I mean, this is an argument used against the House of Lords as well, isn't it?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF |OT2| - We Blue Ourselves
- Thread starter Jezbollah
- Start date
- Status
I mean, this is an argument used against the House of Lords as well, isn't it?
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
But on the other hand, the development of LGBT rights is strongly connected to public support....
Well yeah, that's what makes it tricky. If laws were more strongly linked to democratic support you probably wouldn't see such repeated attacks on privacy either.
CyclopsRock
Member
Yeah, but you said that you didn't want it in the hands of a democratic institution. I'm genuinely curious as to your suggested alternative - I'm not trying to paint you into a corner.
(My girlfriend - who is afraid of automatic flushing toilets - has gone up to our room for a piss, then we're playing the shit out of some Craps. I'm feelin' lucky).
Wrestlemania
Banned
As someone relatively close to all of that, unless something drastically changes you will start to see local authorities going bankrupt over the next two years. The treasuries own figures show that local government has taken by far and away the largest cuts of any part of the public sector, and yet the demand on services increased substantially every year. The numbers simply don't add up.
There will be probably be a rebuttal lurking in one of the broadsheets beginning with T tomorrow or Friday - probably by someone like Robert Harris. (I still find it odd he was the person the Times trotted out to defend the election result.)
Jezbollah
Member
I do wonder if those driving the cuts actually get away from their desks and to the councils in question to see their actual view and the situation in general. Council circumstances and situations are mostly unique. I know from someone who worked on an IT contract to one council and the wastage of money was eye watering. If cuts are to be made, common sense and recognition of circumstances needs to be taken into consideration. The kind of letter published in the Guardian should never have been written in the first place.
IT in the public sector is a wastage of money, full stop, at every level and every branch. The public sector is completely out of its depth when negotiating contracts for IT, and when combined with ministers preference for technological solutions to human issues creates a perfect storm wherebye we waste vast amounts of public money on IT at every stage.
I honestly cannot think of a single public sector IT project, in *any* sector that has been delivered on cost, on spec or on time. Normally you get at least one of three and are suppossed to aim for two...
I honestly cannot think of a single public sector IT project, in *any* sector that has been delivered on cost, on spec or on time. Normally you get at least one of three and are suppossed to aim for two...
We really need a well techinally educated and well experienced minister of I.T. to properly delegate, coordinate and manage these things.
RobotNinjaHornets
Banned
John McDonnell on Facebook said:
Amazing
CyclopsRock
Member
The new Gov site is pretty great. I dunno if it was on budget or time, but it is at least a great service now it works.
Jezbollah
Member
Funny you should mention that - had to change my drivers license address after moving house. Went through perfectly.
In other news, good article by George Eaton tonight.
Ken Clarke's given a surprisingly bold speech today. Highlights include:
- Chancellors are bound more and more by the fact no-one will accept tax rises anymore, and the ultra rich can just shift their money around
- People no longer accept that budgets have bad things as well as good things in them - every budget has to be a giveaway
- the triple lock for pensions is totally unaffordable, and someone will need to address it fairly soon
- the UKs penal system has been run by the Sun for the last 20 years, and it costs the same to send someone to Eton as it does prison now.
- the coming health reforms necessery due to the changing demographics will be like nothing ever seen
I can't help but like him - he just comes across better than almost every other politician. He has charisma. I do wonder what would have happened if he had been elected leader in 2001 rather than IDS.
- Chancellors are bound more and more by the fact no-one will accept tax rises anymore, and the ultra rich can just shift their money around
- People no longer accept that budgets have bad things as well as good things in them - every budget has to be a giveaway
- the triple lock for pensions is totally unaffordable, and someone will need to address it fairly soon
- the UKs penal system has been run by the Sun for the last 20 years, and it costs the same to send someone to Eton as it does prison now.
- the coming health reforms necessery due to the changing demographics will be like nothing ever seen
I can't help but like him - he just comes across better than almost every other politician. He has charisma. I do wonder what would have happened if he had been elected leader in 2001 rather than IDS.
Nicktendo86
Member
Apart from his views on Europe I do like him a lot, did a better job of defending the tax credit cuts than Osbourne.
The expecting giveaways during budgets bit is interesting, yet another legacy of Gordon Brown. It will be years until we completely recognise the damage he did really
it's deeper than brown. It really started after 92. Major had such a slim majority they couldn't afford anything contentious, and the final budgets before the 97 election were ridiculous give always designed specifically to fuck over labour. Which of course Ken was chancellor for.
Blaming Brown is silly - it started before him, and is symptomatic of the general shift in attitude towards tax and public services from the right wing in both the states and uk. The compact of taxes to fund services has been broken, and I'm not sure who can fix that. It might be a Nixon to China moment, where only a Tory PM can do something like that - but I don't think any of the current front bench have the courage to do something like that.
Blaming Brown is silly - it started before him, and is symptomatic of the general shift in attitude towards tax and public services from the right wing in both the states and uk. The compact of taxes to fund services has been broken, and I'm not sure who can fix that. It might be a Nixon to China moment, where only a Tory PM can do something like that - but I don't think any of the current front bench have the courage to do something like that.
Nicktendo86
Member
Yeah it's probably fair to say things started to go south under Major, but things like PPI are the perfect example. Started by Major, expanded massively under Brown.
It's annoying every budget to read commentators waiting with baited breath for a rabbit to appear, it's like the age of sensible, balanced budgets are long gone.
It's annoying every budget to read commentators waiting with baited breath for a rabbit to appear, it's like the age of sensible, balanced budgets are long gone.
I've been thinking on it, and actually think it's a bit unfair to even say it got worse under Labour. I'd disagree - I think it's a symptom of weak government. When you only have a slim majority, or have to run a coalition, you can't afford to be strong and take a hit on things. Look at both of Osbournes bad budgets - the omnishambles budget and now this one. In both cases the taxes went up because they needed the money, but instead of talking about that they bought into the narrative of the budget being a mistake and reversing the decisions. It wasn't a mistake, the money was needed to cover what we spend!
Brown was lucky in that he was chancellor at a time of massive prosperity, so didn't have to make hard choices. A lot of his budgets were almost puff pieces to bolster his support, but ultimately until the financial crisis the levels of spending versus tax were fine. Heck, they even had their own issues with fuel duty and alcohol duty.
Weak governments can only produce weak budgets seems to be the lesson. The local government thing is interesting because I think they havent really realised until now exactly how utterly fucked local government is, and at some point people are going to start blaming the national government rather than their local councillors.
Brown was lucky in that he was chancellor at a time of massive prosperity, so didn't have to make hard choices. A lot of his budgets were almost puff pieces to bolster his support, but ultimately until the financial crisis the levels of spending versus tax were fine. Heck, they even had their own issues with fuel duty and alcohol duty.
Weak governments can only produce weak budgets seems to be the lesson. The local government thing is interesting because I think they havent really realised until now exactly how utterly fucked local government is, and at some point people are going to start blaming the national government rather than their local councillors.
Are you talking about GOV.UK? I don't think the design is that recent. I'm sure I read about it getting awards a good few years ago now.
Jezbollah
Member
What you see with Gov.uk is only the front end - behind the scenes they have taken plenty of major steps to get everything automated and electronic - road tax being one of them (us not having a physical bit of paper etc).
When I applied for a new license for my change of address, I was given a form with the following to fill in:
- passport number
- drivers license number
- national insurance number
- basic personal details including old and new addresses
- a few disclaimers etc
Once submitted, it told me that the new drivers license would be with me within two weeks, and gave me the address to cut up my old one to send back to the DVLA. Didnt take more than a few minutes to sort out - no need to go down to the post office to find the right form, take it home to fill out, go back to the post office to post etc. I've also found that the regional facilities such as council tax works really well too, having changed that purely electronically.
Come to think about it, the only thing I needed to do paper wise from my house move was to send my V5 back to the DVLA for the change of address there. Everything else that you can associate with a house move was done over the internet...
Coriolanus
Banned
Jacobin running an article about how Milliband's leadership allowed for a Corbyn coronation, and i'm kinda seeking the opinion of the folks here on how correct it is. I didn't follow Ed as closely as i should've at the time, and a lot of the info there sounds quite surprising.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
It is a bloody long article and I am not all the way through it yet, but this bit struck me as spectacularly wrong:
No, not here it wasn't. The LibDem's collapse here and probably elsewhere in their southwest heartlands was different. For example, I was genuinely dithering towards LD until Clegg made that speech just before the election reaching out to Labour voters. That did it for me. It was Clegg saying "give me your vote, and I'll vote it for whoever everybody else votes for" which kind of makes voting for him a bit pointless. It is my vote dammit.
Had he instead stood on his record in government I'd have probably voted for him.
Sure, Libdem *in London* might be different, but that is not the whole universe.
It's trash.
Firstly, Ed's interventions sometimes had effect (Murdoch), but sometimes utterly, utterly failed - predatory capitalism being a key one. Secondly, it's yellow press journalims to say the Economist didn't back him because "Labours leader wants to remake British capitalism in favor of a fairer society". that wasn't the reason AT all, as you can see from the actual article that quote comes from:
http://www.economist.com/news/leade...led-david-cameron-should-have-second-term-who
So this is... something.
Basically, there are proposals (I'm not sure whether they're from the Treasury or government) to change the law on in-work benefits. The most popular (or new) proposal is that you could only claim if you've claimed unemployment benefit in the past year. I think. There's a bit more in there.
So basically I'm very confused, on the grounds that A) the whole point is that people are better off in work than out of it and B) I'm not sure quite what this has to do with EU reform. Unless it's meant to be some kind of "Now look what you're making me do, if you'd just let me cut EU benefits this wouldn't have happened" thing?
Also, this paragraph:
EDIT: To be clear, I'm not knocking the idea of cutting benefits (although I still think there's something dodgy about this) but more confused as to what exactly these proposals are actually all about.
Basically, there are proposals (I'm not sure whether they're from the Treasury or government) to change the law on in-work benefits. The most popular (or new) proposal is that you could only claim if you've claimed unemployment benefit in the past year. I think. There's a bit more in there.
So basically I'm very confused, on the grounds that A) the whole point is that people are better off in work than out of it and B) I'm not sure quite what this has to do with EU reform. Unless it's meant to be some kind of "Now look what you're making me do, if you'd just let me cut EU benefits this wouldn't have happened" thing?
Also, this paragraph:
EDIT: To be clear, I'm not knocking the idea of cutting benefits (although I still think there's something dodgy about this) but more confused as to what exactly these proposals are actually all about.
Jezbollah
Member
So it looks like Osborne might have got a break as the Government has sold the former Northern Rock mortgage business for £13bn, £280m above the book value. This will surely allow him to ease up on the Tax credits proposal.
If they do this, it does make you wonder why, with such a sale pending at the time, that they came out with the original ruthless proposal (and get shat on by all) in the first place, unless of course it's a case of "lol, we'll try and get away with it shall we?"
If they do this, it does make you wonder why, with such a sale pending at the time, that they came out with the original ruthless proposal (and get shat on by all) in the first place, unless of course it's a case of "lol, we'll try and get away with it shall we?"
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
The NEC has administrative control of the party, but since Blair's reforms very little control over policy. Policy is now determined by the National Policy Forum (NPF), which until relatively recently was controlled by the rightist/moderate (depending on your point of view) faction.
In all honesty, regardless of the body the PLP has a huge amount of input, though. About a third of the NEC is under the control of the PLP, and about a quarter under the NEC; and that's only counting direct influence and ignoring the ability of the PLP to favour local candidates or negotiate with favourable unions for support. Party membership control over the NEC and NFP has been very weak since the late '90s. The PLP has been the master of the Labour Party for the last few decades, which ironically has a little to do with their downfall because so much is appointed by the Leader or influenced by the Leader that Corbyn already has narrow control of the NEC.
EDIT: The article is fairly rubbish, though. I'm just clarifying on how these bodies work. The only valid point they do have is that the OMOV was critical to Corbyn's win. Without it, he would have lost by approximately 45-55 to Burnham in the final round.
As I understand it, it is against EU law to discriminate against workers from other EU countries when it comes to benefits/social provisions.
As this is exactly what the Gov are proposing, their only choice to make it legal is to either a) successfully lobby to change the law at the EU level (seemingly impossible) or b) change UK law so everybody is screwed over equally, native UK citizen or not.
Obviously b) is within their power thanks to their majority and is handily also nicely in line with their 'get rid of benefits' mantra. Whether this is all a clever ploy to kill two birds with one stone or not, who knows?
I had a similarly painless experience renewing my passport earlier this year. Went online, filled the forms out, posted a couple of pictures with countersignatures (the one really outdated and silly part of the system) and a couple of weeks later had a passport through the door.
Fernando Fernandez
Member
Does this balance out with the undervaluing of the Royal Mail? £280Mil doesn't sound a lot these days!
The problem with a sell off is that it is a one-off sale.
Coriolanus
Banned
I would suggest that it's not so much a democratic institution that would be a problem, but a non-party political one.
In so much I would bar anyone who is a member of a political party.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
That never works. Banning someone from a party doesn't stop them having a strong ideological commitment that will inevitably lead them to sympathize with one party more so than another, and banning someone from a party doesn't stop them from communicating with that party. Just look at the Nebraska State Congress.
He has a major speech today to try and quell some of the unrest in the party. He can't help himself though it seems. Coming out with the "I'd rather he was arrested" quote about Jihadi John when the only way of doing that would be to put troops into Syria (which he vehemently opposes makes him look a little silly.
Part of the problem is that a pacifist is unsuited to lead a country. I'm not some gung-ho interventionist by any means, but a leader has to at least be prepared to authorise military action on its merits.
Coriolanus
Banned
Only way that makes sense is if you consider that persons declaring themselves pacifists means that they won't ever fight back.
Which is just a silly view to hold. Pacifist doesn't mean mentally challenged.
Corbyn's argument was pretty damn good, especially since if he had said anything else he'd be accused of hypocrisy. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't kinda move, so might as well keep the ship steady and brave the storm.
What completely buggered it was France.
Which is just a silly view to hold. Pacifist doesn't mean mentally challenged.
Corbyn's argument was pretty damn good, especially since if he had said anything else he'd be accused of hypocrisy. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't kinda move, so might as well keep the ship steady and brave the storm.
What completely buggered it was France.
Your last line kind of summarises the problem though. By declaring yourself a pacifist, you rule out ever being proactive in response to a threat. Instead, you can only ever react.
And saying we should have captured "Jihadi John" is either being disingenuous or deluded.
Make no mistake, I don't hate Corbyn. I voted for him as Labour leader. I just feel that its been shown up that he lacks the ability to handle foreign policy matters correctly, since he will not use the full range of available options.
If troops do get sent to Syria, it's so important that discipline is kept and soldiers don't step out of line. The can't be another Abu Ghraib, there can't be anymore torturing of terrorist suspects, no Guantanamo Bays and a blind eye cannot be turned to war crimes committed by allies. These are things that create a new generation of radicals, so it's of utmost importance to demonstrate that western ground troops look after the places that are reclaimed, treat their prisoners of war well and leave a trail of peace behind.
Time also needs to be invested to make sure a stable democracy takes place. A constitution needs to be written up that enshrines the rights of Shia and Sunni Muslims, so that there can be peace and resolve.
There must not be another Iraq war situation. I hope Corbyn takes a stronger stance now and gets more involved, because I really think we need someone like him to be critical of Cameron's plans do make sure the mistakes of the past aren't repeated which Cameron seems intent on doing.
Sending in ground troops won't have stopped this attack, I doubt mass electronic surveillance would have, but ensuring the next generation of people in the Middle East aren't exposed to the horrors of war can really help ensure the generations of the future can be a lot safer.
Edit: Corbyn said he would have preferred it if 'Jihadi John' was captured. Don't forget that it Boris Johnson was one of the people saying that the only thing that makes the West better than the terrorists is that we would put Bin Laden on trail and wouldn't assassinate him.
Time also needs to be invested to make sure a stable democracy takes place. A constitution needs to be written up that enshrines the rights of Shia and Sunni Muslims, so that there can be peace and resolve.
There must not be another Iraq war situation. I hope Corbyn takes a stronger stance now and gets more involved, because I really think we need someone like him to be critical of Cameron's plans do make sure the mistakes of the past aren't repeated which Cameron seems intent on doing.
Sending in ground troops won't have stopped this attack, I doubt mass electronic surveillance would have, but ensuring the next generation of people in the Middle East aren't exposed to the horrors of war can really help ensure the generations of the future can be a lot safer.
Edit: Corbyn said he would have preferred it if 'Jihadi John' was captured. Don't forget that it Boris Johnson was one of the people saying that the only thing that makes the West better than the terrorists is that we would put Bin Laden on trail and wouldn't assassinate him.
Coriolanus
Banned
Saying that you'll be reactive with the use of force in an international scenario is the only choice. Otherwise you easily pull another Iraq and create the conditions that facilitate the rise of another Jihadi John. Even worse, you're then scrambling like mad to find a reason, any reason, to justify what you've done.
I'm unaware of him saying the bolded, btw. He said that he would've preferred to see him captured alive. Which is fair. Especially when you're offloading the cost of such an operation into the bastards that were stupid enough to have a haphazard go at the problem.
His preferred choice for engaging in the conflict was detailed.
Which can't be easily attacked, which is why it's mostly being ignored. Because it's sensible.
-
Yknow, if Corbyn weren't trying oh so very hard to make himself seem nonthreatening and Daesh was behind the attacks on France, he could use the attack to drive home the point of how futile killing Jihadi Johns is. How it achieves nothing. Evidence being that, y'know, you just killed A Big Name and Horrible Things Kept On Happening, Same As Usual. Because hey, you won't bomb your way out of this problem, as the US has been proving for 14 years.
Risky maneuver, tho.
I fundamentally disagree with your first point. We should have intervened in Syria years ago.
EDIT: To clarify, we should either have done nothing or provided the rebels with full military support. Our weak, vacillating approach is what has lead to the current situation.
Coriolanus
Banned
You'd still be reacting, the only difference would be that you'd react directly to Assad instead of to Daesh. It would've also been very easy to provide backing to the wrong rebels and then make the problem even worse.
Thus we once again go to concerted UN effort. Y'know, massive operation to tackle that problem properly in one go and allathat (if it ever gets off the ground, so doing nothing is mos def also on the table).
But yes, only dipping your toe in problems like this is one of the worst approaches possible. In complete agreement.
Corbyn has called off his speech. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34819130
Probably a wise idea.
Its interesting that even CIF and the BTL comments on Labourlist were giving him an absolute pasting on his Jihadi John comments.
If as Cameron is saying there is going to be Brit's among the dead i can see a vote on Syria airstrikes going to the commons. And this time probably being won.
Probably a wise idea.
Its interesting that even CIF and the BTL comments on Labourlist were giving him an absolute pasting on his Jihadi John comments.
If as Cameron is saying there is going to be Brit's among the dead i can see a vote on Syria airstrikes going to the commons. And this time probably being won.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
To do what, precisely? Say we invade Syria - which is a meaningless statement anyway because there isn't a 'Syria' right now, with territorial control fragmented between a vast number of different groups and often ignores national borders entirely (e.g. what is western Syria and what is eastern Iraq right now?). We could 'win', in the sense that we would be the group in charge of whatever territory we wanted against any group we chose to contest - be it ISIS or Assad. It'd be pretty easy, in all honesty. Assad has ~175,000 troops, ISIS has ~70,000. The United States alone has ~550,000 (although admittedly not all of these can be deployed), never mind the rest of NATO. That's just from a numerical standpoint; ignoring the vast technological superiority. Iraq took less than a month and that was against a unified and capable Iraqi army that had in total roughly equivalent numbers to Assad and ISIS put together with much more military know-how and hardware than either.
So fine, we establish full control over Syria. By the way, did we get a UN resolution from this? Because if we did it will say nothing about Assad, gievn he is a Russian ally and they have security veto; and that means much of the problem remains unsolved because Assad will nix intervention in territories he thinks he can win in the awareness any territory he does not control would likely be turned over to the Syrian National Council as a bargaining tool in talks. Even pacifying the Russians over Assad might not deter a Chinese veto; their foreign policy revolves around reinforcing norms of state sovereignty and non-interventionism regardless of the domestic context.
