The Unseen Architecture of Power: Why Politics Feels Like a Revolving Door
In a recent conversation between Peter McCormack and former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, a glaring question was put on the table: Why does it feel like nothing ever changes?
%20(1).jpg)
Whether you are in London, New York, or Paris, the sentiment is the same. People are fed up. Public services are declining, the cost of living is skyrocketing, and regardless of who you vote for, the, "revolving door", of politicians seems to produce the same results.
According to Liz Truss, the reason for this stagnation isn't just a lack of competence—it’s a systemic issue rooted in what she calls, "The Blob", a term once made popular by Michael Gove.
What is "The Blob"?
For decades, political analysts have tried to pinpoint where power truly lies. Is it with the elected officials? The markets? Or somewhere else? Truss argues that power has shifted away from the ballot box and into the hands of a permanent establishment.
"It lies in the 'Blob'", Truss explains. "You could call them the establishment, you could call them the elite, but it’s the people whose worldview has dominated British governance since the 1990s".
This, "Blob", isn’t just a group of people; it’s a specific worldview that has become the default setting for Western institutions. It is characterised by:
A Global Phenomenon
One of the most striking points of the discussion was the realisation that this isn't just a British problem. From Joe Biden and Kamala Harris in the US to Emmanuel Macron in France and Olaf Scholz in Germany, Western leaders seem to be following a synchronised script.
Truss argues that this, "Global Blob", was baked in decades ago, originating in the ideological shifts of the 1960s and 70s (such as the ideas promoted by the Club of Rome). Today, these ideas are incentivised by the, "money men"—the asset managers and global financial institutions who have found a way to profit from the current regulatory and environmental landscape.
The Problem with "Team Sport" Politics
Peter McCormack pointed out a frustrating reality: politics has become a team sport. People identify as 'left' or 'right', yet the outcomes often look identical. For 14 years, the Conservative Party was in power in the UK, yet many argue they failed to act like traditional conservatives, allowing taxes to reach record highs and migration to soar.
Truss’ take is that most politicians simply try to, "placate", the system rather than challenge it. They go along with the, "fundamental architecture", because it is the path of least resistance.
The Scapegoat vs. The Vindicated
Liz Truss remains one of the most controversial figures in modern British politics. Her short tenure as prime minister ended in market turmoil, yet she argues that her diagnosis of the problem was—and still is—correct.
"The reason I get so attacked is because I’m vindicated", she claims.
She argues that while she was mocked for her focus on the Laffer Curve (the idea that lower tax rates can actually increase tax revenue) and her push for fracking and North Sea oil, those same topics are now back on the table as the UK faces a deepening energy and growth crisis.
Truss posits that her real, "crime", in the eyes of the establishment was taking on their entire worldview. By challenging the Bank of England and the Treasury’s commitment to Keynesianism, she became a threat to the status quo.
Where Do We Go From Here?
The interview leaves us with a sobering thought: if the power lies within an almost unelected, deep-rooted establishment, does voting even matter?
McCormack, a self-described non-voter, expressed fear that upcoming left-wing coalitions may not understand the, "second-order consequences", of their economic policies. Truss, however, urged a more critical look at the system itself.
Until we address the, "fundamental architecture"—the institutions, the civil service, and the economic dogmas that haven't changed in 30 years—real growth will remain elusive.
Whether you agree with Liz Truss’s solutions or not, her analysis of the problem highlights the central frustration of the modern voter: The faces change, but the machine stays the same.
This interview lays bare a provocative thesis: the British political system is no longer controlled by the people we elect, but by an entrenched bureaucracy known to be, "The Blob".
Whether you view Truss as cautionary, or a misunderstood reformer, her dialogue with McCormack touches on a nerve currently felt by millions of voters across the UK—a sense that regardless of who wins an election, the fundamental direction of the country remains unchanged.
The Illusion of Political Difference
One of the most striking parts of the interview is Truss’s dismissal of the current political spectrum. While Peter McCormack pointed out that Reform UK’s policies seem more aligned with Truss’s own brand of free-market conservatism, Truss was quick to point out a glaring omission in their platform.
According to Truss, neither Reform nor the Conservatives are willing to dismantle the, "embedded Keynesian fiscal policy", enforced by the Office for Budget Responsibility. She further took aim at the Bank of England, blaming it for asset price surges and wealth inequality.
"Neither Reform Party nor the Conservative Party are prepared to actually take on those vested interests at present", she noted. In her view, if you don't change the underlying financial architecture, you aren't actually changing the country.
Labour: Same Playbook, Different Name
As for the current Labour government, Truss’s assessment is scathing. She suggests that Keir Starmer entered Downing Street believing the UK’s woes were simply a result of, "Tory cruelty". Upon taking office, however, the reality of a country, "living way beyond its means", set in.
Her argument is that Labour is now following the exact same playbook as the previous administration:
The Rise of Voter Apathy
The most relatable moment of the interview came from McCormack himself, who admitted to a long-standing reluctance to vote. His reasoning is one that is echoing across the country: Why vote if the winner is immediately, "stuck in a blob where they can’t deliver on their mandate?"
McCormack pointed to the visible decay in British life—the NHS backlogs, the state of the roads, failing schools, and a sense of lawlessness on the streets. He described a country where, "everything is breaking", yet the political machinery seems incapable of fixing it.
Truss’s response to this was telling. She acknowledged that while she tried to fight the system and was ousted, Starmer is merely frustrated that he can’t implement his specific, "flavour", of the existing system.
Can the System be Fixed from Within?
The interview reaches a cynical, yet perhaps realistic topic of the establishment in contrast to the voters. If the Prime Minister—the supposedly most powerful person in the country—feels powerless against the administrative state, where does that leave the voter?
Truss’s final takeaway is a call to action that bypasses Westminster entirely. She argues that the overhaul Britain needs will not come from the Conservatives, Reform, or Labour.
"It is only going to come from the people", Truss told McCormack. "It is not going to come from the political parties."
Is Voting Becoming a Gesture Losing Meaning?
The conversation between Truss and McCormack highlights a growing crisis of legitimacy in British politics. If the, "Blob"—the unelected treasury officials, central bankers, and quango leads—is truly running the show, then the act of voting becomes a performative gesture.
As the UK continues to grapple with economic stagnation and crumbling infrastructure, the question remains: Can a leader ever truly break the, "playbook", or is the British state now designed to resist change at all costs?
In the annals of British political history, the 49-day premiership of Liz Truss remains a flashpoint of debate. To some, it was a cautionary tale of ideological overreach; to others, it was a missed opportunity for radical change.
Liz Truss has offered an alternative narrative to the one often found in mainstream headlines, painting a picture of, "institutional sabotage", and a political system that has effectively locked out the will of the voters.
Here are the key takeaways from the conversation and what they mean for the future of British politics.
1. "A Gun to My Head": Why She Actually Left
One of the most striking moments of the interview was Truss’s rejection of the idea that she simply, "couldn't stick it out". According to her, the choice wasn't hers to make.
"I got a gun put to my head", she told McCormack, whether she means that literally or not. She argues that the Conservative parliamentary party—many of whom had supported Rishi Sunak from the start—were prepared to vote her out immediately. For Truss, this wasn't just a leadership squabble; it was evidence that the Conservative Party had, "lost any sense of being Conservative".
2. Sabotage by "The Blob"
Truss’s most controversial claim is that her downfall was not a failure of policy, but a deliberate undermining by unelected institutions—what she calls, "The Blob".
She specifically pointed to the Bank of England’s decision to announce the sale of gilts (government bonds) the night before her budget announcement. She claims this created the very market instability that she was later blamed for. Her argument is simple: How can a set of policies be called a, "failure", if they were never actually implemented? In her view, the combination of technocratic maneuvering and a hostile parliamentary party created a, "deliberate sabotage", designed to maintain the status quo.
3. The Illusion of Choice
Peter McCormack raised a point that many voters feel deeply: if both major parties feel essentially the same, and even, "anti-establishment", options like Reform seem to be absorbed into the fold, what choice does the voter actually have?
Truss’s response was a rallying cry for a different kind of participation. She argues that the UK has become a country run by technocrats rather than elected politicians. Because party leaders, "focus group stuff to death", they only respond to what they perceive as the loudest movements in the public consciousness.
4. Is it Time for a British "Tea Party"?
Perhaps the most provocative part of the interview was Truss’s call for a mass anti-establishment movement in Britain. She cited the Tea Party in the US and the Gilets Jaunes in France as examples of movements that forced the political class to listen.
"Voters aren't just voters", she insists. She urged people to move beyond the ballot box and engage in, "mass movements"—using social media, new media, and public discourse to change the debate. According to Truss, unless the public demands a, "wholly different way of running our government", the technocratic cycle will simply continue.
Is the System Captured?
%20(1).jpg)
Whether you are in London, New York, or Paris, the sentiment is the same. People are fed up. Public services are declining, the cost of living is skyrocketing, and regardless of who you vote for, the, "revolving door", of politicians seems to produce the same results.
According to Liz Truss, the reason for this stagnation isn't just a lack of competence—it’s a systemic issue rooted in what she calls, "The Blob", a term once made popular by Michael Gove.
What is "The Blob"?
For decades, political analysts have tried to pinpoint where power truly lies. Is it with the elected officials? The markets? Or somewhere else? Truss argues that power has shifted away from the ballot box and into the hands of a permanent establishment.
"It lies in the 'Blob'", Truss explains. "You could call them the establishment, you could call them the elite, but it’s the people whose worldview has dominated British governance since the 1990s".
This, "Blob", isn’t just a group of people; it’s a specific worldview that has become the default setting for Western institutions. It is characterised by:
- Keynesian Economics: A belief in government spending over private sector growth.
- Net Zero & Environmentalism: Rigid adherence to climate targets at the expense of energy independence.
- Open Borders: A commitment to high migration levels.
- Institutional Inertia: A system where the Treasury, the Bank of England, and civil servants operate on a set of assumptions that elected officials find nearly impossible to shift.
A Global Phenomenon
One of the most striking points of the discussion was the realisation that this isn't just a British problem. From Joe Biden and Kamala Harris in the US to Emmanuel Macron in France and Olaf Scholz in Germany, Western leaders seem to be following a synchronised script.
Truss argues that this, "Global Blob", was baked in decades ago, originating in the ideological shifts of the 1960s and 70s (such as the ideas promoted by the Club of Rome). Today, these ideas are incentivised by the, "money men"—the asset managers and global financial institutions who have found a way to profit from the current regulatory and environmental landscape.
The Problem with "Team Sport" Politics
Peter McCormack pointed out a frustrating reality: politics has become a team sport. People identify as 'left' or 'right', yet the outcomes often look identical. For 14 years, the Conservative Party was in power in the UK, yet many argue they failed to act like traditional conservatives, allowing taxes to reach record highs and migration to soar.
Truss’ take is that most politicians simply try to, "placate", the system rather than challenge it. They go along with the, "fundamental architecture", because it is the path of least resistance.
The Scapegoat vs. The Vindicated
Liz Truss remains one of the most controversial figures in modern British politics. Her short tenure as prime minister ended in market turmoil, yet she argues that her diagnosis of the problem was—and still is—correct.
"The reason I get so attacked is because I’m vindicated", she claims.
She argues that while she was mocked for her focus on the Laffer Curve (the idea that lower tax rates can actually increase tax revenue) and her push for fracking and North Sea oil, those same topics are now back on the table as the UK faces a deepening energy and growth crisis.
Truss posits that her real, "crime", in the eyes of the establishment was taking on their entire worldview. By challenging the Bank of England and the Treasury’s commitment to Keynesianism, she became a threat to the status quo.
Where Do We Go From Here?
The interview leaves us with a sobering thought: if the power lies within an almost unelected, deep-rooted establishment, does voting even matter?
McCormack, a self-described non-voter, expressed fear that upcoming left-wing coalitions may not understand the, "second-order consequences", of their economic policies. Truss, however, urged a more critical look at the system itself.
Until we address the, "fundamental architecture"—the institutions, the civil service, and the economic dogmas that haven't changed in 30 years—real growth will remain elusive.
Whether you agree with Liz Truss’s solutions or not, her analysis of the problem highlights the central frustration of the modern voter: The faces change, but the machine stays the same.
This interview lays bare a provocative thesis: the British political system is no longer controlled by the people we elect, but by an entrenched bureaucracy known to be, "The Blob".
Whether you view Truss as cautionary, or a misunderstood reformer, her dialogue with McCormack touches on a nerve currently felt by millions of voters across the UK—a sense that regardless of who wins an election, the fundamental direction of the country remains unchanged.
The Illusion of Political Difference
One of the most striking parts of the interview is Truss’s dismissal of the current political spectrum. While Peter McCormack pointed out that Reform UK’s policies seem more aligned with Truss’s own brand of free-market conservatism, Truss was quick to point out a glaring omission in their platform.
According to Truss, neither Reform nor the Conservatives are willing to dismantle the, "embedded Keynesian fiscal policy", enforced by the Office for Budget Responsibility. She further took aim at the Bank of England, blaming it for asset price surges and wealth inequality.
"Neither Reform Party nor the Conservative Party are prepared to actually take on those vested interests at present", she noted. In her view, if you don't change the underlying financial architecture, you aren't actually changing the country.
Labour: Same Playbook, Different Name
As for the current Labour government, Truss’s assessment is scathing. She suggests that Keir Starmer entered Downing Street believing the UK’s woes were simply a result of, "Tory cruelty". Upon taking office, however, the reality of a country, "living way beyond its means", set in.
Her argument is that Labour is now following the exact same playbook as the previous administration:
- Continued Debt: The national debt continues to climb.
- Stagnant Growth: No serious plan to reverse decades of economic stagnation.
- Bureaucratic Alignment: Truss argues that while Starmer may be frustrated by his lack of power, he ultimately agrees with the 'Blob' on core issues like immigration, Net Zero, and public spending.
The Rise of Voter Apathy
The most relatable moment of the interview came from McCormack himself, who admitted to a long-standing reluctance to vote. His reasoning is one that is echoing across the country: Why vote if the winner is immediately, "stuck in a blob where they can’t deliver on their mandate?"
McCormack pointed to the visible decay in British life—the NHS backlogs, the state of the roads, failing schools, and a sense of lawlessness on the streets. He described a country where, "everything is breaking", yet the political machinery seems incapable of fixing it.
Truss’s response to this was telling. She acknowledged that while she tried to fight the system and was ousted, Starmer is merely frustrated that he can’t implement his specific, "flavour", of the existing system.
Can the System be Fixed from Within?
The interview reaches a cynical, yet perhaps realistic topic of the establishment in contrast to the voters. If the Prime Minister—the supposedly most powerful person in the country—feels powerless against the administrative state, where does that leave the voter?
Truss’s final takeaway is a call to action that bypasses Westminster entirely. She argues that the overhaul Britain needs will not come from the Conservatives, Reform, or Labour.
"It is only going to come from the people", Truss told McCormack. "It is not going to come from the political parties."
Is Voting Becoming a Gesture Losing Meaning?
The conversation between Truss and McCormack highlights a growing crisis of legitimacy in British politics. If the, "Blob"—the unelected treasury officials, central bankers, and quango leads—is truly running the show, then the act of voting becomes a performative gesture.
As the UK continues to grapple with economic stagnation and crumbling infrastructure, the question remains: Can a leader ever truly break the, "playbook", or is the British state now designed to resist change at all costs?
The Questionable Ousting of Liz Truss
Liz Truss has offered an alternative narrative to the one often found in mainstream headlines, painting a picture of, "institutional sabotage", and a political system that has effectively locked out the will of the voters.
Here are the key takeaways from the conversation and what they mean for the future of British politics.
1. "A Gun to My Head": Why She Actually Left
One of the most striking moments of the interview was Truss’s rejection of the idea that she simply, "couldn't stick it out". According to her, the choice wasn't hers to make.
"I got a gun put to my head", she told McCormack, whether she means that literally or not. She argues that the Conservative parliamentary party—many of whom had supported Rishi Sunak from the start—were prepared to vote her out immediately. For Truss, this wasn't just a leadership squabble; it was evidence that the Conservative Party had, "lost any sense of being Conservative".
2. Sabotage by "The Blob"
Truss’s most controversial claim is that her downfall was not a failure of policy, but a deliberate undermining by unelected institutions—what she calls, "The Blob".
She specifically pointed to the Bank of England’s decision to announce the sale of gilts (government bonds) the night before her budget announcement. She claims this created the very market instability that she was later blamed for. Her argument is simple: How can a set of policies be called a, "failure", if they were never actually implemented? In her view, the combination of technocratic maneuvering and a hostile parliamentary party created a, "deliberate sabotage", designed to maintain the status quo.
3. The Illusion of Choice
Peter McCormack raised a point that many voters feel deeply: if both major parties feel essentially the same, and even, "anti-establishment", options like Reform seem to be absorbed into the fold, what choice does the voter actually have?
Truss’s response was a rallying cry for a different kind of participation. She argues that the UK has become a country run by technocrats rather than elected politicians. Because party leaders, "focus group stuff to death", they only respond to what they perceive as the loudest movements in the public consciousness.
4. Is it Time for a British "Tea Party"?
Perhaps the most provocative part of the interview was Truss’s call for a mass anti-establishment movement in Britain. She cited the Tea Party in the US and the Gilets Jaunes in France as examples of movements that forced the political class to listen.
"Voters aren't just voters", she insists. She urged people to move beyond the ballot box and engage in, "mass movements"—using social media, new media, and public discourse to change the debate. According to Truss, unless the public demands a, "wholly different way of running our government", the technocratic cycle will simply continue.
Is the System Captured?
Whether you see Liz Truss as a misunderstood reformer or a leader who misjudged the markets, her interview with McCormack raises uncomfortable questions about British democracy.
Is the UK being run by the people we elect, or by the institutions that surround them? If the system is as, "captured", as Truss suggests, then the solution won't be found in a manifesto, but in the streets and the digital town square.
Liz Truss pulled back the curtain on what she describes as a, "cabal", of establishment figures currently running the United Kingdom.
Her message was clear: Britain isn't just suffering from bad policy; it’s suffering from a deep-rooted, ideological groupthink that spans the media, the civil service, and the financial sector.
Here are some of the key takeaways from her explosive critique of the British establishment and her vision for how the country can break free.
1. The "Unserious" Media vs. The Alternative Universe
Truss began by addressing the widening chasm between legacy media and the public. She characterised the mainstream media—specifically naming the BBC and Sky News—as, "unserious", and disconnected from the reality of ordinary citizens. According to Truss, these outlets are part of a closed social circle with senior government officials and Treasury figures.
"Their basic view is that there’s nothing much wrong with Britain", Truss noted, citing the media’s occasional dismissal of issues like crime in London. This, "social club", mentality is precisely why audiences are migrating toward alternative media and independent creators who are willing to challenge the status quo.
2. The Rise of the Bureaucratic Actors
During her brief but turbulent time in Number 10, Truss says she learned just how ruthlessly the permanent bureaucracy fights back. She argues that the state is no longer accountable to the people who are actually elected to run it.
To fix this, Truss proposes a radical shift:
3. "Keynesian Horseshit": The Economic Stranglehold
Perhaps Truss’s sharpest barbs were reserved for the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Bank of England. She describes these institutions as ideologically, "left-wing", and stuck in a Keynesian time warp.
Interviewer Peter McCormack shared an anecdote about students at Exeter University describing their curriculum as, "Keynesian horseshit"—a sentiment Truss echoed, noting that university economics departments have been, "taken over", by this philosophy.
4. Groupthink, DEI, and the "Line of Least Resistance"
Truss argued that the City of London and major financial institutions have become risk-averse and over-regulated. Instead of focusing on growth, they have succumbed to, "groupthink", prioritising DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) and Net Zero targets above economic dynamism.
"They want to keep their nose clean... looking for the next job they can get on a board of a bank", Truss said, explaining that the incentive for leaders in the Bank of England or the OBR is to take the, "line of least resistance", rather than making bold, necessary changes.
5. The Need for a Galvanised Movement
If the establishment is so entrenched, how does anything change? Truss points to Brexit as proof that the British people have an, "anti-establishment tendency". The 80% turnout for the referendum showed that people will engage—but only if they believe genuine change is on the table.
The problem, she says, is that the, "Blob", successfully watered down the benefits of Brexit, leading to voter apathy. "The right is struggling with motivating those voters", Truss admitted. To win, there needs to be more than just a political party; there needs to be a galvanised movement that people feel is real.
The Bottom Line
Liz Truss’ reflections paint a picture of a British state that has become a, "self-protecting cabal". Whether you agree with her economic, "mini-budget", or not, her diagnosis of the system raises a fundamental question for any democracy: Who is actually in charge?
As more people tune into alternative media and voice their frustrations with the, "Keynesian consensus", the pressure for a smaller, more accountable state continues to grow. The question remains: is there a leader—or a movement—strong enough to take on the Blob and win?
Is the UK being run by the people we elect, or by the institutions that surround them? If the system is as, "captured", as Truss suggests, then the solution won't be found in a manifesto, but in the streets and the digital town square.
Liz Truss pulled back the curtain on what she describes as a, "cabal", of establishment figures currently running the United Kingdom.
Her message was clear: Britain isn't just suffering from bad policy; it’s suffering from a deep-rooted, ideological groupthink that spans the media, the civil service, and the financial sector.
Here are some of the key takeaways from her explosive critique of the British establishment and her vision for how the country can break free.
1. The "Unserious" Media vs. The Alternative Universe
Truss began by addressing the widening chasm between legacy media and the public. She characterised the mainstream media—specifically naming the BBC and Sky News—as, "unserious", and disconnected from the reality of ordinary citizens. According to Truss, these outlets are part of a closed social circle with senior government officials and Treasury figures.
"Their basic view is that there’s nothing much wrong with Britain", Truss noted, citing the media’s occasional dismissal of issues like crime in London. This, "social club", mentality is precisely why audiences are migrating toward alternative media and independent creators who are willing to challenge the status quo.
2. The Rise of the Bureaucratic Actors
During her brief but turbulent time in Number 10, Truss says she learned just how ruthlessly the permanent bureaucracy fights back. She argues that the state is no longer accountable to the people who are actually elected to run it.
To fix this, Truss proposes a radical shift:
- The CEO Model: The government should be run like a company, where the prime minister acts as an effective chief executive with the power to actually, "call the shots".
- True Accountability: Currently, the, "Blob" (the unelected civil service), can stifle any policy it dislikes, effectively strangling democratic mandates like Brexit from the onset.
3. "Keynesian Horseshit": The Economic Stranglehold
Perhaps Truss’s sharpest barbs were reserved for the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Bank of England. She describes these institutions as ideologically, "left-wing", and stuck in a Keynesian time warp.
- The OBR: Truss claims they are ideologically opposed to the Laffer Curve, believing that raising taxes is the only way to fund a country rather than allowing enterprise to thrive.
- The Bank of England: She criticised the Bank for removing the money supply from their economic models in the 90s, leading to the massive quantitative easing that she blames for current inflation.
Interviewer Peter McCormack shared an anecdote about students at Exeter University describing their curriculum as, "Keynesian horseshit"—a sentiment Truss echoed, noting that university economics departments have been, "taken over", by this philosophy.
4. Groupthink, DEI, and the "Line of Least Resistance"
Truss argued that the City of London and major financial institutions have become risk-averse and over-regulated. Instead of focusing on growth, they have succumbed to, "groupthink", prioritising DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) and Net Zero targets above economic dynamism.
"They want to keep their nose clean... looking for the next job they can get on a board of a bank", Truss said, explaining that the incentive for leaders in the Bank of England or the OBR is to take the, "line of least resistance", rather than making bold, necessary changes.
5. The Need for a Galvanised Movement
If the establishment is so entrenched, how does anything change? Truss points to Brexit as proof that the British people have an, "anti-establishment tendency". The 80% turnout for the referendum showed that people will engage—but only if they believe genuine change is on the table.
The problem, she says, is that the, "Blob", successfully watered down the benefits of Brexit, leading to voter apathy. "The right is struggling with motivating those voters", Truss admitted. To win, there needs to be more than just a political party; there needs to be a galvanised movement that people feel is real.
The Bottom Line
Liz Truss’ reflections paint a picture of a British state that has become a, "self-protecting cabal". Whether you agree with her economic, "mini-budget", or not, her diagnosis of the system raises a fundamental question for any democracy: Who is actually in charge?
As more people tune into alternative media and voice their frustrations with the, "Keynesian consensus", the pressure for a smaller, more accountable state continues to grow. The question remains: is there a leader—or a movement—strong enough to take on the Blob and win?
What do you think? Is, "The Blob", a real barrier to British prosperity, or is this a convenient excuse for political failure?
Was Liz Truss sabotaged by the establishment, or was her, "mini-budget", a genuine error? And more importantly, is Britain ready for its own anti-establishment movement?
Is, "The Blob", a convenient excuse for political failure, or is it the invisible wall preventing Britain from recovering? Let us know in the comments.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Comments
Post a Comment