Updates from May, 2017 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • rogerglewis 10:21 pm on May 31, 2017 Permalink | Reply  

    BBC Debate , Salient Words. Word Clouds and New Poll You/Gov Times Tory Lead collapse to 3%. 

    Tonights Debate.

    Battle For No10 On Sky News.

    Wikipedia New Poll You Gov/ Times

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2017

    See Link for thoughts on 2010 and 2015 Debates.
    http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2017/05/election-2017-debates-2010-2015-and.html

    Judging By the Daily Mail Headline they did not feel it went well tonight for the Conservatives, regardless of their reasoning, The YOU Gov Polling will need some analysis I will be doing that as part of an in-depth piece I have been researching on some of the other Polls.

    For now, this Link is very Good.

    https://theconversation.com/are-uk-pollsters-heading-for-another-embarrassing-election-78434

    Advertisements
     
  • rogerglewis 3:47 pm on May 31, 2017 Permalink | Reply  

    The Nub of Election 2017# A Social Democratic Brexit or a Neo Liberal Brexit. 

    Brexit means Brexit! Or does it? We know some say it can be a Hard Brexit or a, ” No Deal is better than a bad deal Brexit”, but the real Choice here, which is clearly a differential point between Labour and The Conservatives is this:
    Labour represents a Social Democratic Brexit for the people and The Conservatives represent a Neo-Liberal Brexit or a Brexit for the Corporations and Big Banks.

    The EU is a Neo-Liberal Institution and Anti-democratic, even the Green Party Arch remoaners , in their 2015 Manifesto argued to have a referendum about leaving but, seeking a mandate to reform the EU and remain members. There are plenty of Brexit posts on this Blog a Digest of them can be found at this Link. The Social Democratic Case for Brexit is Called Lexit, Google Lexit The Movie.

    http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2017/03/brexit-timeline-from-brexitschmexit-to.html

    There is no sign of any wish for the EU to reform itself and the UK voters have two choices. Vote for Mrs May and get a Form of Neo-Liberalism even more extreme than the EU doddering and somewhat slow to react variety. Neo-Liberalism is a Broad Church defined outside of the norms of a Social Democratic Ideal of the post-war consensus. Neo-Liberalism is one of the extreme Ideologies even more taboo to mention than Islamism or Zionism.

    The Arch Neo-Liberal George Osbourne inflicted much pain on the British people with his ideological and Extreme form of Sadistic Austerity, even the IMF cautioned a less enthusiastic offering to what I call Queen TINA, She who must be obeyed.

    TINA is Neo Liberalese for “There Is No Alternative”, That is true in the case of a Tory Neo-Liberal Brexit and instead of Remaining in the EU´s Neo-Liberal Stalinism, Instead, you would get with the Conservatives a  “General Francos” Version of Neo-Liberal Fascism. Out of the frying pan into the fire really.

    Look This Diagram sets it out I think quite Clearly.

    So Lets see what are the Salient points , the ideas and concerns that are Out there and relevant to our lives, The NHS, Bankers that are too big to jail, We were not all in the Austerity together, Tax Dodgers, Food Banks, The Fitness for work murders under Ian Duncan Smith, The Bedroom Tax, The Housing Crisis, Zero Hours Contracts. In short, The Massive Breach of the Social Contract, sealed in blood sweat and tears and written by the Post-War Labour Government as the answer to all the sacrifices of our parents and grandparents in Two World Wars.

    You see we are not all in this together, not anymore.  With the Neo-Liberal Free Market Mayhem model, It prescribes pain, insecurity and Corporate Rights over Basic Human Rights. The same model in the EU but also the same model applied with devastating effect Globally by the Mega Corporations, who are above any nation’s laws. TTIP, ISDS, TISA, CETA. An alphabet soup of small print TRADE deals that take away your rights, lower your pay and ensure an unequal playing field on which Corporations can exploit workers both in terms of pay and conditions, A sort of Anti-Samaritans Charter that forces governments to look the other way and pass on the other side of the road.

    The Social Democratic  Brexit which Jeremy Corbyn and Labour 2017 offer will re – instate a fair playing field and that is something which could not have been delivered within the EU. The rules of the EU make lots of unfair Trade practices compulsory so as to protect Global Corporate Interests. So We have a chance of a Social Democratic Brexit, Instead of the Conservative Neo-Liberal Hard Right Brexit.

    In the last US election, they rejected Hilary Clinton, Their Theresa May. They could have had and wanted Bernie Sanders, Bernie was done down and demonised just as Jeremy Corbyn has been. The cheating and lies against Bernie and the Reaction against President Trump are Part of the same Neo-Liberal Establishment not wanting anyone to stand up for the Rights of the Citizens of Nation States. The EU Establishment and the Neo-Liberal British Establishment are, all the same, If you are poor they figure you will be obedient and as such we can just about be tolerated but only if we grovel and cower, they are not just happy for you to be poor they want to keep you poor and make you poorer, its called the race to the bottom.


    This Meme sums it up The Sheriff of Nottingham (Neo-Liberal) or Robin Hood (Social Democracy)

    https://giphy.com/embed/3o7btWblI7CoO9Jk7m
    via GIPHY

     
  • rogerglewis 2:42 pm on May 31, 2017 Permalink | Reply  

    "You Can´t Fatten the pig on market day", Mrs May Stays at Home #BBCDebate 

    https://vid.me/e/OAyO?stats=1

    Borrowing from Mr Crosby´s Swine analogy You Can´t Fatten the pig on market day“. I feel dear reader we should remind ourselves of some other Porcine Analogies. Firstly Mr Crosby will be aware that he can not make “a Silk Purse out of a Sows Ear“. Indeed it is unadvisable to think that one can put lipstick on this particular Pig, let alone transform its Ears into the necessary receptacle for Mrs Mays string of pearls. Our extant Sow, this present Candidate and her Presidential Campaign, shrieking “Two Legs Good and Four legs bad“,
    And “casting all the pearls before the corporate swine” brings to mind the scene in S1Mone . 
    Once the pressure of serving his creation reaches a breaking point for Viktor, he decides to ruin Simone’s career as an act of vengeance. Simone’s next film, I Am Pig, is her directorial debut and a tasteless treatment about zoophilia intended to disgust audiences, which not only fails to achieve the desired effect of audience alienation, but also serves to foster her credibility as a risk-taking, fearless and avant-garde artist. Taransky’s subsequent attempts to discredit Simone by having her drink, smoke and curse at public appearances and use politically incorrect statements similarly backfire, when the press instead begins to see her as refreshingly honest.”
    That story Line, 

    It seems is for the Movies In Real Life, Pork, it seems will be off the Menu and the Audience refuse to see the Silk Purse qualities in the  Avatar of the Wizard of 

    Oz´s sub-par Sow.
    Mr Crosby has been fattening the wrong Tory Pig for a very long time, The Substitute Pig he has presented to Market is below merchantable quality. This Lady is for Turning and This Turd is certainly not for polishing.

      

    THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED.

    Salience, Relevance, Differentiation and The Polling 

    Booth 
    points of salience The NHS, Fairness, Immigration & People, Brexit and an end to Austerity. Are the Relevant and Salient issues I get from the Data.
    Applying An analysis with the lens of Lynton Crosby’s 4 Elements in Campaigning, Namely;
    1. Salience, ( Is it out there)
    2. Relevance ( Do the people Give a Shit?)
    Is it personally Relevant?
    3. Differentiation ( They say That Too.)
    Political Differences, Wheres the change, why change?


    4. The point of Sale Execution (WTF?)
    (Making the Lies Stick, Connect the policies to the Party.

    Crosby says “if in Doubt Believe in something”, if your losing 
    then get someone else to do the Dirty work for you.
     
  • rogerglewis 11:04 am on May 31, 2017 Permalink | Reply  

    "you said you have always believed that banks should be publicly owned" ? The Battle For Number 10, Corbyn Banks and Money Creation? 

    Banks and Money, Peas in a pod you might think. Jeremy Paxman sneered at Mr Corbyn in the Battle For No 10

    “a number of your other core beliefs do make it into this manifesto

    don’t think about nationalizing the Royal Mail for example or the railways or energy companies or water companies

    why not banks

    Corbyn
    some of our banks are

    publicly owned as it is actually

    Paxo
    you said you have always believed that banks should be publicly owned” ?

    To Consider this let’s just think about what Money Does and What Banks do?

    There are Four Generally Accepted Functions of Money.
    Money Should Be a Unit Of Account,
    Money Should Be a Means of Exchange 
    Money Should Be a Store of Value 
    Money Should Be a Measure of Value.
    Most of the confusions of Money and its useful functions relates to confusing money with Wealth.
    Bear this statement in Mind in the following.

    Money and Goods Are Different
    ”Thus, clearly, money and goods are not the same thing but are, on the contrary,
    exactly opposite things. Most confusion in economic thinking arises from failure to
    recognize this fact. Goods are wealth which you have, while money is a claim on wealth which you do not have. Thus goods are an asset; money is a debt. If goods are wealth;money is not wealth, or negative wealth, or even anti-wealth. They always behave in opposite ways, just as they usually move in opposite directions. If the value of one goes up, the value of the other goes down, and in the same proportion.”
    The Relationship Between Goods and Money Is Clear to Bankers
    In the course of time the central fact of the developing economic system, the
    relationship between goods and money, became clear, at least to bankers. Thisrelationship, the price system, depended upon five things: the supply and the demand for goods, the supply and the demand for money, and the speed of exchange between money and goods. An increase in three of these (demand for goods, supply of money, speed of circulation) would move the prices of goods up and the value of
    money down. This inflation was objectionable to bankers, although desirable to producers and merchants.On the other hand, a decrease in the same three items would be deflationary and would please bankers, worry producers and merchants, and delight consumers (who obtained more goods for less money). The other factors worked in the opposite direction, so that an increase in them (supply of goods, demand for money, and slowness of circulation or exchange) would be deflationary.”

    Banking and Money Quiz

    Mr Corbyn’s Answer.

    Corbyn.
    there are some
    28:08
    banks that are publicly owned we will be
    28:10
    promoting building societies
    28:14
    cooperatives and we will be promoting a
    28:16
    national investment bank which won’t be
    28:19
    a lending bank it will be an investment Bank and that is an important part
    28:20
    Paxman yet again Interrupting.
    you believe in
    28:22
    a public ownership of commercial & retail banks

    Corbyn

    an
    28:24
    an important part of directing investment
    28:29
    in this country of the retail banks RBS
    28:32
    is largely publicly owned there is a
    28:34
    public stake in most of The other banks  them I was
    Paxman Yelling.
    I would 
    28:37
    Always  favour banks being in public
    28:39
    ownership you said that in 2013 
    Corbyn.
    yes

    Paxman 

    You Do?

    Corbyn 
    Yes
    28:43
    well I did say that
    Paxo 
    INTERRUPTS Again.


    But it doesn’t get into the
    28:45
    the manifesto does it?

    Corbyn
    Jeremy, again.
    what we seem to
    28:47
    be struggling with here is an
    28:49
    understanding of a process that brings
    28:51
    about a manifesto  

    PAXO 
    No No What were struggling with is how much of this ( Brandishes manifesto)
    Do you believe in?
    Corbyn 
    well  I am
    28:53
    NOT a dictator that  represents  writes things to
    28:58
    tell people what to do this is a product
    29:00
    of a process in our party that’s why I
    29:03
    was elected leader of our party to give
    29:05
    a voice to the members and those who are
    29:07
    affiliated to our party.
    Paxman.
    well alright let’s take
    29:09
    another aspect of it, you say,.

     your freeze
    29:13

    benefits for three years you will now?

    This Key Exchange talks about ownership of banks but importantly not about What Banks do. Banks create 97% of the nation’s money supply most people think the Government does that but it only creates 3% of the notes and coins in circulation the other 97% is left to the banks to create it does not come from the pre-existing store of people’s hard earned savings and earned investments. 

    A more Sophisticated Model of the functions of money adds two further functions

    The Basis of Credit:

    A Standard of Postponed Payment:


    That is money is an IOU.


    This was a short and largely left un-commented exchange between Paxo and Jezzer.

    We can usefully recall these words of Benjamin Franklin regarding Matters of Money as they relate to Political Economy.

    In 1729 Benjamin Franklin wrote a pamphlet ´´A modest Enquiry into the nature and the necessity of a paper Currency.”
    a modest enquiry,
    ”There is no Science, the Study of which is more useful and commendable than the Knowledge of the true Interest of one’s Country; and perhaps there is no Kind of Learning more abstruse and intricate, more difficult to acquire in any Degree of Perfection than This, and therefore none more generally neglected. Hence it is, that we every Day find Men in Conversation contending warmly on some Point in Politicks, which, altho’ it may nearly concern them both, neither of them understand any more than they do each other.
    Thus much by way of Apology for this present Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency. And if any Thing I shall say, may be a Means of fixing a Subject that is now the chief Concern of my Countrymen, in a clearer Light, I shall have the Satisfaction of thinking my Time and Pains well employed.
    To proceed, then,
    There is a certain proportionate Quantity of Money requisite to carry on the Trade of a Country freely and currently; More than which would be of no Advantage in Trade, and Less, if much less, exceedingly detrimental to it.
    This leads us to the following general Considerations.”
    http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-01-02-0041

    The Investment Bank Labour Proposes and some minor changes to the Bank Charter Act of 1844 will
    make a huge difference to rebalancing the economy, this is the Political Reality of money that Neo-Liberal Voodoo economics does not want to be known or that most politicians and commentators are ignorant of. Mr Paxman I guess is one of those who are ignorant of this, I suspect Mr Corbyn is fully aware of these Issues as is the Shadow Chancellor John O´Donnell.


    hidden subsidy for banks

    Who controls the creation of new money?
    Many people might answer ‘the state’ or the ‘central bank’. But the hard currency printed by the Bank of England only amounts to 3% of the money in circulation in Britain today.
    The rest? It’s created and allocated by commercial banks in the form of digital money – the pixelated numbers you see on your phone or computer screen.
    Banks have close to complete control over the supply of new money, as we and others have long pointed out.
    But today the New Economics Foundation (NEF) and the Copenhagen Business School can reveal what this monopoly means in practice: an average annual banking bonus of £23bn.
    The likes of HSBC, RBS and Barclays are literally making money from money.

    Where does this subsidy come from?

    First, a historical term: ‘seigniorage’.
    The Green Party have dropped this policy from their 2015 Manifesto, Labour should seek to adopt it.

    PAYING FOR PROMISES, THE TRUMP CARD OF SENIORAGE.

    One of the hugely overlooked parts of Green Economic policy is the restoration of money creation to the Exchequers account this is a huge saving on the present privatised system which is one that has happened by default or stealth depending on your viewpoint.

    Check out policy EC661 

    The Green Party believes that, as the means of exchanging goods and services, the stock of money is a vital common resource which should be managed in the public interest. Yet only 3% of our money supply currently exists in the form of notes and coins issued by the Government or the Bank of England. 97% of the money circulating in the economy takes the form of credit that is created electronically by private banks through the accounting processes they follow when they make loans.  for an idea of the full extent of tax payer value of such a policy see.

     http://www.positivemoney.org/issues/taxes/

     From 2002 to 2009, banks increased the amount of money in the UK by £1 trillion through lending (with every new loan creating new money). Because this money was created by banks, it’s the banks that get the benefit from it (in this case, the interest received on £1 trillion of additional loans).

    If the government had created this money instead of the banks, taxpayers would have been able to pay up to £1 trillion fewer taxes: approximately £33,000 for every person who pays income tax over just 7 years.[1]


    This popped up in my Facebook memories feed today? Curious that!

    Roger Lewis shared a memory.
    Just now · 

    This initiative would go a long way to solving many problems in the world and could also see politics returning to something resembling one citizen one vote instead of 1 dollar one vote. I signed and hope others will read some of the Positive Money research and come to the same conclusion. It’s not a political issue in a party political Socialist Capitalist sense and all that old malarkey. it’s about making the playing field transparent and honest, frankly at the moment if you are neither a Corporation or a Government or a crony of two of those players your seat at the table is severely prejudiced by the highly biased banking model Corporations and Governments revel in as neither takes accountability and each blames the other meanwhile a revolving door between the two is very much in evidence if you take a look at post-Westminster careers and consultancy’s post-Westminster.The US is just as bad, for Americans there is the Institute of Public Finance google Ellen Brown.

    read of 1 dollar one vote. I signed and hope others will read some of the Positive Money research and come to the same conclusion. It’s not a political issue in a party political Socialist Capitalist sense and all that old malarkey. it’s about making the playing field transparent and honest, frankly at the moment if you are neither a Corporation or a Government or a crony of two of those players your seat at the table is severely prejudiced by the highly biased banking model Corporations and Governments revel in as neither takes accountability and each blames the other meanwhile a revolving door between the two is very much in evidence if you take a look at post-Westminster careers and consultancy’s post-Westminster.The US is just as bad, for Americans there is the Institute of Public Finance google Ellen Brown.

    Imagine a world without poverty. Imagine enough money for everyone and no debt. In the UK, the Bank Charter Act 1844 gave sole legal power to the Bank of England to issue bank notes and coins into the economy. Similar…
    AVAAZ.ORG

    So We see that Banks Create Money at great expense to Taxpayers over and above the cost of bailing them out in 2008 and the heavy price we have paid in Austerity since.

    Publicly owned or regional Banks that have the responsibility of providing the economy with its means of Exchange is all that is required.
 
  • rogerglewis 9:23 am on May 31, 2017 Permalink | Reply  

    What It is to go to war.Two Tribes Go to war will it be? Welcome to the Pleasure Dome? #Corbyn4PM #Labour2017 

    999999988888888888

    Image may contain: 1 person, beard and text

    The Ragged Trousered Philanderer

    We have the opportunity to vote for a better way… to stop this endless cycle of slaughter and revenge.

    LikeShow more reactions

    Comment

    8 Comments
    Comments
    Andrew Richard
    Andrew Richard He was right.

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 

     · 16 hrs

    Roger Lewis

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · Remove Preview · 3 hrs

    Pedro Osorio
    Pedro Osorio That’s a video about the US Roger 
    Here in the UK we still have a few Green Party members of Parliament

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 16 mins

    Roger Lewis
    Roger Lewis There is one GP MP Pedro , yes One whole One!
    The UK has acted as the USA´s Tart for many years as Have the EU. Here is a Blog with the story behind Blair and Bushes Illegal War in Iraq. Are you going to make this discussion dissappeaar as well? Speech police such as yourself are clearly fifth columns in the Green PArty.
    http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/…/torys…

    Some memory hole memories to remind the Tory Blow Back deniers and New Labour Blairites…
    LETTHEMCONFECTSWEETERLIES.BLOGSPOT.COM

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · Remove Preview · Just now · Edited

    Roger Lewis

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · Remove Preview · Just now

    Roger Lewis
    Roger Lewishttp://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.com/…/terrori…

    This Blog is by way of explication of the Video …
    LETTHEMCONFECTSWEETERLIES.BLOGSPOT.COM

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · Remove Preview · Just now

    Pedro Osorio
    Pedro Osorio I think that you don’t really understand why we built a European Union after the second world war 
    We needed to Unite to be independent from the US and the USSR 
    The USSR is gone and I think it’s great that the UK has democratically decided to leave the EU and joined the US

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · Just now

    Pedro Osorio
    Pedro Osorio Sorry we only have one but hopefully after the elections we will have a few

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 14 mins

    Pedro Osorio
    Pedro Osorio People here aren’t that stupid and they understand that the two Party system is a failure

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 12 mins

    Pedro Osorio
    Pedro Osorio Why is Tony Blair still allowed to be a member of the Labour Party
    Surely the leadership should have evicted him by now 
    https://youtu.be/-u7GxkvFJ5I

    Green party MP, Caroline Lucas, says the…
    YOUTUBE.COM

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 5 mins

    Pedro Osorio
    Pedro Osorio I’m just confused because of this maybe you can explain 
    https://www.theguardian.com/…/labour-expels-south-west…

    Kate Townsend, Steve Williams and Robert Park ousted…
    THEGUARDIAN.COM

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 3 mins

    Pedro Osorio
    Pedro Osorio Do you have special members in the Labour Party and the plebs that can be expelled?

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 1 min

     
  • rogerglewis 3:23 pm on May 30, 2017 Permalink | Reply  

    Salience, Relevance, Differentiation and The Polling Booth , A Crosby Show Blogzine. 

    Salience, Relevance, Differentiation and The Polling Booth point of sale

    The NHS, Fairness, Immigration & People, Brexit and an end to Austerity. Are the Relevant and Salient issues I get from the Data.

    Applying An analysis with the lens of Lynton Crosby’s 4 Elements in Campaigning, Namely;

    1. Salience, ( Is it out there)

    2. Relevance ( Do the people Give a Shit?)
    Is it personally Relevant?

    3. Differentiation ( They say That Too.)
    Political Differences, Wheres the change, why change?

    4. The point of Sale Execution (WTF?)
    (Making the Lies Stick, Connect the policies to the Party.

    Crosby says “if in Doubt Believe in something”, if your losing 
    then get someone else to do the Dirty work for you.


    Surrogates. Negative Campaigning.
    Candidates must carry

    ( The figures are Video Timings for direct Quotes)

    5:28

    the positive messages talk about what

    5:30

    they want to achieve and so forth and

    5:32

    then the campaign itself maybe the

    5:34

    literature that’s put out or what or in

    5:36

    what they call in the United States

    5:38
    surrogates in the US you know Obama had
    5:41
    lots of surrogates who are attacking 
    and
    5:43
    Mitt Romney all the time of values
    5:46
    wealth decisions he’s made in the past
    5:48
    they should carry the sort of more
    5:51
    negative messages tone is very important
    5:53
    when you’re executing we should be
    5:56
    executing anybody when you’re executing
    5:58
    when you’re executing a negative
    6:00
    campaign and certainly candidates
    6:04
    should overwhelm when we only ever
    6:05
    communicate a positive narrative
    6:07
    suitable towards the end of the campaign
    6:09
    for people to report all of us being
    6:10
    this surge in the SNP that Scottish
    6:13
    Nationalist Party and that’s you know
    6:15
    upsetting the dynamic for labour the
    6:18
    first time we picked that up was in
    6:19
    November of 2014 when in discussions in
    6:26
    focus groups people said Ed Miliband’s a

    6:29

    very weak man if the SNP do really well

    6:32

    and he relies on them to govern they

    6:36

    will push him around who knows what we

    6:39

    would get and that was the word

    6:42

    that was from the mouths of voters well

    6:44

    before anybody had picked up this sense

    6:46

    so we, you know started building on that

    6:48

    then we didn’t wasn’t something that

    6:50

    came late in the campaign it came late

    6:52

    in a lot of people’s realisation 

     

    7:38  
    when you’re running a campaign you have a particular
    7:41
    objective and that is you know to get
    7:44
    your side over the line to help them
    7:49
    win in in the right way not breaking the
    7:54
    law consistent with your values and all
    7:55
    of those things

    Fattening the Pig For Market, 


    “You Can´t Fatten the Pig on market day, you have to do as much as possible in advance”.

    with the limited resources you have you
    9:38
    need to ensure that they are focused on
    9:40
    where they will yield the most return so you
    9:44
    start by locking in your base you then
    9:46
    move to the swing group and focus your
    9:50
    resources on you know that’s a core vote
    9:52
    strategy well if you focus just on your
    9:53
    base you’re never going to win it comes
    9:56
    down finally to Labour and the Liberal
    9:58
    Party of conservatives and the
    9:59
    Socialists basically but the principle
    10:02
    remains you need to know who is your
    10:03
    base who is your swing and who is your
    10:05
    aunty and sometimes this is attributed
    10:09
    to me in the UK media but it didn’t come
    10:13
    from me, it came from John Howard who is
    10:15
    Prime Minister of Australia the
    10:17
    The statement, “you Can’t Fatten a Pig on Market day”

    Boris Johnson Parroting Crosby.

    ” what Lynton 

    will tell you is that you can’t, he can’t

    fatten a pig or market day”.

     10.28

    “so it’s very

    important that you understand,”” you can’t
     
    Fatten a pig on market day,”” you’re going

    to do as much as possible in advance”


    Four Elements.

    7:55
    of those things and they’re really four
    7:57
    four elements to political issues that I
    8:01
    look at political issues support for to
    8:04
    satisfy for tests to work out whether
    8:06
    they’re relevant for us in the campaign
    8:08
    context the first is is an issue
    8:11
    generally salient that is it out there
    8:13
    and sort of makes sense the people that
    8:14
    you’re talking about it
    8:17
    secondly they’re personally relevant 

    if
    8:20
    it’s not generally salient and you start
    8:21
    talking about people think what on earth
    8:24
    are, you know where he or she can
    8:26
    become what are they talking about you
    8:27
    know there’s no connection many rivers so
    8:29
    it needs to be that general salience but
    8:30
    then you need to have personal relevance
    8:32
    people need to see how it relates to
    8:34
    them in their lives or relates to
    8:37
    something that’s important to them
    8:40
    they’re the first to test the
     Third test

    8:43

    is, it’s got to be capable of being

    8:45
    politically differentiated 

    if you can if
    8:48
    you’ve got to set it you’ve got to set
    8:50
    yourself apart from your opponent
    8:51
    otherwise, why would people if they voted
    8:54
    for them, last time and you’re offering
    8:55
    the same there’s no political
    8:57
    differentiation well why would they
    8:58
    change to you so it’s there’s got to be
    9:01
    political differentiation and then
    9:03
    finally, your the issues that you pursue

    9:06

    have to be capable of a point of sale

    9:08
    execution what I mean by that is they
    9:11
    have to relate to how people behave in a
    9:15
    polling place and people have to
    9:20
    know the connection after that over I’m
    9:21
    going in to vote when I vote I’m doing
    9:23
    this because
    9:26
    this is the consequence of me doing this
    9:28
    which is a positive consequence in some
    9:31
    way to produce a leaflet whatever it is
    9:35
    with the limited resources you have you
    9:38
    need to ensure that they are focused on
    9:40
    where they will yield the most return


    Let’s Refresh ourselves´ on the four elements.

    Salience, ( Is it out there)

    Relevance ( Do the people Give a Shit?)
    Is it personally Relevant?

    Differentiation ( They say That Too.)
    Political Differences, Wheres the change, why change?

    The point of Sale Execution (WTF?)

