The Telegraph should believe its own pollster
December 31st, 2005
-
Gordon Brown is no longer the “grass is greener” alternative
In its main editorial at the end of 2005 the Daily Telegraph speculates this morning about the possibility that next year could be a General Election year.
It argues: “..Suppose that, at some stage in the coming 12 months, Tony Blair were to decide that he had had enough of the pettiness and contumely of domestic politics. Imagine that he were to seek a grander stage…that his place were to be taken by Gordon Brown and that - as opinion polls presently suggest - Mr Brown’s succession were to boost Labour’s standing. In such circumstances, might not the new Prime Minister be tempted to ask the Queen for an immediate dissolution?…A snap election would have huge attractions for Labour. For one thing, we would not yet have grown sick of our new premier. Mr Brown’s demerits as a party leader - his sullenness, his sourness, his dullness - are assets in a Chancellor, suggesting, as they do, competence. Mr Brown therefore enjoys high approval ratings, which might evaporate once we had to put up with him on the news every night..A 2006 election would preempt the boundary review, saving Labour around 15 seats. It would also catch the Opposition parties unprepared..”
The only problem with this thesis is that its central premise is wrong. Every opinion poll that has tested Brown against Cameron since the new Tory leader was elected has had Labour doing considerably worse under the Chancellor than under Blair.
-
Probably the most important initial impact of the Cameron leadership is that he has taken over from Gordon Brown the mantle as the “grass is greener” candidate.
That the Telegraph can publish a main editorial in ignorance of this central fact is amazing. This is particularly so because YouGov, the paper’s pollster that got Cameron’s leadership vote to within one per cent, was the first to identify the changed climate and ICM, in a survey for its sister paper, the Sunday Telegraph, came up with similar results a few days later.
The notion that a Brown premiership would be much more popular than a Blair one is so seeped into the media consciousness that the fact that this is no longer the case is going to take time to sink in. But we expect better of a Daily Telegraph leader.
Punters ready to risk money have been a bit more savvy. In the past month the betting price on Brown taking over from Blair has eased from 0.35/1 to 0.47/1. Unless the polls change we cannot see how Labour would choose a new leader who the evidence showed was an electoral liability. A big current bet of mine is that Brown will not make it.
Put faces to the names of those who have contributed some of the 108,708 comments on the site during 2005. The second PB.C party will be on Saturday January 14, at the “Star Tavern” Belgrave Mews West, London SW1. Time - from 6 o’clock onwards. Please contact Innocent Abroad if you want to attend.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Whilst reading the leader in question it did occur to me as well that they were contradicting their own YouGov polls (as well as ICM for the Sunday Telegraph) which clearly show Cameron with a larger lead over Labour led by Brown than Labour led by Blair. Peculiar.
While certainly belying their central premise, I also find the supposition that Brown could call a snap election sometime during 2006 to be rather fanciful. Surely the electorate would punish a government going back to the country again, having served less than half of it’s current mandate, for nakedly partisan reasons? I don’t think the ‘I want my own mandate’ argument washes either when you consider that it has not been deemed necessary for other leadership hand-overs involving the party in power (Wilson to Callaghan, Thatcher to Major) in recent history.
If the Blair were to go in, say, the latter half of 2008, then a snap election might be a plausible option with this Parliament nearing the end of it’s life at any rate. I think a dissolution anytime much before that for these reasons carries great risk in itself.
Ugh… ‘the Blair’. :blush:
I don’t suppose we’ll be getting that edit facility any time soon?
[2] You have to be a Labour Party member to say that, AHM
On the subject of the Party, I’ll be talking to the Star in a day or two - could people who want vegetarian food please let me know over the week-end?
I totally agree with AHM - a snap 06 (or for that matter 07) poll will allow the opposition parties to campaigning on the “what have they got to hide” theories that will spring forth. Perhaps there will be the economic disasters in 09 that we predicted and they want to get a majority before then, the Tories will no doubt say. Plus the election may catch the opposition off guard but Labour too.
When i read the editorial over breakfast this morning, i did wonder what planet the editorial staff were on. If a general election were held next year i think the tories would beat labour by about 4 points, leading to a whole heap of trouble.
I think AHM is right (worrying, last week I agreed with another Tory, all this consensus is infectious) - the electorate would take a dim view if we rushed back for a new mandate a year after the last one. “You’ve already got a decent majority, ruddy well get on with it” would be the response.
