Politics

Money isn’t ever precious – what it’s used for is

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 30/03/2020 - 7:00pm in

And when money is costless to produce, why do some people make things so purposely difficult for the rest of us? This is from Matthew Parris in Saturday’s ‘Times’ and suggests that the Coronavirus crisis is having interesting consequences for the Conservatism of which he used to be a member: Well, I’m sure that’s what... Read more

Tax Justice and Modern Monetary Theory – A Guide

Does Modern Monetary Theory take tax justice for granted?

Tackling the post-coronavirus economic myths: runaway inflation and tax increases are not around the corner

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 30/03/2020 - 5:25pm in

I am beginning to see an increasing number of post-coronavirus economic myths emerging on twitter and other media. These need to be tackled now. I will do so as I note them. If people see issues to address, please let me know.

One such myth that appears quite commonplace at present is that the creation of money by the government to tackle this crisis will lead us, in very short time, to a situation like that of the Weimar Republic, with hyperinflation following. This is quite empathetically not true for a number of reasons.

Firstly, for there to be inflation there has to be something that drives it. For example, there has to be a shortage of available labour in the market which drives up wages. Right now there is a prospect of mass unemployment, meaning that the chance of wage driven inflation is, therefore, incredibly low.

Alternatively, there has to be excess demand for what is available in market, meaning that prices are pushed up by supply-side shortages. Whilst there is more risk of this, particularly with regard to some basic products at present, what almost invariably happens during a period of crisis, which in this case is likely to last for much longer than most people realise, is that people save because uncertainty creates that natural reaction. In that case excess demand for this reason is unlikely.

Excess demand for items in short supply is also unlikely because there is little chance that banks will be offering easy credit any time soon: their balance sheets are going to take a hammering during the course of the coronavirus crisis and if anything credit is going to be in short supply. Excess demand giving rise to inflation for that reason is also unlikely in that case.

There is also little sing that external price shocks e.g. oil price increases, are likely at present. Instead all commodity prices are falling because of declining demand which is likely to continue for a long time to come.

Second, we are in nothing like the situation the Weimar Republic found itself in during the 1920s. What happened in that case was that following the First World War it was obliged to pay reparations to the winning countries in that conflict. They demanded payment in what were their own gold standard backed currencies of that era, meaning that in an effort to pay Germany had to focus its entire economy on exports to earn the foreign currency it owed and crush an already defeated population with what was, in effect, a massive austerity programme that sold their labour at an undervalue to the winning states. It could not achieve that goal and in the economic turmoil that followed, and as a result of the effort to serve its obligations to buy the currencies of other countries to make payment to them, it crushed the value of its own domestic currency, with disastrous consequences. But we have no such obligations now. Crucially, nor do we have the gold standard now. As importantly, nor does the UK government borrow in foreign currencies. And, as a matter of fact the rest of the world still seems rather keen to save in sterling. So we are not remotely in a situation like that of Weimar Germany even if we will see a lot of government-created money this year, and in the years to come.

There is a third, and perhaps most important reason why we will also not get inflation. That is because of the nature of modern money. It is crucial to understand that all modern money is just a promise to pay. We really should be familiar with that: it is written on our banknotes, after all. But it seems that we are not. As a result this requires explanation.

Electronic money, which represents about 97% of all money in use in the UK, has no more physical existence then an entry in an electronic bank statement.  That is all it is: just an accounting entry. There is nothing to physically back it up. There is no gold in vaults, or cash in safes. There is just book-keeping. That is what our money is. It is accounting entries in bank ledgers.

Those accounting entries are made to record the real nature of money. That real nature is what is printed on our bank notes: money is always created by a promise to pay. The accounting records those promises.

So, for example, if you pay cash into a bank account the bank does not keep that cash for you. Instead, it records its promise to pay you back an equivalent sum when you ask for it on an electronic bank statement. You no longer have the cash: you have the bank’s promise instead. That’s it: you have now literally nothing else. You just have to trust that the bank is good to make the payment.

Such transactions in case are, however, the exception now: most electronic money entries in accounting records are made in a quite different way. In this other way they are always, and without exception, created by bank lending. This needs explanation.

When a bank makes a loan it does two things. It marks up its customer’s current bank account with the amount of the loan, and then promises that the bank will then honour any payment that the customer tells it to make out of that account. This is one side of the promise to pay: that form the bank to the customer.

The other side is that the bank marks up the customer’s loan account with the amount of the loan to record the fact that the customer has also made a promise to pay. That is the other side of the promise to pay.

With those two simple records being created, new cash has been put into existence. It did not exist before these two entries were made into the bank accounts in question. It does afterwards. And that is the way in which about 97% of all money in the United Kingdom is created, whether that be by commercial banks or, as importantly as I note below, by the Bank of England.

Most importantly, this is also the way in which the government spends. Like absolutely everyone else in this country, and any other country with a similar banking system, there are just two conditions that must be met before the government can spend.

First, it must decide to do so, which is something that ministers and Parliament must do. We hold them to account for these decisions.

Second, it must have available credit with its bank to let it spend.

Both conditions are essential: money is not created without the decision to promise to pay, which Parliament and ministers can deliver, and then the ability of the government to deliver on that promise because a bank will agree to make the resulting payment, in exchange, of course, for a promise from the government to make repayment to it in due course.

Note that there is no requirement that there be cash in the government’s bank account before it spends, because that is not necessary. Instead what is required is a bank willing to extend credit – to mark up its ledgers in the way I have just described in other words – on behalf of the government.

It’s important to note that nobody else’s cash was involved in the process of making the loan I previously described: the making of the new money that loan created was a matter that only involved the bank and the customer who took the loan. That’s also true when the government asks a bank to make a payment for it: no previous cash deposit, whether from tax revenues or third-party borrowing is required to enable this spending to take place. All that is necessary is that a bank agree to advance the government the credit it wants and then the government can spend as it wishes, or as parliament has decreed in a budget.

There is, however, a twist to this tale. It just so happens that most governments are in a quite exceptional position when it comes to asking for credit. That is because the vast majority of governments own their own central bank. It is important to appreciate that these central banks are real banks. They can make real loans in exactly the same way as I have already described. And they can, as a consequence, make loans to the governments that own them, subject to the rules and constraints that those governments have voluntarily or otherwise imposed upon them, as many have in areas like the Eurozone. Those rules and constraints have been put in place to restrict the ability of central banks to lend to their governments, largely for the benefit of the private banking sector which has, in most countries, considerably over-expanded and became too powerful as a result. But these rules and constraints apart, and however and whyever they are imposed, there is no reason at all why a government should not borrow from its own central bank.

But, in this exceptional case of a government borrowing directly from its central bank something quite unusual happens. Precisely because the government owns the central bank it borrows from any promise to pay that they make to each other can be open-ended. No date needs to be attached to it. There is good reason for that: you cannot, in effect, owe yourself money, which is what happens when a government borrows from its own central bank. And in that case when you repay is a matter of inconsequence: in truth it changes nothing.

Despite that, however, the government can spend from its account with its central bank based on promise that it has made. But, crucially, it need never repay that bank, if it so wishes, because if it did it would only be repaying itself, in effect. So something quite different from what happens in a normal loan arrangement happens in this circumstance: the money that is created can be left circulating in the economy in perpetuity if the government so wishes, at no cost to the government itself. In effect, what has happened is that the debt that the government owes its central bank has been turned into money itself.

This was considered a threat to economic stability from 1971 onwards, when the world did, in effect, come off the gold standard with the United States, which happened in that year. Because this whole process was so little understood at the time, and because many of the economic theories of money were also deeply underdeveloped back then, the whole school of monetary economics came into place to try to restrict the ability of the government to create money at will because it was believed that this would lead to hyperinflation. Instead economies were forced to rely solely on private-sector banks to create most new money through their lending, driving the economy into ever-increasing debt cycles that have had a significant adverse impacts upon income and wealth inequality, growth and economic stability. The policy has remained in place ever since, constraining the whole of the Eurozone, creating the policy of independent central banks, imposing austerity through the artificial constraint that it creates upon the government’s ability to fund its activities, and causing untold harm as a consequence. The cost of not understanding money is enormous. But now we do: it works as I have explained.

As importantly, what we also know is that if there is an economic downturn – and the coronavirus crisis is going to create a massive economic downturn – then two things happen.

First of all, many banks trying to recover the loans that they have made. And, when a bank loan is repaid the money that it created is then destroyed: quite simply, the creation process is put into reverse. As a result of the money supply is restricted.

Second, banks tend to substantially reduce the amount of new lending that they make. Partly that is because worried people tend not to apply for bank loans, because they reduce their spending instead. More problematically, though, banks also refuse to extend new credit precisely because many of the potential customers do not look as though they can fulfil any promise that they make to repay the bank. This is precisely the situation that many UK businesses, homeowners, and others are facing.

The result is a reduction in the money supply. What that means is that if we were solely dependent upon our banks to create our money then the amount available to make the economy go around would be reduced. We would get what is called a liquidity crisis. And that is exactly what we now have: people and companies are going to fail precisely because they cannot get access to the cash that they need to make the payments that they owe even if they believe that their incomes might recover in the post coronavirus crisis period. Unimaginable harm might come to the economy as result, which the government’s inability to deliver on its promises of support on a timely basis will only exacerbate.

Government can correct for this. Precisely because most private-sector banks will be reducing their risk at present by calling in their loans, or by refusing to make new ones, the government has to compensate by creating new money instead.

It did this after the 2008 global financial crisis. The process used at that time was called quantitative easing (QE). This was a bit cumbersome but what, in effect, happened was that central banks bought government bonds that were already in issue from the financial institutions like banks, pension funds and life-insurance companies that already owned them with the intention of providing more liquidity to the financial markets, which they hoped would do two things.

One expectation was that this would encourage investment in new assets. This failed. The money was mainly used for financial speculation instead.

Second, they intended to push the interest rate down, which the government also believed would encourage more economic activity. The objective of reducing interest rates undoubtedly worked: the official rates have been at, or near, zero per cent for almost a decade now. There is, however, little sign that this boosted economic activity, although it might, again, have increased inequality in all its forms.

The QE program was, then, deeply flawed: whatever success it achieved in helping people and businesses to afford their loan obligations was more than compensated for by the divisions in income and wealth that it produced in society.

Thankfully, we do not need to use the QE process again now. Precisely because no one wishes to reduce official interest rates any further, largely because there is considerable uncertainty as to the impact of negative interest-rates, QE is no longer needed because the type of liquidity it created was otherwise unhelpful. Instead, the process of direct funding from central banks to governments can be used instead.

And, importantly, and to return to the theme of this post, this will not be inflationary unless three situations occur.

The first is that full employment is restored and the policy is perpetuated. Then there will be wage inflation. It’s a risk, of course, but not for a long time to come.

The second is banks start recreating money by lending again. They will, eventually, but not for a long time to come, I suspect. Everyone’s balance sheet is going to be very weak after this crisis and that’s always bad for lending.

And the third is that governments do not react to the first two situations when they arise by then (and only then) beginning to withdraw the cash that they have created from the economy, with the effect of cancelling it, just as loan repayment does in other lending situations. That’s when tax increases will be needed. They serve this purpose of destroying money at that time. Until then they’re wholly counterproductive, because they will drag money out of the economy and destroy it when that money will still be required to provide the essential liquidity that the economy needs to function as it returns to full employment, which should be the goal of any government.

So, there is an inflation risk, but it’s at some time in the future. And we know how to deal with it then. That will not be by increasing interest rates – which creates debt insolvencies – but by tax increases, but these are required only when the pressure is apparent.

What chance is there of significant inflation in a year or so then? I’d call it zero, for all practical purposes. In fact, I would suggest that the chance is very low indeed for several years to come.

So might we do two things then? One is let’s stop discussing inflation risk.

And the other is to stop discussing the need for tax increases unless those are designed to redistribute income and wealth i.e. the increases for those with higher incomes and wealth are matched by cuts for those with less of both. But generic overall tax increases are simply not required now.

There is much that we need to fear about this crisis. Inflation and tax rises do not need to feature on a list of those things.

Did Michael Gunner Lose his Mind? (Updated)

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 30/03/2020 - 4:00pm in

Was he feverish when he said that? [A]
Up to now, I thought COVID-19 affected the respiratory system only. After reading the latest statement by Northern Territory Chief Minister Michael Gunner (Labor) I’ve come to suspect it may induce madness as well (read the whole thing):

“Right now, it is Territory first. And if that means putting the other states last, we’ll do that.”

Will Gunner remember that after the next Hurricane Tracy?

Update:
30-03-2020. Local readers may have many questions about the Morrison COVID-19 packages (the latest tranche of which amounts to $AU 130 billion): Commonwealth Treasury Department factsheets for households and individuals. For other related factsheets, please go to the Treasury homepage.

Image Credit:
[A] Michael Gunner in 2016. Author: Ntlabor. Source: Wikimedia. File licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. Although I hope NTLabor endorsed the use I make of this file, I find it extremely unlikely.

Scotty From Marketing Tells People To Not Buy Puzzles But Instead Try To Interpret One Of His Speeches

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 30/03/2020 - 8:51am in

Tags 

Politics, News

morrison 730

Prime Minister Scotty from marketing has called for the Australian people to not go outside to buy puzzles but instead stay inside gather the kids around and as a family try to work out what he is trying to say at one of his press conferences.

“The Prime Minister is concerned with people going out to buy puzzles, because as you know Australians are insatiable when it comes to those,” said a Spokesperson for the Prime Minister. “So Scotty thought what if he turned his speeches into a puzzle?

“That way no one has to go outside they can sit around the TV and try to figure out what the hell he is talking about.”

When asked why the Prime Minister would make a game out of something so important as national briefings, the Spokesperson said: “Like anyone listens to what he has to say anyway.”

”Well besides the Twitterati who only watch him so they have something to tweet about.”

“Now, if you’ll excuse me I’m off to get some cryptic clues ready for the PM’s next briefing”

Mark Williamson

@MWChatShow

You can follow The (un)Australian on twitter @TheUnOz or like us on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/theunoz.

We’re also on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/theunoz

Tory Cuts Destroyed Our Preparedness Against Pandemic Threat

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 30/03/2020 - 8:01am in

On Friday, Mike put up a piece commenting on and reporting a devastating article from the Huffington Post. This revealed that the Tories’ cuts, imposed in the name of austerity and cheap government, had destroyed or discarded the plans previous governments had drawn up against the threat of a global pandemic.

The Cabinet Office had apparently been drawing up a National Risk Register of Civil Emergencies, listing the possible threats to the United Kingdom. At the top of the list in each document was pandemic flu. Mike states clearly that the British government knew an event like the present global emergency was coming. However, the strategy to cope with it was written in 2011 and not updated. And it gets worse. The government’s plan for getting the right messages across to the public during a pandemic, the UK Pandemic Influenza Communications Strategy, was written in 2012. It is now very out of date in its assumptions about how and where people get their information. The guide to dealing with the pandemic’s fatalities, which names key contacts, was written four years before that, in 2008. And the government abolished the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Team, a section within the department of Health, was abolished in 2011. The Tories thus got rid of the very organisation, which would have had the expertise to deal with the pandemic because they were so keen on inflicting cuts.

As a result, according to the HuffPo, “the government has had to either make policy up as it has gone along or is having to beg, borrow and steal from other countries who have been better prepared”.

This is in stark contrast to one of BoJob’s announcements today. Our glorious leader, or one of his minions, declared that Britain was a world leader in tackling the virus. Now this claim was made in the context of the amount of money the government was going to devote to the international effort to develop a vaccine – £500 million. But the statement could be taken to mean that Britain leads the rest of the world in combating the pandemic. Which we don’t. The Chinese are reporting no new cases, or were, and half of the new cases reported in South Korea are of foreigners. It would appear that these countries, which imposed a lockdown much earlier, have been far more successful than we have in tackling it. And other countries have been far less impressed with Johnson. The Greek newspaper Ethnos declared that BoJob was a worse danger than the Coronavirus and reported that he had publicly and essentially asked Britons to accept death. This is in reference to his speech where he declared that Britons were going to lose their loved ones before their time. As he said this, the government was only issuing guidelines but had not imposed a lockdown. The Irish Times stated that Boris was gambling with the health of his citizens. He was. He and his adviser, Dominic Cummings, had decided that they were going to deal with the threat by allowing the disease to spread. The British people would develop herd immunity and the economy would be allowed to continue unharmed by a lockdown. And it was just going to be too bad if a few old people died. The Irish government is relieved that BoJob has at last seen sense. Boris was apparently forced to impose the lockdown because Macron told him he would close the French borders to us if he didn’t. And the mayor of Bergamo, the Italian town hardest hit by the virus, Giorgio Gori, was so frightened by Boris’ complacency and inaction that he flew his two daughters home, because he believed they’d be safer.

Also states that Boris’ singular lack of action on the virus, and the way he dragged his heels before doing anything, bears out criticisms that the Tories have a eugenicist attitude to the poor, the weak and the disabled. They regard them as useless eaters, biologically unfit, who do not deserve to live.

See: https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2020/03/26/the-tories-axed-their-defence-against-coronavirus-years-before-it-arrived-deaths-were-inevitable/

And the Tories long-term attitude towards the poverty and mass death inflicted by austerity really does suggest that attitude. They seem to believe that the state is only wasting resources by supporting them and they should be allowed to die, so that the biologically superior, meaning the rich and especially the corporate elite, should be left free to do as they wish without government interference and the high taxes required by a proper welfare state

Scientists have been worried for decades about the threat of a pandemic. Some of this fear comes from previous viral outbreaks, such as AIDS in the 1980s, and avian flu and swine flu in the 1990s and early part of this century. I guess that the Tories decided that because these diseases did not require the current measures, such precautions weren’t necessary and could be scrapped.

It was a massively short-sighted decision that has undoubtedly cost lives that could otherwise have been saved. 

 

Where Italy is going we’re heading next – and social unrest is growing there

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 30/03/2020 - 5:41am in

I share this from Sky News:

And you wonder why I am worried?

Why COVID-19 Will Strain the Safety Net for Homeless Vets to the Breaking Point

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 30/03/2020 - 12:25am in

While the COVID-19 crisis is unprecedented, the slapdash response underscores how fragile the safety net for America’s homeless really is.

Boris Johnson is spending £5.8 million to get his coronavirus excuses in early

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 29/03/2020 - 7:07pm in

Tags 

Politics

As many report this morning, Boris Johnson is writing to all households in the UK at a cost of £5.8 million. The reason is to get his excuse for his failure on coronavirus in early. The letter will say:

If too many people become seriously unwell at one time, the NHS will be unable to cope. This will cost lives. We must slow the spread of the disease, and reduce the number of people needing hospital treatment in order to save as many lives as possible.

That is why we are giving one simple instruction - you must stay at home.

In other words, ‘if people you know die of coronavirus don’t blame me: it will all be your fault for not doing as I say’.

And this from the man who led a party that deliberately undermined the NHS and denied it necessary resources, who reacted too late to data on coronavirus and who thought it best to create herd immunity whilst not ordering the equipment the staff in the NHS needed and still need, and whose government did not notice an EU invitation to cooperate on ventilator building and decided instead to strike out on its own with people who had never made them before because ‘buying British’ is best.

Many people are quite reasonably worried about coronavirus right now. But Boris Johnson might be most of all, because what is about to happen could quite reasonably be laid at his door. If we get away with 20,000 deaths in the UK that will be a disaster, but he can say it was the best possible outcome, and he might just have a case. Many more than that and he is in deep, deep trouble, and he knows it.

Cartoon: The Dead Thatchers – Eton Uber Alles

Hi, and here’s another of my cartoons satirising the Tories and their utterly reprehensible politicos and other members. In this case, the cartoon takes the form of a sleeve image for a non-existent punk band, the Dead Thatchers, and an equally non-existent song, ‘Eton Uber Alles’. It shows David Cameron, Iain Duncan Smith, Boris Johnson and George Osborne in front of the gates of Auschwitz, which bears the infamous slogan ‘Arbeit Macht Frei’ and the cartoon’s punchline, as you can see, is ‘You will row for the master race’. It’s a reference to the Eton boating song,which itself got poached and revamped in the 1980s by Paul McCartney into the Frog Chorus.

The cartoon’s inspiration is the American punk outfit, The Dead Kennedys, and their song, ‘Kalifornia Uber Alles’. As punks, the Kennedys really hated hippies, and so the song’s just a rant about how California is some kind of hippy Third Reich. I was never a fan of the Dead Kennedys, but I do remember the song had the lines ‘Hippy Nazis will control you, you will jog for the master race!’ Which in the context of a Britain dominated by Eton would obviously be boating.

Now there’s a lot that can be said about hippies both pro and con, but they definitely weren’t Nazis. There was, apparently, a Hippy Nazi party, but they were in Florida, and from their name sound like a rather tasteless joke. They sound like an attempt to wind up the straights, rather than any serious Fascist organisation. Unfortunately, with the way so many of the British ruling class were initially very sympathetic towards Nazi Germany, flocking to organisations like the Anglo-German Fellowship, it’s probably a fair bet that the fathers or grandfathers of many of the boys now at Eton really were Nazi sympathizers. Though I’m not, of course, claiming that those of the four depicted above were.

And there is a serious point for my placing them in front of the slogan ‘Arbeit Macht Frei’, and it’s the same reason people have scrawled it on the walls of Jobcentres and put up photoshopped images of the same. The pro-Israel fanatics and Tories attacked those images and graffiti as anti-Semitic, claiming that they were somehow turning the Holocaust into a joke. However, as Mike explained in his piece last Saturday about the appearance of the slogan on another Jobcentre, this certainly isn’t a case. The phrase translates into English as ‘Work Makes (You) Free’. According to Tony Greenstein, the slogan was on the gates of all the Nazi camps, including those housing gentile prisoners. It was not used exclusively for the Jews, and first appeared on a concentration camp for non-Jews. It’s been applied to the Tories and their administration of the DWP, particularly by Iain Duncan Smith, because they really do seem to have a very Fascistic attitude to the poor and disabled.

The Tories have a mantra about ‘making work pay’, and have deliberately adopted a policy of ‘less eligibility’ towards the disabled and the unemployed in order to deter and punish them for claiming benefit. It takes five weeks after someone has signed on before they receive their first payment under Universal Credit. This is also less than the amount they would have received under the previous, benefit systems. There is an extensive system of sanctions, in which claimants can be thrown off their benefits on the flimsiest of excuses. The disabled are subjected to work capability tests, in which a certain percentage are always found fit work, even when the poor souls are severely disabled and even in several cases terminally ill. Grieving relatives and friends have even found their loved one’s receiving letters from the DWP informing them that they have been found fit for work, and so no longer liable for incapacity and related benefits after they’ve died. It has also been revealed that Maximus, the organisation responsible for administering the tests, like its predecessor Atos, has regularly falsified the results in order to get claimants thrown off benefits.

See: https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2020/03/14/firms-that-falsified-thousands-of-benefit-assessments-set-to-get-contracts-to-falsify-thousands-more/

Mike in his article on Sunday, 8th March 2020 put up this meme reminding everyone how IDS started an article for the online edition of one of the papers actually praising the slogan and defending it against its use by the Nazis. The offending paragraph disappeared soon after, but not before shocked and horrified people had taken screenshots of it and put them back up so everyone could see just how low Iain Duncan Smith is. Here’s the meme:

As one tweeter, Paula Peters, quoted by Mike in his article points out, the language used by the Tories about the disabled is very much the same the Nazis used in the Third Reich. They’re denounced as ‘useless eaters’ and scroungers. The term ‘workshy’, used to describe the long-term unemployed, is also taken from the Nazis. It’s the English translation of ‘arbeitscheu’. And the habitually or long-term unemployed were also branded ‘asocial’ and placed in the concentration camps.

The Tories do this because they have a fundamentally eugenicist view of the poor, the unemployed and the disabled. They are biologically inferior, ‘dysgenic’, who threaten the healthy purity of the rest of the human race and particularly the biologically superior. Who are naturally the rich, especially the heads of big business. Hence the Tory policy of forcing them off benefits, even if it means the deaths of hundreds of thousands. It’s estimated that about 120,000 people have been killed by Tory austerity. But there is no apology nor any attempt to alter or improve conditions despite continuing revelations of the hardship inflicted on millions of people. Instead the Tories merely double down, repeated their lies about how, under them, the economy was booming and more people were in work than ever before. As for the deaths, they have done everything they can to hide the figures and prevent disability rights activists and carers, like Mike, from obtaining them. Hence putting the Tories in front of that slogan is very appropriate.

See: https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2020/03/08/hypocrisy-over-language-used-to-describe-dwp-oppression-of-benefit-claimants/

Here’s the cartoon. As always, I hope you enjoy it. And please, don’t have nightmares. It’s only Iain Duncan Smith!

 

Pages