Well, they’ve only been in power for nine months, and already the public have had enough of them. Big Society anyone?
The other interesting thing about last night’s vote is the turnout of just 36.5%. Has there ever been a time when voters have been so unenthusiastic about the main options on the table?
PS Latest news from Bankocracy Britain.
12 comments:
Sadly your party, the Socialist Labour Party (http://neilclark66.blogspot.com/2010/05/do-not-vote-for-socialist-labour-party.html), did not put up a candidate in what is Arthur Scargill's local area.
The result of 356 votes in the constituency last May was bad, and things are desperate here.
Note the massive coverage given by the BBC of the astounding fact that UKIP made second place pushing the official government leaders into 3rd.
Note it quickly or you'll miss it.
The BBC is legally required to show "due balance" in its reporting but interviewing the leader of the 6th placed party, on why it doesn't matter, has had all the coverage and interviewing the leader of the 2nd about his placement, or even any discussion of it between Beeboids is missing. If the word "news" has any meaning UKIP beating the government party in a Westminster election for the first time is news.
25% of American children are in poverty which the highest percentage since the 1930s but Charlie sheen makes $40 million a year Isn't neoliberalism wonderful
Of course those in "poverty" are immensely wealthy by the standards of the 1930s. Basically "poverty" is a word which has been redefined for political reasons and is completely different from the otiginal meaning which was being poor. It is one of the ways in which the "left" has lost its way since it is no longer really interested in ending poverty by wealth creation, the only way it can be reduced & is interested only in establishing more government bureaucracy dedicated to reducing the standard of living of wealth creators, though not of government bureaucrats.
Which ever definition of "poverty" one may care to use, it is undisputed that the number of Americans, and children in particular, in poverty has risen greatly since the Wall Street Meltdown. 2 million more American children are poverty now than two years ago. But at the same time, American businesses, banks, and private, wealthy individuals have done very well. In fact, there are wealthier now than every before. Sadly, more is on the way as the US seems to be headed to the same austerity disaster that is now hitting the UK. It does not seem the horrible economic news from Mr. Cameron's economic mismanagement is dampening neoliberal deficit hysteria in the US at all.
What is your evidence that on average "American businesses, banks, and private, wealthy individuals" are significantly wealthier than before the meltdown?
Mr. Craig: there is plenty of evidence online. For example, see:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/wall-street-sees-record-revenue-in-09-10-recovery-from-government-bailout.html
"Wall Street Sees Record Revenue in ’09-10 Recovery From Bailout"
There is also plenty of information at http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/
Finally, according to Robert Frank at the WSJ, the Forbes 400 richest Americans have as much wealth as the bottom 50% of ALL Americans. Of course, his lame defense of that statistic is that it is not recent, but started during the Reagan years, so we really can't blame the Wall Street Meltdown on that sad statistic.
In any event, I think the evidence is overwhelming that the recent self-created "crises of capitalism" was a boom time for wealthy Americans.
Sp no actualy evidence then. Indeed you acknwledge that the fact that the richest are very rich is of long standing.
Banks may be doing better than they were, it could hardly be otherwise, but they are not the whole economy and in any case the fact that bank shares have not yet risen to the price we paid for them is definitive proof that they aren't doing that well.
So we are left with you saying you don't want growth, the only real way to end poverty, you simply want to be allowed to redefine the word "poverty" to suit your agenda and you will say anything, no matter how provably untrue, to get it.
World's richest are almost $1 trillion richer
http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2011/03/10/20110310forbes-worlds-richest-2011.html
Also, the definition of poverty has not changed in the past two years. It's exactly the same as before meltdown.
the criteria for poverty has not changed in the past two years. Also, see "World's richest are almost $1 trillion richer"
www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2011/03/10/20110310forbes-worlds-richest-2011.html
"the definition of poverty has not changed in the past two years."
That this is considered supportive by "poverty" campaigners show they know how very politically flexible and hence meanigless this false "definition" is.
So we are left with you saying you don't want growth, the only real way to end poverty, you simply want to be allowed to redefine the word "poverty" to suit your agenda and you will say anything, no matter how provably untrue, to get it.
Post a Comment