It is said that a week in politics is a long time and by Sunday morning April 27th 2010, Nickolas Clegg was raising the stakes suggesting that the Labour and Tory Parties would change their leaders if their parties performed badly on May 6th General Election and his minimum consideration for holding talks to sustain one of the other parties in political power was the four main points of his programme on the changes to income tax, on the size of classes, on including the Trident nuclear missile system within the Defence review and on changing the political structure, making the point that given what has happened no party could continue to support the first past the post system. Alec Salmond for the Scottish Nationalists put in his pennyworth with a strong case, along with the Welsh Nationalists, for being involved in someway in the final TV debate. The later Sky Debate on Sunday involving the Scottish first Minister confirmed my hunch that a four way debate would move people further away from Labour and the Conservatives into the Liberal Democrat camp.
Along the way, on the Andrew Marr Show, the former Fleet Street executives and their paymasters had their already grubby paws squashed firmly in the dung they are famed for dishing out, as at last, the one sided and heavily biased political power of the press was smashed, and hopefully this will alter their position in the future. I confidently predict that unless Cameron or even more unlikely Brown, can turn the tide back from the Liberal Democrats to them, they are yesterday’s political men, although as I shall argue there is still the good possibility that Dave Cameron will be the next British Prime Minister, given that Dave is really a Liberal Democrat at heart and he is flexible in his approach to policies as well as to gaining power. Those who wanted another 40’s something, clean cut, middle of the road man to lead Labour, viz the South Shields Member of Parliament, David Miliband, were proved right in the event, although he was right not throw his hat into the ring earlier and Gordon has been doing an excellent job in the TV debates despite the low poll rating so far.
The problem for Brown, although to a less extent Cameron, is that a significant proportion of the British Electorate are saying they want change. The second televised debate in which the Leaders of the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democratic Parties attempted to persuade the uncommitted voters to make them the next Prime Minister, confirmed that a substantial proportion do not trust David Cameron or Prime Minister Gordon Brown to provide the change they want, and are prepared for a new Parliament in which no political party has overall control.
On the basis that the present voting intentions are reflected in the final outcome on May 6th and 7th, there could be a situation where either the Labour or Conservative parties have about 275 seats with the other 250 and Liberal Democrats 90 to 100 with other parties having 40- 50. We could see the first Green Party Member a UKIP candidate successful, perhaps even a National Front although the focus of the media on the three main parties, and on the Lib Dems as a focus for the protest vote could neutralise any swing to the political extremes.
The unknown question is the impact of all this on Scotland and Wales, and the how the situation in Northern Ireland will work out. In Northern Ireland I can foresee the unionist swinging to their right against the decentralization of the police and justice system and which traditionally favours the Conservatives. It should be evident that not only the nationalist voting public in Scotland and Wales will be angry at the media attention to-date being on the three English parties and the first debate between these parties and the Scottish nationalists on Sunday morning should be a good guide, although nothing is certain or can be taken for granted.
The media and political commentators have become over excited with John Snow becoming unacceptably aggressive towards Liberal Democrat Home Affair’s man Huhne on the morning of the potentially slanderous assaults by the Telegraph and Mail against Mr Clegg in their overnight editions and an almost hysterical sounding and gleeful Kay Burley announcing that Cameron had won the debate in a dodgy after debate poll conducted for Sky in which less than half the viewers tuned in as they had to the ITV. Burley could not hide her delight or perhaps it was just excitement at the development which in fairness to Sky they put into perspective as three or was it four other polls gave the debate to Mr Clegg and put Cameron on the same level as the Prime Minister in two.
This was a more accurate reflection of the actual debate on the night. Mr Clegg performed as well as he had on the first occasion and delivered some telling political punches, but Mr Cameron and the Prime Minister more than held their ground without managing to deliver political wounding hits as the opinion polls have already revealed. Given the extent to which some voters are undecided and the nature of the first past the post system with no transferring votes which I prefer to voting lists and percentage vote allocations, the share of the final vote is likely to be around 30-35% for one Party with two others closely behind, and a seat allocation along the lines I suggested earlier. Under proportional representation the Liberal Democrat would triple the number of presently held seats based on their current polling share.
The unknown is whether the Conservatives will end the day having the largest number of seats. The Labour and Tory Parties spent the previous week, supported by the Tory press, denouncing the idea of a result where no Party had a overall majority for the life of the next Parliament. Kenneth Clark in particular launched an irresponsible scare saying that if this happened there would be a panic in the markets which would lead to the external Monetary Fund coming in and dictating the situation as they now have for Greece. He was quickly shown to be talking nonsense as the leaders in financial markets explained.
The result of the Mail, Telegraph and Express hysteria and the political briefings and statements is that the public have stuck up one or two digits according to preference and I suspect come voting day, especially in the marginal seats quiet a few former hard core Labour and Tory supporters will vote for someone else not necessarily Lib Dem, to send a message that they are not having it.
Of course there is also an attempt to focus on the manifesto’s and political ideologies on which the three main parties are based. I have been reading the Conservative Manifesto over the past few days and will reveal my prejudices shortly. The present reality is that for a large chunk of the population they vote not on policies and promises but on their gut feelings. One previously voting Tory woman said she liked the look of Clegg but not the Cameron lip. There are those who are racists and anti Europe who hate the fact that none of the parties want to withdraw from the EEC or stop the right of the citizens to travel and work freely, although there is more talk of imposing transitional arrangements should Turkey be admitted or if there are to other new admissions. The Lib Dems, cleverly, would hold an in or out referendum in such a situation, knowing it would force Labour and Conservatives parties to support the stay in vote despite having strong numbers within the parties who would want full withdrawal.
There are also those who want to see a national government or at least an end to political debate and disagreement. These people cannot cope with democracy or with politicians doing what they do not like. They are not just those who want capital punishment and birching of criminals, taking away state benefits from convicted criminals and fraudsters, the non involvement of the British armed forces in combat and non involvement of the UK in International politics and Aid, or the major reduction in taxation and public service provision, but also those who have no interest in politics and just want to lead their lives without politicians and officialdom interfering. They will not vote and probably never have. I find it irritating that when the media undertakes interviews it does not clarify the background or starting position of each speaker. There is social value in allowing extremists their voice because by doing so there is less likelihood they will resort to violent action. Nor am I in favour of peaceful direct action which interferes or harms the welfare of anyone directly not involved and even then the circumstances for its use have to be exceptional with all other methods having failed and those participating understand and accept the likely consequences of their actions.
It should not be assumed that the forecast split voting between three parties means that should the Conservatives become the party with the largest number of seats in the House of Commons they would find themselves struggling to get any decision through Parliament because the Labour and Liberals would vote against them. A Conservative and Liberal Democrat pact is just as possible as one between Labour and Liberal Democrats.
In the Late Politics show on Thursday Night, Michael Portillo reminded that in Victorian England the Conservatives did a deal with the Liberal Party against the Whigs over electoral reform and which kept them in office or enabled them to gain office. He suggested that if the offer of introducing proportional representation in time for the next general election was made and accepted by the Lib Dems the Conservatives would accept the longer term implication of a three way split between the main parties with Lib Dems gaining substantial seats at the next General Election at the expense of the both Conservative and Labour Candidates. It also has to be said that traditionally the Conservatives have been in favour of reducing personal taxation, so some reform with a compromise over the amounts could also be on the table. The stumbling block ought to be the Tory insistence of a like for like replacement of the Trident Submarine Missile system, but here again I suspect Cameron might be prepared to include the nuclear deterrent as part of a comprehensive review of our need for ships, planes and the military in over next 10 to 25 years and to increasing the basic pay and provision of support services for those who engage in combat and their families when they are home and when they leave the service to their country. The stumbling block is more likely the proposed immediate savage cuts on public sector pay, conditions of service and jobs. Although Clegg did not emphasis this aspect when he talked to Andrew Marr on Monday.
Whatever promises made about protection of services and benefits and suggesting the money can be found from waste, those making the claims know that once in office the way to do the opposite is to say having looked at the books and in view of the international position x and Y have become essential to go ahead or to be stopped. However even with the Liberal Dem surge and the improving performance of Mr Brown and Labour the likelihood remains that Mr Cameron will get his wish and become Britain’s next Prime Minister
So given the prospect of a Tory minority government I ask the same questions I asked of Nick Clegg who is David Cameron and of the Conservative Manifesto. I also ask how different is he from Nick Clegg or Nick Clegg from Dave Cameron, as Mr Cameron likes to be called in private? The answer is not only they are the same, but had circumstances be a little different Mr Cameron could be leading the Liberal Democratic Party, in fact some true blue Tories say he already is, and Mr Clegg could be leading the Tories, and both saying what they are saying about each other from the opposite position.
Mr Cameron has a true blue background of wealth and aristocracy, a direct descendent of King William IV and his mistress the Irish actress and courtesan Dorothea Jordan. His father’s background is Scottish, born at a school built by his great great grandfather, and in International Banking and stock broking. His mother is the daughter of a Baronet.
David similarly to Nick Clegg and like me went to a Preparatory School, although his was attended by Prince Andrew and Prince Edward, after which he went to Eton and Oxford. Eton is the most famous independent school in the world. Eighteen British Prime Minister’s went to Eton, Prince William and Prince Harry, the Jazz trumpeter Humphrey Lyttleton, Henry Moore, George Orwell and Guy Burgess, and thus outdoes Westminster School.
Similar to Nick Clegg, Dave narrowly missed being expelled, in his instance for a drugs misuse offence. Mr Clegg burnt the Cactus Collection of a Professor.
Unlike Clegg, Cameron went immediately into politics working for his God father, Tim Rathbone, as a researcher, and who was the Conservative MP of Lewes in Sussex. He then had experience for a further three months in an minor administrative position in a Hong Kong based shipping office. An attempt was made to recruit him as an information provider by the KGB while on a visit to Russia.
He was described as being one of the ablest of students by the Liberal Democrat Professor Bogdanor in the study of the PPE, Politics, Philosophy and Economics, the same degree I would have originally gone for during my first year at Ruskin College had my interests not changed to Psychology and then to Social Work. Like Clegg his sporting interest was Tennis but he is best known for his membership of the infamous dining society the Bullingdon Club, along with Boris Johnson, the present Mayor of London.
After Oxford when he obtained a First Class degree he immediately went into the Conservative Party Office (1988), despite a phone call from Buckingham Palace saying that although every effort had been made to dissuade him from politics, he was a remarkable young man. Nick Clegg, it will be recalled, impressed his Conservative European Commissioner boss Leon Britain who tried to recruit him to the Tory Party. In 1991 he worked at Number 10 preparing briefs for John Major at Prime Minister’s Question Time and was then appointed head of the Party’s political section of the Research Department and part of the young strategy team for the 1992 General Election, and experience which nearly led to Cameron moving from politics to journalism.
His style of campaigning was criticised by the sections of the Tory establishment but on the Party winning the election when Kinnock had been expected to do so from Labour he was appointed as a special adviser to the Chancellor of Exchequer Norman Lamont and was with him at the time of Black Wednesday. After the disaster of Black Wednesday and the sacking of the Minister, David was recruited by future Party Leader Michael Howard, then Home Secretary. In 1994 Cameron left political employment for the post of Director of Corporate Affairs at Carlton Communication after it had won the franchise for ITV London weekends. He left in 2001 while remaining a consultant to stand for a seat in the House of Commons. He had been selected for Stafford in 1994 losing to Labour and was not selected for Kensington and Chelsea after the death of Alan Clark. He was appointed to Witney after Shaun Woodard moved to Labour, He won the seat for the Conservatives with a small swing of 1.9%.
After the election he served on the Home Affairs Committee where he is reported to have adopted a radical approach on the issue of how to prevent illegal drug use, He and George Osborn were invited to help the new Leader Ian Duncan Smith prepare for PMQ’s. In 2003 he was appointed Shadow Minister in the Privy Council Office to the Shadow Leader of the House of Commons. He became a Vice Chairman of the Conservative Party under Michael Howard and Local Government spokesman in 2004 and then head of Policy Coordination for the Shadow Cabinet and then Shadow Education secretary. He was a non executive Director of PLC who ran the Tiger Tiger Bar Chain during a three year period to 2005.
Following the election defeat and resignation of Michael Howard as Leader he became a leadership candidate supported by Boris Johnson, George Osborne, Michael Ancram and Oliver Letwin. He only came second in the first ballot between four candidates despite his great success at the Tory Party Conference, speaking without notes, compared to a lack of success of David Davies who had been the front runner.
As with Nicholas Clegg, Mr Cameron has therefore never held a ministerial office, although unlike Mr Clegg he has worked for one Prime Minister and one Chancellor of the Exchequer when in Government. Both men have broadly similar backgrounds and both were one time possible recruits for each other’s Political Party. Since becoming leader Mr Cameron has in fact been branded as a Liberal by right winger Peter Hitchins, as a Tony Blair clone and as a hollow Easter egg without a bag of sweets inside. Norman Tebbit has accused him of being like Pol Pot in purging the Party of Thatcherism.
Mr Cameron was born in 1966 and is therefore only a year older that Nick Clegg. Dave is married to the daughter of a Baronet and a Viscountess and they had three children, the eldest was born disabled with cerebral palsy and died in 2009 before his 7th birthday. His wife is presently pregnant. It is the life and death of his first born son that changed public perception of Mr Cameron as a man who despite the most advantages of backgrounds nevertheless had been through an experience which changes how you view life, relationships and social issues. While his background his one of political opportunism, media projection and style, there always appears to have been a very serious politician with clear views and values. You do not get a First at Oxford without hard work and ability, however you spend your social life outside of study.
My main point is that there is in fact a great similarity between Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg and each could in fact have become leader of the Party which now poses the biggest threat to either becoming Prime Minister. In my view the issues is therefore not the personalities and experience or leadership style of the two men, but their policies and in this respect Mr Cameron has the weaker position because he is weighed down by Thatcherism and the Tory ideology on the merits of international deregulated capitalism against the alleged bureaucracy public services. However how far his present utterances are matters of personal belief or political expediency in a General Election and special economic situation remains to be seen. Two years ago he was trumpeting that he would keep the existing level of overall government expenditure on the public services while cutting back on waste, over regulation and form filling and such like. Now he appears not just to have changed his tune with a vengeance but appears to want to follow the reported Canadian experience which successfully cut the public sector by one third to re-engage the economy to fit the development of international capitalism. This may be the appropriate way to re-establish the Britain as a strong economy within the latest developments of International capitalism, but is it the way the majority of the British people now want to go, or do we want to settle for not creating vast wealth for a minority, and creating a fairer and less aggressive player on the world stage?
However to be fair the most significant thing to emerge from the second Leader’s debate was Mr Cameron’s commitment to keep all the fringe benefits available to the elderly, including free eye tests, passport and such like, although he did not add for any elderly person regardless of means.
The Manifesto is sub titled Join the Government of Britain and in its collective strength of the Big Society. This can appear as an open challenge to Thaterism where Lady Thatcher did not believe in any form of state collective action, in the political concept of society or in state intervention through public funded social work and social casework. As a member of the Association of Directors of Social Services I was privy to the results of an attempt to enlist the support of Mrs Thatcher as a Tory Minister having been invited to an annual dinner of the Association. She was then clear in her views, as she remained throughout her subsequent premiership. She was in favour of traditional voluntarism, particularly that organised by the churches and established voluntary organisation but not state funded social service provision and benefits except for those with proven special needs. My question to Mr Cameron before reading the manifesto pledges is to ask if his emphasis on everyone joining in is a genuine commitment to equal opportunity involvement and decentralised government, or a way of filling the gaps in welfare state provision caused by dramatic reductions in to the total expenditure on the public services, including as proposed by the Liberals Democrats the severe cutting back on inspection and quality control monitoring.
The Manifesto begins with the economy and eight benchmarks which like being against sin and for virtue is meaningless without specific targets and measures.
My main criticism of the Tory party proposals is what appears as an obsession to bring the borrowing deficit back to where they would like it to be within one Parliament. Why? Is this to change the balance between the public and the private UK in a more ruthless way that they would not be able to get away with in other situations? Under the section on economic stability the Party promises that within 50 days of taking office it would have an emergency budget. Gordon Brown advised Tony Blair not to alter the Tory spending proposals when they took office until they were able to inspect the books at close quarters and get to grips with the nature of the inherited national administration and the state of local government. This was a wise decision which laid the foundation for the subsequent development of services and costed legislative changes
The Conservative proposal is to cut a further £6 billion from public expenditure in the current year on top of existing measures already in hand by the Labour Government. Such an immediate cut will involve ruthless and arbitrary reductions which will result in service chaos and substantial job loss. Anyone who suggest otherwise is a fool or a liar. Those behind such claims are usually men who work as advisers and bureaucrats at the highest level. I met them throughout my senior managerial experience over two decades. They had power and often commanded the highest of salaries. They were always wrong. These are the men who advised on deregulation of the banks and finance industry or that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Men who did not know that children in care were being abused or that hospitals killed patients because of a lack of cleanliness and basic care. I will one day attempt to list the many examples I encountered during my managerial experience, insisting on changes which made things worse or intended to help the majority but which in fact harmed more people than helped.
The question needs to be asked how ruthless will you be if the savings you hope in terms of alleged do not materialize?
The freeze on public sector pay for one year, and on filling vacancies will also lead to industrial action. The public, the innocent will therefore suffer yet again for the failure and mistakes of the rich and the powerful who are carrying on as they always have
I am not against a cap on public sector pensions over £50000 if the same applies to the private sector.
I regard the general anti public sector approach of the document as irresponsible although I recognise that there are various structural issues, aging population, loss of manufacturing to other countries that means we may not be able to sustain the same level of public services. There is a price to be paid for deregulation. These proposal alone not only make me opposed but fearsome should the Party form the next Government. Mr Cameron appeared to give the game away his interview with Mr Paxman on Friday evening when he drew attention to the significant imbalance between the public and private sector in Northern Ireland and the North East, areas where he said he that special attention would be focussed. This was immediately interpreted by Mr Paxman and by other commentators as saying these were the areas where public sector cuts would be harshest. The following morning the Party backtracked saying Mr Cameron did not mean picking on these areas for cut but for special measure to increase business enterprise. It is also significant that he did not mention Wales which has the same highest balance at Northern Ireland, or in Scotland which gets a disproportion amount of public funding to the North East.
There is a commitment to maintain existing Defence expenditure for 2010/2011 until the result of the strategic defence review but excludes the Trident replacement which the Tories are committed as a symbolic gesture of British defiance to the rest of the world and to appease the American who will provide the system.
No one will quarrel with the emphasis on research for business development as long as this is not at the expense of pure scientific investigation which often has led to far reaching discoveries on the emphasis upon further exploitation of the digital revolution and on further encouragement of the study of the sciences in schools and universities
I support the raising of inheritance tax to £1 million given the way house prices have escalated in some parts of the country.
I am concerned at the extent of unemployment among young people and the number of people of working age who are totally dependent on state benefits at any one time. The numbers were too high before the recession and masked by the increase of those in full time higher education and other social measures. This is where the important of people from the rest of Europe prepared to work longer, as self employed or casual workers for minimum wages has had its impact. The are cultural problems which have led to the creation of young underclass which cuts across racial and religious backgrounds.
I like the three Conservative proposals to get people back into work when they become unemployed. The first is the provision of casework for those with serious barriers to get another job and at six months for those under 25 years of age. The intention is that the programme should be delivered by the private and non statutory sector, which is in effect a switch from one form of public paid work to another, but using commercial agencies which in practice costs more. However such bodies are likely to be more effective insecurity positions within the private sector, and this follows nicely on the proposal to extend the concept of internships with a Leisure and hospitality academy offering 50000 places. At present the children of wealthy and connected parents are able to gain places in law, accountancy and other similar private bodies, political parties included by not just work for free for a time but paying a premium to the firm or body for the costs of providing on the job train training and supervision. This means that when paid post become available and are advertised, usually asking for practical experiences as well as appropriate experience, the internal becomes a front runner because in addition to meeting the criteria, their worth is already known to the organisation. The Tory idea of extending this to those registered for employment is an excellent which I hope will be taken up whoever from the next government. It is also fair enough to say join in the best programme for you or you will not be entitled to benefits for the following three years. However the emphasis has to be on good assessment ensuring those with mental health problems are not driven into homeless on the streets or petty crime.
I also have not objection against insisting that a quarter of government research and procurement contracts through small business enterprises by cutting the costs of bidding. I also approve the ideas behind the work for yourself programme with putting unemployed in touch with business mentors and substantial loans.
The Conservative Party also has a good approach to widening the availability of university and further education to ensure that it is not restricted to those parents who can support financially or have the confidence to take on loans. However there is no plan to abolish University Tuition fees which even if it has to be an aspiration because of the immediate economic situation, should be agreed. All three of the main political parties accept that because manufacturing can take place in the developing countries, especially China and India at a significant discount on costs to that in Britain and the West, it is a process which cannot be reversed. There is also recognition that the development of jobs involving high levels of skill and training will need strong government support and subsidy if these are to be created on a large scale and have some prospect of competing against other countries in similar situations.
The Conservatives do plan a reduction in corporation tax and the small company rate to 25 and 20 pence in the £1 respectively. While the lower rate for genuine small businesses might be supported that for the large business is not. The Party also appears to be encouraging the further selling of British owned businesses and land and buildings by more foreign investment whereas I would like to see significantly less and a restriction on the ability to buy profitable companies such as Cadbury’s, to make greater profits by then shifting production to other countries.
As with the Lib Dems and as I understand the Labour Party, the Conservative Party wants to now introduce tighter controls on all forms of immigration and in principle I have no objection to any of the proposals if they can be seen to work. It is important not to make a bad situation worse. It is evident that some areas of the UK the indigenous population has been overwhelmed and the level of change ought to have been prevented and earlier action taken. The Labour Party stands condemned for not introducing transitory arrangements for the increasing in nationalities joining the EEC during their period of office and for failing to insist that all those intending to become permanent residents agreed to learn the English language and accepted basics of the British constitutions and British value system. There needs to be tighter controls on those entering the country for marriage, as part of families and as students. Those coming from outside the EEC for holidays or on business need to be monitored by registering places of stay and confirmation they have departed. Employers using seasonal, part time and self employed should be required to demonstrate they have attempted to recruit from the UK before recruiting from abroad. While sympathetic to the Lib Dem proposal to regularise the position of those who are here illegally, once this has been offered then there should be greater emphasis on detection and repatriation unless there is evidence that to do would put the lives and safety of those involved at serious risk.
The Manifesto is upfront in expressing the opposition to several geographic area having greater than a fifty percent dependency on public finance for their economic survival. Notably Northern Ireland at 69%, Wales, Scotland, the North East and the North West. The Tory party propose a two stage development of High Speed rail links to London and Heathrow, first to Birmingham Manchester and Leeds and then to North East, Wales and Scotland. I agree to the overall proposal but not the staging because of the risk that the first part would be created and not the second and which in any event would further disadvantage Scotland, the North East and Wales in the short term. For me it must be all or nothing with the contracts and building timetable table agreed at the same time.
I like the idea of the fair fuel stabilizer and while there is an argument for keeping petrol prices high, there is a stronger case for protecting those living in rural communities by the development of buses and coaching services. The focus has to be on alternatives to bad emissions engines. I would like to see a differential pricing system so that those travelling by plane on business, for education and training or to visit relatives will pay less than those going on holiday although I appreciate there could be a problem for our holiday tourist trade in relation to those travelling here from afar. I want to see a reduction in the cheap flights to Paris, Italy, Spain, and Greece and other European destinations by making it cheaper to travel by Train, Ferry and Euro Tunnel.
I also support anything which helps Britain become the hub for hi tech, digital and creative industries on a UK wide basis and not just London and the South East, bearing in mind that the rest of Europe will have similar aspirations.
I like the idea of making Local Government the heart of economic recovery although this does square with the proposed assault on public sector direct employees. I have less objection if under any new as well as existing contracting out of services there is in built preference given to small local businesses and cooperative ventures involving existing groups of employees.
The Manifesto makes several attacks on the public sector from a range of perspectives and the next alleges that public sector productivity has fallen under Labour. I am not clear how and who measured this, especially if source is independent and compared like for like allowing for change factors and whether this is a snap average covering the whole of the two administrations, say first thirteen year periods. It is in this section that the Manifesto reflects my view that employees should be given greater opportunity to create cooperatives organised by their trade unions to bid for contracts. I also support a payment by results approach for local authority managers although there will need to be a careful look at delegated authorities and benchmarks and also bonus payments to include all the work force involved in service delivery. Similarly I am in favour of applying good financial management across central and local government departments but this also means department heads having access and training in financial controls and information and central financial directors not attempting to hold all the controls and information systems and where the same standards and reward system should also apply.
On banks there is no proposal to divide the banking system between traditional services and speculation and trading and to create more smaller banks. However I accept that the Labour monitoring and control system failed and alternatives should be tried. It is essential that the great bonus culture is radically changed and this does not mean converting cash to shares and other benefits in kind with free private education, private health. service, holidays and expensive gifts of other kinds
On measures to reduce carbon gases from our environment there is a lot of fine words to which few will take exception but Labour and Liberal Dem programmes appear stronger and more wholehearted.
I will report on the major sections on changing society and changing politics and on environmental protection separately.
Along the way, on the Andrew Marr Show, the former Fleet Street executives and their paymasters had their already grubby paws squashed firmly in the dung they are famed for dishing out, as at last, the one sided and heavily biased political power of the press was smashed, and hopefully this will alter their position in the future. I confidently predict that unless Cameron or even more unlikely Brown, can turn the tide back from the Liberal Democrats to them, they are yesterday’s political men, although as I shall argue there is still the good possibility that Dave Cameron will be the next British Prime Minister, given that Dave is really a Liberal Democrat at heart and he is flexible in his approach to policies as well as to gaining power. Those who wanted another 40’s something, clean cut, middle of the road man to lead Labour, viz the South Shields Member of Parliament, David Miliband, were proved right in the event, although he was right not throw his hat into the ring earlier and Gordon has been doing an excellent job in the TV debates despite the low poll rating so far.
The problem for Brown, although to a less extent Cameron, is that a significant proportion of the British Electorate are saying they want change. The second televised debate in which the Leaders of the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democratic Parties attempted to persuade the uncommitted voters to make them the next Prime Minister, confirmed that a substantial proportion do not trust David Cameron or Prime Minister Gordon Brown to provide the change they want, and are prepared for a new Parliament in which no political party has overall control.
On the basis that the present voting intentions are reflected in the final outcome on May 6th and 7th, there could be a situation where either the Labour or Conservative parties have about 275 seats with the other 250 and Liberal Democrats 90 to 100 with other parties having 40- 50. We could see the first Green Party Member a UKIP candidate successful, perhaps even a National Front although the focus of the media on the three main parties, and on the Lib Dems as a focus for the protest vote could neutralise any swing to the political extremes.
The unknown question is the impact of all this on Scotland and Wales, and the how the situation in Northern Ireland will work out. In Northern Ireland I can foresee the unionist swinging to their right against the decentralization of the police and justice system and which traditionally favours the Conservatives. It should be evident that not only the nationalist voting public in Scotland and Wales will be angry at the media attention to-date being on the three English parties and the first debate between these parties and the Scottish nationalists on Sunday morning should be a good guide, although nothing is certain or can be taken for granted.
The media and political commentators have become over excited with John Snow becoming unacceptably aggressive towards Liberal Democrat Home Affair’s man Huhne on the morning of the potentially slanderous assaults by the Telegraph and Mail against Mr Clegg in their overnight editions and an almost hysterical sounding and gleeful Kay Burley announcing that Cameron had won the debate in a dodgy after debate poll conducted for Sky in which less than half the viewers tuned in as they had to the ITV. Burley could not hide her delight or perhaps it was just excitement at the development which in fairness to Sky they put into perspective as three or was it four other polls gave the debate to Mr Clegg and put Cameron on the same level as the Prime Minister in two.
This was a more accurate reflection of the actual debate on the night. Mr Clegg performed as well as he had on the first occasion and delivered some telling political punches, but Mr Cameron and the Prime Minister more than held their ground without managing to deliver political wounding hits as the opinion polls have already revealed. Given the extent to which some voters are undecided and the nature of the first past the post system with no transferring votes which I prefer to voting lists and percentage vote allocations, the share of the final vote is likely to be around 30-35% for one Party with two others closely behind, and a seat allocation along the lines I suggested earlier. Under proportional representation the Liberal Democrat would triple the number of presently held seats based on their current polling share.
The unknown is whether the Conservatives will end the day having the largest number of seats. The Labour and Tory Parties spent the previous week, supported by the Tory press, denouncing the idea of a result where no Party had a overall majority for the life of the next Parliament. Kenneth Clark in particular launched an irresponsible scare saying that if this happened there would be a panic in the markets which would lead to the external Monetary Fund coming in and dictating the situation as they now have for Greece. He was quickly shown to be talking nonsense as the leaders in financial markets explained.
The result of the Mail, Telegraph and Express hysteria and the political briefings and statements is that the public have stuck up one or two digits according to preference and I suspect come voting day, especially in the marginal seats quiet a few former hard core Labour and Tory supporters will vote for someone else not necessarily Lib Dem, to send a message that they are not having it.
Of course there is also an attempt to focus on the manifesto’s and political ideologies on which the three main parties are based. I have been reading the Conservative Manifesto over the past few days and will reveal my prejudices shortly. The present reality is that for a large chunk of the population they vote not on policies and promises but on their gut feelings. One previously voting Tory woman said she liked the look of Clegg but not the Cameron lip. There are those who are racists and anti Europe who hate the fact that none of the parties want to withdraw from the EEC or stop the right of the citizens to travel and work freely, although there is more talk of imposing transitional arrangements should Turkey be admitted or if there are to other new admissions. The Lib Dems, cleverly, would hold an in or out referendum in such a situation, knowing it would force Labour and Conservatives parties to support the stay in vote despite having strong numbers within the parties who would want full withdrawal.
There are also those who want to see a national government or at least an end to political debate and disagreement. These people cannot cope with democracy or with politicians doing what they do not like. They are not just those who want capital punishment and birching of criminals, taking away state benefits from convicted criminals and fraudsters, the non involvement of the British armed forces in combat and non involvement of the UK in International politics and Aid, or the major reduction in taxation and public service provision, but also those who have no interest in politics and just want to lead their lives without politicians and officialdom interfering. They will not vote and probably never have. I find it irritating that when the media undertakes interviews it does not clarify the background or starting position of each speaker. There is social value in allowing extremists their voice because by doing so there is less likelihood they will resort to violent action. Nor am I in favour of peaceful direct action which interferes or harms the welfare of anyone directly not involved and even then the circumstances for its use have to be exceptional with all other methods having failed and those participating understand and accept the likely consequences of their actions.
It should not be assumed that the forecast split voting between three parties means that should the Conservatives become the party with the largest number of seats in the House of Commons they would find themselves struggling to get any decision through Parliament because the Labour and Liberals would vote against them. A Conservative and Liberal Democrat pact is just as possible as one between Labour and Liberal Democrats.
In the Late Politics show on Thursday Night, Michael Portillo reminded that in Victorian England the Conservatives did a deal with the Liberal Party against the Whigs over electoral reform and which kept them in office or enabled them to gain office. He suggested that if the offer of introducing proportional representation in time for the next general election was made and accepted by the Lib Dems the Conservatives would accept the longer term implication of a three way split between the main parties with Lib Dems gaining substantial seats at the next General Election at the expense of the both Conservative and Labour Candidates. It also has to be said that traditionally the Conservatives have been in favour of reducing personal taxation, so some reform with a compromise over the amounts could also be on the table. The stumbling block ought to be the Tory insistence of a like for like replacement of the Trident Submarine Missile system, but here again I suspect Cameron might be prepared to include the nuclear deterrent as part of a comprehensive review of our need for ships, planes and the military in over next 10 to 25 years and to increasing the basic pay and provision of support services for those who engage in combat and their families when they are home and when they leave the service to their country. The stumbling block is more likely the proposed immediate savage cuts on public sector pay, conditions of service and jobs. Although Clegg did not emphasis this aspect when he talked to Andrew Marr on Monday.
Whatever promises made about protection of services and benefits and suggesting the money can be found from waste, those making the claims know that once in office the way to do the opposite is to say having looked at the books and in view of the international position x and Y have become essential to go ahead or to be stopped. However even with the Liberal Dem surge and the improving performance of Mr Brown and Labour the likelihood remains that Mr Cameron will get his wish and become Britain’s next Prime Minister
So given the prospect of a Tory minority government I ask the same questions I asked of Nick Clegg who is David Cameron and of the Conservative Manifesto. I also ask how different is he from Nick Clegg or Nick Clegg from Dave Cameron, as Mr Cameron likes to be called in private? The answer is not only they are the same, but had circumstances be a little different Mr Cameron could be leading the Liberal Democratic Party, in fact some true blue Tories say he already is, and Mr Clegg could be leading the Tories, and both saying what they are saying about each other from the opposite position.
Mr Cameron has a true blue background of wealth and aristocracy, a direct descendent of King William IV and his mistress the Irish actress and courtesan Dorothea Jordan. His father’s background is Scottish, born at a school built by his great great grandfather, and in International Banking and stock broking. His mother is the daughter of a Baronet.
David similarly to Nick Clegg and like me went to a Preparatory School, although his was attended by Prince Andrew and Prince Edward, after which he went to Eton and Oxford. Eton is the most famous independent school in the world. Eighteen British Prime Minister’s went to Eton, Prince William and Prince Harry, the Jazz trumpeter Humphrey Lyttleton, Henry Moore, George Orwell and Guy Burgess, and thus outdoes Westminster School.
Similar to Nick Clegg, Dave narrowly missed being expelled, in his instance for a drugs misuse offence. Mr Clegg burnt the Cactus Collection of a Professor.
Unlike Clegg, Cameron went immediately into politics working for his God father, Tim Rathbone, as a researcher, and who was the Conservative MP of Lewes in Sussex. He then had experience for a further three months in an minor administrative position in a Hong Kong based shipping office. An attempt was made to recruit him as an information provider by the KGB while on a visit to Russia.
He was described as being one of the ablest of students by the Liberal Democrat Professor Bogdanor in the study of the PPE, Politics, Philosophy and Economics, the same degree I would have originally gone for during my first year at Ruskin College had my interests not changed to Psychology and then to Social Work. Like Clegg his sporting interest was Tennis but he is best known for his membership of the infamous dining society the Bullingdon Club, along with Boris Johnson, the present Mayor of London.
After Oxford when he obtained a First Class degree he immediately went into the Conservative Party Office (1988), despite a phone call from Buckingham Palace saying that although every effort had been made to dissuade him from politics, he was a remarkable young man. Nick Clegg, it will be recalled, impressed his Conservative European Commissioner boss Leon Britain who tried to recruit him to the Tory Party. In 1991 he worked at Number 10 preparing briefs for John Major at Prime Minister’s Question Time and was then appointed head of the Party’s political section of the Research Department and part of the young strategy team for the 1992 General Election, and experience which nearly led to Cameron moving from politics to journalism.
His style of campaigning was criticised by the sections of the Tory establishment but on the Party winning the election when Kinnock had been expected to do so from Labour he was appointed as a special adviser to the Chancellor of Exchequer Norman Lamont and was with him at the time of Black Wednesday. After the disaster of Black Wednesday and the sacking of the Minister, David was recruited by future Party Leader Michael Howard, then Home Secretary. In 1994 Cameron left political employment for the post of Director of Corporate Affairs at Carlton Communication after it had won the franchise for ITV London weekends. He left in 2001 while remaining a consultant to stand for a seat in the House of Commons. He had been selected for Stafford in 1994 losing to Labour and was not selected for Kensington and Chelsea after the death of Alan Clark. He was appointed to Witney after Shaun Woodard moved to Labour, He won the seat for the Conservatives with a small swing of 1.9%.
After the election he served on the Home Affairs Committee where he is reported to have adopted a radical approach on the issue of how to prevent illegal drug use, He and George Osborn were invited to help the new Leader Ian Duncan Smith prepare for PMQ’s. In 2003 he was appointed Shadow Minister in the Privy Council Office to the Shadow Leader of the House of Commons. He became a Vice Chairman of the Conservative Party under Michael Howard and Local Government spokesman in 2004 and then head of Policy Coordination for the Shadow Cabinet and then Shadow Education secretary. He was a non executive Director of PLC who ran the Tiger Tiger Bar Chain during a three year period to 2005.
Following the election defeat and resignation of Michael Howard as Leader he became a leadership candidate supported by Boris Johnson, George Osborne, Michael Ancram and Oliver Letwin. He only came second in the first ballot between four candidates despite his great success at the Tory Party Conference, speaking without notes, compared to a lack of success of David Davies who had been the front runner.
As with Nicholas Clegg, Mr Cameron has therefore never held a ministerial office, although unlike Mr Clegg he has worked for one Prime Minister and one Chancellor of the Exchequer when in Government. Both men have broadly similar backgrounds and both were one time possible recruits for each other’s Political Party. Since becoming leader Mr Cameron has in fact been branded as a Liberal by right winger Peter Hitchins, as a Tony Blair clone and as a hollow Easter egg without a bag of sweets inside. Norman Tebbit has accused him of being like Pol Pot in purging the Party of Thatcherism.
Mr Cameron was born in 1966 and is therefore only a year older that Nick Clegg. Dave is married to the daughter of a Baronet and a Viscountess and they had three children, the eldest was born disabled with cerebral palsy and died in 2009 before his 7th birthday. His wife is presently pregnant. It is the life and death of his first born son that changed public perception of Mr Cameron as a man who despite the most advantages of backgrounds nevertheless had been through an experience which changes how you view life, relationships and social issues. While his background his one of political opportunism, media projection and style, there always appears to have been a very serious politician with clear views and values. You do not get a First at Oxford without hard work and ability, however you spend your social life outside of study.
My main point is that there is in fact a great similarity between Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg and each could in fact have become leader of the Party which now poses the biggest threat to either becoming Prime Minister. In my view the issues is therefore not the personalities and experience or leadership style of the two men, but their policies and in this respect Mr Cameron has the weaker position because he is weighed down by Thatcherism and the Tory ideology on the merits of international deregulated capitalism against the alleged bureaucracy public services. However how far his present utterances are matters of personal belief or political expediency in a General Election and special economic situation remains to be seen. Two years ago he was trumpeting that he would keep the existing level of overall government expenditure on the public services while cutting back on waste, over regulation and form filling and such like. Now he appears not just to have changed his tune with a vengeance but appears to want to follow the reported Canadian experience which successfully cut the public sector by one third to re-engage the economy to fit the development of international capitalism. This may be the appropriate way to re-establish the Britain as a strong economy within the latest developments of International capitalism, but is it the way the majority of the British people now want to go, or do we want to settle for not creating vast wealth for a minority, and creating a fairer and less aggressive player on the world stage?
However to be fair the most significant thing to emerge from the second Leader’s debate was Mr Cameron’s commitment to keep all the fringe benefits available to the elderly, including free eye tests, passport and such like, although he did not add for any elderly person regardless of means.
The Manifesto is sub titled Join the Government of Britain and in its collective strength of the Big Society. This can appear as an open challenge to Thaterism where Lady Thatcher did not believe in any form of state collective action, in the political concept of society or in state intervention through public funded social work and social casework. As a member of the Association of Directors of Social Services I was privy to the results of an attempt to enlist the support of Mrs Thatcher as a Tory Minister having been invited to an annual dinner of the Association. She was then clear in her views, as she remained throughout her subsequent premiership. She was in favour of traditional voluntarism, particularly that organised by the churches and established voluntary organisation but not state funded social service provision and benefits except for those with proven special needs. My question to Mr Cameron before reading the manifesto pledges is to ask if his emphasis on everyone joining in is a genuine commitment to equal opportunity involvement and decentralised government, or a way of filling the gaps in welfare state provision caused by dramatic reductions in to the total expenditure on the public services, including as proposed by the Liberals Democrats the severe cutting back on inspection and quality control monitoring.
The Manifesto begins with the economy and eight benchmarks which like being against sin and for virtue is meaningless without specific targets and measures.
My main criticism of the Tory party proposals is what appears as an obsession to bring the borrowing deficit back to where they would like it to be within one Parliament. Why? Is this to change the balance between the public and the private UK in a more ruthless way that they would not be able to get away with in other situations? Under the section on economic stability the Party promises that within 50 days of taking office it would have an emergency budget. Gordon Brown advised Tony Blair not to alter the Tory spending proposals when they took office until they were able to inspect the books at close quarters and get to grips with the nature of the inherited national administration and the state of local government. This was a wise decision which laid the foundation for the subsequent development of services and costed legislative changes
The Conservative proposal is to cut a further £6 billion from public expenditure in the current year on top of existing measures already in hand by the Labour Government. Such an immediate cut will involve ruthless and arbitrary reductions which will result in service chaos and substantial job loss. Anyone who suggest otherwise is a fool or a liar. Those behind such claims are usually men who work as advisers and bureaucrats at the highest level. I met them throughout my senior managerial experience over two decades. They had power and often commanded the highest of salaries. They were always wrong. These are the men who advised on deregulation of the banks and finance industry or that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Men who did not know that children in care were being abused or that hospitals killed patients because of a lack of cleanliness and basic care. I will one day attempt to list the many examples I encountered during my managerial experience, insisting on changes which made things worse or intended to help the majority but which in fact harmed more people than helped.
The question needs to be asked how ruthless will you be if the savings you hope in terms of alleged do not materialize?
The freeze on public sector pay for one year, and on filling vacancies will also lead to industrial action. The public, the innocent will therefore suffer yet again for the failure and mistakes of the rich and the powerful who are carrying on as they always have
I am not against a cap on public sector pensions over £50000 if the same applies to the private sector.
I regard the general anti public sector approach of the document as irresponsible although I recognise that there are various structural issues, aging population, loss of manufacturing to other countries that means we may not be able to sustain the same level of public services. There is a price to be paid for deregulation. These proposal alone not only make me opposed but fearsome should the Party form the next Government. Mr Cameron appeared to give the game away his interview with Mr Paxman on Friday evening when he drew attention to the significant imbalance between the public and private sector in Northern Ireland and the North East, areas where he said he that special attention would be focussed. This was immediately interpreted by Mr Paxman and by other commentators as saying these were the areas where public sector cuts would be harshest. The following morning the Party backtracked saying Mr Cameron did not mean picking on these areas for cut but for special measure to increase business enterprise. It is also significant that he did not mention Wales which has the same highest balance at Northern Ireland, or in Scotland which gets a disproportion amount of public funding to the North East.
There is a commitment to maintain existing Defence expenditure for 2010/2011 until the result of the strategic defence review but excludes the Trident replacement which the Tories are committed as a symbolic gesture of British defiance to the rest of the world and to appease the American who will provide the system.
No one will quarrel with the emphasis on research for business development as long as this is not at the expense of pure scientific investigation which often has led to far reaching discoveries on the emphasis upon further exploitation of the digital revolution and on further encouragement of the study of the sciences in schools and universities
I support the raising of inheritance tax to £1 million given the way house prices have escalated in some parts of the country.
I am concerned at the extent of unemployment among young people and the number of people of working age who are totally dependent on state benefits at any one time. The numbers were too high before the recession and masked by the increase of those in full time higher education and other social measures. This is where the important of people from the rest of Europe prepared to work longer, as self employed or casual workers for minimum wages has had its impact. The are cultural problems which have led to the creation of young underclass which cuts across racial and religious backgrounds.
I like the three Conservative proposals to get people back into work when they become unemployed. The first is the provision of casework for those with serious barriers to get another job and at six months for those under 25 years of age. The intention is that the programme should be delivered by the private and non statutory sector, which is in effect a switch from one form of public paid work to another, but using commercial agencies which in practice costs more. However such bodies are likely to be more effective insecurity positions within the private sector, and this follows nicely on the proposal to extend the concept of internships with a Leisure and hospitality academy offering 50000 places. At present the children of wealthy and connected parents are able to gain places in law, accountancy and other similar private bodies, political parties included by not just work for free for a time but paying a premium to the firm or body for the costs of providing on the job train training and supervision. This means that when paid post become available and are advertised, usually asking for practical experiences as well as appropriate experience, the internal becomes a front runner because in addition to meeting the criteria, their worth is already known to the organisation. The Tory idea of extending this to those registered for employment is an excellent which I hope will be taken up whoever from the next government. It is also fair enough to say join in the best programme for you or you will not be entitled to benefits for the following three years. However the emphasis has to be on good assessment ensuring those with mental health problems are not driven into homeless on the streets or petty crime.
I also have not objection against insisting that a quarter of government research and procurement contracts through small business enterprises by cutting the costs of bidding. I also approve the ideas behind the work for yourself programme with putting unemployed in touch with business mentors and substantial loans.
The Conservative Party also has a good approach to widening the availability of university and further education to ensure that it is not restricted to those parents who can support financially or have the confidence to take on loans. However there is no plan to abolish University Tuition fees which even if it has to be an aspiration because of the immediate economic situation, should be agreed. All three of the main political parties accept that because manufacturing can take place in the developing countries, especially China and India at a significant discount on costs to that in Britain and the West, it is a process which cannot be reversed. There is also recognition that the development of jobs involving high levels of skill and training will need strong government support and subsidy if these are to be created on a large scale and have some prospect of competing against other countries in similar situations.
The Conservatives do plan a reduction in corporation tax and the small company rate to 25 and 20 pence in the £1 respectively. While the lower rate for genuine small businesses might be supported that for the large business is not. The Party also appears to be encouraging the further selling of British owned businesses and land and buildings by more foreign investment whereas I would like to see significantly less and a restriction on the ability to buy profitable companies such as Cadbury’s, to make greater profits by then shifting production to other countries.
As with the Lib Dems and as I understand the Labour Party, the Conservative Party wants to now introduce tighter controls on all forms of immigration and in principle I have no objection to any of the proposals if they can be seen to work. It is important not to make a bad situation worse. It is evident that some areas of the UK the indigenous population has been overwhelmed and the level of change ought to have been prevented and earlier action taken. The Labour Party stands condemned for not introducing transitory arrangements for the increasing in nationalities joining the EEC during their period of office and for failing to insist that all those intending to become permanent residents agreed to learn the English language and accepted basics of the British constitutions and British value system. There needs to be tighter controls on those entering the country for marriage, as part of families and as students. Those coming from outside the EEC for holidays or on business need to be monitored by registering places of stay and confirmation they have departed. Employers using seasonal, part time and self employed should be required to demonstrate they have attempted to recruit from the UK before recruiting from abroad. While sympathetic to the Lib Dem proposal to regularise the position of those who are here illegally, once this has been offered then there should be greater emphasis on detection and repatriation unless there is evidence that to do would put the lives and safety of those involved at serious risk.
The Manifesto is upfront in expressing the opposition to several geographic area having greater than a fifty percent dependency on public finance for their economic survival. Notably Northern Ireland at 69%, Wales, Scotland, the North East and the North West. The Tory party propose a two stage development of High Speed rail links to London and Heathrow, first to Birmingham Manchester and Leeds and then to North East, Wales and Scotland. I agree to the overall proposal but not the staging because of the risk that the first part would be created and not the second and which in any event would further disadvantage Scotland, the North East and Wales in the short term. For me it must be all or nothing with the contracts and building timetable table agreed at the same time.
I like the idea of the fair fuel stabilizer and while there is an argument for keeping petrol prices high, there is a stronger case for protecting those living in rural communities by the development of buses and coaching services. The focus has to be on alternatives to bad emissions engines. I would like to see a differential pricing system so that those travelling by plane on business, for education and training or to visit relatives will pay less than those going on holiday although I appreciate there could be a problem for our holiday tourist trade in relation to those travelling here from afar. I want to see a reduction in the cheap flights to Paris, Italy, Spain, and Greece and other European destinations by making it cheaper to travel by Train, Ferry and Euro Tunnel.
I also support anything which helps Britain become the hub for hi tech, digital and creative industries on a UK wide basis and not just London and the South East, bearing in mind that the rest of Europe will have similar aspirations.
I like the idea of making Local Government the heart of economic recovery although this does square with the proposed assault on public sector direct employees. I have less objection if under any new as well as existing contracting out of services there is in built preference given to small local businesses and cooperative ventures involving existing groups of employees.
The Manifesto makes several attacks on the public sector from a range of perspectives and the next alleges that public sector productivity has fallen under Labour. I am not clear how and who measured this, especially if source is independent and compared like for like allowing for change factors and whether this is a snap average covering the whole of the two administrations, say first thirteen year periods. It is in this section that the Manifesto reflects my view that employees should be given greater opportunity to create cooperatives organised by their trade unions to bid for contracts. I also support a payment by results approach for local authority managers although there will need to be a careful look at delegated authorities and benchmarks and also bonus payments to include all the work force involved in service delivery. Similarly I am in favour of applying good financial management across central and local government departments but this also means department heads having access and training in financial controls and information and central financial directors not attempting to hold all the controls and information systems and where the same standards and reward system should also apply.
On banks there is no proposal to divide the banking system between traditional services and speculation and trading and to create more smaller banks. However I accept that the Labour monitoring and control system failed and alternatives should be tried. It is essential that the great bonus culture is radically changed and this does not mean converting cash to shares and other benefits in kind with free private education, private health. service, holidays and expensive gifts of other kinds
On measures to reduce carbon gases from our environment there is a lot of fine words to which few will take exception but Labour and Liberal Dem programmes appear stronger and more wholehearted.
I will report on the major sections on changing society and changing politics and on environmental protection separately.
No comments:
Post a Comment