What would Clement do?

A Labour blog that witters on about Clement Attlee. Hurrah for The Major!

Archive for the tag “Trades Unions”

THIS IS NOT AN ACT OF GOD

We went to the fabulous wedding of our friends Lisa and David over the weekend, set in Bedwellty, South Wales it was a truly joyous occasion, as watching two people you know should be together publicly declare their love should be. The welcome for the English contingent was warm and generous, the church service not only solemn, but great fun. The only spot of bother would predictably be the weather.

The rain simply would not let up over the valleys – at times it was a struggle to see a landmark as close and as large as The Chartist Bridge. We were all incredibly lucky of course – all we had to put up with was a little dampness and wind, rather than flooded homes and workplaces, so there will be no grousing from me. Travelling back along the M4 on Sunday, you could see a little of the damage done – burst river banks and flooded pastures mainly. The news told the rest, or nearly all of it…

…The government, and the media have, as usual praised the unstinting efforts of local councils and the emergency services in the struggle to save life and property. Much has been made of the improvements in emergency planning made over the past few years, and rightly so, given the parsimony of the Coalitions’ austerity spending plans. Yet with floods, the main emergency workers who bust a gut are the Fire Service – the ones with hoses, pumps, ladders etc. Yes, that means members of the Fire Brigades Union (FBU).

The cuts have hit Firefighters across the UK, and the South West has been no exception to this. So far, everything has worked pretty well, mainly thanks to teamwork and professionalism, yet post-2010 cut mean that Firefighters at all levels have serious concerns as to whether in the future they won’t be overstretched. The only reason that people in the South West have been able to rely on the Fire service because extra engines and Firefighters have been available from other regions. Should there be a wider flooding crisis in these other regions, this will not be the case. As the Association of Chief Fire Officers has already warned, future cuts, leading to the potential loss of 4,000 Firefighters, sixty stations and around 150 engines make such sharing of force much more difficult, especially if the UK were to have to deal with two regional crises at the same time.

Today Matt Wrack, the FBU leader has written to David Cameron, once again highlighting the Firefighters concerns. I doubt that Ham-Face will take any notice. After all, he leads a party that once counted  Brian Coleman as a leading member in London. You remember Brian – he said that “we need to break the FBU, frankly…” , as if this would make up for cutting numbers of staff and engines in London.

I am sure that the cabinet are all distressed about the floods – after all no one could be more distraught at having to dehumidify their holiday homes. No doubt these blustering puppets will heap praise upon the Fire Service until the waters subside, then get back to cutting numbers and buggering up their pensions. Of course, once the FBU start to campain over this in earnest, they will be branded extremists and wreckers by this extremist, wrecking coalition.   

 

Advertisements

Getting Rid of Gaddafi – How do We Help???

After the horrible scenes we see daily on the news, it is finally clear that the madman is not going without a fight. Unlike Mubarrak, who is under army guard in his villa, Gaddafi has nowhere to run, and is now proving in deeds what his son broadcast in those terrible words.  It looks as if he will do what Saddam said he would, and fight to the last. Unlike Saddam however, he has the means and the fanatical support of some to do this.Ninety British subjects in Libya are trapped with around three hundred other foreign nationals in a camp too far from Tripoli to get out, with no transport, and decreasing supplies. At the very least these people need a rescue mission as soon as possible. Even The Times is calling (rightly) for the freezing of the Gaddafi family assets here in London, although no one is talking about redistribution to rebuild a shattered nation.

Around the Western World, in Boardrooms and the corridors of power, there must be a whole bunch of nervous people, not least Silvio Berlusconi and the Italian elite – lets not forget Italian investment in Libya, nor Libyan investment in FIAT. Government ministers here in Britain, from every Government since 1992 are no-doubt worried as to what may come out as to dodgy deals over getting Shell and BP concessions, including the Al-Megrahni affair, and the cosying-up to Gadaffi since the end of the 1991 Iraq War.

Yet behind the headlines, what can, indeed what should we in the west be doing?

