tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post4015274508373675250..comments2024-03-29T17:12:19.648+13:00Comments on Bowalley Road: Now Is The Time ... For A Game-ChangerChris Trotterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09081613281183460899noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-88141934630030511612014-03-06T21:22:59.306+13:002014-03-06T21:22:59.306+13:00http://readingthemaps.blogspot.co.nz/2014/03/why-l...http://readingthemaps.blogspot.co.nz/2014/03/why-labour-needs-pacific-strategy.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-6469111990536971502014-03-04T23:00:18.342+13:002014-03-04T23:00:18.342+13:00Im sorry but the left of labour can hand over the ...Im sorry but the left of labour can hand over the keys to right now....one week in and no such speech and 2 major cock ups...Cunnliffe is not the man for the hour.<br /><br /><br />pathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08727942156598555852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-32941209239110895712014-03-03T19:48:42.897+13:002014-03-03T19:48:42.897+13:00GS
I agree that, once Thatcher had survived the s...GS<br /><br />I agree that, once Thatcher had survived the shock of the news of invasion, she had a good chance of emerging wreathed in the laurels of victory.<br /><br />But, to survive that initial shock, she needed all her not inconsiderable skills of rhetoric and manipulation.<br /><br />In any event, the 1983 election took place about as year after the Falklands campaign. Time enough for other factors to start playing a role, in, as markus points out, an election ultimately determined by the voting system.Victornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-69088127098805985242014-03-03T17:16:01.205+13:002014-03-03T17:16:01.205+13:00There is a certain euphoria that comes from victor...There is a certain euphoria that comes from victory in a war Victor. Particularly one which had few casualties, didn't affect the civilian population a great deal, and didn't last very long. I think that would tend to make the rest of it go away :-).Guerilla Surgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03427876447124021423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-63872917483909570912014-03-03T16:18:27.599+13:002014-03-03T16:18:27.599+13:00markus
I've just seen your comment about my p...markus<br /><br />I've just seen your comment about my point concerning Tamaki. I was talking about 1993. And, again, the basis of my comments is anecdotal. But the experience of talking to my blue-rinsed acquaintances about their political preferences quite blew my mind.<br /><br />Similarly anecdotal is my comment about much greater concentrations of support for specific parties in UK constituencies,as compared with New Zealand electorates. <br /><br />The narrowness of majorities as a proportion of the vote was one of the things that most struck me when I first watched a New Zealand election night's coverage (in 1987). And, actually, Tamaki stood out in my mind as the exception to the rule. <br /><br />So I apologise for what may be an excess of anecdote. But that last point is one that you could get weaving on proving or disproving.<br /><br />After all, you can't have refutation without conjecture.<br /><br />Good luck!Victornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-68016883345198163752014-03-03T16:02:55.275+13:002014-03-03T16:02:55.275+13:00markus
I think we're in substantial agreement...markus<br /><br />I think we're in substantial agreement that Thatcher's victory was in great measure owed to FPP. <br /><br />To the best of my recollection, most publicised polling concentrated on the popular vote. But Labour entered every election with the disadvantage of having an over-concentrated support base. This problem was sharpened by the rise of the Alliance, which reduced the chances of Labour picking up the occasional middle class marginal.<br /><br />To what extent was this Labour's fault? The answer might depend on your political preferences. But I would certainly regard the rise of the Alliance as a symptom of dissatisfaction with Labour's progress leftwards. <br /><br />In any event, let me rescind my questioning of the accuracy of polling and merely say that the polls gave an inevitably misleading impression of Labour's prospects.<br /><br />I also freely admit the anecdotal nature of my comments. However, I did spend the early 1980s employed in a role that involved constant travel around England and Wales (though not Scotland)talking in depth with large numbers of people from a very wide range of socio-economic backgrounds (sorry no stats available)about the issues that mattered to them. <br /><br />Two things kept hitting me. The first was the general lack of support for Thatcherite austerity. And the second was that Labour was now a bit of a joke, albeit, for some, still the only worthwhile joke in town.