Truss vs Sunak - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
By pugsville
#15248969
Politics_Observer wrote:@Potemkin

Has Britian taken to the American model of passing big tax give aways to the rich? Isn't this sort of like Reagan's trickle down economics that has been proven to be a failure economically speaking? Cutting taxes for the wealthy does not increase employment, consumer spending, nor government revenues in the long term.


It increases post politics employment for ministers. Increases party donations.

Does not work for who?

The Conservative Party isnt there to represent that average Briton. But the interests of their donors.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#15248972
Politics_Observer wrote:@Potemkin

Has Britian taken to the American model of passing big tax give aways to the rich? Isn't this sort of like Reagan's trickle down economics that has been proven to be a failure economically speaking? Cutting taxes for the wealthy does not increase employment, consumer spending, nor government revenues in the long term.

Exactly. Truss is an adherent to ideological dogma which passed its sell-by date more than 30 years ago. Borrowing money to give tax breaks to the super-rich while taxing pensioners on their meagre income seems… an odd way of proceeding. Even the IMF, who are not usually noted as trendy lefties, have objected to this. Truss genuinely seems to think that she really is Thatcher 2.0. Even more worryingly, however, she also seems to genuinely think that this 1982 rather than 2022…. :eh:
User avatar
By noemon
#15248973
Potemkin wrote:These words haven’t aged well, @noemon, even after just a few days. ;)

I stand by what I said about Liz Truss. The Tory Party will eventually crawl back to Boris across broken glass to beg him to return. Lol.


The £2 billion required to fund the reduction of the top-rate is short-change and does not justify this reaction we are witnessing.

The reduction of the top-rate will bring in more tax money in the medium and long-run by allowing people to declare more as income tax rather than through their ISA's and ltd companies.

Reality is required instead of just talking points.

The BoE has been the slowest bank in the planet to react to global events, by far, in a bid to maintain the upwards trajectory of house prices by refusing to follow others in hiking interest rates up. Now it has declared war on government and called its mates from abroad also because the government's fiscal policy is forcing the BoE to increase interest rates which it should had done months or even years ago.

The Independent, Labour, the IMF, the BoE are all arguing in favour of expensive housing, higher overall taxes and are somehow heralded as "progressive".

It's not the 2 billion from our fiscal policy or the fact that income earners of 100k will be paying 40% instead of 45% that are unsustainable but the maintenance of low interest rates for mortgages and has been for over a decade at least.

The government's minor error of reducing the top tax rate instead of unfreezing the thresholds is even smaller change for which a pound of flesh is being demanded.

This pound of flesh is being demanded to all of us through impoverishment.

The IMF now directly interfering in British politics for £2 billion worth of policy in the country with the lowest debt in the G7 is beyond fishy Potemkin.

Manufactured hysteria means that my words have aged better than I expected.

The mini-budget is not "a budget for the rich" as Labour, US pundits and the government's opponents are trying to paint it.

Energy subsidy money for everybody
NI reduction for everybody

The reduction of the top rate from 45% to 40% in combination with removing the cap on banker's salaries is intended to attract high-income individuals to be domiciled here for the purposes of increasing tax intake. The short-term cost of £2 billion is peanuts and not a valid reason for the hysteria we are witnessing against the sterling and the government.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15248976
@noemon

Boom and bust economics sans the boom.


:lol:
User avatar
By noemon
#15248978
Truss today: Liz Truss has defended the decision to scrap the 45p top rate of income tax as she argued that lower taxes "help everybody".

She told BBC Radio Nottingham: "Having lower taxes across the board... helps everybody because it helps grow the economy.

"For too long the debate in this country has been about distribution rather than how we grow our economy."

She's got more balls than most people and she is right of course.
User avatar
By Negotiator
#15248987
Politics_Observer wrote:Cutting taxes for the wealthy does not increase employment, consumer spending, nor government revenues in the long term.

Actually it does, in certain situations.

If your country was bombed into the ground, but your people still have the education and knowhow, the rich can invest any profit into production. Then low taxes for the rich actually help the economy.

Fully developed countries however only allow small such investments. Basically you just need to replace equipment that was worn out and occasionally buy a new technology somebody recently invented that makes productivity even better.

In such countries you want high taxes for the rich because there isnt much in the real economy that they could invest in. At best they invest in other countries at that point. At worst they do games on the financial markets.



noemon wrote:She's got more balls than most people and she is right of course.

She's ignorant and she's making the situation worse.
User avatar
By noemon
#15248995
The top income tax rate in the US is 37%, in the UK it was 45% until it was reduced to 40% by Kwasi and Liz. This rate applies to a handful of people as most people in that bracket use ltd's to arrange their tax affairs.

The 2 billion short-term cost is extremely low in a trillion dollar economy and in the medium and long term this measure will increase tax receipts for the state as more people will declare more of their income instead of hiding it away in ISA's, SIPP's, ltd's and offshore accounts.

Americans, the IMF, Moody's, Labour and the Left having hysteric bouts about this is quite ridiculous.
By late
#15248998
noemon wrote:
Truss today: Liz Truss has defended the decision to scrap the 45p top rate of income tax as she argued that lower taxes "help everybody".

She told BBC Radio Nottingham: "Having lower taxes across the board... helps everybody because it helps grow the economy.

"For too long the debate in this country has been about distribution rather than how we grow our economy."

She's got more balls than most people and she is right of course.



Republicans having been cutting taxes on the rich for over 40 years. It's not about growing the economy, it's about politics.

"After the Great Recession of 2007-09, claims that cutting taxes would increase economic growth led states such as Kansas, Ohio, and others to slash personal or corporate income taxes. Those tax cuts didn’t deliver the promised economic boost. And the resulting revenue shortfalls forced schools to shift more costs on to parents and teachers, pushed up tuition for college students, left millions of people without health insurance, and caused delays in highway repairs, among other harms.

Take Kansas. Lawmakers in 2012 and 2013 approved massive income tax cuts sold in large part by claims that they would deliver a “shot of adrenaline” to the state’s economy, as then-Governor Sam Brownback put it. But it didn’t turn out that way, as the state’s private sector lagged behind neighboring states and the nation overall over the next few years. And to deal with the revenue losses, the state imposed unprecedented cuts in public services across the board, as well as unorthodox budget gimmicks to mask the full damage. The harm was so severe that in 2017, a bipartisan majority of lawmakers rolled back most of the tax cuts — overriding Governor Brownback’s veto in the process — to put the state back on firmer ground.

What about the tax cuts’ promised payoff in long-term prosperity or growth? Of the five states that cut income taxes most sharply in the 2010s (Kansas, Maine, North Carolina, Ohio, and Wisconsin), four saw slower growth in jobs and personal income than the nation in the years that followed.[6] States without an income tax haven’t done better, either. Over the course of the 2010s, the nine states with the highest top marginal income tax rates saw their economies grow slightly faster, on average, than the nine no-income-tax states."

https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-bud ... r-tax-cuts
User avatar
By noemon
#15248999
It is evident that not a single person has anything substantive to say about the fiscal policy other than their own ideological talking points.

Reducing the top tax rate from 45% to 40% is a tiny fiscal measure worth 2 billion intended to attract richer individuals into the country and to encourage the locals to declare more of their income tax rather than use limited companies which is what 99.9% of them are already doing.

UK tax despite these measures is the highest on record since 1946, overtaxing an economy on recession is a recipe for disaster, as Liz and Kwasi nodded these tiny measures are the first of many to come because you cannot overtax an economy amidst a global recession.

2 billion from the budget went for the top-rate reduction. 40 billion for energy subsidies for everybody and another 10 to cancel the very recent(since April) rise of national insurance contributions for everybody but yeah let's use these 2 billion to cause a run on the sterling and a crash on the British stock market for 500 billion worth with Labour's full support.

:moron:

Let us impoverish the nation so that Labour has a talking point. :knife:
User avatar
By ingliz
#15249005
Liz Truss spent the morning speaking to local BBC radio stations to insist her government’s economic policy is on the right course despite Kwasi Kwarteng’s mini-budget prompting an emergency intervention from the Bank of England to prevent a run on pension funds, a slump in the value of the pound and a rise in the cost of government debt.


:lol:
User avatar
By MadMonk
#15249007


The Economist is not exactly a left-wing publication. I'm not an economist, could someone give me a quick explanation of what is happening in Londontown? :)
User avatar
By noemon
#15249011
MadMonk wrote:The Economist is not exactly a left-wing publication. I'm not an economist, could someone give me a quick explanation of what is happening in Londontown? :)


Left-wing maybe not but definitely part of the Orthodoxy.

Right so, our previous Finance Minister under Boris, Rishi Sunak imposed the largest tax increases on British history.

His tax increases came from 3 separate areas:

1) He froze the thresholds of tax so that they do not increase with inflation, he did that 2 years ago, that meant that the tax-free income of around 10-12k per year is no longer increasing in line with inflation resulting on a boom of tax receipts.

2) He increased the NI contributions applicable since last April.

3) He increased corporation tax from 19% to 25% to apply from next April 2023.

These measures brought the UK to one of the highest overall taxation rates in the G7 and also the highest tax burden since 1948. At the same time the UK boasts the second lowest debt to gdp ratio in the G7.

Liz Truss was elected on a promise to reverse these tax increases and so she did, she has announced her plan since the summer and the markets have already accounted for these measures.

At the same time she announced the much anticipated energy subsidy which pundits, the left, the market and everybody hailed as nicely done.

Kwasi and Liz decided to go a step further and reduce the top-tax rate from 45% for incomes of 100k and above to 40%, the legacy of Gordon Brown.

This measure costs at the worst-case scenario 2 billion and according to the IMF, Moodys and the BoE, it is a mega sin that will destroy UK finances and turn the country into an emerging market economy causing a run on the streling, gilts, bonds and crashing FTSE. These are actual statements produced by the IMF, Moodys's and the Bank of England.

The Bank of England has consistently refused to increase interest rates to tame inflation because they do not want the house prices to go down. This fight has been going on between the government and the BoE for at least a year and now the BoE is using this opportunity to take down the government and tarnish its reputation before it even begins.

ECB and Fed raised interest rates by 0.75%, BoE belatedly by 0.5% and only after being threatened by the government of losing its independence if they fail to act.

Labour, the left and BoE orthodox buddies from around the world have all latched on to this narrative, effectively blaming a tiny 2 billion for the destruction of the British economy. This is unable to convince even economic illiterates let alone actual economists.

These 2 billion tax cuts on the top rate are merely symbolic anyway because no person who makes that kind of money declares them as personal income, they set up limited companies, they use ISA's and SIPP's which are tax free to reduce their declared income below the threshold.

This is a well-known fact and this measure will actually bring in more money for the Treasury but nobody seems to care about reality anymore.

Brexit Britain is a renegade which the markets, economist, Moody's, IMF are all trying to punish for veering slightly from their orthodox message.

I hate Brexit as well but I'm not an idiot pursuing our national impoverishment so that Brussels and New York can be happy.

This is nothing less than a clear-cut attack on the British economy and the British people.

During the summer Rishi warned/threatened that unless he gets elected this is what is going to happen, doom for the British economy, now Rishi is a billionaire non-UK-domiciled resident that was hoping to become PM, he failed and he is now saying "I told you so". This is engineered so that he can say that because very apparently Rishi had been the chosen one for the Economist, Times, Guardian, etcetera.

The guy who overtaxed an economy on recession.

And of course let us ignore the fact that the euro and the yen have all collapsed as badly or even worse than sterling because of the surging dollar due to the Fed hiking interest rates.

The whole thing is ridiculous and reeks like a rotten fish.

2 billion will crash the British economy.
Government asks BoE to take the same interest-rate action the Fed & the ECB took but instead of being praised they are being tarnished. :roll:
User avatar
By Tainari88
#15249015
Truss is a sellout. I never trust much flip floppers in politics. Especially one who had left wing parents and becomes the head of the Conservatives and the Tory type people in the UK. She is described as ambitious and changes according to any path that will lead her to the top. If that means taking a stand and then rolling it back when it might threaten her rise to power? Classic sellout behavior.

I deeply dislike her on that alone. Overly ambitious people swinging from Left to Right and abandoning principles due to personal ambitions of power? Including calling the British workers (idlers)? No, she is a scheming and climbing piece of shit politician who will never stay consistent, principled or trustworthy. It is not surprising Boris Johnson picked her out. She is a woman out of his own heart.

The UK is not going to do well under her false duplitious leadership.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-58575895
User avatar
By noemon
#15249017
:roll:

My mother is right-wing and a wonderful person, my dad is left-wing, socialist member and he's an asshole.

I have been left, center, right and everything in between. I now only care about reality and actual measures.

Will that measure help me, my family and the country then I support it.

The current situation aims to impoverish us so that a point can be made just because some people decided that Rishi should have been the one.

I hate Brexit too, but that does not mean that I will also become an asshole and support anything that might turn it around, up to and including my own impoverishment.
By Rich
#15249021
The energy subsidies are socialism for the rich. The more energy you use, and perhaps it comes as a surprise but rich people use more electricity than poor people, the more subsidy you get. If you actually care about people the way to help is through a national basic income. If anything we should be taxing energy use not subsidising it.

Note this applies even to big oil exporting nations that have wasted untold billions on energy subsidies, leading to huge levels of corruption and smuggling. Petrol, oil and other energy should have been left unsubsidised and the huge profits from exports used to support direct payments to individual citizens.

The reduction in stamp duty was a good move. The re-sale of houses should not be taxed. Housing should be properly taxed, which is why I was totally opposed to the son of poll tax or the council tax as its called. The council tax is a tax designed to protect the rich.
User avatar
By noemon
#15249022
The poor and the rich, the only available lens for people with a low capacity to think for themselves.

Forget about businesses, employees, employers and actual growth, let us all talk about who benefits more from tax-cuts. People with more money benefit more than people with less money. Sherlock Holmes discovery, so increasing taxes "helps" the poor because the rich pay more, the poor also pay more but if the rich pay morer then it's fine. :knife: Let us all impoverish ourselves so that communists can have a field day equalising everybody down to the lowest common denominator.

Look dudes most of you have departed from reality and joined the ideological wars a long time ago, so I do not even know why I still bother.

Council tax is tax on property, the more the value of the property, the higher the tax.

National basic income what a fine idea, we have 5 million adults on the dole refusing to work, let's go and make them 20 million, and that will solve the problem. Sunny uplands and all that.

I get 5-10 applications per week from people on the dole pretending to look for work just so they can stay on benefits, they waste my time, they waste the state time & money.
User avatar
By noemon
#15249023
Telegraph wrote:
For the past 25 years, and especially since the financial crisis, the global economy has taken a disastrous wrong turn for which we are about to pay a hideous price. In one of the gravest intellectual errors since communism, many of the world’s cleverest people thought they had discovered the secret to perpetual prosperity. Forget about hard work, deferred gratification, tackling post-industrial wastelands or actually earning one’s keep by creating, building and exporting: there was an easier way.

Cheered on by politicians, central banks kept interest rates low, favoured borrowers over savers, printed money with abandon and engineered an artificial boom in house prices, tech firm stocks, crypto-currencies, bond markets, art and more. This ersatz “wealth” was meant to encourage spending and investment, the tax receipts would fund a generous welfare state, low rates would allow rising government debt, and there would be no need for difficult conversations on ageing, science, tax, competitiveness, incentives or productivity.

Yet it was a Potemkin economy, a facade, a con. Much of the “growth” and wealth weren’t real. The UK was stagnating, not booming. House prices “enriched” the haves while infuriating the have-nots. It was a bubble at best, and a Ponzi scheme at worst, keeping zombie projects alive and fuelling obscene malinvestment. Edward Chancellor’s The Price of Time is a brilliant primer on this tragedy.

This madcap experiment is now ending, killed off by a money printing overdose from Covid, the supply-side dislocation that accompanied the virus and the attempt to put the economy into a coma, and Putin’s war, all of which sent consumer prices rocketing. The necessary transition from cheap to rational money will be traumatic and could trigger a vicious global recession, higher unemployment and bankruptcies. Long-term mortgages are already at 7.1 per cent in America as the old order crumbles, and financial markets are in turmoil worldwide.

This is the context for the punishment beating meted out to Britain. The readjustment that every other country will also undertake – especially much higher borrowing costs – has taken place in accelerated form in the UK, triggered by the financial markets’ ridiculous reaction to the Budget. The pound has fallen disproportionately. Some pension funds were caught out, forcing the Bank of England to intervene.

It is easy to see why the Chancellor didn’t predict such a response. When it comes to fiscal impact, the overwhelming bulk of the policies announced had already been trailed, and the cost of the energy bailout looks a lot lower. Spending is being cut already because inflation is depressing public sector wages, and fiscal drag continues to do its dirty work.

This was an ideological, visceral reaction to a Government financial institutions don’t properly understand. The elite mood music in 2022 is set by Left-wing American economists and a hysterical Twitterati that loathes Truss, Brexit and supply-side economics. It is desperately important therefore for a Government that rightly wants to smash the orthodoxy to be a lot more proactive in explaining how it will grow the economy and stabilise the public finances, and how Middle England will be better off.

Kwarteng and Truss broke many taboos: they dared to criticise the Bank of England during the campaign, explaining that it had been too slow to hike rates, effectively making a softer version of my argument above. The markets agree that the Bank has been useless, especially compared with America’s Federal Reserve. But prejudiced by their incorrect reading of Brexit, they listened to those who deliberately distorted Truss’s powerful analysis into claiming that she doesn’t care about taming inflation, a despicable lie.

This was made worse by the Bank’s inexplicable failure to raise rates more last week, and its obtuse decision to start selling gilts. Traders also chose to interpret Truss’s supply-side tax cuts as suggesting that she doesn’t care about the national debt, another absurd misunderstanding.

My assessment of this Budget’s policies hasn’t changed: they are excellent. Every single idea announced is positive for growth. The same applies to all the other deregulatory and tax initiatives the PM is working on: they must be enacted. It is possible to boost the trend rate of growth. Corporation tax hikes would have been a disaster. Cutting high marginal tax rates is great. We need to build a lot more.

Truss is exceptional in realising that fake growth on the never-never is ending, and real, bottom-up capitalism is required instead. She wants to shrink the current account deficit by boosting the City, increasing energy production and sucking in businesses. It is therefore outrageously arrogant of the IMF, a faddish, hypocritical body that should have been scrapped years ago, to demand a U-turn. Its focus on a tiny proportion of Truss’s tax cuts – the £2 billion elimination of Gordon Brown’s top tax rate – proves that it is now explicitly aligned to the Joe Biden Left and should be boycotted by sensible governments.

The excuse for this egregious meddling by the IMF, run by Kristalina Georgieva, for six years a European Commissioner, was that Truss’s tax cuts would boost “inequality” and, presumably as per fashionable drivel, that this would depress growth. This is a shameful conflation of market outcomes with genuinely bad inequality (such as that which exists under feudalism or corrupt kleptocracies) and ideology masquerading as science. The primary driver of inequality in recent years has been the bubblenomics endorsed by the Davos consensus. It is nonsensical to claim, as the IMF also did, that one cannot tighten monetary policy while loosening fiscal policy.

The PM must hold her nerve. Her vision is exactly right for managing the transition to a post-Brexit economy built on a sustainable expansion, rather than debt-fuelled mirages. We must hope the Bank’s belated intervention will stabilise the markets and give her some cover. Andrew Bailey, the Governor, must start doing his job properly.

The great danger is that the Left is trying to turn our surging interest rates into an “ERM II moment”, pinning the blame on the PM’s tax cuts, while in fact the end of cheap money would have happened anyway, albeit more gradually. The stakes are extremely high, and there can be no back-pedalling. Tory MPs must back the Prime Minister to the hilt.
User avatar
By Tainari88
#15249029
noemon wrote::roll:

My mother is right-wing and a wonderful person, my dad is left-wing, socialist member and he's an asshole.

I have been left, center, right and everything in between. I now only care about reality and actual measures.

Will that measure help me, my family and the country then I support it.

The current situation aims to impoverish us so that a point can be made just because some people decided that Rishi should have been the one.

I hate Brexit too, but that does not mean that I will also become an asshole and support anything that might turn it around, up to and including my own impoverishment.


I can't imagine a household with a Right Wing mother and a Left Wing father and they are supposed to be in harmony?

At the same time humans vary and who knows why people become socialists or anarchists or conservatives or fascists? In the end one should be mature enough to realize what your principles are with human history, human behavior and what you think is deeply humane. What will work for human beings and their societies and civilizations.

I have always been very consistent. I know exactly why I back or favor one policy over another policy. It should benefit humans in all countries. I never back something or am against something because it might make me poorer or richer on a personal level. In the end? You get a good education, work hard, are consistent, and determined, have a spirit of service, and make sound financial decisions as well as you help out all those who ask for your help? You get good karma. Your good karma builds up and before you know it? You will always be a trusted person. My mother taught me that.

She had the opportunity to make decisions to benefit herself financially only. She never did that. Always was consistent with her principles in life first. Not her wallet. In the end she backed universal human rights. Make the societies centered on human rights that are needed on a universal level. All your political decisions should be centered on humanist principles that are proven to be positive for the most amount of people.

With that you get tremendous consistency.

Truss is not one of those. And I doubt the other one is either. That is the problem. Bad values and inconsistency because of fears of losing money or not retaining privileged positions. Forget about that stuff. Concentrate on what needs to happen to have everyone actively participating in improving society.

As for people on the dole? It is very little money in an expensive society like the UK. And many people on the dole there are there for years and years. It is very hard to do that in the USA. In Latin America it does not exist. Everyone works for a living or they starve. So the rules are different and as such the circumstances are different. With more government help there is less stress in a society where work or starve is the norm.

The people on this side of the pond that are consistent in their politics tend to be the best of that ideology. And never are the ones being total sellouts. They got too many privileged ruling class sellouts with enormous wealth pushing their rights on the vast majority of work or starve people.

Truss is not trustworthy. Period.
By Rich
#15249030


The above video makes a good case for why we should start moving towards a real universal basic income. Now here I'm talking about a National Basic Income but I posted that because the there's a lot of cross over for the understanding of the case for both UBI and NBI.

noemon wrote:National basic income what a fine idea, we have 5 million adults on the dole refusing to work, let's go and make them 20 million, and that will solve the problem. Sunny uplands and all that.

National Basic Income doesn't have to be all or nothing. You could start with say as little as £50 a month. And that money could be included in Universal Credit, Pensions, Incapacity Benefit etc, so going on the dole would not become more attractive but very slightly less on average. Now I personally think that the basic UC level should be increased, but that is a separate argument to the one on NBI.

In this particular situation energy use is being subsidised for both working and non working people. I'm saying that the money to help people with rising energy prices should be paid directly to individuals and families, while leaving them to pay the full market price for energy. Given the Ukrainian war and our current strategic situation, subsidising energy consumption, whether for consumers or businesses is nothing short of madness.
User avatar
By noemon
#15249031
Tainari88 wrote:I can't imagine a household with a Right Wing mother and a Left Wing father and they are supposed to be in harmony?


Once again you seem to be extremely partisan. Are you in harmony with yourself Tainari? My parents are happily married for over 40 years.

Truss is not one of those. And I doubt the other one is either. That is the problem. Bad values and inconsistency because of fears of losing money or not retaining privileged positions. Forget about that stuff. Concentrate on what needs to happen to have everyone actively participating in improving society.


Instead of concentrating on what impact this budget will have on the economy and to people's living standards you are just virtue-signaling abstractions. More money on people's pockets, all of the people's pockets, more investment, more happiness, more growth. More tax, less of all that.

As for people on the dole? It is very little money in an expensive society like the UK. And many people on the dole there are there for years and years.


There are several thresholds that people abuse for years even decades where they work minimum hours(.ie 16), get the dole, get other benefits also and live pretty good. At this point nobody wants to do any work and people are simply abusing the system, the system both rich and poor pay to sustain them.

I personally do not care about the direct cost of benefits, the real issue is that these 5 million people out of work is causing severe staff shortages, driving wages & inflation up but even more importantly it is causing disruption to successful businesses who lack the workforce to perform their art, craft or trade.

More than 10% of the active workforce is not actually working.

Tainari88 wrote:Truss is not trustworthy. Period.


You talk about karma yet you pass judgment on a person you know nothing about just because she happens to sit on the opposite ideological aisle.

I do not like Truss but that is irrelevant to my reaction to her policy, which I find reasonable and rational.

She should have unfrozen the thresholds instead of reducing the top-tax rate but we are talking about 2 billion, the equivalent of 2 pennies essentially for a trillion pound economy. 2 pennies have caused global market turmoil because some foreign people want to interfere in internal British politics which you may find amusing because you hate the British Empire but once again this does not say much about "karma".
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 11

My take is, not even Chinese themselves trust the[…]

For example, the concentration camp: I had pre[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/159757730709[…]

I'd say that, yes, they are. How else are we goin[…]