Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2022 13:15:37 GMT
*Evidently not in the large number of households where the fathers abandoned their children. * No I don't think any governments policies have helped. Otherwise the proportion of children who have spent "some time" in a single parent family wouldn't have doubled to 41% in the last 50 years.Otherwise 23 per cent of the 8.2 million families with children in the UK, wouldn't be headed by a lone parent- 90 per cent of such parents being women. Otherwise 49 per cent of children in lone-parent families wouldn't be in relative poverty after housing costs compared with 25 per cent of children living in married or cohabiting families. etc etc. SPONSORED Could it have anything to do with the miserly amount of money single parents get from the state? I'm sure well-off single parents' kids life chances are pretty good. It would be interesting to find out what proportion of that relative disadvantage is caused by the absence of a husbands income-and what proportion of that The State is failing to recompense. I guess it goes without saying that the child of a "well off" parent does better. Though that too would be interesting to study-money isn't everything. Love , Support and Encouragement aren't a function of wealth are they ? |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Sept 2, 2022 13:18:19 GMT
Interesting that turning a blind eye to Corbyn , by a Labour voter, is being pragmatic and "not precious", but doing the same thing as a Tory voter in respect of Johnson, is unforgivably unprincipled. Totally unprincipled as Johnson has no principles. Nothing wrong with Corbyn's principles, it was his lack of leadership and inablity to communicate effectively that was wrong with him And the fact that he supported anyone inimical to this country and the West in general. |
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on Sept 2, 2022 13:20:33 GMT
Neil,
I think neutralise is too far; reduces or some such perhaps.
For me a gap of 10% or so between headline VI and best for the economy is concerning for Labour but maybe that is my caution acquired through too many disappointments.
Chances are (possibly after a brief honeymoon of a month or 3) Labours' best for the economy will get closer to the headline VI leads which imo it needs to.
Party analysts will be trawling through the data from various polling (including private ones) to see which groups if any are producing the disconnect.
Is it recent switchers which would be more worrying for Labour, in this case, as that would suggest the switch is less secure or voters who value other things above the economy and tend to Labour anyhow which is less concerning?
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Sept 2, 2022 13:24:52 GMT
Colin: "One of the many failings of the departing PM is to forget that the use of simple , often humorous , metaphors to illustrate a larger theme , will be exploited by the Twittering peddlers of yahoo politics for their baying audience . And not to understand that they will use edited clips -not whole speeches.
I listened ( watched) that speech and so understand the point he was trying to illustrate. It was utterly predictable that his choice of metaphor would be gleefully exploited by Twits and their Twitlings"A few points: 1. As far as I can tell, the clip wasn't edited; ie, it was an entire extract but was not mucked around with. So, the same as the selected extracts from articles that you like to offer up to us. It would be equally valid - and wrong-headed - for me to criticise you for failing to paste whole articles. 2. The clip served as a useful reminder of just what a shambling, incoherent prat he is. If he can't even master "the use of simple , often humorous , metaphors" no wonder he failed so comprehensively at the business of government. 3. Does his suggestion that a slow-boiling kettle wastes energy make any sense? My understanding is that time taken to boil is directly related to energy used. There may be a minor effect if furring slightly impedes heat transfer, but in that case if some of the the energy can't get into the water it has to go somewhere and the kettle will overheat disastrously. No doubt Alec can shed further light on this. We recently had to buy a new kettle and when it arrived the box proclaimed "60% more efficient". That's amazing, I thought. Turned out the claim was based on a little plastic gizmo inside to show levels for one, two, or three cups' worth of water. The saving was based on boiling a cupful when that was all you needed, rather than filling the kettle. I wonder if befuddled Johnson, with an Ancient Greek-level understanding of electricity, was taken in by that bit of marketing bs? Johnson simply used the analogy of a kettle costing a bit up-front but then paying for itself showed why we should invest in nuclear energy now, even if it seems expensive. He was definitely not putting it forward even as a partial solution to the energy crisis. Unfortunately tweets is all some people seem to see. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisaberavon on Sept 2, 2022 13:29:38 GMT
Just in from the beaches of Bournemouth and Aberavon in mind and body.
Is that new poll from @people's polling' with a 17 point lead for 60th birthday boy Starmer an outlier/voodoo poll?
In line with those council by election results.
COLIN,
Hello to you. Frank Field always argued that 'The left' neglected traditional family fidelity, with great detriment to the poor.
Mind you, he later admitted that his Child Poverty Action Group report's attack on Wilson Government's record was deeply flawed (1964-1970) and in fact that government did a great deal to help Labour's people. Kinnock's 1985 speech in Bournemouth (was David Atkinson) alluded to 'all the chances' afforded to his generation.....leading Eric to walk off the platform, but Foot and Castle applauded enthusiastically at the back of the Hall. As Max Boyce used to say: I was there,
|
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Sept 2, 2022 13:33:24 GMT
Ah, so the classic right wing prescription: just focus on getting in power and maybe Starmer will move left enough. Despite that he’s been moving right. Maybe like Blair he will chuck some other right wing stuff like ATOS too. And greater funding will be conditional on handing more to the private sector? What have you seen so far to make you sure that moving left will happen as opposed to letting house prices rise, jobs be more causualised, utilities won’t continue to take the mick? Neither you or I can predict the future and how it will pan out and it's pointless speculating because that's all we are doing. Lets just get the tories out and then we'll argue about how far left we go! Yes, a plan might involve saying what you would do with the power once you have got the Tories out! Not just “get power, the end!”. It is quite a challenge to find the right of the party to say much about that. About policies at all. It reveals too much of the truth of course. Getting rid of the Tories, the party of the ruling class, is of course a priority for those concerned with promoting the interests of the middle class. But keeping the working class down - and the left out of power to that end - tends to take priority over that. People tend to prioritise perceived losses over gains. (Hence the right of the party weren’t going “let’s just get Tories out first” when Corbyn was leader. They slagged him off loads). So you may not find so many on the right campaigning for the big drivers of equality. Just get the ruling class out, and don’t do too much to empower those below, only just enough so they can’t rival the middle class. And please don’t let lefties pull down house prices etc.!! p.s. re: speculation - It is rather useful, even essential, to speculate in order to survive in this world. And this is a site devoted to such speculations. Who will win the next election etc. You are speculating that getting the Tories out will inevitably be a win. But looking at when he was DPP, Starmer seems like he might be quite Pro-US. So if he really means it about Brexit, and ties us into trade arrangements outside the EU, for instance? Might not be such a win for some… incidentally you once gave a like to a post that challenged why I would be bothered being interested in politics when I don’t vote, as if it made no sense. I would have thought you would see it was pretty obvious that you are still affected by politics whether you vote or not. You have to plan for what they might inflict on us. Like Brexit. Indeed many people in the UK outside Scotland may not be able to vote in Scotland but may still follow Scots politics, not least because Indy might affect many in the union. I follow politics abroad that affects my relations even though I can’t vote there. Speculation is very useful, even without voting |
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Sept 2, 2022 13:33:32 GMT
.
You also seem to think an issue with men (in this case being absent) is the responsibility of women to solve - what women who have been left in the lurch or had to escape an abusive relationship is resources/support not moral lecturing's from right wing ideologues who cling to some form of classification of women into selfless saints or wanton, evil lost women. Perhaps if society was not so indulgent of male attitudes and actions and started viewing women as complete human beings we would get somewhere. No I dont think that. But then you have no idea what I mean or think, being intent on deciding it yourself. I'm happy to leave you to your prejudices and judgements. By the way no need to apologise for them by being "afraid" that you have them.
Also I see you have adopted the tactic of claiming you are the one being prejudiced against by us awful feminazis. |
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Sept 2, 2022 13:34:27 GMT
Apologies to pjw1961 and Shevii for my seeming volte face here, but I had to waive my deep scepticism about the national relevance of local council by election results for these two little beauties that took place yesterday in my old manor of Redditch. I lived in Headless Cross and Oakenshaw for years and walked its streets and estates on countless occasions, leafletting and canvassing for Labour in national and local elections. It's been a Tory ward in all that time. Now it's red. The times they are a changing and Keir is on his way! Just when you'd finally won me over to your way of thinking only yesterday :-) Those are good results and exactly where Labour needs to be and voters now appear to be reacting at the polls in a way that they weren't even when polling looked reasonable for Labour, so the get the Tories out momentum is building I think. I'm beginning to think with everything that has been going on recently it is hard to see how Starmer does not form some sort of government in 2 years time. Even if we had a competent government it's hard to see how the economy can be turned around within 2 years with all the cost of living pressures that said goodbye to Labour in 1979 and Labour again in 2010- much of it not their fault and much less severe than things are now. But we have no sign of a competent government under its new leader which doubles the chances of the Tories not winning next time. The problem I have with your general analysis that comes through on your posts is somehow that this is an environment that Starmer has slowly but surely created. He really hasn't. His ratings are dreadful: Yougov- "Does Starmer look like a Prime Minister in waiting"- yes 22%, no 57% (Period August to November 2020 he was ahead on this rating with a high of 39% looking like PM in waiting) yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/does-keir-starmer-look-like-a-prime-minister-in-waitingYougov- Starmer liked 22% disliked 43% yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Keir_StarmerFor the environment we are in at the moment I would say that Starmer's tactics to not frighten the horses and just piss off a, say 5% vote, on the left may turn out by luck to be the right one but perhaps "luck" due to the energy crisis rather than any great judgment of how to win an election under normal circumstances. I'm (hopefully) going to refrain from dipping into the Starmer "betrayal" and handling of the left debate very often now because this has been argued to death on here and we all know each others views inside out. Perhaps my final comment on the matter is my disbelief at the certainty that many of the centrist people display when they think, without any doubt in their minds at all, that the way to win an election is moving to the "right" in a traditional sense. No thought goes into the complications of brexit in the 2017-2019 period. No analysis on the 9.5m and 35% vote in 2005, as compared to 12.8m voters and 40% of the vote in 2017 and especially no thought on how the electorate may have changed from 1997 and 2022. A Cool Britannia electorate in 1997 that wanted more spending on public services rather than more tax cuts but had more or less accepted the Thatcher changes, as compared to an electorate today that was radical/desperate enough (within the brexit swing voters) to vote for brexit and a large number of voters now growing into middle age without the financial security of the boomer generation whether it be housing, secure progression jobs or foodbanks. I don't quite see how traditional centrism will be the answer for this increasing demographic whether they choose far right or far left or simply no longer engage in politics. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,570
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Sept 2, 2022 13:38:37 GMT
@jimjam
I am also cautious, but if Labour is equal on the economy it does neutralise it as an issue that makes people want to vote tory.
In 2019 Labour was sometimes as far as 20 points behind, you cannot win an election from so far behind on the economy.
If swing voters can trust Labour on the economy, the other issues will come into play.
I also think the economy and people's opinion of how the tories deal with it is only going one way, down.
|
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Sept 2, 2022 13:46:45 GMT
Poorer societies do did have v high birth rates but they also have had 50% infant n child motality, say, which is why their populations grow grew slowly. No longer. Your view is decades out of date. Virtually the whole world[1] is now on the low birthrate path. When the 11 billion peak die off, we will desperately need more kids. Luckily West Africa is the one place that is bucking the trend. Nigeria's population is ballooning. They will inherit the earth. :-) [1] Even places like Bangladesh: Most of the world is below replacement rate. See my post about educating women. :-) Perhaps I should have made it clearer that I was talking, in interaction with Danny, about historical demographic rates in England, hence my reference to Malthus who published in 1830. The past historic rather than the present tense would have helped! There has been enormous discussion about the electric growth rate in Brit population during the industrial revolution. Death rates did fall markedly: but the birth rate went up in industrialising regions & then belatedly in the agricultural ones. Malthus was focused on the latter which had insufficient agric employment & were losing what little industry they had. Hence his pessimism. There were different rates of change. In France, for example in the 18th century and later the birth rate fell, but so did the death rate, but more quickly. Hence its population grew but more slowly than England;s & hence the demo gap between the two great rivals narrowed. They ended up with similar pops having started from v different places. I know nothing about modern global trends & hence did not mean to imply anything about them. Thanks for yr advice on accessing links. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,570
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Sept 2, 2022 13:51:44 GMT
Would be nice, also think with tactical voting the lib-dems would do substantially better with a few more for Labour also
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2022 13:55:11 GMT
I guess it goes without saying that the child of a "well off" parent does better. Though that too would be interesting to study-money isn't everything. Love , Support and Encouragement aren't a function of wealth are they ? Well you need love but you sure as fuck need money. I think single parents would rather get money from the Government than love. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,764
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Sept 2, 2022 14:01:34 GMT
mercian Which part of England is North Wales in?
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,764
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Sept 2, 2022 14:05:17 GMT
Britain Elects @britainelects · 2h Britain Predicts — model update: Labour majority LAB: 336 MPs (+134) CON: 210 (-155) LDEM: 25 (+14) SNP: 53 (+5) PC: 5 (+1) GRN: 1 (-) No tactical voting accounted for. Drilldown: sotn.newstatesman.com/2022/06/britainpredicts/Add in tactical voting and the combined Labour lib dem lead is in three figures. The perfect opportunity to reform the electoral system and restore a sensible relationship with the European union. I shall not hold my breath. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2022 14:14:03 GMT
mercian Which part of England is North Wales in? The bit on the left. |
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Sept 2, 2022 14:16:55 GMT
Regarding Full employment, and the idea that being able to raise a family on a single income is something to keep women powerless, an argument oft-deployed by the right.
Not if it is done properly. If done properly then it would allow women greater independence. If you can raise a family on a single income, you are not tied to a partner.
If women can’t get such good-paying jobs, or can’t get enough childcare etc., then this can be a problem, but it isn’t proper full employment if some are more excluded. You have to fix those things.
and under current arrangements, if you need two incomes to survive, then you may still be tied to a partner.
(Then there is the UBI approach, which is interesting, and has its pros and cons).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2022 14:20:16 GMT
“ Getting rid of the Tories, the party of the ruling class, is of course a priority for those concerned with promoting the interests of the middle class. But keeping the working class down - and the left out of power to that end - tends to take priority over that.”
Who needs satire?
|
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Sept 2, 2022 14:22:10 GMT
I'm amused by the Janus like qualities of the "1950s " On the one hand they are the golden era , before rapacious Thatcherite Toryism , when the Tory Party & the Government was run by two benign aristocrats who practiced the Post War Consensus. On the other hand they are shorthand for Misogynistic Little Englanders , steeped in the myths of Empire and biffing the Bosh.  There is a difference between (a) what happened in that (or any) period & (b) false or nostaligic memories of that (or any) period & the historical myths that people manufacture from those memories; or more importantly the myths created largely by right-wing agencies for their own political purposes. So Badenoch & Braverman tell us that Empire on the whole was a jolly good thing in the 1066 & All That tradition while Kwarteng, who wrote a book on the subjevct has a quite different view. I have not read his book but here is a summary in The Guardian.
"The British empire was an anti-democratic, poorly governed institution that created some of the world’s worst geopolitical flashpoints. Steeped in public school snobbery, it otherwise had very little unifying ideology. 'Much of the instability in the world is a product of its [Brit Empire's] legacy of individualism and haphazard policymaking' Kwasi Kwarteng concludes in Ghosts of Empire: Britain’s Legacies in the Modern World, published a few months after his election in 2010 as the MP for Spelthorne. He claimed to be sidestepping the “sterile debate” over whether “empire was a good or bad thing”, but the book’s conclusions are quietly, firmly critical." It seems a reasonable premise that if a powerful & aggressive military power invades overseas territories for the purposes of exploiting their economic resouces it is likely that the outcome will favour the interests of the invading force rather than the conquered indigenous populations/ That would be the hypothesis: there would be exceptions. Ps. It is of course perfedtly possible that the imperial agencies may miscontrue their economoc interests & that empire building represents not a "social benefit" for the imperialists but a misallocation of resources that could have been used more profutably & peacefully elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Sept 2, 2022 14:22:48 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2022 14:31:22 GMT
you are the one being prejudiced against by us awful feminazis. Dear oh dear. ! So ..........you interpret a remark of mine in support of lone parent women , addressed to a third poster , as a slight against women. Tell me "its not the 1950s you know". Tell me I am "way past being given the benefit of the doubt" by you. I correct you .....and you tell me I am " prejudiced against us awful feminazis."  Look-how can I put this? You-like me -are entitled to your opinions. I do not desire your approval for mine . I do not seek it. |
|
|
|
Post by mandolinist on Sept 2, 2022 14:35:23 GMT
Re: The discussion about families. I am surprised that no one has referenced this article www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/01/unconventional-children-thrive-loving-family-government. The question of what we mean by family and stability is the one we need to answer first. The idea that a two parent nuclear family is or should be the norm, is in my opinion, an historical nonsense. Throughout history, different arrangements have existed within our own society, even in families which may have started as the two parent norm, maternal death in childbirth, paternal death in war or industrial calamity, two parents working at the dawn of the industrial revolution, children working until at least the 1850's. The "norm" was surely a middle class Victorian construct. As barbara has movingly demonstrated, the dysfunction within a number of families was often hidden and consequentially under reported. Just what is it that we are exhorted to return to? |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Sept 2, 2022 14:37:42 GMT
LLL: " Its not the 1950's you know."I think that fact may be what underlies the evident grouchiness of many old, right-wing white men. Oh for the good old days, when Irish, blacks and women knew their place! You say that but Danny is hankering after hunter-gatherer days! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2022 14:40:12 GMT
Johnson simply used the analogy of a kettle costing a bit up-front but then paying for itself showed why we should invest in nuclear energy now, even if it seems expensive. He was definitely not putting it forward even as a partial solution to the energy crisis. Unfortunately tweets is all some people seem to see. I said to my wife, "Johnson has just said if you buy a new kettle, you'll save £10 a year in fuel costs." She replied, "how much is a kettle?" |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Sept 2, 2022 14:42:36 GMT
Nice to get a like from mercian though, reaching out across the aisle and all that  I can't remember which post I liked, but you must have said something sensible for once! 😄 Seriously though, I don't 'like' on partisan grounds, and sometimes 'like' a post with a well-made argument even if I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2022 14:48:05 GMT
I thought - as far as I can ever understand your cod-analysis of the Labour Party - it was to keep the “working class” down? You’re obviously so passionate about this that it’s amazing that you haven’t joined Momentum to campaign on their side - I’m sure you could be very useful. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Sept 2, 2022 14:49:09 GMT
shevii
I'm on board with local council by-election results now, especially when they tell me what I want to hear! They're a veritable smorgasbord of suit-yourself political analysis. I'm still a Parliamentary By Election, nationwide/regional council elections and national opinion polls man really, certainly in terms of ascertaining public opinion shifts, but there's fun to be had, and maybe some straws in the wind to detect too, from local council by-elections. With health warnings firmly attached, obviously. If you're a politico, how can you not like them, however esoteric and eccentric many of them are?
I agree with you that you and I are never going to agree on much about Labour's current leadership or political strategy. We have different views and we've stated them often enough to understand them exactly and to know too that we're not going to change each others minds. It's for that reason I'm not going to go over the 2017 election again, or Corbyn's politics, or Blairism, or betrayals, Labour's best route to power or the nature of changing electorates. You know my views on all that and I know yours. We'll bore both ourselves and everyone else if we keep rehearsing them.
So, to try and get us off our usual stuff, I thought I'd pick up your point on the personal ratings of party leaders and Starmer's particularly. Those YouGov personal ratings are, as you say, very poor but to what extent they are a suppressant on Labour VI is more unclear. Lot's of Don't Knows. Are they undecided, non-tribal voters who simply haven't seen enough of him? How rich in the mix of approve and disapprove are tribal party voters who are expressing opinions of him from a partisan viewpoint? Is it a case of the more they see of Starmer the less they like him, which really would be worrying, or could the approval ratings be less personal antipathy at what they're seeing and more frustration with his low profile. I remember his ratings shooting up, as you showed in your quoted polls, when he got a TV national address airing during the height of the pandemic. At the moment, I'd say his visibility is low to non-existent. He needs to work on this. My sense is that the more he's seen, the better for him. Leaders of the Opposition tend to be in that sort of country, fighting for a hearing, although Blair's communications team got him more exposure than Major 1995-97.
Of course, then there is the question of key voting determinants. Has the personal popularity of a would-be PM slipped behind other determinants at general elections. Johnson had the poorest personal approval ratings of any sitting PM in history yet won a landslide in 2019. Does Starmer have to worry too much about not being wildly popular if the mood in the country is for change and he isn't seen as a big risk as PM?
Just not being the other guy is often a big factor in elections. Johnson had Brexit in 2019 but also the I'm Not Jeremy Corbyn mantle too. Will Starmer benefit from just not being Liz Truss in 2024? I suspect he might. It could be argued that Corbyn picked up a bit of the Not Theresa May vote too once the campaign began in 2017.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2022 14:50:14 GMT
Nice to get a like from mercian though, reaching out across the aisle and all that I can't remember which post I liked, but you must have said something sensible for once! 😄 Seriously though, I don't 'like' on partisan grounds, and sometimes 'like' a post with a well-made argument even if I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions. You will be safe come the revolution Pete. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Sept 2, 2022 14:53:32 GMT
Nice to get a like from mercian though, reaching out across the aisle and all that I can't remember which post I liked, but you must have said something sensible for once! 😄 Seriously though, I don't 'like' on partisan grounds, and sometimes 'like' a post with a well-made argument even if I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions. You provocative bast*rd. |
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Sept 2, 2022 14:55:36 GMT
you are the one being prejudiced against by us awful feminazis. Dear oh dear. ! So ..........you interpret a remark of mine in support of lone parent women to a third poster , as a slight against women. Tell me "its not the 1950s you know". Tell me I am "way past being given the benefit of the doubt" by you. I correct you .....and you tell me I am " prejudiced against us awful feminazis." Look-how can I put this? You-like me -are entitled to your opinions. I do not desire your approval for mine . I do not seek it.
Actually I think women are the key to this particular problem.
But it would require a political consensus which I can't see here.
Nope nothing in there in support of lone parent women - but clear emphasis on women and the problem. You are entitled to your own opinions, and I have long given up hope that you will see the light, but if you post such views on a public forum (and especially if they are coached in such ambiguous terms) don't be surprised if people call you out on them. |
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Sept 2, 2022 15:00:21 GMT
I thought - as far as I can ever understand your cod-analysis of the Labour Party - it was to keep the “working class” down? You’re obviously so passionate about this that it’s amazing that you haven’t joined Momentum to campaign on their side - I’m sure you could be very useful. That clearly wasn’t an analysis of the whole party, and it extends rather beyond it. Just an acknowledgment that class battles haven’t gone away, and a proportion of the electorate and party factions will likely operate on perceived self-interest. Though they may put a lot of effort into making it seem like the more common interest. And there are other ways to be involved politically and indeed to contribute without being involved in party politics. You seem more suited to the party thing, it seems quite tribal, you have talked about wanting to be with kindred spirits in the past, including on here. You seem to have put quite a bit of effort into it, posting all day every day mostly hassling people outside your tribe. So how’s the kindred thing going? |
|
