexperienced to handle power; vote for us, we'll remain in government but adapt to your grievances. In 2040: look, even if our opponent's reformed manifesto is appealing, they're too inexperienced to handle power; vote for us, we'll remain in government but adapt to your grievances. And the opposition, for its part, becomes dominated by those who can lead without policy tanks and daily briefs. If sacrificing ideological purity for power never works because government can't be obtained, then the symbolic politics is self-reinforcing; the only battle to be had is an internecine one, shaping what the protest vote is said to protest about.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
the Saudis seem to be playing much less nicely with the NATO agenda as of late, though I mean, I'm no MENA expert, but I do wonder whether this is eventually going to cost them
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Soylent Green posted:This seems completely unfair. She's a left wing campaigner and respected artist who is doing, what is in essence, an artist residency devoted to creating works exclusively for the city of Glasgow. Everyone's making grand assumptions but it feels like a misunderstanding because the point of her work is the complete opposite of what it's being construed as. what the deprived really need: well-intended condescension
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
dispatch_async posted:Tell us more about how people supporting renationalising the railways in polls is meaningless because they are too thick to understand that it would cost money I think most people understand that it costs money; I also think most people think it'll cost someone else money. My guess is that if you specify exactly what your particular nationalization proposal will do that is substantively different, rather than the concept of renationalization, support will rapidly evaporate. dispatch_async posted:Realpolitik: Gallup polling in 1968 showed that 75% of the country agreed with Enoch Powell. Immigration is virtually never popular; the challenge facing liberal democratic governments is to lean on their liberalism (however bourgeois), rather than on their democracy, in defense of the common humanity of migrants.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 13:52
|
|
|
Building in a timebomb that would eventually require fiscal union might be considered a feature, rather than a bug, to some; especially those who have studied their Hamilton.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
I keep reading articles describing nebulous Corbynites who, I am to believe, are pressuring Corbyn to purge the rottenness from the Blairite system. Can anyone put some names on these supposed pressurers? Besides, I suppose, McDonnell?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
if Corbyn hopes that being evasive about exactly why some shadow ministers are fired and some aren't will cow the rest into self-policing their messaging, I think he is going to be disappointed
ronya fucked around with this message at 07:13 on Jan 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Whos taking pictures of these letters? Kevan Jones is: https://twitter.com/KevanJonesMP
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 13:59
|
|
|
£35,000 is roughly the median average salary in London, though. This is basically a concession to the City - graduates hoovered up in the milkrounds (who are still exempted from the labour market test) now have five years to get their salary that high. But, hey, guess what. It still only applies to Tier 2s, anyway - it doesn't impact family immigration (except in the indirect sense of preventing Tier 2s from settling and then obtaining family visas).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
oh, the source of the number https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/117957/impact-assessment-tier2.pdf pretty blunt then ronya fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Jan 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
it's not going to go away, but Labour seems content for the Tories to implement the policy changes they, themselves, were considering if you mean rhetorical positioning rather than policy, well, have you met Labour recently?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
the neoliberalized centre-left position is relatively simple to describe - certain family/refugee commitments, considered by assorted jurisprudential principles, - economic immigration as a concept held to be distinct and distinguishable from non-economic migration; economic migration is held to be a subset of economic policy and is conceptually constructed along those lines (i.e. quantitative measurement of salaries, market tests, etc). The economic policy goals here would be broadly centre-left ones (targeting domestic growth and redistribution, favouring high-skilled high-income immigrants). A person is included in that utility calculation when they get their ILR and not before. - cultural integration concerns are abjured Labour (and New Labour) were willing to implement and sell this; however, none of this is what a 'kipper wants, and Labour strategists know this. Hence the weaselling. Labour circa Edstone rationalized this by telling itself that voters believed that Blair implemented this vision badly, rather than that voters don't really like this vision at all. It's worth noting that the Tory 2020-type policy is largely similar (the cultural concerns do remain largely sidelined, as does southeasterner unease at all these highly-skilled migrants who will be working in their industries). The main new element is the hard cap and cap targeting. I think dispatch_async's idea of persuading the party leadership to sell what 'kippers want is dead in the water; Maurice Glasman was ostracized for less. ronya fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Jan 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
the idea that these longtime Labour loyalists find Corbyn alien seems to conflict with the narrative that New Labour saved it from the wilderness Corbyn is a lot of things, but probably not leftward of Michael Foot
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2016 08:59
|
|
|
it comes back to The Party though a lot comes back down to unpicking the (erroneous) association of New Labour profligacy and the financial crisis, a mental association that seems as pernicious as 9/11 and Iraq if you natter on about e.g. food banks or the deficit targets, be prepared for Tories to seize the opportunity to grimly inform the nation that Labour spent too much of the nation's credit card blah blah blah. The obvious reply message is that the reducing the deficit must be met fairly blah blah blah. But that tacitly assumes cohesive party ideology over whether to try to out-fiscal-discipline Osborne, or whether to double down on spending. There isn't one. the messaging is all the more confusing due to, e.g., the Osborne budget strategy of leveraging the minimum wage increase to score points, whilst cutting tax credits. New Labour would coherently attack this as regressive, since New Labour tends to prefer a tax credit to the minimum wage anyway (despite it being a New Labour achievement). But non-third-way people on the left would not. the whole thrust of the strategy is to divide Labour rather than to directly achieve Tory goals even something as simple as populist bank-bashing is tricky because of the need to defend the Labour record of its handling of the crisis ronya fucked around with this message at 15:37 on Jan 9, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
a long excerpt on recent historyquote:Tony Blair articulated an attractive, if fatalistic, vision: “the issue is: do we shape [change] or does it shape us? Do we master it, or do we let it overwhelm us? That’s the sole key to politics in the modern world: how to manage change. Resist it: futile; let it happen: dangerous. So – the third way – manage it” (Blair, 2000). The modernizers he brought with him were prepared to take risks and challenge the internal status quo. They demanded symbolic changes that his predecessors had not dared to undertake. The belief in the need to modernize was limited neither to the party nor in time, but there was no blueprint or a defined “Project. ” More than a clear plan, the modernizers had a few principles and directions, such as a deep-seated suspicion of activists (a view already shared by Kinnock and Smith as illustrated in the move towards OMOV) and the will to replace the traditional representative procedures and the trade union links with a “modern,” business-inspired effective campaigning organization. These were combined with great pragmatism, a willingness to use existing achievements and to build internal consensus. For this purpose, they used positive rhetoric and mantras such as modernization, democratization or partnership. These concepts were never clearly defined, leaving plenty of room for adaptation to the perceived constraints of the environment but little to skeptics. Many Labour modernizers attributed the 1992 defeat to the party’s close association with unpopular trade unions. Advised by Philip Gould, the party shifted its focus away from the working class and to the aspiring middle classes; transformed by the Thatcher years but alienated by the corruption and the economic mismanagement of the Conservatives (Gould, 1998). And, indeed, UKMT does not. On the nature of party democracy: quote:In the early days, Tony Blair promoted the opening up of the party base. Direct ballots were used in 1995 and 1996, and recruitment allowed the membership to rise beyond 400,000 members by 1997. However, Blair’s enthusiasm waned. Direct democracy proved very expensive while low turnouts failed to bring legitimacy and limited internal support (Whiteley and Seyd, 2002, p. 147). The modernizers thus quickly turned to other forms of democracy: reforms focused on policymaking and on “partnership.” Gordon Brown shared this approach: “in the past, people interested in change have joined the Labour Party largely to elect agents of change. Today they want to be agents of change themselves” (Brown, 1992). Such a vision of democratic participation had important implications for the party itself, no longer perceived as an effective conduit for political participation or for a two-way communication with the public. i.e., a strategic deployment of apparent structurelessness and internally democratic mandate, deployed by the elite against the entryists, instead of the reverse from Terence Casey's The Blair Legacy ronya fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Jan 9, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:I think the way to deal with this is to just attack Osborne's perceived competence by making him out to be penny-wise but pound-foolish. "He cuts a £200m flood defence project in Leeds and next year the town suffers £whatever in flood damage, he cuts social care budgets by £x and then hospitals costs increase by £n*x." Don't go on about how the cuts are harmful, talk about how they're stupid and actually making the country's financial position worse. You could easily tie that into "he's missed every target he's set himself, he's borrowed more money than every Labour government put together" etc. etc. I think that messaging could work in 1997 - when the impact of intra-Tory mudslinging was at an all-time high - but it would be hard to reconcile today with an attempt to rally with the NHS junior doctor's strike or, for that matter, any attempt to corral MPs into shutting up about how austerity is harmful or how whole-system reform is necessary. In particular the MP for Islington North. Leeds-floods-wise, well... quote:Jeremy Corbyn: In 2011, a £190 million flood defence project on the River Aire in Leeds was cancelled by the Government on cost grounds. One thousand homes and businesses in Leeds were flooded in recent weeks, and the Government are still committed only to a scaled-down version of the project, worth a fraction of its total cost. This from a Prime Minister who claimed that “money was no object” when it came to flood relief. When he or his Secretary of State meets the Leeds MPs and Judith Blake, the leader of Leeds City Council, in the near future, will he guarantee that the full scheme will go ahead to protect Leeds from future flooding? I don't know. Does Corbyn have some deep-seated moral objection to the idea of narrow cost-benefit analyses (which the government of the day might, therefore, actually be able to fail), rather than hypothetical bipartisan holistic approaches that - by the nature of all nebulous, holistic solutions - concede the judgment of its success to the incumbent government? ronya fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Jan 9, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
