That's one of the big pro-leave arguments I see, that there is untapped potential, both economic and political, in cultivating links with the Commonwealth.
I have trouble seeing it though. And why can't we cultivate those links anyway and get the best of both worlds?
That was also the idea when we initially didn't join the EEC, it was a dumb idea then, its utterly moronic now.
That just reinforces my question: If the Commonwealth is so lucrative, why aren't we trading with them now?
Because they don't need anything that we produce. Its really very simple, but eurosceptics like too imagine its still 1856 or something.
0
Options
CorehealerThe ApothecaryThe softer edge of the universe.Registered Userregular
That's one of the big pro-leave arguments I see, that there is untapped potential, both economic and political, in cultivating links with the Commonwealth.
I have trouble seeing it though. And why can't we cultivate those links anyway and get the best of both worlds?
That was also the idea when we initially didn't join the EEC, it was a dumb idea then, its utterly moronic now.
That just reinforces my question: If the Commonwealth is so lucrative, why aren't we trading with them now?
Because they don't need anything that we produce. Its really very simple, but eurosceptics like too imagine its still 1856 or something.
Some Commonwealth countries like India, Australia and Canada are lucrative markets, but are they lucrative enough on their own to justify leaving the EU? Not really no, in the sense that, do they need what the UK has to offer enough for them to be able to offset the loss of European trade? Probably not. And being in the EU or not hasn't really got anything to do with being in good standing with Commonwealth countries and trading with them, you can do both.
And the Commonwealth countries that would perhaps benefit more from British products aren't exactly the richest economies out there to be courting. They aren't a replacement for the EU.
Eurosceptics endlessly boggle my mind on the economic side, because they already have a silly political conclusion in their head about how the UK should be in relation to the rest of Europe, and want the economics to magically back that up.
0
Options
Zilla36021st Century. |She/Her|Trans* Woman In Aviators Firing A Bazooka. ⚛️Registered Userregular
Zilla36021st Century. |She/Her|Trans* Woman In Aviators Firing A Bazooka. ⚛️Registered Userregular
So the Tories are 'surprised' by the UK public giving a damn about something as valuable as the BBC.
But the Public's views are 'not representative'; and therefore seemingly irrelevant.
Hansard Debates for 21 Jan 2016 - BBC Charter Renewal
9. Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP): What progress has been made on the BBC charter renewal process. [903149]
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr John Whittingdale): Good progress is being made on the BBC charter review programme. The consultation launched in July received 192,000 responses. We are, of course, committed to reading and analysing all of them, and we reached 150,000 earlier this month. In addition, I have commissioned further reviews and research, including an independent review of governance and regulation led by Sir David Clementi. In the coming months, my Department will work towards publishing proposals for the future of the BBC.
Patricia Gibson: Does the Minister not accept that the huge number of responses to the consultation—the second largest response to any Government consultation—shows the concern for and interest in the BBC? In the interests of full transparency, will the Secretary of State now give, as my constituents are demanding, a specific timetable for the Government publishing their full response to the BBC consultation?
Mr Whittingdale: As I say, I am very pleased about the volume of responses we have had, although approaching 150,000 of them came in within 48 hours; 38 Degrees has boasted of its success in generating all those responses. That does not mean they are not valid expressions of opinion; it just means that perhaps they are not wholly representative of public opinion at large. However, we are committed to reading every one. That is proving a logistical challenge and it has taken longer than we anticipated, but we will be publishing both a summary of the consultations and our proposals as soon as we are able.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con): There have been persistent reports that, as a part of cost-cutting, the BBC will downgrade news coverage and its parliamentary coverage. Does the Secretary of State agree that the public reasonably expect a news channel and comprehensive parliamentary reports to be essential parts of a public service broadcaster’s remit?
Mr Whittingdale: My hon. Friend will understand that it is not for me to tell the BBC how to spend its resources. However, I agree with him that a core part of the BBC is that it should provide news, and that includes coverage of the proceedings of this House.
