The Political Thread

[M.I.K.]

However I think it more likely that if it happened at all he was more or less forced to do it at the risk of some pretty dire social consequences should he refuse).

Because, of course, actually going through with it would have no dire social consequences whatsoever.

I think it's obvious why he doesn't just deny it if it isn't true. If he says it's rubbish, the next question is "what about all this other stuff, then?"

[M.I.K.]

Actually, scrap that last bit. Just noticed that they've decided that they are denying it now.

[JayzusB.Christ]

Because, of course, actually going through with it would have no dire social consequence whatsoever.

Never thought I'd be sticking up for Fuckface* Cameron, but when did we all start believing the Daily Mail anyway?

*I've just realised how apt that title would be if this rumour was substantiated.

[Modern Panther]

Heh, this is the first time I've ever seen this combination of (seemingly unrelated) views expressed, so I'm not sure who is supposed to have gone as far as you say.

It was just an inarticulate rant.

It annoys me hugely that the opposition parties have either destroyed themselves, or are so viciously treated by the media that even sensible policies are regarded as lunacy.

Meanwhile, the government introduces policies which devastate the lives of the most vulnerable but are pretty much untouchable.  The prime minister could literally fuck a dead pig and the whole debacle can be easily dismissed as irrelevant, because there is simple no alternative.  I agree that policy should be the only thing that matters, but I also think that we should be led by the best of us. 

[Jimmy Baker's Assistant]

It annoys me hugely that the opposition parties have either destroyed themselves, or are so viciously treated by the media that even sensible policies are regarded as lunacy.

Meanwhile, the government introduces policies which devastate the lives of the most vulnerable but are pretty much untouchable.  The prime minister could literally fuck a dead pig and the whole debacle can be easily dismissed as irrelevant, because there is simple no alternative.  I agree that policy should be the only thing that matters, but I also think that we should be led by the best of us.

You make a good point. I didn't vote for Cameron before, which is one reason I don't care. It'd be interesting to hear from any 2010 and/or 2015 Conservative voters to see if the pig-fucking has made a difference to them.

Only, Tory voters are banned from buying 2000AD, so they probably won't read this...

[M.I.K.]

Coincidentally, this is what greeted me when I logged in to Facebook this afternoon...



I got it four years ago to this very day apparently. It was a free gift with a Simpson's comic.

[M.I.K.]

Double post, not to acknowledge annoying stray apostrophe in last post, but to point out that this sort of thing does seem to run in Cameron's family...

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2013/12/exclusive-cameron-the-great-pm-is-related-to-catherine-ii/

[Banners]

People who vote Tory shouldn't be allowed to read 2000ad.

The values that the Labour Party espoused ahead of losing the General Election – when even its Shadow Chancellor was booted out by his own constituents – have been subsequently rejected wholeheartedly by the vast majority of the party's own membership, proving that there were no compelling reasons to vote for Labour whatsoever.

With no other credible candidate here (ie. just Con, Lab, Lib-Dem and UKIP), because of lower taxes, because of a basically good local MP, and because I didn't see Ed Miliband being able to run a bath let alone a country, I voted Tory at the election rather than waste my vote. However, liking a lot of what Jeremy Corbyn was saying, I also signed up to the Labour Party to vote for him a few weeks ago.

I guess I'll reconsider my vote again in a few years, but in the meantime I hope Labour can offer a more worthwhile and robust opposition which can temper the Tories' extremes and benefit our democracy, and come up with reasons to vote for them – reasons which people across the country ultimately found so lacking last time.

With that in mind, am I allowed to read 2000 AD again now...?

[Spikes]

People who vote Tory shouldn't be allowed to read 2000ad.

The values that the Labour Party espoused ahead of losing the General Election – when even its Shadow Chancellor was booted out by his own constituents – have been subsequently rejected wholeheartedly by the vast majority of the party's own membership, proving that there were no compelling reasons to vote for Labour whatsoever.

With no other credible candidate here (ie. just Con, Lab, Lib-Dem and UKIP), because of lower taxes, because of a basically good local MP, and because I didn't see Ed Miliband being able to run a bath let alone a country, I voted Tory at the election rather than waste my vote. However, liking a lot of what Jeremy Corbyn was saying, I also signed up to the Labour Party to vote for him a few weeks ago.

I guess I'll reconsider my vote again in a few years, but in the meantime I hope Labour can offer a more worthwhile and robust opposition which can temper the Tories' extremes and benefit our democracy, and come up with reasons to vote for them – reasons which people across the country ultimately found so lacking last time.

With that in mind, am I allowed to read 2000 AD again now...?

For the time being, yes.

[Banners]

I'll consider myself on probation ;-)

[TordelBack]

Negative interest rates on currency.
That brings me to the third, and perhaps most radical and durable, option. It is one which brings together issues of currency and monetary policy. It involves finding a technological means either of levying a negative interest rate on currency, or of breaking the constraint physical currency

imposes on setting such a rate (Buiter (2009)).
.
These options are not new. Over a century ago,
Silvio Gesell proposed levying a stamp tax on
currency to generate a negative interest rate
(Gesell (1916)). Keynes discussed this scheme,
approvingly, in the General Theory. More
recently, a number of modern-day variants of
the stamp tax on currency have been proposed
– for example, by randomly invalidating
banknotes by serial number (Mankiw (2009),
Goodfriend (2000)).
.

A more radical proposal still would be to
remove the ZLB constraint entirely by
abolishing paper currency. This, too, has
recently had its supporters (for example,
Rogoff (2014)). As well as solving the ZLB
problem, it has the added advantage of taxing
illicit activities undertaken using paper
currency, such as drug-dealing, at source.
.
A third option is to set an explicit exchange
rate between paper currency and electronic (or
bank) money. Having paper currency steadily
depreciate relative to digital money effectively
generates a negative interest rate on currency,
provided electronic money is accepted by the
public as the unit of account rather than
currency. This again is an old idea (Eisler (1932))
, recently revitalised and updated (for example,
Kimball (2015)).
.
From a speech given by Andrew Haldane (Chief Economist and the Executive Director of Monetary Analysis and Statistics at the Bank of England) on 18 September 2015 at the Portadown Chamber of
Commerce, Northern Ireland.
.

You'll be wanting the OTHER politics thread. This one's strictly piggy-fiddling for the foreseeable.

[The Legendary Shark]

Politics is all piggy-fiddling as far as I can make out...

[The Legendary Shark]

Those of you who have been disappointed by certain of the media's Corbyn coverage might enjoy the following editorial in The Grauniad:
.
Why I take issue with the Observer's stance on Jeremy Corbyn, by Ed Vulliamy.

[IndigoPrime]

The Guardian was especially rubbish. Trying hard to claw back lost readers now the mask's slipped. Pretty clear they were for a long while expecting a Cooper win and presenting coverage accordingly.

[JayzusB.Christ]

Sort of reminds me of the piss-awful Irish Independent, which before the Marriage Equality referendum was full of dire warnings about the breakdown of traditional Irish society* but afterwards decided it was pro gay marriage all along. Pathetic.

At least the Guardian is letting journalists acknowledge their prior misgivings rather than desperately trying to airbrush out history Engsoc-style.

*Like being poor and pissed on by priests while country leaders buy islands were such great traditions to preserve.