"brocialism" is a recent portmanteau; the political consciousness of the problem (of male-chauvinist socialism) predates it and probably originates in campus struggles during the rise of the US New Left. e.g., Jo Freeman:quote:A typical example was the event that precipitated the formation of the Chicago group, the first independent group in this country. At the August 1967 National Conference for New Politics convention a women's caucus met for days, but was told its resolution wasn't significant enough to merit a floor discussion. By threatening to tie up the convention with procedural motions the women succeeded in having their statement tacked to the end of the agenda. It was never discussed. The chair refused to recognize any of the many women standing by the microphone, their hands straining upwards. When he instead called on someone to speak on "the forgotten American, the American Indian," five women rushed the podium to demand an explanation. But the chairman just patted one of them on the head (literally) and told her, "Cool down, little girl. We have more important things to talk about than women's problems." more explicitly, consider, e.g., the black revolutionary Eldridge Cleaver's concept of "pussy power" or his assertion of rape of white women as a revolutionary act. In the era of sexual liberation it became more socially acceptable for a niche of socialist men to publicly advance somewhat outré concepts of the role of women in the revolution. ronya fucked around with this message at 05:10 on Jan 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
I could see a Labour strategist gambling on a repeat of the SDP 1983/1987 attempts, but where the SDP avoids losing to Tories in numerous constituencies (maybe if Cameron fails to manage his succession and the Tories pick someone who cannot credibly move center, maybe a Tory emboldened by Corbyn) and the thing about this: thespaceinvader posted:To me it seems eminently possible that they would attempt it, but entirely impossible that it would succeed in actually winning an election. The only way they win, especially in marginal constituencies, is by utilising Labour's only really unique resource - people power. Voluntarily cutting themselves off from the half million people who doorstep and put up posters and do phone campaigns and run stalls in town centres &c &c &c would be loving suicidal, and would *entirely* demolish the left in England as a meaningful political entity for basically ever, unless the Labour members countrywide successfully got together and selected new MP candidates - and even then it would be questionable whether they would survive given that brand new candidates running against established opposition in marginals don't generally do so well I don't think. is that there's genuine belief that the grassroots organizers are irrelevant rabble-rousers who spend their funds preaching to choirs, that the focus groups and data-guided YouGov polling should overrule them. New Labour is now old enough that there's a self-reinforcing belief by second-gen staffers who've read post-mortems on the first-gen reforms and have accepted it as a stylized fact that the national party trumps the local, because the national party did trump the local. I actually don't think this is straightforwardly true, except in the meta-New-Labour sense of it (i.e., the national party can in fact do end-runs around the local affiliations, but only if it strenuously denies doing so in the process; the illusion of the pursuit of ever-greater party democratization/transparency must be maintained). It is approximately a century too late to start preaching about the virtues of democratic centralism and the party vanguard, and besides, that's too consciously authoritarian of New Labour.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2016 12:35
|
|
|
General China posted:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IeFS6S06w8c and yet observe that the primary goal of the poll tax - to devolve the marginal burden of local authority aid to local government - was nonetheless achieved successfully, and on the pro-decentralization platform that was empowered by anti-poll-tax movement's choice to speak through themes of Scottish or urban council sovereignty
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
the poll tax riots were fundamentally driven by a desire to pay less tax, and this is fundamentally more amenable to a Tory platform than to any socialist one. The man who promises to reduce your taxes when you're poor will always be overshadowed by the man who promises to reduce your taxes forever, as the Americans have discovered; it doesn't matter whether the numbers don't line up, because voters are innumerate. the Thatcher regime correctly realized that pushing the tax power downward would, in the long run, collapse the popular consensus to fund them, but they were both too greedy (wanting to reduce the degree of redistribution immediately, in the same package of reforms) and too honest (assuming that voters would see through through unsustainable tax cuts). The successful line of attack, as proven by Norquist across the pond, is to just cut taxes with wild abandon. Raising taxes then becomes your opponent's problem. Good luck with that! Militant confused it for a sincere popular movement in socialist-anarchist solidarity against the Thatcherite system and would be utterly blindsided by the years to come. Conversely, both New Labour and Tory 2020 would go on to take careful notes on the role of pro-democratization pro-decentralization pro-consultative rhetoric in presenting virtually any kind of reform as an empowering response to popular demand. ronya fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Jan 11, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
Portugal really hosed up decolonisation tho it is an especially clear demonstration of the concept that decolonization proceeds by the metropole's interests, not the periphery's
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
so, anybody want to explain post-WW2 Conmonwealth immigration to Saurus, or...? Earlier waves of South Asian British have integrated remarkably well; conversely, relatively recent waves from Bangladesh present similar challenges to those of France.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
can I remind all assembled that Franca Viola was only fifty years ago rural idiocy is rural idiocy
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Who're you calling a liberal.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2016 08:02
|
|
|
anyway, chatter about brocialism aside, the brief organized-socialist-group romance with Muslim leftist groups has eroded sharply, as demonstrated in the dramatic collapse of RESPECT and now, with the shock of Corbynism, the British left wants to gear up for a titanic conflict with the Labour right - being more internationalist than thou is the order of the day. I don't see resurrecting intra-party debates on multikulti being very successful ronya fucked around with this message at 09:13 on Jan 11, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2016 09:10
|
|
|
since the topic is the role of women in society... cultural Protestantism - participation of women in the church (and, by secular extension, civic life more generally), opposition to cousin marriage (icky!), a relatively nuclear family unit, a relatively weak strain of familial honour/obligations on the conduct of related women. Family and inheritance law matters - it drives capital accumulation, and capital is central to how societies are structured. there are other features of the outlook more generally - you don't have to buy into a Weberian framework to observe that mysticism is a relatively weak force in Protestant regions - doctrinal knowledge is given a much heavier weight, etc. If you fundamentally concede that these philosophies are subject to debate and reason, then you are already a fish breathing these waters.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2016 11:45
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:I don't think opposition to cousin marriage is a Protestant thing. Most Protestant denominations allow it, unlike Orthodox churches; Roman Catholics needed a dispensation until the 20th century. The American aversion to it is modern and more connected with social Darwinism than with religion, I think (which is especially ironic because of the US support for creationism and the fact that Darwin married his cousin). it's not a uniquely Protestant thing, it's inherited from the Roman church. Legal or not, as a cultural practice it's still avoided by the bourgeois class, which therefore impacts whether capital accumulates inter-generationally through family-run entities, or whether it must instead accrue to corporate persons the main difference is not with the Catholics but with the Islamic crescent, where cousin marriage is both more acceptable and more prevalent ronya fucked around with this message at 12:24 on Jan 11, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2016 12:21
|
|
|
Things can get a lot worse for trade unions, not least because of demography and pensions
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
he showed his hand earlier when he went on about immigration being a capitalist conspiracy against the working class, so I doubt foreign women would pass muster
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
divorce law in england+wales and scotland already specify that gender transitioning is a valid cause for a non-contestable, unilateral annulment of the marriage, and glbt groups do not appear to be contesting this at this time the storm is brewed in this teacup over, tacitly, the long delay time in processing divorces leading to mental trauma
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
the whole point of NFD is legislative change so that marriage isn't a binding contract that can be enforced by the state
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
he is aware that many publicly-listed companies pay no dividends at all, right
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
the point that firms will just outsource non-living-wage roles is correctly made, but some astute regulatory design could arguably neuter that it does nothing about shareholders who are compensated by the rising value of their shares rather than dispensed cash, but again, you could advocate for a considerably smarter policy than the one described by Jezza to the press, in the same broad spirit the bigger problem is that much of the growth in UK wage inequality is inter-firm rather than intra-firm within the same industries, meaning that attempting redistribution within the firm is not likely to reduce the inequalities you might most want to reduce
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 08:24 |
|
|
Blair relied on a layer of New Labour think tanks like Demos, the Foreign Policy Centre, the Institute for Public Policy Research etc to test the waters for policy ideas and refine them in the face of criticisms; his own campaign focused on slogans which would identify which causes he is siding with, rather than trying to develop and sell complex ideas himself New Labour could draw upon thinkers from podiums like Marxism Today, primarily in the area of rationalizing the small state in terms of radical freedom (an art which eurocommunism and anarchosyndicalism are especially good at). This was an age when labour confrontation by the miners was being readily defeated in both the street and the ballot box - a very receptive environment for third-way advocacy. Corbyn, well.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 05:12
|
|