Latest post on Left Futures

At the Stoke Central Hustings

nintchdbpict000285332230Coming away from The Sentinel-sponsored by-election hustings at Staffordshire University, I spotted a blood moon hanging low over Stoke. For whom did this augur an ill omen? For Gareth Snell and the Labour Party, or Paul Nuttall and the United Kingdom Independence Party? If what happens at hustings matters, I’d have to say it doesn’t bode well for our Tranmere playin’, PhD totin’, compulsive fibbin’ UKIP leader. It’s not that Nuttall was totally dreadful from a presentation point of view, apart from a catastrophic gaffe at the end, but that he commanded hardly a presence. For the hustings was effectively the Gareth show, with Jack Brereton of the Tories as the supporting act. Nuttall played little more than a walk-on part and had to compete with the also-rans for attention. If he is a national figure, which he kept reminding us, then it’s a position achieved in the absence of discernible talent and charisma.

Mick Temple, on hand to offer the expert perspective opened proceedings with the observation that the Stoke Central by-election is perhaps the most important in modern political history. What happens here will have repercussions for two major political parties. For Labour, not only would losing put a question over Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, it raises the issue of if it can’t no longer win in its heartlands, where can it win? For UKIP, losing means there is effectively no point to the party any more. Win and there is a possibility it can become the new party of the working class.

With the scene set, Martin Tideswell of The Sentinel invited candidates to make a 60 second stump. Nuttall began by arguing that the message he’s getting from the doorstep is one of change, and he can deliver it. As a national figure he has the clout to get things done, and this would be because if Stoke changes from the capital of Brexit to the capital of change, it would scare the establishment. Godfrey Davies of the Christian People’s Alliance stated the he was standing against the liberal agenda that had brought calamity to our country – concentrating on Christian values is the only way forward. The LibDems’ Zulfiqar Ali said he was the only candidate opposed to hard Brexit, and wanted the people to have a say on the outcome of negotiations. More money for the NHS would be nice, too. Gareth for Labour stated his local credentials and said his priority would be to campaign for homes, and fight for the Brexit the Potteries deserves and not what London would condescend to dish out. Jack Brereton for the Tories said he was responsible for delivering £500m in investment in the city, including 1,000 new jobs on the Ceramic Valley development. He also stated – as if saying it made it true – that Theresa May had a plan that would make a success for Brexit. The Incredible Flying Brick of the Official Monster Raving Loonies began by saying this was his fourth by-election and, to much hilarity, read the BNP speech on the table next to him. Adam Colclough said things about being local and working together, and the BNP’s David Furniss said he was the only true Brexit candidate as his dobbins of a party had been against the EU since 1982.

It was evident from the first question that this was going to be a tetchy, bad-tempered meeting, and so it proved: readers interested in the full thing can watch the recording here. And there were flash points and moments of interest aplenty. The first full-on scrap came over the NHS and the integration of adult social care, which everyone agreed would be a very fine thing (though the BNP still managed to get a line in about immigrants). Very quickly it became an argument between Gareth and Jack, while egged on by Tories in the audience shouting PFI (do they know it was a Major policy, and has carried on under the present government?). What really got the Tory blood boiling was the obvious evidence – as noted by Gareth – that private contractors and quiet privatisation have and continue to undermine the NHS. An audience member used the opportunity to challenge Nuttall on his comments regarding nurse training and his belief they don’t need degrees. He hadn’t changed his mind, he replied, as there shouldn’t be any nurses who are “too posh to wash”. Scrapping degrees would save £3bn, which along with abandoning HS2 and stripping back foreign aid would supply ample cash for the NHS. Needless to say, this didn’t go down particularly well with health workers present.

A question aimed at economic development and directed at Gareth asked how we can get good quality jobs in Stoke, and how would having yet another Labour MP help? He replied that we need to work at moving government departments out of London to spread the benefits of public spending on these organisations. It also means thinking smart and partnering with Birmingham and Manchester to ensure the belated regionalisation the government favours partly accrues to the city as well. In short, we need someone who will get stuck in who isn’t going to Westminster to cheer lead the Prime Minister or further their own career. For his part, Jack replied that there are 1,500 more people employed in Stoke than was the case in 2010, and he repeated himself about the Ceramic Valley development. One thing he neglected to mention that these “new jobs” are merely a relocation of Bet365’s HQ from Festival Park nearby, which was a development prepped under the previous Labour council. Though I’m sure in good time the Tory-run council will have some achievements of their own they can talk up. It’s also worth noting that at an earlier hustings at Stoke Sixth Form College that Jack made his opposition to moving departments to Stoke known on the grounds that local people “didn’t have the skills”, and this from the champion of inward investment! On local economic development, all Nuttall could do was moan about HS2 and argue for the abolition of fees for “STEM cell subjects [sic]”. By far the most intriguing response was delivered courtesy of Godfrey Davies. To regenerate the city he intends to “bring the Kingdom of God to Stoke”, and that will provide its own blessings. Indeed.

Naturally, the issue of Gareth’s sexist tweets came up. Rather than trying to wriggle and lie as a, I don’t know, a Paul Nuttall might, he took it head on. He condemned his previous comments and said he did a lot of growing up in his 20s, and since then as Newcastle Borough Council leader he made the decision to increase funding for sexual violence and domestic violence support services, which benefited some of the borough’s most vulnerable women. As a trade unionist he’d helped organise low paid women and had marched shoulder-to-shoulder with his sisters.

There were more ding dongs over EU migrants in Britain after Brexit, whether a Remain-voting MP can represent a Leave constituency, on tuition fees and deindustrialisation. And then came Nuttall’s clanger. He was asked if a 10 year old child soldier of Islamic State was suspected of harbouring knowledge about a terror attack, would he order a member of the armed forces to waterboard them. Nuttall replied that if there was a suspect with information about a dirty bomb set to go off in London, Liverpool and, just remembering where he was, Stoke, then yes he would. Gareth quickly interjected with a “you’ve basically said you would waterboard a 10 year old”, to which all chaos broke loose. Above the din, Nuttall was stupid enough to shout he knew the evidence was that waterboarding doesn’t work, but would do it anyway.

I am increasingly of the mind that hustings don’t really serve any discernible purpose. At the beginning of the evening, Martin Tideswell asked who of the 60 or so present were actually Stoke Central residents voting on 23rd February. About half the hands went up, and looking at those who did about half of them were Labour, another five or six UKIP, and a handful of Tories and others apiece. It was what you call a public meeting without the public, a dialogue of people with no interest in having a dialogue. Yet it served a purpose. There is a recording available for all to view in which the ineptitude of Paul Nuttall is laid bare. This so-called national figure was not only bested by his Labour opponent who has had nowhere near as much media exposure than he, but by the also-ran Tory too. If there is any justice, he’ll get a drubbing so bad that the name ‘Paul Nuttall’ will be one remembered only by geeks and politics historians five years hence. Come to Stoke and help make sure this happens.


  1. Richard MacKinnon says:

    If Labour supporters in Stoke had any sense they would be doing everything they can to get Nuttall elected. If Labour hold even one of the seats on Thursday Jeremy will take it as a sign of his unlimited authority. As I have said on countless occasions on this site I hope he does stay on, he is a very rare comic genius and will be sorely missed by many. But if Labour loose Stoke and Copelend he will be gone Friday.

    1. Sam Kelly says:

      Richard, I agree with you about JC’s comedy value, but not that he’ll be gone if Labour lose either or both of the by-elections. He and his disciples are not interested in actually winning but only in signalling their socialist credentials. Long may he reign.

      1. Ray Visino says:

        He can’t stand down until he has been able to change the rules in the Labour Party otherwise the Blairites will take it over again. If it was made more democratic there would be a wider choice of leader.

  2. Richard MacKinnon says:

    The talk is that the Tories are spending big bucks on ads attacking Nuttall to help Labour win Stoke and so keep JC in place.
    Money well spent.

    1. Mervyn Hyde says:

      I hope you are right Richard, because as sure as sure can be, the media will go into a frenzy against Jeremy if we don’t win.

      No doubt you’ll be there to help them along.

      1. John Penney says:

        It’s rather sad that tiresome Right Wing Trolls like MacKinnon and Kelly think their utterly politics-less Daily Mail quality 5th form sneering has any impact on a Left Wing site like Left Futures.

        One thing is certain , if Labour lose one or both bye-elections, with their entirely Labour right candidates, it will have nothing to do with Jeremy Corbyn, and everything to do with the suicidal constant sabotage “strategy” of the Labour Right and their mass media allies over the last year. And the bulk of our members are well aware of that. It is the Right/Party machine that would be blamed, not Jeremy.

        Brainwashed Trolls like MacKinnon always mistake their Daily Mail fantasy world for the real world. Sad.

        1. Bill says:

          I hope that we win Stoke but if we lose or only just win it will be no reflection on Jeremy Corbyn and he should definitely not resign.

          The ‘left’ are being set up to carry the blame. But we did not choose the candidate. They are entirely a continuation of business as usual. Any failure should be attributed to the failure of new labour and the treachery of the PLP.

          We must not set ourselves up to carry the blame but direct it where it belongs,as you say,with the suicidal constant sabotage “strategy” of the Labour Right and their mass media allies over the last year.

        2. Bazza says:

          Good points John.
          My late Grandad was a star.
          And God he could fart for England.
          But as he often said of the Tories: “Best to ignore them, farts usually fade away!”

        3. Richard MacKinnon says:

          I think we agree on something, you say “One thing is certain , if Labour lose one or both bye-elections, ………it will have nothing to do with Jeremy Corbyn”. You are right. How can you blame JC for anything, he has done absolutely nothing at all in weeks. He’s been invisable. His contribution has been zilch in Copeland, Stoke on radio and TV.
          Makes you wonder where he spends his days. The allotment? Probably the public library, making plans to run the country.

  3. Bazza says:

    This article is a disgraceful attack on Paul Nutall.
    All these lefties will just not recognise that Paul was the first man on the moon without a space suit!
    This is a fact, I have verified this with Donald via twitter – this is not fake news!
    JC 4 PM!

  4. Bazza says:

    Yes and when Nuttal went AWOL the other day he just nipped out to climb Everest, swim the Atlantic then liberated Raqqa single handed!
    As the great philosophers the Muppets would say:
    “Is he a Muppet or is he human?”

  5. alan story says:


    Stoke-on-Trent has been pulverised by global capitalism. This Thursday (23 Feb., its residents can vote in a by-election. Watch and listen to Stokies talk about their ‘vanishing city’, UKIP’s xenophobic message and the Labour Party campaign. 9,200 views in first 72 hours.

    1. Mervyn Hyde says:

      I reiterate what I have said over and over again because people simply do not understand that the Tories have indoctrinated them into believing that we must raise tax before we can spend.

      It is a fact, and something so basic, that it needs volumes of words to overcome the prejudice against it, but, The government is not a house hold, it does not have to earn money before it can spend, our government creates money out of thin air every single day of the week.

      The problem is that it issues it as debt, through the private Banks.

      The government can and should spend money directly into the economy when and where it is needed, that would mean investing in jobs, creating nationalised industries, paying for our public services.

      It is not difficult to explain to people how money originates and how it’s used against the interests of people.

      In short we are all working to make a few Bankers and the corrupt financial sector rich whilst they imprison us in poverty.

      Poverty is a political not an economic fact.

      People really do need to start thinking outside the box, China and India are swallowing up our natural resources, jobs have all migrated out to the far east, the only way we will get those jobs back is by reducing our standard of living below theirs, so that greedy multinational corporations can make even more profit.

      People are the real economy, when people stop spending and the government fails to fill the gap, the economy goes into terminal decline, that is the process we have embarked on over the last forty to fifty years. It has to be reversed.

      How do you answer; where is the money going to come from to pay for public services if we follow current political doctrine of raising taxation before government spending? Note our government does not have to borrow it’s own money.

      The answer is obvious, if we carry on with that false premise, then further decline is inevitable.

      The other very obvious fact that most overlook, is that thing called defence, we can’t afford public services, but we can invade other countries at the drop of a hat without any regard at all about how we are going to pay for it.

      I don’t often resort to this kind of language but there are times when a quote such as this becomes very pertinent: A rank Tory work colleague of mine who votes Tory through thick and thin, always says when confronted with obvious duplicity, “That we live in a “BULLSHIT WORLD”. To this day he remains a Tory knowing they do not serve his interests.

      This video is approximately 22 minutes long and spells out in simple language how we explain to people that they have been lied to and how the economy actually works:

      1. John Walsh says:

        Thanks MH for the link to the Bill Mitchell video. It warrants repeated watching – one idea I think it’s possible for non-experts (like me) to form from listening to Mitchell, and then recount to others, is that unemployment is a political choice.

        1. Mervyn Hyde says:

          Thank you John, I do recommend several viewings because Bill Mitchell packs a lot of information in just a short video.

      2. John Penney says:

        Dearie me, more uncritical, true believer, postings from the Positive Money enthusiast, Mervyn. Sadly, the superficially credible theory outlined by Bill Mitchell is in fact utter, reactionary, nonsense. As is the entire faux radical Positive Money proposal. No matter how often it is explained to Meryvn that in a globalised economy a single national government cannot, even with a sovereign currency, “lift itself up by its own bootstraps” by unlimited money-printing, he persists in promoting the Positive Money creed. It is diversionary nonsense.

        Essentially what the Positive Money enthusiasts wish to do is abolish one of the core drivers of capitalism, the private banking system/market-driven money creation, but WITHOUT any strategy or interest in abolishing capitalism itself as an integrated global system itself. An impossible task.

        In its deeply , essentially “Poujadist”, petty bourgeois historical origins (and dig deeper and it has its origins in the dodgy ideology of petty bourgeois hostility to “usury”, as if this was separable from capitalism), it is a similar diversionary ideology to that current petty bourgeois fad of “Citizens Income/UBI”. UBI is also a class struggle-free faux “panacea solution” to capitalist income inequality and unemployment, which, like “Positive Money “theory, leaves the gross wealth and resulting power inequalities of the capitalist class-based system, and the market economy of capitalism itself, untouched.

        It is of course, also entirely unachievable. It would be no harder (And by that I mean VERY hard) to overthrow capitalism itself than to essentially extract the very guts of the market-driven money-creating banking system from capitalism.

        I suggest comrades attracted by the superficial “radicalism” of the Positive Money proposal, take a deep breath, and grasp its diversionary, impossible to achieve, petty bourgeois capitalist underlying ideology.

        Socialists need to focus on controlling and restricting as far as possible ( ie, not very far in a globalised capitalist economy) the speculative, chaotic , behaviour of the globalised banking system in the short and medium term, ( via domestic nationalisation and regulation) as one component of a comprehensive economic programme . But in the long term socialists should be clear that getting rid of the capitalist market itself, globally , including one of its key components, capital (of which “money” , and private banking is one key aspect ), is the only solution.

        1. Mervyn Hyde says:

          John, You are utterly wrong about Positive money or MMT, the reality is people believe that we have to raise taxation before we can spend, that is patently untrue, then they throw the old chestnut in about the Weimar Republic, again another false analogy for the reasons outlined in the video.

          I would dearly love to nationalise the whole Banking system, then we would have total control of the economy, we could even stop money being offshored, we could control money laundering, stop companies using tax havens all of those benefits, but the rest of the world banking system would react against us for obvious reasons.

          You seem to not understand that we are an importer of other countries finished goods, we have ongoing trade deficits of £4 billion a month. How do we plan our strategic investment if we are told we can only borrow our own money from the City or cut public expenditure? Why Borrow our own money when it is our government that creates it?

          If you disagree with anything I have said, Please explain how you think money enters the economy and why?

          Where is all that investment we were promised would come our way after deregulation, why is the financial sector unable to provide the incomes we were all promised would sustain us.

          A clue to all of that is the magic word “DEBT” but please explain to me why you are right and we are wrong.

          This video challenges all of your prejudices and Warren Mosler was a government adviser in the US who told presidents how the economy actually worked, he has spent his whole life working in Banks and Wall street.

          He will tell you that those that work within the banking and financial sector agree with everything he says and will also say that politicians and even universities wrongly describe how money works in the economy.

          The Bank of England also states that University text books wrongly state that savers money is loaned to loaned to borrowers, when in fact all loaned money is new money, meaning it did not exist before it was loaned, we say printed out of thin air.

          1. John Penney says:

            It is quite obvious that you have a quasi religious belief in the Positive Money nostrums, Mervyn, and no repeated explanations that governments operating within the constraints of a globalised capitalist system, in which our ability to purchase goods from abroad depends on the market’s valuation of our currency relative to all other currencies cannot simply print as much money as they want, will dampen your unshakable ideology.

            Good luck with this fantasy economics, but it is a diversion from the real issues facing socialists in the UK, and very tiresome to have you constantly making the same nonsensical claims in so many posts. That is your right of course, but nonsense nevertheless.

          2. Mervyn Hyde says:

            John for someone who talks in terms of religious belief, I fear that at least I can bring expert opinion to bear and have done to back up my claims.

            yes I do have my own ideas, I follow lots of economic experts, I receive at least three academics blogs a week, most of which follow the line that we can modify capitalism, yet I don’t ignore the factual information they provide and use it to back up my claims.

            So far I have not seen one piece of evidence about anything you write about.

            Interestingly you quote the communist countries having no answer to capitalism, well for one if you think capitalism has anything to offer perhaps this précis of a piece in Ha-Joon Chang’s book 23 things they don’t tell you about capitalism.

            Between the late 19th century and early 20th century Liberals (neo-classical economists) propounded the idea that taking tax from the rich would kill off capitalism. Until the new commonwealths actually extended suffrage to the lower classes, the collapse in capitalism never actually happened as they decreed it would.

            When Taxation (over-taxation) really took hold it did not destroy capitalism but made it stronger, as he points out that the period between 1950 and 1973 there was rapid growth in progressive taxation and social welfare spending, which despite this, saw the highest growth rates, and became known as the Golden Age of Capitalism.

            Without rewriting the whole book for you he was pointing out that before Labour came into after the war Neo-Classical economists held sway, until Keynes of course, and that the kind of state intervention introduced by Labour, State industries and welfare meant that real growth doubled during that period and was sustained even by the Tory’s until Heath when it all started going backwards. Neo-Liberal doctrines took hold.

            Whilst we borrowed money from the private sector to achieve those results then, with the knowledge we have today and the very real difference in how money is created, we do not have any constraints relating to money so long as we spend within our own economy.

            I have of course given you verbatim evidence of Neo-Liberals such as Alan Greenspan, and could provide further evidence from Ben Bernake both of which have been chairmen of the Federal Reserve who agree with both the academics from MMT,Positive Money including the Bank of England, and you dispute all these peoples assessment of how sovereign currencies work.

            I am sorry to say John you totally lack credibility, and have a nasty habit of shouting down arguments without providing information to the contrary.

            There are a myriad of reasons as to why socialist countries have failed to take hold, and as others have said before me, look at all those countries that overthrew dictators and were then crushed by the US, the story went “they were in America’s back yard” but then their back yard extends around the world. Russia was agrarian society that had a population where 80% were illiterate, after 60 years of communism 90% were literate. Russia was invaded by westerners in the international brigade during the revolution, they were encircled by hostile nations, their whole period was spent on arming and defending their country, do you really think that was the kind of environment that would expand an economy and lead the world? East Germany on the other hand was an industrial nation and therefore had a slightly better outcome, read goodbye Lenin, or see the video life was not as bad as you might presume in those times. I have anecdotal experience of East Germany from a close friend of mine that came over the Berlin Wall from East Germany, and I have also fairly recently been there around the year 2000.

            When I lived in Germany, Tegernsee, I lived about 11 kilometres from an American propaganda Radio Station, these were set up and run at a cost of multi millions around the perimeter of the communist bloc, if the Americans were that confident that socialism wasn’t going to succeed, why spend all that money on propaganda.

            Just google American propaganda station and the one I knew at Holzkirchen.

            Finally you clearly do not understand how money enters the economy, The banks print money out of thin air every time they make a loan, THAT IS FACT, and the only limits to lending is the ability of the borrower to pay back the loan.

            Here is the Bank of England document that explains it in detail:


            They print this money willy nilly every single day of the week, so where is your argument against printing it for public expenditure???

            I’ll tell you, you have none.

  6. John Walsh says:

    Hope you don’t mind MH ad JP – I’m trying to work out what you are discussing. Is this a fair description? …

    From a couple of viewings, for me, Warren Mosler does a good job of disentangling Government money affairs and ‘household’ money matters. That is, he provides a neat way of dismantling all that ‘fix the roof while the sun is shining’, ‘Government has to live within it’s means’, ‘we can’t create debt for our grandchildren’, etc. which is the powerful basis for the argument that we mustn’t have a Government debt and therefore socialism has no money to spend (to simplify). Now, being American, Mosler is just explaining the mechanics and doesn’t go anywhere near what Government could do if freed from the ‘we can’t spend’ mantra.

    Bill Mitchell does, however, extend the argument into things like Government funding of jobs, that unemployment should never happen as it’s always better/ cheaper to employ people using ‘Government money’ – i.e. money created out of thin air (the kind of money the Tories happily give to bankers).

    All seems ok so far, as the MMT argument could be very helpful in removing a monetary block to socialism, that Governments can’t spend money as they haven’t got any etc. (again to simplify a Daily Mail type position). However, the problem that JP raises is that MMT makes no attempt to dismantle the greater problem – capitalism – and instead argues for something that is just never going to happen. That there is no way, in the foreseeable, that banking is going to be ‘nationalised’, that in order to enact change the whole edifice has to be replaced.

    If this is a reasonable account, my take (crudely put) is that the MMT videos (that MH has linked to) are very useful for deconstructing a very important pillar of the system. That it’s very useful to be able to argue that household finance and Government finance are very different and that it’s ok to spend and have a debt (of course, despite ‘austerity’ and the Tories creating the perception of being frugal, Government debt hasn’t changed because we need it – well, they need to give money to capitalism, in the form of corporate welfare). I accept JP’s argument but are we in times where, realistically, change will always be incremental. That in order to turn the tide, as it were, it would be so useful to be able to remove the ‘the Government can’t spend’ barrier as a first step.

    Incidentally, I see a problem with all of these policy discussions – they are all too wide-ranging, they would be better focussed on specific, politically challengeable issues. Sorry, JP, I understand that idea goes against the foundation of a ‘comprehensive economic plan’. I just think that on here it’s more useful to help each other understand specific issues rather than plan the overthrow of the system.

    1. Mervyn Hyde says:

      Thank you for that intervention John, I broadly agree with your analysis of both points of view.

      We do have to overcome 45 years of indoctrination that Milton Friedman espoused, quite simply John Eatwell another Cambridge economist challenged Friedman in an economic debate on the BBC (1973) about everything Friedman stood for, poignantly pointing out that every where Friedman experimented with his ideas their economies collapsed, (the South American countries which were then called the banana republics). Friedman’s stock answer to that was “well they did not cut fast enough or deep enough which was why they failed”.

      His and Hayek’s philosophy have destroyed the world economy, they have returned the world order back to the days of Neo-Classical economics which only serve the interests of a tiny minority.

      I like Bill Mitchell because he demonstrates in practical terms that government of the people, by the people, for the people can only happen if the government intervenes on behalf of people.

      The corporate capture of most politicians throughout the world (corruption) has meant that people are constantly lied to in order to maintain the mythology that we must all pay our way in the world and the private sector is the best means to deliver rising standards of living.

      Bill Mitchell intelligently points out that the Neo-Liberals have changed the language we speak in economic terms which in reality is false. If we are to change society we too need to reverse the Neo-Liberal language into factual doctrines that people can understand. It is a long term strategy but we only need look at just how long it has taken Neo-Liberals to the present day.

      As you point out Warren Mosler doesn’t concern himself with how governments spend money, whether in the private sector or by the public sector, he merely spells out how government creates money, and that the private sector (against popular myth) does not create money (what people see as wealth)
      Warren Mosler tells you in simple language that money is created by the government, and is the issuer of money, that is how money enters the economy, money doesn’t come from the private sector as they have to earn it. What he emphatically points out is that the Government does not have to issue money through the private banks as debt. It can spend directly into the economy. A simple way to explain that is, the
      country needs a bridge, the government sets up a company that can build a bridge, they employ staff, purchase all the essential materials, The bridge is finished, the money is paid for by the government which is issued through the treasury and properly accounted for. We are then left with an asset that people can use.

      The way we do it now, is as with HS2 we put the contract out to tender, the winner (Chinese) build the system then charge us for the costs plus profit. We then pay for it through taxation or borrowing, mostly borrowing, which means giving the money to private banks, who then charge us interest on the money we created.

      We can of course put all of this into simple language explaining how people have been duped for generations into thinking that people with money are essential to provide jobs and create wealth, when in fact they use their wealth and power to make more wealth only for themselves and encourage us all to think we should do the same. Knowing that the only winners in that game are the few who constantly profit at our expense.

      Once people grasp that 97% of all money in circulation was issued by the government, through the Bank of England, which then issued it through the private banks as debt, they should understand that that is not a sensible way to put money into the economy.

      The other 3% of course is money printed by the Bank of England for the private banks to issue as cash in notes and coins.

      We don’t have a complicit media to spell out what our agenda is, and how it can create a stable society meeting the needs of all of the people, which Is why I feel we need to educate ourselves in order to counter the lies and propaganda, we do have people, the more that understand what is real, can then tell others, lots seem not to want to bother but if we are to fight back, we need more to speak out.

      Here Locally I have been very vocal, and have had a good deal of success in getting the message over, we are out on the streets and wherever I get the opportunity I make it clear to ordinary members of the public just how they are being lied to.

      People know something is radically wrong with government today, but do not know who to believe, this cuts right through the mythology, and gives people hope.


© 2024 Left Futures | Powered by WordPress | theme originated from PrimePress by Ravi Varma