The Financial Times employes: Edward White in Shanghai, Cheng Leng in Hong Kong, Kana Inagaki in London and Stephen Morris in San Francisco and ‘Additional reporting by Ding Wenjie and Joe Leahy in Beijing!’
Editor : after these below quoted selections from this Financial Times diatritribe against Elon Musk, there remain 1826 words.
…
Musk could potentially provide a “critical bridge” between China and the Trump administration, says Philippe Houchois, an analyst with US investment bank Jefferies.
…
Given the stakes for Tesla, the entrepreneur might be expected to act as a “moderating influence” on Trump’s planned tariffs, Houchois adds — and “how much or [for] how long markets ignore potential conflicts of interests ranging from political responsibilities to governance and compensation, is unclear”.
…
Two Democratic senators have sought a federal investigation into Musk’s reported communication with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, raising concern over Musk’s high-level security clearances and billions of dollars in US government funding.
….
Other parts of his empire run directly into points of tension between the US and China. SpaceX, his commercial rocket and satellite business, has drawn sharp criticism from Chinese military analysts who see the company and its vast network of Starlink satellites as part of the American military’s expansion into space. And X, the social media platform, is banned in China.
Yaqiu Wang, research director for China at Freedom House, a US-based advocacy group, warns that Beijing has become “very deft” at manipulating foreign business leaders — including leveraging their companies’ access to the country — to compel them to “toe” the Communist party line, she warns.
“Musk is not only vulnerable to Beijing’s pressure given his extensive business interests in China, he also seems to genuinely enjoy close relationships with China’s authoritarian leaders,” she says. “This dynamic creates ample opportunities for the CCP to influence Trump’s China policy.”
…
The prospect of facilitating the loan sparked fierce competition among Chinese banks. Some lobbied the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, one of Tesla’s regulators in Beijing, to be added to the list of approved lenders. From the bankers’ point of view, the deal was not only financially failproof, but it was also an opportunity to demonstrate alignment with Beijing’s supportive green industrial policy.
In the end, loans totalling nearly $1.4bn came from a consortium of some of the country’s biggest state-owned lenders: China Construction Bank, Agricultural Bank of China, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China and Shanghai Pudong Development Bank. The interest rate on the debt was pegged at 90 per cent of China’s one-year benchmark interest rate, a discount that state lenders usually offer to their best clients, almost always other Chinese groups.
Editor: What are the Imperatines Of Capital but prophet! Espessially in the watershed of the Economic Collapse of 2007-2008: that Obama said ‘lets put this behind us’ and his Simpson -Boles Austerity that cratered! Obama betrayed the very people who voted for him, while embracing his Wall Street backers
What the Financial Times, and its many contributers don’t just miss, but ignore is that Elon Musk’s self-consept is World-Historical in nature ! His self-concept transcenedes the rest of the Trump ‘the hangers on’! His Rocket Ships do what no others have done, his World Wide Starlink, Neuralink is a neurotechnological company that’s developing a brain-computer interface (BCI) that allows users to control devices with their thoughts.
In his latest essay in The New York Times Mr. Caldwell expresses an enthisasm for Wolfgang Streeck:
Headline: This Maverick Thinker Is the Karl Marx of Our Time
Nov. 28, 2024
Editor: A brief selection from the first part of Mr. Caldwell’s 1595 word essay:
…
As Mr. Streeck sees it, a series of (mostly American) attempts to calm the economy after the ’70s produced the system we now call neoliberalism. “Neoliberalism,” he argues, “was, above all, a political-economic project to end the inflation state and free capital from its imprisonment in the postwar settlement.” This project has never really been reconsidered, even as one administration’s fix turns into the next generation’s crisis.
At each stage of neoliberalism’s evolution, Mr. Streeck stresses, key decisions have been made by technocrats, experts and other actors relatively insulated from democratic accountability. When the crash came in 2008, central bankers stepped in to take over the economy, devising quantitative easing and other novel methods of generating liquidity. During the Covid emergency of 2020 and 2021, Western countries turned into full-blown expertocracies, bypassing democracy outright. A minuscule class of administrators issued mandates on every aspect of national life — masks, vaccinations, travel, education, church openings — and incurred debt at levels that even the most profligate Reaganite would have considered surreal.
Mr. Streeck has a clear vision of something paradoxical about the neoliberal project: For the global economy to be “free,” it must be constrained. What the proponents of neoliberalism mean by a free market is a deregulated market. But getting to deregulation is trickier than it looks because in free societies, regulations are the result of people’s sovereign right to make their own rules. The more democratic the world’s societies are, the more idiosyncratic they will be, and the more their economic rules will diverge. But that is exactly what businesses cannot tolerate — at least not under globalization. Money and goods must be able to move frictionlessly and efficiently across borders. This requires a uniform set of laws. Somehow, democracy is going to have to give way.
A uniform set of laws also requires a single international norm. Which norm? That’s another problem, as Mr. Streeck sees it: The global regime we have is a reliable copy of the American one. This brings order and efficiency but also tilts the playing field in favor of American corporations, banks and investors.
Perhaps that is what blighted the West’s relations with Russia, where the transition to global capitalism “was tightly controlled by American government agencies, foundations and N.G.O.s,” Mr. Streeck says, and the oligarchs who emerged to run the government in the 1990s were “received with open arms by American corporations and, not least, the London real estate market.” To an Indian or a Chinese person, “free markets” established on these terms might carry the threat of imperial highhandedness and lost self-determination.
…
Editor: as infromative as this is, what might The Reader make of Mr. Calwell’s Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West by Christopher Caldwell , Doubleday, 422 pp., $30.00
Reviewed by Malise Ruthven in the December 17, 2009 issue of the New York Review of Books:
Powell, who died in 1998, has been castigated as a racist and condemned, not to say vilified, by the liberal left; but as Christopher Caldwell argues in his provocatively titled book, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West, his demographic predictions have proved remarkably accurate. In one of his speeches Powell shocked his audience by predicting that Britain’s nonwhite population of barely a million would reach 4.5 million by 2002; according to the Office of National Statistics, the size of Britain’s “ethnic minority” population actually reached 4.6 million in 2001. His predictions for the ethnic composition of major cities such as Wolverhampton, Birmingham, and Inner London were similarly on target. Britain’s Commission for Racial Equality predicts that by 2011 the population of Leicester will be 50 percent nonwhite, making it the first major British city without a white majority.
This pattern is being replicated in cities throughout Western Europe. According to Caldwell, Europe is now a “continent of migrants” with more than 10 percent of its people living outside their countries of birth. The figure includes both non-European immigrants and citizens of countries belonging to the enlarged European Union who are permitted to move freely within its territory. But it also includes a substantial body of immigrants—namely Muslims—whom Caldwell regards as posing “the most acute problems” on account of their religion (an issue never mentioned by Powell in his speeches).
The statistics are highly variable since many countries do not register the religion of their citizens. However, it is generally assumed that there are now upward of 13 million Muslims, and possibly as many as 20 million (Caldwell’s preferred figure), living in the European Union. The largest concentrations are in France with more than 5 million, Germany with around 3 million, Britain with 1.6 million, Spain with a million, and the Netherlands and Bulgaria with just under a million. Overall, the proportion of Muslims now residing in the European Union (including the indigenous Bulgarian Muslims) remains at 5 percent, a proportion twice that of the “nearly seven million American Muslims” mentioned by President Barack Obama in his Cairo University speech last June.
Individual cities, however, have much higher concentrations. Karoly Lorant, a Hungarian economist who wrote a paper on the subject for the European Parliament, calculates that Muslims already make up 25 percent of the population in Marseilles and Rotterdam, 20 percent in Malmö, 15 percent in Brussels and Birmingham, and 10 percent in London, Paris, and Copenhagen. If the French national figure of around 5 million were proportionately reproduced in the US, it would make for 24 million American Muslims. Moreover, given that immigrant Muslims have a higher birthrate than indigenous white Europeans or other immigrant groups such as Eastern Europeans or African-Caribbeans, that population seems set to increase, regardless of tighter controls on immigration now being imposed by governments. The US National Intelligence Council expects that by 2025 the Muslim population of Europe will have doubled.
…
Editor: This Caldwell opinion piece appeared in The Financial Times of September 23, 2011 is demostrative of his politics
Opinion Christopher Caldwell
Headline: The president just does not get the American centre
Sub-headline: Barack Obama is a typical American – the more he says, the less you know him
Editor: Mr. Caldwell is here billed as : The writer is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard. A selection from the Weekley Standard version of Caldwell
…
Populism will work a charm on this electorate, but it is a note that Mr Obama is strangely unable to sound.
…
Mr Obama is being sensible when he suggests (eventually) capping upper earners’ tax deductions for mortgage interest and charitable giving.
…
But Mr Obama repeats the mistake he made in this summer’s debt ceiling debate – he offers few specifics as to how any of this would work fiscally.
…
It makes the allegation of class warfare easier to sustain.
…
Populism is a many-splendoured political disposition.
…
Having never shown much interest in the opinions of the working class, he now finds it hard to claim their allegiance.
…
Mr Obama offered it to them, in the form of his avowal there was no red (or Republican) America and no blue (or Democratic) America.
…
Editor: the reader might look to salient fact that Simpson-Bowles was about Austerity, and that Obama’s call was ‘lets put this all behind us’!
He spent the summer calling for a bipartisan “grand bargain” mixing tax rises and entitlement cuts when there was one already on the table – the so-called Simpson-Bowles plan.
…
Editor: Obama was a Neo-Liberal, like the Clintons, so Caldwell is here correct!
The centrist voters who put the president in office feel he has abused their trust. It is possible that no collection of programmes and plans, no matter how sensible, will now suffice to restore his standing.
Mr. Caldwell has now become the official Intellectual Court Historian of The New York Times ?
Thus “the projects and politics of militarism and imperialism, of racial and cultural rivalries, of monopolies, restrictions, and exclusion were little more than the amusements of his daily newspaper.” In plain English: people had taken globalisation so completely for granted that they rarely gave it much thought — and assumed that the free movement of people, money and objects would continue indefinitely. War had seemed like a relic of the past.
Fast forward a century, and it is tempting to laugh or cry at this state of affairs. After all, during the 1914-18 conflict, such sunny complacency had been shattered by massive economic destruction, the closure of borders, disruptions in trade and a fractured capital market.
Globalisation had gone into reverse. Further, the war was followed by the 1929 economic crash, depression and protectionism in the 1930s and, then, another world war. Although globalisation resumed in the middle of the 20th century, it was not until the century’s end that the world returned to the type of globalisation that Keynes observed — ie, a world where it seemed so normal to move goods, capital and ideas around that most observers assumed this would continue indefinitely, and deepen. The only big difference between 2013 and 1913 was that, in the modern era, no one expects to travel “without passport or other formality” across borders. Today, there are inevitably bureaucratic controls.
The chilling question we face is whether we are about to see a replay of Keynes’s tale — namely, an era when globalisation suddenly goes into reverse, as geopolitical conflict rears its head again. So far, the answer is “not entirely”. For, while the political rhetoric in many countries has become lamentably populist, protectionist and nationalist, globalisation is far from dead.
…
And when, in October in Marrakech, the IMF held its annual general meeting, its World Economic Outlook included a depressing new feature: a section calculating what might happen if the world slides into a new “Cold War” of two rival geopolitical economic blocs that do not trade with each other.
To (gu)estimate that, the IMF used a model based on the political grouping that emerged at the UN during 2022’s Ukraine vote: namely pro-western and anti-western blocs. It calculated that, if a true cold war emerges, it would cut future global GDP by up to 7 per cent due to lower trade, finance and information flows. Other economists put the figure even higher.
The IMF stresses that such a scenario is theoretical and hopes — by showing policymakers, and voters, the folly of letting globalisation wither — to ensure it never occurs. Yet, the fact it published this “abstract” exercise shows how the world has changed: a decade ago, in 2013, the idea globalisation might go into reverse was as alien as it was in 1913.
Perhaps, then, it is time to republish The Economic Consequences of the Peace — or transmit its message out on the globalised internet.
Political Cynic
Editor: Further thought on the issues raised by Tett:
Where might the Globalist Agenda stand: given the Genocide in Gaza, and the expanding reach of the Zionist Faschist State’s into Lebanon, Syria and in all likeyhood into Iran: the closing of the The Strait of Hormuz that woud presiptate world wide oil crisis!
And the American Proxy War in Ukraine, and the real possability of Nuclear War with Russia: all these speculations about possibilities might lead the reader of Tett’s essay to – how deft must be the political foot work of the Globalist’s be, to confront the above collection of possible/probables toxins?
In the Octorber/November issue of the AARP Magazine on page 50 is a report on Rinvok a medication for the treatment of Crone’s disease.
In the the 1990’s I worked for a a division of Abbott Labs, that was a sub-contractor to Cedars‑Sinai. In that capacity I was first a delivery person to various patients, that included AIDS and Crohn’s patients: it was an education in both the proper treatment of patients and caregivers, and the paying proper deference to the most prestigious Medical Center and its doctors and nurses!
In that capacity I met and and knew both AIDS patients and Crone’s disease patients: over a year and half, and later as a Home Sevice Represetative via phone. I attemnded the CSMC Home Infusion Patient Conferences every Monday morning for many years.
AIDS and its advanced treatments have … My Crone’s disease patients , that is the way I think of them, to this day: all are long gone, but Rinvoq looks like the contempoery suffers of this disease have some hope!
FDA approves first oral treatment for moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease
Action
FDA has approved Rinvoq (upadacitinib) for adults with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease who have had an inadequate response or intolerance to one or more tumor necrosis factor blockers. Rinvoq is the first approved oral product available to treat moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease.
Patients should start with 45 mg of Rinvoq once daily for 12 weeks. Following the 12-week period, the recommended maintenance dosage is 15 mg once a day. A maintenance dosage of 30 mg once daily can be considered for patients with refractory, severe, or extensive Crohn’s disease.
Disease or Condition
Crohn’s disease is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease that causes inflammation in the digestive tract. It can affect any part of your digestive tract, and usually affects the small intestine and the beginning of the large intestine. The symptoms of Crohn’s disease depend on where and how severe the inflammation is. The most common symptoms include diarrhea, cramping and stomach pain, and weight loss.
Effectiveness
The efficacy and safety of Rinvoq were evaluated in two randomized induction trials of 857 patients with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease, CD-1 (NCT03345836) and CD-2 (NCT03345849). Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive 45 mg of Rinvoq or placebo once a day for 12 weeks. At week 12, a greater proportion of patients treated with 45 mg of Rinvoq, as compared to placebo, achieved clinical remission based on the Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI), which measures clinical and laboratory variables that estimate disease activity in Crohn’s disease. Similarly, a greater proportion of patients treated with 45 mg of Rinvoq demonstrated improvement in intestinal inflammation as assessed by colonoscopy.
To assess Rinvoq as a maintenance treatment, CD-3 (NCT03345823) evaluated 343 patients who responded to 12 weeks of 45 mg of Rinvoq once daily. Patients were re-randomized to receive a maintenance regimen of 15 or 30 mg of Rinvoq once daily or placebo for 52 weeks, representing a total of at least 64 weeks of therapy. At week 52, a greater proportion of patients treated with 15 mg or 30 mg of Rinvoq, as compared to placebo, achieved clinical remission based on the CDAI, and demonstrated improvement in intestinal inflammation as assessed by colonoscopy.
Safety Information
The most common side effects of Rinvoq as indicated for Crohn’s disease are upper respiratory tract infections, anemia, fever, acne, herpes zoster, and headache. Rinvoq is not recommended for use in combination with other Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, biological therapies for Crohn’s disease, or with strong immunosuppressants such as azathioprine and cyclosporine. Serious infections, mortality, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular events, and thrombosis have occurred with JAK inhibitors such as Rinvoq. See full prescribing information for additional information on risks associated with Rinvoq.
Designations
Rinvoq received standard review for this indication.
This March, Hungary’s authoritarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán posted a photo of himself to his official Facebook page holding up a book, titled “The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam.” Orbán’s photo was of the book’s Hungarian translation, but author Douglas Murray, a British political commentator and journalist, wrote the volume in English. Since its release, the book has made considerable waves. Last summer, Murray was among a group of pop intellectuals collectively deemed to be members of the “Intellectual Dark Web” by the New York Times. Despite being a year old, his book continues to be cited by anti-immigrant hard-liners in the United States, as well as right-wing European politicians like Orbán.
If you’re curious what the book is about, the entire argument is helpfully summed up in the title. Europe is dying — being murdered, in fact — by hordes of Muslim immigrants, aided in their task by craven liberal politicians. As Murray describes it, insufficiently harsh border policies have opened the gates to migrants bent on committing no lesser crimes than mass rape and indiscriminate murder. Meanwhile, white Europeans, exhausted by their own history and driven into moral relativism by the decline of the Christian faith, are slowly being replaced by an implacably hostile and alien population of foreigners.
The “mass movement of peoples in Europe,” Murray writes, has led to “streets in the cold and rainy northern towns of Europe filled with people dressed for the foothills of Pakistan or the sandstorms of Arabia.” This is an early clue to the relentlessly paranoid tenor of the book: In South Asia or the Middle East — just as among the Western immigrant populations who hail from those places — many, if not most, people today dress in Western clothing, regardless of how appropriate it is for the climate.
Murray, though, is gravely alarmed by whatever foreign dress he does see. In his own hometown of London, according to a 2012 census he cites in the book, “only 44.9 percent of London residents now identified themselves as ‘white British.’” The fact that more than 80 percent of Britain is nonetheless white-skinned like him is apparently little comfort: Murray raises the specter of supporters of immigration purposely reducing the population of “white Britons” to 25 percent, 10 percent, or even zero percent in the city of London or, even more luridly, Britain as a whole.
Editor: The Mayor was a favorite of the City Journal, the propganda arm of The Manhattan Institute, is this the most opportune moment to announce the appointment of Douglas Murray? Or does the election of Trump signal the propitious moment, for this announcement, given Trump’s appointments and his own xenophobia?
When ever I go to the Library, just a block away, I always see Time magazine on the shelf. I usually find this magazine in almost in pristine condition, as I turn its pages -its of the Century of Cold Warrior Henry Luce- its a time capsuel – And I wonder at its why ? Times are tough for Libraries! Print is in decline, unless its on the Internet. The rows of computers are the first things you see as you enter, the books are just past these computers. In sum times have changed so that ‘Time’ is obselite as a print magazine, but is active on the Internet: Semafor/Principals is about a more carfully packaged and sucinct form of ‘News’ with large Corporate Sponsers: in sum Semafor/Principals is the newest iteration of respectable bourgeois politics, designed to inform its readers about what is important, within the confines of that bourgeois framing!
The Reader can only look to the election of Trump, as the most serious challenge to that respectable bourgeois politics: Trump’s political irrationalism was victorious in the face of The New Democrats: Biden, Harris and arch maniputator Hillary Clinton have been rebuked by Voters.
The reader can clearly see in the actions of Joe Biden’s surrogates Sullivan and Blinken, in suppling Storm Shadow cruise missiles to Ukraine, a strategy to weaken Trumps position before he even takes office!
Blinken, Sullivan and Hillary Clinton are in charge, as Biden’s cognative decline deepens. How many more Ukranian and Russian lives must be sacrificed, to the macinations of morally banrupt cadreas composed of Republicans, New Democrats and the notorious shape-shifting Neo-Consevative’s? The political career of Francis Fukuyama offers the paradigmatic case! He now considers himself a ‘Liberal’ !
Newspaper Reader.
The Reader might wonder what ever happened to Steven Clemons?
The opening paragraph of the Crace essay, in which Crace assumes the role of Peterson:
Just a few years ago, I was an unknown professor writing academic books that nobody read. Then, with God’s help, I decided to stop feeling sorry for myself and develop my potential. Pinkos and wishy-washy liberals had cornered the market in cod psychology, so I guessed there must be a huge hunger for a self-help book, backed up with religion, mythology, CAPITAL LETTERS and stating the obvious – one directed at responsible, socially minded conservatives craving some pseudointellectual ideology to prop up their beliefs. And bingo! Here are my 12 Rules for Life.
1 Stand up straight with your shoulders straight
2 Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping
3 Befriend people who want the best for you
4 Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not the useless person you are today
6 Set your house in order before you criticise the world
7 Pursue what is meaningful, not what is expedient
8 Tell the truth. Or at least don’t lie
9 Assume the person you are listening to knows something you don’t
10 Be precise in your speech
11 Do not bother children while they are skateboarding
12 Pet a cat when you encounter one in the street
Digested read digested: Blessed are the Strong, for they shall inherit the Earth.