  1. Much as I hate to agree with David Owen, a no-fly zone can be established by NATO forces over Libya. This needs to be U.N. sanctioned, and my suspicion is that neither China nor Russia will agree. Nonetheless we must try. Once applied in Bosnia and Iraq, no-fly zones prevented, or at least lessened the slaughter.
  2. Hit tyrants where it really hurts – in the pocket. Freeze their assets right now.
  3. Mount a rescue operation for the trapped workers too far from Tripoli. This is not impossible, nor impractical, as the operation could be mounted from NATO bases in Southern Italy. If Israel could rescue hostages from Entebbe in Uganda, surely we could do the same now.
  4. Demonstrate outside the Libyan Embassy – as ordinary citizens, show our support for freedom.
  5. Stop emasculating The World Service. Increasingly, we see the shutting-down of the internet and international TV broadcasts as a tool of repression. This that the good old short-wave World Service can be the ONLY reliable and trusted source of news. The cuts being made now are simply madness.
  6. Support Refugee and Dissident groups. Instead of shutting down these centres, like Hammersmith and Fulham Council, now is the time to engage and nurture them.
  7. Support democratic organisations in the regions. Civil groups, Trades Unions, feminists, democratic political parties need money and support right now. Show solidarity wherever and whenever you can.

Left Foot Forward, Or A Right Load Of Old Cobblers?

A post left on Will Straws’ site Left Foot Forward has opened a debate on where we are going in the Labour Party, and predictably it focuses attention on not moving too far left.

Forgive this post, it will be erratic, as its now six in the morning, and I am just going to read up a little and get some shut-eye….(06.00hrs). Ah, that’s better…

The article – “Labour Must Speak Not Only For Organised Labour” by Rob Marchant, starts off in a reasonable tone, yet ends up, like the deply popular and loved Tessa Jowell, pressing in effect for a shift to the right.

Rob starts off identifying Labours two historic constituencies, Public and Private sector Organised Labour, and asks whether we are ignoring the growing numbers of Private sector workers with no Trades Union. As one of these, I suppose I should respond.

Mr Marchant writes of the “genius” of New Labour (a good indication of where he is going) in reaching out to these workers. In this, like some others, he has rewritten history to suit his ends. Under Clement Attlee in 1945, Wilson in 1966 and Blair in 1997, Labour won by connecting with significant numbers outside of our heartlands, this is nothing new. a brief look at the period between 1992 and 1997 shows that we would have won in’97 with the late John Smith – our most mourned leader never to be PM. It hardly took genius to beat John Major in 1997,but it takes chutzpah to forget that. It is also a feat of selective memory not to recall both the loss of two million votes between 2001 and 2005, and the utter unpopularity of Tony Blair by the time of his exit.

Mr Marchant also seemingly discounts the “grey vote”, which is odd, since it is proven that there is a direct correlation between voting and age…

In response, Darrell Goodliffe at Left Futures is no less strident – indeed his article is the very model of  polemical passion. For Darrell, the centre ground of politics is a fantasy comparable to The Tooth Fairy. My nephew will be disturbed to find out that The Tooth Fairy is a fantasy, but no matter. As far as Mr Goodliffe is concerned, it only exists in the mind of idealogues who wish to push Labour ever rightwards.

He makes the point ignored by Rob that real wages are falling across the board, and that this is comparable to the 1920s, to quote the Mervyn King. This is important – very few non-unionised private sector workers probably have any sympathy with the huge bonuses in the City, nor do they see any benefit for them in their bosses continued pay rises. At the same time, they see cuts in services that they use and need.

At this point, Mr Goodliffe becomes almost a parody of the kind of writing that can be found in any copy of Socialist Worker, or worse, an old copy of Militant, circa 1988.  Darrell wants to see “a trenchant critique of a capitalist system which has failed not just the poorest … but also failed the hopes & dreams of anybody who is not a member of the super-rich elite.”

Fine stuff, although unlikely to encourage anyone not already versed in left wing politics to join in is it?

In response to both these articles I say the following – yes, the centre ground is vitally important in politics, and the point of political parties is to shift it.

The Economic Crash has shaken the certainties of the post-1974 monetarist consensus. this takes time to feed into the political system, but the signs are there. Non-Unionised private sector workers, such as myself, are scared, and have seen wage cut and redundancies. we see a Government of Millionaires warning us not to “price ourselves out of a job”, whilst watching our bosses and bankers trouser huge bonuses. We want fair taxation, and that means more bands at the higher levels of pay. We want an end to tax avoidance, and to the corruption in the higher levels of the state. we would like meaningful rights to join a Union, where we could be ensured that we won’t be blacklisted, particularly in hospitality. We like the minimum wage, and we love the NHS.

We are the people that both Marchant and Goodliffe should be campaigning and organising to get to the March 26th TUC Demo.

Mr

Brian Coleman news…

Who was the ONLY London Assembly member to refuse to publish their expenses this year? Yup, leader of the London Fire Authority… Brian Coleman.

  • Who trousers over £100,000 a year from their combined salaries as Assembly Member, Fire Chief and Barnet Cabinet member? Hey, its Brian Coleman again. ( Average firefighter salary – £33,000pa) PLUS EXPENSES (he claims these for all three jobs – hope there are no double entries).
  • Who has spent over £20,000 of public funds on taxis to date in their political career? Brian Coleman (is this getting boring?).
  • Who got a very nice present from AssetCo (company that provides strike cover for LFA) last year – a £350 Harvey Nicholls hamper? Hey, its Brian again ( wrong hamper Brian, Fortnums is still the best). He also had some nice meals with their chairman in the last year too…

If you click on “Colemanballs” below, you will see what this nasty  guy really thinks about open government…

Ever get the feeling you’ve been cheated?????

Remember,Remember…

So, the press are full of stories of “selfish” Firefighters, and their wanton proposed action on November the fifth. A few points need to be raised against the unthinking right wingers howling and spouting cant…

The London Fire Brigade management arbitrarily set a date of 26th November for new working contracts to be signed by all Firefighters, initially with no room for further consultation. Under section 188 of the 1992 Employment Act, if they do not sign, they loose their jobs, not because we don’t need them, but because they oppose the contracts.

The main bone of contention is not money, but shift patterns. With around 50% of London Firefighters living outside of London, and the reality that you can be called out right up until the very last second of your shift, this is not a small point. Think about it, do you work in a job where you are on call for 13 hours, and at 12 hours 59 minutes suddenly find yourself doing another two hours (dangerous) work with no notice? the 48 hour maximum is often more of a minimum, so all talk of “long weekends” is in reality hot air.

The use of section 188 by management is seen by most Firefighters as an attempt by LFB to bully them, and their Union, and for many is the central point, rather than even the disputed shift patterns, that up until now have been under discussion for five years, so the Union have been negotiating with management up until the bosses decided (no doubt with Boris Johnson’s backing) to provoke a confrontation.

In areas such as South Yorkshire, where 12hr/12hr shift patterns are currently working, this has been achieved by negotiation with the FBU, rather than Reagan-style confrontation, as practiced by London Fire Brigade.

Finally, an emotional point – after November 5th comes Remembrance Sunday. at the Cenotaph, and around Britain, alongside service comrades past and present we will see Firefighters march past a pay tribute to the heroism shown during the Blitz, at Coventry, Silvertown Docks, Bristol etc. We will remember those who went to rescue those caught in the 7/7 attacks, Bradford stadium fire, even the Brighton Bombing. Emergency Service cover is not a “luxury”, nor are those we ask to put their own lives in danger for us especially privileged- they are men and women who potentially sacrifice everything for us, every working day.

Perhaps those that bray loudly at the FBU are still hankering for another Miners strike – perhaps their homes are fireproof. I wonder who they will call if this turns out not to be the case? Boris with a bucket???

Yes to Fairer Votes – getting involved.

On 5th May 2011, you have a chance, perhaps the only chance, to change our voting system for the better. The Coalitions’ Reform Bill, portrayed by Clegg and Co. as the biggest constitutional change since the 1830s will pass, very much unamended.

This means that there will be less MPs, further tightening the grip of both Party Machines, and by extension our wonderful “Political Class” on power over us. The boundary changes in this legislation also mean that in effect, a large-scale gerrymandering will take place, and Labour could be kept out of power for a decade or more. Spurious cries from the right of the House that The independent Boundary Commission had rigged its last reviews to favour Labour  hold no water – this is not redistribution, this is a culling of 50 seats – at a stroke your MP becomes much more distant from you, in the name of “fairness”, and at root, economy. One question…

SINCE WHEN DID ECONOMY TRUMP DEMOCRACY???

There is only one potential remedy for this, namely a victory for the Alternative Vote (AV) in the Referendum. Anyone who has voted in thier Student Union elections, Trades Union elections, or recent Labour elections knows that AV is pretty simple.

You mark the candidates in order of preference, e.g. 1st,2nd,3rd and so on, as you wish. The candidate with the least votes is eliminated, and their second preferences shared out amongst the remaining candidates. This continues until there is one candidate with over 50% of the votes. This means that every MP would have to have a majority to win. Easy.

This could lead to a much smaller number of safe seats, making our politicians work much harder for our votes. It would also temper the other parts of the Bill mentioned above,which will surely pass. For those of you who voted Labour last May, and would like to see this Coalition out, this is a vital step in the right direction, given the mountain we will have to climb if it does not pass.

AV is not a proportional system, and it does keep the link between constituencies and MPs intact, meaning we still get to bother them with lobbying, surgeries and the like. If the Yes vote wins, then an elected House of Lords becomes a real possibility at last.

An element of proportionality could be added by a future Labour Government by simply amending the system to the “AV+” system recommended by the late Lord “Woy” Jenkins in his report on constitutional reform.

If we lose, the Tories could be in power for a generation. Think about it. Look at Suffolk County Council – a very “safe ” Tory Council, or look at Tower Hamlets under generations of Labour rule. We have the chance to take some power back, so lets use it.

Join Take Back Parliament, or log on to this site for Fairer Votes:  http://www.yestofairervotes.org/

Get involved…

Ed’s first speech…

OK – having just listened carefully to Eds first keynote speech, I suppose I must give y’all my first impressions…

As as performance, Ed built up a creditable head of steam, and obviously learnt early on that oratory is not necessarily shouting. As a relatively unknown new Leader, he also had to flesh out his backstory for the general public. On the whole, it was a carefully pitched effort, a speech to both unify the party and to reach out to those millions of voters we lost under Blair and Brown after 2001.

A number of points were raised, and although it was of course short on policy, it was heavy on aspiration – both for Labour, and for the country as a whole.

ALL IN THIS TOGETHER, BROTHER…

Starting with the back story of his family was a good move for someone that few outside of politics know much about – his parents flight from the Nazis, their (very) left wing credentials, and general human interest were all covered. Although much the same age as Cameron and Clegg, his background is radically different from either – no landed yeomanry in his past, thats for certain.

On the Unions, he steered a course succinctly between stressing the right and necessity of Unions defending ordinary people and the Bob Crow faction within the TUC, thus undermining Tory jibes (tired as they are) about “Union paymasters”.

The really interesting parts were to come…

OUT WITH THE “NEW”, IN WITH THE…?

Whilst staying reasonable in tone, and paying tribute to the positive legacy of our last thirteen years in government, he drew a line under New Labour.

On Civil Liberties, Equal Rights and Iraq, Ed was a breath of fresh air. Whether we agreed with the ousting of Saddam, or or had problems with dodgy dossiers, it was clear that this was a new page  – couched in the realism that between 2001 and 2010 we lost 5 million voters. olive branches were offered to those of a liberal persuasion, whether LDs or not.

Throughout his speech, Blair and Brown were bracketed together as “Tony & Gordon” – significantly placing blairites and brownites together, whilst also stressing the need to move on.

In fact, in the light of Nick Clegg’s vitriol aimed at Labour in Liverpool, Ed aimed all his attacks at the Tories, and David Cameron. We have a Leader who has grasped that we may need to form a coalition of our own, or maybe Ed is too well brought up to kick a man when he is down, either way, what was to follow was great news…

A NEW HOPE…

The Leader of The Labour Party, Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, came out in full backing of a Yes vote in the AV referendum! He was unambiguous in his personal support for AV, and if we act quickly enough, we may be able to swing significant numbers of Labour supporters and activists behind the campaign. His support for an elected House of Lords was also not couched in the previous lukewarm terms of New Labour, but put centre stage, and both were well received within the hall. This is a major shift in both policy and attitude within Labour, and should not be underestimated.

The next steps were equally as important – Ed’s “Tamworth Manifesto” moment – he introduced the concept of constructive opposition, last used to great effect by the late John Smith. On the economy, he stressed a sensible level of deficit reduction, and wisely, given that we have yet to see detailed government plans, called for support for sensible economies, rather than blanket opposition. We have yet to know what Ed deems a “sensible” cut, or even to know exactly where the axe will fall, but this is a classic and useful position, given that we were advocating economies of our own in our last manifesto.

The call to social unity across the rich-poor divide – that we are happiest in societies that are less unequal, was a great foil for Cameron’s “Big Society”, and has already led to Sir Philip Blond to confusedly mark Ed out as a “red Tory” – it may be that Sir Philip is really a blue Social Democrat…

IN SUMMATION, CONFERENCE…

This speech was a good start, and showed that we have the ability to move on in a way that took the Conservatives ten years to do.

Action is needed, but the central theme that we need to move on from New Labour is perhaps a tacit acceptance that more than one viewpoint needs to be heard in policy discussions and development. Support for AV needs to be converted into action – Take Back Parliament needs Labour input. The studied lack of hostility towards the Liberal Democrats was both refreshing and may be useful for years to come.

This early in a period of opposition, what we need is less detailed policy, more a re-statement of principles. This speech was a good start. Lets move towards making the Good Society a reality.

What is the point of Dispatches?

Last night was exceptional for any student of politics watching telly – not only was a Panorama expose on the supposedly dodgy dealings of Lord Ashcroft kiboshed at the last minute, but Dispatches supposedly tackled Bob Crow, Trades Union militancy, and the Trades Union movement in general.

From the start, the images used were of old-style picket line violence from the 1970s and 1980s, whilst the narrator intoned on the threats of  fighting in the streets a’la Greece, none too subtly I fear.( Although she made it clear, in hushed tones, that Bob Crow was advocating nothing of the kind) There was an allegation of bullying within the RMT – a serious allegation, that would have been worthwhile following up as a whole programme. It wasn’t pursued, so the reporters’ source is left high and dry, and a valuable and important line of enquiry was left hanging, easily dismissed as a smear. Supporting evidence for bullying came from an ex Tory minister, and a senior figure at London Underground – both guaranteed to be neutral observers. There was shock news that Bob Crow is a bit of a Communist. Speaking of which, most of the footage shown of the annual Tolpuddle March concentrated on stalls for tiny organisations – such as Class War, and the Communist Party of Britain – very representative.

Moving on to more moderate Leaders, the image used to illustrate a more diversified campaign against cuts was of the Battle of Trafalgar Square Poll Tax Riot. Hardly a balanced image for a campaign with the purpose of uniting Union members with other members of the public against cuts.

The pay packets of Union Leaders were at least mentioned – again, a worthwhile avenue for exploration, very few of us would want to see many TradesUnion Leaders on banker-style pay. It was interesting to see Derek Simpson trying to justify his wage, and at least featured Jerry Hicks a candidate who would halve his pay packet, if elected.

Dodgy charity deals involving Les Bayliss (another Unite candidate and Simpson’s heir apparent) were aired – but again, this needs a whole programme to present a proper investigation. Again, what we get is easily batted away as “media smears”. This is a huge disservice to Trades Union members, and to journalism. Very serious accusations such as those posed so far really do need much better coverage. Worse I am afraid, was to come.

Misrepresentation by Unison officials to their low paid female members was next, potentially taking tens of thousands of pounds out of members pockets. Unpaid officials being intimidated and harassed for simply doing their job, and eventually removed. If these stories are true, and they certainly could be, there is a lot that Union Machines and their functionaries have to answer for.

The final expert witness was Tory-about-town James Forsyth, assuring us all that the Coalition wanted nothing more than to be friends with the Trades Union movement, and that it was only their horrible leaders who prevented this love-in.

A little repetition of the canard that Ed Miliband was selected by the Unions rounded of this episode.

All-in-all, it painted a pretty bleak picture of todays Trades Unions, and each and every accusation deserves to be treated seriously, and with full investigations. This is not what we got here. What we got was more or less a scattergun of lightly investigated stories, that the guilty will brush aside, and will only be used by right wingers to hit ordinary Union members fighting against the cuts with.

All found, one is left asking “What is the point of Dispatches?”

Essex Girls, Union militants and a bit of history…

In the last few decades, a small cottage industry has grown up in Britain, developing a certain type of film, one which I would categorise as the “feel good working class defeat movie”. This started back in the late 1980s, with “The Big Man”, and has continued through “The Full Monty”, and “Brassed Off”, “Up and Under”, and a number of other films or TV movies, that share a number of attributes.

Firstly, they are all records of defeat – the miners strike, the destruction of the Steel industry, the general victory of Thatcherism over social democratic values are always the backdrop to this kind of film – introducing tragedy and pathos as major themes.

Secondly, the solution to the characters problems is often communal, but always entrepreneurial; win a Brass band competition, win a bare knuckle fight, start stripping – “just get back on your feet boys, you can do it!” is the subliminal message we find more often than not.

An idealised picture of working class life, mainly centring on male roles, and how these have changed. The working class all live North of the Watford Gap.

These films are not in the same category as those by Mike Leigh, Ken Loach and the excellent Shane Meadows, all of whom have been able to capture snapshots of ordinary life with humour and emotion, as well as accuracy.

A general line throughout these films that the Unions cannot win – however brave and honourable the struggle, it is always doomed, however much we regret this. The concurrent to this is that the only way to salvation is to escape your class.

These film have made us feel good by touching a nerve – we wish things were different, but they aren’t. The escapism is no less than when watching “Four Weddings” say, or “Notting Hill”, or any Merchant Ivory confection.

“Made in Dagenham” however, looks like a film that bucks this trend. Set in the huge Ford plant in Essex at the end of the sixties, it follows the true struggle of women workers for equal pay for equal work. This battle was not only successful, but led directly to the first sexual equality legislation since the emancipation of women in the 1920s, brought in by Barbara Castle. It was a Trades Union battle par excellence, with right on its side, led by the women themselves.

It comes out this week, and I urge you all to see this film, which I will review soon…

Ed wins – what next?

So, after all the debating and argument, by the narrowest of margins, Ed Miliband is our new Leader. We have as a party shown that electoral defeat no longer produces a knee-jerk move to the Left, whatever the media say.

I voted for Ed as my second preference, after voting for Diane, my vote for her being a way of drawing a line in the sand after the New Labour period, and to try to foster wider debate within the party. We are now in a position that needs careful handling if we want to win in 2015, as a number of factors come into play:

Firstly, Ed has already stated that our opposition stance will have to be a lot more constructive than it has been so far. This is to the good, as we were clear before May that cuts would have to be made, and it makes no sense to the general public if we spend our time denying the deficit exists. where we disagree with the coalition is on how deep and how fast, and on what should be cut. We all know that we need to have a credible alternative to the worn-out monetarist guff coming from Osborne and Co.

On regulation, it may well be that Vince cable will be able to propose far-reaching changes that will help re-balance the economy in the future. We need to support him where we can, while developing his arguments further. On the Reform Bill, we have a greater problem, and also much more to gain – the blatant gerrymandering that has been included in the Bill is the one serious bloc to Labour support (see Nick Cohen in the Observer yesterday). However, a fairer voting system is manifestly just. In one sense, the passing of this Bill by the coalition would solve one problem, whether or not we support it. The problem of the AV referendum, which is going to b a tough fight, is that if we do not support it, we are open to charges of double standards. Therefore our opposition needs to stress the undemocratic nature of the seat culling and boundary changes, whilst showing support for the Yes campaign.

Charges from the right that Ed is just a Trades Union puppet, such as those made by the (unelected) Baroness Warsi, are not new, but need to be handled carefully. The usual Tory anti-Union line is followed up by the £80 billion cuts to the public sector, which face huge  Union opposition. We must be sure that every cut we oppose can be met with an alternative. And we must strenuously propose our alternatives, if we wish to effectively back any fightback, and give it a chance of success.

Within our own ranks we have to be honest as to why we were so rejected last May. This means asking tough questions, and taking tough measures. Phil Woolas and his agent should be immediately suspended from the Party until an internal inquiry has judged whether or not they have brought the party into disrepute. Likewise certain councillors in East London, Doncaster, and in certain areas of Scotland. We need to clean out the stables, and to win back the trust that we have lost, not just in government, but also in local government too. Ex ministers who have dodgy links to shady businessmen cannot be allowed onto the opposition frontbench. this will be hard, and I doubt that the PLP will like it much, but this needs to be done.

We have an opportunity to recreate our party as the sole national party of opposition, we could be instrumental in helping to redraw the political map of Britain, and we could be back in power in 2015, but only if we are honest, bold, and determined. This week at conference, Ed and the rest of the candidates have the chance to show how far we have already come since May, comrades, don’t blow it.

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: