The concept of a local currency is one way to encourage people to go to the high street through a creative use of supply side economics. A local currency would enable towns and cities across the country to stimulate economic activity in their floundering high streets. We need to encourage small business activity during this time of economic uncertainty, as small and micro businesses encourage entrepreneurship and form the backbone of our economy. Independent shops give our high street character and provide an incentive for people to visit our historic towns. The so-called ‘Death of the High-street’ is not just about national chains relocating, but the closure of small businesses. The use of a local currency would help reinvigorate it.
by Zoe Harding
Article contains strong language.
Okay, I’m not writing another article to bait angry American conservative shitheads. That was funny, don’t get me wrong. I could have got a whole article called: ‘101 talking points for miserable dickheads’ out of it. (For more details, see my Nazi-Punching guide to kicking the Alt-Right in the teeth and my general reasoning for violence against people who advocate genocide, and its gloriously rage-filled comment section.)
But enough baiting easily-baited term-searching nationalist wankers. Let’s be more international and talk about another democratic nation with severe racial tensions, corruption problems and an unpopular leader accused of incompetence: South Africa. On February 9th, Zuma gave the traditional State of the Nation Address of the President of South Africa (SONA, for short) to the parliament.
It was apparently a victory for Remainers when the High Court ruled that invoking Article 50 will require a full parliamentary process. The judges issuing the verdict were branded as tyrants by the tabloids — as if they were doing anything other than interpreting law. David Lammy — the MP for Tottenham, where 75% of the constituency came out in favour of the EU — declared he would block Brexit. He is the political Schrödinger’s cat, he behaves both democratically and undemocratically at the same time: vowing to uphold the wishes of his constituents against the wishes of the country. A majority of politicians don’t have the luxury of having voted the way their constituents did. Perhaps they would argue it differently, that they were democratically elected to represent their constituents, not vote with their constituents. It seems like a tenuous technicality but one that appears to stand up to scrutiny.
I guess it depends on what democracy really means. I’ve said the word so many times, I don’t even know anymore.