Powered by iPetitions - Start your online petition now

Signatures 378 total

Page: « 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... 8 »

  1. 51
    Name: Alex Williams on Feb 28, 2010
    Comments: The debate should not be on cutting but on what we are spending on. An opportunity to invest in sustainable projects that we need such as green power to balance any longer term debt issues. Invest for growth will enable us to be in stronger place to recover and in the areas which will give us a stronger more stable economy.
    Flag
  2. 52
    Name: Stuart Weir on Feb 28, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  3. 53
    Name: Jude Bloomfield on Feb 28, 2010
    Comments: Instead of cuts we need a green industrial policy, including intervention to save windturbines and electric car producers and public investment in green technologies and infrastructure such as combined heat and power systems, hydrogen fuel cells, green roofs.
    Flag
  4. 54
    Name: Guy Aitchison on Feb 28, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  5. 55
    Name: Tim Haigh on Mar 1, 2010
    Comments: Part of the reason that bankers' bonuses are such a hot potato these days is that a great many people had no idea of the sheer scale of remuneration that bankers enjoyed: objecting to the bonises is a peg to hang a more general disgust on. Wehere political parties fret about welfare pyaments making it not worth while for some people to get a job, their answer is generally to cut welfar. But the problem is our acceptance of a huge low-pay economy. If people were offered a living wage for working, they would be less inclined to survive on benefits. A transfer of money from the very rich to the very poor is the elephant in the room, as it always is. First move - cast iron rates of tax on high incomes (50% on income over a certain level is not punitive) and a higher minimum wage.
    Flag
  6. 56
    Name: Frances Kirkham on Mar 1, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  7. 57
    Name: Bill Longdon on Mar 1, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  8. 58
    Name: Anna Robinson on Mar 1, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  9. 59
    Name: Teresa O'Brien on Mar 1, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  10. 60
    Name: Lena Easton on Mar 1, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  11. 61
    Name: Alison Fell on Mar 1, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  12. 62
    Name: Trenton Field on Mar 1, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  13. 63
    Name: Belinda Geddes on Mar 1, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  14. 64
    Name: Colin Nave on Mar 1, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  15. 65
    Name: C S Kirkham on Mar 1, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  16. 66
    Name: Joe Burns on Mar 1, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  17. 67
    Name: Vanessa Sparrowhawk on Mar 1, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  18. 68
    Name: Dr L Wilson on Mar 2, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  19. 69
    Name: Mickaël Clévenot on Mar 2, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  20. 70
    Name: Richard Carter on Mar 2, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  21. 71
    Name: Emma Wright on Mar 2, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  22. 72
    Name: Pierre-Marie Bosc on Mar 2, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  23. 73
    Name: Michael Dietrich on Mar 2, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  24. 74
    Name: Paolo Ramazzotti on Mar 2, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  25. 75
    Name: Don Slater on Mar 2, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  26. 76
    Name: Sue Konzelmann on Mar 2, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  27. 77
    Name: Alex Coad on Mar 2, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  28. 78
    Name: Paul Cockshott on Mar 2, 2010
    Comments: There is notable failure to focus on the trade deficit as a cause of the public sector deficit.
    Flag
  29. 79
    Name: Chassagnon on Mar 2, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  30. 80
    Name: Andrew Sayer on Mar 2, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  31. 81
    Name: Jonathan Hopkin on Mar 2, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  32. 82
    Name: BORTIS Heinrich on Mar 2, 2010
    Comments: I really DO agree with the petition!
    Flag
  33. 83
    Name: Hans Schenk on Mar 2, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  34. 84
    Name: Dieter Bögenhold on Mar 2, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  35. 85
    Name: Carlota Perez on Mar 2, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  36. 86
    Name: Andrew Watt (ETUI, Brussels) on Mar 2, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  37. 87
    Name: Elizabeth Garnsey on Mar 2, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  38. 88
    Name: David Tyfield on Mar 2, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  39. 89
    Name: David Steele on Mar 2, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  40. 90
    Name: Pietro P. Masina on Mar 2, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  41. 91
    Name: Todor Balabanov on Mar 2, 2010
    Comments: Based rigorously on microeconomic theory the general equilibrium approach provides a comprehensive framework for studying the effects of policy interference on all markets of an economy. The simultaneous explanation of income generation and spending for all economic agents allows us to address both efficiency as well as distributional effects of policy changes. This is why applied general equilibrium (AGE) models have become a standard tool for quantitative policy analysis. In addressing the Impacts of Globalization on the UK´s labor market we will have to be taking into account the comparative advantages of the country specific production factors. To that end we are developing an applied general equilibrium modeling approach to analyze employment and unemployment effects of both the UK´s labor market support framework and the Globalization.
    Flag
  42. 92
    Name: J Paul Dunne on Mar 2, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  43. 93
    Name: Wolfgang Blaas on Mar 2, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  44. 94
    Name: Peter E. Earl on Mar 2, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  45. 95
    Name: Renato Vitolo on Mar 2, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  46. 96
    Name: Bronislaw Szerszynski on Mar 2, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  47. 97
    Name: Birgitte Andersen on Mar 2, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  48. 98
    Name: Renee Prendergast on Mar 2, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  49. 99
    Name: Andrew Mearman on Mar 2, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  50. 100
    Name: Bob Jessop on Mar 2, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag

Page: « 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... 8 »

Sponsored links