Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 30, 2014, 06:21:06 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  International General Discussion (Moderators: Peter, afleitch)
| | |-+  Scottish Conservatives to be granted 'independence'
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Scottish Conservatives to be granted 'independence'  (Read 1977 times)
afleitch
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21777


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -8.17

View Profile
« on: April 04, 2007, 12:17:24 pm »

According to the Spectator, the Scottish Conservatives are to be granted complete independence from the UK rump.

''[David Cameron's] officials have been secretly drawing up the outline of a velvet divorce with the Scottish Conservatives, which would give the Scots a new name and make the Conservatives into a party exclusively devoted to England & Wales. It would, in effect, mean retreat from Scotland."

Expect a CDU/CSU common platform come the general election, but a distinct identy and autonomy. I would support the idea, though I do have concerns over what direction the party would take. However ever since the 'marrige' in the 60's the party has been in terminal decline so while independence may not spearhead a revival it is promising development.
Logged

Peter
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6064


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 04, 2007, 12:37:08 pm »

It also avoids the problem that Labour are presently faced with: How do you have a Prime Minister from a Scottish constituency presiding over some affairs related solely to England and Wales when his own constituents would not be affected?

Ultimately it does seem to offer some hope of beginning to rebalance the British Constitution on the issue of devolution, though there will need to be a generally accepted answer to West Lothian as well.
Logged

Retarded babies should be fed to crocodiles.
only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58783
India


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 05, 2007, 09:31:04 am »
Ignore

Following the Green example, I see. Or just preparing for an SNP - Scottish Conservatives coalition after the 2011 elections?
Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16808


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 05, 2007, 06:08:31 pm »
Ignore

Following the Green example, I see. Or just preparing for an SNP - Scottish Conservatives coalition after the 2011 elections?

I think the Greens have always been separate so it's not quite comparable.
Logged
True Democrat
true democrat
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7485
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.10, S: -2.87

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 08, 2007, 06:59:26 pm »
Ignore

When is the Scottish election anyway?
Logged

Michael Bloomberg for President.



Lol Winfield.  This quote is from a thread entitled "what do the following proceed to do if they are not nominated?"
Romney - President of Harvard
The Man From G.O.P.
TJN2024
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5431
United States


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 08, 2007, 07:24:33 pm »
Ignore

Would this include MPs?

If so would they automatically tie in with a Conservative government and count toward thier seat number as if they were real Tory MPs?

This is silly nonsense, stop carving up what's left, it's supposed to be a United Kingdom

I hate the SNP
Logged


We have a new Labour leader!
Sibboleth
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56230
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: April 08, 2007, 07:30:13 pm »
Ignore

Election is on May 5th (the Welsh election is on that date as well, but it's had (much) less media attention).

Would this include MPs?

If so would they automatically tie in with a Conservative government and count toward thier seat number as if they were real Tory MPs?

This is silly nonsense, stop carving up what's left, it's supposed to be a United Kingdom

Before the '60's the Tories in Scotland were an organisationally seperate party from the Tories elsewhere; they ran as Unionists (same as Northern Ireland).
Logged

"I have become entangled in my own data, and my conclusion stands in direct contradiction to the initial idea from which I started. Proceeding from unlimited freedom, I end with unlimited despotism. I will add, however, that there can be no solution of the social formula except mine."
bullmoose88
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14484


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: April 08, 2007, 07:31:35 pm »
Ignore

Election is on May 5th (the Welsh election is on that date as well, but it's had (much) less media attention).

Would this include MPs?

If so would they automatically tie in with a Conservative government and count toward thier seat number as if they were real Tory MPs?

This is silly nonsense, stop carving up what's left, it's supposed to be a United Kingdom

Before the '60's the Tories in Scotland were an organisationally seperate party from the Tories elsewhere; they ran as Unionists (same as Northern Ireland).

So they'd be known as the Conservative and Unionist Party? (or more separate than that)...
Logged

A Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative NE Republican with some Left-Libertarian/3rd Way Leanings. Simply, a Rockefeller Republican.

According to one poster, I represent a...

Dying bread of Americans.
Sibboleth
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56230
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: April 08, 2007, 07:33:54 pm »
Ignore

So they'd be known as the Conservative and Unionist Party? (or more separate than that)...

Just the Unionist Party IIRC. Maybe Scottish Unionist Party?