    Making the Lies Stick, Connect the policies to the Party.

    Crosby´s Core Objectives.

    Lock in base then, move to the swing Group.

    Who is your base?

    Who is your Swing? and 

    Who is your Anti?




    Applying Lynton Crosby’s Method to the Following Video Transcripts, Last Nights Battle for No10 interviews on Sky and the previous Leaders Debate on Sky, What is Salient, What Is is Relevant, Where is differentiation required and What is Lynton USP his positives for the Candidates and the Negatives for the Surrogates?


    #BattleForNumber10: May v Corbyn

    Add to

     Share

    More
    39,465 views

    Streamed live 10 hours ago
    #BattleForNumber10: Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn are facing a live studio audience ahead of the General Election.

    The Conservative leader and the Labour leader will each face an audience Q&A hosted by Sky News Political Editor Faisal Islam. They will each then be interviewed by Jeremy Paxman.

    “ensure that they are focused on

    where they will Yield most return”

    Here is the Tag Cloud I generated from Last Nights Battle For No 10 Program.

    Here are the Issues Survation asked its polling audience to rate.

    http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Final-GMB-GE2017-IV-Tables-260517TOCH-1c0d0h9.pdf

    Here are the trend Lines in the Polling which Mr Crosby will no doubt take note of in the instructions for his army of Surrogates.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2017

    Will Mr Corbyn asking politely if he could refer to the figures as he wants to give an accurate figure, is construed in a negative light when the surrogates go to work? Mr Corbyn I would suggest Made a connection with the Audience, Differentiated the Labour Policy for negotiating Brexit and showed the relevance and salience of the different approach of Labour 2017 from the Strong and Stable “Nasty Party” and the proudly self-identifying “Very Difficult Woman” from “The Nasty Party”

    Mrs May is known in less Charitable circles as May Bot. I suspect Mr Crosby is preparing a stunt double for Public appearances as Mrs May´s cold metallic touch “”There are many complex reasons for Food banks ´´, is not people friendly and People and Immigration, The NHS,Fairness and the clear evidence that Post 2008 and after the 2010 Coalition, “WE” were definitely not all in the Austerity Shit together.

    Here’s the tenor of the debate on my Facebook Timeline a group of musicians in Bristol UK, of varying political stripes.

    If anyone is listening to radio 4 right now Corbyn has just made the biggest Faux pas going – when challenged on the figures on education costs in his manifesto he was unable to quote his figures……. 4.8 billion plus 2.4 billion which was quoted by the radio presenter ……. poor interview and very damaging …….

    LikeShow more reactions

    Comment

    Comments
    Sean Cardwell
    Sean Cardwell Oh dear!

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 2 hrs

    Sean Davey
    Sean Davey I really don’t put much stock at all in the ability to memorise some numbers. Likewise with similar gaffes from Gove, Abbott and Hammond. Wouldn’t you prefer someone that is good at coming up with policies and administering the country?

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 

     · 2 hrs

    Gemma Watkins
    Gemma Watkins First rule in business : know your numbers…. it’s a given

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 

     · 2 hrs

    Stephen Hogarth-Jeans
    Stephen Hogarth-Jeans Gemma Watkins also TBH JC has never administered or managed anything bigger than a talking shop,I wouldn’t trust him to manage my local takeaway!

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 

     · 2 hrs

    Al Swainger
    Al Swainger Yep – this is why they have teams of advisors and, ultimately, the civil service. Better to know what to do with data than have data and not know what to do with it.

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 

     · 2 hrs

    David Murray Milne
    David Murray Milne yes I was listening, didn’t come across too well

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 2 hrs

    Al Swainger
    Al Swainger Better give up and vote Tory then I suppose… 😉

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 2 hrs

    Paul Field
    Paul Field Back to my point. They’re all useless. Are Corbyn and May really the best the UK has to offer? I wouldn’t employ any of them

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 2 hrs

    Al Swainger
    Al Swainger Whether you feel they are or not, they are realistically the only choices we are being presented with and IMO May is no choice at all so…

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 2 hrs

    Paul Field
    Paul Field I’m going for hung parliament. Would like to see them forced to work together for once.

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 

     · 2 hrs

    Matthew Duncan
    Matthew Duncan We may as well have Mr bean as prime minister if Corbin gets in. The guy just comes across as an old hippy. Imagine the brexit deal we would get. He would be like the guilty guy in a divorce just giving it all away.

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 2 hrs

    Fergus Jack
    Fergus Jack You can’t even spell his name right you fool! 😂😂😂😂

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 1 hr

    David Greenhalgh
    David Greenhalgh Corbyn did brilliantly last night against May. So he made a gaff this morning. Read the Labour manifesto, look at the numbers and decide what kind of country you want to live in, fight for it and be part of the change you seek, instead of sitting back on your lazy arses pretending to be media pundits. Paul, with respect, I don’t think anyone cares who you would or wouldn’t employ. Show us your shoe leather.

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 

     · 2 hrs

    Gemma Watkins
    Gemma Watkins Who are you calling lazy or in fact who is pretending to be media pundits?

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 

     · 2 hrs

    David Greenhalgh
    David Greenhalgh I’m sure you work as hard as anyone else in your working life, but that’s not what I’m referring to. Uncommitted political commentary, the projection of self-assurance and taking umbrage on facebook is easy. Nailing your colours to the mast, fighting and taking the knocks takes character. As I said, let’s see your shoe leather.

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 

     · 40 mins

    Gemma Watkins
    Gemma Watkins Hi David 

    Are you a councillor, politician, MP? Do you canvass or campaign on behalf of your party? What is it you do personally to contribute towards your constituency, area, values?

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 

     · 30 mins · Edited

    Paul Field
    Paul Field I care! And I think they’re awful politicians

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 2 hrs

    Gemma Watkins
    Gemma Watkins Can we stop insulting each other please!!!

    If anyone thinks this is a nice tidy battle of a Corbyn v May then they are mistaken….. this is about Brexit and who is going to be left with the reputation of dealing with the complex alarming disentangling in the years to come. Forgetting numbers is not an over sight or mistake, it’s a tactic ! Think people !

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 

     · 1 hr · Edited

    Sanjoy Banerjee
    Sanjoy Banerjee Sorry Gemma, I disagree with you on this one. There is an ocean of difference between the vision of Britain offered by the two parties headed by these candidates, and concentrating on the minutiae entirely misses that. In broad terms you have a party committed to ideological spending cuts in order to create a low tax economy (it has nothing to do with the deficit – if it did then the national debt would not have risen from £800bn to £1.7tn during ‘austerity’) versus a party committed to a costed plan on investment in growth and public services.

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 27 mins · Edited

    Roger Lewis
    Roger Lewis We will see the press will, of course, get as much mileage out of this as they can. Watching the whole clip, which many will not ( there is a video, I do not listen to Woman’s Hour, I think it probably sounded worse than the footage.
    http://www.bbc.com/…/jeremy-corbyn-stumbles-over…
    Time will tell I think Mrs May is not a good candidate she is much worse than Mr Corbyn in my opinion.

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 14 mins

    Roger Lewis
    Roger Lewis http://election2017.ifs.org.uk/…/labour-s-childcare… Heres the IFS take on the proposals.
    What I am doing presently is analysing last night’s debate and will be doing a comparison of the BBC editing. Looking for Crosby´s surrogates.
    I made this tag
    See More

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 7 mins

    Roger Lewis
    Roger Lewis On Issues look at how large the don’t knows and other are, The narrowing of both the polls and the falling Odds at the bookies are also telling.

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 5 mins

    Roger Lewis
    Roger Lewis 6% and the Odds down to 6-1 for a hung parliament thats what I am betting on , was 14-1 a week ago? Roger Glyndwr Lewis‏ @RogerGLewis 3h3 hours ago
    More
    Replying to @Nigel_Farage
    See More

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 2 mins

    Borrowing from Mr Crosby´s Swine analogy You Can´t Fatten the pig on market day“. I feel dear reader we should remind ourselves of some other Porcine Analogies. Firstly Mr Crosby will be aware that he can not make “a Silk Purse out of a Sows Ear“. Indeed it is unadvisable to think that one can put lipstick on this particular Pig, let alone transform its Ears into the necessary receptacle for Mrs Mays string of pearls. Our extant Sow, this present Candidate and her Presidential Campaign, shrieking “Two Legs Good and Four legs bad“,
    And “casting all the pearls before the corporate swine” brings to mind the scene in S1Mone . 
    Once the pressure of serving his creation reaches a breaking point for Viktor, he decides to ruin Simone’s career as an act of vengeance. Simone’s next film, I Am Pig, is her directorial debut and a tasteless treatment about zoophilia intended to disgust audiences, which not only fails to achieve the desired effect of audience alienation, but also serves to foster her credibility as a risk-taking, fearless and avant-garde artist. Taransky’s subsequent attempts to discredit Simone by having her drink, smoke and curse at public appearances and use politically incorrect statements similarly backfire, when the press instead begins to see her as refreshingly honest.”
    That story Line, 

    It seems is for the Movies In Real Life, Pork, it seems will be off the Menu and the Audience refuse to see the Silk Purse qualities in the  Avatar of the Wizard of Oz´s sub-par Sow.
    Mr Crosby has been fattening the wrong Tory Pig for a very long time, The Substitute Pig he has presented to Market is below merchantable quality. This Lady is for Turning and This Turd is certainly not for polishing.


     https://vid.me/e/LFpn?stats=1

    ELECTION 2017, DEBATES 2010, 2015 AND 2017 IN WORD CLOUDS. THE HUG THAT SAID IT ALL IN 2015.

    The following 3 data presentations are what you will make of them. I carried out the analysis for my own curiosity as to whether the political debates ever touch on Ideology or Ethics. What it is to be Liberal, Conservative or Progressive.
    In the 2015 debates Leanne Woods, Nicola Sturgeon and Natalie Bennet stood out for me as the most politically pedagogical as they all mentioned Austerity and Cuts and Woods and Sturgeon have even identified explicitly the Ideology of Neo Liberalism in their interview appearance that campaign.
    Draw your own conclusions of course.

    In 2017 Brexit was the early runner and of course, the position of the 3 Female leaders who showed up all being remainers did not find it convenient to draw the attention of voters to the hopelessly Neo-Liberal and embedded Austerity positions of the EU, with Austerity baked into trade deals and institutions alike.

    The neo liberal Ed Milliband missing out on the Anti Austerity and decidely anti-Neo-Liberal 2015 group hug.

    United Kingdom general election debates, 2010

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Gordon Brown David Cameron official.jpg Nick Clegg by the 2009 budget cropped.jpg
    Gordon Brown
    Labour
    David Cameron
    Conservative
    Nick Clegg
    Liberal Democrats
    2010 2015 debates →
    The United Kingdom general election debates of 2010 consisted of a series of three leaders’ debates between the leaders of the three main parties contesting the 2010 United Kingdom general electionGordon BrownPrime Minister and leader of the Labour PartyDavid CameronLeader of the Opposition and Conservative Party; and Nick Clegg, leader of the third largest political party in the UK, the Liberal Democrats. They were the first such debates to be broadcast live in the run-up to a UK election.
    The debates ran without a break for 90 minutes and were broadcast weekly by ITVBSkyB and the BBC over three successive Thursday evenings starting on 15 April. They were moderated by Alastair StewartAdam Boulton and David Dimbleby respectively. The first half of each debate focused on a particular theme (domestic, international and economic affairs), before general issues were discussed. The questions were not disclosed to the leaders before the debate.
    In addition to the leaders’ debates, on 29 March, the three main parties’ financial spokesmen participated in a debate focusing on the economy, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling debating with the Shadow Chancellor George Osborne and Liberal Democrats’ Treasury spokesman Vince Cable on Channel 4. Debates also took place between 19 April and 5 May, a series of debates also took place on the BBC political TV series The Daily Politics, between members of the incumbent Labour Cabinet and their ConservativeLiberal Democrat counterparts and representatives from the Green Party, the Scottish National PartyPlaid Cymru and the UK Independence Party.
    Debates were also held in Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland, due to the devolved nature of various aspects of government in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In Scotland and Wales, representatives of three main parties were joined by respective nationalist party representatives who stand MPs only in Scotland and Wales, while in Northern Ireland, due to the main parties having no seats, debates were held between the four largest Northern Irish parties. The arrangements for the UK-wide leaders debates were criticised for being restricted to the main UK parties excluding other national minor parties and nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales, for covering many domestic matters which are devolved from Westminster, and also for being held in three locations solely in England.
    created at TagCrowd.com

    United Kingdom general election debates, 2015

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    David Cameron official.jpg Ed Miliband Nick Clegg by the 2009 budget cropped.jpg
    David Cameron
    Conservative
    Ed Miliband
    Labour
    Nick Clegg
    Liberal Democrats
    Nigel Farage MEP 1, Strasbourg - Diliff.jpg Natalie Bennett Take Back Our World.jpg Nicola Sturgeon 2.jpg
    Nigel Farage
    UKIP
    Natalie Bennett
    GPEW
    Nicola Sturgeon
    SNP
    Leanne Wood.jpg
    Leanne Wood
    Plaid Cymru
    ← 2010 debates 2015 2017 debates →
    The term “United Kingdom general election debates” of 2015 refers to a series of four live television programmes featuring the main political party leaders that took place in March/April 2015 in the run-up to the general election. After various prior proposals and arguments over which parties should be represented,[1][2] there was a single debate between the leaders of seven British parties:[3]
    There was a second debate involving the “challengers”, those in the above list who were not members of the outgoing coalition government. There were also two programmes – one with Cameron and Miliband; one with Cameron, Miliband and Clegg – in which the leaders answered questions but did not debate head-to-head.
    Following the result of the election, a survey of 3,019 people, carried out by Panelbase, found that 38% of voters considered the debates to have influenced their voting intention.[4][5]
    http://tagcrowd.com/pdf/1495187430_cloud.pdf

    austerity (11) balance (12) believe (16) benefits (13) bennett (17) better (17) billion (23) britain (23)build (17) care (17) change (22) control (15) country (51) create (13) cuts (40) deal (13) debate (22)debt (19) decisions (12) economy (18) ed (17) education (20) election (14) end (15) eu (14) europe (17)european (16) fair (14) family (15) free (17) full (12) future (22) generation (19) give (16) going (26)government (19) happens (12) health (17) help (25) home (23) host (16) hours (11) house (21)immigration (43) important (13) invest (16) issue (19) jobs (28) labor (20) leaders (19) living (22) lot (13)miliband (37) million (17) minister (26) money (21) mr (54) national (13) needs (11) nhs (29) nick (12)nigel (13) open (13) parliament (12) party (37) pay (28) people (126) plan (24) point (13) politics (12)pounds (34) prime (28) private (14) problem (13) promise (12) public (19) question (21) schools (17)services (28) social (14) speaker (74) spending (18) sturgeon (12) sure (16) system (16) talk (18) tax (20)thank (34) things (16) think (42) tonight (16) tuition (11) university (12) vote (22) wage (14) wales (17)work (38) world (15) years (41) young (30)

    created at TagCrowd.com

    United Kingdom general election, 2017

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    United Kingdom general election, 2017
    United Kingdom


    ← 2015 8 June 2017 2022 →

    All 650 seats in the House of Commons
    326 seats needed for a majority
    Opinion polls
    Theresa May Jeremy Corbyn
    Leader Theresa May Jeremy Corbyn
    Party Conservative Labour
    Leader since 11 July 2016 12 September 2015
    Leader’s seat Maidenhead Islington North
    Last election 330 seats, 36.9% 232 seats, 30.4%
    Current seats 330 229
    Seats needed Steady Increase 97

    Nicola Sturgeon Tim Farron
    Leader Nicola Sturgeon Tim Farron
    Party SNP Liberal Democrat
    Leader since 14 November 2014 16 July 2015
    Leader’s seat Not contesting[n 1] Westmorland & Lonsdale
    Last election 56 seats, 4.7% 8 seats, 7.9%
    Current seats 54 9
    Seats needed N/A[n 2] Increase 317

    2017UKElectionMap.svg

    A map of UK parliamentary constituencies.

    Incumbent Prime Minister

    2005 election  MPs
    2010 election  MPs
    2015 election  MPs
    2017 election  MPs
    The United Kingdom general election of 2017 is scheduled to take place on 8 June 2017. Each of the 650 parliamentary constituencies will elect one Member of Parliament (MP) to the House of Commons, the lower house of Parliament.
    In line with the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, an election had not been due until 7 May 2020, but a call for a snap election by Prime Minister Theresa May received the necessary two-thirds majority in a 522 to 13 vote in the House of Commons on 19 April 2017.
    The Conservative Party, which has governed since 2015 (and as a senior coalition partner from 2010), is defending a majority of 12 against the Labour Party, the official opposition. The third largest party, the Scottish National Party, won 56 of the 59 Scottish constituencies in 2015. The Liberal Democrats, and the Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party, are the fourth and fifth largest parties, with 9 and 8 seats respectively.
    Negotiation positions following Britain’s invocation of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union in March 2017 to leave the EU are expected to dominate the election campaign. Opinion polling for the popular vote since the election was called has given May’s Conservatives a significant lead over Labour led by Jeremy Corbyn.

    12345

    http://tagcrowd.com/pdf/1495187524_cloud.pdf

    created at TagCrowd.com

    1234

    The Video below is My Critique of Paul Johnsons Ìnependant´expert view on the BBC Reality checks of the Tory and Labour Party Manifestos.

    facts are not important to religious
    15:46
    ideologies and neoliberalism is a
    15:50
    religious ideology I suggest that this
    15:55
    independent expert on the BBC is a
    15:58
    priest of neo- liberal ideology and what
    16:02
    we actually see is that in the current
    16:04
    constitution of the British state and
    16:07
    and the European state and  really
    16:11
    within the Washington Consensus is
    16:14
    actually, a religious doctrine embedded
    16:20

    in government 







    Theresa May launched her party’s general election manifesto with promises of more money for services such as the NHS and schools, but where is the money coming from?
    40:58
    measure that both labor and the Lib dems have promised
    41:01
    of course is an increase in
    41:03
    income tax not the Torys

    Paul Johnson – Institute For Fiscal Studies – IFS

    (TALKING HEAD) ´´ you look at this
    41:07
    manifesto and whilst there is
    41:09
    little actually promised not to increase
    41:11
    income tax and national insurance and so on
    41:14
    what you’ve got is a pretty modest set
    41:16
    of proposals which probably aren’t going
    41:18
    to require terribly much
    41:20
    in the way of tax increases´´
    one big conservative
    41:25
    promise in the Cameron years was the
    41:27
    triple lock on pensions under which the
    41:29
    state pension rises by the rate of
    41:31
    inflation average earnings or 2.5%
    41:33
    percent whichever is the highest Theresa May Wants
    41:36
    to scrap that losing
    41:38
    (David David Speech Brexit.)
    the
    43:13
    negotiations are about to begin with the
    43:15
    European Union won’t be easy they will be
    43:19
    challenging and at times they’ll be tough
    43:23
    in Theresa May
    43:26
    Britain has a prime minister with the
    43:27
    strength to lead Britain through these
    43:29
    negotiations and make a success for the
    43:32
    future”
    Narrator.
    but the outcome of those
    43:35
    negotiations over the next two years is
    43:37
    deeply uncertain at the moment the
    43:39
    manifesto reasserts that the Conservatives
    43:41
    think no deal is better
    43:44
    than a bad deal so the union
    43:46
    negotiations will probably be more than
    43:48
    anything else in the next parliament to
    43:50
    determine the health of the British
    43:51
    economy and the chances for any
    43:53
    political party to put their promises
    43:56
    into practice
    so that was the conservative
    44:06
    reality check so-called reality check
    44:10
    and here is the so-called labor
    44:13
    manifesto reality check
    Jeremy Corbyn unveiled pledges costing £48.6bn in his party’s election manifesto. Reality Check correspondent Chris Morris crunches the numbers.
    46:00
    labour says it can finance all its
    46:02
    current spending plans through changes in the tax
    46:05
    system forty eight point six billion out
    46:08
      1. billion in so does that add up

    Paul Johnson – Institute For Fiscal Studies – IFS

        (TALKING HEAD SAME AS TORY video.)and
    46:11
    they’re suggesting a fifty billion pound
    46:13
    increase in tax which if it were to
    46:16
    be implemented by the way would take the
    46:18
    tax burden of this country to the highest level
    46:20
    its been in about seventy years but
    46:23
    actually I think theres an awful
    46:25
    lot of uncertainty about whether you
    46:26
    could actually raise that amount of tax
    46:29
    they’re talking about very very large
    46:30
    increases in taxes on companies which
    46:33
    would likely reduce the amount of
    46:35
    investment that they do so I think the
    46:37
    actual amount you could get from these policies
    46:39
    certainly runs into the tens of
    46:41
    billions but probably doesn’t reach
    46:42
    the fifty billion that labor are
    46:45
    claiming”
    Narrator
    so that’s tax but there are
    46:48
    also big plans for investment spending
    46:50
    all those nationalization plans you’ve
    46:52
    heard about water companies the Royal
    46:54
    Mail and so on labour says it will
    46:56
    borrow money to pay for future
    46:57
    investment it’s talking about national
    47:00
    transformation fund of 250 billion pounds
    47:03
    but there’s no detailed costing of
    47:06
    those nationalization plans in the
    47:08
    manifesto that will be the source of
    47:10
    controversy and political debate but
    47:13
    labor does make one bold promise it
    47:15
    says it’s committed to ensuring that the
    47:18
    national debt is lower at the end of the
    47:20
    next parliament than it is today



    GENERAL ELECTION 2017 PARALELLES TO 1951. #CORBYN4PM LABOUR CAN WIN

     
  • rogerglewis 4:50 pm on May 28, 2017 Permalink | Reply  

    The Revolution will not be televised. 

    Lynton Crosby

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Sir Lynton Crosby
    AO
    Lynton Crosby Political Strategist.jpg
    Born Lynton Keith Crosby
    23 August 1956 (age 60)
    Kadina, South Australia
    Residence United Kingdom
    Nationality Australian
    Alma mater University of Adelaide
    Occupation Political strategist
    Political party Liberal Party of Australia
    Sir Lynton Keith Crosby AO (born 23 August 1956)[1][2] is an Australian political strategist who has managed election campaigns for right-of-centre parties in several countries.[3]
    Crosby has been described as a “master of the dark political arts”, “the Wizard of Oz”, and “the Australian Karl Rove“. In 2002, he was called “one of the most powerful and influential figures in the nation” by The Age.[2][4]
    After graduating from the University of Adelaide, Crosby first became involved in politics with the Liberal Party of Australia, eventually being appointed federal director of the party in 1997. He oversaw the party’s successful campaigns at the 199619982001, and 2004 federal elections, which made the Howard Government Australia’s second-longest serving federal government. In 2002, Crosby left his formal position in the party to establish a consulting firm, the Crosby Textor Group.

    Crosby first ventured into overseas politics at the 2005 UK general election, where he managed the Conservative Party‘s unsuccessful UK campaign. He has since also run Conservative campaigns for the 2008 and 2012 London mayoral elections, as well as the 2015 general election, all of which resulted in victories for the party. His campaign was less successful for the 2016 London mayoral election which was won by the Labour candidate.[5] Outside of Australia and the UK, Crosby has also served as an advisor for parties in Canada, New Zealand, and Sri Lanka. At the 2009 European Parliament elections, Crosby acted as a consultant for Libertas, a pan-European party.Tactics[edit]

    Crosby is described as favouring what is called a wedge strategy, whereby the party he advises introduces a divisive or controversial social issue into a campaign, aligning its own stance with the dissenting faction of its opponent party, with the goal of causing vitriolic debate inside the opposing party, defection of its supporters, and the legitimising of sentiment which had previously been considered inappropriate. This is also described as “below the radar” or dog-whistle campaigning, with the targeting of marginal constituencies with highly localised campaigning, latching on to local issues and personalities.[2] To find such divisive and potentially deflecting issues, Crosby’s business partner Mark Textor runs focus groups to find which groups to target with what questions.[29] Crosby is said to run a tight ship, focus on simple messages, target marginal constituencies and use lots of polls.[4]

    Dead cat theory[edit]

    In a 2013 article for The Daily Telegraph, Boris Johnson noted that one of Crosby’s tactics when losing an argument and having the facts against you was to do the equivalent of “throwing a dead cat on the table”: bring up an issue you want to talk about that draws widespread attention from the populace, forcing opponents to also talk about your new issue instead of the previous issue.[22]

    Personal life[edit]

    Crosby is married to his wife Dawn née Hands, an Australian, with whom he has two adult daughters: Tara and Emma. Crosby and his wife are UK residents.[7]

    Honours[edit]










    1234

    MICHAEL MOORE IN TRUMPLAND , THE **HANGINCHADDOW*

    ”Yeah though I walk in the Chaddow of Doom , I will fear no evil”

    Michael Moore’s film ´TrumpLand´ is, as all his films are, thought provoking. It is a film made in the style of ”an audience with’ , where he performs a show variously comprising Stand Up , polemic and book readings . An engaging speaker and expert raconteur Moore is a consummate communicator aware of the buttons to press in his audience after probing them, teasing them and flattering them in turn.
    Moore lays out his stall, fencing off the Hispanic Part of the Audience in the theaters Circle seats and Placing a Moslem section of the audience under drone surveillance. Both precautions he says to help the Trump supporters in his audience to relax. Pretty edgy comedic stuff in these politically correct days and Brave given the theatre is in a Small town that votes 90% in favour of the GOP and where Trump is also popular, one presumes.
    Moore asks his audience permission to read something he had just written in the official Hotel recommended to acts appearing at the hosting theatre, he sits at a desk with his ring bound folder. A scholarly setting redolent of fire side chats beloved of broadcaster continuity over festive holidays. Suitably posed Moore reads his freshly penned polemic and it is this polemic which appears on the Internet. Top trending on reddit and hurriedly ripped and pasted around the web the source of course missing. Rumours abound that it is not even Moore speaking these words. The words he speaks are powerful and cut through to the essence of the deep anger sadness and confusion of the American people. This righteous anger Moore concludes will lead to ´´The biggest Fu ever delivered´´. A Trump Victory in the presidential race of 2016.

     




    1234
     
  • rogerglewis 4:15 pm on May 27, 2017 Permalink | Reply  

    hypocrisy and lack of realism in the ideals of the wartime propaganda . Tory Mendacity on "The Troubles" #Corbyn4PM 

    If the ex Head of Mi5 holds this view too then why is Mr Corbyn supposed to see it differently? He is TWO weeks away from possibly being PM should those who are about to vote not know what his views and policies are on Terrorism are?…I appreciate that no one is supposed to talk about Brexit anymore but don’t its supporters want to know about anything at all now?

    Play
    -2:05

    Additional Visual Settings

    Enter Watch And ScrollEnter Fullscreen

    Unmute

    8,854 Views
    Ex-MI5 chief: a few among a whole generation have been radicalised because of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
  • LikeShow more reactions

    Comment

    Comments
    Ellie Baker
    Ellie Baker While you all get upset about Corbyn and his non existent IRA connections .. let me remind you of our Conservatives governments involvement with human rights abusers and dictators openly funding ISIS .. Happening right now 

    Theresa May hosted the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Al Thani, saying that his country was a ‘natural partner’ of the UK which was seeking to promote investment and ‘defence’ (i.e., arms exports)The meeting followed Defence Secretary Michael Fallon hosting Qatar’s Defence Minister to discuss joint military training in which Fallon also announced the creation of a new Deputy Defence Attaché role in Qatar ‘which will ensure strong and continued defence engagement’.
    Qatar has been accused of financially supporting radical opposition groups in Syria and Iraq and has allowed private fundraising for Al Qaeda, the Islamic State group and other jihadist organisationshttp ://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-saudi-qatar-idUSBREA2806S20140309

    Theresa May also hosted the King of Bahrain, Hamad bin Isa al Khalifa, notorious for his country’s brutal crackdown on dissidents and the Shia community. 

    The Prime Minister reiterated the UK’s ‘firm commitment to the security of the Gulf’ – government code for continuing support for the regime. 
    Royal visits have also been made to Oman and the United Arab Emirates and the government has reaffirmed its commitment to building two new military bases in Bahrain and Oman…
    The current King of Bahrain, Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa is a descendent of the long-ruling Al Khalifa dynasty, which has held power in the country since 1783. Al Khalifa is a tactical partner of the United States in the Gulf region, yet his reign since 2002 has nonetheless administered violent repression of anti-monarchy activists
    Interesting point the UK spent £2m in aid money last year to support humanitarian reform in the Bahrain, there was still widespread evidence of the use of torture by security services
    …so we give them money to stop human rights abuses and then sell them weapons and cosy up 

    Meanwhile, Britain has struck an extraordinary new special relationship with the military rulers of Egypt, who overthrow a democratically-elected government in 2013. In August, Theresa May spoke with Egyptian military ruler General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and ‘discussed a new chapter in bilateral relations between the UK and Egypt’. Since late 2015 numerous ministerial meetings have been held to promote military
    cooperationr
    Abdel Fattah al-Sisi of Egypt has presided over the flagrant abuse of human rights since taking office a year ago pledging to restore stability. Violence by armed groups and the government has escalated.
    The United States and European governments should stop overlooking Egyptian government abuses, including a lack of accountability for many killings of protesters by security forces, mass detentions, military trials of civilians, hundreds of death sentences, and the forced eviction of thousands of families in the Sinai Peninsula.

    .https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/06/08/egypt-year-abuse

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 4 hrs

    Dave Evans
    Dave Evans Any point you may have had disintegrates if you start it with a lie, Ellie. 

    Corbyn’s connections with the IRA are a matter of record.

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 

    1

     · 3 hrs

    Ellie Baker
    Ellie Baker please show me ..because i don’t think its true ..because if it was you;d have evidence .. but of course ignore the government selling arms to dictators and regimes that support isis .. some facts for you ..https://twitter.com/ToryFibs/status/868167966063558656

    “Several factual inaccuracies in Andrew Neil’s assertions this evening around the Northern…
    TWITTER.COM

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 33 mins

    Dave Evans
    Dave Evans Eoin is 

    a) not a great source – he doesn’t do things like ‘fact checking’See More

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 31 mins

    Dave Evans
    Dave Evans But if your assertion is that Corbyn has never had contact with the IRA? 

    That’s trivial to disprove, Ellie.

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 30 mins

    Ellie Baker
    Ellie Baker research the facts yourself ..its all there..still waiting for the evidence..do you honestly think if they had anything on Corbyn they wouldn’t have used it so far ?..and please check the dates of this photographs .long after the good friday agreementSee More

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 26 mins

    Ellie Baker

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 25 mins

    Dave Evans
    Dave Evans You’ll note that I provided a different photograph, Ellie. From the 1980s. 

    Do I need to explain the differences between those two photographs, or can you work them out for yourself?

    Not that Corbyn meeting with Gerry Adams shortly before the IRA detonated their largest bombing of mainland Britain EVER is a particularly *great* photo… 

    (and *after* that terrorist attack, Corbyn invited Adams to Parliament YET AGAIN – to sell his autobiography…)

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 23 mins · Edited

    Ellie Baker
    Ellie Baker and in our manifesto ..”A Labour government will immediately recognise the state of Palestine.”..about time huh ?..

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 23 mins

    Ellie Baker
    Ellie Baker you mean after he was fully accepted into parliament and became part of the political world .. you really are silly .. again don’t you think if they had anything credible on Corbyn .. they would use it .. you have your opinion ..but facts don’t back your opinion up .. read the facts

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 21 mins · Edited

    Dave Evans
    Dave Evans It might nice if you could stay on topic for just this once, Ellie. 

    Stop trying to deflect, stop trying to tell us how nasty the Tories are. See More

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 20 mins

    Dave Evans

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 20 mins

    Dave Evans
    Dave Evans I mean – do you not know who Gerry Adams is? 

    Do you not know who Martin McGuinness was?See More

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 17 mins

    Ellie Baker
    Ellie Baker If the Catholics had been allowed civil rights from the start there would have been no violence. Internment of over 3000 Catholic men was the best recruiting sergeant for the IRA. If you codem the IRA you need to condemn the Army and RUC paramilitary police for their murders as well.

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 16 mins

    Ellie Baker
    Ellie Baker Corbyn condemned both the IRA and the British Army.

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 16 mins

    Dave Evans
    Dave Evans These aren’t responses to what I’m saying, Ellie. 

    Nor are they relevant to what you said. 

    The question at hand isn’t whether Corbyn has condemned the IRA. 

    You claimed he had no connection whatsoever with the IRA. 

    What’s your basis for that claim? Given that there are, y’know, photos of him with them.

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 14 mins

    Dave Evans
    Dave Evans You know what? Don’t answer me. 

    But have a good hard think about it. 

    Because you need to know the answer to this.

    If a blog or a meme got you *so* convinced about this that you’re willing to argue so vociferously about it – even in the face of photographic evidence and contemporaneous news articles – then you really need to stop and think about how readily you believe things you *want* to believe. 

    And whether facts matter to you, or not.

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 12 mins

    Ellie Baker
    Ellie Baker you’re talking silly and you know it .. corny is a man of peace

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · Just now

    Andrew Sheldon
    Andrew Sheldon Enlighten us…what are they? Evidence would be appreciated if available.

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 3 hrs

    Tim Light
    Tim Light I’m waiting too… Given that Corbyn was under seveilence by MI5, for pretty much all of that time and they couldn’t find anything which they could arrest him for.

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 3 hrs · Edited

    Roger Lewis

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · Remove Preview · 3 hrs

    Roger Lewis
    Roger Lewis http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/…/the… 
    In 1992, Ramadan Abedi was sent back to Libya by Britain’s MI6 and was involved in a British-devised plot to assassinate Muammar Gaddafi. The operation having been readily exposed, he was exfilt
    See More

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 3 hrs

    Dave Evans
    Dave Evans And we’re shifting the goalposts again. 

    Who claimed that Corbyn committed a criminal offence? 

    That he met with IRA members is a matter of record. It’s in Hansard. There are several photographs of him chatting with divisional commanders of the provisional IRA. 

    He’s admitted himself to attending memorial services for IRA martyrs (and described it as “an honour” to be invited).

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 

    1

     · 3 hrs

    Dave Evans
    Dave Evans By all means think that Corbyn’s support of the IRA doesn’t matter. 

    By all means think that it was years ago, or that you agree with him. See More

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 3 hrs

    Roger Lewis
    Roger Lewis http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/…/the…

    ROD LIDDLE This is the worst Tory election campaign ever Theresa May has the warmth, wit and oratorical ability of a fridge-free…
    LETTHEMCONFECTSWEETERLIES.BLOGSPOT.COM

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · Remove Preview · 2 hrs

    Dave Evans
    Dave Evans Take your conspiracy theories and shove them up your arse, Roger 🙂

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 2 hrs

    Roger Lewis
    Roger Lewis Dave Evans This is evidence based upon facts Dave, the truth is like that it sets you free but only after it pisses you off. Google SCADS Lance de Haven.
    http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/…/hangin… You´re welcome, no need to say thank you Dave.

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · Remove Preview · 2 hrs

    Stuart Gregory
    Stuart Gregory Jeremy Corbyn has never met anyone from the IRA Dave

    In your haste to stick the boot into Corbyn, you are confusing Sinn Fein with the IRA.

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 1 hr

    Tim Light
    Tim Light I agree that it’s wrong to claim that connections are “non existent” (as in the first comment above) but, at the same time, it’s wrong to exaggerate those connections. Which, is something which we often see. It’s more accurate to say that Corbyn had a ‘pro-unionist’ stance on Northern Ireland, rather than ‘pro-IRA’. He’s also on record condemning the violence there, at that time, by all perpetrators. But, this seldom gets mentioned by those who dislike him and use he’s opinions of the troubles in Northern Ireland and what should have been done to achieve peace, against him.

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 2 hrs · Edited

    Dave Evans
    Dave Evans It was an explicitly pro-IRA stance, Tim

    (and you mean ‘Republican’ rather than ‘Unionist’…)

    Certainly his overall stance has always been in support of a united Ireland (which is a perfectly valid political position to hold), but he’s also regularly expressed that support *through support of the Provisional IRA*. 

    He’s met with senior members (repeatedly), he’s attended memorials for their dead, he’s protested their trials and the magazine he edited eulogised their terrorism (and, most notoriously, even celebrated the Brighton Bombing – and the deaths it caused – in an editorial)

    We can’t pretend he was a distant supporter of their cause. He was an active supporter of the IRA as an entity, and a supporter of many of them as individuals. 

    – 

    Again – these are perfectly valid positions to hold (although in some cases a bit distasteful). There’s nothing criminal about any of it. 

    It’s also perfectly valid to suggest that, given the current political situation, none of this matters any more. 

    My issue is that far too many Corbyn supporters are eager to rewrite history on his behalf, inventing a perfect, flawless Jeremy Corbyn who has never done anything questionable. 

    (we see a similar thing with regard to expenses claims, where “he has low travel expenses claims” (true) has been twisted to “he always has the lowest expenses claims of any MP” (an outright lie))

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 

    2

     · 2 hrs

    Tim Light
    Tim Light Yeah, I often do that. In the case of N.I., I often think of ‘unionism’ to mean the union of N.I. and the Republic. It’s made more confusing that the pro-British in N.I. are often referred to as ‘loyalists’ rather than ‘unionists’. I usually see my misSee More

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 2 hrs

    Dave Evans
    Dave Evans The only republicans he met with were members of the provisional IRA, the only arguments he advanced were those aligned with Sinn Fein and the provisional IRA. 

    He definitely attended events relating to IRA terrorist members – so his contact wasn’t just with the ‘political wing’.

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 1 hr

    Andrew Sheldon
    Andrew Sheldon Opinion is good but it isn’t evidence Dave…where are the quotes and their sources which have him expressing support for PIRA and it’s campaign of violence?

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 1 hr

    Dave Evans
    Dave Evans Again with the goalpost-moving, Andrew.

    The thing is, you’ve had Corbyn’s IRA connections proved to you repeatedly. What would be the point in providing the same links to you again? 

    You’re just going to force the same argument again in a subsequent thread. 

    Honestly, the bigger issue for me is the way you lot have so much difficult acknowledging Corbyn’s background, and the things he’s championed over his political career. 

    This shouldn’t be controversial stuff. Most of it should be stuff you agree with, even.

    (or at least aren’t bothered about)

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 1 hr · Edited

    Roger Lewis
    Roger Lewis http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/…/ira-uda… Try some facts Dave, just for a change.
    DO you suppose that all conflict ends by the bad guys walking out with white flags and saying do with us as you will? DO grow up.

    Quiggleys words.p.232 tragedy and Hope.
    ´´but criticism should have been directed rather at the hypocrisy and lack
    of realism in the ideals of the wartime propaganda and at the lack of honesty of the chief negotiators in carrying on the pretense that these ideals were still in effect while they violated them daily, and necessarily violated them. The settlements were clearly made by secret negotiations, by the Great Powers exclusively, and by power politics. They had to be. No settlements could ever have been made on any other bases. The failure of the chief negotiators (at least the Anglo-Americans) to admit this is regrettable, but behind their
    reluctance to admit it is the even more regrettable fact that the lack of political experience and political education of the American and English electorates made it dangerous for the negotiators to admit the facts of life in international political relationships.”

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 58 mins

    Dave Evans
    Dave Evans Do feel free to stop stalking me like a total fucking mentalist, Roger.

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 55 mins

    Andrew Sheldon
    Andrew Sheldon How has this Goalpost shifted..this is all I have said ” Enlighten us…what are they? Evidence would be appreciated if available.” There is no evidence in any of the above it is interesting but it is opinion.

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 1 hr

    Dave Evans
    Dave Evans When the initial claim was “Corbyn had no IRA connections at all”, asking for proof that he “supported the PIRA’s campaign of violence” is rather more significant, wouldn’t you say? 

    Almost like you’re asking me to prove something that wasn’t alleged in the first place, in fact.

    You’re also well aware – as am I – that the evidence has been presented to you previously, Andrew.

    Why would I waste my time presenting it again?

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 54 mins · Edited

    Dave Evans
    Dave Evans I mean – are you actually contesting that Corbyn had no connection whatsoever with the Provisional IRA?

    Or just that he never supported them or their goals?

    Or both?

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 53 mins

    Andrew Sheldon
    Andrew Sheldon No I am saying, to be clear, he appeared on platforms and he spoke to Sinn Fein, and to the IRA. He never condoned violence from anyone, Loyalist, Republican or British as he is opposed to violence in virtually every conceivable circumstance as he believes that it occurs when politics fail.

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 45 mins

    Nick Machnik-Foster
    Nick Machnik-Foster He has never once during The Troubles or since specifically condemned the violence of the IRA even when given 5 chances to do so recently.

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 39 mins

    Andrew Sheldon
    Andrew Sheldon Neither would if I were in a position of responsibility for maintaining a still fragile Peace process.

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 38 mins

    Dave Evans
    Dave Evans Well that’s rather different from what Ellie claimed (and what is being claimed on various pro-Corbyn blogs), and what I was initially arguing against. 

    I’d contend that his mourning of IRA ‘martyrs’ was condoning their terrorism, as did his position on the editorial board of ‘Labour Briefing’ when they published their vile celebratory editorial about the Brighton Bombing, and his protest of the trial of IRA terrorists. 

    But that is debatable. You might think he had other reasons for those actions, or that there’s still a certain distance between his behaviour and ‘supporting violence’. 

    I’d also suggest that his inability to condemn IRA violence without equivocation is worrying. 

    (he does a similar thing when asked about anti-Semitism – he won’t condemn it, but he will condemn “all acts of bigotry”) 

    Again, you might be satisfied with an equivocal condemnation and think it’s splitting hairs to want him to be specific. 

    But it’s saying that these things *never happened* that’s my main concern. 

    In order to have room for debate, we need to acknowledge the basic historical facts.

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 37 mins · Edited

    Nick Machnik-Foster
    Nick Machnik-Foster Then you’re an idiot Andrew.

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 37 mins

    Andrew Sheldon
    Andrew Sheldon No..I was a Soldier and I KNOW that Peace is more important than Pride.

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 36 mins

    Dave Evans
    Dave Evans (Corbyn isn’t – and never has been – responsible for maintaining the peace process in Northern Ireland)

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 36 mins · Edited

    Nick Machnik-Foster
    Nick Machnik-Foster He is not and has never been in any position in the Peace Process and condemning IRA violence is something that some former IRA members will do.

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 35 mins · Edited

    Nick Machnik-Foster
    Nick Machnik-Foster The only reason to not condemn IRA violence is because you support it.

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 34 mins

    Andrew Sheldon
    Andrew Sheldon NO it isn’t Nick. The reason the IRA came to the table was that it was allowed do so without admitting either defeat or being held solely responsible for the carnage it had caused. It needed to save face and it was allowed to do so as it comprises mostly of posturing idiots to whom such things matter more than even innocent peoples lives. It had proven that already by the thousand.

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 29 mins · Edited

    Nick Machnik-Foster
    Nick Machnik-Foster The IRA came to the table because the whole thing was going fucking nowhere and the UK government reached out to end it. There were more grasses at some IRA meetings than there were members by the 1990s.

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 29 mins

    Roger Lewis
    Roger Lewis http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/…/ira-uda…

    Beofre examioning those stuboirn things ´´Facts´´Lets take a look at Boris´s first Run out as Sec of state Theresa Mays ´´Incitatus´´ …
    LETTHEMCONFECTSWEETERLIES.BLOGSPOT.COM

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · Remove Preview · 28 mins

    Nick Machnik-Foster
    Nick Machnik-Foster Roger do you mind coming back when you stop posting bollocks and can join in conservation with the adults.

    LikeShow more reactions

     · Reply · 

    1

     · 24 mins

    Roger Lewis