April 2, 2010 by bpwilliams72

If you missed them earlier in the week… Meet the Labservatives #labservatives

Political parties rarely do internet humour well. The infamous Jib-Jab virals of 2005 set a high benchmark and British politics has rarely attempted to emulate them. Surprising then to find a political party making a more than half-decent stab at a bit of internet humour. Even more of a surprise to discover it’s my own. If you missed them earlier in the week, meet the Labservatives. They’ve launched a website which I’d encourage you to check out. As for their manifesto, meet their would-be PM… Gorvid. 🙂

March 15, 2010 by bpwilliams72

The woeful political illiteracy of ‘sock jock’ Peter Oborne #toryfail #mailfail

There is something remarkably gratifying about your politics becoming the subject of a doolally rant from Peter Oborne.

His comment piece in today’s Mail is both astonishing and embarrassing in its swivel-eyed political illiteracy – riddled with hackneyed clichés to such an extent that you can almost see his words foaming on the page like some twenty-first century incarnation of a nineteenth-century pamphleteer.

Of course on one level he can be simply dismissed as a slightly dotty commentator who, whilst perhaps a little too spiky to be regarded a lovable eccentric, nevertheless fulfils a role in the media as a vocal representative of a certain small-minded, right-wing conservatism. Of course, whilst in US politics the right has radio ‘shock jocks’, Britain, despite an increasing pace of life, still conducts its politics in a comparatively leisurely fashion, better suited to writer-provocateurs in our newspapers. These I always imagine to be sartorially-challenged individuals given to flamboyant or eccentric dress – ‘sock jocks’ if you will.

On another level, however, Oborne’s flailing around is a fascinating indication of the rising panic on the part of Britain’s conservative politicians and commentators who have coasted along for years, relying on a ropey strategy perhaps best summarised as opportunism bolstered by a confidence born of entitlement. Oborne, whether as ‘sock jock’ or unofficial Tory mouthpiece, reveals how politically confused and contradictory the right-wing of British politics has become – grasping out in a vacuum of principle for a policy to justify this strange sense of entitlement to power.

Bizarrely, he decides that the key point of political differentiation is not principle, policy or even political message, but rather election slogan. Sadly, I suppose his obsession with slogans is not unexpected from someone who is part of a media industry that seeks in its own condescending way to portray British voters as supine – unable to make political choices based on more substantive criteria without the benefit of the media intervening to interpret and translate.

Oborne, interestingly, also accuses the Lib Dems of opacity on the big issues. This seems to be one of his odder comments, reflecting more the fact that his preferred emperor is clearly wearing no clothes and, I presume, hoping that by shouting loudly at as many people as possible, no-one will notice.

It is also contradicted by his admiration of Nick Clegg’s stance on Afghanistan and civil liberties. In the same piece!

Add in the fact of the Liberal Democrats’ four key election commitments and Oborne’s article is reduced to simple, ignorant bluster.

This is confirmed by his dependence on a tiresome and dull confusion between campaigning and political positioning in a dismal attempt to justify an accusation of hypocrisy:

“For example, one internal campaigning document – called Effective Opposition – hypocritically advised the party’s candidates to face in both directions at the same time.

It urged them ‘to secure support from voters who normally vote Tory by being effectively anti-Labour and similarly in a Tory area secure Labour votes by being anti-Tory’.”

Oborne, like many ‘sock jocks’, appears to think that politics should occur in a vacuum of activity. The reality is any party looking to win a seat will be looking to maximise its support from voters by differentiating itself from other parties. To do that well, you need to present your policies in a way that is both relevant and effective. If you believe in the importance of local community politics that is going to be different in different parts of the country. It is basic campaigning common sense.

Fortunately, voters realise that, even if armchair media pundits – who lack accountability and often comment without any sense of responsibility – do not.

All of this adds up to one important thing: this election is still wide open and in the hands of the British electorate.

And the Tories know it…

March 15, 2010 by bpwilliams72

Ashdown on Cameron #toryfail #cameron

In today’s Independent, Paddy Ashdown answers a fascinating array of questions on a wide range of topics. One of those is from a Cathy Saunders in Bath. She asks: “Is David Cameron the most impressive Tory leader since Churchill?”

