91Èȱ¬

Another day, another defeat for the government? We'll know this afternoon when the Commons votes on a series of measures to , hard on the heels of the yesterday.

Government whips said, after they'd lost a vote attacking restrictions on the Gurkhas' right to settle in Britain, that the defeat had taken them completely unawares. Perhaps if they'd been watching yesterday's Daily Politics they might not have been so surprised.

Victory or defeat over expenses is much less clear cut. Frankly, the situation is so complicated and messy that I have no idea how things will pan out in the various votes today. We know that Gordon Brown has already had to drop his short-lived proposal to pay MPs an attendance allowance in place of their second homes allowance. But the shape of any new expenses regime remains a bit of a mystery.

Defeat over the Gurkhas, a climbdown over expenses, a ridiculed appearance on YouTube and an unpopular Budget means the media is full of talk of the Prime Minister having "lost his authority" (Example: "GB struggling to maintain his authority" -- 1st sentence in splash in today's Times). Centre-left Independent commentator John Rentoul goes further and says it's "all over" for the PM, but Mr Rentoul has been out of sorts with Mr Brown for some time.

Nevertheless the consensus on the Left and Right in Westminster is to see Mr Brown as a diminished figure, with nobody clear on when things might pick up for him again.

My guess is he will continue, walking wounded, for the foreseeable future, even through bad local and election results in June. Comparisons with Tory John Major's own "walking wounded" performance in the mid-90s, however, are growing ever more loud, which is never comforting for a PM, since Mr Major lost by a landslide.

One final thought this morning: international health authorities grow ever more closer to naming so called swine flu -- and much of the media, which never says no to a drama, loves it. But it was only four years ago that the World Health Organisation told us that Asian bird flu would kill 150m worldwide -- and the actual death toll was 200, over several years.

True, people are dying in Mexico and that remains something of a mystery, though we cannot be sure all those in the statistics did die of swine flu. Elsewhere swine flu seems a somewhat minor ailment and so far nobody in Britain is suffering critically from it.

Outside Mexico, there are reports that a child has died of it in America, after a family holiday in Mexico, which would add to the unfolding Mexican tragedy. But what is happening so far should be seen in context: regular flu causes over 36,000 American deaths every year.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Already in retreat over his proposals to reform MPs' expenses, Gordon Brown now also faces defeat over his government's treatment of Gurkha veterans.

Last week the 91Èȱ¬ Office issued new guidelines supposedly to make it easier for former Gurkhas to settle in Britain. But the Gurkhas and their campaigners (elegantly led by Joanna Lumley) said the new rules were so complex and restrictive that only a handful of the 36,000 Gurkhas who retired before 1997 and are still alive would qualify. It looks as if MPs on both sides of the house agree with the Gurkhas.

The for the Gurkhas in Parliament, the Tories are onside and now dozens of Labour MPs have signed a motion condemning the government's position.

The Commons will now have a chance to vote against the government today in an emergency debate prompted by the Lib Dems. The powerful all-party 91Èȱ¬ Affairs committee of MPs has already described official policy as "horrifying".

So the government is in trouble (again) and the anger in Parliament reflects a wider anger among the public that the government -- and therefore Britain -- should be more generous towards those who risked their lives in the service of the country. It often happens that governments who've been in power for a long time lose touch with public opinion and this seems to be a good example.

Ministers claim to have eased the rules so that those who served in the Gurkha regiment for 20 years would be eligible for residency. But most ordinary Gurkha soldiers are only allowed to serve for 15 years before compulsory retirement.

Ministers say those who've shown courage in action would also qualify. Those who know the regiment's traditions might think that covers them all. But ministers have restricted it only to those who have won the most exclusive of medals for exceptional bravery, such as the VC (a rule made by a Cabinet none of whose members have ever faced an enemy bullet in their lives).

Finally ministers said those who could show they were suffering from injuries incurred in the line of battle could also stay. But for aging veterans that could be a hard thing to prove.

There is a touch of the "Sir Humphrey" about these very Whitehall rules. Gurkha campaigners go further and say they show a callous disregard for people who have fought valiantly for this country. The public is in a mood to agree.

Today we'll find out if Parliament will speak for the people -- or do as the government whips tell it.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

turns out not to have been the best vehicle for the Prime Minister when it came to launching his initiative on the reform of MPs' expenses. , he's desperately looking for a fallback position and his YouTube performance has become a comic classic -- someone has even set it to techno music ().

Becoming a figure of fun is a dangerous development for a PM, as John Major found out to his cost -- indeed he never really recovered from the ridicule and went on to lose by a record landslide in 1997. Mr Brown is not in such dire straits but when even your own side is questioning your judgement and hundreds of thousands are laughing at you on the net, then things are pretty serious.

Labour MPs are furious with the PM's bungled attempt to grab the initiative over expenses -- "complete hash" is the off-the-record consensus. Some say the whole sorry episode has been a blow to his credibility. Not only is he at loggerheads with much of his own party over the issue, he failed to win the backing of the Tories or the Lib Dems and has also fallen out with Christopher Kelly, the sleaze watchdog who last night refused the PM's request to speed up his investigation into expenses.

Add to that another irritant in the shape of former Blairite Cabinet minister Stephen Byers. In a in the House of Commons last night, Mr Byers, said: "I think we will regret it for many years to come in the Labour Party. I don't think the case for the 50p rate has been made." He claimed the government had fallen into an "elephant trap" which was so large even a short-sighted "old tusker" should have been able to see it.

I wouldn't over-estimate the significance of this intervention -- Mr Brown is not going to fall because he raised the top rate of tax to 50%, a pretty popular move with the Labour faithful -- but the PM could have done without it.

Nor does taxing the rich seem to be doing much for his popularity. puts the Tories on 45% and Labour on only 26% -- giving the Tories a massive 19-point lead. Some on the Labour side will see that as beyond the point of no return.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

The only smile in the is to be found on a spider discovered in Hawaii -- apparently the markings on its back give it a grin to ward off predators. Chancellor Darling could have done with it to ward off today's headlines.

The headline is 'Alistair in wonderland'.
The shouts 'The return of class war'.
The has 'Darling's great squeeze'.
The is 'Darling gambles on growth'.
The says 'At least it's sunny', referring only to the weather.
The has a double entendre, 'Red all over'.
The highlights the breach of Labour's manifesto promise not to change income tax rates with the line 'That's rich!'.
The front page is stark: 'They've ruined Britain'

The rule of thumb is that a which is initially well-received is usually being rubbished by the weekend. So the will be crossing his fingers that the opposite is also true. But he shouldn't count on it. One thing is clear to me: this Budget may or may not mark the end of New Labour but it certainly marks the end of the Murdoch newspapers' dalliance with New Labour.

I'm in no doubt that The Times and the Sun are now going to back David Cameron at the next election.

I refer readers to my two post-Budget postings yesterday, by which I still stand. But here are some random thoughts on Budget Day +1.

1. Make me austere -- but not yet. The Chancellor is making great play of his squeeze in public spending. Someone even (ludicrously) described the as Thatcherite this morning. In fact, the squeeze doesn't happen till 2011, and even then it won't be cut -- just grow at a very slow rate (0.7% in real terms). Over the next two years public spending is actually projected to rise by another £38 billion, which means the good times continue to roll for the public sector (until the ).

2. Pass the rose-tinted specs, Darling. I commented yesterday on how the Chancellor might well be overly optimistic in his projections. He expects the economy to collapse by 3.5% this year, flicker into life next (1.25% growth) then rebound by 3.5% in 2011. But this morning the IMF says the economy will collapse by even more in 2009 (down over 4%) and still be in decline by in 2010 (down another 0.4%). That would make Mr Darling's 3.5% rebound all the more remarkable (some would say miraculous).

3. The Trillion-Pound Chancellor. If the IMF and most City economists are right about future growth prospects -- and the Chancellor wrong -- then his plans to borrow over £700 billion over the next four years (already an eye-watering amount) will be a serious underestimate.

Even at that level we as a nation will be paying more on interest to service the debt than we spend on defence or schools. But some City economists are predicting we'll end up having to borrow closer to £1 trillion, taking the national debt to over £1.7 trillion (or more than 100% of our annual national wealth) -- and that's possible, even likely, if all the off-budget items are included. Which raises a pivotal question: could the British government actually sell that amount of debt and hold on to its triple A credit rating. Don Smith, chief economist at , said at a City briefing last night: "There is a very high possibility of a serious buyers' strike". If that happens sterling will slump and international faith in Britain's prospects will be back to where it was in the 1970s.

4. 60%+ Britain. I've already commented on the new 50% top tax rate. In the cold light of dawn it turns out to be 60%+ for some. From next year, anybody earning between £100,000 and £112,950 will be hit by a marginal income tax rate of 60% as their personal allowance is removed; the real rate will hit 61.5% with national insurance. After that, the tax rate will fall back to 40% for a while ¬(41.5% with the new national insurance rates). Then after £150,000 it will jump to 50% (or 51.5% including NICs). So much, some will say, for simplifying the tax code -- incentivising the entrepreneurs the government says will lead us out of recession.

Perhaps this is why The Times says it's a "good Budget for Switzerland".

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

New information is coming to me by the minute.

First, it has emerged that the is basing its predictions of the public finances -- and hence its debt reduction forecasts -- on a growth rate of 3.25% for 2011 and thereafter. The Treasury used to base public finance projections on the trend rate of growth (now 2.75%) even if it thought the economy might grow faster, which was prudent.

Now it is assuming growth to calculate public finances only a natch below what it is forecasting growth to be, which is not so prudent and underlines how debt is likely to soar even further if the Chancellor's robust bounce back in 2011 fails to materialise.

And secondly, further signs that the government is worried about its ability to finance the debt comes to me in news that the Financial Services Authority has discreetly told the banks to put more government gilts ( ie Treasury bonds which the government issues to finance debt) on their balance sheets.

Now all banks should have because they are a safe and secure asset ("gilt-edged") but it seems that the FSA is telling them to buy more than they want or need.

This suits the government which has shed-loads to sell and it needs British banks to buy it more than ever now that foreigners don't seem very keen. Indeed in recent months foreigners have been net sellers of British debt, hence the government's new emphasis on potential domestic buyers.

We'll need to watch how well or badly the government's debt auctions go in the weeks ahead to ascertain if it's running into trouble getting people to buy it.

Read my earlier budget blog.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

We were softened up in advance for a grim budget -- and certainly didn't disappoint: the economy to plummet by 3.5% this year (on top of last year's decline of over 2%), not much of a recovery next year, some of the highest income taxes in the world if you're a big earner and an historically unprecedented £800 billion in debt notched up between 2009 and 2014.

But perhaps things are even worse than that. Consider, for a moment, that the Chancellor, despite his grave demeanour throughout his , was actually being, well, a tad optimistic.

Take his forecast that the economy will suddenly rebound from the doldrums to a robust 3.5% growth in 2011. I don't know any independent forecaster, in the City or in the media, that thinks that even remotely likely. Indeed, only a few months ago the Treasury didn't think so either.

In its February forecast it predicted growth of only 2.2% in 2011 and 2.6% in 2012 and 2013. Now the Chancellor is telling us the economy will grow by 3.5% in all of these years. I cannot for the life of me think what has changed in two months to switch the Chancellor and his department from prudently cautious to wildly optimistic. We will seek an answer on the Daily Politics.

Then there are the debt forecasts, which the Treasury has a knack of consistently underestimating: £800 billion from the financial year just ended to the end of 2013/14. Within these six years the Chancellor plans to borrow more than the accumulated debt of every Chancellor in British history, in nominal terms, since the position emerged in the 18th century. But maybe he will have to borrow even more.

After all, if the Chancellor is overly optimistic about the return to growth then his tax revenue will be even less than he's anticipating and his spending (in the form of welfare payments such as unemployment benefit) will be greater.
The Chancellor is that by 2013/14 accumulated national debt will be around 80% of our annual national wealth (GDP) -- twice the level when Labour came to power in 1997. But it will soar above that if he has to borrow more and if you take into account off-budget borrowings (such as , state guaranteed PFI schemes) and the rising cost of the bank bailouts then it is perfectly possible that we could soon be borrowing 100% of our national wealth.

