UKIP - The Future - Volume 2
Discussion
steveT350C said:
Wombat3 said:
steveT350C said:
Wombat3 said:
steveT350C said:
Sometimes he just forgets which profile he is using....
Sorry, only one profile here. If you think otherwise, feel free to raise it with the mods, they'll sort that out in 5 minutes flat.You are actually warning me? Too funny.
(but it'll never be a problem, never has been, never will be).
(feel free to waste your time following me around and keeping an eye on me if it makes you happy big man )
Wombat3 said:
steveT350C said:
Wombat3 said:
steveT350C said:
Wombat3 said:
steveT350C said:
Sometimes he just forgets which profile he is using....
Sorry, only one profile here. If you think otherwise, feel free to raise it with the mods, they'll sort that out in 5 minutes flat.You are actually warning me? Too funny.
(but it'll never be a problem, never has been, never will be).
(feel free to waste your time following me around and keeping an eye on me if it makes you happy big man )
Wombat3 said:
In that context you either believe that he will do as he said on delivering that vote or you don't. If you do (and you want it that badly) then, logically, you put him in the position to deliver it.
Sorry for the harsh words but you really yanked my chain with some completely unfounded and inaccurate assumptions about me. Edited by Wombat3 on Sunday 28th September 20:15
Anyway moving on, I know the polling doesn't show it, still showing a dead heat essentially, ref Steve Fisher of Oxford Uni latest forecast.
And being a wonk I have to go with the data above all else.
Gut feel though is that Labour are in for a bad time next GE. They should be way way ahead of where they are. Next set of polls after conference season will be interesting.
And then again after the next round of by elections.
BJG1 said:
Well, I was giving them the benefit of the doubt. They're not going to say it's for the reasons I've given, are they? I rather hope it isn't for the reasons Farage gave:
“First, we did not think it should have been made a political priority at a time of many other pressing issues and pointed out that the measure had no mandate from the electorate.
“Secondly we were concerned that because of the role of the European Court of Human Rights in British law that faith communities which had strong objections were at risk of being forced to conduct gay marriages.”
Which would be because gay rights aren't important enough to bother with at the moment and that some religious bigots didn't like it. Nice.
I wonder what aspect of "gay rights" were addressed by the gay marriage law?“First, we did not think it should have been made a political priority at a time of many other pressing issues and pointed out that the measure had no mandate from the electorate.
“Secondly we were concerned that because of the role of the European Court of Human Rights in British law that faith communities which had strong objections were at risk of being forced to conduct gay marriages.”
Which would be because gay rights aren't important enough to bother with at the moment and that some religious bigots didn't like it. Nice.
For example, I remember a really sad case in the 1990's. A chap was kicked out of the home that he had lived in for forty years. His male partner had passed away, and his partner's family wanted the house... They got it!
As far as I can see, Civil partnerships give gay couples all the protection that marriage gives heterosexual couples
.
Why would you want to force religious institutions to act against their principles?
Edited by don4l on Sunday 28th September 21:05
steveT350C said:
I respect and admire Hannan immensely, but he is fundamentally anti EU and wants out, where as his boss is pro EU and lies to everyone about his true position.
Hannan's position in the Conservative Party is appearing slightly odd as events progress.
Only if you believe that the question as to whether we should be in or out of the EU is the most important question facing our govt and that it trumps all othersHannan's position in the Conservative Party is appearing slightly odd as events progress.
Not tax levels
benefit levels
what to do about the NHS problem (rather than pretending it does not exist)
What to do about the ageing population/pension (ditto)
or many others
Does being in or out of the EU trump all those? Hannan doesn't believe so, he said as much, so he accepts that although he disagrees with his party leader on one thing, he agrees with more of his own party policies than he does with UKIP. Though of course as of 8 months ago, so did Farage, in fact he called it "drivel".
I admit that the UKIP website does have a manifesto for the NHS, not one that actually addresses its problems (but I won't hold that against them as neither do the other parties to any great extent) but it has one.
But it hasn't really come up with many answers to many of the other issues. But he has promised an independently verified spending plan. I look forward to it. Unfortunately at the moment he still seems to be borrowing Ed Balls' calculator
FiF said:
Wombat3 said:
In that context you either believe that he will do as he said on delivering that vote or you don't. If you do (and you want it that badly) then, logically, you put him in the position to deliver it.
Sorry for the harsh words but you really yanked my chain with some completely unfounded and inaccurate assumptions about me. Edited by Wombat3 on Sunday 28th September 20:15
Anyway moving on, I know the polling doesn't show it, still showing a dead heat essentially, ref Steve Fisher of Oxford Uni latest forecast.
And being a wonk I have to go with the data above all else.
Gut feel though is that Labour are in for a bad time next GE. They should be way way ahead of where they are. Next set of polls after conference season will be interesting.
And then again after the next round of by elections.
Labour should be in for an absolute disaster. The Tories have basically stabilised the country (after 2008-2010), though I think they would be the first to admit they have not made as much progress as they would have liked for a whole host of reasons. That said, recovering an economy from the position ours was in is hardly an exact science. In the context of how bad things could have been if they'd screwed that up, EVERYTHING else is a sideshow IMO.
Beyond that though, the lack of quality in Labour's front bench is quite extraordinary and I would go as far as to say that Miliband looks less like a potential prime Minister than even Foot or Kinnock did. He is a pathetic excuse for a Leader of the Opposition. It would be one thing to say OK we can wear 5 years of Labour under (even Blair) or someone like John Smith but Miliband and Balls? God help us......
don4l said:
I wonder what aspect of "gay rights" were addressed by the gay marriage law?
For example, I remember a really sad case in the 1990's. A chap was kicked out of the home that he had lived in for forty years. His male partner had passed away, and his partner's family wanted the house... They got it!
As far as I can see, Civil partnerships give gay couples all the protection that marriage gives heterosexual couples enjoy.
Why would you want to force religious institutions to act against their principles?
Because your opinion doesn't have any more merit or legitimacy to do because it's a result of your religion and we should stop pretending that it does.For example, I remember a really sad case in the 1990's. A chap was kicked out of the home that he had lived in for forty years. His male partner had passed away, and his partner's family wanted the house... They got it!
As far as I can see, Civil partnerships give gay couples all the protection that marriage gives heterosexual couples enjoy.
Why would you want to force religious institutions to act against their principles?
If 2 gay Christians want to get married by a gay vicar then why should the Christian church be allowed to stop that from happening? Gay couples have equal legitimacy as straight ones, there is no difference. There need not be any distinction, therefore, in the way in which they are married need not be distinct.
The government didn't go far enough but Cameron did well to get it past his bigotted more right-wing MPs. Any party opposing it isn't deserving of a vote IMO.
don4l said:
Wombat3 said:
don4l said:
So... how many seats do we think that UKIP are going into the general election with?
So far we have two, but I reckon that Nigel has a few more up his sleeve.
Will the next defector be from Labour?
They have to keep the two they have first. Carswell will keep his, Reckless I am not so sure about. We will see in a few weeks So far we have two, but I reckon that Nigel has a few more up his sleeve.
Will the next defector be from Labour?
If UKIP have 5 seats going into the election, then they will be the recipients of all the protest votes. The LibDems will be reduced to less than 10 seats, and UKIP will get more than 40.
If we have a Conservative/UKIP coalition, then I am sure that traditional Tories like yourself and Zod will be ecstatic. Nigel would not tolerate a "Blair" style government, which is what we have at the moment.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/fara...
Wombat3 said:
don4l said:
Wombat3 said:
don4l said:
So... how many seats do we think that UKIP are going into the general election with?
So far we have two, but I reckon that Nigel has a few more up his sleeve.
Will the next defector be from Labour?
They have to keep the two they have first. Carswell will keep his, Reckless I am not so sure about. We will see in a few weeks So far we have two, but I reckon that Nigel has a few more up his sleeve.
Will the next defector be from Labour?
If UKIP have 5 seats going into the election, then they will be the recipients of all the protest votes. The LibDems will be reduced to less than 10 seats, and UKIP will get more than 40.
If we have a Conservative/UKIP coalition, then I am sure that traditional Tories like yourself and Zod will be ecstatic. Nigel would not tolerate a "Blair" style government, which is what we have at the moment.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/fara...
Reckless seems to be rather well named. Reckless by name and nature. Time will tell but he looks a loose cannon to me.
The UKIP challenge may well cause major consequences in the 2015 election. I would hope that the number of disaffected voters dissatisfied with the current ping pong, boys club approach to Politics in the UK rises dramatically. I also hope that a sufficiently large numbers of UkIP MPs are returned to cause a real rift in UK politics.and forcee some of the essential changes such as some form of immigration control and a great deal more open government and discussion about and action on protecting the long suffering taxpayers in the UK and dealing with the nonsense that the overblown EU has become thereto.
We need a fundamental change in UK politics. We do not need another round of the likes of Nick Clegg abd Cameron fudging all the critical decisions and being ineffective lightweights. Change is essential. I am hopeful UKIP can facilitate change.
don4l said:
Carswell will definitely win for UKIP. Over a thousand people turned (some in wheelchairs) up top hear him speak at a rally just a few days ago. I wouldn't worry about Reckless. I'm sure that he will also win the seat for UKIP.
If UKIP have 5 seats going into the election, then they will be the recipients of all the protest votes. The LibDems will be reduced to less than 10 seats, and UKIP will get more than 40.
If we have a Conservative/UKIP coalition, then I am sure that traditional Tories like yourself and Zod will be ecstatic. Nigel would not tolerate a "Blair" style government, which is what we have at the moment.
40?If UKIP have 5 seats going into the election, then they will be the recipients of all the protest votes. The LibDems will be reduced to less than 10 seats, and UKIP will get more than 40.
If we have a Conservative/UKIP coalition, then I am sure that traditional Tories like yourself and Zod will be ecstatic. Nigel would not tolerate a "Blair" style government, which is what we have at the moment.
They are only targetting a dozen or so seats - i doubt they even have the foot soldiers to seriously target any more. I think 5 or 6 seats would be an amazing achievement but most likely they'll get 3 or 4.
Steffan said:
Wombat3 said:
don4l said:
Wombat3 said:
don4l said:
So... how many seats do we think that UKIP are going into the general election with?
So far we have two, but I reckon that Nigel has a few more up his sleeve.
Will the next defector be from Labour?
They have to keep the two they have first. Carswell will keep his, Reckless I am not so sure about. We will see in a few weeks So far we have two, but I reckon that Nigel has a few more up his sleeve.
Will the next defector be from Labour?
If UKIP have 5 seats going into the election, then they will be the recipients of all the protest votes. The LibDems will be reduced to less than 10 seats, and UKIP will get more than 40.
If we have a Conservative/UKIP coalition, then I am sure that traditional Tories like yourself and Zod will be ecstatic. Nigel would not tolerate a "Blair" style government, which is what we have at the moment.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/fara...
Reckless seems to be rather well named. Reckless by name and nature. Time will tell but he looks a loose cannon to me.
The UKIP challenge may well cause major consequences in the 2015 election. I would hope that the number of disaffected voters dissatisfied with the current ping pong, boys club approach to Politics in the UK rises dramatically. I also hope that a sufficiently large numbers of UkIP MPs are returned to cause a real rift in UK politics.and forcee some of the essential changes such as some form of immigration control and a great deal more open government and discussion about and action on protecting the long suffering taxpayers in the UK and dealing with the nonsense that the overblown EU has become thereto.
We need a fundamental change in UK politics. We do not need another round of the likes of Nick Clegg abd Cameron fudging all the critical decisions and being ineffective lightweights. Change is essential. I am hopeful UKIP can facilitate change.
I also think that the LDs will not do quite as badly as everyone makes out (sadly). They too will have an effect on the outcome in a good number of seats (even if they don't win them). They will also be more than happy to do a deal with Labour to push them over the line if it means they can remain in office in some form - even if there are only 10 of them.
Unless it wins a significant number of seats UKIP cannot hold the balance of power in parliament. The danger comes if they get close to winning seats, but don't actually manage to do so. Then, statistically, the odds are stacked in Miliband's favour & not only will we not get any closer to achieving a UKIP-esque/right wing agenda, but Labour will spend 5 years legislating to ensure that it is a virtual impossibility in the future.
I predict they will do this by devolving power to City authorities (which is where their strength lies in places like Manchester etc). In so doing they will then also claim to have resolved the "English Devolution" question. I also don't doubt that they would probably take us further into Europe in some way, shape or form.
If the Tories win they will sort out the boundary issues AND do something along the lines of English MP's only voting on English matters. If that includes (for example) Taxation then any future (small majority) Labour administration could find it very difficult to get a budget passed. They would be neutered for some considerable time to come.
I would say that this particular election coming up is probably one of the most important ever because whoever wins it is going to take these kind of steps and we are going to see electoral or constitutional change afterwards.
It has been said that 5 years of Miliband/Balls might be a price worth paying. The issue that is emerging with that is, as above, that its becoming clear that both the main parties now intend to stack the deck in their own favour post election. They will do it in a way that makes it almost impossible to unwind. whichever way it goes.
Finally, on the immigration thing, we are bound by EU law and treaties with 26 other countries. We will continue to be bound those things unless we negotiate revised terms/laws or leave the EU. o do the latter we need a referendum.
Meanwhile, as a basic principle, the notion that we should just decide to ignore the laws and treaties we (Brown) signed up to is, IMO a dangerous one, regardless of how unpalatable said laws/treaties may be. The notion that governments can decide to ignore laws they don't like (wherever they originate from) is the top of a very slippery slope IMO. If we are going to fix that issue we have to do it properly and it will not be a short process. It comes under the heading of "Wouldn't start from here".
Wombat3 said:
They will not if Blair's legacy of gerrymandering allows Miliband to walk through the middle as seems possible.
I also think that the LDs will not do quite as badly as everyone makes out (sadly). They too will have an effect on the outcome in a good number of seats (even if they don't win them). They will also be more than happy to do a deal with Labour to push them over the line if it means they can remain in office in some form - even if there are only 10 of them.
Unless it wins a significant number of seats UKIP cannot hold the balance of power in parliament. The danger comes if they get close to winning seats, but don't actually manage to do so. Then, statistically, the odds are stacked in Miliband's favour & not only will we not get any closer to achieving a UKIP-esque/right wing agenda, but Labour will spend 5 years legislating to ensure that it is a virtual impossibility in the future.
I predict they will do this by devolving power to City authorities (which is where their strength lies in places like Manchester etc). In so doing they will then also claim to have resolved the "English Devolution" question. I also don't doubt that they would probably take us further into Europe in some way, shape or form.
If the Tories win they will sort out the boundary issues AND do something along the lines of English MP's only voting on English matters. If that includes (for example) Taxation then any future (small majority) Labour administration could find it very difficult to get a budget passed. They would be neutered for some considerable time to come.
I would say that this particular election coming up is probably one of the most important ever because whoever wins it is going to take these kind of steps and we are going to see electoral or constitutional change afterwards.
It has been said that 5 years of Miliband/Balls might be a price worth paying. The issue that is emerging with that is, as above, that its becoming clear that both the main parties now intend to stack the deck in their own favour post election. They will do it in a way that makes it almost impossible to unwind. whichever way it goes.
Finally, on the immigration thing, we are bound by EU law and treaties with 26 other countries. We will continue to be bound those things unless we negotiate revised terms/laws or leave the EU. o do the latter we need a referendum.
Meanwhile, as a basic principle, the notion that we should just decide to ignore the laws and treaties we (Brown) signed up to is, IMO a dangerous one, regardless of how unpalatable said laws/treaties may be. The notion that governments can decide to ignore laws they don't like (wherever they originate from) is the top of a very slippery slope IMO. If we are going to fix that issue we have to do it properly and it will not be a short process. It comes under the heading of "Wouldn't start from here".
Wow. So if Cameron wins this time he'll do quite a few of the things he promised to do last time - how encouraging!I also think that the LDs will not do quite as badly as everyone makes out (sadly). They too will have an effect on the outcome in a good number of seats (even if they don't win them). They will also be more than happy to do a deal with Labour to push them over the line if it means they can remain in office in some form - even if there are only 10 of them.
Unless it wins a significant number of seats UKIP cannot hold the balance of power in parliament. The danger comes if they get close to winning seats, but don't actually manage to do so. Then, statistically, the odds are stacked in Miliband's favour & not only will we not get any closer to achieving a UKIP-esque/right wing agenda, but Labour will spend 5 years legislating to ensure that it is a virtual impossibility in the future.
I predict they will do this by devolving power to City authorities (which is where their strength lies in places like Manchester etc). In so doing they will then also claim to have resolved the "English Devolution" question. I also don't doubt that they would probably take us further into Europe in some way, shape or form.
If the Tories win they will sort out the boundary issues AND do something along the lines of English MP's only voting on English matters. If that includes (for example) Taxation then any future (small majority) Labour administration could find it very difficult to get a budget passed. They would be neutered for some considerable time to come.
I would say that this particular election coming up is probably one of the most important ever because whoever wins it is going to take these kind of steps and we are going to see electoral or constitutional change afterwards.
It has been said that 5 years of Miliband/Balls might be a price worth paying. The issue that is emerging with that is, as above, that its becoming clear that both the main parties now intend to stack the deck in their own favour post election. They will do it in a way that makes it almost impossible to unwind. whichever way it goes.
Finally, on the immigration thing, we are bound by EU law and treaties with 26 other countries. We will continue to be bound those things unless we negotiate revised terms/laws or leave the EU. o do the latter we need a referendum.
Meanwhile, as a basic principle, the notion that we should just decide to ignore the laws and treaties we (Brown) signed up to is, IMO a dangerous one, regardless of how unpalatable said laws/treaties may be. The notion that governments can decide to ignore laws they don't like (wherever they originate from) is the top of a very slippery slope IMO. If we are going to fix that issue we have to do it properly and it will not be a short process. It comes under the heading of "Wouldn't start from here".
You may feel a moral obligation to protect treaties that are not in the public interest and were not within the politicians mandate. I certainly don't.
Reading Mark Reckless' account he makes two points Cameron could blunt immediately if Mark is wrong. What will Cameron's renegotiation points be? What are his lines in the sand? Otherwise it's more empty promises from Cameron which make his referendum less beleivable.
last 20 seconds of this clip...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQtW6IhNMT0&fe...
now, that would be funny...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQtW6IhNMT0&fe...
now, that would be funny...
That's the point I've been trying to get across for ages.
If a major issue in this forthcoming GE is the ability to provide a referendum then it follows to ask the question as to what will be that referendum question.
Yes we know it will be a global in/out question possibly but nobody knows Cameron's position.
He could kill this immediately with saying what reforms he will be wanting from the EU. What are the lines in the sand that should he not be successful then he would recommend out. But there is nothing from him or any of the rest and I include quite a few of you on here in that. The question has been asked many times to only get silence by way of reply.
My conclusion to that is that he and you have no answer. Empty vessels make a lot of noise.
I may be proved wrong and if so willing to change my opinion. But so far the arguments are not at all convincing.
So if the referendum point is so important for a Conservative vote then put some meat on the argument. Have some fking spine. Stand up and say THIS is what I/we want and stand for. Because at this moment the empty meaningless waffle will just be assumed to be exactly that as setting out the ground for the usual political muddle of ghost along and then spin to make the best appearance in face of the facts.
The big problem for UKIP voters is that they can have a huge influence on the outcome of an election without actually having a huge influence at the end of the day. 3 to 6 seats which is my prediction is not enough really. Yes it's sending a message but I for one don't trust the current cosy sets to listen to any message. They will indeed try and engineer things to their advantage for the future. Labour definitely so. Tories less convinced as under Cameron they are broken. They have to get rid but too late now.
If a major issue in this forthcoming GE is the ability to provide a referendum then it follows to ask the question as to what will be that referendum question.
Yes we know it will be a global in/out question possibly but nobody knows Cameron's position.
He could kill this immediately with saying what reforms he will be wanting from the EU. What are the lines in the sand that should he not be successful then he would recommend out. But there is nothing from him or any of the rest and I include quite a few of you on here in that. The question has been asked many times to only get silence by way of reply.
My conclusion to that is that he and you have no answer. Empty vessels make a lot of noise.
I may be proved wrong and if so willing to change my opinion. But so far the arguments are not at all convincing.
So if the referendum point is so important for a Conservative vote then put some meat on the argument. Have some fking spine. Stand up and say THIS is what I/we want and stand for. Because at this moment the empty meaningless waffle will just be assumed to be exactly that as setting out the ground for the usual political muddle of ghost along and then spin to make the best appearance in face of the facts.
The big problem for UKIP voters is that they can have a huge influence on the outcome of an election without actually having a huge influence at the end of the day. 3 to 6 seats which is my prediction is not enough really. Yes it's sending a message but I for one don't trust the current cosy sets to listen to any message. They will indeed try and engineer things to their advantage for the future. Labour definitely so. Tories less convinced as under Cameron they are broken. They have to get rid but too late now.
BlackLabel said:
40?
They are only targetting a dozen or so seats - i doubt they even have the foot soldiers to seriously target any more. I think 5 or 6 seats would be an amazing achievement but most likely they'll get 3 or 4.
to be fair, although I think the 40 is unachievable, they say they are fielding candidates in every constituency... (hello Scotland!)They are only targetting a dozen or so seats - i doubt they even have the foot soldiers to seriously target any more. I think 5 or 6 seats would be an amazing achievement but most likely they'll get 3 or 4.
it's hard to predict how many with FPTP, a lot will depend on the by-elections is my guess...
if Reckless wins his seat back, then just maybe 40 is possible?
a lot depends on the libs vote totally collapsing.
Heywood could be a game changer taking things both ways possibly.
I don't think UKIP will do it there, something that Farage and I agree upon,and the polls certainly support that.
Problem is that Labour are in trouble organisationally there and are having troubles getting the postal vote out. So I wonder just how close UKIP will get on the day. If they win or get within a short neck then watch out. If Labour romps home by a length and a half then that keeps UKIP firmly in my predicted 3-6 seat territory. Imho.
I don't think UKIP will do it there, something that Farage and I agree upon,and the polls certainly support that.
Problem is that Labour are in trouble organisationally there and are having troubles getting the postal vote out. So I wonder just how close UKIP will get on the day. If they win or get within a short neck then watch out. If Labour romps home by a length and a half then that keeps UKIP firmly in my predicted 3-6 seat territory. Imho.
Just to follow on a little from scuffers comment about what if lib dem vote collapses.
Top 20 Ukip friendly seats currently held by LD. Fyi.
Obviously collapse of LD vote elsewhere is probably more significant in the overall scheme of things but had forgotten to post this when doing the same for cons and labour held seats.
Top 20 Ukip friendly seats currently held by LD. Fyi.
Obviously collapse of LD vote elsewhere is probably more significant in the overall scheme of things but had forgotten to post this when doing the same for cons and labour held seats.
I think FIF - you're right about Middleton & Heywood.
I grew up there, the candidate John Bickley seems like a successful and experienced local man. Straight talking and reasonable. If UKIP don't make progress with him it is a bad sign IMO.
Local to me we have Lucy Allen PPC Con - she is a legal bod imported from London. She seems like a really good match for Cameron's brand of conservative. She looks and talks well. However, recently she stated on her Facebook page that having met locals in my area she understood our concerns about crime, traveller sites and school access roads and that she had listened and would continue to fight against them. That all sounds very reassuring but when I asked the obvious question of what this 'fight' would consist of she was silent. I even asked what she had already done to constitute a continuation of the fight but she was silent.
The school access road was met with almost universal complaint, but planners have ignored the complaints and it is a done deal. The traveller sites both legal and illegal are not welcome locally but the legal one is being extended and the illegal ones take two weeks to clear and they return within weeks. So we have a parachuted in candidate who says the right things but can't explain what they would actually do! Very Cameron, very new conservative. UKIP might help end this cycle of contempt.
I grew up there, the candidate John Bickley seems like a successful and experienced local man. Straight talking and reasonable. If UKIP don't make progress with him it is a bad sign IMO.
Local to me we have Lucy Allen PPC Con - she is a legal bod imported from London. She seems like a really good match for Cameron's brand of conservative. She looks and talks well. However, recently she stated on her Facebook page that having met locals in my area she understood our concerns about crime, traveller sites and school access roads and that she had listened and would continue to fight against them. That all sounds very reassuring but when I asked the obvious question of what this 'fight' would consist of she was silent. I even asked what she had already done to constitute a continuation of the fight but she was silent.
The school access road was met with almost universal complaint, but planners have ignored the complaints and it is a done deal. The traveller sites both legal and illegal are not welcome locally but the legal one is being extended and the illegal ones take two weeks to clear and they return within weeks. So we have a parachuted in candidate who says the right things but can't explain what they would actually do! Very Cameron, very new conservative. UKIP might help end this cycle of contempt.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff