Comments on: Clarification

By: LondonStatto

LondonStatto — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:32:51 +0000

The Conservative Party oppose this approach with their inheritance tax policy.

The one that Labour stole and implemented badly?

By: willstraw

willstraw — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:13:26 +0000

Thanks for this. I agree with a lot of what you’re saying and it doesn’t prevent us from writing about these other issues under other headings (including our general heading). For example, we have also written about inequality under the economy heading since we talk about “A proactive and sustainable economic policy that creates jobs, pulls Britain out of recession and towards a low-carbon and more equitable future.”

All the best,

Will

By: Derrin Zikks

Derrin Zikks — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:56:21 +0000

It’s not a set of categories I would pick as “progressive”, I suppose is what I’m saying.

You can’t tackle inequality and poverty at the level of communities; and bad as public greed, so defined, might be, private greed, the ultimate source of poverty and inequality, is surely a much greater priority, and not just on the back of banker-bashing headlines.

In any case the real “public greed” is the great number of parasitic private firms enabled by PFI, etc., or the teams of consultants public servants seem addicted to hiring; firms like Capita; or, historically, the arms industry and big pharma. Actual public servants lack opportunities to really cash in while engaged by the state. (They get that opportunity later, but this is a sideshow.)

By: willstraw

willstraw — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:42:01 +0000

Thanks for the comment, Derrin.

We set out what “progressive” means to us on our About page: https://www.leftfootforward.org/about/

Public greed is greed using public money. That is by politicians, public servants or publicly owned companies. We are, of course, opposed to private greed too but have chosen to focus on these examples.

We don’t suppose that anyone is in favour of the four things we are fighting against yet they still happen and therefore require scrutiny. The four things we are fighting for are different. For example, we emphasise safe communities “where poverty and inequality” are tackled. The Conservative Party oppose this approach with their inheritance tax policy.

You are wrong about our MO. We have cited the OECD and ONS more than any other bodies.

Best wishes,

Will

By: Derrin Zikks

Derrin Zikks — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:34:26 +0000

You haven’t defined “progressive”, and most of your boo-hooray stuff is vapid. What exactly is “public greed”? As opposed to private greed? Who is in favour of “administrative incompetence”, or against “safe communities”?

Your MO is quoting a viewpoint, then citing a New Labour-friendly think-tank report that disputes it, with the prefix “in fact”.

By: Derrin Zikks

Derrin Zikks — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:31:17 +0000

this is an interesting, evidence-based take:

http://asajew.blogspot.com/2009/09/non-partisan.html

By: willstraw

willstraw — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:09:12 +0000

How about our coverage of Trident:

https://www.leftfootforward.org/2009/09/trident-costs-five-times-government-estimate/

https://www.leftfootforward.org/2009/09/trident-opposed-by-two-in-three/

By: Rory

Rory — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:05:32 +0000

I have the impression that this website is much more likely to criticise the Lib Dem leadership than the government.

‘Lib Dem cuts weaken fight against corruption and fraud’

I cannot remember seeing such a hostile headline directed at the Labour leadership on this website.

By: LondonStatto

LondonStatto — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 08:33:00 +0000

Anything can be set out in an About section. Not everything set out need necessarily be the truth.