Paddy’s response is a splendidly blunt reminder of Cameron’s background:

“David Cameron isn’t even the most impressive Tory in the current Conservative Party. I find the idea of comparing him with Churchill so absurd as to be laughable. In David Cameron we have a man who went straight from Oxford to the back rooms of Tory Central Office, the highlight of which was his role in the catastrophe of Black Wednesday, and then straight into PR. And not just any kind of PR, PR for the media industry.

“His real-world experience is seven years as the spin doctor’s spin doctor. He’s then parachuted into a safe seat, from which he writes for Michael Howard the most right-wing manifesto his party has had for generations. His greatest success for the Tories has been giving it a cosmetic makeover. Most impressive since Churchill? Come on.”

March 15, 2010 by bpwilliams72

Nick Clegg’s Birmingham speech: fair taxes, a fair chance, a fair future and a fair deal #libdemwin

My twenty-ninth conference working for the party was very different to my first.

My heart wasn’t in my mouth.

Like many seasoned conference goers and professional staff I know the routines and the requirements. In any event, the party is generally a more organised and self-disciplined organisation these days. That has dangers of its own of course, with the chance that people might get complacent.

That wasn’t the case in Birmingham. And two very different veterans – one a senior national politician and the other a senior local politician – both said privately, and quite separately, that Nick Clegg’s was the best leader’s speech they had seen in years.

I agree.

Clegg was passionate, a fact not overlooked by writers such as Ann Treneman. He was also angry – angry at the way public expectation has been so trodden down that the public now demand less of our politicians and our country than they are entitled to.

With a relatively short speech by modern political standards, his message was sharp and to the point: ignore the pundits warning you of this outcome or that. If you like what you see, have the confidence to vote for it: vote Lib Dem and get Lib Dem.

At the last election one in four voters voted Lib Dem. If that were raised to one in three, the Lib Dems would be the next Government. Put like that it makes you realise how much the political landscape has shifted since 1951 when over ninety per cent of the population voted either Labour or Tory.

The policy pledges for this election are clear and to the point – and bear repeating so that there is no mistaking the Lib Dem’s commitments:

Fair taxes that puts money back in your pocket

The first £10,000 you earn tax-free: a tax cut of £700 for most people
3.6m low earners and pensioners freed from income tax completely
Paid for by closing loopholes that unfairly benefit the wealthy and polluters

A fair chance for every child

Ensure children get the individual attention they need by cutting class sizes
Made possible by investing £2.5bn in schools targeted to help struggling pupils
Cut student debts and make a degree affordable for all

A fair future: creating jobs by making Britain greener

Break up the banks and get them lending again to protect real businesses
Honesty about the tough choices needed to cut the deficit
Green growth and jobs that last by investing in infrastructure

A fair deal for you from politicians

Put trust back into politics by giving you the right to sack corrupt MPs
Restore and protect hard won British civil liberties with a Freedom Bill
Overhaul Westminster completely: fair votes, an elected House of Lords, all politicians to pay full British taxes.

As I left Birmingham, looking out of the train window at a landscape that has at different times been at the heart of our industrial economy, I felt a genuine excitement at being a member of a party that was making a firm commitment to helping Britain start building things again – turning Britain into a world-leader in green industries such as hi-tech wind-turbine production. It was a real revelation to think that our economy needn’t be reliant on the service industry of the city, with all its old boy networks and incomprehensible lexicon of hedge funds and futures and trades. It could instead witness a 21st Century reinvention of our manufacturing industry, with vital plant and equipment made in Britain for the benefit of our economy as well as benefiting the wider environmental interests of the international community.

Exciting, too, to hear the clear ambition to help people back into work and break the humiliation and hopelessness of trying to make ends meet on benefits, by proposing a radical and costed overhaul of taxation to lift the income tax threshold to £10,000. Is there a bolder commitment from any other party to put real cash back into the pockets of those who need it most?

If you missed the speech, but are interested in seeing what Nick Clegg said, look at the clip below or take a moment to read the text.

March 10, 2010 by bpwilliams72

Progressive reformers desert Labour: John Kampfner on why he’s now backing the Lib Dems

The journalist John Kampfner has established a formidable reputation as broadcaster, writer, political campaigner and commentator.

In 2002 he won awards for Journalist of the Year and Film of the Year from the Foreign Press Association for his documentary on the Middle East, The Dirty War. Under his editorship from 2005 to 2008, The New Statesman reached its highest circulation figures in thirty years. In 2006 The British Society of Magazine Editors gave him their award for Political Editor of the Year. Both the Observer and the Evening Standard listed his book Freedom for Sale as one of their books of the year for 2009.

Yesterday, Kampfner published an article in the Guardian and a pamphlet through CentreForum, “Lost labours”, both of which address Labour’s record of failure and its betrayal of the British people’s trust. He explains his difficult decision to switch his political allegiance away from Labour to Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats, arguing that only they can ensure a fairer Britain and urging other reformers on the centre left to acknowledge the Liberal Democrats as the most progressive force in British politics.

If you are uncertain of the case that politicians make for themselves, take a moment to read Kampfner’s coherent and compelling account.

If you are interested in finding out more about John Kampfner, check out his listing on evri where you will find a number of video clips of debates and commentaries on a range of political issues.

February 26, 2010 by bpwilliams72

Basildon’s Conservatives and borough status: ignorance and the inappropriateness of pomp in a recession #toryfail

On Wednesday night, immediately following a Cabinet meeting that witnessed the collapse of the Tories regeneration plans in Wickford, we had the farce of Council meeting to decide if Basildon should apply to the Queen to become a Borough

The result was a foregone conclusion.

All but one Tory councillor was present, all three Liberal Democrats were there, but Labour decided not to turn up – despite saying they opposed it in the paper.

Quite how Labour councillors opposed this by taking a decision not to be there to vote against is completely beyond me. It wasn’t something that happened by accident – work over-running or a train arriving late, for instance. This was a decision not to be present.

It was a complete and utter abdication of political responsibility in two regards.

Firstly, it was an abdication of responsibility in their capacity as official opposition, failing to represent the many thousands of residents who have an opposite view to the Conservative administration. Secondly, it was an abdication of responsibility in their capacity as elected representatives. Their constituents expect them to represent their views. On Basildon and borough status, any comment they made in the paper is worthless as they singularly failed to follow up that stated opposition with votes.

Did Labour really oppose it? Or were they simply too divided that they thought it better not to turn up at all? We will never know as they abdicated their elected responsibilities: there are no votes to record their views.

The Conservatives argued that borough status would enhance the status of the district and with enhanced status would come investment. They explained that there is currently confusion when the “chain gang” get together [the other mayors] as Basildon is one of only two councils local to us with a Chairman. To be honest, I think that most people these days think of a very different “chain gang” when it comes to politicians…

Most importantly, the Tories believe Borough status would allow them to recognise people of importance and grant them “Freedom of the Borough”. They made an emotive and compelling case, based on the Royal Anglian Regiment and the fact that, in the Leader of the Tory group’s words, they had missed a trick by not having borough status so they could grant “Freedom of the Borough”. They also said that they would spend no money on signage as all the signs say Basildon Council and they wouldn’t buy regalia or cars etc.

I was against the application. So were my colleagues. And we were there to make our points and vote against it.

For my part, I don’t have a principled objection to being Basildon Borough. However, politicians have never been regarded with so much contempt in modern times as they are now. There is a justified and deep-seated cynicism out there about the motivation of politicians and anything that appears to be self-serving, even when it is not, should be very carefully scrutinised.

I believe that the sight of politicians talking about whether they are called a “Mayor” or a “Chairman”, and whether or not they need to have regalia etc, is one that sits uncomfortably when so many businesses are going to the wall, as families are struggling to keep a roof over their heads, and when there is so much uncertainty out there about jobs and recovery.

And whilst deciding not to spend on new signs and stationery etc is the right decision, it does prompt the question, what’s the point? As far as the world out there is concerned, there is going to be very little visible difference. Basildon Council will be Basildon Council – Borough or District.

Part of me also thinks that this need to be like other Councils shows a spectacular lack of confidence. Basildon has a lot to be proud of, both in terms of its community and in terms of its national leadership in local government terms. We shouldn’t feel an obsessive need to be like other places, when one of Basildon’s strengths is that it is not. Conservatives don’t seem to be able to cope with being different and develop an entirely unnecessary inferiority complex. To my mind, the people we represent want us to simply get on and do the job.

Finally, on the business of offering distinguished individuals and organisations “Freedom of the Borough”, the Tories did indeed miss a trick.

It is perfectly in order for a District Council to offer “Freedom of the District”. They might have erroneously believed that that is a privilege that only a district with the status of city, borough or royal borough can confer.

However, they would be quite wrong.

Last year, Uttlesford saw the 33 Engineer Regiment (EOD) parade through the town. Uttlesford decided it wanted to honour its soldiers for their service.

Uttlesford is a District Council and so doesn’t qualify under Section 249(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 to offer “Freedom of the Borough” or “Freedom of the District”. However, they did identify that the general power of well-being contained in Section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 was broad enough to entitle them to grant the regiment freedom of entry. Accordingly, Uttlesford District Council resolved the following:

That members grant the 33rd Engineer Regiment freedom to enter the district of Uttlesford with the right to march through the streets of the district with due ceremony, bayonets fixed, colours flying and bands playing in appreciation of the services rendered to the country by its members in hazardous deployments throughout the world.

That the Council presents the regiment with a sealed illuminated scroll/ceremonial casket to mark the grant of freedom of entry.

That the freedom of entry be formally presented to the Regiment by the Chairman of the Council at a special outdoor ceremony on a date to be arranged or at the annual Council meeting on 12th May.

So it was that, on Sunday 14 June 2009, soldiers from 33 Engineer Regiment (EOD) marched through Uttlesford and were awarded the “Freedom of the District”.

Why didn’t this happen for the Royal Anglian Regiment when they marched through Basildon Town Centre on St George’s Day, 23 April 2009?

Not because Basildon is a District.

But because the Conservatives missed a trick.

In his summing up, Cllr Ball said that the reason they are applying for Borough status now is because it shows community leadership. If it is the right thing to do, you lead.

For me, though, and knowing what we do about Uttlesford, it’s hard to see Wednesday night as anything other than an exercise in politicians wanting fancier titles.

I agree that if it is the right thing to do you should lead.

What a shame that leadership didn’t mirror Uttlesford’s, with the Royal Anglian Regiment being granted the “Freedom of the District”.

February 20, 2010 by bpwilliams72

Reminder – Have your say… Basildon for borough or not?

Just a little reminder that for Basildon-based readers of “Fragments and Reflections” there is a survey running on basildonFOCUS regarding borough status. It is the first item with a nice big blue banner headline!

Please do go and have your say so that as local councillors we can make an informed decision about whether or not to support the proposal when it is put to Council next Wednesday.

February 19, 2010 by bpwilliams72

“The Woodsman”: Conservative councillors throw out motion to have him reinstated #toryfail #woodsman

At last night’s Council Meeting I moved the following motion (see item 13):

“The Council welcomes the demonstration of public support for reinstating The Woodsman in St Martin’s Square, recognises the talent and generosity of Dave Chapple in giving “The Woodsman” to the people of Basildon, and commits to its restoration and reinstatement in St Martin’s Square at the earliest practical opportunity.”

I regretted that no administration had looked after “The Woodsman”. However, I pointed out that “The Woodsman’s continuing neglect, taken together with what they had done to other pieces of public art and Cllr Tony Ball’s comments on the funding of “Progression”, showed that the Conservative Party in Basildon (not nationally) had a clear position: they are not supportive of public art. I said that this seemed inconsistent with their Conservative colleagues at County Hall, their own press release and survey – and the public response on Facebook to “The Woodsman”. (I pointed out that “The Woodsman” had more than ten times more friends on Facebook than Stephen Metcalfe, the Conservative PPC, on his campaign page – and that the page for “The Woodsman” had only been running for a few weeks.)

The public survey is very interesting.

As you can see, response was low. 220 people offered an opinion. (I’ll state it again, despite the Council saying this survey had wide coverage, I saw nothing and so didn’t take part.) However, whilst it does show that 74% of people thought “The Woodsman” should be replaced, it also showed that a majority of people wanted a piece of public art in St Martin’s Square: either “The Woodsman”, another piece by Dave or a newly commissioned piece of public art. Just to be clear, I say a majority as if you take the totals for “The Woodsman”, “King Edgar’s Head” and a new piece of public art you get 130. That is 59% of 220 – a majority. Sadly, though, I suspect this survey was just another cynical manipulation of figures to present the result they wanted: “The Woodsman” gone and purple squid lights installed instead. (They are actually going to be putting the Town Clock where “The Woodsman” used to be. It’s a marvellous and unique piece of engineering, as Cllr Horgan said, but surely it should be put back in the Town Centre – where it was designed to be?)

