Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Yes, or we could just disband the party and use this forum to talk about flowers. We could do lots of things, but personally, handing the keys to the platform to someone who is unable or unwilling to gain actual membership of the party is not one of them.
Certainly, Governments have a choice. I quite like Shaw's image, that wealth flows through society like a river, and anything the government does redistributes the wealth, one way or another. So, back in 2010, IRC the Tories promised 80% cuts and 20% tax rises to clear the deficit, whereas Labour promised 70% cuts and 30 tax rises (or something like that), so a huge difference to millions of people, but obviously a big difference in time scales for dealing with it.The thing the government can't control is profit creation (although it can, if it makes a spectacular mess prevent profit formation).So, the thing needful in a crisis is to get rid of capital that is blocking further future investment. One option is widespread bankruptcy, others are nationalisation, taxation, inflation, government borrowing (this resolves to a choice between taking capital and turning it into consumption or just ending it's exchange value and allowing the corresponding means of prduction to be used to fuel new investment and production). Any choice means choosing first between capitalists or entering into competition with state capitalism versus private.The real limit of government action is the balance of class forces, and the capacity of workers to demand a price for their ongoing willingness to work (and, of course, employment is a dependent variable of the rate of investment of capital).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34066941
Quote:Type your job title into the search box below to find out the likelihood that it could be automated within the next two decades.So, a 52% chance my job could be qutomated away, they reckon, in the next 20 years….lovely.
robbo203 wrote:YMS, the monomaniacs and trolls would do that anyway by simply setting up a new thread and pursuing their hobbyhorse there. Far better I think to scrap the off topic rule completely which seems to account for most of the the friction between moderators and contributors. Retaining the rule but allowing a "soupscon of drift" is only asking for trouble because then it becomes a matter of perception as to how far you stray off topic before the rule should kick in. What is within the limit for one person may be well outside for another.Good, they can start another thread, and stay in the other thread, and be ignored. The problem is when they invade other topics. If someone kept drawing every discussion back to rugby league peopel can ignore them in thread, until someone new and unaware of the pest problem joins in the monomaniac discussion, and derails the useful information content in the thread. Lbird nearly managed to do that on several occasions. It's a simple enough rule,, and it's also basic politeness.
Further clarification: Law of the land. I didn't mean, necessarily criminal law, but more like we need to be aware that we cn be taken to court, or, in a hypothetical sense, the stae could regulate political parties more in the way they do trade unions: regulation offices, restrictions on membrship, etc. yes, we'd have the choice to 'go illegal' but that would still have to be a choice in the light of law of the land.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Law of the landThe object of the partyThe declaration of principlesThe rulebookResolutions of conferenceResolutions of the ECResolutions of the branchPrecedentJust to add a couple more thoughts. That above list applies, obviously, to any decision the party takes at any level. How does this course of action advance our object? Is it compatable with our declaration of principles? Does it conform to rule? Has conference, the EC, our branch had something to say on such matters in the past? How was this dealt with last time (if it ever has: for example, there is a case from the '30s of a member who worked at the local co-op and organised a lock-out of strikers, he resigned when charged, there's nothing in the rules that should definitively mandate that outcome).Charge and expulsion are not 'punishments' but methods of trying to continue to achieve our objects, and to maintain our existence as a functioning organisation dedicated to achieving our objects.
The operant rule is rule 29 (which, incidentally, makes no mention of action detrimental):
Rulebook wrote:29. Charges against any member shall be submitted in writing to the Branch and a copy supplied to the member accused who shall be allowed 14 days to enter the defence. The Branch shall consider the matter at a specially summoned Meeting, and a majority of those voting shall have power to expel any member, subject to ratification by the Executive Committee. An expelled member shall have the right of appeal to Delegate Meeting or the Annual Conference.It will be observed:The branch has no discretion over laying a charge. This means that a letter saying: "I want to complain that Comrade Weasel passed the port the wrong way at dinner" would have to be dealt with by following the procedure laid out in rule. The only discretion the branch has is over deciding whether something is or is not a complaint (and I would suggest there is very little leeway on that score).That complaints against members should not be taken to any other forum than a members branch, per rule 29, if you have a complaint, you must make it in writing to a branch.The rule does not demand expulsion, merely permit it.The rule does not set out grounds for exercising the option to expel, merely that members of the branch, the EC, or ADM/conference delegates* will have to decide whether that is warranted.What is not written is that this is judicable, and so is subject fairness and equity in law should someone decide to take the party to court.Now, in that light I'd suggest that the following factors apply (in order of precidence):Law of the landThe object of the partyThe declaration of principlesThe rulebookResolutions of conferenceResolutions of the ECResolutions of the branchPrecedentAny decision to expel should be rationally relatable to these factors. So, a branch would have no grounds to expel Comrade Weasel for passing the port the wrong way.I'll make no comment on the case raised by Kent and Sussex Branch's supporting statement, save that in my opinion it comes perilously close to a breech of rule 29 by taking a case that has not been heard by a branch direct to delegates at ADM. I hope that their delegate will concentrate on the concerns of their branch members when they open this item, rather than turn the item into a discussion of a case in which the accused member and their branch cannot meaningfully defend themselves.*The rule is unclear as to whether it is delegates at conference or the whole party voting that would decide the case, I suspect this is due to the rule not being updated as conference's structure has been sucessively altered. It may be as well to establish what the prcoedure is. I'd be inclined to making it the work of delegates, teh alternative to is exercise rule 26, so if a case is taken to ADM delegates convert it to a party poll, so there is always a vote of members. Since the rulebook is unclear, it could be the job of the EC to rule on such a matter.
