You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
)for us all to turn the heating down a few degrees and see how long we can go before putting the heating on would be a start,
We are all going to do that anyhow.
The answer to your point, is a windfall tax, or nationalisation as Ernie suggests.
That along with a cap, which should be at current levels, not this further rise, is how we protect people, we can only turn the heating down so far.
I agree with Ernie's assessment that nationalisation of everything to do with energy is the correct answer. There should be no profiteering on an essential service like domestic energy production.
Liz again sets out her stall here for all to see, she's all about protecting obscene profits.
Where's he drilling?
An 18 month price cap that protects energy companies profits versus a six month plan that includes a windfall tax and a chance to re-evaluate the situation come spring.
Nah, you specifically referred to the fact "no one knows what energy prices will be in 18 months time" and that they might "skyrocket", what happens to energy prices is irrelevant - if they skyrocket then a price cap will be even more important, if they fall the fact that there is a price cap will make no difference - it's a cap.
How it's financed, windfall tax whatever, is a different issue.
Where’s he drilling?
North Sea. The Queen will have a spectacular funeral which captures the moment and gives thanks for the bountiful rewards of limitless energy from the North Sea. It will please the gods. Hopefully.
How it’s financed, windfall tax whatever, is a different issue.
Let's be perfectly clear the government can simply finance it.
What they bullshit to us on how they do it is another discussion.
We need to wait for that information. One thing's for sure Starmer and his 9bn t
WFT for 28bn financing is utter hogwash. The short fall of 21bn is just simple more money from the government. He's being totally disingenuous. I'm suprised this wasn't bought up in the HoC.
Anyway we will see how this pans out.
FFS no one has said that. But whether you like it or not the priority of voters is the direct financial impact on them, not whether shareholders in Shell get paid a higher dividend. Starmer is right in calling for a windfall tax, but he’s wrong on the scale of it, and wrong to be focusing on how a bailout is paid for. He should be calling for nationalisation of the energy companies, but he won’t do that for reasons we all know.
Centre ground has moved to criticising the financing rather than being concerned about the consumer.
It's a bit pathetic to hear JoB talking about this. Last week it was all about fuel poverty and Martin Lewis saying he was agnostic about how it was financed.
This week it's all about where the money is coming from. The left don't deserve the title.
It's a government subsidy in a time of crisis - just like the pandemic package and no one cares about that now.
(Tories are going to be Tories with taxation aren't they?)
I'd rather shore-up the energy companies profits for a short time than see half of my customers go bust.
I'm in the print-trade and we're often the first to see cut backs to budgets. Naah we'll not bother with that brochure.
And you're all talking like this is the only energy policy being worked on. It's a rushed sticking plaster.
Be interesting to see what labour did if they did win the next election, cause I think you can retrospectively apply a windfall tax. Would be surprised if they didn't campaign on that tbh.
I’d rather shore-up the energy companies profits for a short time than see half of my customers go bust.
Exactly.
It’s a rushed sticking plaster.
A sticking plaster which should solve the immediate problem (bar roll-out)
All those that don't agree with it - donate the cash to someone else?
Be interesting to see what labour did if they did win the next election, cause I think you can retrospectively apply a windfall tax. Would be surprised if they didn’t campaign on that tbh.
It's already financed by virute of your own words.
Longer term - better plan needed.
Gonny gies a break on yer MMT nonsense.
Starmer doing well on emphasising who’ll pay and who’ll benefit
He's being disingenuous his own plan is made up of 21bn of government money.
Martin Lewis saying he was agnostic about how it was financed.
Martin Lewis is still saying this. He's been consistant. He's done everything he can to push with help for households without entering into the politics of it. For MPs, it is their job to address the politics of it. Same goes for talking heads on the radio talking about politics... and JoB in particular has been vocal for months about the profits being made gas producers because of Putin's actions, and how a windfall tax is really entirely uncontroversial and necessary.
Gonny gies a break on yer MMT nonsense.
How does it gets financed then before any borrowing is done?
You know - that is an ignorant comment. You can admit you don't understand how a government spends.
The only nonsense is people that still think tax pays for things.
Martin Lewis is still saying this. He’s been consistant. He’s done everything he can to push with help for households without entering into the politics of it. For MPs, it is their job to address the politics of it. Same goes for talking heads on the radio talking about politics… and JoB in particular has been vocal for months about the profits being made gas producers because of Putin’s actions, and how a windfall tax is really entirely uncontroversial and necessary.
I've told you Starmer's plan is 21bn short of windfall tax.
It's not funded at all like he said it is.
seem Liz's first delivery was COVID to her Maj! 😉
rone
Full Member
Gonny gies a break on yer MMT nonsense.How it get’s financed then before any borrowing is done?
You know – that is an ignorant comment. You can admit you don’t understand how a government spends.
The only nonsense is people that still think tax pays for things.
I'm well aware the government can print money and take value from the future, it's not a unlimited resource though. And even your MMT says that it should only be used for important things, like infrastructure and investment or it will have inflationary consequences if you are just using it like a credit card.
Letting the energy companies keep the profit with putting the burden on the taxpayers, is not good MMT policy, it's robbing the credit card.
We get it, it's not the solution to all our problems.
I’ve told you Starmer’s plan is 21bn short of windfall tax.
I heard you. And I already knew that was the case with Labour's six month plan announced last month, which I acknowledged when I replied to. Learn to listen/read not just repeatedly shout us all down. The last few of us still reading your contributions might just give up on them. It still matters what money is spent on, who gains from it, who loses from it, who the government will take money back from in future. All this stuff still matters once you accept and grasp most of MMT. If the government are going with a big spend on a 18 month plan, I want a bigger chunk of the extra profits the fossil fuel producers will take from that taxed back, and the government spending elsewhere.
I’m well aware the government can print money and take value from the future, it’s not a unlimited resource though.
I've no idea what you are talking about.
The £££ is unlimted and not a resource by definition.
Don't confuse printing money with goverment issuing money to pay for things. It's standard practice for any government in this country.
And plenty don't get it.
And even your MMT says that it should only be used for important things, like infrastructure and investment or it will have inflationary consequences if you are just using it like a credit card.
MMT says to identify the deficit in society.
The burden will not go on to tax payers it never does.
So you still need schooling?
No I'd like you to calm down about your fantasy economics.
. The last few of us still reading your contributions might just give up on them.
Rude as ****.
Then don't respond.
The last few of us - what a remarkable comment.
No i need to to calm down about your fantasy economics.
I see no solid arguments coming from you. Fair enough.
You see Kelvin? You think the debate is done on this. This is why.
Be more self aware about the manner of your own posting.
I'm not particularly a politics expert, can you all help me out with something?
We keep referring back to Labour and / or Starmer. Does it matter beyond them currying favour ahead of an election? They're not in power, they could promise to melt down Boris to make candles for the difference it makes. Their job as I understand it is to sit there saying how the government is doing everything wrong, so continually harping back to what they think is just misdirection. No? Have I misunderstood something?
Kier Starmer, yesterday.
Be more self aware about the manner of your own posting.
I'm nothing but informative and willing to debate.
I think you're off here. But fine.
[img] 
[/img]
Nah I'm off out to film the Tour of Britain now.
Lift the moratorium on UK shale gas production. This will enable developers to seek planning permission where there is local support, which could get gas flowing in as soon as six months.
This sounds like total guff. The developers round here (quadzilla) were trying for years to prove the safety and support for fracking with no luck. Every drill attempt led to an earthquake and they had a permanent protest outside which led to congestion problems on a daily basis.
It was my understanding that they had to fill the well with concrete when it was finally banned.
How the hell are they going to prove local support, prove its safe and get production going in 6 months!?
And then what happens if/when the Tories lose the next election?
rone
Full Member
No i need to to calm down about your fantasy economics.I see no solid arguments coming from you. Fair enough.
No wonder if you don't even understand that printing (ok creating) money is taking value from the future.
Anyhow, that's plenty on this nonsense, though i'm sure you'll keep waffling on about it.
Nah I’m off out to film the Tour of Britain now.
Take a brolly!
No wonder if you don’t even understand that printing money is taking value from the future.
There is no such thing as printing money in a government spending context.
Take a brolly!
Sunny in mansfield!
This sounds like total guff. The developers round here (quadzilla) were trying for years to prove the safety and support for fracking with no luck. Every drill attempt led to an earthquake and they had a permanent protest outside which led to congestion problems on a daily basis.
Perhaps thats the plan. It may never happen.
They can then say we tried, but failed, but Labour never even wanted to try.
Their job as I understand it is to sit there saying how the government is doing everything wrong, so continually harping back to what they think is just misdirection. No? Have I misunderstood something?
Well it's all very confusing. I thought their job was to challenge, hold to account, and offer credible alternatives to the government, with the broader aim of convincing the electorate that they should be elected to office when the next general election takes place.
But perhaps I've got that wrong too. Does anyone know what the point of the Labour Party is?
Middle-class protest movement?
Their job as I understand it is to sit there saying how the government is doing everything wrong, so continually harping back to what they think is just misdirection.
No they are all MPs who should be representing their constituents and the country as a whole.
That may include challenging the government and putting forward different policies but it certainly isnt to say the government is doing everything wrong (well it shouldnt be since even the worse government should get some stuff right however...).
At worse the policies dont get accepted but next election everyone remembers the screwup and votes differently and at best their policies get accepted and pushed through.
We keep referring back to Labour and / or Starmer. Does it matter beyond them currying favour ahead of an election? They’re not in power, they could promise to melt down Boris to make candles for the difference it makes. Their job as I understand it is to sit there saying how the government is doing everything wrong, so continually harping back to what they think is just misdirection. No? Have I misunderstood something?
Both sides have an eye on the public perception of the other. So if Labour start looking really good, then that will make tory MPs worry for their seats so they will be less confident in their leader. This means that they will either end up changing leader (as we just saw) and/or criticising their own party, which reduces credibility further. Remember, MPs don't have to vote the way their leadership wants, so leaders need confidence of their MPs. The opposition has a part to play in that.
I can't see her being PM for long - I mean she's killed the Queen, so she'll be looking to take that over
So the price cap will now be for two years? I wasn't aware of that. That definitely takes us up to the next general election and completely rules out a snap one.
I’m not particularly a politics expert, can you all help me out with something?
We keep referring back to Labour and / or Starmer. Does it matter beyond them currying favour ahead of an election?
Nope, you're right. Labour are irrelevant.
ernielynch
Free Member
So the price cap will now be for two years? I wasn’t aware of that. That definitely takes us up to the next general election and completely rules out a snap one.
yeah not that I was expecting anything else giving the current state of polls, but aye that's that settled now.
Cheers.
What I mean is, sure, I understand the need for an opposition, to challenge the government incumbent as Ernie says. (Not that I'm seeing a lot of challenging but hey ho.) And yes, I understand that there's a need for them to lay groundwork for an election, I said as much in my question.
What I don't understand is how it's in any way relevant to this conversation. Someone says that a Tory / Truss policy is poor, someone else counters that Labour / Starmer's suggestions are worse but... so what? At best it's irrelevant, and potentially it's diverting attention away from the place where we should be directing the most scrutiny. It's interrupting debate because LOOK OVER THERE INSTEAD!
No?
giving the current state of polls
To be fair there has only been one poll since Truss became Prime Minister 2 days ago and although it gives Labour a very healthy 15 point lead she has barely got her feet under the table. Time will tell but I think she preformed better at prime minister's question than expected. The two year price cap has taken me back but I still think that she will be significantly worse than Johnson, who was no less willing to throw money at a crises. We'll see.
The monarch dying will give an absolutely massive boost to any ruling party imo - the nation and institutions will feel the need to rally together.
It’s ‘code’ for being lib dems. What bit of that don’t you understand?
Who are these lib dems you speak of?
Oh so now voters now have to check on STW to see what options Labour might consider in 6 months time? ffs 🙄
You asked a question, I gave an answer. Who said anything about the wider voting public?
Labour needs to come up with credible proposals to put to voters and potential supporters.
Yes, they do.
Nor am I particularly impressed by their fiscal prudence attack line
So are you advocating pumping public money into private companies indefinitely? Because as an immediate fix that works but longer term that's not sustainable. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that was what Rayner was getting at.
Time will tell but I think she preformed better at prime minister’s question than expected.
That's only because she was expected to be absolutely dreadful.
Labour really need to ram home the fact that she wants the energy company to keep on making massive profits and for the "hard working families" to pay for it.
The developers round here (quadzilla) were trying for years to prove the safety and support for fracking with no luck. Every drill attempt led to an earthquake and they had a permanent protest outside which led to congestion problems on a daily basis.
No problem, we're not allowed to protest now, remember?
It’s interrupting debate because LOOK OVER THERE INSTEAD!
Its not because an obvious part of the debate is what are the alternatives? You cant discuss the failings or otherwise of the PM without also discussing what is being proposed as an alternative and how sensible or not those arguments are.
So are you advocating pumping public money into private companies indefinitely?
No. I am suggesting that portraying the Tories as a spendthrift party and Labour as the party of fiscal prudence is a poor attack line, even if it's true.
Of course I could be wrong and it might win voters over, but if that is the case I am not entirely certain what the point of a Labour government would be - fiscal prudence involves all sorts of things such as not pissing money on sick people or reducing child poverty. "Difficult decisions".
No problem, we’re not allowed to protest now, remember?
Yeah, will be hard to campaign on all climate related issues now... the fossil fuel extractors will just get the police to keep you well away from the pointless new fracking site anyway... just a quick word with the new PM and Home Secretary they've bought themselves...
So are you advocating pumping public money into private companies indefinitely?
I'm not even against pumping public money into investing in energy production (I'd rather the government asked to own what they invest in really, but hey, I'm a dreamer)... but link it to weaning us off dependance on gas (and oil)... don't link it to accelerating (Truss' own description) how much we pull out of the ground in future... it's madness.
So are you advocating pumping public money into private companies indefinitely
That's not my line I think - but no one says indefinitely.
All public money ends up in the private sector eventually. Then back out via taxation.
No. I am suggesting that portraying the Tories as a spendthrift party and Labour as the party of fiscal prudence is a poor attack line, even if it’s true.
Mcdonnell and Corbyn used fiscal prudence under James Meadway's budget plans for 2017/2019. It did them no good at all - newspapers just said it was unaffordable. It's nothing new.
Its not because an obvious part of the debate is what are the alternatives? You cant discuss the failings or otherwise of the PM without also discussing what is being proposed as an alternative and how sensible or not those arguments are.
Good point.
All public money ends up in the private sector eventually. Then back out via taxation.
Unless it goes overseas by tax loopholes. Like Apple, Amazon, etc, etc.
fiscal prudence involves all sorts of things such as not pissing money on sick people or reducing child poverty
Just because you think a fair chunk of the money the government are going to be paying the energy companies for us should be clawed back in taxes on their profits, doesn't mean you can't also want to invest in the NHS and reducing child poverty. It's an argument to make if you just like arguing on the internet, but it really makes no sense. Where you spend money, where you tax it back... this is a major role of any government, and should be the vocal concern of anyone who wants to be in government.
“Difficult decisions”.
It should be an easy decision to reduce (not remove) the amount of profit energy companies keep for themselves when they are getting it due to a combination of war in Europe and a large government spending plan that benefits them hugely today and tomorrow (and the rest of us in the short term).
Could someone explain to me, in simple terms preferably, how printing more money doesn't add bugger up the economy? Also, if that's the solution, is all the talk of having to borrow billions just nonsense? Also also, how come every country doesn't do it?
Unless it goes overseas by tax loopholes. Like Apple, Amazon, etc, etc.
Oh yeah - the wealthy hoard money - and move it around. That's the reason for new money creation in general to fill the the bit that gets syphoned off.
Lots of corporation money is commercial bank money that sits on balance sheets though.
Could someone explain to me, in simple terms preferably, how printing more money doesn’t add bugger up the economy?
Don't, rone will be out to say you can print endless money and it will never need paying back or have any negatives....
You’ve missed the memo… the government are going to be buying energy for us… for now… so the fossil fuel company profits are coming from the government
Big companies encompasses more than just energy producers and suppliers. The people who spend the most money are the poorest in society (the rich and seriously rich hoard it) and they aren't going to have the spare for the odd discretionary purchase.
ernielynch
Free MemberThe monarch dying will give an absolutely massive boost to any ruling party imo – the nation and institutions will feel the need to rally together.
yeah, was just wondering about that myself. Guess it will.
Time will tell but I think she preformed better at prime minister’s question than expected.
That’s only because she was expected to be absolutely dreadful.
Some might have expected her to be absolutely dreadful but I didn't necessarily. I know that she isn't a skilled orator but she comes across as fairly genuine and quite ordinary.
It was her first day at the job, never done anything like that before, Starmer, who has played his part many times before, read questions to her and she answered ad hoc without any preparation, the little I saw on the news looked quite reasonable.
She will without a shadow of a doubt improve as it becomes a routine part of her job, all Tory and Labour leaders do. The prime ministers question which always sticks in my mind was Thatcher's last one - by then she had completely mastered it and went out with all guns blazing. I hate to admit it but she was very good.
Could someone explain to me, in simple terms preferably, how printing more money doesn’t add bugger up the economy? Also, if that’s the solution, is all the talk of having to borrow billions just nonsense? Also also, how come every country doesn’t do it?
First of all distance yourself from printing money - it's doing the rounds and is not accurate.
The government don't just issue money to the public in general operations - that's helicopter money.
Government spends new money into existence every time it buys or funds something. Since the 70s.
Resource/project is purchased / Labour employed with new money creation via the Treasury.
The spend is made etc - the Debt (DMO) office look at the difference between taxation revenue (it's not used for the spend) - and if there's more spend that taxation payments - Bonds are issued to match the difference. That's your deficit. Key is the spend is made first. Bonds aren't essential to spending but they help drain reserves to stop too much money flowing around. This forms the national debt which includeds NS&I, savings etc.
Now Q/E - idiots on the right-wing net then think Q/E is money printing. It's not.
Q/E is new money creation to buy back bonds by the BOE.
So the BOE buy back bonds from the government. This is used to offset deficit spending - and is a complex farce really to make it appear the government borrowed the money. This was done by the Tories during Covid. 450bn of Q/E v 400+bn of government spend. The two aren't directly linked but make up balance sheets. And it appears the bonds have been cleared and the government spend matched.
As long as the spend is suited to a real deficit in the economy (Infrastructure/Schools/Hospital/Paying people to stay at home) then the new money ias absorbed and no inflation should occur.
Don’t, rone will be out to say you can print endless money and it will never need paying back or have any negatives….
Amazing. Cheers.
I've never said that ever.
I'm describing the system that is in place. Why the insults?
You like all critics in these threads prove you absolutely do not understand government financing.
Once again - there is no limit to £££ our government can produce, it's just numbers on a spreadsheet that move from BOE/Treasury. But the limit to spending into the real economy is inflation and lack of resources to soak up the money.
It happens every day.
Big companies encompasses more than just energy producers and suppliers. The people who spend the most money are the poorest in society (the rich and seriously rich hoard it) and they aren’t going to have the spare for the odd discretionary purchase.
No, we won't... but when people get increasing price resistant... shop around more... are looking to eek out every penny... the big retail companies tend to do better out of it than the smaller ones. And Truss keeps talking up cuts in corporation tax for all large companies... not just filling the pockets of the energy companies. Meanwhile... what's her position on cost of living rises for workers...? You know that. What's her view on taxes for Amazon vs wages and representation for their employees?
But remember... others will still have lots to spend, just not us. The highest paid are getting record pay increases while everyone else has to suck up ever decreasing real wage levels.
At best it’s irrelevant, and potentially it’s diverting attention away from the place where we should be directing the most scrutiny. It’s interrupting debate because LOOK OVER THERE INSTEAD!
What do you think is going on here? People trying to find the best solution to our problems? Or people vying to make themselves look as good as possible to the electorate?
Truss has been handed an absolute gift with the Queen situation. Political leaders always get a boost in the early stage of a war. In a similar style, Queen dying with see a surge of flag waving. More importantly, headlines will be dominated by Queen for many, many weeks. So little scrutiny or challenge to Government actions.
Don’t, rone will be out to say you can print endless money and it will never need paying back or have any negatives…
That's nowhere near what he's saying.
It was her first day at the job, never done anything like that before
I am pretty sure she will have done similar as a minister. Whilst a narrower scope ministers still have to occasionally stand up and be questioned.
Here is a UCL paper explaining the whole financing process - bit complex.
Berkeley, A., Ryan-Collins, J., Tye, R., Voldsgaard, A. and Wilson, N. (2022). The self-financing state: An institutional analysis of government expenditure, revenue collection and debt issuance operations in the United Kingdom.
Summary:
This paper constitutes a first detailed institutional analysis of the UK Government’s expenditure, revenue collection and debt issuance processes. We find, first, that the UK Government creates new money and purchasing power when it undertakes expenditure, rather than spending being financed by taxation from, or debt issuance to, the private sector. The spending process is initiated by the government drawing on a sovereign line of credit from the core legal and accounting structure known as the Consolidated Fund (CF). Under directions from the UK finance ministry, the Bank of England debits the CF’s account at the Bank and credits other accounts at the Bank held by government entities; a practice mandated in law. This creates new public deposits which are used to settle spending by government departments into the economy via the commercial banking sector. Parliament, rather than the Treasury or central bank, is the sole authority under which expenditures from the Consolidated Fund arise. Revenue collection, including taxation, involves the reverse process, crediting the CF’s account at the Bank. With regard to debt issuance, under the current conditions of excess reserve liquidity, the function of debt issuance is best understood as a way of providing safe assets and a reliable source of collateral to the non-bank private sector, insofar as these are not withdrawn by the state via quantitative easing by the Bank of England. The findings support neo-chartalist accounts of the workings of sovereign currency-issuing nations and provide additional institutional detail regarding the apex of the monetary hierarchy in the UK case. The findings also suggest recent debates in the UK around monetary financing and central bank independence need to be reconsidered given the central role of the Consolidated Fund
What do you think is going on here? People trying to find the best solution to our problems? Or people vying to make themselves look as good as possible to the electorate?
By "here" I mean STW, not parliament.
Mcdonnell and Corbyn used fiscal prudence under James Meadway’s budget plans for 2017/2019. It did them no good at all – newspapers just said it was unaffordable.
Yeah they tried to play by the rules and deflect criticism by offering costed solutions. But with help from Blairite MPs who constantly criticised the Tories were able to portray it as unaffordable.
What Corbyn and McDonnell didn't do, as the current Labour leader and Shadow Chancellor are now doing, is attack the Tories alleged lack of fiscal prudence.
In fact they did the complete opposite and forced Theresa May to, officially at least, announce the end of austerity.
By “here” I mean STW, not parliament.
It's simple... there's a very good debate to be had about how the Labour Party is currently led, what they should propose, and how and when they should propose it... but the thread set up to do that became a horrible place to engage, so most people avoid it... and so most new political threads end up people trying to have the same debate in the new thread instead... and once that's taken over, more casual posters move away from the new thread for the same reason.
What Corbyn and McDonnell didn’t do, as the current Labour leader and Shadow Chancellor are now doing, is attack the Tories alleged lack of fiscal prudence.
Very true. I wish they pushed harder on this.
I mean - their whole projected term budget was less than the Tories spent on Covid in one year proving that the spend is not an issue and vindicating them both.
I am pretty sure she will have done similar as a minister. Whilst a narrower scope ministers still have to occasionally stand up and be questioned.
Obviously she has stood up and answered questions in parliament before. If you think the pressure and responsibility, is the same, and as critical, as being Prime Minister, then that's up you. She will improve, all Tory and Labour leaders do, that's because she will gain the experience which she currently doesn't have.
That’s nowhere near what he’s saying.
Thanks.
Obviously she has stood up and answered questions in parliament before
The discussion was specifically about PMQs and so she had done similar before.
You also miss the subtle fact that Starmer should also improve. He has spent the last few years wasting his time in PMQs since Johnson never answered the question but just threw out some soundbites and insults.
Its going to take some time for him to adjust to actually having questions sort of answered and hence follow up questions being of use.
You also miss the subtle fact that Starmer should also improve.
I don't think improvement ever stops - the more experience the better the performance. A PM with 10 years experience is likely to be more capable at PMQ than they were with only 5 years experience. Which is why I made a reference to Thatcher's last PMQ being an exceptionally good one for her.
Are the usual suspects banging on about endlessly printing loads and loads and loads of magic money until we all need wheelbarrows to carry it all about in MMT again?
Jolly good. It’s always both really really interesting and obviously very credible as an economic theory 😃
Jolly good. It’s always both really really interesting and obviously very credible as an economic theory
Nice one! Anything useful to add?
(P.S it's an accurate description of monetary operations.)
I love the fact that we were all paid to stay at home (not out of taxes) and there are still stupid comments such as this.
The pound has been in freefall since Brexit (20%+ devaluation against the Euro) and is now at its lowest value against the dollar since 1985 and in response to that you’re advocating Lizzie fires up the printing presses?
No, you’re right… that’d work
What could possibly go wrong? 😂
I love the fact that we were all paid to stay at home (not out of taxes) and there are still stupid comments such as this.
I think you'll find not all of us were. In particular the person you are responding to funnily enough.
No one paid you to stay at home binners?
No wonder you are so grumpy!