Business

Jeff Bezos To Help Address Climate Change By Getting Environment To Work Harder

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 20/02/2020 - 9:58am in

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos says we should be getting an extra 6-7% efficiency out of the environment, minimum.

Pledging
his commitment to help address climate change, the billionaire businessman said
that he had identified hundreds of small inefficiencies that could be easily
eradicated.

“There’s a lot of wastage. What is the environment doing at night for example? Often there’s a full twelve hours where the environment is totally under-utilised – we need to cut break times down significantly,” he said.

He pledged to increase shift lengths, introduce a new KPI program and implement a system to track down time. “I think we can dramatically increase productivity. Let’s see what the environment can really do”.

Top 5 Papers February 10 to 17, 2020

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 18/02/2020 - 12:43am in

Top 5 Papers, based on downloads from 02/10/2020 to 02/17/2020

#
ID
Abstract Title
Authors
Affiliations
Downloads

1
3534445
A Closed-Form Solution for Optimal Mean-Reverting Trading Strategies
Alex Lipton, Marcos Lopez de Prado
Hebrew University of Jerusalem Cornell University – Operations Research & Industrial Engineering
1271

2
3514879
Man versus Machine: A Comparison of Robo-Analyst and Traditional Research Analyst Investment Recommendations
Braiden Coleman, Kenneth J. Merkley, Joseph Pacelli
Indiana University – Kelley School of Business – Department of Accounting Indiana University – Kelley School of Business – Department of Accounting Indiana University – Kelley School of Business – Department of Accounting
1193

3
3525558
Estimation of the Transmission Risk of 2019-nCov and Its Implication for Public Health Interventions
Biao Tang, Xia Wang,Qian Li, Nicola Luigi Bragazzi,Sanyi Tang, Yanni Xiao, Jianhong Wu
Xi’an Jiaotong University (XJTU) – The Interdisciplinary Research Center for Mathematics and Life Sciences Shaanxi Normal University – School of Mathematics and Information Science Xi’an Jiaotong University (XJTU) – School of Mathematics and Statistics York University – Laboratory for Industrial and Applied Mathematics Shaanxi Normal University – School of Mathematics and Information Science Xi’an Jiaotong University (XJTU) – The Interdisplinary Research Center for Mathematics and Life Sciences Xi’an Jiaotong University (XJTU) – The Interdisplinary Research Center for Mathematics and Life Sciences
563

4
2410525
Summary of Social Contract Theory by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau
Manzoor Laskar
Symbiosis International University
546

5
3521300
A New Index of the Business Cycle
William B. Kinlaw, Mark Kritzman, David Turkington
State Street Global Markets Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) – Sloan School of Management State Street Associates
545

 

Share

Australia’s Bogans Declare A National Day Of Burnouts In Honour Of Holden

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 17/02/2020 - 2:10pm in

Burn outs

Australia’s bogans have declared a national day of burnouts to be held on Friday February 21st in honour of Holden. Following the news this morning that the brand will be discontinued in Australia.

“Mate it’s a real kick in the teeth to be losing Holden,” said Holden aficionado Wayne from Gagebrook Tasmania. “I mean what am I gonna drive now?”

“Have you seen my t shirt, it says I’d rather push my Holden than drive your Ford.”

Politicians have already come out pledging support for the Holden brand with Opposition leader Barnaby Joyce saying: “You can’t have Summernats without the Nats. I promise you this, Holden will leave Australia over Michael McCormack’s dead body.”

“This summer when it’s time to judge the wet t shirt contest at Summernats, I Barnaby Joyce will rock up in my Holden statesman to make sure that the contest is judged by the best set of hands in the land.”

Prime Minister Scotty from marketing was too busy in a focus group to decide the Government’s position on Holden to respond.

Mark Williamson
www.twitter.com/MWChatShow

You can follow The (un)Australian on twitter @TheUnOz or like us on https://www.facebook.com/theunoz

George Calombaris Receives Emergency Government Assistance After Renaming His Restaurant ‘The Toorak Croquet & Duck Shooting Club’

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 11/02/2020 - 8:43am in

George Calombaris’s restaurant empire has avoided going into receivership after being allocated a $10 million Federal Government grant to upgrade female change room facilities.

The former Masterchef host had previously requested government assistance, but was unable to secure funds until he rebranded his signature restaurant as a niche elitist sporting club in a Coalition-held seat. Gazi in Melbourne’s CBD will now be known as The Toorak Croquet and Duck Shooting Club.

“If I’m honest, the
thing that my restaurants have always been lacking is a place for girls to
change into their sports gear,” Mr Calombaris said. “The new Olympic-sized
swimming pool will add to the dining experience too”.

Treasurer Josh
Frydenberg said the grant was evidence of the Coalition’s commitment to
community programs. “We need to get more girls involved in sport and where
better to do that than at a Greek fusion restaurant in Flinders Street?”

Channel 4 Threatened by the Tories with Privatisation… Again

The ‘Viewpoint’ column in next week’s Radio Times, for the 8th to 14th February 2020, contains an article by Maggie Brown, ‘Saving Thatcher’s baby’, about the problems confronting Channel 4. It begins

In 2020, Channel 4 is facing a number of challenges. Its staff are scattered to the winds, Channel 4 News is under attack from the Government, and the threat of privatisation looms. Is the pioneering broadcaster, which was launched in 1982 by Margaret Thatcher, facing an endgame?

She then describes how the broadcaster has moved its headquarters out of London and into Leeds, with hubs in Glasgow and Bristol with more programmes filmed in the regions, such as Manchester and Wales, and changes to the broadcasting schedules with the introduction of new programmes. One of these will be Taskmaster, taken from the Dave digital channel. Brown comments that the programme’s acquisition by Channel 4 is an attempt to boost audiences, but is also ‘a symptom of the tricky compromises and tightrope that C4 has to walk.’ She continues

It is a public service broadcaster “funded by advertising, owned by you”. It must also rally support as an alternative public service broadcaster to the BBC in the face of a hostile Conservative government that is needled by its mischievous independence and most recent mockery (that melting ice sculpture after Boris Johnson failed to show up for a climate change debate).

But relations with Conservative governments have always been tense, with liberal Channel 4 News and tough current affairs programmes such as Dispatches the lightning conductors. After the climate change debate last November, privatisation was immediately threatened again: a knee-jerk response.

She ends the piece by stating that the broadcaster’s business team will remain in London. She sees this as an indication that the broadcaster will not only confound the pessimist’s predictions of its impending demise, but will actually thrive. The business team have the Thatcherite values of self-reliance, and it’s this quality that will allow the broadcaster not only to survive but flourish.

Hm. Possibly. My own feeling is that if Channel 4’s business team manages to save the broadcaster, it won’t be because of an nebulous ethos of ‘self-reliance’, but because it will reflect the views and demands of metropolitan business. The same businesses that fund the Tory party.

She is, however, right about the Tories having a persistent distrust of the broadcaster. Thatcher set Channel 4 up in order to be an alternative to BBC 2. It was to serve communities that the Beeb channel didn’t, like ethnic minorities. It was also to excel in news coverage, as well as alternative arts and sports. By the latter, Denis Thatcher actually meant yachting. What that meant in practice was that the programme broadcast opera, as well as Indian cinema, a serial of the Hindu epic, the Mahabharata, a history of the madrigal, the pop show, The Tube, and a variety of comedy shows. These included Who Dares  Wins, a sketch show whose cast include Rory McGrath and Tony Robinson, the classic satirical puppet show, Spitting Image, and Desmond’s, which was set in a Black barbers, and launched a wave of Black comedian in Britain. It also had a history of Africa presented by the White afro-centric historian, Basil Davidson, and a news programme about the continent with Black presenters and reporters.  It also showed Max Headroom, which consisted of pop videos hosted by the eponymous Max, the world’s first computer-generated video jockey. Offsetting all the highbrow stuff were sexually explicit films and programmes, which was the closest teenage schoolchildren could get to viewing porn before the internet. It was the sexually explicit stuff that particularly annoyed the Daily Mail, who branded the broadcaster’s controller at the time, Michael Grade, ‘Britain’s pornographer in chief’. The Channel responded to this by broadcasting programmes for gays and lesbians. Amid the furore, one of the most sensible comments was made by the archdeacon of York. When they asked the good churchman what his view of the broadcaster showing a series about lesbians, he replied, ‘Well, who’s going to watch that if there’s Clint Eastwood on the other?’ Quite. Now I understand that one of the channels is bringing back The ‘L’ Word, a lesbian soap opera first shown at the beginning of this century. Quite apart from Channel 4’s own gay soap opera, Queer As Folk.

Private Eye seemed to regard Channel 4 back then as condescending and pretentious. Its literary reviewer sharply criticised a book by its then chief, Jeremy Isaacs, because he made it plain he wanted to bring the British public material like miner’s oral history and so on. When people complained that people didn’t want some of this, Isaacs replied that they had latent needs, needs they didn’t know they had, until someone showed them the material they’d been missing. It was this comment that particularly aroused the reviewer’s ire. But Isaac’s was right. Sometimes you don’t know if there’s a demand for a subject, until you offer people the chance of trying it. And Channel 4 really tried to expand, create and satisfy a market for culture. Oliver Letwin, the former sketchwriter for the Daily Mail and now the Times, actually praised the broadcaster for this in his book, Bog Standard Britain. The broadcaster’s programming always hit and miss. Amid the good stuff there was also much material that was rubbish. And while it had the reputation as rather left-wing, it also carried a programme of political discussion for Conservatives, Right Talk. On the other hand, its opera performances actually managed to reach a decently sized audience, showing that ordinary Brits wanted and would watch highbrow culture.

Its average audience, however, was tiny, and there was pressure on the broadcaster, like the Beeb, to produce more popular programmes to give the British public value for money. Hence the channel became much more mainstream in the 1990s. Its audience grew as expected, but the country lost out as the channel no longer tried to expand the public’s minds and tastes as it once had. And as I said, this was lamented by Letwin, among others, a supporter of the very party that had spent so much time decrying and criticising the channel for being too daring and alternative.

If I remember correctly, the Tories have privatised the channel before. There have been at least two part-privatisations, where the government has sold off some of its share in it. One was under Thatcher, when she was privatising everything. I think the other may have been under Major, who continued her programme. I have a feeling that the second privatisation may have been a cynical move by the Tories to try and work up some enthusiasm for the government. It was announced with the fanfare the Tories usually gave the privatisations, presenting them as some kind of exciting generous opportunity granted to Britain’s workers. Thatcher was trying to create a shareholder democracy, where ordinary people would own shares as participants in capitalism. That’s all died the death a long time ago. The shares given to the workers in the privatised industries have all been sold on, and are now in the hands of a few big businessmen. The council houses she sold off have been bought by private housing associations for profit, and there’s now a housing shortage. And the privatisations were never as popular as the Tories tried to make us all believe to begin with. Support for them, according to polls done at the time, never rose about fifty per cent.

Channel 4 news has a reputation for excellence. Which is undoubtedly why the Tories now despise it and are discussing privatisation again. Britain’s publicly owned broadcasters are under threat because they are obstacles to Murdoch, the Americans and the British private broadcasters, who fund the Tories, dominating British television. They also despise them because they’re supposed to be impartial, unlike the private networks, which would be free to have whatever bias their proprietors chose. And besides, as this week’s attempts to dictate to the media, who could and could not attend BoJob’s precious lobby briefings shows, the Tories want to impose ever more restrictive controls over the media. The end result of that process, if it goes on is, is the rigorous, authoritarian censorship of totalitarianism.

I dare say that if the Tories do go ahead and privatise the Beeb and/or Channel 4, it’ll be presented as some kind of great liberalisation. The British public will be freed from having to support them, and they will have to take their chances in the market place, according to the tenets of Thatcherism. But if that happens, public service broadcasting will have been destroyed along with what should have been cornerstones of media impartiality.

But considering how relentless biased the Beeb has been against Labour and in favour of the Tories, their news desk has done much to destroy that already.

Editorial and Advisory Board of Journal Resign En Masse

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 05/02/2020 - 1:24am in

“We recount our small act of resistance here because we think there may be lessons for the wider academic community.”

That sentence is from a blog post by the former editors-in-chief of the European Law Journal (ELJ)Joana Mendes (Luxembourg) and Harm Schepel (Kent), announcing their resignation, along with the resignation of all eight members of the journal’s board of editors and all ten of the journal’s advisory board members.

They are resigning over conflicts with the journal’s publisher, Wiley, regarding how the editors of the journal should be chosen:

In 2018, Wiley sought to appoint Editors-in-Chief without as much as consulting the Board of Editors and the Advisory Board, in a process both unfair to the prospective, excellent, new editors and in complete disregard of the integrity and autonomy of the academic community gathered in the Boards. The new editors withdrew, and the Boards resigned in protest. Wiley finally relented and agreed on an open competitive process administered by a committee of Board representatives leading to an appointment by mutual consent of the publisher and the committee. In the end, our recent negotiations with Wiley broke down on our one necessary if insufficient condition for agreeing to new terms: to simply have this process formalized in our new contract. It is a modest point, but one of vital importance: it clears the way to a model where Editors respond to the Board, not to the publisher, and where Editors work for the journal, not as remunerated contractors for the publisher. In other words, it is a fundamental condition for safeguarding academic autonomy.

The editors acknowledge that Wiley had the legal right to act as it did, as the owner of the journal:

It has the rights to the title and associated proprietary paraphernalia, and it controls access to content. It operates the ELJ much as it and other commercial academic publishers operate other journals. It appoints and employs editors as ‘contractors’ who then organize and manage the free labor of authors and reviewers of submissions. 

But they claim that this standard organizational arrangement doesn’t fit with how they see the value and purpose of their work:

We saw Wiley as a prestigious publishing house that should be generously rewarded for services rendered to the intellectual project that is the European Law Journal. We saw sales and revenue and impact factors as slightly irritating but necessary means to the end of sharing that intellectual project with the wider academic community. And yes, we thought and still think that the intellectual project of the ELJ is ‘owned’ by the academic community of editors, authors, reviewers and readers whose efforts have made the ELJ into a leading journal of European law. 

Wiley publishes many philosophy journals, including BioethicsEuropean Journal of PhilosophyJournal of Applied PhilosophyJournal of Social PhilosophyMetaphilosophyNoûsPacific Philosophical QuarterlyPhilosophy & Public AffairsPhilosophy and Phenomenological ResearchPhilosophy CompassRatioSouthern Journal of Philosophy, to name just some. I doubt that Wiley’s standard business model for journals is unique. I’m curious what editors of philosophy journals think about that model and about the resignation by those at ELJ.

[Note: the foregoing list of journals originally named some that are no longer published by Wiley. Thanks to the readers who pointed these errors out.]

The post Editorial and Advisory Board of Journal Resign En Masse appeared first on Daily Nous.

Top 5 Papers Jan 27 to Feb 2 2020

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 04/02/2020 - 10:49am in

Top 5 Papers, based on downloads from 01/27/2019 to 02/02/2019

#
ID
Abstract Title
Authors
Affiliations
Downloads

1
3301277
Selling Fast and Buying Slow: Heuristics and Trading Performance of Institutional Investors
Klakow Akepanidtaworn, Rick Di Mascio, Alex Imas, Lawrence Schmidt
University of Chicago – Booth School of Business Analytics Limited Carnegie Mellon University – Department of Social and Decision Sciences MIT Sloan School of Management
980

2
2711731
New Venture Creation: Controversial Perspectives and Theories
Aidin Salamzadeh
University of Tehran – Faculty of Entrepreneurship
701

3
2930072
New Venture Creation: How Start-Ups Grow?
Aidin Salamzadeh,David A. Kirby
University of Tehran – Faculty of Entrepreneurship University of Surrey – School of Management
692

4
2307454
Social Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education: Insights from a Developing Country
Aidin Salamzadeh, Mohammad Ali Azimi, David A. Kirby
University of Tehran – Faculty of Entrepreneurship University of Tehran – Faculty of Entrepreneurship University of Surrey – School of Management
686

5
3323393
Rentabilidad de los Fondos de Inversión en España, 2003-2018 (Return of Mutual Funds in Spain, 2003-2018)
Pablo Fernandez, Juan Fernández Acín, Mar Martinez
University of Navarra – IESE Business School, University of Navarra, IESE Business School
570

Share

Lobster on How the Beeb Became Tory Propaganda Outlet

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 14/01/2020 - 1:47am in

Robin Ramsay has begun putting up articles on the latest issue of Lobster, no. 79, for summer 2020. In his ‘View from the Bridge’ section he has posted this piece, which was written  posted on Facebook by the former Beeb journalist, Marcus Moore, on how the Tories turned the Beeb into their own pet propaganda mouthpiece.

‘A number of changes made during the last seven years or so, spearheaded by David Cameron, have led to the corporation’s news and politics departments becoming little more than ventriloquists’ dummies. Of particular note are the following:

a) important posts at the BBC being filled by pro-government figures from the private sector (Rona Fairhead, David Clementi, James Harding,Robbie Gibb etc)

b) direct links with the manipulative tabloid press being strengthened by Downing Street giving important positions to dubious characters like Andy Coulson and Craig Oliver

c) the subsequent recruitment of people like Alison Fuller Pedley (of Mentorn Media), who is responsible for choosing who gets to be in the Question Time audience, and Sarah Sands (formerly of the Telegraph, Mail and Evening Standard) who now edits Radio 4’s Today programme

d) all of the above follows Cameron’s appointment, in June 2010, of John Browne (Baron Browne of Madingley) to the post of ‘Lead NonExecutive Director’ for Downing Street, his role being that of ‘recruiting business leaders to reformed departmental boards’ – Browne’s questionable history at BP notwithstanding (remember Deep Horizon!)

e) how all of this quiet, underhand activity has been largely unreported,but has given the current Conservative government immense power within fashionable and influential circles.’

See: https://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/free/lobster79/lob79-view-from-the-bridge.pdf

All of which means that the Beeb isn’t remotely an impartial broadcaster, as it purports to be and should be by law. I’ve said that the Beeb makes some excellent programmes. It does, and this season’s Dr. Who has been a case in point. But its news reporting is irredeemable.

As far as I’m concerned, everyone in it should be sacked, and especially Laura Kuenssberg and Nick Robinson.

Sargon of Gasbag on How the Norf Went Tory

A few days ago Carl ‘Sargon of Akkad’ Benjamin put up a video, in which he presented his idea of why the north of England and the midlands went Tory. It was based on a cartoon from 4chan’s Pol Board, and so presented a very caricatured view of the north. Sargon is the extreme right-winger, who personally did much to destroy UKIP simply by joining it. This ‘classical liberal’ – meaning libertarian – with his highly reactionary views on feminism and racism was too much even for the Kippers. His home branch of Swindon wanted him deselected when the party chose him as the second of their two MEP candidates for south-west England, and the Gloucestershire branch closed down completely. And according to Sargon, the ‘Norf’ went Tory because Blair turned the Labour party from the party of the working class throughout Britain into the party of the liberal metropolitan elite, and turned its attention away from class issues to supporting Islam, refugees, radical feminism and gay rights. This conflict with the social conservative values of working people, and particularly northern working people. As a result, they voted for Johnson, who had the same values they had.

The strip depicts the northern working class as Norf F.C., a local football team. They have their counterparts and rivals in Sowf F.C., a southern football team, and in the Welsh and Scots. The north is presented as a region of fat skinhead football hooligans, poorly educated, and suffering from scurvy and malnutrition, but who love their families, their communities and their country. In the strip’s view, these communities were traditionally Labour. But this changed with the election of Tony Blair, an Oxford educated lawyer, who took over the party. Under his aegis, it no longer was the party of the working class, but instead had a lower middle class membership. These were over-educated officer workers, who turned it towards Communism with the election of Jeremy Corbyn. They supported racism witchhunts, gay rights and flooding White communities with coloured immigrants, and were pro-EU. They despised natural, healthy patriotism. The result was that when Boris appeared, despite being an Etonian toff they recognised themselves in him. He would do something about Brexit and immigration, and would attack the radical left who support Muslim rape gangs and wanted to chop off their sons’ genitals. And who would also put the ‘bum boys’ in their place. It led to the massive defeat of the Labour party, and in particular ‘Communists’ like owen Jones and Ash Sarkar of Novara media.

I’m not going to show the video here, but if you want to see it for yourself, go to YouTube and search for ‘How the Norf Went Tory’, which is his wretched video’s title.

To Sargon, Corbyn is a friend of Hezbollah and Hamas, and to show how threatening the feminists and LGBTQ section of the Labour party he shows various radical feminists with T-shirts saying ‘White People Are Terrorists’ and a trans-activist with a baseball bat and the tattoo ‘Die Cis Scum’, referring to cis-gendered people – those who identify with their biological gender. The over-educated lower middle class people he sneers at are graduates of gender studies, who work in McDonalds, or have submitted to what he describes as ‘office serfdom’.

It’s very much a simplistic view, but there’s much truth in it as well as great deal of distortion. Let’s go through it.

The UKIP View of the North

Firstly, it represents very much the UKIP view of events. The academic study of UKIP, Revolt on the Right,  found that its members were poorly educated, working class people in the north. They had socially Conservative views, hated the European Union, resented immigration, particularly Black and Asian, and felt abandoned by the traditional parties. He is also right in identifying the change from working class representation to middle class representation with Blair’s leadership. Blair didn’t like the working class. He wanted to get the votes of the swing voters in marginal constituencies. As Sargon’s video acknowledges, he supported the neoliberalism that had devastated the northern economy and which made so many northerners hate the policy’s architect, Maggie Thatcher. Within the party, Blair sidelined working class organisations like the trade unions in favour of courting and recruiting business managers.

The Labour party was keen to represent Blacks and other ethnic minorities, women and gays due to its ideological commitment to equality. This policy became particularly important after Thatcher’s victory in 1979, when it appeared to some that the White working class had abandoned the party. I’ve also seen books published in the ’70s lamenting the right-ward movement within the Labour party due to its membership becoming increasingly middle class, so this trend actually predates Blair somewhat. However, it acquired a new importance under Blair because of the emphasis his administration place on BAME rights, feminism and gay rights. In my view, this was partly as an attempt to preserve some claim to radicalism and progressive values while abandoning socialism and the working class.

Sargon Doesn’t Understand Class and Communism

Sargon also doesn’t understand either what Communism is. He seems to believe in the rantings of the contemporary right that it’s all about identity politics and changing the traditional culture from above. That’s one form of Marxist politics coming from the ideas of the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci. But traditional, orthodox Marxism emphasised the importance of the working class and the class structure of society. Marx’s theory of Dialectical Materialism held that it was the economic base of society that defined ideology, not the other way around. Once the working class came into power and socialised the economy, the ideologies supported and created by capitalism would disappear. Gramsci’s ideas about changing ideology and culture became fashionable in left-wing circles because it was believed that the working class was actually in decline as society changed. Demographers noted that increasing numbers of people were becoming lower middle class. Hence the movement on the left towards that sector of society, rather than the traditional working class.