<br /><br />By the way, the only group of Thatcherites I met during this period were Cambridge undergrads, in love with the pristine ideological purity of neo-liberal doctrines. The guy in charge of Act reminds me of them.<br /> <br />As to the Militant Tendency, I certainly wouldn't accuse them of mere "rhetorical leftism". They were real extremists. But recurrent Bennite silliness and Media bias confounded the distinction between the two phenomena. It was another of Labour's home goals. <br /><br />However, I confess that I've only entered the fray on these long buried issues because you referenced my name with respect to them and I felt I should respond to the compliment of notoriety. <br /><br />GS<br /><br />Of course peace didn't have a chance. A Labour government under former CPO Callaghan or Major Healey would also have gone to war over the Falklands. So would any cabinet of which Peter Shore was a member.<br /><br />The question, to my mind is how comes that a government that, through weakness and confusion in negotiations, had brought about the subjection of British citizens by a foreign dictatorship, ultimately emerged smelling of roses and able to claim the kudos of victory. <br /> <br />Lesser acts of weakness and incompetence have claimed many another political scalp.Victornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-76008721784222912132014-03-03T11:51:45.642+13:002014-03-03T11:51:45.642+13:00Matt's appointment is Labour's Gallipoli -...Matt's appointment is Labour's Gallipoli - brilliant in conception - a disaster in reality. It will take some months of self denial to realise what a monumental cock-up this was and for the witch hunt to begin. <br /><br />Labours attempt to rekindle socialism in middle class NZ are quixotically delusional,and parallel's Hitler shifting his ghost battalions around Berlin in the final days. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-23507214393787409592014-03-03T07:30:23.280+13:002014-03-03T07:30:23.280+13:00Victor – once the shit hits the fan, all the ponti...Victor – once the shit hits the fan, all the pontificating in the House of Commons isn't going to do much. Particularly with the attitude of the press, and the general jingoism of the lower middle class and up. Lots of waving flags – peace didn't stand a chance.Guerilla Surgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03427876447124021423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-23947225207897048622014-03-03T04:32:56.676+13:002014-03-03T04:32:56.676+13:00Part Three
Victor: "I find McCarten's ap...Part Three<br /><br />Victor: "I find McCarten's appointment interesting because I recall how the Alliance, in its early years, managed to appeal to voters who wouldn't have dreamed of voting for a left-wing party, including many a Tamaki matron with a blue rinse."<br /><br />This seemed a little unlikely to me, Victor, so I had a quick look at the 1996 booth results in Tamaki, focussing on the blue-rinse areas. Kohimarama: Total vote 4500, Alliance 132; Mission Bay: Total vote 983, Alliance 34; St Heliers: Total vote 5300, Alliance 163. So, looks like the Alliance took just 3 or so % in these unusually leafy suburbs. Which leads me to venture that the number of Blue-Rinse Dowager Housewives in Tamaki (with or without new $300,000 Italian kitchens) voting Alliance in the 90s were pretty few and far between.(Then again, by "its early years", you may have meant 93 - the stats for which I don't have). <br /><br />"......we'd still find that our population wasn't anywhere near as geographically segmented as that of the UK in the 1980s."<br /><br />Possibly, mind you I'd suggest Auckland is pretty segmented. East Auckland and the North Shore = as Blue as a new tatoo, South Auckland = as Red as a railway shed.<br /><br />Incidently, the most segmented prov city in NZ (in terms of party support) is......wait for it......Invercargill. Every suburb in the northern half of Southland's Capital is deep blue, almost every suburb in the southern half is red.markusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-13682638241753600582014-03-03T03:25:57.766+13:002014-03-03T03:25:57.766+13:00Part Two
I have to say Labour's 83 campaign (...Part Two<br /><br />I have to say Labour's 83 campaign (run by Kinnock , if memory serves me right) was absolutely woeful, particularly in terms of the overall imagery.<br /><br />Take, for example, the all-important Party morning press-conferences. The Tories looked ultra-professional in an up-market TV studio - all corporate chrome and gleaming surfaces and careful lighting with sky-blue background and dark blue and red Con Party torch symbolism. Labour's, by contrast, looked like it was taking place in the garden / allotment shed of a minor union official somewhere on the outskirts of Halifax.<br /><br />I still have a vivid memory of watching this press conference unfold and shaking my head in wonder at the sheer ineptitude. You had most of Labour's front-bench and key officials in ill-fitting suits with arms folded (just like a union branch meeting in the North), sitting at what seemed to be an old tressel table that had gone past its prime (I swear it had one leg shorter than the others). And draped over the top was a shockingly loud Canary-Yellow table-cloth with the word "Labour" stiched in red. (Still remember it as clear as day, more than 30 years later). The juxtaposition with the Tory imagery was beyond shocking. Bunch of amateurs.<br /><br />Victor / Guerilla Surgeon: Falklands War as factor in Thatcher's 83 victory ? <br /><br />Going by polling alone, I'd say the Falklands factor was EVERYTHING. The Thatcher government was extremely unpopular until that swift, decisive, jingoistic victory (complete with crowing tabloid cheerleaders).<br /><br />In the weeks immediately before the outbreak of war, the Tories average poll rating was in the early 30s (as it had been for the previous 12 months). 2 weeks into Falklands they were averaging early 40s, by war's end (only, of course, a few weeks later) they were averaging mid-late 40s. Over the following 12 months (up to the 83 election) the Tories only fell below 40% twice (out of more than 80 polls) and even then only just (39% and 39.5%). They maintained an average lead over those 12 months of about 15 points (which was pretty much their lead over Labour on Election day).<br /><br />There is some suggestion (by various analysts) that by early 82 the UK was beginning to experience signs of economic recovery and that this contributed to the Tories 83 victory. Possibly, it's hard to entirely untangle, but there were really no signs from polling that the Tories were on the way up - until those taken during the first couple of weeks of the Falklands War.markusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-13527587507164264112014-03-03T02:53:30.452+13:002014-03-03T02:53:30.452+13:00Part One
Cheers, Victor. You probably know that I...Part One<br /><br />Cheers, Victor. You probably know that I do like to debate Chris's historical analogies at least as much as the substantive arguments they illustrate.<br /><br />(1) "......the extreme, rhetorical leftism that was seeking to take over the party and which sought to portray even people of obvious left-wing credentials as insipid moderates and/or covert enemies of the working class."<br /><br />Sounds more like the marginal Militant Tendency fringe (with their entryist tactics) than the mainstream Bennite Left, Victor. There were serious moves against the MT within the party in 82 and early 83.<br /><br />(2) "Another factor is the reliability of polling......Vast numbers claimed to be opposed to Thatcherism but it somehow or other failed to register at the ballot box......So where did Maggie's landslide come from ?"<br /><br />Not sure I agree with your line of argument here, Victor. The opinion polls were actually pretty reliable. And where they weren't, the bias was in fact in the opposite direction to the one you imply. The polls of the last 2 weeks of the 83 campaign (and there were a lot of them - about 25), slightly over-estimated the Tory vote, slightly under-estimated Labour support and were pretty much bang-on with regard to the Liberal-SDP Alliance.<br /><br />Not sure of your basis for suggesting that "vast numbers claimed to be opposed to Thatcherism." ? Polls are surely the only evidence for this ? (otherwise it's just anecdotal evidence about the views of a few friends, family, neighbours, work colleagues or celebs/demonstrators/spokespeople seen on television). And the polls of early-mid 83 suggested almost half of Britons supported the Tories, slightly more than half opposing.<br /><br />Maggie's landslide, in the end, came courtesy of FPP. The Tories took 42% of the vote, but more than 60% of the seats. With opposition to Thatcherism fairly evenly split between Labour and the Alliance - the Tories won a whole plethora of seats on a (relatively small) minority-vote.<br /><br />13 million voted Tory in 83, well over 16 million didn't (the latter could quite easily be described as "vast numbers", Victor).markusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-52415613869877709472014-03-02T21:31:05.399+13:002014-03-02T21:31:05.399+13:00Cunliffe has gone outside the caucus for his comra...Cunliffe has gone outside the caucus for his comrade, and this says it all.<br /><br />Middle NZ don't want a leftist government. A strange move by Cunliffe, but it won't get rid of John Key as PM. <br /><br />Key has just been handed the win.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-10413256237171164982014-03-02T19:36:54.886+13:002014-03-02T19:36:54.886+13:00GS
Yes, of course, the Falklands Factor was an es...GS<br /><br />Yes, of course, the Falklands Factor was an essential part of Thatcher's 1983 victory, although I don't know that the proliferation of defence industries had much impact on voting.<br /><br />But ask yourself how she managed to turn what should have been a resignation matter (viz. bungling the diplomacy and inadvertently encouraging a Fascistic military regime to grab sovereign British territory replete with Freeborn Britons) into the crucible of her triumph.<br /><br />Why was Labour (apart, from memory, for Peter Shore) unable to press the attack home in the Commons? I would argue, it was because it had already lost credibility.Victornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-45610412575890314732014-03-02T18:16:57.181+13:002014-03-02T18:16:57.181+13:00I would have thought Thatcher's victory was a ...I would have thought Thatcher's victory was a combination of the Falklands War, and the huge swath of heavily subsidised defence industries it runs across the south of England. Just a thought.Guerilla Surgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03427876447124021423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-65710991589636048822014-03-02T16:55:49.508+13:002014-03-02T16:55:49.508+13:00Victor, I sense that a lot of her support came, li...Victor, I sense that a lot of her support came, like John Key's from what we call 'the anxious classes' - those who have recently become wealthy and admire the 'self-made man/woman' image. There is a perception, largely mistaken, of course, that having as the head of state a person who did well for themselves, they know how to do the same for a country. Often very untrue as in commerce it is seen as valid to stomp over others on the route to success, breeding an attitude which, I would have said, is the opposite if what is needed in a leader except, perhaps, heaven help us, in times of war!Jannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-528253466714706512014-03-02T16:12:45.847+13:002014-03-02T16:12:45.847+13:00Further to my previous post, it seems to me that N...Further to my previous post, it seems to me that NZ Labour needs to come up with clearly Social Democratic, Keynesian policies that it can sell in a commonsensical, broadly conservative manner. <br /><br />At the moment, it's got more or less the opposite of this, viz; policies that are essentially neoliberalism lite, but sold with a disingenuous whiff of wacko Socialism that will scare off centrist and aspirational voters without generating the desired surge of loyalty from the marginalised and deprived. <br /><br />Clearly Cunliffe and his colleagues still have a lot of work to do on the policy front. But there's also an urgent need for them to recast the economic narrative and our conversation as a nation away from the arid wastes of neo-liberalism.<br /><br />I find McCarten's appointment interesting because I recall how the Alliance, in its early years, managed to appeal to voters who wouldn't have dreamed of voting for a left-wing party, including many a Tamaki matron with a blue rinse. <br /><br />Perhaps, just perhaps, this is the start of a game change. But I'm not yet ready to bet on it.Victornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-87227844178926899662014-03-02T11:14:00.026+13:002014-03-02T11:14:00.026+13:00markus
I plead guilty to using this website to oc...markus<br /><br />I plead guilty to using this website to occasionally disparage the UK's "Loony Left" of the Thatcher/Foot epoch.<br /><br />Yes, I agree that there were times when Labour was leading in the polls and could even have secured a simple majority of the popular vote. <br /><br />But its strength was over-concentrated in the industrial belts of northern England, South Wales and the south-west of Scotland. Under FPP, the erosion of its support elsewhere was making it rapidly unelectable.<br /><br />A further comment I would make is that the majority of Labour voters were "tribal" loyalists and not always over-fond of the extreme, rhetorical leftism that was seeking to take over the party and which sought to portray even people of obvious left-wing credentials as insipid moderates and/or covert enemies of the working class. <br /><br />Had Labour continued on its ever-further-leftwards path,it would have found that tribal support, when unaccompanied by real conviction, was not a long-term recipe for electoral success.<br /><br />Another factor is the reliability of polling. Something strange was happening in the minds of UK voters in those years. Vast numbers claimed to be opposed to Thatcherism but it somehow or other failed to register at the ballot box.<br /><br />Anecdotely, I should add that, although I lived in a leafy middle-class suburb and had the kind of job in which you don't get your hands dirty, I didn't know a single person who openly intended to vote Tory in the 1983 election. So where did Maggie's landslide come from?<br /><br />I doubt though that any of this is of much relevance to New Zealand in 2014. Apart from anything else, we have MMP. And, even without it, we'd still find that our population wasn't anywhere near as as geographically segmented as that of the UK in the 1980s. <br /><br />Moreover, NZ Labour doesn't have any leaders as left -wing as Denis Healey, let alone Michael Foot, let alone Tony Benn. So we're talking apples and oranges.Victornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-19419319528219493812014-03-01T23:55:49.628+13:002014-03-01T23:55:49.628+13:00There is no significant difference in funding betw...There is no significant difference in funding between a public health care system and insurance in a large risk pool (except that the state doesn't actually face a financial budget constraint). In both cases some people subsidise others. If Brendan was making a principled argument then he would be against insurance as much as state funded health care, but as usual he is making a rhetorical political argument which even he doesn't believe in.<br /><br />Brendan your concern for the states immortal soul is deeply touching.<br />Nic the NZerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03375388456334279479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-81345119089529874052014-03-01T22:01:46.795+13:002014-03-01T22:01:46.795+13:00WOW, Chris, you are passionate. I agree, that this...WOW, Chris, you are passionate. I agree, that this is the last chance for Cunliffe and Labour to make it work, and the involvement of Matt McCarten is now only putting the pressure on them even more.<br /><br />Indeed it is NOW or NEVER for Labour, and the wider progressive forces, to get their damned act together, and to present a truly positive future for NZ, that is for all living here. <br /><br />My extreme worry is the media, the MSM or mainstream media, who may not play along with this, and will do all to sabotage it. Most working in the MSM are career minded, selfish persons, who know nothing but corporate or private employment, and who are also wanting to ensure their high salaries, and they have a strong personal interest in keeping the status quo.<br /><br />Yes, most MSM is BIASED, and so far I hear and see mostly anti Labour and anti "left" reports and comments. Public broadcasting is also now too scared to say anything positive about Labour, after the Shame Taurima scandal. So it is totally tilted against Cunliffe, Labour and certainly against McCarten (remember Paul Henry and his comments, for instance).<br /><br />Social media, public meetings and events, that is where they must go now, as the MSM will not support them.<br /><br />Best wishes to all, to fight this rotten government, catering only for the selected few!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-78680861563868538992014-03-01T21:29:00.345+13:002014-03-01T21:29:00.345+13:00So I take then Brendon you would be happy with a p...So I take then Brendon you would be happy with a pre-Obamacare health system in NZ? <br />Case closed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-8003384266060624072014-03-01T20:23:46.915+13:002014-03-01T20:23:46.915+13:00Brendan, do you need to be reminded that we live i...Brendan, do you need to be reminded that we live in a low wage economy and that a huge percentage of the population can't even dream of owning a house, let alone insuring anything.<br />What do you think we should do for them - perhaps they could die in the street with the dignity of knowing they haven't cost their fellow countrymen a cent? Or better yet, quietly at home so 'proper' people don't have to look or clean up the mess? Grrrrr! Jannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-67363775383483521022014-03-01T20:09:26.330+13:002014-03-01T20:09:26.330+13:00You, Brendan, want to neuter the state and bring u...You, Brendan, want to neuter the state and bring us back to some form of tribalism where powerful businessmen have power and influence far beyond their democratic weight.<br /><br />The sort of social system brought into existence by Christian lions such as Clement Atlee and Michael Joseph Savage has brought more prosperity, freedom from hunger and shared education than any other system in history. <br /><br />It is a system which realises compassion is most effective where it is practiced at the level of state policy. I defy you to show me any other system that has eliminated poverty so efficiently as those years of the Atlees government.<br /><br />You have one of the most narrow and calcified world views of any sane person I have come across on the internet or elsewhere.<br /><br />I implore you to watch Ken Loach's recent movie on the construction of the British Welfare State called 'The Spirit of 45'. If anything can be called 'applied Christianity', that can.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-30042910131266137582014-03-01T19:38:41.782+13:002014-03-01T19:38:41.782+13:00Public health systems are cheaper - take pharmac f...Public health systems are cheaper - take pharmac for an example. And they provide for everybody. Not everyone is fortunate enough to have your ability to 'take responsibility and buy appropriate insurance'. The alternative is the American way with tens of millions of people unable to pay for health care. People who can't pay for it cannot then take their full place in employment etc. You then decry them as bludgers.<br />Just remember mate that public health systems took care of your birth and every immunisation you had too. <br />Drop the "I'm alright" attitude, open your eyes and take a look around. You, are a very fortunate individual if you are in the position you espouse. That everyone could be so lucky. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-13596768928806594282014-03-01T16:16:01.034+13:002014-03-01T16:16:01.034+13:00There IS no inherent dishonesty in free or subsidi...There IS no inherent dishonesty in free or subsidised healthcare for those that cannot afford it. There IS inherent dishonesty in making people responsible for their own health care, and yet not paying them enough to be able to do so. As is the case in the United States. Years ago they developed their weird system where companies that employed people were responsible for providing them with health insurance. As I understand it this was a wartime expedient to avoid having to pay higher wages when labour was in short supply. Now of course this implicit agreement is consistently violated, as businesses try to cut costs.<br />Not to mention that there were millions who couldn't get health insurance for various reasons. These people then didn't receive healthcare. <br /><br />It's all very well saying that people should be responsible but assuming that people who can't afford health care ARE irresponsible, what do you do? Let them die? That's been said. <br /><br />It just shows the implicit lack of humanity in the extreme right wing position that you adhere to Brendan. As it is, the very idea that people who can't afford to pay for treatment are all irresponsible is utterly ridiculous. Even people who have been 'responsible' in the U.S. have had to bankrupt themselves to pay for unexpected health problems. Jesus, Brendan – even Ayn Rand received subsidised healthcare in her old age, and she didn't refuse it on principle – which just goes to show that the extreme Right doesn't have any? :-).Guerilla Surgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03427876447124021423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-73209063712542081762014-03-01T15:05:31.995+13:002014-03-01T15:05:31.995+13:00@Guerilla Surgeon and @Nic the NZer
It's the ...@Guerilla Surgeon and @Nic the NZer<br /><br />It's the inherent dishonesty of the 'free public health care' promise that I dislike. <br /><br />We don't lie to our friends if we want to keep them, and so the State cannot claim to be our 'friend' on that basis alone.<br /><br />I can accept user pays for health. It's honest, and it means I have to take responsibility for myself and my family. I purchase what I can afford in terms of insurance cover.<br /><br />We insure our houses don't we, why wouldn't we insure our health?<br /><br />Or are we too juvenile to be trusted to make that decission for ourselves, requiring a paternalistic but dishonest State to do that for us? ;-)<br /><br />Brendan McNeillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02741263914308842497noreply@blogger.com