Vin wrote:so have you any examples of where this has accured and correctly applied? I can think of LBird, Stuart and myself. Referring to us as trolls with hobby horses is offensive cdeI was talking in the abstract, and didn't have any examples in mind. Trolls and the Hobby horse Cavalry are abundant on t'interweb.
I'd be opposed to dropping the off-topic rule (though not against a more generous handling off it) since it is a useful tool against trolls and monomaniacs pursuing their hobbyhorse across multiple topics. yes, a soupscon of drift should be allowed *where it flows naturally from the topic at hand* and a gentle reminder from time to time to run back to topic is perfectly in order.
IIRC at the time they had little popular support, it was the British reprisals and clumsy ghandling of the aftermath that really galvanised supprot. let's not forget, the Home Rule act had been passed (but not implemented). The Easter Rising and the subsquent civil war achieved the Square Root of bugger all, and the outcome we have now could have been got without lots of bloodshed. As Bernard Shaw put it: "And so we settled the Irish Question, not as civilised and reasonable men should have settled it, but as dogs settle a dispute over a bone." (Might make a good splash for the Easter 16 Standard?).Next Years events will be interesting, because Corbyn is son clearly attached to the Irish Nationalist cause (during the GE campaign he found time to remark that the first woman MP was in Islington, because Connie Markievicz was in Holloway when she was elected in '18).
http://www.peoplesmomentum.com/So, Corbyn's election campaign being turned into a ginger group: interesting not relying on Labour Representation Committee, although that will still be around…But, maybe a page like that wouldn't hurt for us…
http://www.juancole.com/2015/10/russias-strategy-approve.htmlThis is very informative.
Quote:Al-Qaeda and its allies took the northern province of Idlib away from more moderate rebels last November, and then this spring took the key cities of Idlib (the provincial capital) and Jisr al-Shughour, the town that serves as a gateway to Latakia to the West.Latakia is Syria’s major port and is sort of like its mouth. The digestive track goes down to Hama, then Homs, then Damascus. If al-Qaeda and its allies can effectively move west to Latakia port, they can massacre the Alawites supporting the al-Assad regime, who predominate in that province, and then cut the capital of Damascus in the south off from resupply by port. Likely then the regime will fall. Jisr al-Shughour was taken by al-Qaeda and other groups, including a Chechen unit of hard line fundamentalists, which would have alarmed the Russians. Vladimir Putin made his bones by crushing the second Chechen uprising, which was led by fundamentalists seeking an emirate. He wouldn’t want another such emirate with Chechen high officials to grow up so close to Russia as Latakia.Apparently, Egypt is backing the Russian intervention, but, as Cole notes, they've managed to crush their Arab Spring, and will want to see its sister revolt go the same way.
Quote:Calls are to be made for a Government inquiry into claims that SSI failed to make pension contributions for months – but has still taken workers’ payments.Of course, there is a fund, and the state will cover the short-fall, but still.Robbing bastards.
'Fraid I'm not going to plough through and fact-check it, seems plausible enough at face value. The point, though, is that it's a non-debate, for some parties to the debate, any state spending is overspending.One issue is that borrowing is actually the way the state saves: states can't put money aside for a rainy day (if it takes money by taxation, it has to use it, else it should cut taxes). Arguably, a rational state should borrow as much as it can.But, he whole issue come back down to growth, so long as the economy is growing, it doesn't really matter; buit the more the state spends, the less capital there is for expansion and investment, and that is the limit. So, the only way to prove Labour overspent would be to to show a fall in fixed capital formation:http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gross-fixed-capital-formationNow, on the 10 yr scale, it's clear that capital formation nose dived; however, it was going upwards before then, if Labour's spending had been choking investment there'd have been at least a slowing of growth prior to 2008. All the indications are that 2008 was a sudden shock (and in any case was caused by teh world economy, not Labour spending).
Obviously, debt as a % of GDP depends on how big GDP is, so during a crisis GDP falls and the ratio of debt rises, automatically.Debt is not deficit. the deficit is the gap between income and spending (or, put another way, it is the rate at which the debt grows). So, debt:GDP could be 1% but if the deficit was 100% of GDP that would be quite alarming (though not necessarily fatal, the only point of practical difficulty is when income can no longer cover at least the interest on the debt, since the government never has to pay down the principal, it can always 'roll-over' it's debts with new loans). Even then, so long as the economy is growing, that's not so much of a problem.Imagine anyone who has ever taken out a mortgage. In that year, they spent 300% of their income. If every year they move to a bigger more expensive home, they will have a deficit of 300% each year (give or take some quibbles), but that will not be a problem if each year their income rises as well, and they are acapable of servicing the debts. If they were immortal, like a state, they culd go on for ever doing this. Since we're not immortal, banks would get jittery eventually that an unrepaid loan was heading their way.So, as Corbyn and Miliband and Brown before him) propose, you can run a deficit based on only borrowing to buy capital assets, in the above example, the house, since you can always tell your creditors you will have a house to repay with. Obviously, the trick is money is fungible, even if you don't nominally spend borrowed money on eating (current account expenditure) the fact that you are borrowing to buy assetts means you can divert more of your income into living costs and current expenditure, so it's a bit of a slight of hand distinction.The real problem is that the capitalist class use their ownership of debt as a political weapon, to get their way.
