Well, anything would be better than what's happening right now in the UK. The Tories went super right wing and risk being completely annihilated. Labour went past centre right, purging almost all lefties and centrist from the party to turn themselves into the new Tories
You are correct on the first point. Particular emphasis is a reasonable description. They did not illustrate some parts of what she wanted to publish, and instead illustrated original diary entries that were edited out of the version meant for others to read, and also somehow even a minor mention of the wonders of the world turned into an illustration of the Colossus of Rhodes with a penis.
I don't see how those sentences are in any way related.
No, the Tories haven't
Those sectors do indeed need more support. And yet, they've made very clear that the 'national service' scheme would be an additional burden for them, not a boon: they're essentially expected to invest time, money and staffing into short-term training for a bunch of people who don't want to be there. And in the meantime, the Tories have slashed their budgets to the bone.
There are many sources of revenue available for a government, not just tax. Labour are relying on growth as well as the closure of loopholes to raise a lot of it. They're not being very honest though-- the likelihood is they will need to raise some forms of tax.
Except the Rwanda plan makes some sense, and also how is Rwanda not safe again?
So like they didn't actually do last time where they didn't even need to let big companies use loopholes, they just never bothered to collect the taxes in the first place. As for growth, you mean like last time where it was false growth funded by selling off assets (the entire UK gold reserve for instance) and using PFI loans because they aren't part of the normal books as such so don't count like normal government borrowing.
Yeh, however Labours last term saw inefficient spending. Private contracts for companies charging the NHS £50 a light bulb and other stuff. It was just as much jobs for the boys as the Tories were accused of. No point hiring 5 new middle managers per 1 new nurse or doctor
The Tories shifted right to capture the UKIP people There was no way someone like Patel or Braverman was going to get any power before Johnson. This might also be a timeframe issue as I'm talking about the last 5 years, you might be talking about a shorter time frame
You'd wonder what all the reactionaries who liked bringing this up would have to say about Quentin Tarantino who considered Harvey a good friend for many years. Surely they'd be as eager to tear into him, right?
The Supreme Court ruled that it was unsafe. One of the biggest issues is refoulement.
I absolutely see the benefit in volunteering. I did it myself. National service as a compulsory element is sort of the opposite of volunteering, and ends up being a burden on the sectors involved.
The idea is to not do exactly the same things as last time.
Indeed, it saw very inefficient spending-- and yet compared to the Tories over the following 14 years, they were a paragon. Spending is far less efficient now-- intentionally so, since the Conservatives simply see government as a vehicle to transfer public funds into their cronies' hands.
It probably depends on Tarantino's reaction to the news about Weinstein.
Tarantino cast Rose McGowan in Death Proof specifically to spite Weinstein because of the latter blacklisting her, and approved of Uma Thurman coming forward with the story about unsafe conditions leading to her wreck and injuries filming Kill Bill Vol. 1 due to guilt over not doing more to bring down Weinstein, so it's safe to say he isn't a fan.
That's not really what I was getting at. This one woman who was Weinstein's personal assistant when he was at the height of his power is getting dragged for it, yet these same people would say nothing regarding Tarantino - the emperer of the film bro's - having been friends with Weinstein for years. Both her and Tarantino probably knew what Weinstein was up to since it was kinda an open secret in Hollywood.
I wonder exactly what the order given was, and how/if it could be subverted but still follow the guideline as written. Maybe a focus on the Song of Solomon?
Here's the text of the memorandum (which was surprisingly difficult to find, unless I'm just being a fool).
www.documentcloud.org
Yet wasn't it then ruled safe by the agreements it signed.
Could easily get round that issue by having more options in terms of doing said service to sectors that normally do take in and need volunteers. Because those sectors already expect them and help train them.
No, they'll let more companies off paying taxes next time lol
In part due to the maturation of PFI loan agreements meaning spending is going heavily to private sector companies who agreed to help fund public initiatives.
Not quite: the government simply declared it safe in legislation. That's not the same. The issues that led the court to deem it unsafe are unchanged.
? That's... not the issue with refoulement here.
So not the armed forces, then, who have explicitly said they don't want national service.
Corporations have never had such lax taxation enforcement as under the Tories. Even under New Labour.
...and also the drastic expansion of PFI under the Tories; the favouring of unsuitable companies for public contracts (recall hundreds of millions of PPE being bought and then found to be unusable?); and the ownership of utilities by rapacious debt-fueled private actors.
