neilj
Member
Posts: 6,498
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Nov 26, 2024 15:16:38 GMT
Re taxes, the reality is after 14 years of tory mismanagement the public sector is in a dire situation
Schools and hospitals falling down due to neglect
Public sector pay failed to keep pace with inflation making recruitment difficult
Lack of investment in infrastructure, potholes etc
Then there are growing demands on the health service due to a rapidly aging population, plus the increased pensions to go with that
In reality there are only 2 ways to finance that, more taxation and or increased borrowing
Labour has borrowed significantly more to invest in infrastructure, but if they borrow much more it may spook the money markets and so increase borrowing costs
Then there's taxation, which someone has to pay. Few like paying it, we've seen that with removing VAT on private schools, farm inheritance tax, employers NIC, but someone has to pay up
Yes you could take it directly from workers, but that would mean less money spent in the economy, similar to what is claimed over taxing employers more
Of course increased taxes can help the economy. An employee can get that hospital treatment and so get back to work. A student can get a better education and so contribute more to the economy. The infrastructure projects that help our construction industry
What I'm trying to say is there ate no easy answers
|
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Nov 26, 2024 15:17:18 GMT
The current 'assisted dying' debate has some resonance re- my own circumstances. I was diagnosed with severe Aortic Stenosis in Spring 2022 and also moderate Mitral Stenosis a year later. My Norfolk cardiologist decided this April that - despite being asymptomatic at present - I would benefit from cardiac surgery to change both heart valves. I reached 70 in July and do not find the prospect of open heart surgery appealing at my age. Having expressed a preference for an alternative TAVI procedure - effectively keyhole surgery via a groin insertion - which would be far less invasive, I attended Papworth Hospital last Friday where I was given a CT scan. Alas this revealed too much calcium in the Aortic valve area for the TAVI option to be viable. I now really only have the open heart option - or doing nothing.However, I was advised in September that the latter would restrict my life expectancy to 3 years. That would take me to 73 - which in some ways might be seen as a reasonable innings - but it means I now face a tough decision. Not really my place to give advice and obviously your choice but personally I would go with the surgery as I know people who do quite well afterwards and can be quite active so there's still plenty of quality of life to be had. alec I was quite surprised at your cut off time being when you could no longer go for walks- again totally your choice but felt very early to me. My own tolerances are quality of life and while I can still read and listen to music that's enough for me unless the pain has got too great. As to losing your partner I can understand how you would feel and would feel the same but time to get over something like that can sometimes be enough. |
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 26, 2024 15:23:42 GMT
The village idiot elect vows punitive tariffs on Canada , Mexico and China, he still hasn't grasped that it's Americans who pay these tariffs Industry takes a long time to relocate based upon changes. So in the short term you may be right americans will have to pay more. But in the longer term US companies will notice its now cheaper to make the stuff inside the US and so they will do that, creating more and better paid jobs inside the US. This is the reason why the Uk car industry revived after we joined the EU. Foriegn companies appreciated their cars would be more competitive if made inside the EU tariff wall than outside, so they picked a location and at that time we had cheap labour available. EU tariff walls worked to boost EU industry. I heard someone suggest that if the US imposes tariffs on China, it may lead to them dumping goods on Europe. Which should be interesting. Yes the argument is more complicated. And Republicans argue that they did quite a number of tariffs in Trump’s first term and it did not unleash an inflationary storm. Even if there is inflationary pressure, the government can still do counter-inflationary measures, like they used to do postwar. Driving down the cost of essentials. Of course, the Trumpian way of driving down inflation might not be to all our tastes, involving things like “drill baby drill”. (But it might nonetheless drive down inflation, whatever the other concerns) And if you are a car worker on a decent wage about to lose their job and go on benefits, what would you rather? Lose you job, or keep it and have a bit more inflation. The right-wing small state, very pro-capital package of no tariffs, no capital controls etc. tend to be preferred by those in protected careers, safer from foreign competition |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 26, 2024 15:28:52 GMT
graham - don't know if this is of any value to your deliberations, but my mum had a very similar scale of op when she was 76 and it went fine, and she's happily enjoyed the additional time the op gave her. When I was younger, this scale of surgery was genuinely major, but over the years it's become more routine and recovery appears remarkably quick in most cases. Be sure you aren't viewing your choice through slightly outdated perspectives. shevii - appreciate the comments, and to be clear, I may well soften my stance over time. I think part of ageing is learning to accept limitations, and I expect there will be a bit of that as the years progress. Loss - that's a different kettle of fish, although we never really know how we react to situations until they arrive.
|
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 26, 2024 15:34:06 GMT
Re taxes, the reality is after 14 years of tory mismanagement the public sector is in a dire situation Schools and hospitals falling down due to neglect Public sector pay failed to keep pace with inflation making recruitment difficult Lack of investment in infrastructure, potholes etc Then there are growing demands on the health service due to a rapidly aging population, plus the increased pensions to go with that In reality there are only 2 ways to finance that, more taxation and or increased borrowing Labour has borrowed significantly more to invest in infrastructure, but if they borrow much more it may spook the money markets and so increase borrowing costs Then there's taxation, which someone has to pay. Few like paying it, we've seen that with removing VAT on private schools, farm inheritance tax, employers NIC, but someone has to pay up Yes you could take it directly from workers, but that would mean less money spent in the economy, similar to what is claimed over taxing employers more Of course increased taxes can help the economy. An employee can get that hospital treatment and so get back to work. A student can get a better education and so contribute more to the economy. The infrastructure projects that help our construction industry What I'm trying to say is there ate no easy answers I don’t think anyone is contesting much of that. The issues are: will some sectors be hit particularly hard, how much of the tax gets reinvested as opposed to paying down debt*, and how much multiplier from the investment. (E.g. you can get more of a multiplier by investing in infrastructure, than in wages) * which is a case of revisiting the austerity argument. Should you make cuts or increase taxes to pay down the debt and reduce interest costs, versus not removing the money in the economy |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,498
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Nov 26, 2024 15:38:11 GMT
New York Times
Donald Trump’s planned tariffs on all products coming into the US from Canada, Mexico and China would have serious implications for American industries
Affected industries would include auto manufacturers, farmers and food packagers, which busily ship parts, materials and finished goods across US borders, the paper writes.
Mexico, China and Canada together account for more than a third of the goods and services imported and exported by the US, supporting tens of millions of American jobs.
The costs could be particularly high for the industries that depend on the tightly integrated North American market, which has been knit together by a free-trade agreement for over three decades … That, in turn, could cause spiking prices and shortages for consumers in the United States and elsewhere, in addition to bankruptcies and job losses
|
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 26, 2024 15:43:17 GMT
New York Times Donald Trump’s planned tariffs… Yes, Liberal paper favours right-wing economics shocker! (You might like the Telegraph on the matter they might agree…) EDIT - Having checked, yep Telegraph complain about tariffs. E.g. Hannan “ Trade barriers make us all poorer – and are worst for the country that imposes them.”But they seem particularly concerned about the impact of US tariffs on us. Some articles argue it will harm us economically, some argue it could be an opportunity as we might secure exemptions from the tariffs |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,498
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Nov 26, 2024 15:49:33 GMT
Yes, Liberal paper favours right-wing economics! (You might like the Telegraph on the matter they would would agree…) It's just reality, there's been a free trade agreement within those countries for years. Indeed Trump signed it in his First Presidency Production has become integrated across the 3 countries and tearing that up will cause job losses Not to mention any trust in Trump that he'll abide by his word Also not sure the Telegraph would agree considering their support of Brexit. Indeed most of the right wing papers supported Brexit |
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 26, 2024 15:52:40 GMT
Yes, Liberal paper favours right-wing economics! (You might like the Telegraph on the matter they would would agree…) It's just reality, there's been a free trade agreement within those countries for years. Indeed Trump signed it in his First Presidency Production has become integrated across the 3 countries and tearing that up will cause job losses Not to mention any trust in Trump that he'll abide by his words Also not sure the Telegraph would agree considering their support of Brexit Well I have been checking and like I said they do have issues with it. Which of course they would, because like the NYT they are right wing economically. Regarding free trade areas, as Danny points out, the inflationary effects may not be as bad as claimed, because production may relocate. You might get a bit of inflation, but the state can act to counter that, and you get to keep jobs in some sectors, and strategic industry that supports other sectors, and have more security of supply. The right-wing arguments tend to focus on negatives and tend to hype them. A particular reason right wingers want to keep extending free-trade areas is to shrink the state. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,498
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Nov 26, 2024 15:55:53 GMT
It's just reality, there's been a free trade agreement within those countries for years. Indeed Trump signed it in his First Presidency Production has become integrated across the 3 countries and tearing that up will cause job losses Not to mention any trust in Trump that he'll abide by his words Also not sure the Telegraph would agree considering their support of Brexit Well I have been checking and like I said they do have issues with it. Which of course they would, because like the NYT they are right wing economically. Regarding free trade areas, as Danny points out, the inflationary effects may not be as bad as claimed, because production may relocate. You might get a bit of inflation, but the state can act to counter that, and you get to keep jobs in some sectors and have more security of supply. The right-wing arguments tend to focus on negatives and tends to type them. A particular reason right wingers want to keep extending free-trade areas is to shrink the state. So why did the Telegraph and other right wing papers supported Brexit if they like free trade? |
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 26, 2024 15:58:57 GMT
Well I have been checking and like I said they do have issues with it. Which of course they would, because like the NYT they are right wing economically. Regarding free trade areas, as Danny points out, the inflationary effects may not be as bad as claimed, because production may relocate. You might get a bit of inflation, but the state can act to counter that, and you get to keep jobs in some sectors and have more security of supply. The right-wing arguments tend to focus on negatives and tends to type them. A particular reason right wingers want to keep extending free-trade areas is to shrink the state. So why did the Telegraph and other right wing papers supported Brexit if they like free trade? It’s a good question that I looked at before: Neoliberals agree on a lot of the free trade stuff but not necessarily on unrestricted immigration. Also, while they agree on small state, they don’t agree on the method. They don’t tend to agree with replacing the state with a supranational body. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,716
|
Post by steve on Nov 26, 2024 16:01:37 GMT
Of course, the Trumpian way of driving down inflation might not be to all "our tastes, involving things like “drill baby drill”. "
The U.S. is already energy self sufficient why precisely would fossil fuel companies produce more simply to push down their profit margins.
|
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 26, 2024 16:05:36 GMT
Of course, the Trumpian way of driving down inflation might not be to all "our tastes, involving things like “drill baby drill”. " The U.S. is already energy self sufficient why precisely would fossil fuel companies produce more simply to push down their profit margins. well it depends on the profit curve. If they make more money by upping supply, than they lose by cutting prices. Which is how many things become mass-market. And a new entrant to the market may be okay with lower prices, if it means they can actually enter the market. (But it could help in another way: helping to maintain prices when they’re going up for others) |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,498
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Nov 26, 2024 16:13:12 GMT
"Russia has banned a string of Britain’s cabinet ministers from entering the country in response to what it called London’s “Russophobic” policies, the Associated Press news agency reports.
Among those it was targeting included chancellor Rachel Reeves, deputy prime minister Angela Rayner, home secretary Yvette Cooper and more than a dozen other senior politicians in the new Labour government, AP says"
How will they ever live with the shame of being banned from Russia 😀
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 26, 2024 16:19:58 GMT
c-a-r-f-r-e-w - "Yes, Liberal paper favours right-wing economics shocker! (You might like the Telegraph on the matter they might agree…)" I think the difference here is that Trump's tariffs are in response to a North American free trade deal negotiated to great fanfare by, er, Trump himself.
|
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 26, 2024 16:25:29 GMT
c-a-r-f-r-e-w - "Yes, Liberal paper favours right-wing economics shocker! (You might like the Telegraph on the matter they might agree…)" I think the difference here is that Trump's tariffs are in response to a North American free trade deal negotiated to great fanfare by, er, Trump himself. Yes, he appears in part to be using tariffs as economic sanctions to pressure on open borders, drugs etc. (Incidentally, tariffs can also be used temporarily to press for more favourable trade deals, as suggested by Bessent who was recently appointed to Trump’s cabinet. It’s how Trump got the revised deal in the first place) |
|
|
|
Post by colin on Nov 26, 2024 16:47:42 GMT
Sky News have just screened a report on exports to Russia following the Select Committee revelation today that UK fines on exporters defying sanctions total £15000.
Sky show that the export data shows the stuff being exported to Russia ( including Luxury cars & drone parts) is now being exported to countries neighbouring Russia.
|
|
|
|
Post by bardin1 on Nov 26, 2024 16:51:02 GMT
The current 'assisted dying' debate has some resonance re- my own circumstances. I was diagnosed with severe Aortic Stenosis in Spring 2022 and also moderate Mitral Stenosis a year later. My Norfolk cardiologist decided this April that - despite being asymptomatic at present - I would benefit from cardiac surgery to change both heart valves. I reached 70 in July and do not find the prospect of open heart surgery appealing at my age. Having expressed a preference for an alternative TAVI procedure - effectively keyhole surgery via a groin insertion - which would be far less invasive, I attended Papworth Hospital last Friday where I was given a CT scan. Alas this revealed too much calcium in the Aortic valve area for the TAVI option to be viable. I now really only have the open heart option - or doing nothing.However, I was advised in September that the latter would restrict my life expectancy to 3 years. That would take me to 73 - which in some ways might be seen as a reasonable innings - but it means I now face a tough decision. Graham I was diagnosed with a bicuspid aortic valve (congenital - without me realising, it had been restricting the oxygen to my bloodstream since birth) 5 years ago and was at death's door (when I went in for my op I had a 17% blood ejection rate). I had open heart surgery at Guys and St Thomas's ironically ending up in the same ICU unit as Boris Johnson was to be in the following year, possibly even the same bed though that's an unnerving thought.. I made a full recovery and I lead a normal life, indeed I lost a stone and a half as my system had been retaining water unbeknownst to me, so I am healthier. I was 63 at the time. Please feel free to send me a personal message if you want any information or just to let off steam Scott |
|
|
|
Post by lens on Nov 26, 2024 17:11:12 GMT
The current 'assisted dying' debate has some resonance re- my own circumstances. I was diagnosed with severe Aortic Stenosis in Spring 2022 and also moderate Mitral Stenosis a year later. My Norfolk cardiologist decided this April that - despite being asymptomatic at present - I would benefit from cardiac surgery to change both heart valves. I reached 70 in July and do not find the prospect of open heart surgery appealing at my age. Having expressed a preference for an alternative TAVI procedure - effectively keyhole surgery via a groin insertion - which would be far less invasive, I attended Papworth Hospital last Friday where I was given a CT scan. Alas this revealed too much calcium in the Aortic valve area for the TAVI option to be viable. I now really only have the open heart option - or doing nothing.However, I was advised in September that the latter would restrict my life expectancy to 3 years. That would take me to 73 - which in some ways might be seen as a reasonable innings - but it means I now face a tough decision. - I'm the same age as you, and had open heart surgery about 5 years ago. (Though for a coronary bypass, not valves.) I can't pretend it's a wonderful experience, but in your position I wouldn't find it a tough decision, and I'd have it again - this assuming you are in otherwise reasonable health for the age? Assuming the operation goes well - and again, if your health is otherwise reasonable, nowadays the odds are very much in your favour - the issue is waiting for the bone to stitch back together again. My experience would be to forget about the first month (stock up with a few really good books), accept the second month is going to be pretty limiting, and expect to be close to fully fit by the end of month 3. The whole assisted dying debate does resonate with me, as I remember during the first week or two after the op it not being much fun, but clearly aware that all the expectation would be an eventual recovery, even if slower than I may have wished. But also remember thinking "but what if the prognosis was only to get worse......."? Which all led me to think that being able to end one's life if faced with a painful terminal condition really should be a decision for the individual to make. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,512
|
Post by Danny on Nov 26, 2024 17:15:24 GMT
Stelantis to close Luton plant.
Welcome to the Brexit world where the Uk car industry has to stand on its own merits in terms of the UK as its market.
The law introduced to fine car companies if they dont sell enough electric vehicles rather than ice ones, is in effect a subsidy to Chinese electric vehicle manufacturers. Rather than pay a fine, a uk ICE vedor can buy electric vehicle credits from a Chinese electric vehicle company, thus making them even cheaper than our own because we are subsidising them.
Lovely conservative plan that.
|
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 26, 2024 17:22:30 GMT
Stelantis to close Luton plant. Welcome to the Brexit world where the Uk car industry has to stand on its own merits in terms of the UK as its market. The law introduced to fine car companies if they dont sell enough electric vehicles rather than ice ones, is in effect a subsidy to Chinese electric vehicle manufacturers. Rather than pay a fine, a uk ICE vedor can buy electric vehicle credits from a Chinese electric vehicle company, thus making them even cheaper than our own because we are subsidising them. Lovely conservative plan that. It fits the right-wing small-state deindustrialisation agenda. Weaponising net zero to make as little here as possible, keep making us more dependent on other countries \redpill |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,512
|
Post by Danny on Nov 26, 2024 17:35:49 GMT
So why did the Telegraph and other right wing papers supported Brexit if they like free trade? The conservative party is traditionally pro EU. It became anti EU in order to win power. And its newspapers followed the same line. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,716
|
Post by steve on Nov 26, 2024 17:43:25 GMT
@danny
The conservative party won an overall majority in 1979, 1983, 1987, 1992, a plurality in 2010 and another majority in 2015 all as a pro European union party.
|
|
|
|
Post by colin on Nov 26, 2024 17:50:10 GMT
1100 jobs going at Vauxhall Luton.
"Rules imposed to speed up the transition to electric vehicles (EV) in the UK partly drove the decision, the company said.
It comes amid growing concerns among car manufacturers over EV sales targets, with many, including Stellantis, calling for the government to do more to boost consumer demand.
Following the Luton plant announcement and intense pressure from industry leaders, Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said the government would consult on changes to EV sales rules, which is officially called the zero-emission vehicles mandate, because it was not working as expected.
As part of the shift to electric, manufacturers are required to sell a certain percentage of cars and vans that do not emit any emissions.
Current rules state EVs must make up 22% of a carmaker's car sales, and 10% of van sales this year.
For every sale that pushes it outside the mandate, firms must pay a £15,000 fine. There are flexibilities in the system, allowing manufacturers who cannot meet the targets to buy "credits" from those that can.
But car brands with factories in the UK have been urging the government to relax the rules, arguing that EV demand is not strong enough and more incentives are required for drivers to go fully electric."
BBC
Same issue as in Germany. This transition to evs is not going neatly according to political targets. Customers weren't consulted and have their own ideas about buying an ev
|
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 26, 2024 18:00:09 GMT
1100 jobs going at Vauxhall Luton. "Rules imposed to speed up the transition to electric vehicles (EV) in the UK partly drove the decision, the company said. It comes amid growing concerns among car manufacturers over EV sales targets, with many, including Stellantis, calling for the government to do more to boost consumer demand. Following the Luton plant announcement and intense pressure from industry leaders, Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said the government would consult on changes to EV sales rules, which is officially called the zero-emission vehicles mandate, because it was not working as expected. As part of the shift to electric, manufacturers are required to sell a certain percentage of cars and vans that do not emit any emissions. Current rules state EVs must make up 22% of a carmaker's car sales, and 10% of van sales this year. For every sale that pushes it outside the mandate, firms must pay a £15,000 fine. There are flexibilities in the system, allowing manufacturers who cannot meet the targets to buy "credits" from those that can. But car brands with factories in the UK have been urging the government to relax the rules, arguing that EV demand is not strong enough and more incentives are required for drivers to go fully electric." BBC Same issue as in Germany. This transition to evs is not going neatly according to political targets. Customers weren't consulted and have their own ideas about buying an ev Yes, being in the EU doesn’t appear to be the critical factor. Stringent targets, nutso energy policy etc. will hammer industry regardless… |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,716
|
Post by steve on Nov 26, 2024 18:04:46 GMT
If the lunatic does what he says with tariffs and trade levels stay approximately the same on imports from mexico, Canada and China alone U.S. companies and consumers will be paying around an additional @$350 billion in taxes in the first year alone about the equivalent of $1100 for each U.S.citizen.
|
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 26, 2024 18:09:28 GMT
If the lunatic does what he says with tariffs and trade levels stay approximately the same on imports from mexico, Canada and China alone U.S. companies and consumers will be paying around an additional @$350 billion in taxes in the first year alone about the equivalent of $1100 for each U.S.citizen. yes, if you do right-wing household economics like that favoured by the Coalition and remove the money from the economy. If you are more left-wing and spend the tax in the economy again however… (possibly on things with a bigger ROI…) |
|
|
|
Post by colin on Nov 26, 2024 18:12:38 GMT
1100 jobs going at Vauxhall Luton. "Rules imposed to speed up the transition to electric vehicles (EV) in the UK partly drove the decision, the company said. It comes amid growing concerns among car manufacturers over EV sales targets, with many, including Stellantis, calling for the government to do more to boost consumer demand. Following the Luton plant announcement and intense pressure from industry leaders, Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said the government would consult on changes to EV sales rules, which is officially called the zero-emission vehicles mandate, because it was not working as expected. As part of the shift to electric, manufacturers are required to sell a certain percentage of cars and vans that do not emit any emissions. Current rules state EVs must make up 22% of a carmaker's car sales, and 10% of van sales this year. For every sale that pushes it outside the mandate, firms must pay a £15,000 fine. There are flexibilities in the system, allowing manufacturers who cannot meet the targets to buy "credits" from those that can. But car brands with factories in the UK have been urging the government to relax the rules, arguing that EV demand is not strong enough and more incentives are required for drivers to go fully electric." BBC Same issue as in Germany. This transition to evs is not going neatly according to political targets. Customers weren't consulted and have their own ideas about buying an ev Yes, being in the EU doesn’t appear to be the critical factor. Stringent targets, nutso energy policy etc. will hammer industry regardless… There is one political leader who is having second thoughts. But he is going to be turfed out of office soon :- " German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said on Monday there should be no fines in the European Union for car companies that do not comply with carbon emission limits. "The money must remain in the companies for the modernisation of their own industry, their own company," he told reporters." Reuters |
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 26, 2024 18:13:51 GMT
Yes, being in the EU doesn’t appear to be the critical factor. Stringent targets, nutso energy policy etc. will hammer industry regardless… There is one political leader who is having second thoughts. But he is going to be turfed out of office soon :- " German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said on Monday there should be no fines in the European Union for car companies that do not comply with carbon emission limits. "The money must remain in the companies for the modernisation of their own industry, their own company," he told reporters." Reuters It says in the Telegraph they are thinking of softening targets here: “ Britain poised to water down electric vehicle rulesFast-track consultation to consider greater flexibility for carmakers to meet net zero mandate” “ The Government is expected to stress that a final 2030 deadline for new petrol and diesel sales is non-negotiable. However, it is also likely to suggest that carmakers will be able to delay cuts to petrol and diesel sales in the run-up to 2030, provided they make up for it by selling even more electric cars later on.” Not sure how much effect that’s going to have. Attached is a graph of the current shortfall Attachments:
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,601
|
Post by pjw1961 on Nov 26, 2024 18:29:10 GMT
"Russia has banned a string of Britain’s cabinet ministers from entering the country in response to what it called London’s “Russophobic” policies, the Associated Press news agency reports. Among those it was targeting included chancellor Rachel Reeves, deputy prime minister Angela Rayner, home secretary Yvette Cooper and more than a dozen other senior politicians in the new Labour government, AP says" How will they ever live with the shame of being banned from Russia 😀 What, no ban on Farage? Well I never  . |
|
.