The danger in that is that Britain would then risk its triple A rating in international credit markets. That would be humiliating and embarrassing -- and force the government to pay higher interest rates on its debts (because it was more risky), thereby making it even more expensive to service. Among the many things buried in the small print of the Budget Red Book, over which we'll all be pouring for some time, is the revelation that the government is planning to borrow £220 billion this year -- much more than had been anticipated. So maybe even the thinks it will have to borrow more than the Chancellor is forecasting.

One way the Chancellor is telling us the debt will be repaid is by increasing taxes on high earners (which doesn't include the rich who've inherited their wealth and don't pay anything like the taxes of those who've had to strive for their wealth): the top rate of income tax, which was to rise to 45% in April 2011 will now be 50% -- and click in from April 2010.

This will no doubt appeal to Labour's core, the Liberal Democrats support it and the Tories are strangely reluctant to oppose it. But when you're racking up debts of £800 billion it is largely symbolic: the Treasury says it will bring in only around £1 billion in 2010/11 and less than £2 billion the following year -- and that's on the Treasury's static model which assumes every high earner will actually pay the higher marginal rates.

The independent uses a more dynamic model which rightly assumes some high earners won't (for example, they might leave the country, stop working or pay themselves anything above £150,000 in tax-free pension contributions). It recently concluded that the proposed 45% would not bring in ANY extra revenue and indeed might actually generate less. We will wait with interest to see what it makes of the new 50% rate.

Threats that high earners will leave the country are often dismissed as propaganda and no doubt they often are. But a 50% top rate of income tax means Britain will have the third highest top rate in the industrialised world -- only Sweden (55%), Denmark (59%) and Netherlands (52%) will be higher while America (35%), Canada (29%), Hong Kong (16%) and Dubai (0%) could start to look even more tempting to Britain's high fliers, especially now the streets of the City are no longer paved with gold and there are mumbles among them that the Budget of 2009 represents the end of New Labour.

Good riddance to bad rubbish, you might say, and if we see the back of some of the bankers who've brought us to our knees you might be right. But the top 5% of income tax payers account for half of all income tax receipts. You don't want to lose too many of them when you're already planning to borrow £800 billion.

UPDATE:

1730 CLARIFICATION: The forecast of 2.6% growth for 2011 the Treasury published in February was not the Treasury's own but that of independent forecasters.

But not any old group of forecasters -- instead, a small, select group on whom the Treasury depends when making its own forecasts. Nor at the time did Treasury officials give us any reason for thinking that their 2.6% was pessimistic; yet now, to justify their optimistic 3.5% prediction, they say privately that these forecasters are "just plain wrong"!

Read my later budget blog.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The public prints and airwaves continued to be packed with . Some of them might even be accurate.

The latest wheeze, with only 24 hours to go, is £1 billion to "kick start" the . This follows talk of a barrage of "green" measures, , subsidies to scrap your existing car and subsidies if you're Scottish and born on a Tuesday (OK, I made that last one up).

Most folk will conclude that not all of these ideas are without merit though many will fear that the sums involved are really a pittance because the government has no money (hence all the talk of £15 billion in efficiency savings -- but since they are spread over several years and the government now spends over £600 billion a year, they might be regarded as a pittance too).

Most economists think, for example, that it will take more than £1bn to breathe life into the ailing housing market.

Chancellor Darling, however, is preparing us for a long on all sorts of interesting smallish measures.

There will be the impression of activity and even a smattering of generosity in these tough times -- a few hundred million for that, maybe even a billion for this.

Experienced commentators will look hard at the small print. The cynics will claim it is all designed to camouflage the : the amount of money we're in the process of borrowing.

Borrowing in the financial year just ending will likely be over £75 billion (well over double what was originally projected). In the new financial year about to start (2009/10) the Chancellor might admit to as much as £175 billion (he predicted £118 billion last November but not many believed that at the time and it could easily turn out to be even more than £175 billion). The year after that might mean more debt at a similar level.

These are eye-watering figures. Borrowing could be as high as 12% of annual national wealth (GDP) -- a peace-time record -- and accumulated debt could end up as high as 100% of GDP (another record). The markets are already anticipating these figures, so they won't be spooked.

But they will want to see a convincing debt reduction programme stretching well into the next decade so that the books reach balance once again. They might be disappointed.

All the political parties -- not just the government -- are still talking the language of tax-and-spend. The markets want to see the colour of their money when it comes to debt reduction.

They think spending should soon be cut drastically and taxes increased painfully (not to finance spending or other tax cuts but to reduce debt further). Without debt reduction from, say, 2011 onwards, interest rates will have to rise again, sterling could slump and inflation could be knocking at the door.

This Budget season is a test for our political system: who has the guts to tell us that so close to an election. Don't hold your breath!

Let me finish today by bring your attention to a report from the highly respected and independent-minded , which is not on the Budget but on educational opportunity.

Regular viewers of the Daily Politics will know this is one of our favourite themes and in many programmes we have highlighted the apparent lack of opportunities for bright kids from poor backgrounds.

Well, IFS has conducted a massive study with the Institute of Education and its conclusion is that bright children from poor homes are failing to get into university because of under-performing state schools rather than university bias against them. This might come as no surprise to Daily Politics viewers but the IFS findings are a major contribution to the debate.

And a final PPS: another think tank, , came out at the weekend with the surprising (to some) conclusion, using previously-unpublished figures, that English state schools, whatever their inadequacies, now outperform Scottish schools. Former Labour minister wrote that the superiority of Scottish education had been a myth for some time anyway. Now the facts would seem to have exploded the myth. Education is a wholly devolved matter: it will be interesting to see what the Scottish Parliament does about this clear blow to Scottish pride.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Nobody now thinks there will be an economic recovery this year.

Even the Chancellor who confidently forecast only last November that growth would return in the third quarter of 2009 will bin that prediction during , replacing it with vague talk of an upturn around the turn of the year.

Most economists, however, think even that's optimistic, that there will be no growth until 2010 and that it will be anaemic at best - some say only 0.3% for the whole year, which will still seem like recession to most of us.

The political significance of this is clear: the economic and political cycles are now seriously out of kilter for the government and even if it waits to the last possible election day (June, 2010), it will have to fight the next election with recession still uppermost in most folks' minds.

In particular, it will have to fight the next election with unemployment likely over 3 million and maybe even still rising, given that the dole queues are a lagging economic indicator (in other words the fabled green shoots could be sprouting but the jobless total still rises because of decisions taken during the downturn).

This is never good news for Labour governments, especially ones in power for so long, and it will probably matter more than the ugly fallout from the -- though that fallout looks like damaging Labour for sometime because it has triggered off a new and bitter round of internecine warfare within the party.

It has done so because Damian McBride's dark arts were used not just against the Tories -- the target of his leaked e-mails -- but against Labour figures thought to be a threat to , to whom he owed absolute loyalty.

Now that he is banished and powerless, those who suffered at his hands have been briefing anonymously to root out other exponents of McBride's ways. This, naturally enough, has provoked counter-briefing from the Brownites.

Hence the growing image of Labour as a party once again at war with itself and the fear among many Labour activists that recession and civil war are not the best mood music in the run up to an election.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The world's leaders are still closeted behind closed doors in East London but it is already possible to see the shape of the communique Gordon Brown will hail as a triumph later this afternoon.

There will be no new co-ordinated fiscal stimulus but much emphasis on the $2 trillion the has already pumped into the global economy.

A form of words will be agreed calling for more international oversight of financial institutions. The Americans and the British will emphasise "oversight", which is not the same as "regulation" and the French and Germans will hail it as the basis of a new global financial architecture, allowing President Sarkozy to preen rather than walk out.

The IMF will have an extra $500 billion to bail out struggling economies. Much of it will be needed to stop Eastern Europe going into meltdown. There is no surprise in this announcement: it was agreed by the G20 finance ministers several weeks ago but kept up their sleeves lest the Summit should go badly.

The more you hear about the IMF's new loot, the less the leaders have agreed about other things.

Stern words about tax havens (though whether they are ever translated into stern action is another matter).

. Mr Brown will look pleased with his handiwork and hope it improves his domestic political prospects. Critics and cynics (not always the same people) will wonder aloud if it will make much difference to the global economy, which is set for a dire 2009 and a modest upturn at best in 2010.

And will quickly get back to normal. Perhaps by the weekend it will seem as if the G20 never happened.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

President Obama and the First Lady swept into London last night with an entourage of around 500 -- who says the imperial presidency is dead?

But even the world's only superstar politician does not have enough stardust to sprinkle around to make of the world's most important economies (accounting for 80% of global output) go his way.

Indeed, Mr Obama's first foray into global summits may even bring him down to earth with a bump: one excited pro-Obama commentator in this morning's Guardian fears that Obama will arrive as JFK but depart as Jimmy Carter (he thinks this is already happening in America).

That is a crazy over-reaction but Mr Obama will struggle to create a global consensus out of squabbling world leaders.

Of course he will be greeted by adoring fans waving little American flags (for many it will be a celebration of the end of the Bush era) and there will be tea with the Queen.

The Barack-Michelle double-act will be the only show in town as far as the international media is concerned (even France's glamorous First Lady, Carla Bruni, has stayed away, for fear, some say, of being overshadowed) -- unless, of course, the motley fringe of the anti-globalisation protestors live up to their threats and , in which case these are the pictures that will dominate all prime-time coverage (but another is unlikely).

Mr Obama will learn in London -- if he doesn't already know -- that the only supporter of his call for a co-ordinated global stimulus to mitigate the international recession is -- and in Europe the British Prime Minister has become an isolated figure on the matter.

In quick succession in recent days it has been opposed by the boss of the European Central Bank, the Governor of the Bank of England, French President Nicholas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

The Obama-Brown stimulus is a dead duck before the G20 even meets.

Indeed an alternative agenda is gaining ground that is already overshadowing it: and President Sarkozy are planning a joint press conference today to say that what the world needs is not more economic stimulus but a new era of global regulation of banks, executive bonuses, hedge funds and offshore tax havens.

President Obama and Prime Minister Brown have effectively conceded defeat on the stimulus front: their rhetoric is already muted on the matter and expectations are being rapidly managed down.

The policy was fast becoming academic anyway: it is unlikely the US Congress would have agreed to a second stimulus and the markets would balk at any more borrowing by Britain.

So the agenda moves more to global regulation.

Neither Mr Obama nor Mr Brown is averse to tighter rules for banking and bankers but they are wary of the over-arching international constructs being promoted by France and Germany ( of the summit if he doesn't get is way -- the little attention seeker!).

Mr Obama knows his administration will face open warfare with Wall Street if he hands it over to global regulators while Mr Brown, though one of nature's regulators, is wary that the Europeans are out to strangle the City of London as the capital of international Anglo-Saxon finance.

There will not be an open rift: that's not how these events work. But there will be more than the usual copious amounts of fudge needed to disguise the disagreements.

The Americans and the British will settle for emphasising the size of the existing combined stimulus of the G20 to the global economy (around $2 trillion) and agree to strong words about greater global regulation, which they will later water down in detailed negotiations.

Instead, the emphasis will be on extra resources for the International Monetary Fund to bail out countries in trouble, not just in the developing world but in Eastern Europe too. As much as $500 billion is being talked about, though the Chinese will only pony up if they are given a greater say in the IMF and other global financial institutions (which is only right anyway).

Everybody will beat up on, even though they had nothing to do with the current crisis and closing them down is a lot harder than the G20 will pretend. All will promise to eschew protectionist (before rushing home to continue erecting discreet barriers to aid their own industries).

The London summit takes place against a grim global economic backdrop: the by 13% this year --the worst in living memory -- and the major economies will decline by an average of 4.3%, with America and the Eurozone both contracting by 4% while Japan falls by 6.6%, Germany by 5.3% and Britain by anything between 3.5% and 4.5%.

Nothing decided in London will do much to change that and even 2010 looks like being a year of stagnation at best for most.

No doubt some of what is agreed at the G20 can be seen as the building blocks for a return to growth in the years to come but most of what will be in the final communique could have been agreed without an expensive and elaborate summit.

For the host, Gordon Brown, his hopes of a triumphant London summit which would propel him to re-election look increasingly forlorn. For President Obama, the London summit will probably mark his international transition from messiah to man.

To cap it all, the Europeans are refusing to bow down before him.

Instead, he and Brown stand together, supposedly the representatives of Anglo-American turbocapitalism, struggling to push the statist French and Germans - and this is the bit that was in nobody's script - leftward.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?