(Conservative & Unionist Party comes from the merger with the remains of the Liberal Unionists in the early 20th century)
Logged

"I have become entangled in my own data, and my conclusion stands in direct contradiction to the initial idea from which I started. Proceeding from unlimited freedom, I end with unlimited despotism. I will add, however, that there can be no solution of the social formula except mine."
bullmoose88
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14484


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: April 08, 2007, 07:37:30 pm »
Ignore

So they'd be known as the Conservative and Unionist Party? (or more separate than that)...

Just the Unionist Party IIRC. Maybe Scottish Unionist Party?

(Conservative & Unionist Party comes from the merger with the remains of the Liberal Unionists in the early 20th century)


Well...I was refering more to how they'd be known in parliament, would the scottish tories sit with the "british (well, English plus what, 1 welsh) tories...and the delegation be known as the Conservative and Unionist Party...or what
Logged

A Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative NE Republican with some Left-Libertarian/3rd Way Leanings. Simply, a Rockefeller Republican.

According to one poster, I represent a...

Dying bread of Americans.
Sibboleth
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56230
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: April 08, 2007, 07:43:06 pm »
Ignore

Well...I was refering more to how they'd be known in parliament, would the scottish tories sit with the "british (well, English plus what, 1 welsh) tories...and the delegation be known as the Conservative and Unionist Party...or what

There's only one Scottish Tory M.P now, so would it really matter? Wink

They'd take the Tory Whip if that's what you mean.
Logged

"I have become entangled in my own data, and my conclusion stands in direct contradiction to the initial idea from which I started. Proceeding from unlimited freedom, I end with unlimited despotism. I will add, however, that there can be no solution of the social formula except mine."
The Man From G.O.P.
TJN2024
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5431
United States


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: April 09, 2007, 12:14:00 am »
Ignore

So they'd be known as the Conservative and Unionist Party? (or more separate than that)...

Just the Unionist Party IIRC. Maybe Scottish Unionist Party?

(Conservative & Unionist Party comes from the merger with the remains of the Liberal Unionists in the early 20th century)


Well...I was refering more to how they'd be known in parliament, would the scottish tories sit with the "british (well, English plus what, 1 welsh) tories...and the delegation be known as the Conservative and Unionist Party...or what

3 Welsh MPs thank you.

I do not find the need to continue to retard (devolve if you will) UK politics, splitting the UK into its separate groups would be the end of the unity and strength the UK has, the EU would utterly dominate Europe without any British influence


LORD WOULD THEY PICK BROWN AND SET A DATE FOR ELECTION ALREADY SO ALL THIS CAN BE PUT ON THE SELF FOR A WHILE AGAIN?
Logged


We have a new Labour leader!
The Man From G.O.P.
TJN2024
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5431
United States


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: April 09, 2007, 12:28:11 am »
Ignore

I have created this handy map to show the glorious future of devolution.

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/9229/ukzd3.png
Logged


We have a new Labour leader!
Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16808


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #13 on: April 09, 2007, 10:34:33 am »
Ignore

Well...I was refering more to how they'd be known in parliament, would the scottish tories sit with the "british (well, English plus what, 1 welsh) tories...and the delegation be known as the Conservative and Unionist Party...or what

There's only one Scottish Tory M.P now, so would it really matter? Wink

They'd take the Tory Whip if that's what you mean.

There'll probably be a few more at the next election. The Tories nearly won Perth and North Perthshire, for example.
Logged
The Man From G.O.P.
TJN2024
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5431
United States


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: April 09, 2007, 10:40:52 am »
Ignore

Well...I was refering more to how they'd be known in parliament, would the scottish tories sit with the "british (well, English plus what, 1 welsh) tories...and the delegation be known as the Conservative and Unionist Party...or what

There's only one Scottish Tory M.P now, so would it really matter? Wink

They'd take the Tory Whip if that's what you mean.

There'll probably be a few more at the next election. The Tories nearly won Perth and North Perthshire, for example.

Exactly, Thatcher fallout was enormous and I can see a splitting of the Party in order to try and regain ANY popularity in Scotland or Wales, but support in the next election could reach 40% ( I expect the LD's so absolutely implode sorry verily) This just seems like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Logged


We have a new Labour leader!
Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16808


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #15 on: April 09, 2007, 11:48:01 am »
Ignore

Well...I was refering more to how they'd be known in parliament, would the scottish tories sit with the "british (well, English plus what, 1 welsh) tories...and the delegation be known as the Conservative and Unionist Party...or what

There's only one Scottish Tory M.P now, so would it really matter? Wink

They'd take the Tory Whip if that's what you mean.

There'll probably be a few more at the next election. The Tories nearly won Perth and North Perthshire, for example.

Exactly, Thatcher fallout was enormous and I can see a splitting of the Party in order to try and regain ANY popularity in Scotland or Wales, but support in the next election could reach 40% ( I expect the LD's so absolutely implode sorry verily) This just seems like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

I doubt the Conservative will end up at 40%. At this point, I think it's likely that the Lib Dems will grow sick of Ming Campbell and toss him out much like the Conservatives did to Iain Duncan Smith, possibly as early as June of this year if the locals are disappointing (or perhaps June of next year). Nick Clegg would be the likely replacement (though Sarah Teather is also possible), and either would bring the Lib Dems back to at least close to 2005 levels.

Ultimately, the Conservatives will do extremely well in the South, with Labour wiped out basically everywhere (losing even Brighton Pavilion to the Greens). The Lib Dems will lose a lot to the Conservatives, too. In London, the combined Conservative and Lib Dem strength will drive Labour into third. (North London saw an extremely steep 11% decline in the Labour vote in 2005.)

In the North, Wales and Scotland, the Tories will have more difficulty. They'll gain some ground in some places, but not a lot. The Lib Dems will make more breakthroughs in urban seats against Labour.

The result?

Conservative: 302 (37%) [24 short of majority]
Labour: 251 (31%)
Lib Dem: 64 (22%)

Tactical vote:
Con to Lib: 1
Lab to Lib: 1
Lib to Lab: -2 (tactical unwind)

Boundaries favor Labour, as do the disproportionate Welsh seats.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2007, 11:50:00 am by Verily »Logged
Sibboleth
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56230
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #16 on: April 09, 2007, 01:12:24 pm »
Ignore

I can see a splitting of the Party in order to try and regain ANY popularity in Scotland or Wales,

Splitting the Welsh Tories off from the main Tory party would be very silly; much of their electoral appeal comes (and has always come) from the fact that they are seen as being the most English of the major parties. Sure, that's also a reason why they're beyond the pale for a lot of other Welsh voters, but those that think that won't be attracted to the Tories no matter what.
And it's not as though the Tories don't have a decent vote in Wales; they've beaten Plaid in every election since 2003 and will likely poll around a quarter of the vote in the Assembly elections.

Quote
but support in the next election could reach 40% ( I expect the LD's so absolutely implode sorry verily) This just seems like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Too early to make any serious guesses about the next General Election; it's not even clear whether it'll be a low turnout one (as it would be if it was held now; might even *gulps* fall under 50%...) or a high turnout one. It depends how much politics changes over the next two years or so. Obviously a low turnout election would favour the Tories and a high turnout election Labour.

At this point, I think it's likely that the Lib Dems will grow sick of Ming Campbell and toss him out much like the Conservatives did to Iain Duncan Smith, possibly as early as June of this year if the locals are disappointing (or perhaps June of next year).

Perhaps. But maybe not; enough LibDems might remember the month or so of terror in early 2006 to try another coup.

Btw, I suspect I'm in a minority of about three here, but I don't think that Ming (the Merciless) has been as bad a leader as is generally assumed; it's just that Kennedy was a very, very good one (as far as electoral appeal goes at least). Better than the alternatives anyway; Huhne comes off as a second hand car salesman and Hughes is beyond the pale in so many ways... and unlike those two there's no chance of Campbell actually losing his seat next election.

Quote
(though Sarah Teather is also possible)

Only if they felt suicidal

Quote
Ultimately, the Conservatives will do extremely well in the South, with Labour wiped out basically everywhere (losing even Brighton Pavilion to the Greens). The Lib Dems will lose a lot to the Conservatives, too.

Labour don't hold many seats in the South as it as.
O/c the most of marginals seem likely to go (even if there's a high turnout election), but not all of Labour's remaining Southern seats are marginals.
And Pavilion is hardly worthy of an "even" in front of a losing prediction; it's not exactly Itchen.

Quote
In London, the combined Conservative and Lib Dem strength will drive Labour into third.

No chance. You clearly don't know London; there's a solid core of inner city constituencies that won't fall in (almost) any circumstances. You should also note that Labour's core vote east of the City held up quite well in 2006.
And I've seen no evidence of a LibDem surge in London of late (because there isn't any).

Quote
(North London saw an extremely steep 11% decline in the Labour vote in 2005.)

Labour's vote across the GLA-area fell by 8%; partially because certain unpopular policies are more unpopular within the Metropolis than outside, but also because Labour did very well there in 2001.

Btw, the theory of "trending" has, happily, not crossed the Atlantic; finding people over here who are foolish enough to believe that an 11% fall one year means that they'll be a similer sized fall the next is rather hard.

Quote
The Lib Dems will make more breakthroughs in urban seats against Labour.

Where? I can think of about three at the most and I don't see any of them actually falling.
Contrary to their own silly propaganda the LibDems aren't actually surging in the Northern Cities...

Quote
Boundaries favor Labour,

No they don't; the boundary changes (like all boundary changes) favour the Tories.
But methinks that isn't what you're getting at. The reason why Labour needs less votes per constituency than the other parties is because turnout is lower (often a lot lower) in Labour areas than elsewhere. That... and class polarisation. Obviously.

Quote
as do the disproportionate Welsh seats.

lol; Labour doesn't benefit from the few extra seats Wales gets (Wales isn't Scotland you know). If you eliminated a few Welsh seats the eliminated seats would not all be Labour; if the boundaries were drawn in the same odd way as they were in Scotland it's actually possible that all the eliminated seats would be held by other parties.
Logged

"I have become entangled in my own data, and my conclusion stands in direct contradiction to the initial idea from which I started. Proceeding from unlimited freedom, I end with unlimited despotism. I will add, however, that there can be no solution of the social formula except mine."
StateBoiler
fe234
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1386


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: April 09, 2007, 03:19:48 pm »
Ignore

How can
3 Welsh MPs thank you.

I do not find the need to continue to retard (devolve if you will) UK politics, splitting the UK into its separate groups would be the end of the unity and strength the UK has, the EU would utterly dominate Europe without any British influence


LORD WOULD THEY PICK BROWN AND SET A DATE FOR ELECTION ALREADY SO ALL THIS CAN BE PUT ON THE SELF FOR A WHILE AGAIN?

I tried to bring this up on a soccer board and was shouted down and no one could give me a straight answer on why it works for them and for no one else.

How can 4 countries be unified under one ruler? To me this looks like nothing more than modern colonialism. And if Scotland and Wales have national soccer teams, why can't North Carolina under the same reasoning that they do? Cheesy

How everything describes themselves as Scottish or English or Welsh, it makes me, as an outsider, make the United Kingdom sound like a false country, similar to Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia. No one from those countries ever said they were Czechoslovakian (rather Czech or Slovak) or Yugoslavian (Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, etc.).
« Last Edit: April 09, 2007, 03:23:18 pm by fe234 »Logged
Sibboleth
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56230
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: April 09, 2007, 03:38:59 pm »
Ignore

How can 4 countries be unified under one ruler?

An argument can be made that if the U.K has four, then the U.S has fifty.

Quote
And if Scotland and Wales have national soccer teams, why can't North Carolina under the same reasoning that they do? Cheesy

Scotland and Wales have national football sides because they had national football associations from a very early stage. If we'd only taken to football in (say) the '50's there'd only be one side.

Quote
How everything describes themselves as Scottish or English or Welsh, it makes me, as an outsider, make the United Kingdom sound like a false country, similar to Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia. No one from those countries ever said they were Czechoslovakian (rather Czech or Slovak) or Yugoslavian (Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, etc.).

A lot of people do describe themselves as British actually; while describing themselves as English, Welsh, Scottish (though not to the extent of the other two, obviously) or whatever as well. People can have more than one identity you know (I view myself as being both Welsh and English for example).
Logged

"I have become entangled in my own data, and my conclusion stands in direct contradiction to the initial idea from which I started. Proceeding from unlimited freedom, I end with unlimited despotism. I will add, however, that there can be no solution of the social formula except mine."
Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16808


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #19 on: April 09, 2007, 04:17:03 pm »
Ignore

Quote
Boundaries favor Labour,

No they don't; the boundary changes (like all boundary changes) favour the Tories.
But methinks that isn't what you're getting at. The reason why Labour needs less votes per constituency than the other parties is because turnout is lower (often a lot lower) in Labour areas than elsewhere. That... and class polarisation. Obviously.

The changes "favor" the Tories, but, yes, that was not what I was getting at. Turnout impacts the difference somewhat, but that aside, the inner-city seats are generally slightly smaller than the rural seats.

Quote
Quote
as do the disproportionate Welsh seats.

lol; Labour doesn't benefit from the few extra seats Wales gets (Wales isn't Scotland you know). If you eliminated a few Welsh seats the eliminated seats would not all be Labour; if the boundaries were drawn in the same odd way as they were in Scotland it's actually possible that all the eliminated seats would be held by other parties.

Oh, come on. You know and I know that all of the smallest seats in Wales are in the Valleys where Labour routinely wins 60-80% of the vote. The Lib Dems might lose a rural seat, but everywhere else the lost seats would be Labour when dinky little seats such as Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney or Cynon Valley get abolished.
Logged
Sibboleth
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56230
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: April 09, 2007, 06:55:53 pm »
Ignore

Turnout impacts the difference somewhat,

A lot actually; have a look at a map of turnout in the 2005 election. There are a couple online IIRC.

Quote
but that aside, the inner-city seats are generally slightly smaller than the rural seats.

Replace rural with commuterland then that's clearly true. But there's no way round that without gerrymandering. Besides, the worst of the imbalance is dealt with every boundary change. Of course, things always shift back to where they were, but it's hardly the boundary commision's fault that people move.

Quote
Oh, come on. You know and I know that all of the smallest seats in Wales are in the Valleys where Labour routinely wins 60-80% of the vote.

No, the smallest seat in Wales is actually Meirionnydd Nant Conwy.

Quote
The Lib Dems might lose a rural seat,

So would the Tories (Preseli Pembroke). And if the boundaries were drawn in the way that the Scottish ones were, Clwyd West would go also, and maybe even Monmouth.

Quote
but everywhere else the lost seats would be Labour when dinky little seats such as Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney or Cynon Valley get abolished.

Actually an inevitable result of abolishing a seat or two in the Valleys would be for parts of the Valleys not in Valleys constituencies to be added to other constituencies; with predictable results.
Besides, the Valleys seats aren't actually much smaller than seats in the rest of Wales; most Welsh seats have electorates in the 50,000's.

Regardless, I'm of the opinion that the Welsh seats are about the right size anyway. 'tis the English and Scottish seats that are the wrong size.
Logged

"I have become entangled in my own data, and my conclusion stands in direct contradiction to the initial idea from which I started. Proceeding from unlimited freedom, I end with unlimited despotism. I will add, however, that there can be no solution of the social formula except mine."
only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58783
India


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: April 10, 2007, 03:55:31 am »
Ignore

Turnout impacts the difference somewhat,

A lot actually; have a look at a map of turnout in the 2005 election. There are a couple online IIRC.

Quote
but that aside, the inner-city seats are generally slightly smaller than the rural seats.

Replace rural with commuterland then that's clearly true. But there's no way round that without gerrymandering. Besides, the worst of the imbalance is dealt with every boundary change. Of course, things always shift back to where they were, but it's hardly the boundary commision's fault that people move.

Quote
Oh, come on. You know and I know that all of the smallest seats in Wales are in the Valleys where Labour routinely wins 60-80% of the vote.

No, the smallest seat in Wales is actually Meirionnydd Nant Conwy.
Used to be. Now it's Aberconwy - a Con pickup opportunity.
Quote
Quote
The Lib Dems might lose a rural seat,

So would the Tories (Preseli Pembroke). And if the boundaries were drawn in the way that the Scottish ones were, Clwyd West would go also, and maybe even Monmouth.

Quote
but everywhere else the lost seats would be Labour when dinky little seats such as Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney or Cynon Valley get abolished.

Actually an inevitable result of abolishing a seat or two in the Valleys would be for parts of the Valleys not in Valleys constituencies to be added to other constituencies; with predictable results.
Besides, the Valleys seats aren't actually much smaller than seats in the rest of Wales; most Welsh seats have electorates in the 50,000's.

Regardless, I'm of the opinion that the Welsh seats are about the right size anyway. 'tis the English and Scottish seats that are the wrong size.
Grin
Care to do a redistricting project with Welsh-size seats everywhere?
Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
afleitch
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21777


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -8.17

View Profile
« Reply #22 on: April 10, 2007, 04:14:37 pm »

Care to do a redistricting project with Welsh-size seats everywhere?

I tried to do the opposite. I nearly cried Smiley

I can also imagine the chorus of Welsh opposition to having their valley teamed up with another or having a huge rural seat in the middle that pays no attention to anyone. Still it can't be worse than the f-ing Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweedale seat (and I don't care that the Tories hold it!) amongst others that the Scots were saddled with.

As for creating a map of the UK with constituencies of a Welsh size; that would be task in itself and would fall victrim to urban gerrymandering.
Logged

Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines