Labour and Fine Gael Leaflets a brief review…. February 11, 2011
Posted by irishelectionliterature in Uncategorized.Tags: 2011 election
trackback
They are already arriving in the post. To date I’ve a number of Labour ones and they are identical between constituencies all bar the names and pics of candidates.
We have the same intro piece then all we hear about the candidates is that they
“bring honesty, integrity and courage to politics. We need these values now more than ever”
God be with the days where you’d actually find out something about the candidate. Their previous jobs, family life, their interests, hobbies and indeed voluntary work.
Its a Similar situation for Fine Gael where the leaflets don’t even have blurb about the candidates at all. Its a picture of the candidates on the front with Enda’s 5 point plan on the back.
Maybe the message is that its all about the Party and not about the Individual.
Anyway I don’t approve.
I’ve yet to get my hands on any of the Fianna Fail leaflets that arrive in the post.
The Cedar Lounge Revolution 
not about the Individual.
What do you make of those posters all over DSE with
‘Lucinda – Truth’, ‘Lucinda – Courage’ , ‘Lucinda – Honesty’ and so on? Too much about the individual if you ask me…..
LikeLike
Re the Labour leaflets,is it not the case that the Labour Party no longer operates on a branch base, ie does its own fundraising etc. Do they actually have any functional local organisations or just some helpers (Family& Friends)to help out during elections.It seems all their leaflets are centrally produced.It would be worth comparing other parties.
LikeLike
“Too much about the individual if you ask me…..”
As this election video from Ivana Bacik shows:
Nothing about policy whatsoever.
LikeLike
“What do you make of those posters all over DSE with
‘Lucinda – Truth’”
I saw “Lucinda -/- Soultions” and the oul chemistry came back to me and I though “Lucinda -/- solvent”, and I imagined her as glue sniffer.
LikeLike
I hope anyone considering a vote for Labour saw Leo Varadkar’s smirking Tory Boy performance on Vincent Browne tonight.
A vote for Labour is a vote for Leo in a cabinet post.
LikeLike
“A vote for Labour is a vote for Leo in a cabinet post.”
And what voting strategy without Labour in the mix ensures no Leo in cabinet?
Just asking.
LikeLike
No particular vote can ensure any particular outcome Alastair, as you are no doubt aware.
However, if you plan to vote for Labour you should be aware that they fully intend to form a coalition with Fine Gael, which means putting Varadkar into the cabinet. You are very unlikely to have the deciding vote in whether or not Vlad is in the cabinet, but you do have a choice of whether to vote for it or not.
LikeLike
Can up spell out how that’s going to work? Let’s say no-one votes for Labour… what possible help will that be in keeping Leo out of government?
LikeLike
If nobody votes for Labour AND those people vote for parties opposed to coalition with Fine Gael, that would either keep Fine Gael out of government or force them into government with Fianna Fail. Either option would be a step forward.
In practical terms of course, the next coalition will certainly consist of Labour and Fine Gael regardless of how you personally vote. All you are being asked is if you are going to endorse that government by voting for one of the affianced or if you would prefer to endorse a party or candidate who opposes that government.
LikeLike
Seems like you’re offering continued FF coalition government as a preferable situation to a different option that includes Leo. Not really compelling reasons to not vote Labour.
Why not simply ensure leftist parties – including Labour, get as big a vote as possible, to leverage the new government’s policies into more progressive territory?
LikeLike
Labour aren’t a leftist party. This is true both in a general sense and more specifically in the sense that they are fighting this election on policies including 18,000 public sector job cuts, a three year private sector wage freeze to go alongside the freeze in the public sector, water tax and last, but by no means least, endless debt peonage to the IMF/EU.
Expecting them to “leverage” Fine Gael into accepting left wing policies that Labour aren’t even in support of themselves isn’t so much an example of the triumph of hope over experience as an example of almost unbelievable stupidity.
As if that wasn’t enough, there is a further flaw in your line of argument. You are not going to decide the composition of the next government regardless of how you vote. The next government is predetermined. Nothing you can do will prevent a strongly right wing Fine Gael / Labour government from coming to power. What you are being asked is if you are going to personally endorse the slash and burn policies of that government or if you are going to help strengthen a left wing opposition to those policies. The latter is the only (small) way your vote actually can “leverage” left wing policies onto the political agenda.
LikeLike
So you’re resigning yourself to a pointless ‘protest vote’ without any impact on legislation. Why bother voting at all in that case? Why single out Labour as the proxy route to putting Leo in power – you could say the same for any candidate that intends engaging with legislation.
LikeLike
I’m “singling Labour out” because they are the party which actually intends to put Varadkar and the rest of the Blueshirts into office. If some other part decides it’s in favour of a coalition with the Tory Boys, believe me I’ll also say that a vote for them is a vote for Varadkar.
As for a protest vote, the outcome of the election is already known. I’m not simply protesting against that outcome, I’m advocating building the strongest possible left wing opposition, inside and outside the Dail, to a FG/Lab coalition which will be the most right wing government in the history of the state.
LikeLike
Sounds like you are trying to fight a battle on too many fronts, Mark.
Surely, this election should be about killing off Fianna Fail for good, so we can then focus on FG. A revived FF(even slightly), who feints centre-left and manoeuvres centre-right, is as much of a danger to left wing politics as the sophomoric thatcherism of Varadkar et al.
LikeLike
I think it’s a mistake to differentiate in principle between Fine Gael, Fianna Fail and Labour. They are the three heads of the debt peonage party.
LikeLike
The Greens aren’t big enough to be a head. They are more a weeping boil on its neck.
LikeLike
Just to confirm then – a vote for Mark P’s strategy is a vote for continued FF government?
LikeLike
I don’t advocate voting for anyone who will join a coalition with Fianna Fail.
As I’ve already said, the next government has already been decided. I advocate voting to help strengthen a left wing opposition to it.
LikeLike
I think it’s a mistake to differentiate in principle between Fine Gael, Fianna Fail and Labour. They are the three heads of the debt peonage party.
Yes, but it is still three heads to contend with. If you could do away with one of them, fighting the other two would become a much easier task.
It would also make challenging their consensus simpler since they will have lost a group that will back them from the opposition benches. A strong Labour-FG coalition would undoubtedly push through any old policy they wish, but can you imagine the damage it will do to the opposition when you have a slippery FF supporting the measures ‘in the interest of the country’. It would allow the Coalition to claim consensus and brand all dissenters ‘unrealistic’ or ‘out of touch’.
LikeLike
That smacks of evasion of the known consequences of your strategy. I have to say that in the choice of continued FF governance or a FG/Lab coalition (even with Leo in the mix), I’ll opt for the toryboy/blueshirt willingly.
LikeLike
There are no negative consequences to the approach I’m advocating. It is absolutely inconceivable that Fine Gael and Labour will not have a majority between them. Neither your vote nor my vote will change that in the slightest.
The only issue to be decided is how strong the left opposition (as opposed to the Fianna Fail opposition) is.
As for your preference for an FG/Lab coalition over a coalition in FF, your vote won’t effect that in any practical sense, and even on a theoretical level there will be no significant difference. They will be swapping faces, not policies.
LikeLike
The logical conclusion from Mark P’s argument – that a vote for Labour is a vote for Leo Vardadkar – holds for the socialist Party.
A vote for the Socialist Party is a vote for a Fine Gael Taoiseach, as the Socialists can’t launch any effective opposition to such an outcome.
The only way to stop Leo Varadkar from becoming a minister is to vote for Fianna Fail.
LikeLike
You’ve already conceded that your strategy, if followed to it’s logical conclusion, would see a FG/FF government before a FG/Labour one. Now, I know it’s a subjective consideration, but I’d see that as a negative consequence.
LikeLike
The Labour Party are going to vote for a Fine Gael Taoiseach. They are going to put Fine Gael into government. And they are going to put Leo Varadkar into government.
Therefore, a vote for Labour is a vote for Varadkar in government.
A vote for the left (or a vote for Sinn Fein) is not a vote for any of the above, as the left parties will not vote for any of the above. If any Socialist Party TDs vote for Kenny for Taoiseach or put Fine Gael in government I will be more than willing to accept your point. But you know, and I know that such a thing will not happen. Just as you know and I know that Labour will vote for exactly that.
A vote for Labour is a vote for Ministerial office for Varadkar. It is also a vote for endless debt slavery, a vote for massive public sector job cuts, a vote for a private sector pay freeze and a vote for the water tax.
The only interesting thing about this entirely predictable situation is that some people who apparently consider themselves “left” are still considering a vote for Labour. There really is no end to the human capacity for self-delusion. Before the last election there were even some people here who defended the “left” credentials of the Greens. The only tiny silver lining on the thunderous grey cloud of Fine Gael and Labour forming the most right wing government in the history of the state will be watching a few people who voted for them squirm. Unfortunately that won’t be much comfort to the victims of their privatisations, job cuts, pay freezes and regressive taxes.
LikeLike
The capacity for self-delusion that expounds a FF/FG coalition as preferable to a FG/Labour coalition on ‘leftist’ grounds is quite something all right. 14 years of ineptitude should be continued to benefit a fringe party’s ideology. Sometimes the ideal is the enemy of the better – I’ll stick with the better.
LikeLike
A Fine Gael / Fianna Fail government and a Fine Gael / Labour government will be functionally identical. As governments they would impose much the same policies, subservience to the EU/IMF, bank bailouts, privatisation, job cuts, pay freezes, regressive taxes. There is no difference between them. I do not advocate putting any of those parties into government under any circumstances. Nor is there actually a choice between these two options in the first place – it is predetermined that there will be a FG/Lab government.
The only difference between the FG/Lab government we will certainly get and the FG/FF government of your apparently vivid imagination is in the tactical situation the actual left will be faced with. Both have their advantages and disadvantages on that front – once and for all ending the pretence that FG and FF are alternatives as opposed to twins versus letting Labour discredit itself more quickly. But as I’ve already said, we are not posed with that choice, as the next government has already been decided.
I don’t distinguish between FG, FF and Lab in political terms. As I’ve already told you, they are the three heads of the debt peonage party. There is no “better”. They are the same. It’s not even a choice between a kick in the balls and a punch in the face. It’s a “choice” between a kick in the balls and a kick in the balls.
LikeLike
The socialist party and their fellow travellers, People before Profit, showed their grasp of reality last week on Vincent Browne when they tried to explain how they would pay off the national deficit in one year, by introducing a wealth tax of 5 per cent – something that is, quite frankly, impossible.
did they have any figures to show how they were going to simultaneously inflate the economy AND pay back the entire national debt in one year?
Of course not.
Who needs facts when you have shouting.
There is a profound dishonesty to the socialist party – they are providing people with so-called solutions, but when asked to explain these solutions, they reply in two ways:
If it’s a left-wing site, the answer is : “It’s not our job to save the system, we are revolutionaries after all.”
If it’s the ordinary public: “We will make the rich pay with a wealth tax – for which we have no figures whatsoever.”
A vote for the socialist party is a vote for sticking your thumb up your ass and mouthing “blah blah blah” for five years.
LikeLike
It seems that a Labour Party supporter has had his poor little feelings hurt.
LikeLike
???
That’s your response?
LikeLike
Just so I’m clear on this – knowing the logical outcome of everyone boycotting Labour is either a FF, FG, or FG/FF government – and we know very well the FF capability to govern, the Mark P ‘solution’ to the terrible compromises involved in a FG/Labour coalition, is to concede a coalition of two parties with measurably worse platforms, and (in the case of FF) proven inability to govern responsibly? This is somehow not delusional?
Just to clarify – I don’t subscribe to the ‘they’re all the same’ guff in relation to FF, FG, and Labour – the differences in platforms are evident to anyone who looks, so let’s not pretend otherwise, just as we won’t pretend that the SP are interested in actual legislation/governance. There’s much more mileage in whinging from the sidelines.
The influence of Labour in government might not meet your personal level of satisfaction, but it’s better than the other possibilities.
LikeLike
Is this blog a proxy for the Jeremy Kyle Show?
I have to say, I bow to your powers of deduction, Pat Ennis.
I outline the problem I have with the Socialist Party – that it puts on a reformist face on the TV but a revolutionary one everywhere else – that it pretends in public to believe that a wealth tax and a ban on water charges will save the country.
your response? “You’re clearly someone who has a problem with the United Left Alliance.”
Well, duh!!
But you still haven’t engaged in any way with my point – only to highlight that I have a point, and to treat that as some kind of debating skill.
I do love your analysis as to why you don’t need to furnish a retort, though:
“You’re also full of shit”
Cicero, thy name is Pat Ennis!
My underlining point is that the Socialist Party does not have the intellectual capacity to understand what is actually going on with the Irish economy today, that it uses revolutionary rhetoric to mask its analytical shortcomings, and back-of-the-envelope policies when it is shoved into the limelight, as with Vincent Browne last week.
I can’t see how your comments, Pat Ennis, nor those of Captain Socialist, have done anything to challenge that view – that is, of the Socialist Party as the crumpled old man sitting in the corner of the library, smelling of piss.
I am left, but non-party. My instincts would be to vote ULA, but with each day that passes I see less and less reason to do so.
Why vote for a grouping which just constantly abuses people online?
Why vote for a grouping which is incapable of actually articulating a cogent analysis and response of what befalls us today?
LikeLike
You are confusing the existence of a cogent analysis with an attachment to reformist solutions, CIP.
The Socialist Party has a cogent analysis of the current situation, one which can be found in some detail on our website, in our magazine and elsewhere. This does not mean that we believe that there is a simple solution on the basis of the capitalist system which can be costed and put forward as if we were old fashioned social democrats.
Let me be as clear as I can be: We do not put forward something like a wealth tax in the belief that a wealth tax alone will solve Ireland’s economic difficulties. Similarly with a rise in corporation tax. We put it forward to illustrate the anti-working class assumptions behind the “costed” proposals of the other parties – who all wish to avoid hitting the wealthy and the employers and instead want to deal with the crisis by increasing taxes on workers, laying people off and reducing wages.
A wealth tax is an eminently reasonable demand: Why should the wealthy avoid paying for the crisis they created? But it is also a demand that absolutely will not be implemented under the current dispensation. We are not making a suggestion to the establishment parties or to the next government. We are using the demand to make an argument about the nature of our society.
What you seem to want is a kind of Michael Taft party, some sort of party which believes in making a case for a better, kinder, fairer capitalism. Which really believes that capitalism can be tamed and what’s more that capitalism would work better if it were tamed. That used to be the default position of mass reformist parties around the world, although they’ve now almost all abandoned it for the traditional positions of the right. It has never been our position.
We advocate a socialist transformation of society. We do not make detailed, costed, proposals about how to run capitalism better.
LikeLike
What you seem to want is a kind of Michael Taft party, some sort of party which believes in making a case for a better, kinder, fairer capitalism.
That doesn’t follow at all. One can want a social transformation and simultaneously argue that in order to convince the electorate/society at large that it is necessary to have a detailed programme of how one moves from the status quo to that society.
Wanting to have detail isn’t about ‘making a case for a better, kinder, fairer capitalism’, it’s the very least people demand from political formations. I keep saying this, but if I have a mortgage, a loan, pay rents, get rent assistance, am on benefits, have to buy schoolbooks, shop for food, etc, I need to know precisely what any political formation intends to do to ensure that there will be stability, continuity and so on in my life.
Nor I’d argue that it is sufficient to suggest that ‘an argument about the nature of the society’ is what this is about. That’s not when I and many hundreds of thousands of others don’t want arguments about the nature of society, we want real policies that will materially improve our lives and will continue to improve our lives. Those will of course link into arguments about the nature of society but…
I – and I suspect many others – don’t need to know that capitalism is a crock, the evidence is all around, what I do need is some indication that those saying that have a plan to transition us from that state to another. And that requires something a little better than simply saying one advocates socialist transformation. A transformation involves massive change. How, who, where, when, involving what?
And putting forward a costed aspect to that programme isn’t simply being ‘old-fashioned [though since when old-fashioned became a negative per se escapes me] social democrats’ but is something that gives credibility to the programme.
Why are SF taken more seriously than in 2007? Because even when the rest disagree with the goals they recognise that SF has gone to the trouble to demonstrate its intentions in a clear fashion and to work through what they mean starting from the point where we are rather than the point we would like to be.
In the absence of such proposals and programmes it’s hard to see how seriously any of this is going to be taken by a broader number of citizens, and however much I want RBB or Joe Higgins or Clare Daly in the Dáil, and I sorely do and I know it will be better for their presence, rhetorical critiques must be matched with something considerably more detailed if this is to move beyond the traditional further left.
LikeLike
Interesting discussion here on the broader point and a useful one too. It can be argued both ways really.
I have some sympathy for both Alastair’s, and CIP’s points. There’s a serious lack of weight to SP/ULA economic policy, which is an odd failing for parties that should have the economy front and centre. One doesn’t have to cleave to neo-liberalism to believe that this opens up a credibility gap between electorate and those parties/formations.
That said there are legitimate reasons why one might not vote for the Labour Party.
Firstly one might indeed find it noxious that it’s platform, already weak from a left of Labour perspective, is going to be yet further diluted by coalition with Fine Gael.
Secondly one might simply find that its platform was too similar to Fine Gael. In either of those instances it would be entirely rational to vote for another alternative.
Thirdly one might, as Mark P does, simply disagree fundamentally with the LP platform. In that context it would entirely logical to vote for another alternative, even if the likelihood was that the LP would be in government and implementing parts of its programme.
There’s nothing illogical about not voting for a party even if that parties programme was ‘better’ than other alternatives. If Irish politics was skewed even more to say the US system with two large right of centre parties (in European terms) who would blame a socialist or social democrat for choosing not to vote for either?
Indeed there’s an argument that only in extremis should one gift support to a party further to the right than ones own political inclination, say due to the rise of a racist party or somesuch.
Thinking about it logically, why on earth should Mark P who works and campaigns for the SP want to support another party which regards the SP as a rival?
Fourthly, one might also believe as Mark does, and as I do to an extent, that this isn’t an election which the left of Labour, including SF, can win and therefore it makes sense to strengthen those forces for an election which they can win.
Mark’s hope is presumably that at some point the SP will gain sufficient support to be a serious contender at national level or that something will happen which will alter the context in some fundamental way that will mean that can be short-circuited. Personally, and with considerable respect for the SP, I think that that’s unlikely for structural reasons to do with the Irish polity and given that after three years of fairly transformational events there’s no sign of a significant appetite or opportunity for same, and I think that a more likely route forward is for a party to occupy the ground between the LP and the further left. But that takes times and effort and won’t happen unless people work to build such formations. Logic suggests too that voting for your electoral rivals isn’t the way to go there if that’s your goal.
In other words to play a long tactical game. This makes particular sense in the context that all three largest parties already agree on the substance of the financial parameters that constrain policy over the next five years.
Fifthly political activity isn’t all about legislation, or implementing certain programmes. That’s an important part but it’s not everything. If one believes that the programmes are wrong, even if done for the best of intentions, then I don’t think there’s any onus upon the individual to sign up to them. And the Dáil does provide a useful platform for activity, promotion and so on even in the absence of being part of a government.
On the other hand… there’s some logic to what you say about least worst options [or better over best].
Is Varadker worse in government in an all FG government than one with the LP and FG? By the way, I’m nowhere near convinced that he will be a Minister, junior Minister I presume. One would presume the latter, not least because as talking to any LP members, they’re not exactly as one with Varadker. And then the more LP members the more likely Varadker et al will be boxed in.
And yet, FF aren’t going to win sufficient seats to govern either alone or in tandem with another party [unless that party is Labour, again almost unbelievably unlikely, though I have to say I think the LP has been insane to rule this out as an option since surely they should want – by their own lights – to head an administration and surely they’d get a better deal from their own policy perspective too].
And that’s another issue, nothing is absolutely inevitable. Labour could fall back significantly and Independents of various stripes could come into the picture of government formation. Or, alternatively, Labour could forge ahead if Kenny makes a gaffe in the debates and it might be that another sort of coalition might become possible. Both are also unlikely outcomes, but not impossible. In each case Mark P, or me, or you, not voting for the LP but for alternative candidates might make perfect sense because by voting for other left wing candidates we’d be increasing the pool of non-LP TDs.
There’s another point again which is that clearly the LP isn’t addressing all possible constituencies on the left. Look at SF which has 12-13 per cent of the vote even with an historically strong LP. SF can pick up seats in areas the LP won’t, such as Ulster. It can add to the left tally in Dublin. The same is true of Others/Independent leftists. So one can also posit that by spreading the left vote one maximises it. Granted that left vote fractures amongst groups that won’t/don’t work with each other, but…
Anyhow, from my perspective there are a number of LP candidates I’d vote for on an individual basis, but as a party it wouldn’t be my first or second choice.
On the other hand Alastair you yourself are an avowed former Tony Gregory voter [and DL too in their day?], a man who almost made a virtue of not aligning with any legislative programme in both good times and bad. So clearly you’re not entirely immune to the lure of the non-Labour left.
If I have any broader advice though I would tend to argue that people should vote for whatever centre left or left of centre candidates they can over right of centre candidates, be they LP – as is the choice faced by LATC {though don’t you have a WP option?} and EamonnCork, but preferably candidates further to the left.
LikeLike
“On the other hand Alastair you yourself are an avowed former Tony Gregory voter [and DL too in their day?], a man who almost made a virtue of not aligning with any legislative programme in both good times and bad. So clearly you’re not entirely immune to the lure of the non-Labour left.”
That wasn’t really my point though – I’ve no problem with anyone voting for whoever they like, it’s the notion that voting Labour is a vote for Leo that I take exception to – any vote for any party/candidate actually willing to engage with legislation is a compromised vote in a coalition era. If anything I’m a begrudging Labour voter on the back of the calibre of candidate I’m presented with.
I’ll be giving my No. 1 to Maureen O’Sullivan – on the basis that she’s prepared to engage with the legislative issues on their merits, and work with whoever if the issue warrants it. She’s not a sideline revolutionary unprepared to sully her hands with uncomfortable political alliances. I’ll be giving Aine Clancy a second preference, because I think Labour are a better bet in government than FG alone, and it’ll help give Joe Costello a kick in the arse. He’ll get my third – though he won’t benefit at that stage.
I vote on the basis of what I consider a pragmatic strategy of supporting those in a position to influence things the direction that makes sense to me – but that requires candidates who have a willingness to actually govern and legislate on the basis of the realities on the ground.
LikeLike
Yeah, I was worried you’d say that :).
Thing is I don’t really disagree with your main point either… Damn you (shakes fist)!
LikeLike
Whereas a vote for the establishment parties is a vote for having a certain other body part (and one belonging to someone else) inserted in your posterior.
LikeLike
And there’s nothing profoundly dishonest in the Labour Party.
At one point they’ll say they won’t reverse the cuts. Then they say they will. Then they say they never said they wouldn’t. Then when you play the tape back, they say they never said they didn’t say they would reverse the cuts!
Explain that one CIP or get off your right-wing high horse.
LikeLike
???
This is weird.
Why do you think I am a labour supporter?
Is it because Captain Socialist said so?
How do the right-wing policies of the Labour Party change the fact that the socialists are profoundly dishonest in saying that they are revolutionaries when talking to left-wingers, but claim that a wealth tax and a ban on water meters will save the country from riun?
you can call the Labour Party a pack of b**tards I don’t care – it doesn’t change the fact that Socialists’ grip on reality is tenuous to say the least.
LikeLike
Well if you’re not a Labour supporter who do you support?
You’re clearly someone who has a problem with the United Left Alliance. You’re also full of shit – I know this because the basis of you’re criticism is one VB interview in which the full program of the socialist party wasn’t outlined as the alternative, instead reformist demands were used including tax the wealth, which while absolutely valid was a mistake in reality.
That doesn’t mean you’re right in you’re criticism or that the socialist party are dishonest.
LikeLike
There’s no confusion:
The Socialist Party’s programme is for a socialist transformation of society. We will support and advocate any reforms which are immediately attainable, and indeed we will advocate reforms which are possible but not within the bounds the capitalist system, but our fundamental line of argument is that there is a need for a fundamental restructuring of society.
We do not say that taxing the rich will be enough to meet Ireland’s needs, and indeed the manifesto we’re delivering to every door in every constituency we’re standing on makes it clear that we advocate the taking of the commanding heights of the economy into democratic ownership. That’s not to say however that a tax on the wealthy wouldn’t be a useful step forward – and certainly a vast improvement on the cuts, regressive taxes and pay freezes the capitalist parties put forward while maintaining that corporation tax must be sacrosanct.
LikeLike
A simple question: how much will a wealth tax raise?
I presume ye have costed it?
LikeLike
Do the maths yourself:
1% of the population have a combined wealth of 120 billion (conservative estimate).
A once off 5% or 10% wealth tax would raise 6 billion or 12 billion respectively.
I see Mark P has answered your broader point.
LikeLike
“1% of the population have a combined wealth of 120 billion (conservative estimate).”
Sez who? A Bank of Ireland report from the height of Celtic Tiger overvaluations? How much did property contribute to that guesstimate?
LikeLike
Sez CIT economist Tom O’Connor, the 33,000 millionaires in Ireland held a total wealth (not including their primary homes) of €156 billion. As a result of the collapse in the property market, this wealth has declined, but O’Connor still estimates (conservatively) that they hold €121 billion.
LikeLike
Tom O’Connor uses the same 2006 Bank of Ireland report for his figures. Would you payt any creedence to 2006 figures – which include 2006 property values?
LikeLike
Or put it this way – who would like the combination of commercial property and equities that have only fallen 33% in the last 4 years? I know I’d like to be in that boat – and I’m sure those 1% would be too. Irish commercial property values fell 15% in one single quarter of 2008. A Bank of Ireland share was worth 15 euro in 2006 and is worth 36 cent now.
LikeLike
Sorry – shoddy maths on my part – that’s a commercial property and equities portfolio that’s only fallen 22.5% in the last four years – even more implausible.
LikeLike
I think that’s important too. I’m very much in favour of what Michael Taft refers to as a ‘real’ property tax and he’s written widely about it, but before fixing on a percentile a little bit more data is required than 2006 figures and it can’t be back of an envelope.
This again goes back to the point about credibility and to my mind demonstrates that it’s impossible to act as if long term goals are somehow divorced from what happens in the here and now.
LikeLike
In fairness to FG, at least they’ve put the headings of their policies to the people with their 5 point recovery plan. PS: I am totally opposed to all of it (without having actually read it of course!). But isn’t that what we should get in a leaflet / flyer: The XYZ Party / Candidate Bloggs stands for (or if elected will…) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
To me that’s a good leaflet rather than “integrity, honesty, change” bullshit (i.e. no spelt out policies).
LikeLike
Mark, you’re always articulate, provoccative and interesting. But, and this is a serious question, what do we do in Cork South West where there’s no ULA and Labour is as left as it gets.
LikeLike
Same question in Meath East.
LikeLike
The last time I was in that situations, Eamonn, I wrote an abusive letter on my ballot paper. The candidates and/or their campaign managers will actually see it, so it’s a good opportunity to let them know your views.
Fortunately I’ve only been in that situation once. As for what you should do, I’m afraid I can’t really provide you with any palatable answers!
LikeLike
Campaign managers may see spoilt ballots with abusive messages but unless they’re marked Number 1 for their candidates and then spoilt – and number in their hundreds – I doubt they take much notice.
LikeLike
It’s a genuine problem. During the Europeans in Munster I ended up just writing in The Alan Parsons Project. I don’t like their music but they’re exactly what we need in Europe. Seriously, the choice was fucking ludicrous.
LikeLike
Meath East seems to have succeeded Cork South West as the most boring consituency in the country. Is there any hope that it’s not going to go 1 ff 1 fg, 1 lab?
LikeLike
It’s a head wrecker alright. No, I’d say it’ll be one each for the big three alright. The SF candidate doesn’t have the profile of his counterpart in Meath-West so there’s little chance of a SF seat. Even getting a LP seat will be fairly radical stuff around these here parts.
It’s a tough decision to make, who to vote for in such circumstances. I had thought of simply spoiling my vote, for the first time ever, but I can’t bring myself to do that. At this stage I’m thinking of giving a 1 to the LP and leaving it blank after that.
What about yourself in Cork-SW then? Will it be 2 FG and 1 FF?
LikeLike
My contact on the ground there says 1 FF, 1 FG, 1 Lab. But I think there may be an element of self-interested wishful thinking there i.e. hoping that the Lab man will get in rather than a second FGer to enable a different FGer take the second seat next time. (It’s complicated!)
LikeLike
I think Cork SW will be 2 FG, 1 Lab but there are six candidates 3 FF, 2 FG, 1 Lab, who all have a chance of getting a seat and there probably won’t be more than a thousand votes between them on first count. So lots of fun with transfers. I’ll vote Labour and feel cross with myself. Plus ca change.
LikeLike
For me the bottom line is no vote or transfer for either FF or FG. This includes the gene pool FFers and independents of a right persuasion such as Ross.I would include New Vision amongst those with a bourgeois solution to the crisis (That the poor should pay). So no there as well.
So ULA where it is available. Workers party as well if ULA is not there, Waterford.
Cieran Perry in Dublin Central.
genuine anti-coalition lefties everywhere.
Then SF. On their declared economic program and their declared option of a Left government (though I think they would disappoint).
Then a grudging vote/transfer to Labour.
then stop.
There are probably some constituency variations.But I think you can see my drift.
LikeLike
What about a Green candidate: no vote or a grudging vote after Labour?
LikeLike
I’d go for spitting on the name of the Green candidate myself. But that’s just me.
LikeLike
Nah. That could spoil the ballot paper, and your other votes would then be discarded
LikeLike
What do people think of Michael Kilcoyne in Mayo?
I seem to recall that his rep in Castlebar is that he helps people regardless of whether or not they voted for him. But I doubt if he’s a red-hot revolutionary, however.
(I ask this out of idle curiosity: I won’t be voting as I’m no longer in the jurisdiction)
LikeLike
@ Mark P
“What you seem to want is a kind of Michael Taft party, some sort of party which believes in making a case for a better, kinder, fairer capitalism.”
no.
I want the socialist Party to explain to me what they mean by a wealth tax, much much revenue it will raise, and how this will offset the loss in taxation due to three years of deflationary budgets.
I would like to know if they have actually researched this policy, or if it is – as I am beginning to strongly suspect – just a handy phrase to bandy about when asked “well what would you do?”
You are avoiding the issue, Mark P.
I am not calling for a “michael taft party”.
I am calling on the socialist Party to explain its policies.
As I said, if your stance is that you are a recvolutionary party, and don’t need to reform capitalism, why the call for a wealth tax?
It is simply not creditable to call for reformist measures, and then when pressed on them, to say “well, actually we’re a revolutionary party and we want to abolish capitalism” – which means that if you have your way, people’s property will be worth sweet FA and any savings they have they can kiss goodbye, as that is what happens in a socialist revolution.
LikeLike
“It is simply not creditable to call for reformist measures, and then when pressed on them, to say “well, actually we’re a revolutionary party and we want to abolish capitalism” – which means that if you have your way, people’s property will be worth sweet FA and any savings they have they can kiss goodbye, as that is what happens in a socialist revolution”
Ooops!
Eh? Might want to rethink that last line CIP, anyone would think you had an axe to grind.
LikeLike
???
I do not understand.
Why?
LikeLike
Well, is that an absolute that property is going to be worth FA in the event of a socialist revolution? Doesn’t it depend on the nature of the socialist revolution, what point in the revolution and the transformation of society? No?
LikeLike
My point is that the socialist party, as a revolutionary party, believes in the abolition of property rights as the basis of rights in the State.
I assume that were such a move to take place that it would affect property prices, no?
But, that mightn’t win them many votes in Swords this month, or Dun Laoghaire, hence the reformist slogans and half-arsed gestures such as a wealth tax.
It’s a cynical move on the part of the Socialist party.
If they are not reformists but revolutionaries, why are they contesting the elections?
At the very least they should be standing as abstentionists.
In fact, the more I think about it, the sillier it seems.
Next month we are going to have Marxist revolutionaries in the Dail filling in claims for expenses, and taking advantage of the free postage.
It’s all a bit daft, isn’t it?
LikeLike
Yeah, but… 🙂
But what does revolutionary mean in the current context? There’s almost no-one, not even the SP, arguing that we’re on the brink of a mass revolution, or even one lead by an vanguard.
And there’s plenty of Marxists, socialists and whoever who are prepared to see incremental change that is indeed transformational short of ‘revolution’ as steps to that ultimate revolution. And that would involve a gradual shift towards a new socio-economic dispensation which might end up where you suggest, or better if we are in a true post-scarcity model in something that was perhaps a bit more left libertarian where it wasn’t so much that property rights are abolished so much as they simply don’t matter.
But there’s a bit of a ways to go yet before there so it’s not entirely inconsistent for them to seek elected office, etc, to convince the world of their view. And given that their own approach is in many respects modest, they’re not advocating the abolition of property rights tomorrow or the next day there’s a lot less to scare the good burghers of either Swords or DL.
Now, maybe that’s reformist, but my problem is more that the manner of the transformation isn’t spelled out in detail rather than their goal.
Indeed in an odd way that’s similar to my problem with social democracy which seems to have completely forgotten not merely about longer term transformations a la the Fabians, but now seems to have pretty much forgotten the ‘reform’ bit too.
Is it cynical? Well, I don’t know that it is. It’s more like a game where everyone knows that the rhetoric isn’t mapping onto the reality, but given that we’re sort of stuck in a universe where that’s a constant I don’t find them particularly worse than anyone else and there’s the prospect of some good coming from their efforts.
LikeLike
I’m not talking about socialists, I’m talking about the socialist party.
According to Mark P:
“What you seem to want is a kind of Michael Taft party, some sort of party which believes in making a case for a better, kinder, fairer capitalism. Which really believes that capitalism can be tamed and what’s more that capitalism would work better if it were tamed. That used to be the default position of mass reformist parties around the world, although they’ve now almost all abandoned it for the traditional positions of the right. It has never been our position.
We advocate a socialist transformation of society. We do not make detailed, costed, proposals about how to run capitalism better”
It is quite clear that the Socialist Party does not see itself as a reformist party.
And to prove that it is NOT a reformist party, nosiree, it has issued a reformist manifesto and is taking the reformist path into parliamentary politics.
But it is NOT a reformist party, you understand.
It is a revolutionary party. 100 per cent.
And it is precisely because it is a revolutionary party that it has decided…. to take the reformist path towards parliamentary politics.
But, just to be sure, this move does not make it reformist.
It is still revolutionary. It is not going to butter up the electorate with reformist nonsense – (even though that is what it is doing on the doorsteps tonight) – and because it is revolutionary it doesn’t have to explain itself to anybody.
All it has to do is call anyone who points out the glaring inconsistencies and contradictions as, well, a reformist, a member of “the michael taft party” (whatever that is).
The socialist party. A revolutionary party, with free postage and handy parking in the city centre.
LikeLike
Well sign me up to more or less anything Taft does, and if I ask for a bit more after that, well I’m not a social democrat so that’s okay, but, in a way the SP doesn’t trouble me when they do that. I agree there are contradictions and the tone can be irritating, but I think they reach parts that others can’t and vice versa. I think it’s grea to see SP people campaignn to get JH etc int the Dail, much bette than when the were essentially a part of the LP (one could argue that objectively they’re less reformist now than in the old Militant days).
And realistically how can a truly revolutionary party function in this society? The WP was perhaps for a while the closest we’ve seen and we all know how that turned out. So every party is going to compromise in some respect at some point.
LikeLike
“And realistically how can a truly revolutionary party function in this society? ”
This isn’t a general discussion on how revolutionary Ireland is, or will be, but on the Socialist Party’s claim to be a revolutionary, non-reformist party.
As to how revolutionary the Socialist party is, the answer, based on Mark P and friends, seems to be, VERY REVOLUTIONARY!!!
Even when calling for reformist measures, not our job to prop up capitalism, we’ll stop water charges again, and bring in a wealth tax, but don’t have to cost it as our policies are not supposed to be taken seriously as we are revolutionaries dontyouknow.
The more I think about it, the less I can see myself giving the ULA a vote. It’s like voting for toy soldiers. I think I will just skip voting altogether.
LikeLike
Plenty of other options out there, but remember, I’m not defending the SP, merely suggesting why you ar perhaps being a bit harsh on them.
Or to put it another way, what do you expect?
LikeLike
This is so transparent. I’ve been following this blog for nigh on three years and I’ve never seen ‘CIP’ posting before. But during an election campaign he/she posts laughably contradictory posts and directs invective towards a poster who is clearly identified as an SP member.
This is a practice replicated across the ‘blogshere’. It’s obvious that Labour activists have been assigned to man/woman mark known ULA advocates. I’m as certain as certain can be that once Labour have cuddled up to FG and divvied up the ministerial cars, ‘CIP’ (whoever he/she is) won’t post here again, job done by then. Until the next election campaign when Labour’s sectarianism is re-activated.
LikeLike
Quite possibly CMK. A trot from one of the rival sects would be lashing Mark P for his incorrect interpretation of what Lenin said to Trotsky over their morning blinis on Nevsky Prospect in 1903.
LikeLike
I don’t think that CIP is here under orders, CMK. You’re right that he’s almost certainly a Labour activist, but I’m not (quite) egomaniacal enough to think that Labour HQ has assigned someone to “man mark” me!
It’ll be some confused Labourite posting off his own bat, irritated by my assessment of Labour earlier in the thread and unable to refute it. Certainly the claim that someone who has been as incoherently hostile as he’s been since his first post here was ever leaning towards a ULA vote is transparently dishonest.
There’s a certain amusement value to debating with someone who essentially ignores responses and instead demands another answer to a question already answered, but that amusement value is shortlived.
The basic thing worth noting about CIP’s point of view is that he really doesn’t seem to understand what the Socialist Party is about at all. No matter how many times he’s told that the SP isn’t in the business of trying to run capitalism better than the capitalists, he will demand to know how we propose to do just that.
We support reforms which favour the working class and oppose anything which attacks the standards of living of the working class not because we think that capitalism necessarily works better under such conditions but because (a) we are unashamedly “sectional” partisans of the working class and (b) we regard the process of working class struggle for partial gains as important in developing working class strength, consciousness and organisation.
We stand for election, and not in an abstentionist manner, not because our elected representatives are going to participate in some right wing coalition but because those positions can be used to help people mobilise in their workplaces and in their communities to take action themselves. And that’s not some kind of secret, we’re perfectly open about it.
We don’t oppose water charges because we think that doing so will balance the books of the capitalist state as CIP apparently imagines we think, but because water charges are a direct attack on working class living standards. We propose a wealth tax, something which would indeed be a useful reform whether it raised half a billion or 6 billion, not because we think it has any chance of being implemented but because it illustrates the nature of the choice made by all of the mainstream parties to make the working class pay for a crisis made by the rich.
I could go on, but really there wouldn’t be much point.
LikeLike
Lenin was in Geneva in 1903, surely?
LikeLike
Hey people, it’s only an election – it ain’t “deep democracy”. (To coin a phrase of used by Baroness Ashton lecturing the Egyptians, from the great height of one of the least democratic institutions in Europe.)
I have always had a problem with the dishonesty of ‘transitional demands’. People sense that the ULA program can’t happen, within current capitalist constraints.
A more honest approach would be to explain that business-as-normal will see all but the elites ground further into penury and precariousness; that we have no alternative but to challenging the state of debt-peonage we find ourselves in. It would equally admit that change will involve uncertainty and suffering at best, and will demand creativity and courage from everyone.
Not exactly a vote winner, I know.
LikeLike
Delusional. That’s all I can say.
The socialist party, along with PBP, went onto Vincent Browne and told the people of Ireland that it had policies to address the current crisis – reformist policies.
They were asked to explain them on Vincent Browne and the result was cringeworthy.
At one point richard Boyd Barrett got wealth tax mixed up with PAYE tax bands, then said that they were calling for 5 per cent.
Of course, away from the tv screens and the socialists are full of excuses about how revolutionary they are and how they are not there to prop up capitalism…
Except when they are on TV, and then it’s all wealth tax this and tax the rich that…
Now I come back from having spent the evening watching the joys of Egypt to see that CMK and Mark P have created a parallel universe where they are being stalked by Labour Party agents.
Are you nuts? Seriously, are you nuts?
Earlier on Mark P explained how he once spoiled his ballot paper with the full knowledge that it would be read by a campaign manager.
Full quote:
“The candidates and/or their campaign managers will actually see it, so it’s a good opportunity to let them know your views.”
Of course, it was then pointed out to Mark P that:
“Campaign managers may see spoilt ballots with abusive messages but unless they’re marked Number 1 for their candidates and then spoilt – and number in their hundreds – I doubt they take much notice.”
The world of the Irish Socialist Party – where socialist party members are stalked by Labour Party undercover agents on-line, and where campaign managers eagerly scan ballot papers for notices of disapproval.
Cloud cuckoo land.
LikeLike
Oh dear.
LikeLike
@CIP A couple of contributions of mine to CLR in the past have questionned Left orthodoxies. So I do not have a problem with awkward questions being asked of the Left. But here is the deal. FF, FG and the Labour Party support a neo liberal economic system where working class people have to pay for the mistakes of financial speculators. ULA, Sinn Fein, Workers Party oppose this as do other Indpendents. So they get my vote and there is no need for deep micro analysis of SPs economic policies. It is a simple question – Who’s side are you on, working class people or bankers?
LikeLike
The point is not about a deep micro study of SP’s economic policies – the point is that the SP do not have any economic policies whatsoever. As Mark P says, that is intentional, as it is not their job to solve the problems of capitalism.
They also believe that the Irish Labour Party has agents on the web, by the way.
and with the simple question – “Who’s side are you on, working class people or bankers?”
Even Fine Gael would answer that they are on the side of the workers. It’s a meaningless statement. It is like saying, are you on the side of Hope, or are you not?
The 35 per cent support rate that Fine Gael is getting is not a pro-banker vote.
LikeLike
But again CIP, what do you expect?
In a democratic context any self-avowed ‘revolutionary’ party is going to be constrained. Now you or I can afford a party of that type the degree of respect or credibility that we think it deserves.
I’ve already expressed concern about their [lack of] economic policy and to be honest I think that they will find this a greater and greater problem if they wish to grow the party. But… on the other hand there are doughty voices on behalf of working people in the SP which are to my mind good in and of themselves.
I don’t think Mark P’s analysis is without merit, not least because that’s the way he feels. And I can’t help but feel you’re placing far too much weight on the SP. I mean they have a small number of councillors, one MEP and the prospect – at best – of three seats. No small achievement, but hardly likely to bring the Irish polity to its knees. Furthermore, and in part due to the issue I raise in my second paragraph I think there are self-limiting aspects to their growth – not least that they don’t have a Joe Higgins in every constituency.
So I’m puzzled as to why you seem so exercised by all this.
One could turn it around a bit and argue, as perhaps the Mark P’s of the world would, how do social democratic parties have any credibility functioning in the capitalist economic and political structures that we live under? How can they pretend that they can improve the situation by essentially emulating explicitly capitalist parties of the right?
Same difference really.
And to be honest I think Chet has it about right, the SP may be wrong on aspects of the picture, but along with SF, WP, other left Independents, [freaking Shane Ross too come to think about it] and ULA they’re more right than wrong in their analysis on the big picture.
In that context whose side are you on does have a certain ring of truth.
LikeLike
The whose side are you on thing is just about as blinkered as George W’s line in the sand on terrorism. No party at this stage believes that the projected reality of the bank bailout is going to be manageable – and either overtly or (in the case of FF) between the lines, says so. To a large degree the issue is now one of which is the least worst scenario for us – working people included, which might indeed involve continuing to prop up the banks. The points been made that at this stage the bulk of our debt is to the ECB – or effectively the citizens (workers included) of Germany etc.
The terms of the bank guarantee were clearly a terrible mistake, but no-one can put that genie back in the bottle, and while the consequent burden is unfair, the only question worth asking at this point is what’s the least destructive way of moving on – and that’s a subjective call with many shades of grey.
LikeLike
It completely depends on your perspective as to whether that viewpoint you articulate is correct.
Most of those who are critical of the events of the past three years are also profoundly critical of the way in which supposed absolutes have been thrown to the wind… from limits on the amount it would take to ‘fix’ the financial sector to the constraints on the bailout[s] etc.
And yet time and again we were told that there was no alternative.
I think that it’s entirely rational to be questioning, to stand with working people as best as one can and to see that the damage to the social and political infrastructure from the economic situation isn’t exacerbated by people who – by any reasonable reading of their actions and policies over the past three years and longer – place the economic, and a very narrow subset of same over the social.
I’ll stand closer to analyses put forward by political parties which are willing to address the here and now as well as the future. But the overall dynamic isn’t one I demur from.
LikeLike
Why equate the actual figures (where establishing the actual exposure was/is a black art, even assuming all players are being honest/forthright) with alternatives (lack of or otherwise)?
There was a judgement needed about which was worse – to let Irish banking fail, or to prop it up. The call on which approach was more destructive, and what to do in either context, offered alternatives, but nothing without pain. The alternatives once a choice was made can only amount to how to minimise the impact of that choice – we’ve passed the point where the cost of changing our mind on saving the banks will save us from the burden it entails. We can only try to reduce the worst of it, and direct it at those best placed to carry it.
LikeLike
But then surely we’re arguing something quite similar? Surely any course of action from here on out would assume that ‘advice’ from the banking sector, and indeed the measures to assist it, should be dealt with in such a way as to minimise the impact on working people and to seek whatever means to do that? And that being the case I’ll sooner go with say an SF analysis than say an FG or LP one [even factoring in the fact SF is further from power than either of those two parties and how that makes it behave]. In other words I think there’s a strong necessity for a sense of protest to develop in order that the EU (much more than the IMF which in fairness to it, words I hardly ever thought to write previously, had a much better grasp of what was possible) doesn’t feel that it can impose as it sees fit.
LikeLike
Thing is that I just don’t buy the SF plan to return to the markets in 18 months or whatever and find willing lenders at a rate we can afford, having told the bondholders, IMF, and ECB to take a hike. It just doesn’t stack up, and SF’s record on EU relations doesn’t provide much comfort – they’ve favoured the sidelines every time a critical decision had to be made.
We’re up to our eyes in debt – and at this stage the subordinated debt-holders, and the NAMA portfolio are only a small portion of that debt – the majority is european tax payers money – albeit indirectly. There’s a responsibility to repay it – even if we don’t like what it was spent/wasted on. So all that’s really re-visitable is the 10% or whatever that comprises secondary bondholders, the interest applied to the ECB and IMF loans, and at what point we give up supplying working capital to the banks. It’s pretty watery gruel, but those are the realistic parameters of what we CAN do – and dictates the scope of what’s possible in terms of stimulus etc. I’m pessimistic about things, don’t think that protest and outrage will really influence the decision-makers on Europe, but what will is the unvarnished evidence that we are a dead loss to repay on existing terms. The SF plan is pretty much magic beans material in refusing to acknowledge that we need someone to bankroll us for quite a duration, and the markets and ECB just won’t swallow unilateral default and then play nice a year down the road.
LikeLike
But even if I agreed with that analysis, which I don’t since I think is far too simplistic as regards the detail of SF’s plans – worth looking closely at that detail, I can’t see the benefit of not generating as much internal political protest and dissent here in order to demonstrate to the ECB that the plan isn’t going to be accepted as it stands. And that would be true whether one agreed with SFs plans, or not. In other words any negotiators setting off to the EU would have their hand strengthened by as much dissent at home with the overall plan in order to get a better deal.
Truth is that other defaults have seen the countries that did so return to bond markets with limited adverse effects. but it doesn’t have to a threat that’s followed through.
High risk, sure, but higher risk than a structure which we’re doomed to fail in? But for a party to hold this out as the way forward is precisely fashioned as a political point in order to push the ECB to a position where it will radically restructure this in such a way as to ameliorate the exposure of this state and more importantly its people.
And there’s a problem, all through this process people have said x is impossible, y is impossible, when we’ve found, as with the bailout itself that these things aren’t impossible, that they can be amended. I think you’re being a little overly pessimistic if you think that only the interest rate can be altered, that’s certainly not the only potential changes that can be made as regards the rhetoric coming out of the ECB and other points.
As for SF sitting on the sidelines on the EU, well so what? I’ve been broadly speaking a europhile for most of my life, but I find it hard to see what great benefit has FF’s sitting inside the line done in terms of getting even a half-way realistic deal to this point?
The bailout was a crock, it remains a crock and it will continue to be a crock, one that we cannot pay back within its own parameters.
Now that’s magic beans, and at our expense.
LikeLike
The bailout might well be a crock, and about as plausible a solution as magic beans, but that doesn’t mean the SF plan isn’t a different variety of equally implausible magic beans.
And their record on the EU is pertinent when their chicken lickin claims (and I’ll concede they weren’t the worst – but the worst were pretty bad) turned out to be pretty well off the mark
LikeLike
As a negotiating stance, particularly one to open negotiations it’s actually quite excellent.
As regards their relationship with the EU, look closely at the track record of their Northern MEP and see the level of engagement, in a positive fashion [something they didn’t shout about in the South while MLM was in the EU Parliament – which I consider a pity] and you’ll see a rather different SF/EU engagement. And that’s before we consider their engagement at NI level through the Executive.
You know yourself, one has to look beyond the rhetoric, or to assess what the rhetoric means, particularly from as savvy a formation as them [which by the way I too would have a strong critique, like yourself, of much of that rhetoric – but it has its uses].
LikeLike
If 35% of Irish people vote for FG then they do support the bankers bailout. To be fair to FG they are quite explicit, they will apply pro banker, neo liberal economic policies if they get into power. And I ask the question again ‘Who’s Side are you on?
LikeLike