The BBC's Nick Robinson has written a useful piece setting out the Tory arguments about Europe and, helpfully, he sums it up by pointing out that it is all the fault of the Lib Dems. If it wasn't for the pesky Lib Dems, the Tories would have a referendum, Britain could be saved from the clutches of foreigners and Nigel Farage could be exiled to St Helena. Utter, unalloyed cobblers.
What the BBC's nice Mr Robinson is either wilfully or accidentally ignoring is the simple truth that the Tories have been fighting over Europe since the 1970s and they will fight over it for decades to come, coalition or no coalition. No amount of referenda will resolve their deep-rooted dilemma, which is that Tories want to wave the flag but they also want to trade and make money. They think they can't do both in the EU, completely missing the point of the organisation, whose raison d'etre is to encourage trade. You almost have to feel sorry for them.
Labour is in a similar, if more muted bind. The bruvvers who pay for them don't like the free trade element of Europe, yet old Trots like Bob Crow think socialism can be born out of the workers coming together in Brussels. On the other side, the Labour party in the Commons has no policies, least of all on Europe. Labour has been against, for, against and for Europe, like a bad-tempered yoyo. It would take the gentlest of nudges to get them fighting once more. And that's what the Tories want: Labour and the LDs to start fighting over this.
My frustration with this is that we are involved in their private/public madness at all. Lib Dems are pro Europe, internationalist and relaxed about trade, managed immigration and the myriad benefits the ECSC, EEC, EC and latterly the EU have brought us, from a convenient end to all those nasty wars to the rather brilliant integration of Eastern European countries after 1989 ( a policy fostered by one M. Thatcher, should anyone care). Why on earth don't we make more of a fuss about this? If it is the right policy - which I believe unequivocally - we should not be afraid to argue for it.
With the other parties riven by fear over Europe and the almost Dom Joly-esque lunacy that is UKIP, why don't we turn to face the Toriesand loudly proclaim our support for a referendum. If we do, several Tories are likely to self-combust in fury at our temerity. Others will accuse us of being disloyal to the coalition. Yes, that would be Tories accusing someone of disloyalty...I'll leave you to chuckle over that image for a few moments.
We should not fear a referendum, we should lead the charge for it.
All that said, I am not in favour of referenda for their own purpose. There is no question that they are generally bad as the mob then rules but occasionally one is needed to draw some bile from the body politic. The experience of 1975 is instructive as it lanced a boil for a generation.
In calling for a referendum over Europe, I can see an opportunity to address a far wider problem. In this particular case, Europe might be considered a symptom rather than the key problem. The issue we face in the UK is one of political legitimacy across the board, which comes down to our constitutional settlement, which is flawed and imperfect.
I - and millions more like me, I would bet - am an Englishman frustrated by the greater control Scots have over their government, angered that I have no say over the potential destruction of the Union next year (a union being an agreement between partners, rather than a creche where one bad-tempered infant can simply threaten to walk away, in return winning more sweets from a petrified childminder), and disappointed that no Westminster government has had the guts or the wit to address the 'English Problem' - that of proper democratic legitimacy for this part of the UK.
However, this is not a plea for nationalism, far from it. The reason I am so fed up with Pandora Salmond's nonsense is precisely because it threatens to unleash the stupid, vicious nationalist demons we have managed to control for so many years. No, my frustration with the constitutional settlement in the UK goes form Europe to the local Council, where, despite their woeful performance in Oxfordshire, it was nonetheless the Tories who won the County Council elections with the support of a tiny minority of voters.
The Lib Dems could point out that the system is broken at every level and propose that what is needed is what politicians talk about but seldom offer - real power at the proper level. Local government for important local issues like planning and roads, sensible regional government for strategic plans, economic development and major transport infrastructure, national government for defence, foreign policy, energy policy, and European democratic government for international trade and environmental policy - but not agriculture and fisheries.
A constitutional settlement which recognised the many levels of government and their interrelationship could redefine politics in the UK, re-energise English regions, refine our relationship with Brussels and rectify the democratic deficit which leaves much of the country under the tired, grey hand of Conservatism. It might also stay the divisive hand of Pandora Salmond and his ilk.
And the simple riposte to the fools who say they 'don't want to be ruled by Brussels' is that, even if you live in Lambeth, you are still ruled by remote government in Westminster, which cannot possibly understand the individual situation across the UK in communities as diverse as Handsworth and Chipping Norton. One of the great unsung innovations of the coalition has been the move to localism, giving local authorities far greater freedom to run their own affairs, for better or for worse. Let's have more of the same.
The LDs should welcome a referendum on Europe and they should make clear that we need a vote on a proper system of government which includes Europe, Westminster, a settlement for England, sensible English regions and practical local government to provide what Sir Humphrey once decried in horror to Jim Hacker as, 'democracy, Minister!'
Chances of this happening? Zero, because one-story hacks like Nick Robinson will continue to focus on Westminster, two party politics and ancient wars which will be fought and re-fought until nobody cares any more. So much for political debate.
Tuesday, 14 May 2013
Thursday, 7 March 2013
Bonnie Tyler: economic guru before Vince
Vince Cable seeks more capital input into the economy, Bonnie Tyler chosen for Eurovision. Coincidence? I'm not sure...
Turn around
Every now and then I get a little bit nervous and you're never coming round [to my view of the economy]
Turn around
Every now and then I get a little bit tired of listening to the sound of my tears [as you refuse to listen to my views on the generating additional wealth through investment]
Turn around
Every now and then I get a little bit nervous that the best of all the years have gone by [It should have been me in Number 11!]
Turn around
Every now and then I get a little bit terrified and then I see the look in your eyes [Empty, like an overpromoted public schoolboy way, way out of his depth]
Turn around
Every now and then I get a little bit nervous and you're never coming round [to my view of the economy]
Turn around
Every now and then I get a little bit tired of listening to the sound of my tears [as you refuse to listen to my views on the generating additional wealth through investment]
Turn around
Every now and then I get a little bit nervous that the best of all the years have gone by [It should have been me in Number 11!]
Turn around
Every now and then I get a little bit terrified and then I see the look in your eyes [Empty, like an overpromoted public schoolboy way, way out of his depth]
Monday, 4 March 2013
THE TRIALS OF MARIA, A TORY
(Any relation to actual Tory candidates in recent by-elections at which they suffered a crushing third place defeat is, of course, entirely coincidental.)
Maria sat forlorn and beat
And contemplated her defeat
Not only had the Lib Dems triumphed
But UKIP had stood there, defiant.
From second back in 2010
She’d fallen back to third, since when
She’d um-ed and ah-ed and wondered what
Had caused the Tory Party’s loss.
It wasn’t her! She knew for sure
For she had been a Tory pure
Of upper lip stiff, steely eye
And resolution undenied.
She’d done her bit, she’d met with folk
And smiled for journos, cracked a joke
Been on the stump for weeks non-stop
To garner votes to win the comp.
She’d missed some meetings, one or two -
Which caused no little ballyhoo.
The reason for this, people knew:
She had so very much to do.
So if it hadn’t been Maria
That made votes Tory disappear.
And if it wasn’t the campaign
That had caused so much stress and strain
Another thing had failed, she brooded –
But what could leave their vote denuded
This anti-European concluded
It must be gay marriage which blew it.
Maria clapped hands with delight
"We need to lurch much further right!
Those UKIP rags would suit us well
We’ll ring the immigration bell!
"We’ll generate a foreign threat
Of swarthy Europeans bent
On overrunning England fair -
And leaving no one over there.
"And about that Tory cause of yore
The European juggernaut
Which wants to take our sausages
And make them into offal sticks!
"The Europe which will leave us hungry
By milking us of all our money.
Those Continentals want us low
So they can rescue their Euro.
"The 0.5% GDP
Which we send them each year will be
Used for means we cannot guess
(But probably involve the French!).
"Oh how we erred in Eastleigh past!
We hadn’t got a decent chance
When we opined so moderately
We should have gone more OTT!"
Maria smiled and thought how much
She’d win the votes when she stood up.
As any Machiavellian knows,
A foreigner’s worth his weight in votes.
Maria sat forlorn and beat
And contemplated her defeat
Not only had the Lib Dems triumphed
But UKIP had stood there, defiant.
From second back in 2010
She’d fallen back to third, since when
She’d um-ed and ah-ed and wondered what
Had caused the Tory Party’s loss.
It wasn’t her! She knew for sure
For she had been a Tory pure
Of upper lip stiff, steely eye
And resolution undenied.
She’d done her bit, she’d met with folk
And smiled for journos, cracked a joke
Been on the stump for weeks non-stop
To garner votes to win the comp.
She’d missed some meetings, one or two -
Which caused no little ballyhoo.
The reason for this, people knew:
She had so very much to do.
So if it hadn’t been Maria
That made votes Tory disappear.
And if it wasn’t the campaign
That had caused so much stress and strain
Another thing had failed, she brooded –
But what could leave their vote denuded
This anti-European concluded
It must be gay marriage which blew it.
Maria clapped hands with delight
"We need to lurch much further right!
Those UKIP rags would suit us well
We’ll ring the immigration bell!
"We’ll generate a foreign threat
Of swarthy Europeans bent
On overrunning England fair -
And leaving no one over there.
"And about that Tory cause of yore
The European juggernaut
Which wants to take our sausages
And make them into offal sticks!
"The Europe which will leave us hungry
By milking us of all our money.
Those Continentals want us low
So they can rescue their Euro.
"The 0.5% GDP
Which we send them each year will be
Used for means we cannot guess
(But probably involve the French!).
"Oh how we erred in Eastleigh past!
We hadn’t got a decent chance
When we opined so moderately
We should have gone more OTT!"
Maria smiled and thought how much
She’d win the votes when she stood up.
As any Machiavellian knows,
A foreigner’s worth his weight in votes.
Saturday, 12 January 2013
IT'S THE LOCAL SITUATION, STUPID!
I feel this post should start with a phrase like 'it's been six months since my last diatribe' but I shall soldier on with all the confidence and lack of awareness of the average blogger. 'Tis time, dear reader, to put my thoughts down in more detail than Twitter can allow about a subject dear to my heart.
I have worked in local government since 1994 (Pity me!) and I am now involved in research into care, which is an interesting if vexing subject since it centres around how to help people who need that help but with a pot which seems to shrink each year. My experiences over this time have led me to the conclusion that local government is a 'good' which millions of people rely on (drive a car? those roads you trundle along are maintained by someone. Create waste? Yep, you guessed it...) but one which has not grown and developed as it perhaps might have done had it been less constrained.
For local government is like a prisoner chained to a wheel, forced to carry out the same tasks over and over again but with less gruel as each day passes. Budgets are being cut year on year and needs are growing continually. The problem which I have concluded exists is the simple one about whether the questions being asked about local government are the right ones. Some thoughts on this can be summarised thus:
1. Budgets are being cut by central government. True, but is this the problem or is the problem that central government sets the budget for local government the greater problem?
2. Services are being challenged across the board. True again, but is the problem more that services are being prescribed by someone else rather than being led, amended and pioneered locally?
3. Local governments face limited and falling budgets and struggle to provide services they are required to. True - and where does this requirement come from?
4. Council Tax is a very bad joke and does not serve the purpose it was set up to address in any way, shape or form. The Tories designed it as a stop gap in the 1990s and Labour failed utterly to adddress the open wound it created over 13 wasted years. Er, do I need to add to this? Essentially, local finance is non-existent, coming mostly (75%) from central government.
Go down the pub and any number of old lags are happy to slag off the coalition and politicians - I'm often one of them. Perhaps we need to delve a little deeper and recognise that things are changing far more than is being given credit for. The 'fat' years have ended, the money has been squandered by the last government. The services people rightly came to expect after 1945 have moved too far from what was originally envisaged. The vicious, divisive forces of nationalism are threatening our very country. Why?
Local government is often expected to be a cure-all and it is also often a cosy club of retired people who give people the government they think they deserve.
So here's the essential issue I can identify: it's not the funding, it's not the service cuts, it's not democracy and the need for a mayor here or there, the issue is whether local government in England is fit for purpose or whether it is based on outdated principles, old structures and tired politics.
I'm not planning to be a lazy blogger and to leave it here but I do want to set out my thoughts for me to address. I hope this is a start to my own reflections.
NB: if you are reading this with an increasing sense of anger and dismay that I could possibly think such thoughts, allow me to offer you a single word by way of riposte. Rutland.
I have worked in local government since 1994 (Pity me!) and I am now involved in research into care, which is an interesting if vexing subject since it centres around how to help people who need that help but with a pot which seems to shrink each year. My experiences over this time have led me to the conclusion that local government is a 'good' which millions of people rely on (drive a car? those roads you trundle along are maintained by someone. Create waste? Yep, you guessed it...) but one which has not grown and developed as it perhaps might have done had it been less constrained.
For local government is like a prisoner chained to a wheel, forced to carry out the same tasks over and over again but with less gruel as each day passes. Budgets are being cut year on year and needs are growing continually. The problem which I have concluded exists is the simple one about whether the questions being asked about local government are the right ones. Some thoughts on this can be summarised thus:
1. Budgets are being cut by central government. True, but is this the problem or is the problem that central government sets the budget for local government the greater problem?
2. Services are being challenged across the board. True again, but is the problem more that services are being prescribed by someone else rather than being led, amended and pioneered locally?
3. Local governments face limited and falling budgets and struggle to provide services they are required to. True - and where does this requirement come from?
4. Council Tax is a very bad joke and does not serve the purpose it was set up to address in any way, shape or form. The Tories designed it as a stop gap in the 1990s and Labour failed utterly to adddress the open wound it created over 13 wasted years. Er, do I need to add to this? Essentially, local finance is non-existent, coming mostly (75%) from central government.
Go down the pub and any number of old lags are happy to slag off the coalition and politicians - I'm often one of them. Perhaps we need to delve a little deeper and recognise that things are changing far more than is being given credit for. The 'fat' years have ended, the money has been squandered by the last government. The services people rightly came to expect after 1945 have moved too far from what was originally envisaged. The vicious, divisive forces of nationalism are threatening our very country. Why?
Local government is often expected to be a cure-all and it is also often a cosy club of retired people who give people the government they think they deserve.
So here's the essential issue I can identify: it's not the funding, it's not the service cuts, it's not democracy and the need for a mayor here or there, the issue is whether local government in England is fit for purpose or whether it is based on outdated principles, old structures and tired politics.
I'm not planning to be a lazy blogger and to leave it here but I do want to set out my thoughts for me to address. I hope this is a start to my own reflections.
NB: if you are reading this with an increasing sense of anger and dismay that I could possibly think such thoughts, allow me to offer you a single word by way of riposte. Rutland.
Saturday, 30 June 2012
EUROPE BURNS WHILE DAVE BLEATS
The Lib Dems are generally pilloried for our approach to Europe. We like it, we support it, we promote it. That much is understood and generally misrepresented by all and sundry. I, for example, am a passionate European but I think the European Union as it is constituted is a disaster.
As for the Tories, they are a running joke on Europe, with successive Tory leaders hurled onto the rack of right-wing Euroscepticism which infests their party. That much is also understood and generally enjoyed by all and sundry outside of the Tory Party.
Their latest leader has proven himself singularly inept on Europe, starting with his foolish decision to leave the right-wing grouping, the European People's Party, which would have gained him allies across the continent. He did this for short-term gain, to win his party's leadership. He won the leadership of his party but he lost the support of many potential allies in Europe.
He has failed miserably to do anything positive in this current crisis. He goes to meetings, he annoys people, he makes sub-Churchillian statements about the importance of the latest press statement...and all the time economies tumble and people suffer.
However, we shouldn't blame Dave for his failings on Europe. There hasn't been a single British Prime Minister who has 'got' Europe, not even Ted Heath, who was at least a committed European but so much so that it made him craven as he begged for membership.
The problem with this - and the reason for this rant - is that we are once again missing a huge opportunity. Since 1945, European countries have sought involvement and leadership from Britain and since 1945 Britain has failed. We have pretended that we are separate (look at a map: we aren't), or better (look at GDP figures for Germany and France: we aren't), or just not like them (look at 5,000 years of history: complete twaddle).
Now we're in a new period of desperate crisis, with European countries riven between the Germans, who are being asked to bail out less cautious countries and who are quite reasonably asking what is in it for them, and a host of others who want growth, investment, development, an end to austerity and chocolate for breakfast but who can't say who pays for this (see 'Germany', above).
A British Prime Minister with a vision, a stated commitment to the idea of European countries working together and a sense of the fundamental importance of the European market to the British economy would be jetting around the capitals of Europe, offering support, advice and brokerage and providing a British vision for Europe based on enterprise and co-operation - but without surrendering Britain to a federal Europe, whatever the rabid right wing loons might have us think. That Prime Minister would develop relationships and would secure a place for our country at the heart of negotiations to lift Europe from its current gloom - and through this process lift Britain's economy from the doldrums.
Sadly that Prime Minister is as real as Paddington Bear. What we have is Dave the Eurosceptic, Dave the populist, Dave the conciliator, Dave the prisoner of the Tory right wing, Dave the man with the vision to see as far as 2015 but no further.
The latest 'debate' is over a referendum on Britain's membership of Europe. Fine with the Lib Dems: we're the only party which has called for this to be held. However, this is not a policy, merely an argument. We would be confident in such an argument since we would reckon on the support of British business, which would like to secure the 50% of our trade which is done with Europe, together with the 3m people who rely on Europe for their jobs. Bring it on. Unfortunately, this is not a long-term policy for Britain or for Europe.
Labour will demand a referendum. Dave will too, in order to head Boris off in his bid for the Tory leadership (and possibly Prime Ministership, may God have mercy on us!) but neither of the old parties has a policy on Europe. We do. We know it's good for us and good for Europe for a strong, robust British membership which gives us the strength and the allies to take on the parsimonious Germans and the spendthrift French, Italians, Spanish and Greeks and hopefully bring them closer together.
In the Independent today, Vince Cable was interviewed discussing the decision of John Smith in the late 1970s to encourage Japanese investment in Britain - at the time a risky and unpopular strategy. He had a vision and it worked. Sadly we never had a Prime Minister Smith. Instead we got a warmongering pygmy. There is about as much light from Labour on Europe as there is from the deepest recesses of the Tory right-wing.
Until we get someone in Number 10 who is grown up about Europe we are all doomed: Britain to a position of irrelevance and Europe to perennial arguments between Germany and the rest.
As for the Tories, they are a running joke on Europe, with successive Tory leaders hurled onto the rack of right-wing Euroscepticism which infests their party. That much is also understood and generally enjoyed by all and sundry outside of the Tory Party.
Their latest leader has proven himself singularly inept on Europe, starting with his foolish decision to leave the right-wing grouping, the European People's Party, which would have gained him allies across the continent. He did this for short-term gain, to win his party's leadership. He won the leadership of his party but he lost the support of many potential allies in Europe.
He has failed miserably to do anything positive in this current crisis. He goes to meetings, he annoys people, he makes sub-Churchillian statements about the importance of the latest press statement...and all the time economies tumble and people suffer.
However, we shouldn't blame Dave for his failings on Europe. There hasn't been a single British Prime Minister who has 'got' Europe, not even Ted Heath, who was at least a committed European but so much so that it made him craven as he begged for membership.
The problem with this - and the reason for this rant - is that we are once again missing a huge opportunity. Since 1945, European countries have sought involvement and leadership from Britain and since 1945 Britain has failed. We have pretended that we are separate (look at a map: we aren't), or better (look at GDP figures for Germany and France: we aren't), or just not like them (look at 5,000 years of history: complete twaddle).
Now we're in a new period of desperate crisis, with European countries riven between the Germans, who are being asked to bail out less cautious countries and who are quite reasonably asking what is in it for them, and a host of others who want growth, investment, development, an end to austerity and chocolate for breakfast but who can't say who pays for this (see 'Germany', above).
A British Prime Minister with a vision, a stated commitment to the idea of European countries working together and a sense of the fundamental importance of the European market to the British economy would be jetting around the capitals of Europe, offering support, advice and brokerage and providing a British vision for Europe based on enterprise and co-operation - but without surrendering Britain to a federal Europe, whatever the rabid right wing loons might have us think. That Prime Minister would develop relationships and would secure a place for our country at the heart of negotiations to lift Europe from its current gloom - and through this process lift Britain's economy from the doldrums.
Sadly that Prime Minister is as real as Paddington Bear. What we have is Dave the Eurosceptic, Dave the populist, Dave the conciliator, Dave the prisoner of the Tory right wing, Dave the man with the vision to see as far as 2015 but no further.
The latest 'debate' is over a referendum on Britain's membership of Europe. Fine with the Lib Dems: we're the only party which has called for this to be held. However, this is not a policy, merely an argument. We would be confident in such an argument since we would reckon on the support of British business, which would like to secure the 50% of our trade which is done with Europe, together with the 3m people who rely on Europe for their jobs. Bring it on. Unfortunately, this is not a long-term policy for Britain or for Europe.
Labour will demand a referendum. Dave will too, in order to head Boris off in his bid for the Tory leadership (and possibly Prime Ministership, may God have mercy on us!) but neither of the old parties has a policy on Europe. We do. We know it's good for us and good for Europe for a strong, robust British membership which gives us the strength and the allies to take on the parsimonious Germans and the spendthrift French, Italians, Spanish and Greeks and hopefully bring them closer together.
In the Independent today, Vince Cable was interviewed discussing the decision of John Smith in the late 1970s to encourage Japanese investment in Britain - at the time a risky and unpopular strategy. He had a vision and it worked. Sadly we never had a Prime Minister Smith. Instead we got a warmongering pygmy. There is about as much light from Labour on Europe as there is from the deepest recesses of the Tory right-wing.
Until we get someone in Number 10 who is grown up about Europe we are all doomed: Britain to a position of irrelevance and Europe to perennial arguments between Germany and the rest.
Wednesday, 9 May 2012
Saturday, 5 May 2012
TOUGH ARGUMENTS OF OUR TIME: WHY I STILL THINK NICK'S THE RIGHT LEADER
My thoughts on the thorny issue of the leadership are fairly simple. I still think Nick's doing okay and should continue to be supported. Before they come for me, here's why.
Nick should still be leader of the Lib Dems in 2015 and the increasing calls for him to resign just miss the point entirely. Seriously, if Lembit says something you've got to be reassured if you disagree. The phrase 'lost the plot' just doesn't do his present state of mind justice. However, others with greater control of their faculties have said this, so it needs to be considered.
Nick should be supported because he gets it. The Tories are working with us but it is rather like sharing a pit with a python. You might help each other to get out but never take your eyes off it. They will attack us as soon as they think the time is right and it seems to me that Nick recognises this. He appears to know that this is a long game and he is playing it cool.
Come 2015, those vipers (I know, different snake) will strike and we need to react and hit them back hard. If we can show that we tamed them for 5 years and did the good stuff like cutting taxes we might just do well. If.
What could a Tim Farron or Simon Hughes bring to the party beyond further antagonising the Tory right. Great guys both but not right for the job at the moment. And any calls for the Blessed Vince to step up to the plate are likely to fall on deaf ears as Vince is clearly unhappy in the coalition and he just doesn't seem to want the leader's job.
All those calling for Nick's head need to answer two simple questions: who would replace him and where would they take us?
I've been on the doorsteps in the past few weeks and I've had the arguments. The strange thing was that most people were willing to listen. They may not agree but I got a good impression that we can still connect. We won two seats here and we held and achieved good results in many areas around the south. That is small comfort for other areas but it shows that our arguments still work.
We should not ditch the pilot before we are sure he's the problem and that there is a replacement pilot eating peanuts in business class. At the moment I'm not sure there is.
Nick should still be leader of the Lib Dems in 2015 and the increasing calls for him to resign just miss the point entirely. Seriously, if Lembit says something you've got to be reassured if you disagree. The phrase 'lost the plot' just doesn't do his present state of mind justice. However, others with greater control of their faculties have said this, so it needs to be considered.
Nick should be supported because he gets it. The Tories are working with us but it is rather like sharing a pit with a python. You might help each other to get out but never take your eyes off it. They will attack us as soon as they think the time is right and it seems to me that Nick recognises this. He appears to know that this is a long game and he is playing it cool.
Come 2015, those vipers (I know, different snake) will strike and we need to react and hit them back hard. If we can show that we tamed them for 5 years and did the good stuff like cutting taxes we might just do well. If.
What could a Tim Farron or Simon Hughes bring to the party beyond further antagonising the Tory right. Great guys both but not right for the job at the moment. And any calls for the Blessed Vince to step up to the plate are likely to fall on deaf ears as Vince is clearly unhappy in the coalition and he just doesn't seem to want the leader's job.
All those calling for Nick's head need to answer two simple questions: who would replace him and where would they take us?
I've been on the doorsteps in the past few weeks and I've had the arguments. The strange thing was that most people were willing to listen. They may not agree but I got a good impression that we can still connect. We won two seats here and we held and achieved good results in many areas around the south. That is small comfort for other areas but it shows that our arguments still work.
We should not ditch the pilot before we are sure he's the problem and that there is a replacement pilot eating peanuts in business class. At the moment I'm not sure there is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)