If Labour are truly a party of the left they should refuse FG

murphaph

I believe Labour should avoid a coalition with FG who are heading to be a centre right party (more a party I could vote for) if Labour truly believe themselves to be left wing.

FG would then be forced to form a coalition with more like minded independents (and if that wasn't numerically possible then with the remnants of FF who are ideologically closer to FG than Labour one would think, but only if FF got no ministerial posts IMO). FF said they'd support a 4 year plan of austerity, so let them put their money where their mouth is and return the Tallaght strategy favour done to them by FG! If they were in any way honourable they'd even support a minority FG government from the opposition benches.

Labour would then be the largest opposition party and (if we are to believe they are left wing) a credible alternative to a more conservative govt. I believe however that Gilmore is power hungry and will do anything to be Tanaiste. I hope I'm wrong and his principles tell him to become leader of the opposition rather than Tanaiste in a conservative led government.

Bloody Nipples

FG will be enacting right wing policies anyway, by going into coalition, Labour will be able to bring in a fair amount of their own policies. It's better to be on the inside than the outside.

takun

Or you could say that Labour as the only left leaning (if not left wing) party with any chance of ameliorating the policies of a right leaning (if not right wing) government have a duty to try to get into a coalition.

And argue that if Eamon Gilmore truly has the interests of ordinary working people as a priority, he has a duty to do not what would be in the best long term interests of his party, but of the people who voted for him.

You can pick and justify your arguments either for and against this one pretty easily.

Biggins

Bloody Nipples wrote: »

...It's better to be on the inside than the outside.

True but sadly as we have seen in the case of the Greens, such was the disaster of a marriage that there is a clear price to be paid if all does not go well.

Labour better take note of this lesson (if they go into coalition). If they don't get what they want too and stand their ground - and not just bend over and do FG's bidding, they too might go the same way as the Greens!

We do need someone in there clearly with FG, if not just to control them and balance them, then God/Allah/flying spegetti monster help us all!

Killer Pigeon

I agree, Labour's left wing policies will be diluted and Labour could ever lose seats in the next GE but one has to thing about the country not the strength of the party in the future. Putting on the green jersey, as Rory Quinn puts it.

dsmythy

Biggins wrote: »

True but sadly as we have seen in the case of the Greens, such was the disaster of a marriage that there is a clear price to be paid if all does not go well.

Labour better take note of this lesson (if they go into coalition). If they don't get what they want too and stand their ground - and not just bend over and do FG's bidding, they too might go the same way as the Greens!

We do need someone in there clearly with FG, if not just to control them and balance them, then God/Allah/flying spegetti monster help us all!

I think Labour have too many seats compared to what the Greens had to just be rolled over.

Biggins

dsmythy wrote: »

I think Labour have too many seats compared to what the Greens had to just be rolled over.

Here's one genuinely hoping.

takun

murphaph wrote: »

I believe however that Gilmore is power hungry

I am always a bit bemused when the the accusation that this or that politician is power hungry is tossed out as though it was a terrible thing to be.

Are there politicians out there who don't want power, who actively don't want to be in a position to enact their policies? If there are, why would anyone waste a vote on them? Surely that would be a very cynical stance indeed?

Dandelion6

... but they aren't. Did anyone really think they were?

niallers1

Labour should be the strong opposition party. They should not go into power with FG.

FG will become a hated power over the next 5 years due to the cutbacks and stealth taxes they will bring in.They will take Labour down with them just like the green party were obliterated.. If labour go into opposition and run again in 5 years time I bet that they would receive a huge overall majority vote.

Unfortunetly, they will be blinded by the possibility of being in government and will take the short term view at the expense of being a party long term.

cranky bollix

Did labour have a chance of going into power with FG in the last election, but they turned it down?

Count Dooku

If Fine Gael are truly a party of the right they should refuse Labour

jmayo

niallers1 wrote: »

Labour should be the strong opposition party. They should not go into power with FG.

FG will become a hated power over the next 5 years due to the cutbacks and stealth taxes they will bring in.They will take Labour down with them just like the green party were obliterated.. If labour go into opposition and run again in 5 years time I bet that they would receive a huge overall majority vote.

Unfortunetly, they will be blinded by the possibility of being in government and will take the short term view at the expense of being a party long term.

I have noticed this from a few Labour supporters.
It seems they have more in common with ffers than they care to admit, where they would rather put party before country. :rolleyes:

If there is not some form of stable government over the next few years we will be a total basket case.

Syferus

It's a cost-benefit decision. FG-Lab has a very realistic chance at a ten year term in power with the cushion this election provides, but figuring out a way to stay in opposition without seeming cynical (which is almost impossible, honestly) would give them a shot at big time in the next election. Doing what is best for a party rather than the country at this moment could be seen catastrophic failure of common sense by the general populace, though.

The strength of the hard left on the opposition benches also will reflect badly for the more left-leaning supporters of the Labour party aswell.

thetonynator

takun wrote: »

I am always a bit bemused when the the accusation that this or that politician is power hungry is tossed out as though it was a terrible thing to be.

Are there politicians out there who don't want power, who actively don't want to be in a position to enact their policies? If there are, why would anyone waste a vote on them? Surely that would be a very cynical stance indeed?

Sinn Fein have little or no intention of ever going into power, which is why they can invent their own version of economics which doesnt work, as they know they'll never have to implement.

cranky bollix wrote: »

Did labour have a chance of going into power with FG in the last election, but they turned it down?

They made a pre-election pact with fine gael to try and get into power, but the numbers didn't add up.

meglome

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

I agree, Labour's left wing policies will be diluted...

Which unless they start getting honest about the public service is a good thing.

Lawrence1895

There was a Grand Coalition in Germany a few years ago between the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats...comparable with FG and Labour.

It can work, but both parties have to keep in mind that they have to work for the good of the country, not for the sake of their own titles and salaries.

murphaph

Lars1916 wrote: »

There was a Grand Coalition in Germany a few years ago between the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats...comparable with FG and Labour.

It can work, but both parties have to keep in mind that they have to work for the good of the country, not for the sake of their own titles and salaries.

True,
It can work, but both parties have to keep in mind that they have to work for the good of the country, not for the sake of their own titles and salaries. but in Germany (IMO) the left are more sensible than in Ireland. It was a socialist government under Schröder that began to implement the Hartz concept, something I find extremely hard to believe that Labour in Ireland would do tbh.

The end result of Hartz was that working people made unemployed get about 60% of their last salary for 12 months and then get €359 a month after that (IF they have few assets AND make genuine efforts to find work. Refusing menial work etc. will lead to penalties and so on, in short, a much tougher regime than in Ireland).

K-9

If they'd any sense they'd stay out and become the main party in opposition and really capitalise next time.

Can't see it. National interest and why be a politician unless you want to be in Government and try and change things?

belacqua_

Lars1916 wrote: »

There was a Grand Coalition in Germany a few years ago between the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats...comparable with FG and Labour.

Labour have been in every Fine Gael government to date. Why anyone should expect Labour to act differently this time around is what surprises me.

K-9

belacqua_ wrote: »

Labour have been in every Fine Gael government to date. Why anyone should expect Labour to act differently this time around is what surprises me.

Difference this time is FG don't have to go with them. I think there is enough Independents close enough to FG for an over all majority, problem is doing deals with Independents would be the first PR disaster by them.

Bannasidhe

K-9 wrote: »

Difference this time is FG don't have to go with them. I think there is enough Independents close enough to FG for an over all majority, problem is doing deals with Independents would be the first PR disaster by them.

Looking like FG will get 75 ..so they'll need the support of about 10 Ind to form a single party govt. Not exactly a recipe for stability.

I don't think its workable. Can't see either SP or PBP going in. Of the 13 others so far elected Lowry and Healy-Rae would get into bed with anyone - But Ross is making noises about radical policies, Ming declared he will support on individual issues only as will Wallace - leaves just the 10 they need. Can't see it working.


Gilmore is making FG do the running, going to be some serious horse-trading going on - if Labour do go in I hope they get Social Protection, Heritage, Education, Equality and maybe Justice. I'd also like to see Labour
get the junior ministry of Children.

I can see 3rd level fees being a battle ground in a FG/LP coalition. On equality issues they may let LP run with a few - if they fail, FG can say 'we never supported that issue but LP made us do it as part of program for govt.'.

I must admit - I would not be hugely surprised if Gilmore took Labour into opposition especially given the publicly expressed 'deal-breaker' type rumbling from both sides as to who gets Finance.

If Labour do go into opposition we will be left with a minority government imposing sweeping cuts and stealth taxes to meet the commitment FF made to the IMF/ECB. A government which is dependent on 'buying' the support of a collection of independents - recipe for a swift fall and another election - one in which FG could be portrayed as the slash and burn 'baddies' and FF having not recovered from the thrashing they just received, a shadow of there former selves and the ones who got us into this mess in the first place. Gilmore knows this, so does Kenny.

FG need Labour more than Labour need FG at this point - it will be interesting to see what the outcome of the negotiations will be.

dsmythy

I'd say Fine Gael will have to break a few promises straight away and do more taxing and less cutting than they had planned.

Killer Pigeon

There's a storm brewing ...

*Bum* *Bum*

Killer Pigeon

meglome wrote: »

Which unless they start getting honest about the public service is a good thing.

A bit of realism on Fine Gael's card would help also in relation to the public service.

K-9

I can see 3rd Level fees being a must for Labour seeing as they introduced it, not that I agree with it, but it'll be a deal breaker. FG will put up with that.

Finance will be interesting. Bruton is the only credible choice to me but Labour will look for it as they've enough seats.

Can't see Burton getting it. Maybe Gilmore though, sure Quinn did okay? If FG get it, Labour will look for a couple of big Ministers, Health & Education I'd say.

Agree on the social policy aspect. Id say Labour could bring forward a few changes that FG wouldn't be that opposed to personally, they just wouldn't state it for electoral advantage.

K-9

dsmythy wrote: »

I'd say Fine Gael will have to break a few promises straight away and do more taxing and less cutting than they had planned.

Can't see privatising going down well either.

Always thought the idea of putting water and property rates onto Local Authorities was a bit stupid too. FG are the biggest party at Council level by far!

Bannasidhe

K-9 wrote: »

I can see 3rd Level fees being a must for Labour seeing as they introduced it, not that I agree with it, but it'll be a deal breaker. FG will put up with that.

Finance will be interesting. Bruton is the only credible choice to me but Labour will look for it as they've enough seats.

Can't see Burton getting it. Maybe Gilmore though, sure Quinn did okay? If FG get it, Labour will look for a couple of big Ministers, Health & Education I'd say.

Agree on the social policy aspect. Id say Labour could bring forward a few changes that FG wouldn't be that opposed to personally, they just wouldn't state it for electoral advantage.

They'd be fools to take Health - its an absolute shambles. I'd rather see FG handle that with their talk of cutting clerical staff but not frontline staff, (something which is desperately needed) - let see if FG can actually achieve this.


Of course the same needs to happen in our universities - UCC now has as many administrative staff as teaching staff and the moratorium means teaching staff are nor being replaced, cutbacks have resulted in part-time teaching contracts being slashed while more and more students are applying (and being accepted). The whole system is at breaking point and if fees are not re-introduced I don't see how it can continue without a massive injection of funds from central govt that simply arn't there.

However, I don't trust FG to protect the Humanities as subjects - already under the 'business' models adopted by our universities the onus is on potential patent/profit making subjects such as technology, food science etc while disciplines such as English and History (traditionally with the largest student numbers) seem to be treated as cash cows but are dying through lack of investment, overcrowding leading to falling standards and grade inflation - 'sure you can do an MA with a 3rd class pass degree, it's not like its worth anything but we'll get money if we let you' seems to be the prevailing attitude among university administrators.

WalterMitty

dsmythy wrote: »

I'd say Fine Gael will have to break a few promises straight away and do more taxing and less cutting than they had planned.

tax who and what? Income taxes are already quite high at marginal rate which kicks in quite low. Higher income taxes wont actually give more revenue as people dodge taxes, decide not to work overtime as the government takes 60+cent out of every euro they earn. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
Asset or wealth taxes when extended to liquid assets will drive wealth out of country and can be more costly to implement than the yield in taxes. Even if we applied the french wealth tax rate here it would yield less than a billion a year.
Corporation tax cant be raised without A) driving out multinationals and/or b) preventing further FDI here which could help cut unemployment.
So who and what are gonna be taxed?

K-9

I can't see Labour agreeing to the FG policy. Maybe put FG in there but under the compromise of a more Labour policy. I see your point and it does go to show that there are big differences on the parties in certain areas.

Some areas I can see compromise, some there will be battles.

As for tax, I don't see the big difference. FG just deferred water and property taxes to the local authorities.

Taxes on over 100k or whatever? FF have already added levies on there so I can't see major room for movement there.

marco_polo

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Looking like FG will get 75 ..so they'll need the support of about 10 Ind to form a single party govt. Not exactly a recipe for stability.

I don't think its workable. Can't see either SP or PBP going in. Of the 13 others so far elected Lowry and Healy-Rae would get into bed with anyone - But Ross is making noises about radical policies, Ming declared he will support on individual issues only as will Wallace - leaves just the 10 they need. Can't see it working.


Gilmore is making FG do the running, going to be some serious horse-trading going on - if Labour do go in I hope they get Social Protection, Heritage, Education, Equality and maybe Justice. I'd also like to see Labour
get the junior ministry of Children.

I can see 3rd level fees being a battle ground in a FG/LP coalition. On equality issues they may let LP run with a few - if they fail, FG can say 'we never supported that issue but LP made us do it as part of program for govt.'.

I must admit - I would not be hugely surprised if Gilmore took Labour into opposition especially given the publicly expressed 'deal-breaker' type rumbling from both sides as to who gets Finance.

If Labour do go into opposition we will be left with a minority government imposing sweeping cuts and stealth taxes to meet the commitment FF made to the IMF/ECB. A government which is dependent on 'buying' the support of a collection of independents - recipe for a swift fall and another election - one in which FG could be portrayed as the slash and burn 'baddies' and FF having not recovered from the thrashing they just received, a shadow of there former selves and the ones who got us into this mess in the first place. Gilmore knows this, so does Kenny.

FG need Labour more than Labour need FG at this point - it will be interesting to see what the outcome of the negotiations will be.

I'm not sure that this is true, given they campaigned for the last week of the campaign (a shrew move as it turns out) to be the 'watchdog of FG in government, opting for opposition is not a credible strategy for Labour at this time. They way I see it both need each other pretty well equally as neither have a viable alternative.

Still it makes the negotiations all the more facinating if you ask me, as they are poles apart on certain issues but simply must reach an agreement.

Bannasidhe

It will be interesting if they manage to merge their two policies on job creation - FG seemed (though I may be wrong) to be focusing on foreign investment - which is all very well and good until someone goes and does another Dell. Also, despite any income generated from (very favorable) corporation tax - the fact remains the bulk of the profits are leaving our shores.

We also urgently need investment in Irish firms - industry, retail, catering, farming etc - who are being strangled at the moment which is why I like the idea of a Separate Investment Bank dedicated to helping Irish companies - those who supply the bulk of our jobs and whose profits stay in the country.

I do think it needs to be a new bank as the existing ones are so tainted - and lets be honest, they are the ones refusing to extend credit or loans to hard pressed Irish companies and the ones putting up mortgage rates and squeezing the life blood out of home owners further reducing the amount of disposable cash in circulation.

Bannasidhe

marco_polo wrote: »

I'm not sure that this is true, given they campaigned for the last week of the campaign (a shrew move as it turns out) to be the 'watchdog of FG in government, opting for opposition is not a credible strategy for Labour at this time. They way I see it both need each other pretty well equally as neither have a viable alternative.

Still it makes the negotiations all the more facinating if you ask me, as they are poles apart on certain issues but simply must reach an agreement.

I think if FG are not willing to play ball it is very creditable for Labour to form the main opposition.
Labour can state that FG were unwilling to compromise in order to ensure a stable government was formed and preferred to try and go it alone with the support of independents - this then puts onus on FG alone to sort it out - and bare the consequences if they fail.
The mess were are in cannot be sorted in 5 years (should a FG/Ind govt even last that long). I doubt if the electorate, having taken the pain FG will have to dish out (30,000 public service jobs gone, student fees, water and property charges etc) will be kind to a cut/burn government seeking a continuation of their mandate when the end of the pain is not in sight.

Gilmore, meanwhile, could sit in opposition - harass the FG/Ind govt and in 5 or less years say - see what happened because FG wouldn't compromise...

WalterMitty

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It will be interesting if they manage to merge their two policies on job creation - FG seemed (though I may be wrong) to be focusing on foreign investment - which is all very well and good until someone goes and does another Dell. Also, despite any income generated from (very favorable) corporation tax - the fact remains the bulk of the profits are leaving our shores.

We also urgently need investment in Irish firms - industry, retail, catering, farming etc - who are being strangled at the moment which is why I like the idea of a Separate Investment Bank dedicated to helping Irish companies - those who supply the bulk of our jobs and whose profits stay in the country.

I do think it needs to be a new bank as the existing ones are so tainted - and lets be honest, they are the ones refusing to extend credit or loans to hard pressed Irish companies and the ones putting up mortgage rates and squeezing the life blood out of home owners further reducing the amount of disposable cash in circulation.

Governments cant create jobs in any meaningfull, sustainable sense. Governments simply create environment conduicive to job creation. Good businesses will fail, even some good will fail but if the environment is right the people behind those firms will rise again.
You are wrong on foreign investment, the direct and indirect jobs amount to around 400,000 people all earning, paying taxes, buying things. We are a small country and have never created many big multinationals that could employ a lot here in ireland. We need foreign investment and we also need indigenous exporters and not the retail you refer to which is not a productive element of economy and became too oversized in bubble era.

Dandelion6

K-9 wrote: »

I can't see Labour agreeing to the FG policy.

You must be joking. Every Labour politician who was on the media yesterday was talking about how well they think they can work with FG. Rabbitte on Dunphy especially, taking pains to emphasise how little they have in common with the far left. Labour are desperate to get into this government. That's been obvious since day one of the campaign. They'll agree to whatever they have to.

gcgirl

Dp

gcgirl

Personally I would rather Labour stay in opposition let FG look to their natural partner FF for back up, I'm one for thinking 5 yrs away majority for Labour

Killer Pigeon

A Labour Party conference will be held on Saturday. A motion will be brought forth at that meeting along the lines of "Do you agree with a coalition with FG? Yes or No". Party members who are eligable to vote at conference will decide and from what I gather a largely diluted Labour programme for government has a lot of opposition within the party. Labour members didn't do all that hard work over the past few months to have Fine Gael telling them what to do - they conducted an independent campaign.

Inquitus

gcgirl wrote: »

Personally I would rather Labour stay in opposition let FG look to their natural partner FF for back up, I'm one for thinking 5 yrs away majority for Labour

Labour will never ever get a majority unless they completely change their politics. Private sector middle Ireland makes up the majority of the electorate, and they will never ever vote Labour.

Killer Pigeon

Inquitus wrote: »

Labour will never ever get a majority unless they completely change their politics. Private sector middle Ireland makes up the majority of the electorate, and they will never ever vote Labour.

If Labour put more concentration on reforming the Unions from the inside, putting a greater emphasis on the welfare of private sector workers and putting a slightly fresher face on the party I expect them to do fairly well in the future. It happened in Britain & Australia, why can't it happen here?

jmayo

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

A bit of realism on Fine Gael's card would help also in relation to the public service.

And maybe a bit of realism from Labour, the left and unions about the fact we no longer have the money to afford the overstaffed very expensive public service we now have ?

K-9 wrote: »

Can't see privatising going down well either.

Always thought the idea of putting water and property rates onto Local Authorities was a bit stupid too. FG are the biggest party at Council level by far!

We are going to have to have water charges or rates at some stage.
There is no getting away from that.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It will be interesting if they manage to merge their two policies on job creation - FG seemed (though I may be wrong) to be focusing on foreign investment - which is all very well and good until someone goes and does another Dell. Also, despite any income generated from (very favorable) corporation tax - the fact remains the bulk of the profits are leaving our shores.

What about the jobs Dell created ?
How much wealth did they create in the Mid West over 14/15 odd years ?
Yes indigenous compnaies would be best but I would settle for anything at this stage.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

We also urgently need investment in Irish firms - industry, retail, catering, farming etc - who are being strangled at the moment which is why I like the idea of a Separate Investment Bank dedicated to helping Irish companies - those who supply the bulk of our jobs and whose profits stay in the country.

FG have idea for credit insurance which is used in other countries.
That together with some form of ICC would be the best ideal.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I do think it needs to be a new bank as the existing ones are so tainted - and lets be honest, they are the ones refusing to extend credit or loans to hard pressed Irish companies and the ones putting up mortgage rates and squeezing the life blood out of home owners further reducing the amount of disposable cash in circulation.

We have too many bleedin banks at the moment, we don't need another one. We just need Anglo/INBS gone, AIB restructured and eventually sold off to foreign entity.

gcgirl wrote: »

Personally I would rather Labour stay in opposition let FG look to their natural partner FF for back up, I'm one for thinking 5 yrs away majority for Labour

Yeah lets put the party before country. :rolleyes:
I wonder would I find any posts of yours lambasting ff for putting party before country ? :rolleyes:

Gilmore would not survive for 5 years and neither would a government.
That wouldn't help anyone.

It is time for Labour to get off the fence and face up to the task.
I would say people did not vote for them to go into opposition.

cursai

http://www.newstalk.ie/2011/programmes/all-programmes/tom-dunne/election-lookalikes/

gcgirl

I just believe FF and FG have more in common with each other and I'm not the only one who thinks like that's, as far as I'm concerned both party's are right wing conservative catholic party's.

gcgirl

cursai wrote: »

http://www.newstalk.ie/2011/programmes/all-programmes/tom-dunne/election-lookalikes/

I nearly PMSL
Begin the begin with Alan Shatter

Killer Pigeon

jmayo wrote: »

And maybe a bit of realism from Labour, the left and unions about the fact we no longer have the money to afford the overstaffed very expensive public service we now have ?

Labour have proposed reform to the Public Sector in their party manifesto, including getting ride of many quangos.

jmayo wrote: »

We are going to have to have water charges or rates at some stage.
There is no getting away from that.

Labour proposed a property tax but don't want water rates introduced.
FG proposed water rates but don't want property tax introduced.
The IMF/EU want both water rates and property tax.

jmayo wrote: »

Yeah lets put the party before country. :rolleyes:
I wonder would I find any posts of yours lambasting ff for putting party before country ? :rolleyes:

It not so simple as putting the party before the country. People in both Parties (FG & Labour) believe the policies of their respective parties are the right policies for government and getting the country back on track, no matter how much they differ. If Labour see that there are major differences between a proposed FG/Labour programme for government and Labour's core values then of course there will be disagreements within the party. Labour have to live up to the policies they promised people who voted for them.

jmayo wrote: »

It is time for Labour to get off the fence and face up to the task.
I would say people did not vote for them to go into opposition.

19.5% (according to an RTÉ exist) of people who voted put Labour as their first preference and FG in the mid-30's. Clearly, if this is the case, people prefer an FG government. I honestly don't think people care who they are in coalition with as long as it's not FF.

Killer Pigeon

gcgirl wrote: »

I just believe FF and FG have more in common with each other and I'm not the only one who thinks like that's, as far as I'm concerned both party's are right wing conservative catholic party's.

But it will not happen on FG's card. FG know it will damage their party in the long run - FF being toxic and all. At the end of the day every party will think of its own interests too, the same with Labour, FF, etc..

grahmkeatley

Labour are not a left wing party. Not even center-left. They are a center-right party based on their policies, just not as right as FF or the further right FG.

Just because they claim to be Left, doesnt change the evidence that they arent. So they will go into coalition, because their policies are more in common with FG/FF then the label of Left would suggest.

-Graham

Killer Pigeon

grahmkeatley wrote: »

Labour are not a left wing party. Not even center-left. They are a center-right party based on their policies, just not as right as FF or the further right FG.

Just because they claim to be Left, doesnt change the evidence that they arent. So they will go into coalition, because their policies are more in common with FG/FF then the label of Left would suggest.

-Graham

I think this perception of Labour people more right than left is mainly due to the fact that they have always gone into coalition with right-wing parties. If they decide to remain independent (i.e., stay in opposition) then you will see the true Leftie show its face. If they become popular enough, you might even see a Labour-ULA coalition in 5 years time (or whenever FG are hated as much as Thatcher).

conor86

FG/FF party is unthinkable, but i could work out for everyone.

Even us.

Killer Pigeon

conor86 wrote: »

FG/FF party is unthinkable, but i could work out for everyone.

Even us.

Yes, Mr. Ibec Banker-Builder.

gcgirl

May FG give FF the health portfolio since they dodged it soooooo many times