A blog by Luke Akehurst about politics, elections, and the Labour Party - With subtitles for the Hard of Left. Just for the record: all the views expressed here are entirely personal and do not necessarily represent the positions of any organisations I am a member of.

Saturday, March 15, 2008

Streatham Selection

LabourHome reports that Chuka Umunna of Compass beat Lambeth Council Leader Steve Reed today to become PPC for Streatham:

"First ballot:
Cathy Ashley 60
Dora Dixon-Fyle 7
Steve Reed 143
Naz Sarkar 3
Chuka Umunna 125

Transfers from Cathy, Dora and Naz went 19 to Steve and 50 to Chuka.
Final result:
Steve Reed 162
Chuka Umunna 175"

I won't pretend to be pleased, because I'm not.


Anonymous David Floyd said...

I'm pleased.

8:09 pm, March 15, 2008

Blogger Merseymike said...

I am too. Sorry, Luke, but the New Labour wing of the party are bereft of ideas at the moment, and can't understand that many of their pet projects simply haven't delivered the goods.

8:16 pm, March 15, 2008

Anonymous Hovedan said...

thats a real shame - steve would have made a first rate MP for Lambeth

8:30 pm, March 15, 2008

Anonymous K said...

Dya know what, Luke? Maybe if you stopped all this childish factionalism you might get selected in a safe seat yourself some day. Negativity breeds negativity where as positivity breeds positivity. Indded of demonising anyone who disagrees with you on policy you could try to be civil. Neither Christine Shawcroft or Chuka Umunna are horrible people. They don't deserve your rage.

9:05 pm, March 15, 2008

Blogger Luke Akehurst said...


I find that a very strange comment. Usually I'm accused of being absurdly over positive both about the Labour Party's electoral prospects and the government's performance. Unlike Christine or Chuka. In both cases the experience of friends of mine who have had to deal with them one-on-one doesn't bear out your analysis of their personalities. In fact one of my main problems with Chuka is that he was gratuitously rude to two friends of mine - neither of whom he had ever met before - at a reception at annual conference last year.

My personal dealings - as opposed to political disagreements - with the left - are not only civil, they are almost always comradely and I'm happy to describe quite a few people on the hard left as personal friends.

9:52 pm, March 15, 2008

Blogger Luke Akehurst said...

And I'd rather not be an MP if the price of selection is that you have to be one of the Compass pod-people, spouting childish, lobotomised Guardian leader page/path-of-least-resistance mantras rather than actually confronting political reality and saying anything that might upset anybody. If the price of getting into parliament is contributing to making Labour unelectable, then thanks but no thanks. I've actually got more respect for Shawcroft than Compass - at least she isn't a careerist.

9:59 pm, March 15, 2008

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Reed is a hollow character with no ideas or beliefs of his own. It is not surprising that he lost - the surprising thing is that so many people thought he was a serious candidate.

10:52 pm, March 15, 2008

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know, a proven election winner who has turned around a council and delivered for local people. Who'd need a MP like that?

10:57 pm, March 15, 2008

Blogger Merseymike said...

But Labour clearly aren't going to be re-elected unless they start pulling some rabbits out of hats - the Government appears so tired, worn and unimaginative. Its not surprising, it usually happens in third terms, but I think there will have to be some changes of direction to improve the situation.

12:09 am, March 16, 2008

Anonymous Anonymous said...

A sad day for Lambeth. I fully agree with Luke. You can not behave in such a destructive way as lots of these Compass people do and think it has no affect on the party.

I don't know Steve personally, but I do from reputation. From reputation he always puts the best interests of Lambeth first and i believe that means he really does put the interest of the Labour Party second. In doing so however he has led a very very successful local party.

I suspect a lot of the negative stuff against Steve is based on pure jealousy. Much the same jealousy that sealed the fate of Ken Livingstone in the 1980s when he was the only popular and successful Labour Politician...

12:17 am, March 16, 2008

Anonymous K said...

Are you seriously comparing Steve Reed to Ken Livingstone!?!?!? Get over it! Winning a selection is no one's birth right, not even golden boy Steve Reed!

12:39 am, March 16, 2008

Anonymous Anonymous said...

when steve wakes up later this morning i hope he reflects on why he lost this selection, as he can only blame himself. From the way he claimed personal credit for the progress the party, group and council had made (to the point of excluding the collective effort) to the sectarian manner in which he and his supporters carved out one of the councillors with branch nominations from half the constituency at the shortlisting meeting. It should not be a surprise therefore that the transfers fron the third placed candidate were so disciplined in going to Chuka. This is a lesson to you as well Luke, if you have a 51% strategy then you must be sure you have the votes. Steve did not and has only himself to blame for not advancing his many advantages to a victory here in streatham tonight.

1:07 am, March 16, 2008

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find a lot of the posting on here pretty disagreeable especially the last anonymous post.

Chuka performed very well on the day I am told (I wasn't actually in the room at the time) and anyone who wins a hard fought selection battle such as this one deserves their win.

However, Steve would have made a first class MP and really delivered for the poorest communities in Streatham. He faced a frankly bordering on ridiculous anti vote - only - as far as I could tell because he is the leader of the council.

We are lucky to have people like that in our party.

As far as the short list was concerned I got on it by 16 votes to 18 - I got four of the six transfers and a lot of people said they voted based on the speech I gave at the short listing.

I am very grateful for the three votes I got in the final selection and will be calling them to thank them when I have the time.

Naz Sarkar

9:29 am, March 16, 2008

Blogger Labour Lives Here! said...

Interesting comments about Chuka on Urban75
here and here

The latter post being especially worrying. I hope we haven't got more than we bargained for :-(

12:18 pm, March 16, 2008

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do you think we can end this sniping from people (as far as I can make out) outside Streatham Labour Party?

In a massive vote of Party members, we selected the very talented Chuka Umunna to be our candidate for Parliament. We will also be out fighting to ensure that Steve Reed and the Labour Group retain Lambeth for Labour.

In Streatham we were very lucky to have a choice of such excellent candidates in Chuka, Steve and Cathy Ashley who came third and probably did the best speech of the afternoon.

I, for one, wish them all the best in their future endeavours.

1:17 pm, March 16, 2008

Anonymous Rich said...

There isn't going to be another Labour government.

3:25 pm, March 16, 2008

Anonymous Rich said...

Yet again it appears that Labour are still void of any new ideas just the same old stuff concerning internal workings of the Labour party.

We are on the verge of one of the biggest recessions since the 1940s but much of the cabinet are almost void of reality. Manufacturing is all but vanished and even the high tech I.T industries are fleeing the UK. What is Labour going to do in order to equip this country for the future. This is the vision we need.

Labour really do need to pull their fingers out. Please try harder

6:24 pm, March 16, 2008

Anonymous David Floyd said...

"Yet again it appears that Labour are still void of any new ideas just the same old stuff concerning internal workings of the Labour party."

Well, if you have a blog thread responding to a candidate selection, it's a discussion about the internal workings of the Labour Party. Not sure how this tell you anything either way about whether Labour has new ideas.

"You can not behave in such a destructive way as lots of these Compass people do and think it has no affect on the party."

Well, I don't think anyone in Compass is aiming to not have an effect on the party. Compass is a pressure group.

The question is whether the party is affected in a positive or negative way and that depends on your politics.

7:07 pm, March 16, 2008

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuka has vision, commitment and energy and will be great for Streatham. Being intelligently and honestly critical about some of your party's politics is not the same as factionalism - its actually a virtue that many of the public appreciate. Sniping on blogs about who should have won what post on the other hand is exactly what turns people off politics... Time to get over the Thatcher years!


7:17 pm, March 16, 2008

Anonymous The British Obama said...

Chuka Umunna! as in another of Lee Jasper's mates

8:26 pm, March 16, 2008

Anonymous HenryG said...

In the previous thread on the Nottingam South selection you wrote:

'...once you consult the whole membership you get a sensible result.'

Does that analysis apply for Streatham or only in seats where Left candidates lose?

10:19 pm, March 16, 2008

Anonymous Rich said...

I also hear that Labour have yet another Lawyer on their back benches. I think it is John Prescott's old seat, are there any working class people left in the Labour party anymore?

12:31 am, March 17, 2008

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Luke you'd better apply for that Open University Law degree if you want any chance of being selected

8:07 am, March 17, 2008

Blogger Luke Akehurst said...


I'm sure you are right and Chuka has lots of ideas. I'm also sure I would disagree with many of them. But it is very difficult to support your claim that he is not involved in "factionalism" given that he is actually on the Management Committee of Compass, which is a faction. This is in contrast to Steve, whose political focus has been on getting on with winning back and then running a local council.

I know enough about the internal politics of the Lambeth Labour Party to know that the transfer pattern in this election was deeply factional and largely about personality differences in the Lambeth Labour Group going back over a decade and a half - it was about the same set of people who ran a coup against Jim Dickson as Council Leader in 2000 and helped lose Labour the 2002 Lambeth elections replicating their efforts against Jim's successor.

9:21 am, March 17, 2008

Blogger Luke Akehurst said...


I would include Compass and the soft left within the spectrum of "sensible". Not very sensible, but not sectionable either. (I'm mellowing in my old age).

9:28 am, March 17, 2008

Anonymous Marg Oppenheimer said...

Luke it seems you are realising at last what a sordid collection of people the Labour Party are

9:36 am, March 17, 2008

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course undercurrents in the past and present of the Lambeth Labour Group affected the result - given that Reed is group leader this is hardly surprising. But the transfer pattern can be put down partly to the way in which his campaign was run - as soon as they knew you were not going to vote for Steve they cut off all contact, erased you from their mailing list and generally ostracised you. This applied even to other Labour Group members, CLP and branch officers - whom Steve would have had to work with had he been selected. The other candidates adopted a more inclusive approach, anhd, in a close fight, it was probably that which swung it.

9:38 am, March 17, 2008

Blogger Merseymike said...

But you are also part of a faction, Luke!

I think you need to wake up. Labour are undoubtedly well behind in the polls and the activists it has lost for one reason or another are not going to return unless there are some clear changes of direction.

Perhaps that can only happen once Brown (who is proving to be a damp squib at best, simply poor at the job at worst) loses an election for the party and the party realises that 1997 was a long time ago.

9:44 am, March 17, 2008

Anonymous Rich said...

Mersey Mike, I think you're correct. I think it will take a defeat for Labour to change direction.

Probably the best thing that could happen at the next election would be a hung parliament and for the country to get electoral reform.

Maybe then MPs might actually start voting on policies they believe in rather than following the party line.

A classic was the Human Fertislisation and Embryo Bill. Do you know how many catholics will now not vote for Brown following his stance on the vote of this bill. Labour once again just thrown away another chunk of support by stopping MPs voting with their beliefs.

Labour are lost and when you consider the economic mess that is just around the corner it's hard to believe they are capable of a come back

10:16 am, March 17, 2008

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Luke, your analysis of why Chuka won is so wrong it is laughable. Chuka won because he persuaded Party members across the constituency that he has a positive vision and is the right person to represent the diverse population of Streatham in parliament.

He got over 170 votes, most of whom would have no view whatsoever about some historic leadership battle in our Council.

Your friend Steve is doing a good job as Council Leader. But he has only been doing it for two years and there is still plenty to do before Lambeth Council will be popular on the doorstep. Steve now has the opportunity to continue that work and retain the Council for Labour. But if things go wrong (as they have so many times before in Lambeth) at least we won't lose the Parliamentary seat as well, which may well have happened if he had been the candidate.

10:18 am, March 17, 2008

Blogger Merseymike said...

All very well, Rich, but I don't think we should pander to religionist views, personally - they don't and shouldn't have the right to impose their religion on the rest of us. No one is forcing them to partake in such research, but I will certainly be interested to see whether they will eschew the use of the medications once developed.

Catholic MP's who put their church first should leave the Labour party and stand as catholics. Or they should leave their religion where it should remain - purely in the private sphere.

11:08 am, March 17, 2008

Anonymous Rich said...

It's not about the bill it's about the right of MPs to able to vote with their beliefs.

I can name other actions such as the Iraq War, where only a handful of MPs chose to stand behind their beliefs. Beliefs matter in this world and no matter what they are you should stand by them. Obviously there has to be loyalty but at some point loyalty has to be questioned when MPs find themselves in the unexpected position of having to make decisions that are not part of the original manifesto or plan but challenge their beliefs.

I personally was behind the war but shocked at how it was conducted. The end result is a mess but thats another story.

As a catholic myself I don't follow the popes stand on many issues. God gave me a brain and I will use it to make judgments on such matters. But to deny MPs the right to vote against the government is in my opinion verging on fascism.

This is why I think electoral reform would be good for this country. Look at Scotland and how much they have achieved with a minority government. How many voters will argue that FREE prescriptions and dental care are a bad thing. Labour are opposing many of the actions that I thought were core Labour policies.

If Labour continue to alienate themselves from electorate then they will end up on the margins of politics.

12:05 pm, March 17, 2008

Blogger Merseymike said...

But by doing so, they are effectively forcing their faith position on others who do not share it.

I agree with regard to electoral reform, but I do think that Catholic MP's in particular must recognise that they were not elected to carry out the policies of their church. Particularly if those policies are discriminatory.

12:53 pm, March 17, 2008

Anonymous Rich said...

Mike would you say that 7 million people in the UK should not have a say on national politics. That's a lot of votes to throw away and many of them would have been behind the bill, but they are also thinkn that they should have had a choice to vote against.

1:14 pm, March 17, 2008

Blogger Merseymike said...

I think that the church should not try and impose its will on civil, secular society.

If they wish to do so, then they should form a confessional Catholic party.

1:57 pm, March 17, 2008

Anonymous TimBob said...

This Times bursts Chuka's bubble. To be fair it was a matter of time.


4:14 pm, March 17, 2008

Anonymous Governor Spitzer said...

Jesus Luke is right Chuka is a twat and I should know I've seen plenty

4:35 pm, March 17, 2008

Anonymous Rich said...

"secular society" the UK is based on a Christian society. We still have a Queen, the church, a parliament and a house of lords all are at the end of the day ordained by god.

So the church has the right to influence the electorate and our parliament. These are the beliefs of over 40 million christians who live in the UK.

5:34 pm, March 17, 2008

Blogger Merseymike said...

40 million? Have a look at church attendance figures for the real number. Our laws are or should be secular and not dictated to by any sort of religionism

6:42 pm, March 17, 2008

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was a late-decider in Streatham. In the end I happily voted for Chuka. Partly because he actually bothered to have personal contact with me during the campaign and we had a 90min face to face conversation a week before the vote. Steve I heard nothing from, only ever via a surrogate. There were other factors influencing my vote, but the way each ran their campaign and mobilised support was very instructive - at least from my point of view.

9:45 pm, March 17, 2008

Blogger Southpaw Grammar said...


10:05 pm, March 17, 2008

Anonymous Elise Cordwainer said...

Chuka was a big supporter of Miranda Grell, apparently, before she was forced to resign. That says enough for me.

11:27 pm, March 17, 2008

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Chuka was a big supporter of Miranda Grell, apparently, before she was forced to resign".

So was the whole word according to Andy Mayer!


How many present elected Labour representatives would there be left if we got rid of everyone who supported her?!:

12:18 am, March 18, 2008

Anonymous tim f said...

Rich said:

""secular society" the UK is based on a Christian society. We still have a Queen, the church, a parliament and a house of lords all are at the end of the day ordained by god.

So the church has the right to influence the electorate and our parliament. These are the beliefs of over 40 million christians who live in the UK."

Please don't assume you speak for over 40 million Christians (I don't believe such a number exists in the UK - between six and seven million is more realistic - but regardless, I'm one of them.) Of all the churches I've attended I would find it difficult to think of anyone who believes the House of Lords is ordained by God.

In addition many Christians believe that society should be secular and think a division between religion and state is healthier for both religion and state. Many too think that while individual Christians have a duty to be active politically, the church as an institution should not be. Many denominations are sceptical of hierarchy within the church.

Frankly I don't see why MPs should get special permission to vote against the whip because of their religious beliefs - they don't get it because of their political beliefs after all! Following the logic of encouraging MPs to vote against the whip when they disagreed with their party would make every vote a free vote and virtually destroy the point of having political parties and manifestos.

btw, is the reason you want electoral reform because you think the BNP would do better under PR?

PS If you really think you're a Christian, pls look up Deuteronomy 10 v 18 kthx

9:53 pm, March 18, 2008

Anonymous Anonymous said...


I really don't understand your visceral dislike of Compass. I'm a Compass member and I know many Compass members. Yes you and I might disagree on many policy areas but you would find that nearly all Compass members are party loyalists unlike the LRC nutters.

Both you and I would agree that the most important thing is that we elect a Labour Government and we can argue about how and what it does afterwards. I would rather have a right wing / new Labour / Progress type government that you desire than I Tory government. And I'm sure you would rather have a soppy centre left, no backbone, social democratic Compass type Labour government rather than the Tories.

You are working very hard for Ken, who is closer to Compass than he is to your wing of the party. So you are clearly a loyalist and pragmatic and big enough to work with poeple from other wings of the party.

Remember the Compass people are not the same as the LRC nutters, who to me, would be better off leaving the party because they have no real desire to see us win. And if you check out the Gimupnorth blog you will see the LRC lot dislike Compass for being "too soft." So we must be getting something right.

So, honestly, Luke, why the bile against Compass? Yes us Compassites disagree with you on some policy stuff, but nearly all are loyal and do respect that the right wing of the party has actually helped get us elected. Argue with us about policy, yes. But don't just make sweeping statements such as "cod-people, spouting childish, lobotomised Guardian leader page/path-of-least-resistance mantras" because it is beneath you.

Compass people are thoughtful, intelligent, in the main very loyal party memebrs and unlike the LRC Compass people do want to get Labour elected.

IF you want to live in a broad church you will have to accept some alternative theologies and not shout heretic at those who deviate from your orthodoxy.

7:28 am, March 19, 2008

Blogger Jackson Jeffrey Jackson said...

I assume the above posting is a spoof intended to discredit Compass.

10:03 am, March 19, 2008

Blogger Luke Akehurst said...

Everything on this blog is a bloody spoof for chrissake (with apologies to Catholics).

4:12 pm, March 19, 2008

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Geoffery / Luke

It's all well and good to just play the "spoof card" but you have not answered the question?

Why are you so anti Compass? And how does that square up with you working hard for Ken?

8:28 pm, March 19, 2008

Blogger Luke Akehurst said...

I'm supporting Ken Livingstone a) because he is the Labour Party candidate in a close election with a Tory and b) because he is doing a really good job as Mayor. I think his views on national and international issues and internal Labour issues are almost always wrong but that's not relevant to the current election.

You can read why I don't like Compass by typing "Compass" into this blogs search bar. Basically I think they represent a strand of opinion that panders to the prejudices of wealthy middle class metropolitan liberals rather than listening to what working class core Labour voters and swing marginal voters want, and that therefore the more influence they have the less electable the Labour Party will be. I think their policy stance varies from naive and well-meaning to wrong and dangerous e.g. their hostility to Israel and their opposition to Trident replacement.

9:06 pm, March 19, 2008

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for the clarification on what Compass stand for "their hostility to Israel and their opposition to Trident replacement". Can you advise where I get an application form?

10:05 pm, March 19, 2008

Blogger Merseymike said...

Must say I am with you there. Israel should have never been created in that region, and I'm utterly opposed to replacing Trident!

Thing is, Luke, that its working class voters who have primarily deserted Labour. A fair few of the progressive middle classes switched to the LibDems last time, but there's very little ewvidence that the core working class likes new Labour at all.

Swing voters - well, most of them aren't going to be voting for us next time. Few did last time. Forget about them and mobilise those who didn't show last time or who switched to the LibDems. No chance of winning Essex Man next time, so don't waste time trying and lose Lincoln, Oxford East, York Central et al by alienating still further the core voters. Get that 60% back up to 70% by giving both of the core voter groups - the intelligentsia and the working class voters - a reason to voite Labour again. They are those most displeased with the New Labour experiment.

10:31 pm, March 19, 2008

Anonymous Anonymous said...


I'm the real anonymous - the other one is an imposter.

Thanks for clarifying why you don't like Compass - and to a degree I understand why.

Firstly - I'd say your reasons for supporting Ken are the same reasons why I might support a good local right wing candidate in an election - loyalty and the recognition that keeping the Tories out is vital.

As a Compass member I'm undecided on Trident - my instinct says why spend the money but I'm not so naive that I can't see the global strategic arguments too.

I don't know the Compass line on Israel but I don't think it is unreasonable to say at best often the actions of the Israeli state are unhelpful to peace in the Middle East and at worst they are downright provocative.

Those issues aside I think your analysis that Compass people are part of the liberal elite does have some credance. But only insofar as you are probably accurate in terms of the background of Compass supporters. But that in and of itself does not mean Compass is a bad thing, or that it is against the interests of the working class.

UNISON are big supporters of Compass and the majority of their membership are low paid working class people.

I think some of your dislike of Compass is based upon your perceptions and dislike of Compass supporters rather than opposition to the Compass Programme.

I'd suggest you actually read the three Compass Programme for Renewal books and then comment. It think you might find you agree with more than you realise - especially the book on Democracy - it has some radical ideas in, some of which are hard for instinctive the centralising tendencies to deal with. But is does provide food for thought.

Also you should reflect upon your almost knee jerk hared of Compassites as this is actually another form of factionalism. And I know you don;t like factionalism.

Compass may be further to the left than you would like but remember they are not the LRC and are loyal to the party. You should save your wrath for the LRC nutters.

2:24 am, March 20, 2008

Anonymous tim f said...

anonymous -

Compass must be relieved the LRC exists, otherwise they wouldn't be able to play the "we're not the dangerous nasty left, we're the cuddly well-meaning left" card.

By your definition of "loyal" (advocating a vote for Labour at elections) the LRC are just as loyal as Compass. I suspect Luke's definition of loyal includes total or near-total advocacy of the government's policies (be happy to be told I'm wrong), and under this definition both Compass and the LRC would be disloyal.

"the same reasons why I might support a good local right wing candidate in an election"

Why you MIGHT support a Labour candidate in an election? You seem to suggest you would only support a "good" and "local" right-wing Labour candidate in an election. Some of us who are probably further to the left than you on lots of issues would ALWAYS support the Labour candidate in any election, regardless of whether they were local or not (that's an electoral advantage, a reason why they might be a better candidate and a reason for voting for them in a selection, but surely not a condition on supporting a Labour candidate).

You're not doing a very good job of showing your loyalty.

10:57 am, March 20, 2008

Blogger E10 Rifle said...

"You should save your wrath for the LRC nutters."

Oh what a telling comment from our anonymous chum THAT is: encouraging Luke to concentrate his ire, not on the Tories who are alarmingly ahead of us in the polls, but on members of his own party. And you're clearly not aware of how often "LRC nutters" are accused by others on the left of being 'delusionally loyal' to Labour.

Well mate, while you're concentrating your fire on "LRC nutters", the rest of us have bigger fish to fry. Like, in my home city, stopping a racist public-school Tory buffoon becoming its mayor. At least Luke undertands that.

12:54 pm, March 20, 2008

Anonymous i hate compass said...

This Chuka really is a vile little toad. He's mates with both Miranda Grell and Lee Jasper, disgraceful, corrupt individuals who bring shame on the Labour party.

His selection is an absolute disaster for the party. One only need to look at his list of admirers to realise how wrong he is.

The man's an absolute disgrace, quite why he joined the Labour party is a complete mystery to me. Respect or the SWP would be better homes for him.

Isn't it funny how all this whingeing lefties tell us not to criticise Chuka, to support him, while they do nothing but criticise the Government and Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

2:17 pm, March 20, 2008

Blogger Action said...

Spot on as ever.
But if you will allow me a little bit of internal analysis...
Anonymous is totally wrong to say that LRC supporters don't want Labour to win.
We are desperate to beat the Tories because we genuinely oppose privatisation, welfare cuts, cruel immigration laws, attacks on workers, and war.
The Labour right has very few policy disagreements with Cameron, but they fight like ferrets in a sack to keep their jobs in the quangocracy which would go to Conservatives if new Labour lost.
As even Luke has acknowledged on this thread people like Christine Shawcroft are in it for the principle not the pay packet.

6:27 pm, March 20, 2008

Anonymous Anonymous said...

when Steve Reed was involved in the decision to turn down the building of a new academy on the Thames Water site near Brixton prison, some party members said they would do anything they could to prevent him becoming the PPC after Keith Hill in retaliation.

I am, genuinely, curious if this was a factor. I saw the figures of the count, so I can see how tight it was, and maybe it's impossible to tell. Does anyone out there know?

2:36 pm, June 12, 2008

Anonymous Anonymous said...

tibia money tibia gold tibia item runescape money runescape gold tibia money tibia gold runescape gold runescape powerleveling runescape accounts tibia gold tibia money runescape money runescape gp buy runescape gold tibia gold tibia item buy runescape money runescape gold runescape items tibia money tibia gold runescape power leveling

1:16 am, August 07, 2008

Anonymous Streatham Online said...

Our main concern (at the moment) is whether Streatham is really ready for yet another 'Great Thinker' ; especially at this particular time.

What Streatham ultimately needs right now is an 'Action Man' who can urgently restore it to it's Former (Socio-Economic) Glory.

The other Streatham Candidate (Rahoul Bhansali) may (indeed) not necessarily be as flashy as Chuka Umunna ; but at least Rahoul does seem to be quite satisfied with the notion of comprehensively concentrating on Streatham's Fundamental Needs - rather than simply using Downtrodden Streathamites as a Formidable Launchpad for Higher Political Office (elsewhere).

10:07 am, April 22, 2009


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Free Hit Counters
OfficeDepot Discount