This is a Substack problem. They don't use the same ratio as social media platforms so we have a choice - either our image fits nicely on Facebook/Twitter etc., or it fits nicely on Substack. It's annoying.
Of course, Corbyn was dangerous for the Tory lovers - he would have cut wages of politicians, to make a fairer overall wage/benefits balance. So, they shot him down. They shot him down in any way they could. Accusing him of being anti-Semitic, when he has been known to support peoples from all walks of life his entire career! But, the damage was done. He was forced to the sidelines, & isn't even allowed to return to Labour. & most believe the lies that were spun about him.
So, instead, you have the Tory bootlicker, KS, who is so "New Labour" they might as well be using the Conservative logo!
The main point is one you come to near the end - austerity isn't really austere. It's jut a scheme of cutting some stuff whilst pissing away money on other things. It was never intended to actually save money, or reduce debts, just to look like it.
There are certainly enourmous areas of government spending which could be tackled, but that's never going to happen.
Just a quick comment - if you look a the 'main page' the image-graphic banners don't fit nicely in the 'panes' presented.
I think that's an aspect ratio thing?
This is a Substack problem. They don't use the same ratio as social media platforms so we have a choice - either our image fits nicely on Facebook/Twitter etc., or it fits nicely on Substack. It's annoying.
Yeah, that seems about right. Seems like there's no good solution really. (Well, aside from 'non text' banners, or something).
I can live with it, I just thought I'd mention it!
Crack addicts harm themselves and don’t intend to harm others. Austerity addicts benefit themselves with the intent to harm the masses.
Poverty is violence. Austerity is murder.
Both are political decisions that need to be rejected at all costs
With FPTP voting political parties can't take risks with a radical election agenda. Thatcherism developed fully after she had won power.
Labour have actually said they will borrow for investment spending.
Economic history is absolutely clear that investment cannot be guaranteed to succeed.
Lack of investment however is bound to fail
Of course, Corbyn was dangerous for the Tory lovers - he would have cut wages of politicians, to make a fairer overall wage/benefits balance. So, they shot him down. They shot him down in any way they could. Accusing him of being anti-Semitic, when he has been known to support peoples from all walks of life his entire career! But, the damage was done. He was forced to the sidelines, & isn't even allowed to return to Labour. & most believe the lies that were spun about him.
So, instead, you have the Tory bootlicker, KS, who is so "New Labour" they might as well be using the Conservative logo!
A crack addict may need to hit rock bottom before they concede the need for treatment. Do we see either main party doing the same?
Excellent stuff, AAV. Tis was my blogpost on austerity from 2020. https://thepoundinyourpocket.org/2020/02/24/6-whats-it-all-about-austerity/
The main point is one you come to near the end - austerity isn't really austere. It's jut a scheme of cutting some stuff whilst pissing away money on other things. It was never intended to actually save money, or reduce debts, just to look like it.
There are certainly enourmous areas of government spending which could be tackled, but that's never going to happen.