Whatever people’s views on public art in general, I made the argument that “The Woodsman” was different: made from material from Basildon, made in Basildon, by an artist from Basildon, in front of people from Basildon and then handed over to Basildon – for free.

Finally, earlier in the meeting, Cllr Ball, talking on another item, had said that his Conservative Council was a listening administration and that they would hear what the people wanted and then deliver. I concluded by reminding the Council of what he had said, pointing out that 162 people had said take “The Woodsman” down in their consultation – but more than 1500 people were now asking for it to be put back. The people would be waiting for him to listen and deliver.

The Conservative Councillors commended Dave Chapple on his work. However, during the meeting I was accused of electioneering, making politics out of “The Woodsman”, and was told that the Conservative administration would take no lessons on support for public art as they had repaired the “Mother and Child” fountain. I was also told that that Dave had always wanted to see “The Woodsman” in Wat Tyler. They had consulted the public – and the public had asked for it to be taken down (all 162 of them).

The motion was defeated with every single Conservative Councillor present voting against – the three Liberal Democrats and the Labour Councillors present voting for.

I am a little wrung out with it all now to be honest. How sad to think that we are in this mess because no-one could be bothered to put a bit of teak oil on “The Woodsman” as Dave had requested.

I didn’t know Dave and I don’t know his family. I know one or two of his friends, but not very well. I simply want to see the “The Woodsman” repaired and restored and put back on display, either in St Martin’s Square or a suitable location that is actually in the town, not tucked away like some unofficial sculpture museum (graveyard?).

Let’s hope that the years of neglect have not left it damaged beyond repair.

And if they are not going to put him back, at least listen to what the majority of respondents were telling the Council in that survey: they want a piece of public art there.

February 13, 2010 by bpwilliams72

Cameron’s Conservative Party, Con-coctions and Torydiddles: internal party democracy (The Fib List No. 1) #toryfail

Look at the websites of local Conservative parties the length and breadth of the United Kingdom and you will find the following claim:

“the Conservative Party is now the most democratic political party in the UK”

From Chipping Barnet to Epping, from Maidstone to Aberdeen, Tory websites flaunt the party’s democratic credentials.

Democracy is a term derived from the Greek terms dêmos and krátos: people and power. You would therefore reasonably expect that, if you were a member of the most democratic party in the UK, the constitution and mechanisms of the party would enshrine decision-making power with its members.

Interesting then to read the following in the Daily Mail (not usually a paper regarded as hostile to the Conservative Party):

“Mr Cameron, frustrated in his attempts to change the male, middle-class image of the Conservative Party, took emergency powers last month which allow him to impose short-lists of ‘suitable’ candidates on reluctant local party activists.

Until then, local associations had been allowed to make their own broad selection of possible candidates and send a short-list to Conservative Central Office for approval.Inevitably, Central Office would add some of their own candidates for the final list, but at least the local party had some say in the matter.

But under the new emergency powers, Central Office can impose its own short-list on any local association, leaving longstanding members with no say whatsoever.

This draconian measure has incensed local party members up and down the country, triggering a wave of protests and resignations which is in danger of spilling over into a civil war with devastating implications for Mr Cameron.”

This is clearly a very particular and expert understanding of democracy shared by David Cameron, the Conservative Party and Kim Jong-il (the Supreme Leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea).

But perhaps that is just candidates and, with a General Election approaching, perhaps we should cut Cameron some slack if he thinks his party doesn’t yet look right and instead decides to act decisively. Of course, you might think it a little hypocritical for an Eton-educated millionaire white male Conservative to be fixing selections because the likely candidate of choice of local associations isn’t representative of modern Britain, and it doesn’t say much about his confidence in these local associations, but perhaps I am being ungenerous.

So what of policy? If the Conservative Party is the most democratic in the United Kingdom (“and possibly the Western World” if you listen to bonkers Maidstone and the Weald) you would expect a robust mechanism of participation where members decide policy.

Er, no.