21 Jan 2016 : Column 1537
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op): My constituents tell me that they do not want the BBC dismantled or diminished, and they certainly do not want its remit narrowed. This Government have flogged off more of our national assets than almost any other, so can we really trust them with the BBC?
Mr Whittingdale: The BBC charter expires at the end of this year, and that provides an opportunity to look at all aspects of the BBC in what is a very fast-changing media landscape. That is the purpose of the charter review. We have not reached any decisions yet and we are listening to all expressions of opinion about the future of the BBC, of which there are very many.
13. [903153] Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP): How does the Secretary of State explain the worrying discrepancy between the amount raised via licence fees and the amount spent in Scotland? There is a mismatch between the £335 million in income for the BBC from Scotland and the £190 million spent there. Does he not agree that a fairer share of that income would boost our broadcasting sector and provide funding for the restructuring of BBC Scotland?
Mr Whittingdale: Of course, viewers in Scotland, just as elsewhere in the United Kingdom, benefit from the national programming of the BBC. She will be aware that the director general recently gave evidence to the Scottish Education and Culture Committee, in which he pointed out that in 2014 £108 million was spent on local content and that that rose to more than £200 million when central support and distribution costs were included.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab): Ninety-seven per cent. of the adult population of the UK use the BBC services for an average of 18 hours every week, and their perceptions of the BBC have improved over the past 10 years. According to the BBC Trust, 85% of the public support the BBC’s main mission to inform, educate and entertain. Those figures are a remarkable endorsement of the public service ethos of the BBC. The consultation on charter renewal of the Secretary of State’s Department closed on 8 October last year, and he has now spent more time considering the responses to that consultation than he allowed for the public to respond. When will he get his act together and publish the results? Can he just give us a date today, please?
Mr Whittingdale: May I begin by welcoming the hon. Lady to her new position? I have been doing this job for a relatively short time—just eight months—and she is now the third Opposition spokesman I have faced. I do hope that she survives a little longer than her immediate predecessors. In relation to her question, I am keen that we should publish our proposals, but we did not anticipate 192,000 responses. She will understand that, if I were to get up and publish our conclusions, she would quickly be at the Dispatch Box claiming that we had not properly analysed them and that this was a cosmetic exercise. It is not cosmetic exercise and we are reading the responses carefully.
Maria Eagle: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman sounds as if he is procrastinating. The BBC charter expires at the end of this year, but he has not even got around to publishing his White Paper because the consultation is taking so long. Will he guarantee that his Department’s
21 Jan 2016 : Column 1538
time wasting will not result in some kind of debilitating short-term charter extension beyond the end of the year? Will he be clear today that the next charter will be for a minimum of 10 years?
Mr Whittingdale: Charter review comes round once every 10 years and I am determined that we should get it right. We will take however long it takes to ensure that we fully consult and consider the options, and we will publish as soon as we are ready. We are currently considering the length of the next charter, which was one of the questions in the Green Paper, and it will form part of our conclusions when we come to publish them.
So, I saw this happen on Twitter last night and my oh my did I have a chuckle. Natalie McGarry used to be in the SNP, and now sits as an Independent MP. Why, you ask?
In November 2015, it was reported that McGarry was linked with a police investigation into money which had gone missing from the accounts of the Women for Independence group. On 24 November it was announced that she had resigned the SNP whip and was automatically suspended from the party.
That's why. Anyway, last night she had a pop at JK Rowling (who was on the No side of the referendum) for being 'a supporter of a misogynist'. After being unable to present evidence for this aside from a cut and paste image that put together an awful thing some guy said and Rowling thanking him for raising money for her charity, Rowling suggested that McGarry was unclear about what defamation was, but that Rowling would help her understand shortly. This isn't really big news or anything, but I greatly enjoy people trying to land a punch on JK Rowling who then get absolutely mullared in return.
McGarry's twitter account is now private, so you can't see her side of things, but Rowling's twitter feed still has her patiently asking for proof and gently reminding McGarry that she's an elected official. It's like seeing Scrappy Do try and start a fight with Godzilla.
That's one of the big pro-leave arguments I see, that there is untapped potential, both economic and political, in cultivating links with the Commonwealth.
I have trouble seeing it though. And why can't we cultivate those links anyway and get the best of both worlds?
That was also the idea when we initially didn't join the EEC, it was a dumb idea then, its utterly moronic now.
That just reinforces my question: If the Commonwealth is so lucrative, why aren't we trading with them now?
that's a sorta narrowly neoliberal-era, post-globalization perspective
the sterling area only really died in 1972, when the UK finally floated the sterling and imposed exchange controls to the sterling/bretton woods area, largely on EEC insistence. a lot of damage had been done in 1966, when the UK unilaterally devalued the sterling against the USD, but it had struggled on for several more years
given a common monetary policy in the sterling, there are obvious questions on cohesion in fiscal and tax and transfer policies, of the sort that Eurozone countries ask each other now. it's not mere questions of narrow efficiency. and arguably the UK would be more receptive to bail out New Zealand than Greece
it's completely unimaginable that the Commonwealth would benefit from an identically common monetary policy a la the Eurozone, but (1) the same is arguably true of the Eurozone, as it stands, which hasn't deterred them, and (2) even without a 1:1 peg or sterling balances, there's still a lot to think about with elevated trust and the relative popularity of the Commonwealth outside the white Commonwealth (as compared to, say, the IMF or the World Bank).
So, I saw this happen on Twitter last night and my oh my did I have a chuckle. Natalie McGarry used to be in the SNP, and now sits as an Independent MP. Why, you ask?
In November 2015, it was reported that McGarry was linked with a police investigation into money which had gone missing from the accounts of the Women for Independence group. On 24 November it was announced that she had resigned the SNP whip and was automatically suspended from the party.
That's why. Anyway, last night she had a pop at JK Rowling (who was on the No side of the referendum) for being 'a supporter of a misogynist'. After being unable to present evidence for this aside from a cut and paste image that put together an awful thing some guy said and Rowling thanking him for raising money for her charity, Rowling suggested that McGarry was unclear about what defamation was, but that Rowling would help her understand shortly. This isn't really big news or anything, but I greatly enjoy people trying to land a punch on JK Rowling who then get absolutely mullared in return.
McGarry's twitter account is now private, so you can't see her side of things, but Rowling's twitter feed still has her patiently asking for proof and gently reminding McGarry that she's an elected official. It's like seeing Scrappy Do try and start a fight with Godzilla.
I am very happy to say that JK Rowling is a supporter of a misogynistic troll. Unless you think that's not JK Rowling tweeting about how great she thinks Spanner is in response to multiple Spanner tweets or that you think Spanner is not a misogynistic troll.
Here's a couple of example of Spanner's witty repartee
If that's a complete list of reactions of Rowling to this guy then the abusive stuff is all from before Rowling actually first interacted with him (the earliest tweet in that link to Rowling's timeline is from September last year), and since he has just under 80k tweets I dunno if she can be held responsible for not checking all of them before interacting with him.
Also all the tweets from Rowling saying things like 'thanks' aren't in response to anything objectionable from this tool.
J.K. Rowling is an absolute master of Twitter - I constantly am impressed by how well she understands it and uses it, and how good she is at it. She's also just generally a really good person it seems. Might not be a fan of her books, but definitely like her as a person speaking up on important issues.
I'm sure they've all Learned An Important Lesson and Brooks was totally and completely innocent anyway and no trace of wrongdoing can ever be associated with her good name.
Paraphrasing: "So t'after t'he second and third day without the drip line, ay just thought 'ayd staay in there, in'ter cup-board, what with it being cosy with the tea and biccies like."
"Nivver tha' mind, Piggy Cameron's Britain! Grand!".
If it turns out Spanner is indeed prominent Scottish polical journalist Euan McColm who has written articles about how horrible and nasty anonymous abuse on social media is (when done by vile cyber nats) then I won't be remotely surprised by his stinking hypocrisy as he is a monkey fuckstick.
So, I saw this happen on Twitter last night and my oh my did I have a chuckle. Natalie McGarry used to be in the SNP, and now sits as an Independent MP. Why, you ask?
In November 2015, it was reported that McGarry was linked with a police investigation into money which had gone missing from the accounts of the Women for Independence group. On 24 November it was announced that she had resigned the SNP whip and was automatically suspended from the party.
That's why. Anyway, last night she had a pop at JK Rowling (who was on the No side of the referendum) for being 'a supporter of a misogynist'. After being unable to present evidence for this aside from a cut and paste image that put together an awful thing some guy said and Rowling thanking him for raising money for her charity, Rowling suggested that McGarry was unclear about what defamation was, but that Rowling would help her understand shortly. This isn't really big news or anything, but I greatly enjoy people trying to land a punch on JK Rowling who then get absolutely mullared in return.
McGarry's twitter account is now private, so you can't see her side of things, but Rowling's twitter feed still has her patiently asking for proof and gently reminding McGarry that she's an elected official. It's like seeing Scrappy Do try and start a fight with Godzilla.
I am very happy to say that JK Rowling is a supporter of a misogynistic troll. Unless you think that's not JK Rowling tweeting about how great she thinks Spanner is in response to multiple Spanner tweets or that you think Spanner is not a misogynistic troll.
Here's a couple of example of Spanner's witty repartee
I know it's traditional for you to leap to the defense of any idiot ostensibly on the independence side but before you get in too deep bear in mind even the SNP have dropped this moron because in addition to being a moron she's corrupt and dishonest.
So, I saw this happen on Twitter last night and my oh my did I have a chuckle. Natalie McGarry used to be in the SNP, and now sits as an Independent MP. Why, you ask?
In November 2015, it was reported that McGarry was linked with a police investigation into money which had gone missing from the accounts of the Women for Independence group. On 24 November it was announced that she had resigned the SNP whip and was automatically suspended from the party.
That's why. Anyway, last night she had a pop at JK Rowling (who was on the No side of the referendum) for being 'a supporter of a misogynist'. After being unable to present evidence for this aside from a cut and paste image that put together an awful thing some guy said and Rowling thanking him for raising money for her charity, Rowling suggested that McGarry was unclear about what defamation was, but that Rowling would help her understand shortly. This isn't really big news or anything, but I greatly enjoy people trying to land a punch on JK Rowling who then get absolutely mullared in return.
McGarry's twitter account is now private, so you can't see her side of things, but Rowling's twitter feed still has her patiently asking for proof and gently reminding McGarry that she's an elected official. It's like seeing Scrappy Do try and start a fight with Godzilla.
I am very happy to say that JK Rowling is a supporter of a misogynistic troll. Unless you think that's not JK Rowling tweeting about how great she thinks Spanner is in response to multiple Spanner tweets or that you think Spanner is not a misogynistic troll.
Here's a couple of example of Spanner's witty repartee
I know it's traditional for you to leap to the defense of any idiot ostensibly on the independence side but before you get in too deep bear in mind even the SNP have dropped this moron because in addition to being a moron she's corrupt and dishonest.
Useful morons only in the SNP please.
Whether McGarry has been incompetent or criminal in her handling of Women For Independence funds is completely irrelevant to this situation.
This is about the rank hypocrisy of Rowling and many figures in the Scottish political media. Rowling has given multiple interviews about how awful it is to be a target of anonymous online abuse yet here she is clearly friends with an anonymous online troll. And now she's trying to extort money from McGarry via threat of costly legal action which is super classy. Rowling's tweet above that Bogart reproduce is a deliberate misdirection and twisting of McGarry's words - McGarry said that Rowling was supportive of Spanner not any one individual Spanner tweet. This is undeniably true given how supportive of Spanner Rowling is in her interaction with him.
As for the Scottish political media - Spanner's follower list includes a who's who of Unionist Scottish political journalists. Each and everyone of them has produced half a dozen "Anonymous online trolling in Scotland is at epidemic proportions and is so vile and horrible" at exactly the same time as Spanner was producing tweet after tweet calling Scottish female politicians cunts. So there'd they be glancing across from their copy about how awfully beastly nationalist are online to have a giggle at the anonymous online abuse Spanner threw at, say, Roseanna Cunningham and then keep on churning out that article about how the SNP must do something about this online abuse jolly well right now.
The hypocrisy is staggering.
Of course a good chunk of them know who Spanner actually is so maybe it's okay when a friend does it.
So we have a draft proposal for EU reform. The Dailies however (Express, Mail) don't feel like it goes far enough and the Express reports a poll saying people are against the deal but I haven't had a chance to track down said poll so taking with salt.
Today's Mail Headline stuck out like a sore thumb though: "WHO WILL SPEAK FOR ENGLAND?"
The Express once claimed 75% of the country wanted out of the EU, then backed away from that claim in every following paragraph until like 20% actually wanted out and everyone else thought something else. If it claimed the sun was coming up tomorrow I would narrow my eyes and feel suspicious. The Express is a joke.
Obviously, the Mail only really cares about who speaks for England, not Britain, because of course it does.
That said, the amazing deal is nothing of the sort, far less than Cameron promised in his manifesto, but no matter what he came back with the Eurosceptics screaming about it now would have been screaming anyway. They think Europe is the devil, and want out, and if Cameron had come back with the severed heads of every other EU leader and a promise of 10 talents of gold in tribute every year they would not have been satisfied.
The Express once claimed 75% of the country wanted out of the EU, then backed away from that claim in every following paragraph until like 20% actually wanted out and everyone else thought something else. If it claimed the sun was coming up tomorrow I would narrow my eyes and feel suspicious. The Express is a joke.
Obviously, the Mail only really cares about who speaks for England, not Britain, because of course it does.
That said, the amazing deal is nothing of the sort, far less than Cameron promised in his manifesto, but no matter what he came back with the Eurosceptics screaming about it now would have been screaming anyway. They think Europe is the devil, and want out, and if Cameron had come back with the severed heads of every other EU leader and a promise of 10 talents of gold in tribute every year they would not have been satisfied.
Pretty much. As a tangent, I have a suspicion that the Refugee Crisis has actually benefited Cameron in these talks as the spectre of migration - and the fact that the papers tend to use migrant and refugee interchangably still gnaws at me - makes some of his demands seem more palatable.
So what now? I see talk of Cameron trying to use this deal to jumpstart a snap referendum to secure a favourable outcome, but the question is whether the backbenchers will revolt.
I think the backbenchers who are going to revolt would always have revolted, but Cameron will take most of his MPs with him. The backbench revolt will be led by either IDS or Chris Grayling, neither of whom commands any affection in the country. I think Cameron will win the referendum by a fair bit and then go right back to winning votes by telling people the EU is awful and not to be trusted.
I think the backbenchers who are going to revolt would always have revolted, but Cameron will take most of his MPs with him. The backbench revolt will be led by either IDS or Chris Grayling, neither of whom commands any affection in the country. I think Cameron will win the referendum by a fair bit and then go right back to winning votes by telling people the EU is awful and not to be trusted.
After the UKIP scare and seeing what Trump is up to, you'd think they'd learn a lesson about stoking the fires of right wing populism like that, lest someone else pours petrol on it. Alas.
Well, if they don't lean on that they don't have an awful lot left to use as vote-winners. Take away fear of immigrants and distrust of the EU and the Tory election strategy is reduced to telling people Scotland will invade and Labour are a bunch of commies.
Well, if they don't lean on that they don't have an awful lot left to use as vote-winners. Take away fear of immigrants and distrust of the EU and the Tory election strategy is reduced to telling people Scotland will invade and Labour are a bunch of commies.
Theresa May has left herself enough wiggle room that should the press remain relentlessly negative and Cameron does not pull a rabbit out of his very obviously empty top hat in two weeks time that she could still declare for Leave. As could Gove.
May needs to bat for Leave if she wants a genuine crack at next Conservative leader.
I haven't read anything about Goves Euro stance but since he got sacked as Education Minister he's been something approaching competent, which is the closest thing to praise any conservative is likely to get out of me. There is a chance at least he has the wit to see we don't really have the option of leaving the EU.
I haven't read anything about Goves Euro stance but since he got sacked as Education Minister he's been something approaching competent, which is the closest thing to praise any conservative is likely to get out of me. There is a chance at least he has the wit to see we don't really have the option of leaving the EU.
Story in the Times says he is torn between his intellectual belief in Brexit meaning he wants to support Leave but his personal loyalty to Cameron meaning he wants to back Remain.
Gove has had an easy time in Justice: simply reverse all of Graylings decisions - accept rapturous applause from relieved population.
I haven't read anything about Goves Euro stance but since he got sacked as Education Minister he's been something approaching competent, which is the closest thing to praise any conservative is likely to get out of me. There is a chance at least he has the wit to see we don't really have the option of leaving the EU.
Story in the Times says he is torn between his intellectual belief in Brexit meaning he wants to support Leave but his personal loyalty to Cameron meaning he wants to back Remain.
Gove has had an easy time in Justice: simply reverse all of Graylings decisions - accept rapturous applause from relieved population.
Most of the big Tory names with ambitions of eventual party leadership are facing the same problem they've been facing for a long time now, the dilemma of making sure that the stay side wins while placing themselves on the leave side for the sake of appearances to their base.
Most of the ones straddling the fence muttering dark things about the EU here and there while not directly coming out for the "leave" camp (yet) are probably the secret EU supporters since to be frank, I doubt any of them give a shit about loyalty to Cameron personally. He has this term then his prestige as a conservative is gone forever, no one in the party with any future ambition will be attaching themselves to Camerons sinking ship.
The Express has topped themselves by claiming that 92% of 'people' want to leave the EU. 'People' in this headline doesn't mean a representative sample of the population, of course. It means people who took part in an online poll hosted by the Express.
We should have a Leveson inquiry every five years just to haul editors in front of a judge and ask them about garbage like this. Leveson asked the Express editor about the '75% want to leave the EU' headline and gently prodded him into admitting that well hmm ahem possibly it's not entirely accurate from a strictly factual point of view.
I comfort myself with the knowledge that it's lost around a third of its readers over the last five years (like most papers). Worst performing seems to be The Independent, down by two thirds, the website of which seems to be a carbon copy of clickbait sites. A long way down from the staid but honest paper of old.
The Express has topped themselves by claiming that 92% of 'people' want to leave the EU. 'People' in this headline doesn't mean a representative sample of the population, of course. It means people who took part in an online poll hosted by the Express.
We should have a Leveson inquiry every five years just to haul editors in front of a judge and ask them about garbage like this. Leveson asked the Express editor about the '75% want to leave the EU' headline and gently prodded him into admitting that well hmm ahem possibly it's not entirely accurate from a strictly factual point of view.
I comfort myself with the knowledge that it's lost around a third of its readers over the last five years (like most papers). Worst performing seems to be The Independent, down by two thirds, the website of which seems to be a carbon copy of clickbait sites. A long way down from the staid but honest paper of old.
The Levi-what-now?
Sorry I was doing my impersonation of the British media.
As an antidote to the blatant lies pinched off by a squatting Daily Express, here's a breakdown by a pollster about why it looks very much like a 20% lead for those who wish to remain in the EU, at least at the moment.
Posts
Because they don't need anything that we produce. Its really very simple, but eurosceptics like too imagine its still 1856 or something.
Some Commonwealth countries like India, Australia and Canada are lucrative markets, but are they lucrative enough on their own to justify leaving the EU? Not really no, in the sense that, do they need what the UK has to offer enough for them to be able to offset the loss of European trade? Probably not. And being in the EU or not hasn't really got anything to do with being in good standing with Commonwealth countries and trading with them, you can do both.
And the Commonwealth countries that would perhaps benefit more from British products aren't exactly the richest economies out there to be courting. They aren't a replacement for the EU.
Eurosceptics endlessly boggle my mind on the economic side, because they already have a silly political conclusion in their head about how the UK should be in relation to the rest of Europe, and want the economics to magically back that up.
But the Public's views are 'not representative'; and therefore seemingly irrelevant.
Sounds about right.
That's why. Anyway, last night she had a pop at JK Rowling (who was on the No side of the referendum) for being 'a supporter of a misogynist'. After being unable to present evidence for this aside from a cut and paste image that put together an awful thing some guy said and Rowling thanking him for raising money for her charity, Rowling suggested that McGarry was unclear about what defamation was, but that Rowling would help her understand shortly. This isn't really big news or anything, but I greatly enjoy people trying to land a punch on JK Rowling who then get absolutely mullared in return.
McGarry's twitter account is now private, so you can't see her side of things, but Rowling's twitter feed still has her patiently asking for proof and gently reminding McGarry that she's an elected official. It's like seeing Scrappy Do try and start a fight with Godzilla.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
that's a sorta narrowly neoliberal-era, post-globalization perspective
the sterling area only really died in 1972, when the UK finally floated the sterling and imposed exchange controls to the sterling/bretton woods area, largely on EEC insistence. a lot of damage had been done in 1966, when the UK unilaterally devalued the sterling against the USD, but it had struggled on for several more years
given a common monetary policy in the sterling, there are obvious questions on cohesion in fiscal and tax and transfer policies, of the sort that Eurozone countries ask each other now. it's not mere questions of narrow efficiency. and arguably the UK would be more receptive to bail out New Zealand than Greece
it's completely unimaginable that the Commonwealth would benefit from an identically common monetary policy a la the Eurozone, but (1) the same is arguably true of the Eurozone, as it stands, which hasn't deterred them, and (2) even without a 1:1 peg or sterling balances, there's still a lot to think about with elevated trust and the relative popularity of the Commonwealth outside the white Commonwealth (as compared to, say, the IMF or the World Bank).
https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=from:jk_rowling @BrianSpanner1&src=typd
I am very happy to say that JK Rowling is a supporter of a misogynistic troll. Unless you think that's not JK Rowling tweeting about how great she thinks Spanner is in response to multiple Spanner tweets or that you think Spanner is not a misogynistic troll.
Here's a couple of example of Spanner's witty repartee
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Also all the tweets from Rowling saying things like 'thanks' aren't in response to anything objectionable from this tool.
EDIT: changed 'followed' to 'interacted with'. I've no idea when she started following him.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Rebekah Brooks is back at News UK.
Rupert Murdoch is back in Downing Street.
That is depressing.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Paraphrasing: "So t'after t'he second and third day without the drip line, ay just thought 'ayd staay in there, in'ter cup-board, what with it being cosy with the tea and biccies like."
"Nivver tha' mind, Piggy Cameron's Britain! Grand!".
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
I know it's traditional for you to leap to the defense of any idiot ostensibly on the independence side but before you get in too deep bear in mind even the SNP have dropped this moron because in addition to being a moron she's corrupt and dishonest.
Useful morons only in the SNP please.
Whether McGarry has been incompetent or criminal in her handling of Women For Independence funds is completely irrelevant to this situation.
This is about the rank hypocrisy of Rowling and many figures in the Scottish political media. Rowling has given multiple interviews about how awful it is to be a target of anonymous online abuse yet here she is clearly friends with an anonymous online troll. And now she's trying to extort money from McGarry via threat of costly legal action which is super classy. Rowling's tweet above that Bogart reproduce is a deliberate misdirection and twisting of McGarry's words - McGarry said that Rowling was supportive of Spanner not any one individual Spanner tweet. This is undeniably true given how supportive of Spanner Rowling is in her interaction with him.
As for the Scottish political media - Spanner's follower list includes a who's who of Unionist Scottish political journalists. Each and everyone of them has produced half a dozen "Anonymous online trolling in Scotland is at epidemic proportions and is so vile and horrible" at exactly the same time as Spanner was producing tweet after tweet calling Scottish female politicians cunts. So there'd they be glancing across from their copy about how awfully beastly nationalist are online to have a giggle at the anonymous online abuse Spanner threw at, say, Roseanna Cunningham and then keep on churning out that article about how the SNP must do something about this online abuse jolly well right now.
The hypocrisy is staggering.
Of course a good chunk of them know who Spanner actually is so maybe it's okay when a friend does it.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Today's Mail Headline stuck out like a sore thumb though: "WHO WILL SPEAK FOR ENGLAND?"
For England, James?
Obviously, the Mail only really cares about who speaks for England, not Britain, because of course it does.
That said, the amazing deal is nothing of the sort, far less than Cameron promised in his manifesto, but no matter what he came back with the Eurosceptics screaming about it now would have been screaming anyway. They think Europe is the devil, and want out, and if Cameron had come back with the severed heads of every other EU leader and a promise of 10 talents of gold in tribute every year they would not have been satisfied.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Pretty much. As a tangent, I have a suspicion that the Refugee Crisis has actually benefited Cameron in these talks as the spectre of migration - and the fact that the papers tend to use migrant and refugee interchangably still gnaws at me - makes some of his demands seem more palatable.
So what now? I see talk of Cameron trying to use this deal to jumpstart a snap referendum to secure a favourable outcome, but the question is whether the backbenchers will revolt.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
After the UKIP scare and seeing what Trump is up to, you'd think they'd learn a lesson about stoking the fires of right wing populism like that, lest someone else pours petrol on it. Alas.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Unfortunately that works sometimes.
Anything that ends badly for Grayling can not, in itself, be bad. So I approve.
Goodreads
SF&F Reviews blog
May needs to bat for Leave if she wants a genuine crack at next Conservative leader.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Story in the Times says he is torn between his intellectual belief in Brexit meaning he wants to support Leave but his personal loyalty to Cameron meaning he wants to back Remain.
Gove has had an easy time in Justice: simply reverse all of Graylings decisions - accept rapturous applause from relieved population.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Most of the big Tory names with ambitions of eventual party leadership are facing the same problem they've been facing for a long time now, the dilemma of making sure that the stay side wins while placing themselves on the leave side for the sake of appearances to their base.
Most of the ones straddling the fence muttering dark things about the EU here and there while not directly coming out for the "leave" camp (yet) are probably the secret EU supporters since to be frank, I doubt any of them give a shit about loyalty to Cameron personally. He has this term then his prestige as a conservative is gone forever, no one in the party with any future ambition will be attaching themselves to Camerons sinking ship.
We should have a Leveson inquiry every five years just to haul editors in front of a judge and ask them about garbage like this. Leveson asked the Express editor about the '75% want to leave the EU' headline and gently prodded him into admitting that well hmm ahem possibly it's not entirely accurate from a strictly factual point of view.
I comfort myself with the knowledge that it's lost around a third of its readers over the last five years (like most papers). Worst performing seems to be The Independent, down by two thirds, the website of which seems to be a carbon copy of clickbait sites. A long way down from the staid but honest paper of old.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
The Levi-what-now?
Sorry I was doing my impersonation of the British media.
Linky.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35519210
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Which is cool but also quite scary.
What is the general layout?
Not even subtle on the "punish non-Tory voters" strategy now.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Why not use what works?
:herpaderp:
I'm not quite sure of that. My take is he'd happily apply these cuts uniformly if he didn't need the Tory MP votes to get it through.
Either way it's shitty, but it's important to figure out why it's shitty.