Labour really are not fit for opposition
Posted by Liam Rhodes in Labour, Labour leadership, civil liberties, class war on August 30, 2010
2010 Will not see Labour returned to power – certainly not if their first few months in opposition are anything to go by.
I’ve blogged about Tom Harris MP a couple of times. One time was mentioning the fact that I’d started to respect him, and another time I parodied his blogpost on Tony Blair and donations to the Royal British Legion. Of late, Tom had started to lose his infamous sense of humour (odd in a Labourite) and sense of political reality. But he’s been the first Labour MP who seems to accept that Labour needs to be a credible opposition, something he has blogged about. And considering he backs the leadership candidate who views there to be virtually nothing wrong with the Labour Party, I’m not sure why.
I had intended on making this post today anyway. But today, John Lord Prescott’s tweets attacking his own MPs and being totally ignorant to the fact that Labour did not ring-fence the NHS and actually having the 111 service as part of their own manifesto has really added a bit of fuel to the fire.
Labour really are not fit for opposition.
Why? Firstly, the Labour leadership candidates are looking at Britain and wondering how the British public dare betray them. This is a summary of what the candidates have been doing and are now:
- Ed 28-day-detention-ID-card-Iraq-unaccountability-civil-liberties-hating Miliband’s off attacking the Liberal Democrats saying that they’ve ‘betrayed the liberal cause’ and ignoring his own party’s mistakes – possibly even his own party;
- Balls is off yacking about cutting the deficit too quickly being a horrific mistake and not really addressing many more issues apart from attacking our education policy;
- Abbott’s… well, I’m not sure, but she can be written off anyway;
- Burnham’s talking about ‘aspirational socialism’, seizing property (honestly!), cutting the NHS and is being one of the worst deficit deniers; and
- David Miliband is clambering to the populist agenda within the Labour Party – but he’s Blair 2.0. Go on his web site. It really is New Labour 2.0 – virtually nothing has changed. Mandleson said straight after the election that ‘New Labour is dead’, but is now asking people to look at New Labour’s values again and back David. And considering that either he or Ed will win, Labour are assuming that they were always right – either as ‘socialists’ or real socialists. (Albeit slightly watered-down ones.)
Not knee-jerking to NHS Direct
Posted by Liam Rhodes in Labour, Labour waste, NHS, austerity, coalition, cuts on August 28, 2010
Twitter and the Blogosphere are interesting places to watch after a policy announcement. Last night, news of a 111 service to replace NHS Direct broke loose. Thousands of knee-jerks broke out on Twitter, like Ellie Gellard‘s ill-informed and frankly epitome of knee-jerks, instantly screaming ‘Tory Cuts! Save our NHS Direct!’ without any information as to why this is happening. They also broke out all over the Bloggersphere. Because facts were sparse last night, I preferred to take a back seat and wait until I could do a bit more research. Many of the instant reactions were based upon personal experience of NHS Direct, something which you can’t really quote when wanting to either keep it or scrap it.
The Guardian put their usual spin on the news, focusing upon what they are purporting to be broken election promises and less positive clinical outcomes. Similarly, the Mirror have put some spin on it (and even called the Government ConDems), but at least mentioned that it is a pilot scheme that is being tested. If 111 is a total failure, then the savings must come from somewhere else.
There’s something else we need to realise here. NHS Direct costs money to call, at a local call rate. Is it just me, or are people who require health treatment sometimes quite poor? Are we to keep a system that is only accessible by those who can pay the call fee, or continue with what the NHS should be providing – a service free at the point of access?
Whilst The Guardian hinted that this was an NHS cut, it is important to focus on the fact that we promised to ring-fence the NHS in the election campaign (and have done exactly that), and savings are required because the NHS Budget will be squeezed by things like population increase and obesity. The Government has to find £20bn worth of savings by 2014. Compare that to what Andy Burnham, the Shadow Health Secretary, was proposing. The £20bn worth of savings is not a cut, because the NHS has been ring-fenced. Its budget is increasing year-on-year. So if we need to find those savings, imagine what 8% cuts in the NHS would have done. I invite any Labourite to reflect on that percentage before responding to this post. And then compare it to the supposed ‘cut’ to NHS Direct.
Andrew Lansley made an interesting point in The Times (paywall). The fact that 40% of Londoners would call in a situation that is not an emergency surely makes 111 is a simpler number to market for ‘non-urgent’ calls, rather than NHS Direct? Plenty of people don’t want to bother the emergency services when they really should and subsequently have a bigger impact on the NHS – and 111 will provide a quicker integration between the two. That may seem like a poor argument, but distinctions can be made between the two and psychologically, a number such as 111 is short enough to remember in these scenarios – and what it’s for.
But another point that Lansley made was that NHS Direct will run alongside 111 until such a time (2013) when it has been rolled out across the country. 111 Will provide access to a local GP, connections to emergency services and advice about how to get hold of medications. Yes, it will have less Nurses available over the telephone, but if the pilot works and it does not burden emergency services too much then it will be a success. Integration and efficiency savings are the thoughts behind this scheme. And it makes sense to me.
I think, Labourites have to reflect on two things: one, this is a trial. It is being piloted. There is nothing to worry about. And the second, Labourites who are going up in arms about it should take a step back and remind themselves of the fact that they failed to ring fence the NHS and one of its leadership contenders is a vocal advocate of cutting its budget by 8%. So before losing your mind over this, Labour supporters, MPs and activists, just think on that. Or do what your Parliamentary Labour Party seems to take pleasure in failing to do: provide an alternative.
Banning cold calling is a ridiculous proposal
Posted by Liam Rhodes in delusion, economy on August 26, 2010
Today it was revealed that 75% of the British population want cold calling to be banned. The reason, the BBC News article states, is because cold callers are intrusive and call at inconvenient times, and can also be a nuisance.
What a fantastic idea! Let’s ban cold calling when the public sector is about to shed thousands of jobs due to the mess we’ve inherited.
Now, I appreciate that telesales can be quite irritating. Having previously worked in both telemarketing (and detested it) and marketing itself, I appreciate how the person on the other end can be quite annoyed. My experience, however, was business-related. In that market, not only is it cut-throat and requires much self-motivation, and you perhaps get 100 calls per sale; but ultimately these measures are required since some services to businesses are only sell-able if a lead is generated over the phone. What did that call generate? Business. That business generated the ability for my previous employer to be able to keep staff in jobs.
Additionally, It is not a fact any more that we live in an economy whereby if you demand something you’ll simply by it. Instead, we live in an economy where services are provided at competitive rates and whereby sales people provide a function to sell services such as electricity to a customer directly to highlight what they can save.
The fact is that the sales industry in this country employs tens of thousands of people, and call-centre based sales representatives make up a large chunk of that number. Without salespeople, a functioning economy cannot work since business to business (and in the instance by the Which? report, business to customer) sales are often over the telephone.
Banning telesales would mean that more people end up on the jobs market, leading to less money in the economy and more businesses end up going bust. Is that what we really need right now – or ever?
I’ve got a better idea for people who want it banned: activate the Telephone Preference service and be very stern with people when you ask them not to call back.
The intriguing types of young Conservatives
Posted by Liam Rhodes in conservative on August 25, 2010
I am writing this blogpost from my own experience of young Conservatives, which may be somewhat skewed. The Cameron era has produced some very interesting individuals since 2005 – and if you are like me, or know someone like me, who joined the Tory Party when Cameron was leader (or in my case, anticipation of it), an intrigue as to why they joined may come to mind.
And if you’re anything like me, you might have noticed young Conservatives breaking off into factions within their own right. The Conservative future (and I don’t mean the organisation since I don’t particularly care for it) is vital to the party and seems to have broken off into four factions, two of which get very blurry – the Cameroons and Cameron Lites. What is interesting is that any major influence does not particularly have social Conservatism running through its veins into its very core. The question is whether this is a question of youth or whether social Conservatism has died a slow death since the Thatcher period.
Here are what I would suggest are the four main types of modern, young Conservatives:
- Cameron Conservatives, or Liberal Conservatives
David Cameron has embarked upon a mission to change the face (and even values) of the Conservative Party. He (rightly) believes that elections are fought and won in the battleground, and to achieve what’s best for the country and party, he realised that needed to modernise the party. And arguably there isn’t any going back – not with the youth of the Party.Cameroons believe in a certain type of Conservatism. One that is ‘liberal Conservatism’ (and no, the two are not divorced from each other or in any way oxymoronic). They believe in a smaller State because they don’t believe that the State is always the answer, but they also believe in a relatively free market with minimalistic interventions, small taxation and inheritance tax breaks. They do believe in the welfare State, though are sceptical of it.
They are also largely Eurosceptic. They tend to support Cameron’s stance on the environment and believe in the National Health Service.
Socially, they believe that people should be left alone to run their lives and believe in racial, gender and sexual orientation equality. They do not favour the death penalty. They are advocates of free speech.
Some can be members of the Conservative Way Forward as some of this group do believe in the 9 principles.
- One Nation Conservatives – Cameron Lites/Wets
Whilst One Nationers generally believe in most of the points above, they put a heavy focus on the National Health Service (not that Cameron does not do this, he most certainly does) and believe in the Churchill principle that “Government must provide both a ladder and a safety net,” employing the welfare State when required whilst providing people with the means to lift themselves out of poverty.Some tend to be Europhiles. (I, for the record, am not.)
They are not particular advocates of inheritance tax breaks, and believe that taxation is sometimes necessary. And on the markets, Ken Clarke’s line of “the Tory Reform Group is the natural home for people – like me – who believe in individual liberty and a free market with a social conscience” is pretty much accurate. This means that, whilst Cameron Conservatives do possess a social conscience, a market under One Nation Conservatism would be slightly more regulated than that of a ‘dry’ economy.
- ‘Liberal’ Thatcherism – Thatcher Lites
It is without a doubt that economic Thatcherism exists in the Conservative Party today in its young faction. This group also believes in some aspects of social Conservatism, for example the employment of a Howard-like approach to crime (“prison works”) and may be sceptical of things like gay marriage (not civil partnerships). They believe that tradition is often the best guidance, but are willing to break out of this stance in the face of evidence or the fact that they realise we live in the 21st century.They believe that an economy functions at its best when it employs the nine principles of the Conservative Way Forward Group.
Naturally, I am in total opposition to this group.
- Post-Thatcherism – Libertarians
This is a group that I will never quite grasp as to how people arrive at this ideology as it is pure and simple an ideological argument. They believe in an absolutely tiny State, providing only skeletal services such as roadworks, defence and education. They do not believe in a National Health Service.They believe that libertarianism is the natural evolution of Thatcherism, something which I would disagree with since they employ a liberal stance.
Whilst that sounds harsh, their argument is one of the ‘freer the market, the freer the people’ and believe in virtually no State intervention in terms of the rights of an individual except that of libertarian philosophy. They are advocates of gun ownership, the legalisation of all drugs, etc.
Some in this group claim that libertarians exist in the Parliamentary Conservative Party. I can categorically say that this is false.
An open letter to Ed Miliband
Posted by Liam Rhodes in Labour, Labour leadership, Liberalism, lib dems, new politics, partisanship on August 23, 2010
Dear Ed,
Over the last few days, it has become increasingly clear that you’re pretty much obsessed with the Liberal Democrats. I am writing to you to offer you some advice. Firstly, you need to understand that the Liberal Democrats have not ’betrayed the liberal cause.’ If you could please clarify where in the Programme for Government we have done anything but repeal your awful, draconian infringements on civil liberties, that would be marvellous. Thanks.
Secondly, I’d recommend that you do one of two things if you want to get anywhere. One option is to shut up about the Lib Dems and focus upon your own party’s image and issues (that is if you think that there is anything wrong with your party, something which I am beginning to question since you’ve run out of things to talk about). The second option is to join the Liberal Democrats and reform them from the inside out. You’re clearly besotted.
I’d also like to suggest that it has become clear that people in this country have rejected the principle of parties who believe in a gigantic State. They do not believe that the State has all the answers, unlike you. When I read in the New Statesman today that you’d happily describe yourself as a socialist, you’re probably the only winnable candidate who actually is a socialist. That scares me. But it shouldn’t scare me as much as you. You need to realise that people now don’t believe that the State holds all the answers.
Let me set out why you have absolutely no right to be lecturing the Lib Dems on civil liberties and the ‘liberal cause’, until you either become Party leader or start rebelling against the Labour Party on civil liberties. Take note that you voted for – or supported – the following:
- 90 Day detention without trial;
- ID Cards;
- The National Identity Register;
- Your brother, somebody who is alleged to be complicit in the torture of innocent people;
- No accountability for the Iraq war; and
- Labour’s anti-terrorism laws.
Only in Britain (thanks, Tom)
Posted by Liam Rhodes in Iraq, Labour, Terrible parody, Tony Blair, partisanship on August 18, 2010
Only in Britain could a multi-million pounds donation to charity by a former prime minister be regarded by people who aren’t blinded by partisanship as a suspicious act of contrition.
Tony Blair always wins. He left office and committed the cardinal sin of making an absolute fortune – unforgiveable among the commentariat. A former politician earning a hypocritical living as a champagne socialist? How dare he! Blair should work for free and live in a caravan as punishment for nearly destroying the country in ten years.
And now his motives are being analysed and mocked. This is all about seeking forgiveness for Iraq, it’s true. Exactly when has Tony Blair ever given the impression that he seeks forgiveness? Never, unless it’s in a very narcissistic or religiously ironic way. When has he ever seemed less than certain that the decisions he took as prime minister – and in the case of Iraq, a decision backed by Labour drones (and unfortunately most Conservative MPs) who had been misled (allegedly by some) – were the right ones? Is it fair to be making these comments. I mean, really? Hasn’t the argument that Parliament passed the war bill been used enough by Labour MPs who still back the war and voted against an inquiry been used too much? Is it not getting a bit old? Don’t you think they’re sort of trying to convince themselves of something?
This is a donation – a substantial and generous one – to a respected and loved British charity. It is inconceivable that Blair himself thought this would change anyone’s mind about Iraq or about Blair himself. He’s intelligent enough to understand that his enemies will hate him irrespective of anything he now says or does, because whilst he can love himself enough, there is (probably rightly) always enough hate for this man, his war and his destruction of civil liberties.
But the sneering and sheer nastiness in the response to this gesture is amazingly positive to see and restores my faith in the British public, and shines a glaring light on a side of the British character of which we should be immensely proud.
Much of this blog post I didn’t need to write myself, thanks to Tom Harris MP. You can see the original, unedited, pro-Blair (and admittedly funnier) piece here.
Why gay marriage is a fundamental right
Posted by Liam Rhodes in LGBT, coalition, conservative, equality, fairness, gay rights on August 15, 2010
If you’re a regular reader of my blog, you hopefully get the impression that I am a caring Conservative who believes in equality regardless of race, disability, gender or sexual orientation. Since I have been involved in a debate about gay marriage on Twitter, I thought I’d write this. It will hopefully provide some insights into my thoughts and maybe – just maybe - has the potential to change one person’s mind. If it does, it’s worth the write.
When I debated this matter with a ‘social conservative’, various subjects came into the conversation. This includes the fact that apparently, marriage is a religious festival. It was also stated that marriage is not a fundamental right since people cannot marry children and animals. (I actually failed to follow the logical flow of that argument.) I can only assume that people who use these arguments are homophobes who cannot admit to it, since it is a form of bigotry.
It is not a fair assumption to defend ‘marriage’ as an ancient institution as Bush did in the States, when he banned gay mariage. We have to realise that marriage pre-dates the Bible and was in fact used by homosexual couples to show their commitment. And if you compare what Bush did to the U.S. constitution with ‘defending institutions’, you can pretty much grasp how homophobic the man really was.
Let’s take the religious festival assumption. It’s stated that, since marriage is a religious festival, it should be illegal for homosexual couples to marry. This is absolutely absurd. First and foremost, we do not live in a society dictated by religion. Secondly, there are some religions that actually want to conduct homosexual marriages. Not only that, if a loving heterosexual atheist couple want to marry, they can go to their nearest registry office.
Considering that Britain is becoming more and more secular, and the British people elected a Coalition Government with both contributing parties saying that they’d consider gay marriage, this argument falls flat. Just because one group of society do not want equality does not mean we should respond to it in a positive light.
Marriage is no longer strictly just a religious festival. It is written in law that a man and woman can marry outside of religion. So if that is used as an argument against gay marriage, then it would not be illogical to deduce that these people would want all atheistic heterosexual marriages should be banned and renamed to ‘civil partnerships’.
With regards to the ‘children and animals’ argument, I have never come across such a weak argument in my life. Children and animals cannot consent to marriage. A man and a man, or a woman and a woman can consent to marriage.
Stating that marriage is not a right is simply intellectual sloth. This is to imply that people should not be allowed to marry at all. It’s equal rights for everybody, or nobody at all.
We inherited a legacy from Labour of equality for all. And I want to see this continued. Britain needs equal rights for everybody, not just selected segments of society.
When most of us put our cross in the box, we are elected a Member of Parliament not to follow the instructions of certain sects of society that wants to see Britain back in the 80s in terms of gay equality, but someone who is progressive, not regressive, in terms of equal rights.
The fact that Labour failed to introduce gay marriage will always baffle and concern me, but they’ve set the ball rolling for it. Now let’s stop with the argument of marriage being an ‘ancient institution’, since you can now divorce without it being illegal, and homosexual people could marry historically, and get on with what’s right.
BNP bankruptcy: is it true and is it a good thing?
Posted by Liam Rhodes in BNP, democracy on August 14, 2010
There are various rumours floating around that the BNP faces imminent bankruptcy, largely around the fact that they used Marmite in their party political broadcast and various lawsuits from the Government that they have chosen to fight in court. We’ve seen the BNP on the verge of bankruptcy before, and they managed to pull themselves back from the brink. On their web site, it appears that they’ve raised £15,000 of their £30,000 target to keep themselves solvent.
Of course, political parties are always in debt at some point. I heard an interview with Nick Griffin where he states that this fact alone means that they don’t need to worry and that the Labour Party are currently in massive debt. The difference, I suspect, between large political parties and the BNP is that A) it is assumed that they’ll be able to pay down their debt at an acceptable rate, and B) their large donations from Unions (in the case of the Labour Party), individuals and groups/businesses can often ‘save the day’. When the Labour Party were on the verge of bankruptcy (or rather, the media reported that they were), the Unions allegedly saved the day.
Whilst I’m not in any way a legal or bankruptcy expert and would not state it to be a fact, it would seem a logical conclusion that the level of debt that they are reportedly in would render them on the verge of bankruptcy for the reasons stated above.
What I want to discuss is whether or not the bankruptcy of the British National Party would be a good thing for British politics. Whilst there are some people on Twitter suggesting that the day that it goes bankrupt (if indeed it does) should be a national holiday (I must admit I am somewhat tempted to agree), would the party’s closure and subsequent politicians being made Independents a good thing?
It’s now known that Richard Barnbrook has resigned as a BNP AM member and will now sit as an Independent, which will be a good indicator of what it is like to have an ex-BNP Independent politician in mainstream politics. Some would suggest that we’ll soon see that on a wider scale. The point is that we need to closely monitor what Barnbrook now can (or will) say now that he is not whipped by the British National Party. This will give a good indication as to what the party’s politicians really think – although I think that’s well-known amongst political blog readers.
Without central party funding, the (ex) BNP candidates will find it much harder to raise funds and assistance for their campaigns and, given their recent horrendous result in the general election, will most likely be wiped out at any elections. Without a central party, the BNP could disband and go ‘underground’. Or perhaps more worryingly, it may be a possibility that their candidates could become members of a more far-right political party.
But if there’s one thing that’s in this is that we know that the Party does not make those in Westminster feel well about themselves. I wrote a post on the garden party incident with Nick Griffin and how abhorred I was. I also speculated that someone in Westminster gave the order for banning Griffin, and I believe this to be true.
It’s known that BNP sympathy votes has resulted in mainstream parties beginning to address things that they weren’t before, like immigration. It’s also alleged that the BNP has holocaust deniers amongst its ranks, it was founded by a man who said “Mein Kampf is my bible” and that they don’t particularly have a taste for democracy.
Is it right that the attacks on the BNP to bankrupt them to remove them from the public eye is a good thing? Are we to assume that a defeat of the party would be fundamentally a good idea? Don’t the British National Party exist to ensure that parties address issues? Would the bankruptcy of the BNP therefore be a good thing for democracy?
Voters – rightly or wrongly – believe in stricter controls of immigration. They believe in many things that the BNP do. We saw a decreased vote share for them at the general election, which is probably largely to do with the Conservative immigration policy. But they’re about to enter a leadership contest, something which may reignite the interest in their party.
I’m very open-minded about this and rather than believing that it’s a bad thing, I’d like to ask an open question.
Are some in Westminster simply worried that the British National Party may be setting the agenda for their own parties?
Bitterness, Labour and Twitter
Posted by Liam Rhodes in Uncategorized on August 8, 2010
I’ve been waiting for the perfect Tweet to make this post, and I think I’ve just found it.
Since the election, I’ve found several Labourites on Twitter who won’t accept that their Party left us with a humongous structural deficit (and, before one comments and says that it was a global recession, we entered the recession with the largest structural deficit in the OECD), ruined civil liberties and pretty much wrecked everything that was decent about this country.
I have the pleasure of meeting several Labourites on Twitter that I genuinely get on with. We rarely disagree on the basis that they are civil libertarians. Of course, we disagree with how to manage an economy but are civil about it.
What amuses me the most are tweets such as the image above. Labourites (not all) who have to sink so low to make a point about their bitterness.
I rarely block someone on Twitter – and I only ever do it if their repulsive statements are things such as above. Fortunately I am not the only Conservative that Linda and other embattled Labourites enjoy offending – @ArnieEtc has been on the receiving end of this political heavyweight’s (excuse me if I laugh) exceptionally intelligent, personally offensive tweets.
I don’t understand why someone would sink so low as to make remarks like this about someone. I know things get heated on Twitter and I am certainly not one to say I’m the calmest and don’t rant, but honestly.
It appears that some Labourites on Twitter enjoy behaving similarly to their Parliamentary counterparts. As @NoetiCat said, “Labour are just a coalition of people who hate Conservatives.” Can’t we respect each other enough not to engage in comments such as ‘I think you should take your medication,’ ‘say that to my face,’ or the tweet above?
I do sometimes wonder what it’s like in the corridors of Westminster when a Conservative walks past a Labourite…
Lib Dems, poll ratings and further policy concessions
Posted by Liam Rhodes in coalition, conservative, lib dems on August 8, 2010
It is unsurprising that some Liberal Democrats are getting slightly worried about poll ratings, particularly when there are by-elections around and they are getting trounced in them mostly getting trounced in them (apart from the one they’ve just won), as I’ve just been corrected by @christopherward. Of course, I’m not going to say that they must hold their nerve – considering it’s pretty blatant that most of them are and have little choice.
In the Parliamentary Liberal Democrat Party, there must be a lot of worry about poll ratings and what will happen at next year’s local council elections (which both the Lib Dems and the Conservatives will be trounced in since people often use these elections as an opportunity to kick the incumbents). But it’s without a doubt that proportionally the worst loser will be the Lib Dems. When this happens, it might test the Coalition in the eyes of some people. The Party – particularly the left of it – may begin to question their party’s chances at the next General Election.
But the Parliamentary Liberal Democrats are smarter than that. They realise that the reason that they’re down in the polls is because the electorate view it that not enough concessions are being made to them. They also realise that they’ve an opportunity to play war games with the Conservative right.
We’re both in a Coalition. Personally, I love this Coalition. But both sides have to pass legislation that the other Party doesn’t like. And the Liberal Democrats will realise that if they continue to pass legislation proposed by the Conservatives and continue to drop in the polls, they’ll need to pick up again.
That’s where the games come in. The Conservatives need more than their number in MPs to pass a bill if the Liberal Democrats rebel. Whilst the Programme for Government has been agreed, it was probably not realised that the Lib Dem poll ratings would fall this low as a result of the Coalition by either Party. Whilst Labour are off stating that the Liberal Democrats have sold out, those inside the Coalition know what values we fundamentally share compared to Labour and the Lib Dems. So what do the Liberal Democrats need to do? Demand further concessions.
If Clegg puts the heat on the Conservative right – particularly if enough of the Tory right rebel against the AV referendum date – we won’t see a crack in the Coalition since it is of no interest for either Party. We’ll see further concessions. And then their poll ratings will go up.
The problem is for Nick Clegg: when to demand further concessions? Now or later? Later risks unrest in the Party and the worst case scenario of him being removed as leader (but in a Coalition, there’s more chance of me winning the lottery, and I never buy a ticket), whereas now risks this being ignored by the electorate at a crucial date such as an election.
Of course, it’s probably the case that David Cameron’s saving up certain concessions on policy that he isn’t particularly worried about should this demand happen. I hope so.
Many in the Twittersphere will be aware that I have a secret take on what will happen. And I’m writing it down in a journal. However, because it involves polls and reactions from both parties, it’s just too long-winded and hopefully good to post on a blogpost. I also don’t want to look like a fool in case it turns out to be false.