Have a look at the agenda for the last Conservative conference. When it comes to policy, members are excluded from decision-making. They receive presentations, hear speeches and get to take part in panel-discussions. Things looked up in 2006 when, with polished politico-spin, they announced a “Dragon’s Den-style” session:

“Tory candidates mimic the TV series by pitching their policy ideas to Ms Widdecombe and other ‘dragons’.

There will also be Who Wants To Be A Millionaire style ask-the-audience electronic votes on conference motions.”

Admirer as I am of Mrs Widdecombe, she isn’t the first person who springs to mind when I think of modern Britain. Anyway, the reality wasn’t quite so straightforward. Conservative Home had the real story:

“At the end of the session, conference will vote for the policy they would most like to see included in the Party’s policy review and the winner will be entitled to make a submission to the policy review panel.”

That’s it folks… You get a chance to vote on what you would like to see included (not decide) – and the winner will be entitled to make a submission to the policy review panel!

Whoa! Careful! Ordinary members might end up making a submission to a review! One at least.

Contrast that with the Liberal Democrats.

Candidates are selected by local parties. One member one vote. Simple. Democracy in action. (The Liberal Democrats openly share their full constitution on the web.)

Policy is made by its members. Local parties submit motions. Local parties elect delegates. The delegates vote. Simple. Democracy in action. The full process is laid out on the party’s website.

Cameron is attempting to make the appeal that they are not the same old Tories. The mendacious claims on local Tory websites across Britain will do nothing to give people confidence that his are people who say what they mean.

They don’t.

As a footnote, take a look at the Conservative Party website.

Notice something?

There is no obvious search function. You see exactly what they want you to see and nothing else – no rooting around to find out what you want to know. Be in no doubt – this is a party of centralisers and controllers who place a premium on slick presentation and encourage creative input only so long as it doesn’t rock the Cameron boat. “We know better than you” is a sentiment that Conservatives cannot shake, no matter how hard they try.

Don’t say we weren’t warned.

February 5, 2010 by bpwilliams72

“The Power of Creativity”: Lib Dems launch arts vision paper #libdems #arts

On December 15 2008 Nick Clegg delivered a speech to the think tank Demos entitled “Why I am a Liberal”. It was both passionate and philosophical, a very personal evocation of liberalism that captures the essence of political empowerment:

“A Liberal believes in the raucous, unpredictable capacity of people to take decisions about their own lives… A Liberal believes a progressive society is distinguished by aspiration, creativity and non-conformity.”

Today, Don Foster MP, the Liberal Democrats Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, launched “The Power of Creativity” – a vision document for the arts that translates Liberal ideals into political commitments, policies and aspirations.

As the document highlights, the first Chairman of the Arts Council was John Maynard Keynes, the noted economist and lifelong member of the Liberal Party. He set out a clear mission for the Arts Council:

“The purpose of the Arts Council of Great Britain is to create an environment, to breed a spirit, to cultivate an opinion, to offer a stimulus to such purpose that the artist and the public can each sustain and live on the other in that union which has occasionally existed in the past at the great ages of a communal civilised life.”

In the current political and economic climate, funding, innovation, local support and creative risk-taking are all in jeopardy. Our own experience in Basildon, with “The Woodsman”, “Progression” and The Wat Tyler Sculpture Trail are testimony to the low priority that the arts receive in terms of support from local government, particularly where politicans are obsessed with enormous capital projects to cement their political legacy. Foster’s paper seeks to sustain Keyne’s original and Liberal vision for the arts in these more uncertain times.

Fragments and Reflections

everything and anything and all that's in between

lib dems

If you missed them earlier in the week… Meet the Labservatives #labservatives

The woeful political illiteracy of ‘sock jock’ Peter Oborne #toryfail #mailfail

Ashdown on Cameron #toryfail #cameron

Nick Clegg’s Birmingham speech: fair taxes, a fair chance, a fair future and a fair deal #libdemwin

Progressive reformers desert Labour: John Kampfner on why he’s now backing the Lib Dems

Basildon’s Conservatives and borough status: ignorance and the inappropriateness of pomp in a recession #toryfail

Reminder – Have your say… Basildon for borough or not?

“The Woodsman”: Conservative councillors throw out motion to have him reinstated #toryfail #woodsman

Cameron’s Conservative Party, Con-coctions and Torydiddles: internal party democracy (The Fib List No. 1) #toryfail

“The Power of Creativity”: Lib Dems launch arts vision paper #libdems #arts

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: