Of all the people who I thought might finally be able to tell me why Labor went with that spelling you were pretty high on the list but sadly not 😔
My guess (and it’s a pure guess) is that they wanted to differentiate between the labour movement (workers, unions etc) and the party but I have no evidence for this
The failure of US progressives to put tax reform to a) collect a lot more revenue (including with a tax on net CO2 emissions) from b) mainly high consumption people undermines everything else they ought to be wanting to do. I suppose this is the case in Australia, too.
Given that you/we do NOT have a tax on net CO2 emissions, emission standards are an OK 2nd best.
The right to ignore sounds OK as exhortation to get businesses to change their practices. At least in the US, the problem is downstream of firms wishing to avoid the costs of health insurance for low wage employees and the real (neoliberal :)) solution is to separate health insurance from employment.
I believe that it was American born King O'Malley who led to the US spelling, and it was taken aboard because it seemed more modern. Anyway, that's what I heard. And did Starmer just completely gut the Labour Party's £29bn climate change and economic modernisation policy?
I'd also note that Australia may also be the 'best of a bad bunch' at least in some respects, when it comes to the anglophone worlds stance on Gaza.
Of all the people who I thought might finally be able to tell me why Labor went with that spelling you were pretty high on the list but sadly not 😔
My guess (and it’s a pure guess) is that they wanted to differentiate between the labour movement (workers, unions etc) and the party but I have no evidence for this
Yes, all that seems like good news.
The failure of US progressives to put tax reform to a) collect a lot more revenue (including with a tax on net CO2 emissions) from b) mainly high consumption people undermines everything else they ought to be wanting to do. I suppose this is the case in Australia, too.
Given that you/we do NOT have a tax on net CO2 emissions, emission standards are an OK 2nd best.
The right to ignore sounds OK as exhortation to get businesses to change their practices. At least in the US, the problem is downstream of firms wishing to avoid the costs of health insurance for low wage employees and the real (neoliberal :)) solution is to separate health insurance from employment.
I believe that it was American born King O'Malley who led to the US spelling, and it was taken aboard because it seemed more modern. Anyway, that's what I heard. And did Starmer just completely gut the Labour Party's £29bn climate change and economic modernisation policy?
Over the last few years, the Australian and UK Labor/Labour[1] parties, have followed strikingly parallel paths:
ok say what you like but Murdoch still pulls the strings here and there. Why else would Labor be so timid?
https://www.theguardian.com/media/rupert-murdoch
PJQ - your views on this would be appreciated, cheers