An Inflated Danger

January 19th, 2010 by The Parallax Brief

The inflation hawks are starting to get silly. Indeed, the Parallax Brief is reminded of the Simpsons character, Helen Lovejoy, the pious, gossipy wife of Springfield’s reverend, who screams “What about the children?! Won’t somebody please think of the children!?” everytime the town faces an issue such as sex education or the presence of a burlesque dancing club.

All the economy has to do is show that it isn’t deflating like it’s 1875 and the hawks are trembling at the knees screaming “What about the inflation?! Won’t somebody please think about the inflation?!”

So, when figures released today showed that CPI inflation had risen unexpectedly sharply in December to 2.9%, the hawks were bound to get vocal.

Guido Fawkes basically advises his readers to run for the hills: “Get your wheelbarrows out, stock up on gold and baked beans. Here comes inflation…”

While Iain Martin, the deputy editor of the Wall Street Journal Europe, let fear grab his imagination and conjure from its darkest recesses an imaginary troop of nouveau Arthur Scargills and Jack Joneses who militantly round 2.9% inflation for a month up to 5% for a year, and negotiate from there, apparently oblivious to the labour market situation, but precipitating a wage-price death spiral:

“But imagine you are the head of a team of trade union negotiators anywhere in Britain right now. You will just have clocked that inflation is 2.9% and rounded it up mentally to 3%. Your members will see it on the news and clock it, too. They’ll wonder if these economists and experts — the one’s who mostly missed the crash — know what they’re talking about when they say it’s just a blip. Indeed, if many of their previous predictions are anything to go by then it’ll be at 4% or 5% before the year is out.”

My God! Inflation could even bring back union militancy. Won’t anyone think of the children?

The jump in inflation was, as always, the result of several factors, but this time several of those factors are quite unique and conspired to make December special. First, oil prices were incredibly low last year, and their recovery to USD70-80 per barrel was bound to impact on food costs. Second, the economy has just started to recover, showing its first signs of growth in a long time, compared to the incredibly depressed situation last year. In short, prices are bouncing back from a low base. Meantime, the core figure is bound to have been affected because the devaluation of sterling had not yet fully filtered through into the economy.

But even if inflation did move higher, so what? Aren’t these right wing inflation hawks often the same people who boast loudest about the triumph of Margaret Thatcher’s economic liberalisation? Yet, inflation in her tenure was never lower than 4.5%, and was as high on the day of her resignation speech to parliament as it was when she first took office — 10%, a number that would surely turn the arch-Thatcherite inflation hawks into quivering blancmanges.

Who’da thunk it? Inflation at 10% didn’t signal the end of civilisation and scenes reminiscent of the Wiemar Republic?

Obviously, it would be unpleasant to be forced to choose between recovery and jobs and inflation. And it is also true that if inflation rises too much, economic recovery will slow whether the Bank of England raises rates or not, because the market will effectively do it for them by increasing the yields on gilts.

But isn’t it more important to worry about the economic issue we currently face than decide we must crush the recovery and force hundreds of thousands out of work just to deal with an imaginary threat that most economists and the (independent) Bank of England tells us isn’t even a threat? And should we really be worrying now with inflation at post-war historic lows?

The Parallax Brief confidently predicts that inflation will climb over 3% next month as the rise in VAT comes into effect.

But he’s still not worried. A sluggish recovery, high unemployment and post-election reductions in government spending are bound to act as a drag on inflation.

Tags [ , , ]

Categories [ Economics and Finance, UK Politics ]

Comments [ 0 ]

JP Morgan CEO Made Catastrophic Mistake — That Made JP Morgan Billions and Improved its Market Position

January 14th, 2010 by The Parallax Brief

Matthew Yglesias exposes the grotesque irony of the banking sector bailouts:

At today’s hearings, Jamie Dimon said “We didn’t do a stress test where housing prices fell.” Kevin Drum is astounded:

“Wow. By 2006, housing prices were nearly double their trend growth levels and JPM never even considered a scenario in which they might fall. Just wow.”

The really jaw-dropping thing, though, is that even in retrospect Dimon has been a nearly perfect CEO and JP Morgan basically a perfectly-run company. During the boom, they all got filthy rich. During the bust, a bunch of their competitors went out of business. Thanks to the bust millions of people around the country are now unemployed. Hundreds of thousands of children have been pushed below the poverty line and are suffering consequences from it that will last a lifetime. The entire younger generation is going to suffer because of the massive debt-overhang. But Dimon and the Morgan crowd are still getting filthy rich in part thanks to government emergency measures designed to mitigate the crisis.

And this is not because Morgan had tons of foresight. They didn’t even consider a scenario in which housing prices might fall. It’s an idiotic mistake. The exact same mistake that everyone else made. But they made it to a somewhat lesser extent than their leading competitors. So rather than suffering, they’re benefitting.

It’s the miracle of capitalism!

There just not really much more one can add. Except perhaps that this Friday JP Morgan is expected to award Mr. Dimon, his management team, and several thousand of its investment banking and finance staff a total of USD18 bln ($18,000,000,000) in performance bonuses.

Tags [ , , , , , ]

Categories [ Economics and Finance ]

Comments [ 0 ]

Political Needs Trump National Interest

January 13th, 2010 by The Parallax Brief

Danny Finkelstein uses his column in today’s Times to savage Prime Minister Gordon Brown:

The Chancellor [Alistair Darling] is insisting — as his predecessor Philip Snowden did in 1931, as Roy Jenkins did in 1968, as Denis Healey did in 1976 — that a plan for public expenditure reductions be agreed to retain the confidence of the markets. Gordon Brown — like Arthur Henderson in 1931, Aneurin Bevan in 1951 and Tony Benn and Mr Crosland in 1976 — is resisting. To dress up this resistance as if it was part of some new fangled clever (or even stupid) campaign strategy is to deny the force, the true importance, of what the Prime Minister is doing. It is to end up having a debate about things that really matter (tax, spending, debt, public services) in a sort of code (strategies, dividing lines) that only insiders can understand.

As Chancellor, Mr Brown spent money as if there would never be a bust — an absurd hypothesis. And now, as Prime Minister, he is blocking the measures necessary to put right this error.

For this dispute over public spending is different in one way from any of the past 100 years. The Prime Minister is refusing to support his Chancellor. MacDonald threw away a lifetime’s service to Labour to support Snowden, a man who cordially loathed him. Attlee sided with his Chancellor, Hugh Gaitskell, from his sickbed (“I am afraid they will have to go,” he mumbled to Gaitskell, who at first heard the remark as “very well, you will have to go”). The normally tricksy Harold Wilson gave solid backing to Jenkins. And Callaghan won round the critics by showing that he and his Chancellor were indivisible — if he had not done so, Mr Healey would not have prevailed.

Mr Brown, unlike any of these predecessors, has put himself at the head of the spending rebels. Far from backing his Chancellor in what needs to be done, he forces him to water down his proposals, making clearly inadequate plans to deal with the crisis.

The common attack on Mr Brown, the one we heard again last week from inside his party, is that he is a poor leader, that no one likes him, that he is a loser. But this verdict, damning though it is, is too kind.

It’s a brilliantly withering attack, but the Parallax Brief wonders whether Mr. Finkelstein hasn’t missed the two key points.

First, that part of the reason for the Prime Minister’s dalliances on public spending cuts is unavoidably the approaching election. Of course it is shabby to put party politics before the national interest, and a damning indictment of Labour that it seems to be entering the election with the no-policies policy usually reserved for the opposition. But to ignore the political realities of an approaching election is integral to the story, and should not be ignored.

Second, while it is true that the absence from the pre-budget report of a clear, tough plan of spending cuts to reign in the deficit was an appalling concession to brazen electioneering, it is also true that even if such a plan were in place down the minutest detail, it would not be implemented until after the election. Not because Labour doesn’t want to go to the polls as the party which savaged public services — which it surely doesn’t — but because cuts now would plunge the economy back into recession and have the peverse effect of increasing the debt-to-GDP burden.

And just as Parkinson’s Law tells us that work expands to fit the time available, so it is an unbreakable law of politics that no government will ever raise taxes or lower spending on key services until the last possible minute.

None of this makes Labour’s appalling fiscal policy in the run up to the crisis acceptable. Nor does it excuse the party’s inertia when it comes to dealing with the nation’s problems. Mr. Finkelstein is right to criticise both, and is probably justified in his evisceration of the Prime Minister. He is also correct to note that the country desperately needs a plan to deal with the deficit if it is to retain the confidence of the markets and maintain the ability to borrow cheaply.

But the real “old story” isn’t Labour squabbling over spending, but a party putting politics before country.

Tags [ , , , , , , , , , ]

Categories [ Economics and Finance, UK Politics ]

Comments [ 0 ]

Can Bank Regulators be Trusted with Banking Regulation?

November 18th, 2009 by The Parallax Brief

Former IMF chief economist Simon Johnson has written today about a terrifically illuminating paper published by the Bank of International Settlements (the central banks’ central bank) called Banking on the State.

Co-authored by Andrew Haldane, Executive Director for Financial Stability at the Bank of England and, according to the Baseline Scenario, closely in line with BofE supremo Mervin King, the paper offers a gloomy assessment of the current financial system. In broad terms, it argues that the banking system is locked in a boom-bust-bailout cycle whereby the taxpayer lifeboats provided to the management, shareholder and creditors of the banks lay the foundation for the next crisis by encouraging excessive risk.

In order to “drive the conversation forward” the Mr. Johnson discusses seven talking points touched upon by the paper. However, the Parallax Brief would like to concentrate on just two:

1—The authors say that it is clear, in retrospect, that banks were excessively leveraged. But how did regulators/supervisors miss the implications of this at the time? Banks’ balance sheets started expanding from 1970 onwards (page 3) and by 2000 “balance sheets were more than five times annual UK GDP.” This was not an overnight development – see the last sentence on page 8 which says “Higher leverage fully accounts for the rise in UK banks’ return on equity up until 2007″. It may be difficult for a central banker to come clean on who convinced whom that modern banking in this form is safe – but at a minimum the authors should draw lessons from earlier failures of regulators/supervisors when discussing prospective changes in the framework of regulation. Could some of the changes being proposed suffer the same fate as all previous attempts to regulate big banks? It seems the authors answer is that just moving things to Pillar I (from Pillar II) will help. This sounds like wishful thinking.

2—The author are right that US banks faced a leverage ratio constraint, which European banks did not. But US banks circumvented this by setting up SIVs – see the damage at Citi for details. Again, what were the regulators/supervisors thinking when they allowed this?

When placed in these plain terms, it becomes nauseatingly clear that those responsible for the regulation of banks have been outright negligent. How was it possible to the banks to become so huge, so leveraged, and so dangerous? All right under the noses of the regulators.

And more to the point, now that Gordon Brown and Mervyn King seem to be clashing antlers over which of the Treasury-FSA-BofE regulatory menage a trois should hold what responsibilities and for whom after the financial system has been reorganized, can we trust any them? After all, each and every one seemed to be blissfully oblivious to the fact Royal Bank of Scotland had liabilities larger than Britain’s GDP. Was it not, like, you know, pretty obvious that if anything should happen, it might be in trouble?

Talk about missing the elephant in the room.

Mr. Johnson’s conclusion rings depressingly true:

How can we believe that for the regulators, “next time is different“? Most likely, next time will be exactly the same, with different terminology: the financial sector “innovates”, regulators buy their story that risks are now properly managed, and the ensuing bailout (again) breaks all records.

It’s all politics. Unless and until you break the political power of our largest banks, broadly construed, we are going nowhere (or, rather, we are looping around the same doom).

Tags [ , , , , , , , ]

Categories [ Economics and Finance, UK Politics ]

Comments [ 0 ]

Can This Man Repeat Canadian, Swedish Successes and Fix Britain’s Finances?

November 17th, 2009 by The Parallax Brief

The Adam Smith Institute runs with a very good piece today regarding the task facing what is likely to be an incoming Conservative government to bring down Britain’s budget deficit.

So I have a new job for Philip Hammond MP. Currently he is the Conservatives’ spending spokesman, and what he doesn’t know about public spending isn’t worth knowing. But he needs to become instead the spokesman on public service renewal – and minister for that is the Conservatives win the election.

You will never streamline the public sector by Treasury ministers bullying departments over money. Instead, you need a complete review of what government does, what it has to do, what it can do better, and what can be done better by other people and by the public. All departments need to buy into that, and it needs a reform, not a finance minister in charge if everyone is going to trust the process and be a part of it. After all, the process may find that spending in some areas should be increased, even if other departments are found to be doing a lot of pointless stuff.

Sounds very sensible. The article goes on to point out that Canada faced a similar budget crisis to the one Britain faces today, and managed to turn its 9.1% deficit into a surplus. Sweden also went through a similar process — albeit using a different method, cutting the same percentage from the budget of each department in order to remove any feelings of resentment or unequal treatment, and generating a spirit of team work to battle the problem.

But whichever method is used, the government will have to start getting Britain’s fiscal house in order once unemployment figures start showing some strength, and inflation returns. And Canada’s and Sweden’s experiences show that it’s not an impossible task.

Tags [ , , , , ]

Categories [ Economics and Finance, UK Politics ]

Comments [ 0 ]

Is Brown’s Anti-Unemployment Strategy Working?

November 12th, 2009 by The Parallax Brief

Charts which the Parallax Brief has found on the Office of National Statistics website (via Left Foot Forward), suggest that the Labour government’s efforts to combat unemployment may be more effective than often assumed, but also show that whether GDP improves or not, unemployment figures will likely offer Gordon Brown no respite on election day.

The chart below indicates just how bad this recession has been, with a decline steeper, and longer, than the previous big recessions.

However, as the next table shows, unemployment hasn’t increased by as much as in previous recessions. It started from a lower base than in 1990 and 1980, and has remained behind the curve set by both recessions.

Beyond the asinine partisan conclusions that could be drawn from these charts, the Parallax Brief wants to highlight two points.

The first is that the statistics show conclusively that unemployment lags movements in GDP. In both the 80-81 recession and the 90-91 recession, Britain’s GDP started moving back up in the 6th quarter after recession started, yet in the 1990-91 downturn, unemployment didn’t reach it’s peak until the 11th quarter. The 80-81 slump was even worse, with unemployment still at its high watermark in the 17th quarter — over four years after the recession started, and two and a half years after it finished. On both occasions, a full 19 quarters (nearly five years) after the recession started, unemployment levels were still above their pre-recession levels, despite GDP reaching it’s previous levels around three years after the recession began.

Yikes!

Even if we take the more optimistic early nineties scenario, unemployment will still be rising come election time.

The second point is that the government’s efforts should not be judged against unemployment levels in boom time, but how their predecessors managed in similar circumstances. In that context, it appears that Labour is, in fact, doing better.

But the Parallax Brief can’t escape the feeling that it is doing far, far worse than might have been the case if it had assiduously shepherded public finances during the good years. If the government had ran a surplus during the times of economic plenty, it would have had available the fiscal room for manoeuvre required for a truly effective blast against unemployment. But Labour didn’t so it wasn’t.

It’s probably true to say, then, that Labour has done well given the position it found itself in, but that’s a position of its own making.

Tags [ , , , , , , , , ]

Categories [ Economics and Finance, UK Politics ]

Comments [ 0 ]

Does The Spectator Understand Economic Indicators?

November 11th, 2009 by The Parallax Brief

The Parallax Brief noticed today that both Guido and the Spectator concentrated on the latest unemployment figures from the ONS, offering them as justification for the argument that the country is not, as has been claimed by the government and some — less politically pure — sections of the media, on the road to economic recovery.

“…my lack of enthusiasm is partially explained by the fact that a 6,000 employment rise is not proof of recovery.

Britain is still visibly contracting, albeit at a decelerating rate. Vacancies fell by 1,000 and have never been at a lower level since records began in 2001. Economic inactivity, another indicator of unemployment and opportunity, rose again, but only by 0.1 per cent.

When every other major economy is recovering, Britain is stagnating.”

The Parallax Brief is tempted to call this deliberately disingenuous, but will at least wonder whether the Spectator quite understands what people mean when they say “on the road to recovery”. From a basic level of comprehension, a reasonably educated person should be able to understand that being “on the road” to something means that one has not arrived at the destination.

However, beyond this, from an economic standpoint, when we refer to the “economy” we’re almost always referring to GDP, not employment. To be sure, employment is often paramount in shaping people’s views of the economy, but when people say “the economy is recovering” they always mean, “GDP is starting to move upward again.”

Using unemployment figures to refute this, therefore, is rather like arguing that a pop song isn’t moving up the charts because you haven’t heard anyone whistling the tune on the street.

Unemployment will continue to rise even as GDP increases, because it is a lagging indicator, rising and falling six or eight months, give or take, behind GDP. So, while the Spectator is right to imply that America is recovering, by it’s own standards it isn’t, because unemployment is still on the up. That’s also why Britain entered technical recession before unemployment began to soar. But Guido and Speccie preferred to rely on GDP data back then, didn’t they?

Tags [ , , , , , ]

Categories [ Economics and Finance, UK Politics ]

Comments [ 0 ]

FT Right; Right Wing Wrong.

October 28th, 2009 by The Parallax Brief

The Financial Times on Monday published an editorial suggesting that George Osborne doesn’t look much like a chancellor in waiting.

The FT leader attacked Osborne on two fronts. First, it criticised the shadow chancellor for his lack of substance. On this matter the Parallax Brief believes the FT is being unrealistic. Parties in opposition have always been light on policy detail, so really, what do they expect?

More concerning, however, is the second prong of the FT skewer: Osborne’s apparent lack of economic savvy. He has criticised the government’s fiscal stimulus program, despite the fact withdrawing it would worsen the downturn, and also argued, according to the FT, ‘that cutting spending would make no difference to economic recovery because “what you lose in government spending, you gain in exports”,’ which is clearly nonsense.

Yesterday, however, ConservativeHome, struck back — in the most feeble way imaginable, well and truly throwing the baby out with the bathwater by whinging not only about the matter at hand, but the Financial Times’ supposed support of “big public spending, big Europe and big unaccountable elites” and  “the corporatism that so failed our land in the 1970s,” as well as for giving the impression that “Democracy to them seems to be a sort of evil necessity that has to be put up with from time to time”.

But apart from the unnecessary bad-mouthing, the ConservativeHome hissy fit didn’t even tackle the Financial Times’ premise that Osborne was wrong to advocate the withdrawal of stimulus in a liquidity trap economy. It instead seemed to accuse all those who believe it is right in a downturn to maintain public spending at a level unsustainable in the long run of endorsing profligacy writ large, unwarranted bonuses and waste:

“It’s simply unacceptable in the bust to hand out money like confetti any more… It’s quite wrong the head of the FSA is trousering bonuses when the banking system collapses around his ears. And what exactly has the head of Network Rail done to deserve his £200K bonus? This list goes on and on. What do all these quango heads and senior civil servants do to deserve massive bonuses?

… George Osborne is absolutely right to point out that rewards should be linked to longer term performance. How did it ever make sense to be any other way?”

Well, quite. Who could disagree with that? But those of us who believe in maintaining or ramping up public spending in the face of an economic storm have never argued that waste cannot be cut. It is our argument that overall spending should not, because to do so would be pro-cyclical, accentuate the downturn.

The party of economic responsibility would make this point. But the Conservative Party, and now its supporters, are not. In the editorial that so irked ConservativeHome, the FT called Osborne’s performance “alarming”. The Parallax Brief agrees, which is quite a situation considering Labour’s abject economic failure.

Tags [ , , , , , , , , , , ]

Categories [ Economics and Finance, UK Politics ]

Comments [ 1 ]

Why Are Cars More Worthy Than Fridges?

October 28th, 2009 by The Parallax Brief

Not the deepest of deep philosophical questions, to be sure, but an interesting economic one.

Simon Jenkins makes the point in the Guardian today that since cash for clunkers has been one of the few economic good news stories, not just in the UK, but around the world, shouldn’t we extend it further?

Throughout last winter, Gordon Brown was telling car makers that they were on their own for the duration of the recession. This was despite scrappage programmes on the continent that had a million German drivers besieging showrooms and rescuing Volkswagen, BMW and Mercedes from collapse. Then in May, Mandelson won his battle with the Treasury and the Bank of England and introduced his own scheme, a £2,000 allowance on each old car traded in for a new one. The scheme quickly spent the £300m allocated and Mandelson has extended it by £100m into 2010.

The impact was dramatic. In March and April, the car industry had been a basket case. Sales were down a third on the year. Honda at Swindon had closed completely and there were layoffs and bankruptcies on all sides. The economy contracted by 2.5% in the first quarter of 2009 and policymakers seemed trapped in the headlights, mindlessly turfing money at banks and nothing else.

From May car sales recovered, and by August the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders was reporting a 6% rise in sales on the same month last year, and by September, 11%. The newly bought cars were on the whole smaller, safer and emitted 10% less CO2 than the average. With two thirds of Britain’s car output exported and European scrappage schemes now dwindling, this recovery remains tentative. But it has clearly assisted a tiny corner of manufacturing industry through the depth of recession and averted the cost of mass layoffs.

Why just cars? Why is there no scrappage scheme for other consumer goods, such as cookers, fridges, washing machines, vacuum cleaners, non-digital TVs, anything made or assembled in Britain? What about a short-term subsidy to encourage insulated loft conversion? My chairs, curtains, plumbing and garden shed could do with scrappage, not to mention my wardrobe. These are mostly British products and all sustain British jobs. The issue is not the worthiness of the spending, but the spending itself.

Every other country has recognised this, and is reaping the benefit in economic revival. Germany’s car scrappage scheme, at €5bn, was 10 times the size of Britain’s and delivered 10 times the reflationary punch. America’s “cash for clunkers” consumed $3bn and is reckoned to have rescued Ford, Chrysler and General Motors from what had been near-bankruptcy in March. Motor shares have shot from an average $2 to $11 in six months. This is being followed by $300m given to state governments for trade-ins of fridges, dishwashers and washing machines. A short-term $8,000 tax credit for first-time buyers has led an instant recovery in house prices.

Meanwhile China has thrown $360bn at demand, with vouchers for cars, fridges, hotels and restaurants handed out by local authorities. Chinese car sales rose 24% after the introduction of the scheme in May. Japan handed out spending vouchers of $130 per adult. Thailand did likewise. In Taiwan, a $108 coupon was issued to every citizen to spend on goods or services before the year’s end. The island’s president recently declared that the $2.5bn scheme had saved 50,000 retailing jobs. That is one per cent of what the British government has spent saving no jobs at all, except possibly in banks.

Why not indeed? The Parallax Brief absolutely disagrees with the idea of time-limited vouchers that can be used to buy services, because they are fungible, and the money spent using them is likely to be cut from the rest of the budget so it can be saved with banks which are more likely to hoard the money to repair savaged balance sheets than loan it back out into the economy where it can be productive. (This is the reason tax cuts aren’t particularly simulative in a liquidity trap. In fact, that’s the definition of a liquidity trap.)

However, focused discounts on consumer goods are a different matter. To be sure, there will be some people who would have bought anyway, and will lick their chops at the government freebee. However, it seems fairly clear by the increase in demand in Britain that it is encouraging some people into the market who wouldn’t have otherwise bought.

Jenkins suggests that cars have always been a “political erogenous zone”, but whatever the reason, are cars more worthy than fridges? Given that anything that gets people spending during a paradox of thrift type of situation is a bonus, and that including items like fridges, ovens, televisions and washing machines would allow more people to participate, why isn’t an extension of the scheme even being discussed?

Tags [ , , , , , ]

Categories [ Economics and Finance, UK Politics ]

Comments [ 0 ]

Downbeat GDP Figures Shock Economists

October 23rd, 2009 by The Parallax Brief

According to Bloomberg.com, Britain’s GDP dropped 0.4% for the third quarter, shocking economists. A Bloomberg survey of 33 economists had predicted a 0.2% increase. Lingering slumps in services, manufacturing and construction were primarily responsible for the gloomy results. Britain is now in its longest recession on record.

Bloomberg reports that, “The data, the first for the third quarter from a Group of Seven nation, suggests Britain may turn out to be the last of them to exit the recession sparked by the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.”

Given that unemployment is what is known by economists as a “lagging indicator”, that is, its movements lag behind GDP movements by 6-8 months, unemployment will continue to rise well after any recovery, making it increasingly likely, in the Parallax Brief’s view, that the Labour Party will hit the polls on election day with unemployment either continuing to rise or near the high watermark — even if the Prime Minister delays until the last possible date

Clearly, these results will deal not just a short term blow to Labour by associating the government with yet more negativity for a 24-hour cycle or so, but will also have grave effects in the long term.

The Parallax Brief would also like to point out that the figures make fools of the monetary and fiscal hawks, such as John Redwoood MP and the Adam Smith Institute, who are already antagonising for a savage cuts in public spending and the tightening of monetary policy.

Tags [ , , , , , , , ]

Categories [ Economics and Finance, UK Politics ]

Comments [ 0 ]

« Older Entries