Corbyn More Politically Committed to Working Class

Yes, Corbyn also supported anti-racism, feminism and gay rights, but these had been key values of the left since the 1980s. I remember then how the Labour party and leading figures like Michael Foot and Ken Livingstone were vilified as Communists and Trotskyites, and how the party was caricatured as standing for Black lesbians. There were all those stories circulating in the Scum, for example, about how radical teachers in London schools had decided that ‘Baa Baa Black Sheep’ was racist, and insisted children sing ‘Baa Baa Green Sheep’ instead. Corbyn does come from a privileged background, but his views and the Labour manifesto are far more working class in the sense that they represent a return to traditional socialist economic policies than Blair’s. And certainly far more than Johnson’s and the Tories.

I have to admit that I’m one of the over-educated officer worker types Sargon sneers at. But I never did gender studies, not that I’m sneering at it or those who studied it. My first degree is in history. And I am very sure that most of the legions of graduates now trying to get any kind of paid work have a very wide variety degrees. I also think that many of them also come from the aspirant working class, who went into higher education in order to get on. Also, if you were interested or active in working class politics in the 1980s, you were exposed and took over the anti-racism and anti-sexism campaigns. Ben Elton was notorious as a left-wing comedian in the 1980s, but he defended the working class and ethnic minorities against the Tories.  It was not the case that the White working class was viewed with suspicion as a hotbed of racism, although sections of it, represented by such grotesques as Alf Garnet, certainly were. But it was that section of the working class that the Scum and the Tory party addressed, and so it’s now surprise that they see themselves represented by Boris.

Their belief in Boris is ultimately misplaced, however. Boris will betray them, just like he has betrayed everyone else.

He isn’t going to get Brexit done. He is going to continue with his privatisations, including that of the NHS, and dismantlement of the welfare state. The people in the northern and midlands communities that voted for him are going to find themselves still poor, and probably much poorer, under him.

But the lessons for Labour should be that there should be no return to Blairism. 

David Rosenberg and many other left-wing bloggers have argued from their own personal experience that the way of winning working class voters back to Labour and away from the far-right is through the hard work of knocking on doors and neighbourhood campaigning. This is what Blairism didn’t do. Jones showed in his book Chavs: The Demonisation of the Working Class that it was Blair that turned away and demonised them, and simply expected them to continue voting Labour as they didn’t have anywhere else to go. And it was the Blairites and Tories, who viewed the White working class as racist and vilified them as such. Although it also has to be said that they also courted them by appealing to their patriotism and their feeling of marginalisation in an increasingly multicultural society. And the fact that Jones took the trouble to attack this refutes Sargon’s attempt to present Jones as a ‘Communist’, who was against their interests.

Yes, you can find the misandrists, and the anti-White racists and extreme gay and trans rights activists in the Labour party. But they’re an unrepresentative minority, who are going to be controversial even in their own small circles. Attempts by the Tories to magnify their influence are deliberately deceptive in order to stop people from believing that the Labour party means to do anything for ordinary working people. Just as Sargon has tried to do in his video.

Winning back the working class from Boris does not mean a return to Blair and attempting to turn the party into the Conservatives 2.0. But it does mean returning to working class activism, representation and continuing to support real policies to benefit the working class, whether Black, White or Brown, Christian, atheist, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish or whatever.

And that has to be a return to genuine socialism.

Man Worth $40 Million Hoping To Become Financially Independent

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 10/01/2020 - 10:55am in

Tags 

Business, Featured

A British man worth around £30 million has announced plans to
make it by on his own.

The man and his wife will be forced to scratch by on £5 million a year initially, but hope to soon get to a point where they’ll have some spending money too.

“It’s scary cutting the apron strings, I’m not going to lie,” the man said. “I’m literally starting out with only 30 million quid and a cottage in Windsor to my name. But everyone has to go it alone at some point and earn a crust – we’ll struggle through.

“All I want right now is to be able to put a few roofs over our head and be able to employ enough staff to put food on the table”.

He said he might still pop back home to get the washing done. “I’m not sure we’ll be able to afford our own washing servant straight away, so I might bring a load around once in a while”.

The Anti-Experts Guide To Everything – 2020 Australian Tour ON SALE NOW

Pages