Latest from UKIP Daily

Fantasy Land Economics

Here we go again. A General Election has been called and prospective Members of Parliament are lying to the people in order to get elected so they can then pursue their own agenda until it is time to get re-elected again.

A number of readers of UKIP Daily have expressed blindness about economics, so I am going to try to explain the basics using the analogy of a value of an average semi-detached house.

Let us say for example that an ‘average’ semi-detached house is worth £250,000, that’s understandable so 4 houses are worth £1,000,000.  So far so good.  The economy is so large that all main government budgets are expressed in billions of pounds, which is generally accepted as a thousand million pounds, so that would be equivalent to 4000 semi-detached houses.

When the Tories with the Liberals formed the government in 2010 they inherited from Labour an economy that was spending just over 150 billion pounds more than the HMRC was receiving in tax and other receipts.  Of that overspend, 40 billion pounds was on debt interest on the then £1,400,000,000,000 total debt of the UK and the remaining 120 billion pounds was overspend on public services.

Since then by a bit of prudence but not really austerity the Tories have reduced the overspend on public services to about 25 billion pounds, while the debt interest has risen to about 50 billion pounds.  So they are presently overspending 75 billion pounds a year, which is 1.5 billion pounds a week.  That is equivalent to the value of 6000 semi-detached houses every week.

The total debt ignoring public sector pension liability is now around £1,600,000,000,000.  Public sector pension deficit is now approaching £5,000,000,000,000.  This is why all the parties support mass immigration as they don’t have an answer to the problem except by massively increasing the number of taxpayers.

Labour pledges

Labour has now announced it will build 1 million new homes over the period of the next parliament if elected as the government.  If we assume the cost of building a home is £100,000 then they are promising to spend £100,000,000,000 (£100 billion) on homes alone.

Add to that Labour’s promises that are poring out with regard to social care and a big pay rise for NHS workers, reckoned to add £3.5 billion in the first year alone. Then in subsequent years with more hefty percentage pay rises for public services this would add at least £20 billion over the course of the parliament.

Of course they way Labour believes this can be funded is by increasing taxes on higher paid workers who they claim are not paying their fair share.  With one fifth of highest earners already paying half of the total HMRC revenue, how do you define fair.

The fairest tax rate is one that is the same proportion of earnings regardless. So someone earning £20,000 a year with a £10,000 personal allowance and a rate of say 25% would pay £2,500 a year in tax.  A person earning £2,000,000 a year would pay close to £500,000 a year in tax.  That is still a lot of money in tax BUT without the same rate for everyone I would be surprised if such an earner at present would be paying more than £200,000 in tax, due to aggressive avoidance.

Tory future

There is no guarantee we will actually leave the EU during the next 5 years because once this election is over the Tories have 5 further years to play for time and fudge the issue.  This means continuing the EU subscription of about £10 billion in 2017 rising by a tenth per year, totalling £60 billion over the period of the parliament.

Added to which Theresa May has given notice that we will continue the overseas aid budget hard-linked to our gross domestic product totalling £85 billion over the next five years.

With a huge majority the Tories can push through the increase in NI contributions for the self employed and raise the business rates in line with increased rateable values.  Both these items will seriously impact on the self-employed that unlike public and private sector employed people do not receive any other benefits.

There comes a point when being self employed is a mugs game, just as it is to employ people these days, who have better working conditions than the employer in most cases.  The Tories are clearly not the party of enterprise or small business, so they now are the party for the just about managing or for the higher paid.

UKIP position

Paul Nuttall of UKIP has declared that ‘our’ policy is to scrap £10 billion of the overseas aid budget and spend it on the NHS.  Just like during the referendum campaign with the £350 million a week saving from the EU membership should be spent on the NHS.

Real economics

Don’t any of them understand that if you spend EU membership and overseas aid money elsewhere on public services you are not making any saving in order to balance the budget.

In order to do that you need to reduce expenditure whilst NOT spending any increased income due to growth in GDP so that within the period of a parliament the overspend falls annually and then begins to be a surplus to start paying off the total debt.


We cannot afford the present invasion of migrants.

We cannot afford the membership fee of the EU, £8b – £15b.

We cannot afford to give 0.7% of GDP in overseas aid, £13b in 2016.

We cannot afford renewable subsidies and the knock-on effect of expensive electricity.

We cannot afford to close cheap coal fired power stations.

We cannot afford to spend any more on the NHS or care.

We cannot afford the vanity project of HS2.

We cannot afford not to frack for gas.


What we must do is switch NI into NHI and use it to directly fund the Health Service.  Everyone then pays the same proportion of their income to support health and if the people want more spent then the majority have to agree to increase the NHI rate accordingly.

The best way to raise more tax is to introduce a flat tax.  There is no fairer tax system than that because everyone is being asked to pay the same proportion of income above the basic personal allowance.  Despite what left wing supporters argue, increasing the tax rate with increased income is counter productive.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Antony Nailer
About Antony Nailer (104 Articles)
Antony Nailer is a Design Engineer & Author, qualified with an HNC in Electronics and BA in Physics & Mathematics. He was on the UKIP Approved Candidates List for the 2015 General Election but is now a lapsed Member.

34 Comments on Fantasy Land Economics

  1. “A number of readers of UKIP Daily have expressed blindness about economics” As indeed two continue to do in the comments. But sadly it is not just a few readers of UKIP Daily who are economically illiterate, so is the Party’s Economics spokesman. An excellent article. Despite the fact that you have not used neither the word “libertarian” nor “Thatcherite” anywhere in your article, you merely stated some simple numerical facts, you are getting poo pooed as an ideologue. There is simply no reasoning with communists.

    • When I was doing my economics MA I said to the professor that after well over a century surely by now it should have been possible to offer an agreed coherent theory about how the macroeconomy works. He said sadly and cynically: “Many have tried”.

      There are actually three broad explanations. Markets work. Neo-liberal. Markets don’t work. Marx. Markets work with wise overseers. Keynes. All of them apply at times.

      Worse is the corrupt selling of predictions about the future which are akin to astrology. as Galbraith I recall put it. and have mired the profession in disrepute.

      The economy is like the weather where the forecast is often wrong even a day ahead.

  2. Jason
    Your 3.03pm post is one of your very best.
    Thanks for your insight.
    Regrettably not many in UKIP seem to understand the economic message we need to convey if we are ever to stop mass immigration, but we must live in hope the penny will drop one day.

  3. May I suggest that attention be given to what was quite prominent in Mike’s list. Energy.

    There is a reason why China and even India together with many other nations are expanding their industries and becoming wealthy and powerful.

    They have cheap energy.

    We need to deregulate our energy sector, get fracking and get out of the Global Warming boondoggle, the Paris climate agreement, carbon tax, call it what you will.

    Only then can we start rebuilding our industrial sector and compete on a level playing field with other nations and at the same time reduce the cost of living for the ordinary citizen.

    Unfortunately we now appear to be saddled with Hinckley thanks to Mrs. May’s insane belief that we have a ‘climate crisis’ and apparent complete ignorance on climate and engineering.

    Super-conductors that operate at liquid nitrogen temperatures and tolerate high magnetic field strengths have been invented and are now commercially available so the block to progress on fusion appears at last to be overcome.

    Even if, in spite of this, delivery of commercially viable fusion energy is further delayed, Molten salt reactors running on thorium and other variants are being developed and look very promising. These are being developed mainly in India and China which is why they’ve very wisely steered clear of signing up to the Paris Climate accord. (Although, disingenuously in my opinion, suggest they might later.)

    In the interim coal and gas are our cheapest, and most reliable energy sources and we should free up the energy providers to proceed with this.

    All the IPCC’s doom mongering predictions have failed so to make billion-pound policy decisions based on their predictions is sheer lunacy.

    And it is dangerous lunacy. Cold kills. We have already seen what appears to be the beginning of a cooling period caused by recent changes in the Sun’s behaviour. I’m not brave like Al Gore so I’m not going to predict what the sun will do next. But in signing up for Hinckly I think Mrs. May may have bitten off more than she can chew. Time will tell.

    If you want to know where the money’s going ask a been-counter.

    If you want a problem solved ask an engineer.

    • Oops Antony’s list. One should not let one’s fingers go faster than one’s brain!

    • Yes to fracking Michael, but climate change?
      Antony won’t believe NASA but I suggest we ought to try.

      • Perhaps you should ask yourself Quercus, why NASA, which after all is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, is wasting it’s time and energy meddling in meteorological matters like natural climate variation?
        Isn’t that a different scientific field?
        Is space a bit quiet these days?
        Not enough going on in the universe to spend money on at the moment?
        Planned exploration of Mars etc. getting a bit boring?
        Hmmm! No – it’s a mystery. I’m baffled.
        But, of course ‘politics’ and ‘budgets’ never entered my mind…

      • Quercus NASA seems to be conflating land and sea ice. It is ice on land that is important. Greenland has just had a record year of ice growth. In Antarctica ice on land is growing. The weather in Eurasia and North America has changed significantly with record cold and snowfall in many areas which has impacted food production.

        This is entirely consistent with current thinking that due to solar activity being the lowest in several hundred years there has been a significant reduction in EUV. (That is UV solar radiation in the invisible part of the spectrum.) This reduces heating in the upper atmosphere resulting in the thinning of the atmosphere over the poles and a thickening in the tropics. This weakens the polar jet streams during the winter allowing cold polar air to travel much further towards the equator than usual. It also allows warm subtropical air to travel further pole-wards than normal. (Hence record ice accumulation in Greenland and parts of Canada.)

        The shielding effect of the Sun/Earth magnetosphere has been weakened due to low solar activity resulting in an increase in cosmic rays penetrating the Earth’s atmosphere. This is thought to cause an increase in cloud formation having a cooling effect.

        The global temperature stopped increasing around 1990/2000 and now seems to be trending downwards. The current trend is what is important, not what was happening in 1880.

        It is the sun which drives climate not carbon dioxide which appears to have a negligible effect. Historical records back this up. Search online for ‘Maunder Minimum’. Some think we are heading into another one.

        Also note that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have been much higher than at present during ice ages which supports the idea that the effect of carbon dioxide on the global temperature is negligible at best.

        Certainly there is no imminent danger of warming from carbon dioxide which is presumably why China, India and some other counties are continuing to build coal power stations which deliver energy at about a quarter of the cost of what we will get from Hinckley.

        There is no ‘climate crisis’ in spite of what NASA and Mrs. May have been telling us.

  4. I repeat my comment of 29 March 2017 from

    “The only rational conclusions that can be drawn from this teary emotive piece are:

    1. third world populations with materially lower IQs suffer poorer economic and social conditions. There’s a direct correlation. That’s why we don’t want them here. UKIP’s Commonwealth bias is going to mean ‘business as usual’ for anti-Whites.

    2. In UK, corrupt money systems are at the root of the malaise. UKIP afair has made no political capital about Corbyn’s volte-face over Early Day Motion 748
    The arguments ‘for’ are in that article, so why the silence?”

    And now, to add from EDM-748:
    “That this House notes that the hundredth anniversary of the Bradbury Pound on 7 August 2014 is a welcome reminder of the historic precedent for public credit as the sound basis for debt-and interest-free Treasury money and therefore the sound alternative to the national debt and interest-bearing bank money; congratulates the Forum for Stable Currencies for having promoted the public credit since 2002; and urges HM Treasury to follow John Bradbury’s model and address social, economic and political issues across party lines in one fell swoop and avoid wholly unnecessary austerity cuts.”

    The first occasion of posting my comment provoked nothing on the ONE LEADING SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE, #2 above, the Money System and its Reform: EDM-748 or the Bradbury Pound, in shorthand. Labour proposed its implementation and then buckled, providing a ready-made political opportunity. Unfortunately that opportunity will not be seized, as UKIP is basically the same flavour as Lib/Lab/Con, and will not be elected because the general public rightly perceives it as such. I say that with sadness not joy.

    As for the mechanics of reform, you can go and research that yourselves, although I am confident UKIP is already more than familiar with the issues and the means of resolving the problem. Suffice to say here that this problem is not ‘internet-lore’ but has long been recognised as being at the root of our economic problems. From the official record itself of Parliamentary proceedings:

    Hansard 5 March 1997, vol. 578, no 68, column 1869-1871, Earl of Caithness:
    “We all want our businesses to succeed, but under the existing system the irony is that the better our banks, building societies and lending institutions do, the more debt is created. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsdown, said that there is little that can be done about debt. No, I do not believe that. There is a different way: it is an equity-based system and one in which those businesses can play a responsible role. The next government must grasp the nettle, accept their responsibility for controlling the money supply and change from our debt-based monetary system. My Lords, will they? If they do not, our monetary system will break us and the sorry legacy we are already leaving our children will be a disaster.”

  5. UKIP ought to go against conventional wisdom and defy mainstream consensus (peddled by the mainstream media, the orthodox economists who dominate academia and not least the establishment) by simply refusing to listen to the experts who like to come up with ‘scare stories’, namely that:

    1. There are limits to government borrowing – such that there may come a point in time that the government can go bankrupt either because it can no longer afford to borrow as creditor refuse to lend anymore or demand exorbitantly high interest rates which can only lead to infinite borrowing resulting in austerity and massive cuts and economic disaster.

    2. This in turn leads to the point that the government is at the mercy of its creditors – when in reality it is the reverse since public debt issuance in the form of government bonds represents risk free interest-bearing financial assets to the private sector. In other words, public bonds represent a form of government handout to the corporate sector.

    3. And that concomitantly, without debt issuance and instead substituted by ‘money-printing’ in its place, high or hyper-inflation would ensue. What these well-oiled economists failed to point out is that there is a huge difference between the US and Japan on the one hand and Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe on the other.

    In the case of the former, quantitative easing (electronic ‘printing’ of money or rather simply keying in some figures on a ‘balance sheet’ of the central bank) has not led to the said scenario – at all.

    In the case of the latter, the economy was already destroyed prior to the printing of money. The Ruhr industrial region which contributed to much of Germany’s economic strength came under Allied, particularly French occupation. The mismanagement of the economy by Mugabe was worsened when he ‘licensed’ the ‘expropriation’ of white-owned farms by so-called ‘war veterans’ who had none of the farming and managerial expertise and experience – in a country where agriculture contributed to some 70 percent of the national employment, and thus an anchor of the economy that in part gave rise to the epithet of ‘bread basket of Africa.’

    • Jason honestly seems to believe that government can borrow as much as it likes lent by a grateful public glad to get its hands on safe bonds. But the whole point is that once the debt is big enough people don’t think the debt safe. The crunch tends to happen suddenly. Recommend Reinhart and Rogoff’s ‘This Time is Different’.

  6. And there’s no logical or natural (i.e. automatic) ‘co-relation’ between higher borrowing (or big deficits) and higher taxes …..

    In fact as the Thatcher and Major years the Tories are inclined to raise taxes (especially indirect ones that are deemed ‘regressive’) that disproportionately hit the middle and lower-income groups in order to bring the deficit ‘under control’ due to mass unemployment.

    And now, May and Hammond will not rule out NI and VAT increases due to its investment commitments.

    In other words, higher deficit does not lead to tax rises but the reverse, namely that actually a deficit that is not big enough will lead to tax increases …..

  7. As is often observed democracies tend to collapse because they become bidding wars for handouts. And ‘court economists’ give academic creditation. That’s what they get paid for.

    The great claimed supporters of demccracies (the least worst syetem) like Lib Lab Con lay down for selfish reasons a path to their collapse in some form. They are already planning for this. Mandelson spoke of the ‘post democratic era’.

  8. Antony comes out again with the standard Thatcherite conference rhetoric, and you all cheer away – and take ourselves beyond any hope of the patriotic Labour vote which is the ONLY chance we have of stopping immigration.
    Free-market liberal economics isn’t working, Antony. It ends up with food banks, agency monopolies, zero hour contracts and having to run off to the French and Chinese to build our power stations. Trickle-down wealth is an illusion, and ‘austerity’ only adds to the national debt – it’s completely failing the needs of a modern and civilized economy, and to no purpose whatsoever save to indulge your version of ‘fantasy economics’, which is actually NEANDERTAL.
    We need to start doing things differently.
    We need progressive taxation, the tax code reduced to 100 pages, some state initiative and protection to regenerate manufacturing, and massive investment in infrastructure and skills to improve our appalling productivity – and, funded by those savings we know we can make, but also by borrowing at today’s rock-bottom interest rates. We have to break the log-jam.
    For anyone broad-minded and fair enough to know how all this can be done, see my articles In January and February. Find just one of them and then click on Quercus just under the title for them all to come up.

  9. Points of agreement:-

    Much of the debt has been wasted on the public sector and debt interest.

    All of Mr Nailer’s ‘we cannot afford’ list save two, namely on the NHS and HS2.

    In the real world, there are basically two main ways of funding the NHS (or any other public services):

    1. Debt-issuance (i.e. borrowing money from the private sector). However, there is no reason to ever repay the debt. Some of the government debt are always ‘rolled over’ and never repaid to the expectation of the private sector.

    2. “Print’ money which today happens by the government instructing the central bank to create new net financial assets (which are then deposited as reserves in the accounts of commercial banks in the central banks. This in turn is accessible to be withdrawn or honoured on the accounts of the recipients of government spending in the commercial banks). This happens precisely by the electronic keying of some figures as means of payment to the private sector.
    See, for example, “Between Debt and the Devil: Money, Credit, and Fixing Global Finance” (Princeton), by Adair Turner (former Chairman of the Financial Services Authority)

    • Unfettered libertarian economics would work in an ideal and alternative universe/ world. But definitely not in this world, in the real world – as we learn from experience and facts and figures throttled out in the media and so on.

      And contrary to whatever myth there is out there in the real world (notwithstanding the fact that intemperate libertarianism cannot and does not exists), the situation regarding the debt and deficit should always be with an eye to the level of employment in country and never for the sake of public finances. The role of public finances is not to serve both the corporate and the public (analogous to serving God and mammon) for either one will have to given up or sacrificed in order to achieve or fulfil the respective purposes properly, purely(!) and unfetteredly(!)

      • Today’s economic figures show that the government’s fiscal policy is neither here nor there.

        By the way the cause of the UK’s economic woes is precisely the above — neither here nor there and reliance on monetary policy as the overarching strategy.

        What has that achieved?

        a) Creeping inflation due to the pound’s depreciation – at a time when the country’s export base is still not strong enough to achieve a current account surplus as reflected the slow growth of manufacturing. This means for the government to rely on export-oriented strategy as a short-term fix (and not only as a long-term vision) is misplaced because there is not enough growth on the supply-side(!) to create the employment needed to close the unemployment gap.

        b) The persistence of mass underemployment (let alone unemployment) in the form of zero hours contracts and insecure forms of work. This results in stagnant wages resulting a decline in real living standards and therefore increasing household debt – a precarious situation indeed especially as the government continues to rely on private sector debt to sustain and grow economic growth. In other words, we are back square one.

        • Solution?

          Contrary to conventional wisdom and mainstream thinking and the consensus, the State needs to either borrowing at rock bottom interest rates not only to invest *but* to protect, secure and defend jobs and people’s future.

          Labour wants to borrow to invest and thereafter to reduce the debt and deficit.

          The Tories understand this and is also pursuing the same path.

          In other words, both want to invest and *indirectly* spur the economy.

          The only difference between the two is

          1. Who they want to tax more ….. on whose shoulders the heaviest tax burden fall?

          2. The degree to which they will invest …..

          Now, there is a gap to filled by UKIP – which at the same time would serve to outflank both parties.

          That is, borrow or even ‘print’ money to provide a job guarantee scheme nationwide in order to provide employment to everyone and reduce reliance on welfare benefits. A win-win situation for all.

          • UKIP has traditionally seated libertarianism and patriotism on two horses. But the thing is both horses tend to be galloping in two different directions as is in the course of nature.

            Libertarians now have to decide whether they want to be libertarians first or nationalist first.

            If the former, then it will reduce UKIP to an irrelevant protest party with no solutions.

            It’s not even about winning power (at all costs) but about being relevant – for the sake of people and country. People’s lives are at stake here.

            UKIP has fallen because people are beginning to see that whilst it can be trusted to voice people’s frustrations and anger and concerns, the same cannot be said as regards its solutions to the problems. At most, UKIP can represent the people at the local level.

            People out there want more investments in the NHS, schools, policing, etc. And if only that were possible (which of course it is possible), they want the government to secure their livelihoods — especially at a time of economic uncertainty and stagnation.

            Leaving the EU means that the country can once again look forward to regaining the ability to serve the needs and interests of the people unfetteredly once more.

            This is why foreign aid is wrong not so much from the economic sense but political and moral …..

            This is why HS2 should be scrapped if it only benefits a small section of society and not so much whether it is affordable or not …..

            This is why the NHS should be the National and not International Health Service because the funding woes and pressure on resources are made worse by mass immigration and certainly not because by cutting the latter (i.e. mass immigration), somehow the perennial problems of the NHS will be resolved …… such simplistic worldview does not good or justice to the cause and image of UKIP …..

  10. I agree with all comments, thank you Anthony for this excellent article. The only thing you forgot to say is that immigrants will vote for the party that continues to support their comfortable, unproductive lifestyle, which is why Labour especially need an awful lot of them.
    I would have thought, though I know nothing about economics, that tackling the benefits might at least help stem migration, as well as limit the polygamy baby making machine scam on the poor old taxpayer.
    Economics have always been a sealed book to me, but even I can understand what you are saying.

  11. As for Osborne’s pulling back from or relaxing his austerity policy (the so-called ‘expansionary fiscal contraction’ – which basically means that as government cuts spending, the private sector will *automatically* fill in the gap), he did so as he came to realise that otherwise the economy would suffer further.

    There is no empirical evidence to support the proposition that ‘expansionary fiscal contraction’ works in reality.

    There is a need to strike the right balance between one’s personal ideological proclivity with the wider interests of society. It’s common sense and a very British thing to do.

  12. Mr Nailer’s article as usual reflects his noble intentions and strongly-held principles. He’s right about one of the reasons for pro-mass immigration attitude by the mainstream parties, namely to bolster the tax coffers.

    As usual too is the typical understanding, conventional wisdom, and common attitude towards government budget. That is that there are limits or at lest ought to be limits to the government budget. Either this is because the government budget is no different than a household budget differing only as to the ‘quantity’ of expenditure and the capacity to borrow and spend accordingly. This is the mainstream economics that ‘all’ subscribe too and which informs the debate about debt, deficit and austerity in the mainstream media and not least mainstream politics.

  13. Excellent analysis. Should be possible to put this out into the public domain where it can be debated and brought to the attention of the general public, either by a newspaper article – where it might be discussed on TV – or by leaflets – or both.

  14. Anthony well said but I hope that your tongue was firmly in cheek when you wrote “This is why all the parties support mass immigration as they don’t have an answer to the problem except by massively increasing the number of taxpayers.”

    Surely they only need to take a walk around almost any town or city centre during normal working hours and they will realise that increasing immigration does not, in general, increase the number of taxpayers.

    As for your list I agree but would add that we cannot afford a squabbling rabble of overpaid MPs who only look out for their own interests.

  15. Informative article, although I concur with the previous post that immigrants do not make much, if any, net contribution to public funds. 4 out of 5 immigrants (or at least of EU immigrants) are unskilled and thus probably on the minimum wage. Only people earning above £35,000 pa are likely to be net contributors to public funds once receipt of inwork benefits, NHS treatment and other public services is taken into account.

    Isn’t the only long-term answer to recognise that the country is bankrupt, impose strict currency controls and then default on the national debt?

    • It has already effectively defaulted by virtue of the Bank of England buying a lot of the debt with ‘printed’ money. The story is that later on the debt will be resold reversing the procedure. No chance.

  16. Superb article.

    The ‘Cannot afford’ list should become a UKIP poster.

    • Although the pejorative ‘invasion of migrants’, though true, would be political suicide. ‘inward migration rate’, or some such, would have to be used.

    • Saying we can’t afford the NHS would be political suicide. Perhaps a better idea would be the hypothecated tax to pay for it and nothing else,

  17. Immigration is not to pay the bills. Most immigrants are net recipients of public money over a period. They don’t earn enough to be net donors as a group. But they do lower wages at the bottom end by preventing an equilibrium wage being paid. This the Tories and their bigger friends love. Small business they don’t care.

    The public debt as said is off the agenda now. It’s just not discussed. Incredible!

    • Nuttall’s problem is that calling for cuts loses votes. The public think there is a money tree and in a sense there is since you can print. In sterling anyway. Even failure to increase spending counts as a cut! Most of them think the debt problem is already solved too.

  18. Antony – All I can say is that I agree with you. It’s not even mathematics is it, just simple schoolboy arithmetic, I think even the average politician can understand this.

    It isn’t that politicians don’t understand this, we can only assume they don’t give a damn. They’re in it for themselves and when they’ve finished their term in office, they’ve already got their places in the sun lined up.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.