|
https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1249598170377617411?s=19
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 08:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:08 |
|
|
I've seen a couple of people on twitter saying that labour are calling for an end to the lockdown but not seen it myself is that actually happening are they really so poo poo they're doing something only Toby young wants
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 08:45
|
|
|
Jose posted:I've seen a couple of people on twitter saying that labour are calling for an end to the lockdown but not seen it myself is that actually happening are they really so poo poo they're doing something only Toby young wants All I've seen from Labour is Starmer asking for what the exit strategy is, not an end. But wouldn't surprise me for people spinning it that way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 09:01
|
|
|
Niric posted:Is there a good link/article anywhere that lists the worst things in the report and provides a relatively calm/neutrally toned gloss? I want to send something to a couple of soft left friends in a format that isn't just a bunch of twitter links and my own incoherent rage at the burn-it-all-down bastards in Southside This might be better: https://news.sky.com/story/labour-antisemitism-investigation-will-not-be-sent-to-equality-commission-11972071 But be sure to point out that the report NOT being sent to the EHRC is NOT the JLM or JVL evidence, it's about internal Labour stuff. The headline doesn't make that clear.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 09:03
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think owen jones mentioned the guardian was covering it but I don't have a clue what their content would be like or whether they'd include the quotes. I'd say that's a complete whitewash by the Graun. I guess they couldn't get away with not mentioning it, but it really doesn't give a flavour of what's in there and is essentially pushing the Panorama programme for the last few paragraphs as if that is the full story. Why does the Graun never open comments on its articles most in need of correction!
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 09:06
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/LeftieStats/status/1249608259134160897?s=19
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 09:08
|
|
|
The guardian pushed the antisemitism story more than any other media organisation
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 09:08
|
|
|
For those of you wanting to stay and fight in Labour you absolutely need to be calling for expulsion for the saboteurs and a strong statement from Starmer condemning the behaviour and a promise to believe any future accusations of conspiracy against the left within the party given the evidence of it happening in the past. Currently you've still got the membership numbers, their potential engagement and a Labour Party report to point to to back you up. If you can't get verifiable results now and resources to use in future then there's no avenue back to power because the right wing has seen all it needs to do is keep sabotaging you and then forgiving itself some time later when the final consequences of the sabotage come good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 09:08
|
|
|
Rachel Reeves doesn't seem to have gone down too well on the radio this morning (didn't listen myself) She's trending on twitter so I had a look for why. https://twitter.com/butwhatifitsall/status/1249600314413588481?s=20
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 09:18
|
|
|
mila kunis posted:04/06/2017, 21:01 – Greg Cook: Hopefully the sheer hypocrisy of that speech will make his views on STK and abolishing the army a legitimate topic.  patriotic thing to come from Corbyn, should the press have wanted to spin it that way (they wouldn't).Distrust of a professional standing army not directly accountable to civilians and local authorities was a key part of the English and Scots identity until two world wars and one world cup and ar u waring a poopy decided that it wasn't. Jaeluni Asjil posted:I'd say that's a complete whitewash by the Graun. I guess they couldn't get away with not mentioning it, but it really doesn't give a flavour of what's in there and is essentially pushing the Panorama programme for the last few paragraphs as if that is the full story.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 09:20
|
|
|
J_RBG posted:loving hell this is going to define people's attitudes to the labour party for years to come, depending on what starmer does This one is misleading. The actual text in the report makes it clear she's repeating a rumour that she has heard: quote:Discussion in the “SMT Group” made clear LOTO’s negative view of the NCC’s “soft decision”, with key staff in LOTO, such as LOTO Chief of Staff Karie Murphy, suspecting it had been orchestrated “to embarrass JC and create a crisis”: Don't know why they feel the need to selectively edit quotes. There's enough dirt in the report elsewhere and it just opens them up to charges of manipulation as a defence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 09:28
|
|
|
Once upon a time:quote:There are now attempts to ease fears among Labour staff about personnel shake-ups at Labour HQ, often regarded by the party’s left wing as insufficiently committed to Corbyn. Rumours have been swirling of a pot of money to help pay for redundancy packages should Formby win – a concern dismissed by her supporters. Morbidly funny in retrospect... 800 pages later, some thoughts: - any long document like this is certainly written by committee, but the shared voice here cannot quite decide whether there was a real problem that Formby-period reforms proceeded to address where previous management was ineffectual, or whether there was never a real problem except for internal mismanagement pre-Formby. This is not really a problem I think, it's just amusing - the key argument of section 2+3 is stated on p32 - "LOTO did not have authority or influence over GLU or the party machinery more broadly". My sense is that any legal review would point out that this argument strategy serves to defend LOTO but not the party... more than half of the 800+ pages is spent detailing this position but it is not actually relevant; very little is detailed on the governance of the GLU itself (compare the length of section 5+6 to section 2+3, and almost all of section 5 is statements to the media, not actual internal governance). Although the LOTO's office does not directly oversee the GSO, all answer to the ruling body of the party, i.e., the Labour NEC (on which the Leader sits as well, so there is no personal exoneration). The section itself goes on to argue that the party changed in a way that the pre-2015 NEC and party mechanisms did not previously anticipate, but this argument is weak; even in cases of actual criminal breach of trust by subordinates in corporate governance, "I, sitting on the board of directors, had no idea what my organisation was doing, because I was successfully misled by the body I was directing" is rarely a successful pitch in during post-mortem review. (This always feels terribly unfair to the directors affected in the wake of scandal: it was my predecessor, it was the departments and lines of direct reports that they set up, nobody briefed me on these risks when I entered, I was briefed but I was misled on the priorities, etc. - even if true, these are not good defenses) Even the "successful reform under Formby" period it describes in section 5 are ad hoc initiatives by the GS - the party NEC never sets out the goals by which to assess its performance; it continues to be the case that the GSO (of which the GLU is a subdepartment) makes up the parameters by which it measures its own success (is it the number of suspensions? Is it the time to closure on cases?). - Section 2+3 winds up arguing strenuously for the factionalism+caseload volume pitch - but if one writes that the old model was too dependent on an informal, cohesive relationship between the Leader's Office and Southside and was not-fit-for-purpose by 2015 for these reasons, then the obvious follow-up question is why the party dallied for three years to replace it. We as political observers ITT know why - the A/S controversy quietly exited stage left across 2017 until it roared back to life with muralgate in 2018, and during the period both the LOTO and GLU lost interest. But that's not a good answer, not for people for whom corporate governance is a full-time job. A third party audit would surely pick up this thread even if neither of Labour's factions are interested - Section 6 is a little weird if one recalls that the 2016 Chakrabarti report explicitly called for an immediate moratorium on retrospective social media trawling; it was pointless at the time, and many said so (I said so as well ITT, for the record). This puts remarks about implementing or fully implementing the Report in an odd light given the method of pro-actively auditing social media embraced in section 6. In effect both factions of the party quietly backed away from that particular inquiry recommendation without ever quite saying so. The biggest initiative is the decisionmaking matrix described in section 6 (p753-758) and is likely to resonate for many years, well after the dust settles. The judicialisation of the party continues... all those independent barristers are not even party members, mind Section 6.2 is written very oddly from a party point of view (it plays very fast and loose between individual proposals and joint decisions - stuff that is really important when clarifying how policy evolved over time. Also, it vacillates between hyper-detailed he-said-this-at-time-to-who chronology and "some people felt that X" ambiguities). If I had been editing this I would've suggested that 6.5.3 be clearer on roles and responsibilities rather than personal credibility and resumes of the incumbent officers, given that much of section 2 explains at length how ambiguities in powers and lines of report caused problems. "But now we have good people in place so we can pass audit right???  is not a good pitch. Again it's a focus thing - the real meat of the document is section 6 at least as far as the EHRC goes. It's just really short.- More on the party politics side... the Labour right is probably still all busy consulting their counsel, except for a handful who really cannot restrain their hands from the tweeterbox. We will probably see responses trickle out over the next two weeks. I would not expect to see much contrition on the right - the point that all of these reforms occurred well after two+ years of noisy screaming remains. A Labour right version of the same report would just replace all of Section 2 and 3 with the media wars that forced a "grudging" Leader's Office into action, so taking credit for everything that 5+6 goes on to describe (it does not take much effort to find people connected to the Leader's Office arguing that no reforms have ever been needed). - the party left, for its part, will be mainly occupied by the revelations in section 2 on just how deep the antipathy in Southside went during GE2017.... key struggles like the campaign against independent advisers (who might not be party members!) and the suspension of Chris Williamson are now embraced. - between these two narratives, this rather hands Starmer a softball of reforms that centralise power and budgets under the Leader's Office. Let's see if he picks it up. Britain has a presidential PMO already, why not a presidential Labour LO too. The left could hardly object if they demand that heads roll at party HQ and Starmer obligingly says: sure, give me the power to hire and fire the directors, rather than the divided NEC. The right is not going to find much support from the lay membership for resisting this. - the party only embraced sweeping NEC powers after 2018 (the fact that the left only controlled the NEC by a landslide after the NEC 2018 elections and felt certain of holding it forever is, I'm sure, a total coincidence). Now that the NEC is again wobbly I would suspect that enthusiasm for sweeping NEC powers and ad-hoc three-member panels will fade (this seems especially certain if someone puts to writing that the purposes of the fast-track panels is to effect a practice already ruled to be legally unsupportable...). The written processes and independent advisors will probably outlast the practice. Having three NEC members in the room at all is a formality anyway; as the Keith Vaz episode showed, NEC members would be strongly pressured to defer to staff advice. - having a large and dedicated compliance unit at all was an anti-Militant innovation, which is why its processes assumed a you'll-know-it-if-you-see-it informality, a close relationship with the leader's office, and a dependence on the regions/CLPs/affiliates to settle the obvious violations whilst preserving the right of the central HQ to override lower decisions. This was also why its activities mainly focused on picking off Greens, Respect, and anti-Labour Stop the War/Assembly Against Austerity types by 2015 - suppressing puppets and local machines was all it was expected to do. Subsequently, whilst Corbyn was Leader, all of the groups further to the left of Labour were moribund, so that role went out of the window. Now with Corbyn out and the soft left in, the structural need for Labour to distinguish itself from the organizations further to its left will once again reassert itself (there is certainly presently plenty of social media activity of left-wingers urging against voting for Labour for a compliance unit to audit). The obvious go-to would be for there to be decision matrices for other compliance concerns too, under the banner of continuing the professionalization of the unit. ronya fucked around with this message at 09:37 on Apr 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 09:29
|
|
|
Looking at the reply to this "a job guarantee is better", what are some leftist thoughts on this? Because I'm on board with the idea that work isn't in itself good, and that well-distributed idleness is a noble goal. But right now there's a lot of good stuff that needs doing, and in terms of giving workers power against terrible bosses, I feel like "screw you, I'm going to get a guaranteed useful job" is a better threat than "screw you, I'm going to live off UBI (which is probably too low and vulnerable to cutting due to a scrounger narrative in the long term)"
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 09:34
|
|
|
Jose posted:The guardian pushed the antisemitism story more than any other media organisation I think this contributed quite a bit to losing. Most left leaning people think the guardian is left wing and so anything in it must be taken at face value. Just catching up on the thread from yesterday as thought I'd take a break. Some of the stuff in that report raised my eyebrows so far back it looks like I've grown a moustache between my shoulders. Not sure how to respond really, I was a bit disillusioned when Starmer got in, all this stuff just makes it seem impossible - not only do you have a hostile media owned by foreign millionaires, social media engineered to suit right wing reactionary views, a well-funded opposition that will go as low as it can to win, centrist parties that will leech voters through complacency but now it turns out the party itelf is also against being in power - its a loving joke. Everyone who spent so much time and energy campaigning, knocking on doors, donating money, working like gently caress, all for naught.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 09:42
|
|
|
Bobstar posted:Looking at the reply to this "a job guarantee is better", what are some leftist thoughts on this? Because I'm on board with the idea that work isn't in itself good, and that well-distributed idleness is a noble goal. But right now there's a lot of good stuff that needs doing, and in terms of giving workers power against terrible bosses, I feel like "screw you, I'm going to get a guaranteed useful job" is a better threat than "screw you, I'm going to live off UBI (which is probably too low and vulnerable to cutting due to a scrounger narrative in the long term)" It's vulnerable to a scrounger narrative, which is why it has to be packaged as a deserved thing, like "we cleared the highlands and enclosed the commons illegally, so this is the just reparations that you once would have been able to get yourselves. If you don't like the UBI then the alternative is the forced expropriation of all properties built on illegally seized lands by the common people." And if it is universal it takes a chunk out of the scrounger narrative because you're expecting the middle classes to say "these lazy skivers sitting around watching TV on the exact same benefit that I'm also getting." There is a danger that it means some money going to the people that don't need it, but I'd again refer to Dr. Touré Reed that wealth redistribution on a blind basis is generally better than means testing, because means testing departments have their own biases. Big giveaways that benefit the 'undeserving' work better than narrow ones that cut out some of the deserving. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FztmNrp08yY And as demonstrated by this lockdown, when prevented from doing any work the human desire is to find useful work to do, so it's highly probable that in a UBI environment the market will be poked to create jobs that give purpose as well as decent pay.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 09:48
|
|
|
One of the complainants mentioned in the report has a blog, it seems https://twitter.com/l_attfield/status/1249434916712046593 Her essay on Medium, published Jan, weirdly covering much the same events - https://medium.com/@luisaattfield/antisemitism-and-the-labour-leadership-contest-part-1-b7c6250e1ae3 Dust will take a while to settle...
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 09:48
|
|
|
Bobstar posted:Looking at the reply to this "a job guarantee is better", what are some leftist thoughts on this? Because I'm on board with the idea that work isn't in itself good, and that well-distributed idleness is a noble goal. But right now there's a lot of good stuff that needs doing, and in terms of giving workers power against terrible bosses, I feel like "screw you, I'm going to get a guaranteed useful job" is a better threat than "screw you, I'm going to live off UBI (which is probably too low and vulnerable to cutting due to a scrounger narrative in the long term)" a UBI leaves the means of production alone and redistributes consumption, a JG redistributes production instead - hence many left theorists prefer the JG. This matters a lot to the high theorists the jobs provided in a JG can also be those favourable to class consciousness, whereas a UBI continues neoliberal atomization or whatnot - at this point liberals start getting nervous about red guards, colectivos, committees of the revolution, etc though. In practice the kinds of JGs that would be realized by Western governments would resemble workfare a great deal, because workfare is already a thing that exists
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 09:58
|
|
|
willie_dee posted:This leak has me genuinely reeling. I was happy being nonchalant about Labour losing, disgusted with the British public and happy for the large majority of them to sleep in the bed that they made. To find out that there were Tories openly working within Labour to make sure JC lost has gotten through to me and made me genuinely angry and upset again. I’m legit worried that if I wasn’t in a happy a place I am in I’d be doing something stupid right now out of said anger. Imagine what Labour could have achieved had all those positions been filled with comrades firing on all cilinders rather than class traitors.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 10:02
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Without well guaranteed workers' rights and trade unions, a job guarantee is a gnat's prick away from work camps, whereas at least a UBI is a guaranteed expansion of the benefits system. Very interesting, thanks. Yeah the hurdle with universalism is the (either ignorant or blatant bad faith) "look how stupid you are, wasting precious money giving it to rich people", but that may be easier to overcome than the them-us scrounger narrative. Just need to have it running long enough that it becomes something that's always existed, don't take it away I'm used to it!
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 10:02
|
|
|
Quite exhausting to see so many people willing to sacrifice almost half a decade of left resurgence because of one setback. Hell, with this report there's a pile of opportunity to fight back internally in a lasting way. All very shortsighted and naive imho. If anything this would make me more likely to join and get involved if I wasn't already in. It can't be emphasised enough that leaving is playing directly into Blairite hands and is exactly what they want. Leave if you must, but don't make out that doing so is somehow a radical, principled decision that's going to do anything for the cause of socialism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 10:03
|
|
|
Ash Crimson posted:Sorry for my negative comments itt, it's been a rough year both politically and personally; to find out that the labour "elite" literally, not figuratively, sabotaged their own leader because of ideological reasons is really depressing and makes me wonder if we could have avoided the debacle that we're in now wrt Corona and it's handling by the tories I hope things improve for you soon, remember to take care of yourself where possible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 10:13
|
|
|
Ash Crimson posted:Sorry for my negative comments itt, it's been a rough year both politically and personally; to find out that the labour "elite" literally, not figuratively, sabotaged their own leader because of ideological reasons is really depressing and makes me wonder if we could have avoided the debacle that we're in now wrt Corona and it's handling by the tories Yeah pal, from one dumb poster to another it has been a hard time, and moreso if you have personal stuff going on too. Don't take this thread to heart, we mostly all mean well but tensions are obviously frayed atm. Hope you get the time to relax and recuperate soon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 10:16
|
|
|
Ash Crimson posted:Sorry for my negative comments itt, it's been a rough year both politically and personally; to find out that the labour "elite" literally, not figuratively, sabotaged their own leader because of ideological reasons is really depressing and makes me wonder if we could have avoided the debacle that we're in now wrt Corona and it's handling by the tories I'm not going to jump down your throat, but if at all possible you need to have introspective thoughts like this before you post. Or just ask for help and reassurance at the same time. Take some comfort in the knowledge that it's coming out that there is anti-Semitism and Islamophobia in Labour, and that it should be purged. Take comfort in this because it's all on the Blue Labour/anti-Corbyn side of the party, that Starmer has blown his shot already by not releasing the report, and is now faced with the prospect of expelling his own allies from the party.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 10:18
|
|
|
The system has failed beond saving, Its time to embrace barbarism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 10:18
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:Quite exhausting to see so many people willing to sacrifice almost half a decade of left resurgence because of one setback. Hell, with this report there's a pile of opportunity to fight back internally in a lasting way. All very shortsighted and naive imho. If anything this would make me more likely to join and get involved if I wasn't already in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 10:19
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/versaysea/status/1249493488699420673?s=20
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 10:21
|
|
|
It's conflating Labour and socialism a bit to suggest that this is the only way. It's not as if leaving Labour means throwing your hands up and thinking 'socialism is too hard', rather becoming disillusioned with one part of a larger project that a lot of people invested a lot into over the last 5 years. I'd say its a normal reaction in the context. What could be done now that wasn't done previously?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 10:23
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:Pfft, let them have it. I happen to know that there's an organisation with widespread public approval, the undying adoration of the entire press, huge political power, tonnes of money, a proven track record of winning elections, and a tiny and moribund membership ripe for entryism. Friends, I am pleased to call to order the first meeting of the United Kingdom Marxist Thread Conservative Association. Lmao can you loving imagine justcola posted:It's conflating Labour and socialism a bit to suggest that this is the only way. It's not as if leaving Labour means throwing your hands up and thinking 'socialism is too hard', rather becoming disillusioned with one part of a larger project that a lot of people invested a lot into over the last 5 years. I'd say its a normal reaction in the context. What could be done now that wasn't done previously? With objective proof of corruption, racism, and and sabotage amongst the Labour right, and a decent candidate with socialist politics but a bit of cunning and ruthlessness about them? Rather a lot, I'd think. ThomasPaine fucked around with this message at 10:25 on Apr 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 10:23
|
|
|
You don't have to be in the party to vote for it and campaign for it! People who know I've quit (about 3 weeks ago now though I was considering it before the election happened) ask me 'so what party are you going to join'? Well I'm not joining another party. I am now free to comment, 'like', campaign for whoever floats my boat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 10:24
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:Lmao can you loving imagine I mean, it worked wonders for UKIP and the Brexit Party...
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 10:26
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1249627907741421571?s=20
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 10:28
|
|
|
Jaeluni Asjil posted:You don't have to be in the party to vote for it and campaign for it! True, but why would anyone want to vote and campaign for a party they've left to fester under a bunch of centre right pricks? Yes, it's distasteful to throw it your money with them in charge, but a good number of us staying members is the only way we chuck them. With this report, we have a hell of a lot of ammunition too. I'd be surprised if Starmer takes us into the next election assuming it's in 2024, tbh.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 10:29
|
|
|
I will never forget that I was ratfucked out of a real chance at a decent future by these hateful, sneering career nihilists. I am so angry I want to do something stupid. I'm not going to, but I swear to god, I want to burn everything down.ThomasPaine posted:With objective proof of corruption, racism, and and sabotage amongst the Labour right, and a decent candidate with socialist politics but a bit of cunning and ruthlessness about them? Rather a lot, I'd think. They will ignore it
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 10:32
|
|
|
Why can't Greens be the UKIP of the left? The kippers abandoned the idea of winning seats in FPTP, but they still got what they want. Of course it wasn't as organic as the lefty version would have to be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 10:33
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:True, but why would anyone want to vote and campaign for a party they've left to fester under a bunch of centre right pricks? Yes, it's distasteful to throw it your money with them in charge, but a good number of us staying members is the only way we chuck them. With this report, we have a hell of a lot of ammunition too. I'd be surprised if Starmer takes us into the next election assuming it's in 2024, tbh. Don't forget that next year we have local council elections including those postponed from this year, Welsh & Scottish Assembly elections, mayoral elections. So heaps of elections to come in the quite near future and while they ought to be about local and regional issues, the party leader at Westminster will have an impact. Seems it was already festering under a bunch of centre right pricks in any case! Meanwhile in other news: I was supposed to do some shopping this morning for a disabled person who lives about 20 mins walk away from me at a shop 20 mins walk in the opposite direction, but she's messaged to say she's sorted. At least it means I was up and dressed by 10am! Jaeluni Asjil fucked around with this message at 10:36 on Apr 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 10:34
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Lokinash06/status/1249468111352463367?s=20
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 10:38
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:Lmao can you loving imagine pablo gbscobar posted:I mean, it worked wonders for UKIP and the Brexit Party... If you aren't willing to join the Tories in the name of socialism then can you really claim to be more than a politics fan who happens to cheer for the red team?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 10:39
|
|
|
ronya posted:- Section 2+3 winds up arguing strenuously for the factionalism+caseload volume pitch - but if one writes that the old model was too dependent on an informal, cohesive relationship between the Leader's Office and Southside and was not-fit-for-purpose by 2015 for these reasons, then the obvious follow-up question is why the party dallied for three years to replace it. We as political observers ITT know why - the A/S controversy quietly exited stage left across 2017 until it roared back to life with muralgate in 2018, and during the period both the LOTO and GLU lost interest. But that's not a good answer, not for people for whom corporate governance is a full-time job. A third party audit would surely pick up this thread even if neither of Labour's factions are interested The General Secretary until May of 2018 was aligned perfectly with the GLU, no change could be made by the party without it being the GS's move. Nothing was changed until Formby was in place as nothing could be changed. The report clearly outs McNicol firmly on the side of the right wing factionalists who spent their time looking for trots, instead of working on their caseload of anti-Semitism cases.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 10:39
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:If you aren't willing to join the Tories in the name of socialism then can you really claim to be more than a politics fan who happens to cheer for the red team?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 10:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:08 |
|
|
What does AAPG stand for? I tried googling but all I got was American Association of Petroleum Geologists and I'm sure that isn't what it means here 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 10:44
|
|