THE CONSERVATIVE MANDATE: A REALITY CHECK

ONLY 1 IN 4 OF ALL THOSE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE SUPPORTED THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY.

The Slog looks at some of the more shocking home truths about Thursday’s election result.

The SNP has bagged 56 seats in the new Parliament, by getting 4.7% of the vote. UKIP got 1 (one) seat, as their return for polling 12.4% of the votes cast. The Liberal Democrats got 7 seats by winning 7.9% of the votes.

The Conservative Party polled just over twice as many votes as UKIP, but got 330 times more seats.

If you add up the total of those who didn’t vote, then the new Conservative Government, with it’s slim overall majority, got the support of just one in four people.

The first and most obvious lesson to be learned from the election is that the voting system used was woefully unfair for 75%, exceptionally generous to The Big Boys, and showered the Scots with gifts in a manner rarely seen beyond millionaires courting beautiful women. Last time around, a majority didn’t want PR (Proportional Representation). In which case, we must ask “Does the majority know what it’s doing, and what would they think now?”

The case for PR based on the May 7th general election is overwhelming. If 75% are ill-treated by the system, then we should as a Nation be able to change that. If we can’t, we have only ourselves to blame.

Here is a further reality for ‘activist’ and ‘Hard’ Left Labour plus anti-UKIP Tory supporters to take on board: the BNP polled just 1,667 nationwide. The hatred and bigotry handed out to UKippers before and during the campaign is scant thanks for what the Army has actually done: it has, by providing a voice for those persistently ignored by the political and media Establishments, killed the British National Party off. I was of course vociferous and consistent in my assertion that Nigel Farage is a fake and an incompetent. Without him, UKip could go on to much bigger things. But they need more credible leaders with a broader vision…and probably a new name.

More qualitatively, I expect there to be (despite public pronouncements about ruling ‘for all the People’) a period of triumphalism now from the Tories. That’s fine if they want to do it, but two things need to be borne in mind.

First, Britain is now a country effectively disenfranchising the entire Scottish nation, the poor, the abstainers and disapprovers, and the near-majority vehemently opposed to the EU. That is politically and socially unhealthy. On the European question in particular, David Cameron campaigned on a renegotiation angle that was shot to pieces by almost all EU leaders of note and power during that campaign. And neither he nor Hunt has any mandate to kill off the NHS based on these statistics – of which, more in a later bulletin.

Second, it is an uncanny irony of history that, just when people, organisations and regimes seem to be at the height of their power, a dramatic fall from grace ensues. One thinks of Manchester United after 1968, Nixon after 1972, Thatcher in 1990, the banks after 2008, and the European Union now.

It might be worthwhile adding Rupert Murdoch to that list. In the light of a clash between Francis Maude and a Hard left lady in the BBC Question Time audience last night, I had some further thoughts about this.

Maude resorted to every awful pol’s patronising pissquick by telling the devout young woman (who had quite accurately referred to Murdoch as ‘disgusting’) that she should have more faith in the intelligence of the electorate – who, he claimed, are not influenced by Newscorp. Nobody on the panel said, “Well Francis, that explains why Thatcher, Blair, Hunt, Johnson and Cameron all licked him to death”. All that said, Ms Leninspart was quite wrong in claiming that the Digger “has once again got everything he wanted”. The main thing he wanted was Cameron out of a job and a Tory/UKip Alliance. He got neither. He also wanted (because he hates Britain with a profundity few really grasp) the UK to be all over the place on Scottish Independence. He hasn’t got that either.

As one of the disenfranchised, I take some comfort from the result. Not much – but some. I do have a hunch that one of the top Cabinet members will have a Poll Tax moment: there is no Government more prone to banana skins than an overconfident Conservative one. Also, Miliband’s desire for a ban on Islamaphobia and more LGBT rights being unrealised is, in my view, a healthy step away from the minority appeasement that many Brits of all political persuasions so heartily dislike.

Two final statistic: 100% of the losers resigned their leaderships. And a majority of Morley voters finally dumped their Shadow Chancellor. Given the people involved, all these events gave me a degree of relief from the imagined horror of what may lie ahead.

More later.

Earlier at The Slog: Illegal Commons migrant shock as American wins in Uxbridge

33 thoughts on “THE CONSERVATIVE MANDATE: A REALITY CHECK

  1. That sums it up nicely :-).

    This election was wholly negative. This was not about putting a Tory government in power but exclusively about keeping a catastrophic Labour/SNP coalition from being formed. I think many Ukippers voted tactically Tory for this reason.

    Like

  2. JW u r my hero!

    However

    Mark Twain said ( Samuel L Clemens) (150 yrs ago) if the vote meant anything, they would not allow us to vote!

    Stalin…It’s not who votes, it’s who counts the votes…

    Now the good news…. Zionists own Cameron and every political party on this planet, The fuc”ers can’t sh*t without the Rothschilds telling them where and when to sh*t!

    Like

  3. To me, the results showed how Brits are adept at tactical voting. They got rid of some career politicians, which is something Americans rarely succeed at doing. There’s nobody worse than a career politician.

    Also, Brits are generally bighearted — they didn’t fall for the politics of envy, and they didn’t share in the hatred of the profit motive.

    As to the NHS, all politicians are fraudsters in that they all make believe it’s possible for free universal health care to last even though the ranks of the elderly are growing faster than the numbers of wage earners.

    Like

  4. For the cuts we are about to receive may you all be truly grateful … because the Tories designed the cuts now they get to implement them. Will you remember to blame them in 5 years like you did the LibDems?

    Like

  5. The English seemed to vote for the tories in greater numbers because they foolishily believed tory fear mongering that increased SNP MP’s would give Labour a majority in Parliament, a moment’s reflection would have made them realise that increased SNP MP’s would have to come from beating incumbent Labour MP’s thus making it virtually impossible for Labour to win.

    The Tories wanted the Scots to vote SNP and frighten the unthinking English to react and protect the Union by voting Tories.

    The Big Lie worked.

    I was further horrified that Labour did not point out to the Tories that in the period 2010 to 2015 the National debt has risen certainly over 650 Billion whilst in the 13 year previous Labour administration 97 to 2010 the same National debt rose less than 500 Billion and a goodly percentage of the increase was directly due to that Tory Citidel ‘The City’.

    So as to put to bed the spurious argument that the Tories were good and thrifty as opposed to the spendthrift Labourites.

    Like

  6. Sheik, the Brits have not got a clue about ‘tactical’ voting., The dumbos vote what Daddy voted ( Mummy’s vote means nowt!). The Canadians do! After 12 yrs of Tory misrule they dumped Brian Mulroney (voted the most hated man in Canadian history!) Tories were reduuced to TWO seats out of 450! That’s intelligent voting! Sadly, the Zionists now own Canada!. Just ask.Arthur Tophan (Google). !

    Like

  7. Major’s triumph in 1992 was even more of a pleasant surprise for the Tories than Thursday’s, as the country had passed through recession in the preceding years. Within 6 months, their reputation for economic competence was in ruins with £ leaving the ERM. A financial crisis will probably do for Cameron and Osborne what it did for Major and Lamont.

    Labour can now rid itself of the politicians intimately connected to Blair and Brown and start again. Not just the Eds but Yvette Cooper probably as well. If I were David Miliband, I would keep hold of my ridiculously paid job. By the time he lines himself up for a safe by-election, the new generation of leaders will be safely in charge of the party. Of course, Labour will probably cock it up again.

    If UKIP have any sense, they will move to occupy the centre-ground in economic policy, while maintaining their positions on leaving the EU, reducing immigration and playing hardball with the Scots. That would allow them to attract ex-Tory voters in the south and ex-Labour voters in the north. If they do, that should mean it’s curtains for Farage, who will in any case come under pressure to tell the truth about his health. Impending Scottish independence also means that UKIP’s name will become nonsensical.

    If UKIP do move to the centre ground, it will mean that someone like Chuka Umunna is exactly the sort of person Labour do not want as their leader: posh, Londoner, pro-EU and non-white. Idiot child Tristram Hunt would be even move of a disaster for Labour even if the thought of him and Cameron sparing at PMQs offers a certain satirical appeal. Let’s hope Andy Burnham has qualities we haven’t yet seen.

    Like

  8. My understanding is that under any form of PR Ed Balls would still be an MP today. For all it’s faults that shows we need to keep FPTP.

    Like

  9. “I was of course vociferous and consistent in my assertion that Nigel Farage is a fake and an incompetent. Without him, UKip could go on to much bigger things. But they need more credible leaders with a broader vision…and probably a new name.” You may well be right John, if you are prepared to wait for 20 or thirty years. Since they managed 120 second places this time around another election could well see them make the breakthrough next time. Your advice would ensure they did not.

    “The case for PR based on the May 7th general election is overwhelming. If 75% are ill-treated by the system, then we should as a Nation be able to change that. If we can’t, we have only ourselves to blame.” Actually it doesn’t make the case for PR at all, it only reveals the complete inadequacy of the FPTP system which you correctly posit ill-treats 75% of the electorate. PR is actually one of the very worst systems, it embeds government by professional politicians and apparatchiks beholden and accountable only to their political masters, it grants excessive influence to undeserving minorities and idiot ideologues, produces excess legislation that is rarely in the interests of the electorate and I could go on, and on, and on, but I won’t. Suffice it to say PR stinks unless you end up with so many parties represented it is impossible to get anything passed into law.

    The real answers lie in shrinking government, reducing government expenditure from the current 42% (or thereabouts although if you add all the costs to both business and individuals necessary to comply with government regulation et al it is likely closer to 50%) to 20% or less, prohibit private lobbying and access to parliamentarians and government officials making ALL approaches completely open and public, introducing real consequences for policy failure and introducing as much direct democracy as possible while ensuring that the public is both educated and informed. I don’t know if even that will work, but it would be hard to produce anything that would make things worse.

    Like

  10. National Debt and Deficit, the electorates eyes glaze over when these are mentioned, it would have been a waste of breath.

    Like

  11. And in my view did very well, though a shame he did not get in to the HoC.

    The % of voters that supported him as John rightly points out was huge. The % change in so many constituencies was UKIP UP. The previous option changing the electoral system was not the best choice. AV is not what we need – d’hondt would be fairer as is used in other countries and for the EU elections. That aside, I think this result is probably as good as I could have hoped for (as a UKIP voter).

    1. Cameron has a majority Government. He has clearly stated that as a Majority, he will hold a referendum. The amount of UKIP support across the nation (and many Euro sceptics on his own backbenches) means that there are many that will be fighting for this to be a free and fair election (though I am NOT holding my breath on that one). But it does mean that we get a chance to deal with it.
    2. Cameron has a SMALL majority – he will find it more difficult to steamroller unpopular legislation through
    3. UKIP is not going away. Cameron can have his moment of glory but it is clear that across the whole nation there are many who took the time to vote and show their anger. The turnout was better than previous years. He would ignore these people at his peril.
    4. The rise of the SNP means that the Scottish situation must be dealt with.
    5. Ed Balls lost his job.
    6. By the Tories winning, we are hopefully not subjected to Boris Johnson as leader of the Tories any time in the near future.

    Those who chose not to vote made their choice. They have no right to complain now.
    Looking forward to seeing how it all pans out.
    Conclusion: For me, probably the least worst option was achieved. I’m happy with that.

    Like

  12. Whilst FPTP might be a rubbish electoral system it does (surprisingly) give the results that the electorate on the whole want.

    If there was simple PR in the UK the election results would be as follows

    Con := 239
    Lab := 198
    Ukip := 82
    LibDem := 51
    SNP := 31
    Green := 25
    Others := 24

    This would mean another coalition and ‘The People'(tm) mostly thought the last one was crap with no ability to blame one group for the failings of the whole.

    It would also (because of the party list system) have meant that Balls would still be in parliament, as it is, he got dumped.

    Had people voted for the party/individual they wanted without knowing what the likely result would be, it would have ended up as a Lab/SNP coalition.

    Due to the fixed term parliament we are stuck with whoever wins.

    No one wanted another coalition and no one wanted Milliband, most people know that Cameron is an idiot.

    The only solution is to put the Torys in power with just enough rope to hang themselves and watch them implode in 2 years when the economy goes titsup and the EU referendum tears them apart.

    Perhaps there will be someone/thing worth voting for by then.

    Like

  13. Interesting point about Murdoch. I suspect the establishment must loathe him.

    DPWWO – did Farage try? He seemed to be down the pub every day.. a hobby a sizeable proportion of the electorate cannot afford. Time for their professionals to put him out to grass.

    chrisb – agree, Burnham and Umunna are both wholly inappropriate. The south/midlands won’t vote for a Scouser (harsh but sadly true) and the latter is far too immature. If Labour had any sense at all… they would work with what remains of the Liberal Democrats (SDP2?) and let the real left coalesce/splinter into something else.

    Like

  14. This supremely important fact is the crux of the entire matter to me, Altergoman.

    I have come to the conclusion that the function of ALL politicians is to make false promises, borrow from the banksters to fund their ideologies & their back pockets, & ignore reality: the unsustainable debt, unfunded pensions, unsustainable welfare, unlimited immigration.

    The reality behind all these elephants standing in all our front rooms, is that ALL our politicians have built a country enslaved to debt: us, our children & grandchildren, on a diminishing work force. It is unsustainable & will not end well.

    This is why I no longer believe in democracy.

    Like

  15. Indeed, what they have come to realise is, that they can line their pockets to their hearts content and quietly disappear with the spoils and leave the invoice to others. Nice work if you can get it.

    Like

  16. @Mark Deacon. Absolutely. The only people celebrating this result must be wealthy enough to afford private medical care and connected enough to the corrupt corporate/banking networks to comfortably ride out the inevitable wave of destruction about to be visited on our remaining public infrastructure. The generations of good men and women who fought sometimes bloody battles over the last two centuries for a modicum of fairness in British society must be spinning in their graves. If anyone believes that the current crop of Tories will not move the U.K. closer to a Victorian dystopia I would suggest that they are ignorant of history. The U.S. is the poster child for the society envisaged by the current government and I weep for my country that once had some decency.

    I would love to believe in the silver lining that some have suggested, but at present all I see is dark clouds and a further progression of the police state and banker oligarchy.

    Like

  17. You can ignore reality but, you can’t ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.
    Ayn Rand

    Which is what the Tories will keep doing with the economy with yet more QE and ZIRP rather than face reality and slash the size of the State and the City.

    Like

  18. (from Peter Charles objective and reasoned response)
    ……………………….
    ” The real answers lie in shrinking government, reducing government expenditure from the current 42% (or thereabouts although if you add all the costs to both business and individuals necessary to comply with government regulation et al it is likely closer to 50%) to 20% or less, prohibit private lobbying and access to parliamentarians and government officials making ALL approaches completely open and public, introducing real consequences for policy failure and introducing as much direct democracy as possible while ensuring that the public is both educated and informed. I don’t know if even that will work, but it would be hard to produce anything that would make things worse.
    ………………………..
    (can’t find italics)

    We need a constitution, and limits to government power and taxation as a %age of GDP. The Constitution should also enforce a balanced budget, and it should apply consistent tax rules for income, capital gains etc. that the common man pays already, to the financial market. It should limit the interference of the state over individuals, and should remove five old laws if they want to introduce a new one. The HMRC tax guidelines / laws publications should have to reduce by 1,000 pages each year until it is down to 365 pages.

    Like

  19. “Last time around, a majority didn’t want PR (Proportional Representation)”

    Important correction – last time around, a majority didn’t want AV.
    Quite aside from the dilatory Yes campaign for AV, it wasn’t even really proportional.
    Apart from making a difference in a few very specific three way marginals, it would have
    entrenched the two party duopoly even further.

    I’m glad that the Kippers had the result they did and that they are taking up the cause
    for PR. That party, more than any other, may be able to engage an otherwise dumbed down,
    apathetic segment of the population – the segment of the population that actually needs to get
    out and vote for change.

    If UKIP achieves that alone, they will have done the nation a service.

    Rather than spending a lifetime or two iterating through referendums on each possible option,
    we should follow the example of the New Zealanders who had a two question referendum to
    a) change and b) select the new voting system (after much informed debate) and a second referendum
    to ratify the changeover. (Wikipedia has more info).

    Like

  20. With PR, the key is in the list: If it is left to the party leadership it will ineveitably gravitate to a gravy-train for the most conniving professional politicians, regardless of morals or ability. (Look to the ANC in South Africa). The only way to counter this is to have the list ranked by popular vote. That would give locally popular mavericks a chance against the toadies.
    Another disadvantage of PR is that independents can’t get a look in. (Think Bell vs Hamilton)

    Like

  21. Well I think it depends on the particular variant of PR, whether open or closed list and how and who selects thepeople from it to go to Parliament. Your idea sounds good, another one would be for the Electoral Commission to select winners from the list by lottery – that would keep the careerists and troughers in check.

    Like

  22. I’m not sure that my upbringing would have much to add to your election results but it was clear early on that my American Anglo Saxon father was no match for my Scottish mother.

    Like

  23. As another old grumpy of the same age from the North of England (from t’other side), but living for 36 years in Scotland, I hear what you say and forgive you for some ignorance of the real situation in Scotland and the SNP.

    I lived here during the Thatcher years of the ‘head tax’ experiment and the Blairite age of ‘bling’ and spin with the result that I was impressed by and very much admired the Scot’s lack of class-consciousness and real sense of “we’re all in this together” during the dark years, while totally not losing their heads or pockets during the years of ‘borrow, spend, and get rich’ on the housing ladder.

    I’ve also now lived through these latest years of despair with pink Labour’s strings being pulled by the failed New Labour closet Blairites. I then had to vote LibDem with the hope of avoiding the Conservatives, but the Orange Booker conspiracy had already stabbed Kennedy and Ming in the back to get in the right-of-centre, Leon Brittan-trained Cleggy, suitably married into a family of ex-Francoist politicians, so instead of getting a more realistic Labour party with any excesses dampened by the Libs, I got a careerist young thing as my LibCon Westminster MP who: (a) answered my letters with standard evasive ambiguity a month after the issue had already been settled, having followed her unquestioning and unthinking custom of voting subserviently each and every time alongside the Conservative government; and (b) while acting as Women’s Minister managed to lose two of the women in her very own party over her mishandling of the Rennard fiasco (ironic, but not surprising, that there are now no women MPs left in the tattered remains of her party’s MPs).

    So who can blame me, being left with no other choices, for voting and even joining the SNP to oust all these undemocratic careerists who are totally out-of-touch with their constituents, with the result that I can now see the wonderful fruits such action has brought. I now have a mature and experienced ex-journalist, well-known for his in-depth political commentary and down-to-earth investigative journalism, who is genuinely going to represent the whole constituency not just his SNP supporters – and for those who doubt it, how else would he have won in a rich middle-class constituency that had the largest turn-out at the Scottish referendum and produced the largest NO vote in Scotland?? – they would never have done so if they had doubted Nicola Sturgeon when she said this election had nothing to do with independence, since any new referendum can only be introduced by the will of the Holyrood Parliament elected under proportional representation (and that cannot happen until 2017 possibly now after a UK EU referendum; in fact the latter is the only and most likely factor to trigger any earlier referendum on independence, since the People of Scotland would be against leaving – so Cameron himself would be the cause of any break-up of the Union! – and the SNP is not so stupid as to choose a second referendum without being able to guarantee full success).

    Concentrate now on this question of proportional representation that was also raised in previous comments.

    This has worked here in Scotland successfully for almost two decades: it combines a first-past-the-post system for 73 local constituency representatives to which are added 56 regional seats based on a second vote on the ballot paper where we vote for our preferred party. (This means I can vote for somebody I fully trust as my direct representative in parliament, while voting for another party’s candidate to ensure even greater proportional representation – i.e. quasi-tactical voting built in). Each party can then choose their own best candidates to represent the party, but based on a proportional allotment of seats in line with the overall percentages of votes cast for each party.

    Ironically, this was based on an intention (probably by Westminster) to ensure that no individual party could ever have a majority at Holyrood and we would always have to negotiate under coalitions. This worked well and people saw Labour and the LIbDems govern as a coalition with strong and effective opposition, bringing well-argued and accepted decisions for the People of Scotland. Concentrate again on this next fact (so often ignored by or unknown to the English): the present SNP government was overwhelmingly voted into a _majority_ government by a fair and proportional system that we were told could never have brought about such a majority. The SNP therefore do not merely speak for the SNP, but for the majority of Scotland. They did this throughout the whole 2 year referendum campaign while faced with an unholy alliance of all the other parties who were previously at each others throats on most issues. The SNP lost the referendum by only a 5% margin which a lot of us felt was engineered both by a financial leak from the senior civil servant breaking his own legal code of neutrality and the empty VOW from George Brown on Devo-Max and what the LibDem’s ignorantly described as “Home Rule” – neither was actually signed up to by any of the three elected Westminster party leaders or ever clearly defined – Cameron even personally watered down the so-called Smith Commission “agreement”. The SNP lost – full stop. So they will hardly go into a second referendum without the will of the people. Only the English could therefore misconstrue the idea that the Westminster election was a vote for a referendum and independence; only an idiot could think that a constituency that voted so overwhelmingly against it, could then overwhelmingly throw out its sitting Westminster MP to send an SNP MP instead. “A people gets the government it deserves” – but not so in Scotland. But I shall find enormous delight and hilarity watching Cameron get the full “Lion’s Roar” of Salmond’s wily tongue laying into him after 5 years of wimpish fluff from the Ed Miller band.

    Now for a tail piece and caveat to this already over-long clarification: Labour made the huge gaff of parachuting into Scotland the Henry Jackson, failed Blairite, Jim Murphy to save its Scottish branch office (there is no official “Scottish” Labour Party, please note) but waited until the very last 6 months to do so. He failed completely and he lost Labour all their MPs here, bar one (who, also please note, did not publicise his party affiliation openly, but ran on a ‘personal’ ticket). Murphy organised publicity events at 7 am in the morning in central Glasgow getting the MSM press to turn up and photograph him surrounded by his pack of supporters in such a manner that it looked like Sauchihall street was full of admiring onlookers – he was also apparently ‘attacked’ by ‘nasty Scots Nats’ (mole members planted as a fifth column to ‘aggressively harass’ him), but if you look at the difference between press photos in either situation and those taken by onlookers you see that a the whole crowd is made up of his own supporters and a media pack who miraculously were there to accidentally photo the whole affair (see Channel 4’s Alex Thomson reports that have blown his reputation for good up here). All these attempts to win back the lost ‘faithful’ merely split a party that was already in disarray even further and thereby lost its Westminster power base. He even lost his own seat in Westminster – all these required at least a 20% swing and most were lost with up to a record 39% swing to the SNP.

    All the three leaders in London who lost? …they resigned immediately. The unelected leader with no party in Scotland has not done so and refuses to go. Why? Because the plan was to parachute him into Holyrood too: if he lost his seat in Westminster, then he could get into Holyrood next year instead to continue undermining the democratically elected power of the SNP. By staying as self-appointed leader he can wait until the 2016 elections and when the party gets its share of the 56 regional seats he can simply have himself nominated to one of those seats. We now see how, what was designed as a foolproof and democratic proportional system, can be twisted for undemocratic purposes to place a rejected and unelected MP inside our parliament.

    Even so, It is still a far better system than the present English one which has just seen the least democratic vote of all time, where tactical voters voted in complete contradiction to their own beliefs and principles and got exactly what they did not expect!

    I shed no tears for benighted fools!

    Like

  24. Interesting post…. Looks like you could see the Balls thing arriving by air any time soon ! Lucky Scotland ?????

    Like

  25. I did not vote.

    Sorry, but I feel I have every right to complain.

    If the ballot paper had a ‘none of the above’ option, I would have registered my dissent there. To me, ‘tactical’ voting serves no purpose.

    Some may remember a film called ‘Putney Swope’, where the token black man on the executive board of an advertising agency is accidentally put in charge. That’s because the other members all vote for someone they think no one else will vote for . . .

    I have voted at times in the past and, almost without exception, have been ‘disproportionally misrepresented’.

    The lack of democracy begins with the way candidates are ‘chosen for me’. It is a fact that the parties now have fewer members than the Women’s Institute or the Royal Society for the Preservation of Birds. It may interest you to know that even in Russia, a party has to have a certain level of national support to be registered. (The SNP, by the way, would not be eligible to take part in national election, as the Kaliningrad secessionists.)

    But electoral reform or no, anyone can blog, tweet, memo and demo or even string up a few MPs from a lamp post.

    Of course you can complain. How many of those making their mark at election time were knowingly endorsing the Iraq war, student loans, bank bailouts or wholesale expense fiddling? Like any poll, an election is purely a snapshot of opinion at the time, which can change.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s