This is why I’ve always believed in simple electoral terms that a late handover is in Labour’s interest. The new leader will then be able to call an election seeking a mandate while in the honeymoon phase, instead of having a choice between a rushed early election or three years of press attrition.
But the Telegraph has to sell papers, I guess. It would be fun if editors had a forum where they could be challenged about the things they got wrong, like us!
Incidentally, I have a complaint lodged with the PCC against the Indy. It’s an obscure issue. I applied on behalf of a campaign against the skinning of seals for their fur for a stand in Parliament. There’s a weekly display space for this sort of thing, and the displays are chosen by random ballot after an initial screening process to weed out nutters. However, the relevant committee decided to give two guaranteed places for the display of photos and paintings by MPs. I wrote to the committee asking them to reconsider, arguing that we are there to discuss policy, not to give priority to showing off our holiday snaps. The Indy got hold of the letter and headlined it “Seal-loving MP calls for a cull of narcisstic colleagues”, and portrayed it as a New Labour vs Old Labour split. They’ve refused to publish a short letter in response, saying that objecting to priority for the photos did amount to calling for a cull of my colleagues.
The problem with complaining is that the issue of what’s displayed in a particular spot in Parliament is pretty trivial and the coverage was just a jokey Diary item: there’s also a widespread view among MPs that if you annoy the press you’ll live to regret it. But I think that if one lets things like this pass, it just encourages the media to feel they can get away with writing any old stuff and we’ll be too scared of them to quibble. I previously got the Express to withdraw a front-page lead story (”Mad new Government plans” on something or other - they published a “clarification” that there were no such plans!), though again only after involving the PCC.
The Conservatives already have quite a number of candidates in place for the next election and by Autumn 2006 will probably have virtually all the target seats covered. Will Labour be in the same position? Besides other reasons, this (and raising the necessary funding) will surely play a major role in contemplating an early election, for whatever reason.
I suppose that this is what you get when you are careless enough to lose a good editor. The third reserves are on for the holiday season and I fear their run will be extended indefinitely.
But then how many poeple read the editorials? And if they do how many take any notice?
I would love the Dour One to prove he was the Dumb One by trying this scenario because it would be an odds on bet for a whacking great Tory majority and another wander in the wilderness for Labour. The electorate have proved quite capable of punishing politicians for premature elections in the past and would most likely do it again.
I’d have to agree with others who doubt a snap election is likely. In purely logistical terms it would be difficult. May would probably be too soon which would leave maybe October as the likely time of the election.
It’s asking a lot of activists and donor’s to raise funds and campaign twice within the space of six months.
8. That’s about right I think - there is lots of garbage in the press today, in different papers. Kiddies’ stuff, mostly, just there to fill up space.
I think we had a discussion on this site about an early dissolution a while ago - perhaps whichever whippersnapper wrote the article borrowed it from an old PB thread.
Nick - you write It would be fun if editors had a forum where they could be challenged about the things they got wrong, like us!
One thing about this site is that, as I have found out, that if you write something that is obviously flawed there’ll be scores of people telling you within a short while where you are wrong.
If Blair has to go before he wants to, I wouldn’t be surprised if Gordon immediately introduced a bill for fixed-term (four year) Parliaments - would it not be in the national interest to have our General Elections six months after the U.S. Presidentials? A fixed date could only help all parties to field better candidates.
And I’m sorry, Nick, I think you’ve called it wrong - it seems to me that your real beef is that the Indy refused to publish your letter… can’t see the PCC backing you on that one.
Many torygraph editorials are useful for assessing senior tory thinking. As others have pointed out, this one is on another planet.
I think what is printed on here today will carry more weight. I’m sure this site influences outcomes, rather than commenting/advising betting on them. I’ve thought that for a while, but you can’t say it often. You never know if that would tempt nutters to post..
Baldwin called a GE in 1923 within one year of the last one (1922), and look what happened to him. The electorate gets extremely annoyed by what it views as gratuitous polls, as shown by the way it often punishes the party of a sitting MP who has put them to the trouble of voting in a by-election for any reason short of death. For instance, even though Labour held on in Birmingham Hodge Hill (where the by-election was caused by the resignation of Terry Davis), there was a higher swing against it than there was in Leicester South on the same day.
I once heard Heseltine say that he would have called a GE had he won the Tory leadership contest in 1990, but that was a different situation, where over three years had passed since the last one.
David Miliband is planning a major reorganisation of local government. It will lead to the abolition of County, Borough and District councils. Most commentators seem to believe that replacing them with Unitary Authorities will lead to a massive drop in the number of Councillors.
Most of these councils are currently Tory-held, and the Councillors sitting on them are mostly Tory. It is therefore logical to assume that this will lead to big drop in the number of Tory Councillors. This in turn would cause a big drop in the number of Tory activists. Thus, the longer The Dour One delays the next GE, the weaker the Tory campaigning position will be.
It would therefore appear extremely illogical for The Dour One to even contemplate calling a GE before 2009.
And, of course, probably the best example, the slashing of the Tory majority in Penrith & the Border in the by-election just after the 1983 GE, caused by Willie Whitelaw’s elevation to Leadership of the Lords.
I think it’s difficult for opposition parties at least to complain about an early election - it suggests they’re scared of being beaten. The press on the other hand, are pretty much free to publish whatever they like.
Don’t some of the tabloids like to publish their rivals mistakes?
Another point is that Brown’s record as Chancellor will come up, and forecasts expect 2006 to be better than 2005, so if he were to become PM in 2006, he’d want 2006’s economic success (compared to 2005) to be experienced (because of the brilliant state he left it in) before an election to give the Tories less to attack him on.
I like the idea that Cameron is taking over the ‘grass is greener’ vote. During the last parliament quite a lot of that went to the Lib Dems I think, which is why there was a swing back from the Lib Dems to Labour in the last few months of the campaign.
.7 ‘rivals” I mean, sorry
Im back from a nice refreshing break in Cumbria (in Tim Collins’ old seat).
5. On that logic so will Labour’s campaigning base be shrinking! They are losing seats as well you know. What is the logic that new Council’s will mean the Tory base depleted more than Labours?
Another point on the general thread is that going early would capitalise on the Lib Dems current difficulties!
15 - How much difference do party activists make to a particular campaign, and turnout ? Is it different for council elections than general elections ? Was thinking that if for instance the Conservative activists are energised due to Cameron and the Lib Dems aren’t due to the Kennedy rumblings how much difference would it make to the 06 council elections? (Obviously it makes some, but order of magnitude I have no idea)
21 - Rik.
The argument runs that Labour’s strongholds are in the existing Metropolitan and Unitary Authorities. They will therefore have far less damage than the Tories from abolishing the Counties/Districts. Putting it bluntly, “if you don’t control the Counties, you’ve not got much to lose by abolishing them.”
re 15 - I dont see the logic here, just because someone stops being a Councillor does that mean they stop being an activist? Sure some might get the hump or loose interest but I dont see this causing a significant fall in the activist base - and all Parties will loose Councillors should this happen.
12 - it is an interesting question! I think in an actual campaign they do make a difference as without them a lot of stuff would not get delivered and a lot of doors would not get knocked! However, there is no doubt that many people are swayed more by the national campaign and the image of the party and leader.
In local elections where the turnout is lower, I think activists make more difference. A Cllr up for re-election in a marginal seat will often make more of an effort than a new candidate, although this is not always true!
I imagine it would hit us harder Rik. Most counties have two-tier local government, most urban areas have one tier local government. Hence, we probably would lose more councillors than Labour in absolute terms, which I imagine is the point behind this idea.
Maybe so. But I think we would win far more wards proportionately, as individual Labour and Lib Dim niches were swallowed into surrounding territory!
I doubt the Dour One will make it to number 10 either, Mike. Or if he does it will be a short exciting tenure.
There are lots of possible stumbling blocks in the way but I have been struck by what Basher’s Boss has been doing in Scotland. Not only is he saying he is in full support of devolution but would not object if Tories in the Edinburgh parliament wanted to extend tax raising powers.
This is aimed at the Scottish electorate, of course, to show that a Tory government would not be bent on abolition or being beastly to Scottish administrations.
But it also plays to England, too. During the leadership election Basher and his Boss agreed on the need for English votes on English matters. The Scottish excursion also begins to give assurance that within this context the current settlement is secure.
But it also means that The Dour One can be attacked as candidate-PM for being the unbending personification of the West Lothian Question. The Tories wanting English votes on English matters, would be seen as a consistent strand of support for sorting out the devolution wrinkles left by Nulab (aka Blair and Brown).
This would force The Dour One either to accept English national devolution or reject it and support the current mess. Any fudge (such as a revival of regionalism through unitary English authorities for example) would look like, well, a fudge.
What a vote losing pickle for him to be in with Tory voting England and fair minded Scotland and devolution supporting LibDems. Yest if he accepts English devolution he in effect loses the job he has always craved.
Lose:lose.
I’d agree Rik. I think their impact in a general election campaign is marginal - but a seat can be won or lost at the margins.
I’d say there’s also a cumulative effect if one party regularly works harder than its rival in a particular locality.
Activists are certainly important in local elections, which are really an exercise in motivating existing supporters to get out and vote.
Jeff - that used to be true, but given the sharp decline in party membership, parties really are heavily dependent on local councillors to run effectively at local level.
Blackadder - it also demonstrates that Labour has effectively written off non-urban areas in terms of looking for votes.
24. There is one direct influence councillors have, particularly since salaries rather than expenses have been paid, which is that many councillors make donations out of their council salary. Losing that income can make quite a difference to local funds. It probably has more of an impact at local rather than general elections though, as there’s so much more national campaigning in the latter.
24 - jeffh
It is assumed that if a Councillor loses his seat, then he will slowly lose his enthusiasm for knocking on doors in the wind and rain. Moreover, if council seats are few and mostly occupied by “bed-blockers”, it would be much more difficult to persuade supporters to convert to activists.
There would obviously be some losses among Labour ranks, but every campaigning strategy has some down-side. For Labour, few have such a strong upside as ths one.
Thinking further about it, it would probably finish Labour’s chances of having any significant local government control in the South of England (places where they’ve been historically strong like Stevenage, Crawley, the Thames Estuary councils, Exeter) would have to be merged with neighbouring authorities).
24 - Councillors on the whole are concerned about keeping their seats, and as such tend to be disporportionately active. Once that insentive is taken away there is bound to be a drop off.
O/T - Meanwhile over in Canada the race is tightening. The RCMP investigation has brought back the issue of the Liberals ‘ethics’ back to centre stage and thus far the Libs have been depived of there greatest asset - namely crazy comments by CPC candidates!
Latest poll is 35% Lib and 34% Con. Looks like another minority but who will lead it is anyones guess.
I think most hypothetical questions asked by the pollsters should be taken with a pinch of salt. If I remember correctly when Cameron was just a candidate the polls were saying if he became leader he would be level with Blair but he would be way behind Brown. Now that he’s actually leader the polls are saying the opposite. The reason for this I suggest is because non Labour voters like to be mischievous. As a Labour voter if a pollster had asked what would most likely make me vote Tory Cameron as leader or Redwood(!) I would say Redwood every time!
35. This is a good point, and in fact supports another theme that’s been running - namely that polls generally as how people would vote if there was an election today - which of course there isn’t.
The question Labour MPs and activists will need to ask is not what the position vs Cameron immediately after Brown or whoever takes over (and I still expect it to be Brown), but what it will be by the following election. The polls may not be much help there: if there is a dip in support for Labour when Brown takes over, does it matter when it happens, if it can be retrieved later on?
Of the 3 changes of PM that were not forced one way or another last century, two occurred two years after an election; the other near the parliament’s end. I suspect that given a clear run, Blair’s plan is closer to Churchill being prised out rather than Salisbury or Wilson voluntarily handing over, but I do not expect a clear run - particularly over the next four months.
Nick P is confusing me when he says: “worrying, last week I agreed with another Tory,” - does he NEVER agree with the Prime Minister then? He was, of course, totally right to censure the Express for running a headline ‘Mad New Government scheme’ - all the government’s mad schemes are not at all new: they are recycled Conservative ones eg the NHS/Education/ Probation ‘reforms’(sic) and the present merger mania of local statutory bodies which is apparently going to improve the government’s ability to provide better local (sic) and accountable (sicker) services to ‘customers’ (sickest). The management of this programme of change has apparently been privatised and will be run by an organisation called ‘Prostitutes for Virginity’.
But as Nick is one of the diminishingly-few non-Tory Labour MPs, and has also provided a generally honest and insightful contribution on here, unprotected by anonymity, let us wish him Happy New Year and hope that he does not face 2006-9 being confronted locally ‘from the left’ by Rik or Ian Dale. Might have him defecting to the Lib Dems!
The whole issue of the organisation of local Government is a minefield. When Major tried it in the mid-90s, all we were left with is the current hotch-potch of two-tier and unitaries. Hampshire County Council excludes the not insignificant population centres of Portsmouth and Southampton. Brighton was formed out of the two Sussex counties and Devon has no say over Plymouth and Exeter.
Politically, it has already put the cut among the pigeons. In Surrey, I am told, it has put Conservative County Councillors at loggerheads with their District and Borough colleagues - by the way, one of the main reasons County and District/Borough authorities don’t work well together is the personal political animostity of the members themselves which is worse when they are from the same Party.
Back to Surrey and the 50 or so County Councillors line up against the Tory-run Districts such as Tandridge, Surrey Heath and Runnymede. The process of abolition and re-organisation will tie the Councils themselves up in knots for years and will be ruinously expensive. Here’s an example: in Surrey there are 420 schools in 11 districts. The Government provides a single pot of capital funding for the whole LEA which then divvies it up. If the County is abolished, 11 competing District and Borough authorities will be fighting for (presumably) the same pot. It won’t be possible to carry out major capital expenditure in the schools to the same degree.
Stodge, Ah, for once we can agree! I’m a Councillor ib one of the Surrey Districts and can attest to the frictions with our County ‘comrades’. I happened also to be a member during the 1994/5 shambles of supposed reform. My hope then was something on the lines of ’status quo plus’ would emerge, in which the two tier system would be retained but that the County would devolve some important functions to the Districts.
In the event, County Hall became greedy and actually ended various Agency agreements (e.g. highways maintenance/emgineering, so the ill-will is more intense than ever and is sometimes personal.
But I rather agree that the disruption and dislocation presaged by New Labour meddling will likely only make things worse.
I am of the view that the worst thing that can happen to an activist is for him/her to become a councillor. Instead of focusing on big and important things like getting more MPs councillors tend to see things through the narrow view of what their local council does. I spent seven years as a county councillor and four years as a borough one and I look back at that period as a total waste of time.
Councils have so little power and the purse strings are totally controlled by the Government. The result is that there is very little real decision making.
People usually get involved in politics because of their interest in national matters - we then channel their energies into something that really does not mean that much.
The real function of council elections do is provide data for Lib Dem bar charts in parliamentary elections.
This is not a popular view in my party but one that I feel strongly about.
I think the most likely scenario for a pre-2009 election would be if the Republicans and the Democrats both picked “troops home now” candidates for the 2008 US election.
Blair/Brown would have to pre-empt them by calling an early election here.
40. I tend to agree with you on that one, Mike.
I have a sense - it would be nice to see some stats - that the Lib Dems performed better in May at the GE where there were not council elections the same day. (One reason, of course, why that date was picked).
Interesting that Nick Palmer at (6) has complained to the PCC on such a trivial item. I Rember a Sunday Tabloid headline branding him a HYPOCRITE a few years ago but i dont recal him complaining about that story….perhaps he agreed with it!!! Happy New Year
40 - Mike, I agree totally. Head, wall, bang …
44 - But, Tabbers…. didn’t you stand at the locals last May? Are you a glutton for punishment or what?
David H at “.7″ (can’t read the first digit of every post): Labour’s candidate in target seats are mostly the, um, targets :-).
Cynic’s at “.3″ - I criticised Ann Winterton for joking about the dead Chinese cockle-pickers, and the paper picked up a Taliban skit that I’d published and claimed this showed I was a hypocrite. The facts were correct (I *had* published a skit about what British TV would be like under the Taliban - “Xena, Warrior Housewife”, that sort of thing) and it was a matter of opinion, so although I obviously disagreed, I didn’t think I had a basis for complaint under the PCC rules, which essentially say (reasonably enough) that opinion is free but the facts must be correct.
I cant read the numbers properly either. They all appear as either :4 or .5 etc!
I find the same thing using Internet Explorer, but everything is as it should be viewing the site through Firefox.
re Rik W. Sorry about this. It is part of the re-design and is being worked upon.
This only happens on Internet Explorer - on Mozilla Firefox the numbers come out perfectly. If you have not checked out Firefox then I can recommend that you do so - it’s is faster and much safer than IE and has many additional features. It is also free.
40. I’ve started to come round to that view. I’m supposed to be standing in 2007. Doesn’t bode well.
Happy New Year everyone.
Mike
No worries. Thanks for all you do with the site and have a great New Year!
Just off out for a drink or two - happy Hogmanay and a Good New Year to you all.
And again many thanks to Robert and Mike for the hard work they’ve put in in 2005!
Happy New Year to you all, and particularly Mike and family for designing the site - looks great in its new livery.
Agree with Mike too about the dead end the local government so often is, and will remain until it gets some real powers back.
BTW Stodge - Exeter is still part of Devon County (County Hall is in Exeter) though Exeter Labour party are trying hard. Their campaign for independence will now almost certainly fail for a number of reasons too boring to go into here. Torbay however is a unitary - it is one of those often claimed to be too small.
53. Direct Democracy is the answer of course. Thanks to Mike and family for the site. Has cost me money through the amount of time I’ve been on it but we would be lost without it.
Direct Democracy is the answer of course
I hate to ask what the question would be. Which method of governance best emulates the opinion of the Daily Mail?
I’ve been a Torygraph reader (or should I say, I’ve “taken” the Torygraph?) since I was seventeen and have always stuck up for it in conversation with people. However, I have noticed a steady decline since the editorial handover (when Moore departed) and an even steeper and sudden decline since Newland left.
The other day they printed a letter which consisted of Mosley-sympathising and included an angry announcement that fascism “is not the same as Nazism”. The front page announced the first civil ceremonies with the headline “Gay Pride or UNHOLY ALLIANCE?”. Now we see that their luke warm reception of David Cameron extends to myopia.
Maybe I should take to reading the enemy again.
56 - The other day they printed a letter which consisted of Mosley-sympathising and included an angry announcement that fascism “is not the same as Nazism”.
You wouldn’t have thought Paolo di Canio had the time to write in…
Happy New Year, all, especially Mike for hosting us. Who’ll be the first-footer on the site, then?
Happy New Year to everyone. And thanks again for the hard work Mike and Robert. I hope everyone has a great new year ……….Take care, keep aware and have a safe one.
Julian H - fascism is NOT the same as Nazism! It is a fact, just as Marxism is not the same as Socialism and Liberal Democrats are not liberal!
I saw the piece and it was pointing out the lunacy of naming Oswald Moseley as one of the evil men, when it didnt include many other more worthy left wing candidates.
45 - Alastair, I was young then …
56 - and they also splashed how immigration was to “blame” for the increase in housing, only to have some rather embaressed letters pointing out that it was much more to do with changing indigenous demographics than anything else.
60 - Rik, the Liberal Democrats are a damn sight more liberal than the Conservatives c1680 - to date. A couple of weeks of platitudes from David Cameron does not make yours a liberal party.
To all and sundry - Happy New Year
Book Value - funnily enough, it referred to Mr Di Canio!
Rik W - I agree with the sentiment that the poll was completely ridiculous (for many reasons) but I object to the implication in the letter that Oswald Mosley was a reasonable man and that fascism is, in essence, not objectionable. What sort of signal does the headline “Mosley a Moral Man” send out?
(Can everyone else see the post numbers? Are they invisible to me becasue I’m using IE?)
Oh, and why are you lot all sitting at your computers on New Year’s Eve? I have the excuse of being ill.
62 - (Can everyone else see the post numbers? Are they invisible to me becasue I’m using IE?)
Yes - it’s fine on Firefox.
63 - I have to go to work tomorrow
Though NYE is invariably a let-down, so I’m rather pleased not to have to feel compelled to “have fun”.
Get well soon btw Julian!
I’ve been to a wedding today and my head cannot cope with anything other than a completely dry NYE. The couple getting hitched are both Labour party members, strong supporters of Tony Blair and who think that the Dour One would be a disaster for the party. I wonder how typical they are.
65. (Ah, the powers of deduction…) Thanks, will do. Current remedy is some Chinese concoction that tastes vile. Anyway, that’s an irrelevance. See everyone in 2006 and as a final thought for the year congratulations to the Smithsons for maintaining this site; it certainly had quite an influence on my 2005.
Cheers.
Thanks to Mike and Robert from me too - especially for the chance I had to have a spell in the hot seat, which I enjoyed far more than appropriate to a healthy personality.
Just in from the tedious event which is new year and will take delight in being the first poster of 2006 (I think).
60 - I´m offended, Rik. I am a Lib Dem and a liberal too.
I would certainly agree that facism and Nazism are different. but the same kind of ideology, wouldn´t you agree?