Race, class, and candidate selection - 29 comments
I do find the level of interest in our deputy leadership election a bit mystifying, but I read via TMP (with more at BBC News) that the contenders have been discussing the idea of all-BME ("black and minority ethnic") candidacy shortlists as a way of addressing the relatively low incidence of BME MPs (the small matter of the gap between becoming a candidate and becoming an MP was not discussed).
Apparently Hazel Blears, Jon Cruddas and Peter Hain all back the idea of shortlists, and according to TMP:
Hazel Blears MP, the Party Chair, [...] said she was going to call on Labourâs National Executive Committee "to draw up a code of conduct to move towards all BME shortlists". [...]I'd like to hear one of the candidates explain how it is not racist to deny somebody the chance to stand as a Labour candidate on the basis of the racial category people have placed them in, and which no action on their part can ever change. The same, of course, goes for all-women shortlists. What you give to one group via "positive" discrimination you take from another, and when you discriminate on the basis of race, you become a practitioner of racism. Perhaps you mean well - in which case you're merely foolish. No doubt the BNP (and worse) would fancy rewriting the Race Relations Acts if they ever acquired the power to do so. This is a sign - that candidates ought to mark well - that the Acts are doing their job.
The party is in the process of taking legal advice on the issue. Lawyers predict that the race relations legislation will need to be amended to allow the introduction of the measure.
It would be a much better use of Hazel, Jon, and Peter's time to explain to all Labour supporters why they should consider standing as a candidate: what the point of being an MP is, what can be achieved, what can be expected, and why other careers just can't cut it in comparison, rather than assuming that racial discrimination is the best explanation for the relatively low proportion of BME MPs. I believe we should go to a considerable amount of trouble to identify what the reasons are, because I believe that a healthier society is one in which racial (and other) differences count for nothing, people are freed from discrimination to make their own decisions, and it's apparent to all citizens that people they identify with are represented in all levels of public life. If, say, we were able to prove that the relatively low proportion of BME MPs was largely due to the fact that BME citizens generally preferred to pursue their own careers, or believed that becoming an MP was a waste of time - which must be pretty likely, however misguided a belief that would be... - our course of action will be different, and we can avoid tinkering with the law, the possibility of Peter Law-style legal battles, and dividing the anti-racist movement.
*
One division among potential candidates that few people seem to cite is our old friend, socio-economic class. Here's a run-down of candidates for the seat of Croydon Central. This is described as being a "strong line-up". Well it is, but that uses a definition of "strong" I'm not politically comfortable with.
I don't see why we should be any more pleased that a barrister, a policy adviser, or an existing councillor is on the list than an electrician, a bus driver, a nurse, or an unemployed former bank clerk. Of course candidates must be selected on merit, and perhaps only a small proportion of club bouncers would be capable of serving their constituents as effectively they deserve (I've no evidence in either direction), but we're not even talking about shortlists here - these people are all untested.
So, the lack of ordinary people and, for that matter, the low proportion of candidates from private sector employment - where, after all, approximately 80% of the labour force work - is a big concern. The more our elected members appear to come from a similar background - whether in terms of race, religion, age, gender, education, or employment - the narrower the Labour movement must appear to the population. I'd like our candidates to prove their strength to the electorate, and especially in government, not just demonstrate a CV with impressive-sounding credentials.
Labels: class consciousness, Croydon, deputy leadership, Hazel Blears, Jon Cruddas, law, Peter Hain, private sector, public sector, racism
![[Valid Atom]](http://www.bloggers4labour.org/images/valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom feed")
29 comments so far...
Yup. There are a lot of reasons why this is not at all analogous to all women shortlists. We're not talking about 50% of people here, more like 8 or 9. This would partially disenfranchise 90 percent of CLP members where all women shortlists simply redress things back to what should be a natural balance of competition anyway.
This is a lot more discrimination than it is positive, in other words.
I think what you're saying is that by legally discriminating we reduce on-the-ground discrimination (by men, presumably) and that thereby "enfranchises" women. Surely this is both bad in theory, and also quite possibly misdirected in practice.
AWS was applied to Hove & Portslade in 2004/5. I'm not complaining about the result (though one or two candidates were very disappointing), but why it was applied, I don't know. Presumably to ensure the requisite number/proportion of seats nationally had AWS, and not necessarily anything to do with the "natural balance" (are we saying that men and women must have equal desires to become MPs?) in Hove, where women seem to be particularly well placed in the CLP. What was there to redress? Surely AWS should have been imposed only upon those CLPs with evidence of discrimination - but then why not simply open an investigation there?
Of course this is a problem that affects all attempts to ensure aggregate, rather than individual, outcomes. Some people who lose out might be prepared to accept the "long view", or simply be loyal/quiet, but others are prepared to challenge the loss of individual rights in the courts, even though they open themselves to being portrayed as "opportunists/careerists" by opponents.
Aggregate outcomes are very important, though. It is absolutely essential that we have a parliamentary Labour Party which roughly reflects the make up of the UK population, for all sorts of reasons. All Women Shortlists have been the best way that we've found to achieve this in terms of boosting the number of women selected.
The downside is that it restricts the choice of candidates in individual seats, but we are a national party, not a loose federation of local parties. As for some candidates being disappointing in an AWS process, this is true of every selection ever.
The second half of your piece is spot on, though. It is a real worry that there are in practice very few jobs which are compatible with being a PPC (or even being a councillor). As part of looking at party funding, I think this is something which needs to be checked out, ideas might include giving people a right to time off for political activity (possibly also compensating employers for this time to make it an actual rather than theoretical right). The Labour Party, after all, was set up to get working-class people elected to Parliament, and this should still be an absolute top priority for our party.
"Aggregate outcomes are very important, though. It is absolutely essential that we have a parliamentary Labour Party which roughly reflects the make up of the UK population..."
No it isn't.
"...for all sorts of reasons.
Give me one single reason that trumps our commitment to democracy or equal rights for all.
Pootergeek, the reason for attempting to obtain a party that reflects the UK population through the artificial measures such as all woman shortlists is this:
Although anyone is technically entitled to stand as a PPC, the possibility might not occur to them. Consider a woman in times past standing for a position in a parliament full of men, they are likely to be saddled with the preconception that politicians have to be a certain type of person and might be put off from getting involved simply because they feel that they are not the kind of person who could become a politician.
Beyond giving everyone the right to be involved in politics, we also have to get out the idea that politics is for everybody, not just a small elite.
I don't accept your premise. There is no right to seek selection to be the Labour candidate for a particular parliamentary seat.
The Labour Party is a national party which takes collective decisions about the process to select its candidates. It doesn't leave it all up to local parties.
Local members get to pick between the candidates who are eligible. There's an argument about whether national decision-making structures are democratic, but the point is that selecting a candidate is different from electing a representative for your area.
The aim of selections for the Labour Party is to pick candidates in order to maximise the chance that enough get elected so we can form a government, and to make sure the people we select are effective both as local representatives and as part of the overall Labour team.
The image that most people have of an MP is of a white man in a suit. One effect of this is that there are many people who would make great MPs, but because they don't fit that stereotype never even consider finding out more about becoming a Labour MP. In addition, some selectors judge potential candidates against that stereotype, whether consciously or subconsciously. Not all selectors, of course, but it only takes a few to decide a selection between two closely matched candidates.
So two good reasons for looking at the overall make-up of Labour PPCs:
1. Electoral benefit
2. Wider pool of talent, across the country, for Labour to draw on
> Although anyone is technically entitled to stand as a PPC, the possibility might not occur to them.
That's a pretty lousy reason to freeze as much as 50% of the population (in the case of men) out of the selection process for several years in a losing seat, but possibly forever in a safe Labour seat. Why should people be penalised for other people's mistakes?
As I said before: if it's a case of persuasion, our Deputy Leaders et al. should go out and persuade. If people won't buy the message, there's a problem either with the persuader, the public, or most likely the message itself. The problem with AWS et al. is that the prospect of political power has made compulsion a more tempting course of action for politicians than addressing the fundamental reasons that make politics appear disproportionately unattractive to particular groups (and generally fairly unattractive to most of the population).
There was another point but I'll come back to that.
"Beyond giving everyone the right to be involved in politics...
In the UK, everyone has the right to be involved in politics. You're the one who wants to take that right away from half of them.
"we also have to get out the idea that politics is for everybody, not just a small elite."
The aggregate effect of quotas and "positive discrimination" is, as has been demonstrated time after time, to change the composition of that elite from rich white men to rich brown men or rich white women or rich brown women---or, even more frequently, to the female/brown friends and/or stooges of those rich white men.
Lists are doubly undemocratic: they restrict the choice of party members and then they restrict the choice of the electorate. I could conceive of certain extreme conditions under which such an approach might be justified---you concede the weakness of your case, don, when you refer to a hypothetical "woman in times past"---but such conditions do not exist now and have not existed for a long time.
Your "electoral benefit" argument is not an argument at all. This is already a consideration when selecting candidates. We reduce our chances of finding the candidate most likely to be elected (or the collection of candidates most likely to be elected) when we reduce the pool from which we can select candidates. Indeed, what happened to Labour in Blaenau Gwent demonstrates the exact opposite of your claim.
Your "wider pool of talent" point isn't even worth engaging with it's so absurd. You're seriously trying to tell us that by restricting the range of people who are eligible for a job you are going to make a wider range of people apply for it? The arrival of all "BME" lists would make me less likely to put myself up for selection. Indeed, I'd be tempted to self-describe myself as "white" to force the party to exclude me and draw attention to its rejection of fundamental democratic principles.
I'm with the Pooter on this one. If we do have to go for 'quotas', why can't you impose them on shortlists by insisting that at least 40% of any shortlist is female. That way, women can put themselves forward and so can men, and may the one most suitable win.
AWS and all BME lists are tokenism, and in a way demeaning for the people concerned ('not good enough to compete against the white men, eh?').
Now, if you could have 'all from a working class background' shortlists, or 'all socialist' shortlists, or 'all Fulham supporter shorltists', I reckon that's the way to go....
"Indeed, what happened to Labour in Blaenau Gwent demonstrates the exact opposite of your claim."
No it doesn't. It demonstrates that local party members did not realise they are part of a national party that wants to be representative of the whole population in Parliament and that AWS are part of this.
"I'm with the Pooter on this one. If we do have to go for 'quotas', why can't you impose them on shortlists by insisting that at least 40% of any shortlist is female."
Why just 40%?? If you are happy to go with such a quota surely you realise that women constitute 50% of the population and therefoe would have to account of 50% of any shortlist
"[Blaenau Gwent] demonstrates that local party members did not realise they are part of a national party that wants to be representative of the whole population in Parliament and that AWS are part of this."
Oh, it's a false consciousness problem. Thanks for explaining. If only the voters, voting for their own representative in their own constituency, had realised that the men-in-suits in London knew better than they did what was good for the country as a whole. Silly buggers got the daft idea that they were participating in a democracy, when they were in fact tools in a social engineering experiment.
I don't believe I'm reading some of the stuff appearing on this thread, how ridiculous these comments sound, how completely they undermine the case they're supposed to be making. Some of you are just taking the piss now, surely?
Now, there are some scenarios under which I might support quotas: for example, a country marked by persistent discrimination - perhaps a culture that condoned sexism and/or racism despite laws against it; alternatively, a recovering dictatorship where the education/employment prospects of particular groups had been systematically suppressed by the authorities, denying them the chance to realistically compete for jobs outside their former community/ghetto. These are pretty extreme cases, though: quotas would fall into the category of "reconstructive surgery for society", and they must still be of limited duration because, as has been said, it's still fellow citizens who pay the price.
I'm ready to be convinced the UK falls into one of these categories, but I can't see it happening.
*
> [Don P]: "The image that most people have of an MP is of a white man in a suit. [...] In addition, some selectors judge potential candidates against that stereotype" <
This is surely crucial: if we can't trust selectors not to reinforce that stereotype, or to put it another way, not to breach the spirit and perhaps the practice of equal rights law (!), that's a pretty serious business. If this could be tackled, that it would remove another possible justification for quotas must represent a win-win.
Still, I'm fairly sure that the general case is that political careers suit some people and don't suit others. Political bloggers are probably too close to the problem to see that this is so.
Why just 40%?? If you are happy to go with such a quota surely you realise that women constitute 50% of the population and therefoe would have to account of 50% of any shortlist
Umm, because not all shortlists will necessarily be composed of an even number of people. I'd also like a similar minimum proportion of males on the same lists. Mind you, I think quotas are wrong, so I'm not arguing for it very strongly...
I really don't see why you have to be totally 'representative' in the way described. Honestly, what we need (and struggle to find) is talented people willing to do the jobs of councillor and MP etc because it is about representation, and not just a career move.
Would it be fair to have LGBT or disabled-only shortlists?
begin blatant self-promotion
http://unoriginalname38.blogspot.com/2007/06/disabled-and-gay-only-shortlists.html
end blatant self-promotion
It is, though, a valid point: if those groups, why not these?
xD.
PooterGeek:
"Lists are doubly undemocratic: they restrict the choice of party members and then they restrict the choice of the electorate."
How is the choice of the electorate restricted? Either way the electorate get to choose whether to support the Labour candidate.
"Your "electoral benefit" argument is not an argument at all. This is already a consideration when selecting candidates."
Members think (sometimes) about the local electoral benefit. Very few think about how their local selection is part of assembling a national team of candidates.
"Your "wider pool of talent" point isn't even worth engaging with it's so absurd. You're seriously trying to tell us that by restricting the range of people who are eligible for a job you are going to make a wider range of people apply for it?"
It doesn't restrict the range of people who can seek selection as a Labour MP. Under the old system, the odds of being selected if a woman were far worse than for me, whereas now the odds are much more even. This makes it realistic for more people to consider the time, expense and effort involved in trying to be selected as a candidate. As I understand it, your counter-example is that it would put you off, am unconvinced about the tactic of describing other people's arguments (which are backed up by the available evidence) as 'absurd' and then offering an argument based on a sample of yourself.
B4L:
"That's a pretty lousy reason to freeze as much as 50% of the population (in the case of men) out of the selection process for several years in a losing seat, but possibly forever in a safe Labour seat. Why should people be penalised for other people's mistakes?"
This comes back to whether there is a right to seek selection as a Labour candidate in a particular seat. There are always opportunities for men to seek selection as Labour candidates, just not in particular seats.
"This is surely crucial: if we can't trust selectors not to reinforce that stereotype, or to put it another way, not to breach the spirit and perhaps the practice of equal rights law (!), that's a pretty serious business. If this could be tackled, that it would remove another possible justification for quotas must represent a win-win."
Right, but All Women Shortlists help to break down this stereotype. Once we get to women being roughly half of Labour MPs, and maintain that, then the stereotype of a Labour MP being a white man in a suit disappears. AWS is never intended as a permanent thing, it is just proven as the most effective way to get to a gender balance within the Labour Party.
"Still, I'm fairly sure that the general case is that political careers suit some people and don't suit others."
There are a lot of people who would be great candidates and MPs, but don't consider a career in politics, and some who try to be selected and then quit because of the misogyny. Both of these are damaging to the Labour Party. Tackling these problems requires a range of responses, but AWS is a temporary part of the solution, not part of the problem.
I think the two key points to consider in this debate.
Firstly whether you believe that the PLP should reflect to a reasonable degree the population of the country as a whole. I support this view since I believe that it will make people feel more able to get involved in politics.
The second is to consider whether your are opposed absolutely to measures such as shortlists on principle or whether you can see a situation where thay may have been necessary (even if you do not belive that they are necessary now). Again I support the idea.
As to whether such selection lists are necessary now, I feel that it's worth comparing the Conservatives, who have about 10% of MP's who are female, with Labour, who have 27% of MP's who are female. Personally, I would like to see something closer to a 50/50 balance. I would also like to see that achieved in the next 20-30 years rather than the next 70-80 years. Turnover of MP's is often a slow process and I think that with persuasion alone, 70-80 years is about the time we would have to wait in order to see a better male/female balance in parliament. I feel that although AWS are admittedly a blunt instrument, they also a necessary one.
On the subject all BME shortlists, and any other shortlist for that matter, I think a key point to consider is location. They should be applied in areas where a minimum of people would be excluded. I feel this does make ideas such as all gay or all disabled shortlists impractical since it would just exclude far too large a segment of the local population.
[DonP] How is the choice of the electorate restricted? Either way the electorate get to choose whether to support the Labour candidate.
The consequences of the discriminatory selection cascades downwards: the electorate is forced to either accept the all-man/woman/whatever selection, or take their vote - perhaps made on the basis of issues or philosophy - elsewhere. Those who oppose discrimination on a matter of principle will give the candidate even shorter shrift.
Under the old system, the odds of being selected if a woman were far worse than for me, whereas now the odds are much more even.
Under a discrimination-free system, the odds of being selected are in proportion to the level of talent and potential, as it should be. Just because d. has been rife in the past isn't an acceptable argument for AWS, which is an admission of defeat: because we can't tackle the 'rotten apples' we'll use compulsion even in areas where there's no record of d.
There are always opportunities for men to seek selection as Labour candidates, just not in particular seats.
Perhaps, but why should they even have to consider relocating, and other groups not?
Right, but All Women Shortlists help to break down this stereotype. Once we get to women being roughly half of Labour MPs, and maintain that, then the stereotype of a Labour MP being a white man in a suit disappears. AWS is never intended as a permanent thing, it is just proven as the most effective way to get to a gender balance within the Labour Party.
Are we talking about a stereotype in the minds of selectors or potential candidates? If the latter, then - as I described way back in the original post - this should be tackled through persuasion/education/publicity, and making a political career appear relevant to people's lives and ambitions, not manipulating selections to hammer the message home. Besides, you risk damaging the credibility of perceived beneficiaries of AWS et al.
[CA] Firstly whether you believe that the PLP should reflect to a reasonable degree the population of the country as a whole. I support this view since I believe that it will make people feel more able to get involved in politics.
It would be nice if it did, but you're making the assumption that politics is a kind of 'neutral' activity that is evenly spread throughout society. It isn't, though. As I said in the original piece, we should find out why, rather than hammer square pegs into round holes, compounding discrimination in the process.
The second is to consider whether your are opposed absolutely to measures such as shortlists on principle or whether you can see a situation where thay may have been necessary
As I said before, there are some extreme situations where the social fabric must be reconstructed. In the UK, we're beyond the stage where women and BME citizens are deemed to be incapable of progressing without being led by the hand.
Differentials do not in themselves prove discrimination. Special treatment for particular groups always provokes resentment, and though it can reduce statistical differences it creates new ones, by polarising society.
No one is arguing against persuasion/education/publicity, and we should certainly do more of that. In fact t'internet probably offers new opportunities to support prospective candidates from 'non-traditional' backgrounds and highlight opportunities to get involved - there is a useful discussion to be had about this.
But it is hard to ignore the evidence. The other parties rely only on the above ways of redressing their gender imbalance, and their MPs are overwhelmingly white men, and at current rates will get near equal representation in the 22nd century. When we had to abandon AWS, the number of female Labour MPs fell.
The problem lies with how small and unrepresentative our membership is, how discriminatory our 'un'democratic structures are and how discriminatory our selection process is.
If you don't accept those factors as relevant, then you have to ask why it is, women, working class people and minorities are all so markedly under-representated and come up with other reasons for why this is so.
All women shortlists (AWS) are not desirable and neither is any other shortlist BUT as a short-term solution it does work and we all know that in the absence of proportional representation for Westminster we would continue to overwhelmingly select white middle class male candidates.
People who say it is patronising and insulting to have AWS (and also reject PR) are actually saying that they are happy with a process that leaves us with less than 10% women in parliament.
What they are effectively saying is that women are not good enough or that they are not 'interested' in becoming MPs. This deduction is much more patronising and insulting than supporting AWS is.
So neither solution is perfect or right but at least AWS works. I do not however support all BME shortlists. As someone has already suggested the problem is socio-economic not necessary racial.
One of the problems with AWS is that working class people are still excluded. Until we get PR - which would address the problem then I would be happy to see all C2DE socio-class shortlists which would increase BME representation.
[DonP] will get near equal representation in the 22nd century. When we had to abandon AWS, the number of female Labour MPs fell.
I think we're starting to go around in circles here, but I have to return to the idea about a 50-50 split. There may be some *small* benefits, as I acknowledged in my original post, but there's no evidence at all that discrimination is the cause of the differentials we see now, and considering the *differences* between women and men, why should we ever expect the split to be 50-50? Aggregate outcomes again.
I know AWS is "effective" in getting women's share up, but few people commenting here appear to give much weight towards the principle of equal treatment. It's not as if I'm arguing against increasing marginal tax rates/"progressive taxation".
[Neil]: People who say it is patronising and insulting to have AWS (and also reject PR) are actually saying that they are happy with a process that leaves us with less than 10% women in parliament.
What they are effectively saying is that women are not good enough or that they are not 'interested' in becoming MPs. This deduction is much more patronising and insulting than supporting AWS is.
I'm not saying "not good enough" at all, but some women might, perhaps, want to devote themselves to a higher-earning career in order to make up the income they might expect to lose through pregnancy (or discrimination earlier in life). Furthermore, evidence (that i can't find right now) suggests women might be less keen on risky professions (like being a politician in a democracy) than men.
I would be happy to see all C2DE socio-class shortlists...
I think that's much more fair than shortlists based on gender/race, etc. that people cannot change, and that do not necessarily work to benefit the poor. All the same, it hides the big issue, namely the domination of (all mainstream) party politics by middle-class professionals of all genders and races. The expansion of Universities has a lot to answer for!
If women are put off being MPs more than men then there is a reason for that - and the reason is discriminatory - we can't just say 'that is ok then'. It is not ok - we need all groups to be represented in parliament otherwise our democracy is not working properly.
... there is a reason for that - and the reason is discriminatory ...
Not necessarily. Why, for example, don't we get a 50% turnout of women at B4L socials? (Not such a craxy example, if you think about it) It's not at all obvious that discrimination's at work. You have to educate/evangelise first, investigate the reasons second, and then perhaps you'll find that there are a number of reasons, some of which you may just have to live with. You can "change the political culture", but it's best to do that on the basis of fixing what's broken rather than using whatever power you have to *stop* men applying if that would take them over 50-50. Whether in Parliament or at a social, that would ultimately breed resentment.
With all due respect, parliament is much more important than a B4L social.
This is about who runs the country - we have to get this right.
If women (or any other group) do not want to be MPs - there is a reason for that - for whatever reason they are being put off and that is a situation that affects democracy itself - we have a duty to remedy it and remedy it quick - AWS shortlists work quickly - changing society will probably not work even in the longterm.
Meant to put 'attempts at changing society'. These wishy washy aspirations are wishful thinking and too vague - we need specific solutions that work quickly like AWS or better still PR.
It was just an example of a voluntary network of politically-minded people, it's about being an interesting example rather than being "important" (which it isn't, in the great scheme of things), and perhaps revealing some similarities.
...for whatever reason they are being put off...
That's unproven, based upon the assumption that all people are interested by default.
As I tried to make clear in my original piece, it would be "nice" (and probably not very much more than that) if Parliament exactly represented all slivers of society, but I'm yet to be convinced by anyone that achieving that is worth breaching the rights of groups who are perceived to be discriminators, when no *discrimination* has been proven.
Surely this just demonstrates the social/liberal axis that exists within Labour.
"You have to educate/evangelise first, investigate the reasons second, and then perhaps you'll find that there are a number of reasons, some of which you may just have to live with. You can "change the political culture", but it's best to do that on the basis of fixing what's broken rather than using whatever power you have to *stop* men applying if that would take them over 50-50."
That's undeniably true, but we have to accept that, if we follow that approach, it will take time. The question we have to ask is how urgently do we need to change political and participatory perceptions? If it's something that we want to make advances on boldly, then we should consider AWS. I sometimes think we on the left considered the '97 victory to be too emphatic. We don't have forever - there will be another Conservative government in the UK. We need to start regarding political change - including a proper consideration of PR - as a priority, rather than something for the distant future.
We have a chance to make longstanding changes to British politics - changes for the better. I'd prefer to take the long view, but I think we need to regard these issues as urgent, rather than a luxury.
Agree with Jonathon wholeheartedly. If we had PR we would not need AWS. The time to make the changes is urgent - we shouldhave done this in our first term but it is not too late to protect the British people from another unrepresentative extreme right-wing government. We have to do it from a position of strength.
Regarding AWS, Andrew, if we can't agree that there is something wrong with a parliament that only has 10% women MPs then we are not going to agree on AWS.
There is something preventing women from being MPs - we know from other countries that representation can be improved dramatically. The inertia of the situation could be one powerful off-putter for women - until there is a lot more female MPs then women in general might be put off - the only way to remedy that is PR or AWS.
Regarding AWS, Andrew, if we can't agree that there is something wrong with a parliament that only has 10% women MPs then we are not going to agree on AWS.
There is a problem. However, solving one problem by creating another is not always the right thing to do.
Post a Comment
<< Home