:: Conservative Revival ::

:: Friday, November 30, 2001 ::

Turning a corner?

Interesting information in the MORI Poll, Political Attitudes in Great Britain (22-27 November 2001). It looks like IDS is not being treated as sniffily by the public as Hague was. If you look at the historical record, there was immediate public dissatisfaction with Hague -- he had a negative approval rating from the get-go, even when most were making up their minds (when they did, it was against him). IDS, however, has a (very slight) positive rating. He also is not doing badly when it comes to the negative characteristics you might expect people to attach to him, given his portrayal in the media. He is NOT seen as talking down to people, narrow-minded or inflexible. His most obvious quality is patriotism, always a good thing in the country at large -- and he's already seen as more patriotic than Charlie McKennedy, and less out-of-touch than Blair.

So it looks like people might be giving him the benefit of the doubt. If that's the case, any NuLab onslaught against him might backfire ("mean-spirited" is how it would be termed over here). I also think that the large number of medals on his chest at the Remembrance Day service at the Cenotaph helped greatly. The Guardian might sneer at that, but the public doesn't.

There's a lot of reason for optimism here.
:: Swordsman 11/30/2001 12:55:00 PM [+] ::
...

The Conservative Opportunity

First, sorry for the lack of posts on this site recently. I've got some ideas for some big posts, but haven't worked them up yet. I hope I can find time to do it over the weekend.

Anyway, in this spiked-politics Article, Blair's Babes hit puberty, Jennie Bristow makes some very incisive points about New Labour. Starting from an interview with Paul Marsden MP, she examines Labour's internal contradictions:

In many ways, this has been the case from the start. Note Blair's presidential role, his disdain for party conference and the grassroots, his dislike of debate in the House of Commons. All this is symptomatic of a party born out of the decay of left/right politics, with no common ideology and no core support. New Labour has always operated less as a political party around a set of core values than as a network of political operators with specific jobs to do. In our post-political world, that was the secret of its success - and at the same time, the source of many of its tensions.

She goes on:

One of the general features of 1997 was that, in the desperation to get the Tories out by any means necessary, political questioning went out the window - among the media, the party membership, and the wannabe MPs. One suspects that it is only now that Marsden has even begun to form strong principles, and that he is quite surprised by the extent to which he thinks they clash with the party for whom he is an MP.

And:

The more you try to fit Marsden's views into any coherent pattern, the more difficult it is to do. Is this all that surprising? As Blair's Babes grow up in a party that has substituted centralised bureaucracy for a central political ideology, we will no doubt see more of Marsden's brand of rootless, aimless idealism and the bickering and infighting that followed. And on the fringes of it all floats the electorate, who would be incredibly confused if they weren't so increasingly cynical.

Good stuff. The picture she paints is of a rotten Labour Party, which will fall apart given one big shock. Where will that shock come from? War with Iraq? The Euro? Hard to say, but "events, dear boy, events" have a habit of appearing from nowhere. The opportunity will be there.


:: Swordsman 11/30/2001 08:55:00 AM [+] ::
...

Democracy Inaction

Robin Cook is shortening Parliament's hours, according to The Sunday Times. In a more sensible era, this would have been unthinkable. I'm not a fan of Tampax Dan, but his comments here seem eminently sensible:

Tam Dalyell, Labour MP for Linlithgow and the father of the House, said: "These proposals have the effect of the castration of the Commons as a serious political force. All this business of making it more efficient is a charade. What it is about is neutralising it and making it a rubber stamp. Late nights have a political purpose."

Compare and contrast Oona King:

However, Oona King, a Labour member of the modernisation committee, said: "The hours put good people off becoming MPs. If you want to survive in Westminster you have to forego any normal sort of family life. A Darwinian process of elimination means you are only left with people prepared to be abnormal."

Excuse me, but anyone who wishes to subsume themselves to serve the people, which is what being an MP is all about, is by definition abnormal. If you want "normal" people in Parliament, then select them by lot. I've noticed that few people in the UK talk about politics as a civic duty, as many do over here. We desperately need to revivify this aspect of politics, and, to my mind, the only way to do that is to build up from the bottom via local politics.

Leave it to Betty to speak the most sense:

Betty Boothroyd, the former Speaker, said: "I was a staunch believer in putting in the hours necessary to examine the government's programme and if that meant working long days or forfeiting time off during the recess, then so be it. In my view parliament and the democratic process takes priority over domestic pleasures, important though these are."
:: Swordsman 11/25/2001 09:05:00 AM [+] ::
...

Are they on drugs?

Go softer on ecstasy, say police chiefs, proving that they've been smoking something. Now that the battle over cannabis has been lost, it seems that the front is moving on to plainly harmful drugs like heroin. As I've said before, I'd be in favour of drug liberalisation if our culture was mature enough to handle it, just like I'd be in favour of gun liberalisation, but allowing basically unfettered access to drugs when the population in general has been so demoralised is just asking for trouble. This could be the modern equivalent of those 60s reforms that are causing so many problems now. Conservatives need to remind themselves of the dangers involved and oppose these reforms. That goes for the Telegraph, too.
:: Swordsman 11/21/2001 07:41:00 AM [+] ::
...

Wheeltappers and Shunters

Colin Crompton and Bernard Manning could do a better job than Steven Byers. Patience Wheatcroft rips apart the Government's rail "strategy" in The Times:

As Tony Blair is well aware, the problems of the public sector have intensified under his Government. Now, with one ill-judged and malevolent strike, Stephen Byers has sped the railways towards chaos. Six weeks after he plunged Railtrack into administration, the consequences of his action become daily more daunting. A battery of lawsuits is building up as furious shareholders seek redress. The cost of raising capital for other public sector projects is escalating.

I should have added that the house built on sand is also a house of cards...
:: Swordsman 11/20/2001 12:16:00 PM [+] ::
...

Scots Whae Hae!

True Scotsman Michael Gove (I know, I've seen up his kilt, worse luck) sticks up for Gordon Brown in The Times. Worth a read. Although I don't think Brown's got much support, his enemies are definitely of poor quality. New Labour is looking more and more like the house built on sand it has always been.
:: Swordsman 11/20/2001 12:09:00 PM [+] ::
...

Denmark: Bacon, Lego and Sceptical Environmentalists

Bjorn Lomberg, a gay, Green, Danish associate professor of Statistics, has compiled the single most devastating volume ever to hit the environmentalist movement. In "The Sceptical Environmentalist" he systematically demolishes each and evry one of what he calls the "litany" of environmentalist demands. It's not so much he doesn't believe that the environment is in trouble, but he certainly regards the environmentalist movement as even more trouble. Thanks to the healthy sceptics at Spiked, he here sets out his arguments against the Kyoto protocols. In his book, he goes into far more detail. He also has had a series of articles in The Guardian and a debate with a major environmentalist figure in Prospect (links to come).

This is well worth reading. I don't recommend the book unless you're a completist, 'cos it's a highly detailed, dense tome. But his arguments have received widespread publicity thanks, perhaps, to the fact that he's a highly articulate gay, Green, Danish academic.

In any event, CCO should be reading this. It's time to dump John Gummer and the "we're Green really, look we support Kyoto and opposed GM foods" idea and get with the program!
:: Swordsman 11/20/2001 08:47:00 AM [+] ::
...

A War Strategy Needed

Ramesh Ponnuru on National Review Online writes about the war strategy document apparently compiled by Democrat strategists here in the US.

In many ways, the Tories desperately need a war strategy of their own. I'll try to make this the focus of the next few days here.
:: Swordsman 11/19/2001 01:46:00 PM [+] ::
...

Perhaps the Commission does serve a purpose...

Will The BBC Lose Self- Regulation? asks a lawyer. Just read this and try not to suppress a smile...
:: Swordsman 11/19/2001 11:41:00 AM [+] ::
...

Her Majesty's Troublesome Treasury

Lord Rees-Mogg examines the Blair/Brown split in The Times. Interesting, as always, but I think he's a little behind the times in ascribing the split purely to the Euro. As the article I posted yesterday makes clear, the dispute goes beyond that.

Someone here asked me if I thought Brown might try to form an anti-Euro Labour party if sacked. I very much doubt it; he'd go down in history as the man who wrecked New Labour at the very least. And who would follow him? The Scots, perhaps, and the Old Left. But there aren't many proper socialists left on the Green Benches, they're mostly CND-generation single issue campaigners who went NuLab when Tony came on the scene. Absent a larger movement, I can't see this bothering Blair that much. No, like Lamont vs Major and Howe/Lawson vs Thatcher, the main negative effect that Brown could exert would come from guerrilla warfare from the back benches, giving an impression of a New Labour more divided than it is.

I personally don't think the Euro is as important now to Blair as it was. It's certainly not worth sinking the ship over. It would have been Blair's "legacy," but he's got that now in the War. Much more important will be the split over public spending and tax that's emerging between No10 and HMT.

If Blair does become the third PM in a row to be severly damaged by a dispute with a Chancellor, I can see whoever wins the next election trying to break the power of the Treasury. Easier said than done, but it would be a constitutional change of a momentous sort, and, in my opinion, much needed.
:: Swordsman 11/19/2001 11:16:00 AM [+] ::
...

Alliance Crumbling?

This Joe Murphy story in the Sunday Telegraph, Blair lobbies Cabinet to force Brown to spend more on NHS, contains interesting information on how the three factions in the Labour Party are increasingly at odds with each other:

Critics at Number 10 say tax credits are too complicated for voters and have failed to generate extra votes. They are backed by Left-wing ministers who say that the system favours working people and ignores the very poorest. One said: "This is one of the most fundamental debates inside the Government and we are seeing Blairites and Left-wingers coming together against the Chancellor for different reasons."

There's the Blairite Populists, the Brownian Economic Pragmatists and the Old Fashioned Lefties. The Blairites just want votes while the other two have (wrong) principles. The Blairites and the Lefties are at odds over the war, about which the Brownians have kept suspiciously quiet. These factions have conflicting aims, unlike the factions in the Conservative coalition. That's why the conservatives will never disappear, while Labour will come and go. Occasionally, of course, they'll need a push...
:: Swordsman 11/18/2001 08:27:00 AM [+] ::
...

A Leader's Role

Some great points about the effectiveness of Presidents Bush and Putin on Andrew Sullivan's site. Here's one of the most important, on Bush:

The alternation of quick humor and sudden sincerity reminds me of JFK.

That humour point is one that seems to have been lost in the UK. Who was the last Prime Minister that could make you smile? Possibly John Major, but in the end his affable personality was the only thing that kept him going (we'd have lost even more badly in '97 if it weren't for his dependable image, which is why, in so many way, this year's election was a considerable improvement). Blair used to seem sincere, but he's lost that. Hague was humourous, but no-one trusted him. Can IDS combine humour and sincerity? If he can, we've got an advantage.
:: Swordsman 11/16/2001 08:42:00 AM [+] ::
...

Prevention of Terrorism Act? No thanks!

Some interesting views emerging from the US following the executive order permitting "quick" trials of suspected non-citizen terrorists. This William Safire column, Seizing Dictatorial Power, is the best. This is a very strong point:

At a time when even liberals are debating the ethics of torture of suspects — weighing the distaste for barbarism against the need to save innocent lives — it's time for conservative iconoclasts and card-carrying hard-liners to stand up for American values.

British values include fair trials, habeas corpus and the rest too. At a time when Blair and Blunkett think they can do without them, perhaps it's time for IDS and the boys to stand up for British values and refuse to support the moves on traditional, patriotic grounds. All the better if we don't mention the E word. It'd be hard for even the Guardian to call us extreme after such a display.
:: Swordsman 11/15/2001 12:05:00 PM [+] ::
...

Do They Mean Us?

The British press has a good reputation over here. Or rather, had. It's the Guardian that's causing people to think again, unsurprisingly. The estimable Glenn Reynolds, has this comment on InstaPundit.Com: "People are always telling me that the British press recycles all sorts of crap without checking it, but this takes the cake." There's also been a useful investigation by my friend Trevor Butterworth, an Irish grad of TCD (I think), into how the British press breaks stoies which then turn out to be complete codswallop. It's on Salon, unfortunately, which I haven't touched since it went "premium", but if the link turns out to be free, I'll post it here.

In any event, it's interesting that tabloid standards have filtered through to the "quality" press, especially on the left. Trevor thinks this is due to the abolition of the old union-driven requirement that reporters spend a few years in regional journalism honing their skills (after all, Michael Gove came through vis the Newcastle Evening Chronicle). However, I'm not sure whether regional papers are all that better now. But this is a provocative thesis, and I'd be grateful for comments. (Cross-posted to England's Sword).
:: Swordsman 11/12/2001 08:57:00 AM [+] ::
...

Freedom yes, licence no

I'm normally soundly behind the Telegraph's Free Country campaign, but today's article oversteps the boundary. I'm ambivalent on the question of cannabis -- I had been leaning in favour of legalisation until I read this magnificent Melanie Phillips article a few weeks ago. But cocaine, heroin and the rest are a real menace. At least one friend of mine had her life essentially destroyed by dependence on heroin, a dependence that cannot be avoided by simple legalisation. It's a dependence that goes beyond alcoholism (although the sort of person who suffers one will probably suffer the other) and that makes it beyond the pale in my view. There are people who can use these drugs safely, but they're few and far between. As I've said before, only a mature, civilized society can afford to grant itself the freedom to deal with these dangerous things (the same goes for guns) and at the moment, the UK isn't even close.
:: Swordsman 11/09/2001 09:26:00 AM [+] ::
...

Worcester Sauce

Some thought-provoking stuff in this YouGov interview with Bob Worcester of MORI, on his new book. I must declare an interest -- Worcester's co-author, Roger Mortimore, is a friend of mine -- but I do think these points bear serious consideration.

Most important of all is Worcester's point that the electorate is not apathetic, but disengaged. Spiked has been making the same point for ages. What we need to do is go beyond the Tory core of 30%. We lost the paternalist middle-class to New Labour some time ago. Is it worth fighting over them? I don't think so when there is a whole constituency that has been deserted by its party -- the traditional liberal. It shouldn't take much alteration of current policies to attract those voters. We could see the obliteration of the Lib Dems in the South-West and major inroads elsewhere. If the Lib Dems are serious about vieing with us for the role of second party, let's take them on. It should be a knock-out.
:: Swordsman 11/09/2001 08:53:00 AM [+] ::
...

Tory Home Truths

This Spectator article by Andrew Gimson purports to analyse why the Tories are disliked and to suggest remedies. Like all such articles, it doesn't. Virtually the only positive suggestion is the very last sentence:

It follows that the first — and very difficult — task is to find a language which in the first decade of this century, rather than the middle of the last, can convey why the vocation of politics is a humane and generous one, and not just a refuge for nerds, nonentities and scoundrels.

Indeed. I'd like to suggest that the language of liberty and responsibility is the one that could work. We'll see.

Another point that emerges from this article is Gimson's uncanny ability to rub people up the wrong way. The Mussolini remark was idiotic, and I presume that the very angry man did not smell that Gimson was conservative but gleaned it from something he said. This is a common conservative vice. Tories have to learn how to talk to people, ordinary people, in pubs and out shopping. Without those basic communications skills, we are doomed.
:: Swordsman 11/08/2001 01:23:00 PM [+] ::
...

Compounding the Error

Great article by Sir Philip Beck, former Chairman of Railtrack, in The Daily Telegraph's Opinion section. He rightly points out the probable decline in investment under the new regime, and draws attention to the horrendous idea for "special performance vehicles" to deliver infrastructure improvements. Who came up with that one? I hope it wasn't anyone I know. One of the central problems of the privatised structure was that it imposed too many layers of control, leading to confusion and diffusion of responsibility at the same time. These SPVs (remember the SPG?) will add another layer of control. What happens the first time a major accident happens in an SPV area? This whole situation goes from bad to worse. A decent Tory policy would be to consolidate the industry, get it back on its feet and privatise it again, properly this time and sod EC directive 91/440.
:: Swordsman 11/08/2001 12:25:00 PM [+] ::
...

Oh Lords!

Meanwhile, the people who have the power to enact genuine constitutional reform are simply using it to feather their own nest. This Lords reform proposal is a joke. No, it's an insult. Making the second chamber mirror the first as much as possible is utterly disgusting. People in the US regularly split tickets so that there is a different make-up in each Chamber. If you're not going to allow the second chamber any individuality, and actually want to reduce its powers, then be honest and abolish it. Otherwise this is an appalling step towards cementing tyranny in the UK.
:: Swordsman 11/08/2001 12:15:00 PM [+] ::
...

Powers Above!

Graham Allen MP has obviously been reading this blog. If not, it's a case of parallel thinking. Parallel may be the right word because he's come up with a left-wing version of the separated powers model I invoke so often. Of course, he wants to abolish the Monarchy and make the PM President. Sigh.

Simon Jenkins is right that the first step on the process of separating powers has to be to strengthen Parliament, although I think he's wrong in suggesting that Robin Cook is the right man to do it. Nevertheless, Jenkins is completely right when he says:

There is truth in the saying that the British never stop fighting their Civil War. Mr Cook is duty bound to lead on Parliament’s side. He must marshal his Roundhead troopers and station them firmly on Downing Street’s lawn. The Cavaliers must be defeated. Mr Cook must stay until he wins. Fail this test and the Commons will languish in its gilded cage and dream of hung Parliaments for ever.
:: Swordsman 11/08/2001 12:08:00 PM [+] ::
...

Redesign 2.0

Some of my British readers have said that they thought the original site had a better focus and, for that matter, purpose. I've therefore decided to run two weblogs. There should be a link to "The Edge of England's Sword" on the left. And I've got someone else on board who may be making contributions to this forum. If you'd like to join in too, please e-mail me, and I'll give you proper consideration.
:: Swordsman 11/08/2001 11:23:00 AM [+] ::
...

Doomed to repeat the past?

The Daily Telegraph editorialises about the spate of programmes on British history. It rightly says that we need these because no-one's teaching the subject in schools. Shades of Anthony Burgess' under-rated fantasy 1985, which has gangs of toughs kidnapping people who can teach them Latin. These things must be popular if there are so many of them on British television, which just goes to show how popularity does not necessarily mean low quality. Homer was right about public television.
:: Swordsman 11/06/2001 11:48:00 AM [+] ::
...

Oh ye of too much faith...

Our Islamic Fifth Column, by Farrukh Dhondy, former commissioning editor at Channel 4, is a tremendous evaluation of where Britain stands with its muslim population.

I'm not sure how practical Dhondy's solution of a Muslim reformation is. The counter-reformation would be much more severe than anything any Pope ever countenanced. But I do whole-heartedly agree with his suggestion of redirecting the multiculturalism budgets. There should be a uniculturalism drive, concentrating on the shared liberties we enjoy and why we have them. Close down the CRE and replace it with a Commission for the Dissemination of Liberty. Of course, Blair and his ilk would never stand for that...
:: Swordsman 11/05/2001 01:14:00 PM [+] ::
...

The answer's (d)

The Jerusalem Post has the last word on all this equivocation about terrorism.
:: Swordsman 11/05/2001 09:13:00 AM [+] ::
...

Funny, that

The New Statesman analyses gun violence in the UK. Funnily enough, they don't consider whether giving people the right to arm themselves in self-defence might help reduce gun crime. After all, there's no evidence that it does... hem, hem.

Interesting that the NS links drugs and crime in a dose-response relationship. One of the main arguments of drug liberalisers is for "harm-reduction strategies" ie liberalise drug laws and harm will be reduced. I wonder why the same doesn't apply to guns?
:: Swordsman 11/05/2001 09:11:00 AM [+] ::
...

Where's Warren Hastings when you need him?

Great column by Richard Reeves: "The Ally America Most Needs Now" on the importance of India in the current conflict.

Of course, the UK has always had much, much better relations with India than the US has. It was one of the triumphs of British diplomacy to keep both India and Pakistan relatively friendly throughout the Cold War. This underline's Britain's importance to the US. We're not so much a bridge to Europe as a bridge to the Commonwealth. This all reinforces the idea that Anglsophere institutions are needed to tie India and its massive potential into alliance with the rest of the civilised world. India is a democracy and its people are relentless entrepreneurs. It may be over-regulated (the problem the US has with it) and corrupt (the problem we have with it), but both of those can be cured. Freedom House rates it as "Free" -- that's a hell of an achievement given what's happening all around it. Anyone who thinks India is less important to the UK than, say, Italy, is deluding themselves.
:: Swordsman 11/05/2001 08:04:00 AM [+] ::
...

Win-win?

American officials take Britain for a ride, alleges Martin Walker in The Washington Times. Having been trained in negotiation at Britain's Civil Service College, I wonder how much of this is down to different styles of negotiating. We were taught "principled negotiation," which assumes both sides want both sides to win (ie looking for a win-win solution). Having heard horror stories about negotiation with the US from my superiors, who had been fighting the "open skies" battle referenced in the early 90s (they reported that the US negotiators were simply looking for the widest national advantage possible, and weren't interested at all in what the Brits got out of it), I asked the tutors how the Americans fitted into this model. They said that the Americans were not principled negotiators, but most Europeans were, and that was more important...

Anglosphere goodwill could presumably be fostered by American adoption of "principled negotiation," at least with other Anglosphere countries. The current attitude does fit well with the current stereotype of America as a bully, which is very damaging for Anglosphere aspirations. Winning hearts and minds over to the idea of a closer Anglosphere alliance does depend a lot on image.
:: Swordsman 11/05/2001 07:30:00 AM [+] ::
...

Radio Mosque-ow

I'm disturbed by the way the British "muslim" reaction to the war is being handled by some. Much was made of the local radio "poll" that had 98% opposed to the war. That was rightly condemned for its unreliability. Now here comes a more scientific one in The Sunday Times. But as always, the Devil is in the details:

1,170 were interviewed outside mosques across Britain.

If you polled 1,170 Christians outside Baptist churches in the US about abortion, you would probably get the answer that "98% of Christians" oppose abortion. Now we know that's not the case. There are many secular muslims in the UK -- I knew a few of them in Clapham -- who do not attend Mosque just as a lot of nominal Christians do not attend Church. The proportion of secular Muslims is probably smaller than that of secular Christians, but the point still stands. A lot of British Muslims do have loyalties other than their country -- Norman Tebbitt's cricket test stands vindicated, whatever Nasser Hussain says -- but I think that proportion is being exaggerated, even if only slightly.
:: Swordsman 11/05/2001 06:56:00 AM [+] ::
...

L'Envoi

Poets' Corner - Thomas Babbington Macaulay - Selected Works has the full text of The Battle of Naseby. The last verse is where the blogtitle comes from:

And She of the seven hills shall mourn her children's ills,
And tremble when she thinks on the edge of England's sword;
And the Kings of earth in fear shall shudder when they hear
What the hand of God hath wrought for the Houses and the Word.

Currently, of course, it is the Emirs of earth who are shuddering...
:: Swordsman 11/01/2001 11:54:00 AM [+] ::
...

Railroaded

As part of my new, wider focus (errr...), I can post links to my published articles, when they're available on the web, that is. Last week I had this piece in The Providence Journal on what Congress should do about Amtrak. It draws heavily on the Railtrack experience. I'm writing a much longer piece for the Cato Institute's Regulation magazine, which, if it's good enough, will get published in the New Year. Hope you like it!
:: Swordsman 11/01/2001 11:48:00 AM [+] ::
...

How to be pro-EU...

David Howell has an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal Europe (note: this link may require premium registration). He sets out a very reasonable Conservative case for progress in the EU. It calls for an explicit abandonment of the Monnetian political integration ideal. He sets out three steps for reform:

First, it needs to be established that there is nothing anti-European in the new reform critique. "Visceral anti-Europeanism" is the constant charge against euroskeptics, especially those in Britain. Nothing could be wider of the mark. The British Conservative leadership especially should take the chance to show that by its support for this new kind of enlarged Europe, with countries like Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic at its heart, it is pro-European in the most modern sense of the term.

Second, it should now be possible to talk about opening up and re-negotiation of the existing treaties -- not least the founding Treaty of Rome, with its now obsolete call for "ever closer Union" -- without incurring cries of "xenophobia" or "isolationism" from the knee-jerk europhiles. Throughout Europe such thoughts are being calmly discussed. The British ought to be mature enough to raise the prospect without causing the ardent europhiles to foam at the mouth.

Then too, there needs to be an appreciation of what is already happening to invalidate the traditional Community method and to replace the time-expired Commission monopoly of initiatives. EU policy initiatives now lie increasingly with the Council (which remains both secretive and leaky), while the Commission is losing its motor role in the integration process. So-called "soft legislation" instruments -- leaving the member states to get on with things in their own way -- are replacing the old streams of directives, many of which are flatly ignored by member states anyway when they don't suit domestic political convenience."

Good stuff. This is a sane, level-headed approach which casts the eurofanatics as the extremists. If the EU institutions refuse these simple, reasonable demands, then our efforts at compromise have failed and withdrawal is the only other option. I think that's a winning policy.
:: Swordsman 11/01/2001 08:32:00 AM [+] ::
...