Editor: the hapless simplicity of Peterson’s list of ‘Imperatives’, leaves Crace with so much room to riff on themes: yet Peterson’s don’t actually corear, but are almost sugestive of coherence, but in fact merely gambol in its vicinity?
Political Cynic: I feel I have entered into the weak rhetorical eddie of Peterson Speak!
Read the beginning senteses of Mr. Colevile’s essay:
A few years ago my wife made a fateful financial decision. She was worried that we didn’t have enough money coming in, especially given the exorbitant costs of childcare. Her employer, a large bank, offered a great set of benefits. But why did we need them? We were young, in good shape, watching our weight.
I remember we laughed, in particular, at the idea that she’d need life assurance any time soon, let alone at the absurdly generous rate they were offering. So — for the sake of an extra £22.81 a month — she moved that slider down as far as it would go: from eight times her salary to just two.
By early 2019, when the company asked again for her benefit choices, no one was laughing. Andrea was in hospital, seriously ill. She tried to log in to change her decisions. But she couldn’t get it to work, defeated by a combination of horrendously fiddly remote working settings (this was before the pandemic), awful hospital wi-fi and increasing lethargy.
When we think about losing a loved one, especially before their time, we think about the emotional shock. It seems almost callous to focus on the finances. But there is often an awful financial shock, too. In my case I suddenly found myself with a mortgage, two children (one less than a year old) and — if I wanted to continue working — vastly increased childcare costs, all to be covered by one salary rather than two.
Worse, even if your loved ones have savings or assets, you cannot actually make use of them, often for many months. Everyone I spoke to was very understanding. But they all needed certified copies of the death certificate, or the will, or ultimately the grant of probate. Even when her pension was paid out, or her bank account was folded into mine, I wasn’t sure I could touch any of it until the inheritance tax calculations had been finished and the probate process was done.
But there was an exception. Andrea’s “death in service” benefits weren’t as large as they might have been had she pushed the slider back up. But they were still a tax-free lump sum I knew I could rely on to keep the lights on — along with a discretionary payment her employer kindly made, equivalent to her notice period. Together they gave me breathing space: a guarantee that I could keep paying the bills while I worked out what the hell to do next
…
Should this be titled Thatcerite meets ‘The Reality Principal?’ Or should the Reader look to the fact that there are the Hungry, the Homeless, The Pensioners without heat, Hungry families, Rough Sleepers across Britain, that are suffering from the Neo-Thatchrite politics of Kier Starmer and Rachel Reeves?
It’s not that Mr. Colvile’s plight of loss is not moving, and its aftermath in personal and economic terms, was not devistating! His moral/political failure, to connect his suffering to the suffering of others, in an embrace of a common fate: this is about Class and felt Etitlement, of a well paid Thatcherite, to enveigh against his almost fellow travelers!
Editor: The final pargraphs of Colvile’s essay:
…
This is, in other words, a tax on tragedy. As journalists have pointed out, it will even apply to the police, though it is unclear whether it will affect the special awards for those who die in the line of duty.
I do not believe that the civil servants who made these decisions were being deliberately callous. The technical consultation feels far more like an exercise in bureaucratic tidying-up, in making sure that if the chancellor wants to extend inheritance tax to pensions, there will be no gaps left in the net.
But, at the risk of repeating myself, death-in-service benefits are different. They are not a fiddle. They are not a con. They are not something you can game. They are a payment made when, and only when, something has gone horribly wrong in someone’s life. They are, for many of us, a vital lifeline in the midst of death. And it cannot be right, morally or legally, for the taxman to take a chunk — let alone for that to happen only to people with a particular kind of pension setup or a particular marital status, or who want to make the payment to one dependant rather than another.
I’m not a pensions expert. I certainly don’t have the grasp of detail to make a formal submission to the Treasury consultation. And there are probably all sorts of fiddly details I’ve got wrong.
All I know is that I can’t think of a worse tax, at a worse time. Ministers should, and must, think again.
StephenKMackSD's Blog 