If we didn't get a UN resolution because we're going after Assad, how do we cope with increased Russian hostility over the matter when we have a cold war going on in Ukraine between Ukrainian troops and separatists/Russian troops? Not to mention the increased hostility of every dictator in an unsecure position all around the world who is less willing to negotiate with 'Western' (to continue the myth that the 'West' even has a unified foreign policy stance) powers to introduce moderate reforms and instead attempt to increase anti-Western sentiment to discourage intervention in their own territory? If we're not going after Assad too, what even is our plan in the first place once we're done - give back control of the territory to a ruthless despot who indicated absolutely no ability to be able to prevent ISIS in the first place and arguably just exacerbated the problem? Hand the territory over wholesale to the Syrian National Council and set up the new state of East Syria, causing long-term geopolitical instability?
By the way, we probably have to invade Iraq too if we're serious about this. Again, we'd win, but that's not the problem. Did we get consent from the Iraqi government to do this? The legitimacy of the Iraq government in the views of many Iraqi citizens is already tainted by co-operation with the West. How does Iran feel about this? Iran has come at least somewhat close to making Iraq a puppet state. Do we risk antagonizing a nation with which we've only just managed after almost a decade of negotiation to engage in nuclear weapon non-proliferation talks?
But okay, let's ignore all of these things. We've invaded and won. Syria and eastern Iraq are under complete Western control. What do we do now? Between them, we're talking something like ~25 million people. When you have wars, you inevitably will cause alienation. I'm not talking large-scale fuck-ups like deBa'athification, I'm talking about civilian casualties. I'm talking about small things like the fact you've probably sent at least 300,000 young men in many of whom will have developed PTSD and come from a hot-housed environment that already sees disturbing rates of mental illness and suicide into an area where they have very little oversight and very little attachment to the local people. You won't be able to stop minor incidents like rape of the locals by NATO soldiers (the US couldn't stop this happening when committed by US soldiers liberating a US *ally* in the liberation of France), and these minor incidents often become very major. That means you get groups of people who have reason, both legitimate and illegitimate, to hate NATO forces and then you get guerilla movements.
We then have a situation where we have a country with devastated infrastucture, no real government because we disbanded the only real government there was (probably fairly, but that has impact), a population that hates occupation, regional actors who are extremely pissed off by us, international actors (Russia, China) who like us much less and will escalate issues in the China seas and Ukraine. Now, we have done occupations successfully: see Germany (asides from the bits Russia nicked), see Japan. Why did they work? Because a) we stayed there for a really long time with a large amount of troops, and b) we poured a fuck-ton of money into them for reconstruction. You'd be talking ~$10bn minimum - and that's reconstruction money for infrastructure, roads, buildings, etc. That's not considering the cost of maintaining the army in that area, probably for at the very minimum 8 years or so judging by past successful reconstruction programmes. This isn't even mildly political viable. Even if you could get a the support for invasion, there is no fucking way on earth you could get the political settlement from the populations of Western countries for this kind of commitment. People wanted to pull out of Iraq since the very day after the invasion was over, even though it was clear that what Iraq needed was a troop presence for a significant amount of time after that (in fact, even more time than we actually did manage to give it).
But here's the kicker... this was all mooted as a response to a domestic terrorism incident. In the long-run, did this even stop domestic terror? Fuck no! It is very, very rarely planned attacks by Syrian or Iraqi nationals. 9/11 was perhaps the only recent good example of this and it is both unlikely that a) 9/11 ever happened (a massive security fuck-up by the Bush administration) and b) one will ever happen again given current safe-checks. Most terrorist attacks are committed by second- or even third-generation citizens of the country they commit the attack in. They do so because they've been alienated and then radicalized. Does wiping out ISIS in Iraq and Syria stop radicalization? Fuck no! You don't need territory to radicalize. In fact, it probably increases radicalization as some people feel like the West is attacking their kin as a result of all those 'minor' things like the inevitable atrocities of war we just talked about earlier. Does it increase alienation? Hell yes, because public sentiment isn't exactly discerning (see: Youtube comments) and the inevitable cost and loss of life involved in sending NATO/British troops to die in the Levant will cause an uptick in xenophobic sentiment the same way it did after Iraq.
I don't necessarily disagree with the points you've made. But I think we may now be at the point where the majority of people will no longer accept the perceived inaction of governments, and the demand to do something will lead to an escalation in conflict.
I'll be honest, I wouldn't be opposed to sending troops in. I don't really care if it works or not. I'm just tired of standing by and doing nothing.
EDIT: I know that's not a good basis for forming policy. But I just don't care anymore.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked