We don’t see it, but our arrogance stops us from listening

As Labour considers what went wrong last Thursday, and leadership contenders jockey for position, we’re re-posting a piece from December 2010 by former general secretary Peter Watt. Four and a half years on, almost word for word, it’s as relevant today as it was then – Atul Hatwal (ed)

by Peter Watt

Understanding this year’s defeat is, as we all know, central to bouncing back electorally. A lot has been written about the need to listen and the need to reconnect to voters. And the launch of the policy consultations in Gillingham last weekend was an attempt to listen and learn the lessons of defeat.

But there is an arrogance at the heart of our politics that is going to make it difficult to really understand why we lost. It is an arrogance that says that we alone own morality and that we alone want the best for people. It says that our instincts and our motives alone are pure.  It’s an arrogance that belittles others’ fears and concerns as “isms” whilst raising ours as righteous. We then mistakenly define ourselves as being distinctive from our opponents because we are morally superior rather than because we have different diagnoses and solutions. It is lazy, wrong and politically dangerous.

If you think that I am being harsh, just think about what we say about our opponents. We assume that they are all in it for themselves, that they are indifferent to the suffering of others. In fact, that they are quite happy to induce more suffering if it suits their malign ends. What we don’t think is that they may want the same things as us, but just have a different approach. Instead, we cast high-minded aspersions on their morality and humanity.

Take the example of welfare policy. Listen to Labour and the assumption is that IDS wants to punish the poor, somehow that he gets off on increasing vulnerable people’s suffering.  What we don’t think is that he wants to improve the lives of the poor but just doesn’t think that the current incarnation of the welfare state is the best way to achieve this. And yet, much of his programme is familiar to the last (Labour) government. Presumably our motives were pure, though.

What about the heinous charge that they want to “ideologically shrink” the size of the state. We, of course, want to use the state to do good things for people. Their wanting to shrink it clearly indicates that they don’t want to do good things for people. Clearly, therefore, they are morally bankrupt.  Well, perhaps not. Maybe they think that over-taxing people is wrong and that an over-reaching state is in itself bad for the same people that we want to help? I am not saying that I necessarily agree, but I am saying that it is a perfectly valid view and one that is not intrinsically immoral.

But does it matter? Well, yes, I think that it does. Because our arrogance has the effect of stopping us listening. In fact, it is worse than that: we think that we are listening when many voters know that we are not. If we are honest, all too often we do believe that our version of the world is not just better than anyone else’s, but also more moral and in fact just plain right. It makes us believe that if people don’t agree with us then they are either less moral or need educating. Possibly both. It is how we dismiss the opinion polls which show people being concerned about things that we would rather they weren’t, like immigration and welfare abuse.

We often don’t hear these concerns even when we say that we do. Our sense of moral outrage at the perceived underlying prejudice overrides all. I have heard people say that “we shouldn’t pander to people; we should be prepared to put them right”.  Of course. I am sure that people will vote for us gratefully once we have put them right. That’s just what people have been waiting for. Really hearing these concerns doesn’t mean that we should accept the unacceptable. But it does mean that we have to be humble enough to accept that we do not exclusively own truth and morality. Ed said in his NPF speech in Gillingham:

“Being rooted in people’s lives is not about a slogan. It’s not about going out and just saying ‘tell us what we should think’, but it is about saying we need to be reconnected to the hopes and aspirations of the people of Britain”.

I agree. But not all of people’s hopes and aspirations may chime with our rigid moral code. And, increasingly, voters are less tribal in their political allegiances. In fact, most people are probably not even habitual voters for a single party, never mind being tribal. If we are really to connect with enough voters (such that they vote for us in winning numbers at the next general election), then we will have to find ways of understanding their moral sense of the world. We can’t just condemn or patronise everyone as not understanding just because they say or feel things with which we don’t agree.

Of course, we have values of social justice that guide us, and our values don’t change. But that doesn’t mean that other people don’t also care about social justice and that they may come to different conclusions. If we put aside our moral arrogance then we might just find that we have much in common with them and them with us. That may well be the beginning of understanding why we lost. On the other hand, we could just remain in opposition, happy with our own sense that we are right – morally at least.

Peter Watt was general secretary of the Labour party.

Tags: ,

86 Responses to “We don’t see it, but our arrogance stops us from listening”

  1. Mr Reasonable says:

    Peter thankyou for providing a sensible and balanced argument which accepts that voting Tory does not, of itself, make somebody desirous of making the disadvantaged suffer. I can almost hear the despair as you try and respond to the likes of ‘Left is Forward’ and his loathing of our democratic process and intolerance of decent people who fail to share his strange views. As an Historian I am truly terrified by such people with their untrammelled moral certainty and deafness to opinions which do not perfectly coincide with their own. It is from such dismal soil that theworst dictatorships of the 20th Century germinated and grew. Good luck trying to reform the Labour party in the face of such people.

  2. Left Is Forward says:

    But Mr Reasonable, Sweden and Japan both structured their democracies so that the one party that represented the great bulk of decent people (left and right wing respectively, so this isn’t political bias on my part), was actually able to maintain a government majority. In this country, the Tories have suffered massive electoral defeats that gave them landslide control of parliament (e.g. Thatcher – voted against by 3 out of 5 electors, and on that “mandate” caused long-lasting harm). On top of that, many of the poorest and most vulnerable people (e.g. prisoners, children, the mentally ill, immigrants without citizenship) are unable to vote, and our system has led to the virtual exclusion of socially marginalised groups (mostly young and poor, who have very low turnout rates). All these people are harmed by a Tory government so our system should reflect their unheard voices too.

    Labour is the party of the masses and has been so for the last 90 years. There is nothing undemocratic about rearranging our constitution like Sweden or Japan, so that Labour, or a Labour-led coalition, forms the perpetual government – perpetual so long as Labour doesn’t lose its position as the only mass party, and that is the great democratic check and balance. There is a great deal wrong with failing to do so, as it allows the Tories intermittently to devastate the country based on a minority mandate, and in the gaps between Labour can only start to clear the mess up rather than make the long-overdue Attlee-esque or Bevanite strides towards progress, equality and social justice.

    Similarly there is nothing wrong about taking direct action to speed up the removal of a false government like this one, which has no democratic mandate. Since this government seems determined to wreak a dance of devastation and despair across the face of this country, and poor and vulnerable people will die as a result, we may even have a duty – not just a right – to do this.

  3. MickleMas says:

    Arrogance?? Moral Superiority?? What planet are you on? Are you suggesting that Labour policies are generally no better than Tory ones: that they are ‘morally equivalent’? If so, I would politely hint that you have ‘lost the plot’! To claim that Labour has a “rigid moral code” is quite ridiculous. Morality and Politics is like Oil and Water – they don’t mix – just look through the comments exposed on WikiLeaks!
    What I find particularly galling about your assessment of our collective “arrogant deafness” is your assumption that Tory ideology may be different to ours but is nonetheless morally acceptable, nay equivalent. In some sterile, academic debate one could accept that each ideology had merits BUT the REAL ISSUE is which approach is best for our country and in tune with the electorate. The Tory philosophy seems to me to be a carbon copy of the USA (minimum State involvement, low taxes, minimum welfare, total reliance on the private sector, private health care and pension provision, no minimum wage etc.) whereas Labour has traditionally advocated a more collectively caring and supporting role of the State. In economically prosperous times (1997-2008) either ideology would probably have been acceptable to people. The merits and “morality” of traditional Labour versus Tory ideology are only tested during harsh economic times (2008-?). I believe that since the beginning of the global crisis the Labour government has been successful in protecting the interests of our economy and people and, further, the state of the Nation would be alla Ireland if the Tories had been in power (Peter Watt appears to disagree).
    I love America. I love Americans but I have no desire to have to have to rely exclusively on their ‘laissez-faire’ approach to life. It’s great if your are rich but hell if, today, you have just been sacked and are having your home re-possessed and no State support. That is why, Peter Watt, I ferfently support traditional Labour philosophy on State v Individual. I care passionately about the welfare of our citizens and wish to treat everyone with dignity. Do you, Peter?

  4. John P Reid says:

    left is forward ,i vcouldn’t find on reason in your critiicsm,why you feel Peter is wrong, And DAvidB unfortunaley I thin your right, were not going towin back ex albour people by criticising the Tories for the sake of it,

  5. John says:

    @left is forward `But Mr Reasonable, Sweden and Japan both structured their democracies so that the one party that represented the great bulk of decent people (left and right wing respectively, so this isn’t political bias on my part), was actually able to maintain a government majority.`

    err, Sweden has a centre-centre right coalition at the moment.

    If you want this social democratic society have the good sense and decency to describe the eye-watering benefit reforms required, the restriction on personal lending and the taxes required.

  6. Left is Forward: If you believe it unfair that Thatcher got 100% of the power from far less than 50% of the vote will you then be backing AV?

  7. Left Is Forward says:

    George W Potter, the problem with Thatcher is not just that she was elected with a minority, but that she then proceded to harm the majority. AV is not necessarily a solution, PR would have guaranteed no Tory government in the last 50 years assuming constant voteshare though.

    John – yes, Sweden’s currently on the right and Japan on the left! But for a period of around 50 years they had stable long-term left and right wing governments respectively. Japan is likely to return to the right soon, Sweden in the long run will return to the left (and their “centre right wing” government is really quite left-wing, having had to compete in an environment where the left have set the political narrative for decades).

  8. Jonathan Miller says:

    I found this article very interesting, and I agree that Labour need to start listening if they want to regain power (God forbid).
    Mr Watt is correct that voters in general are not tribal in their politics, and I do believe that they listen to what politicians say, watch what they do, and make decisions based upon observation.
    However, reading the comments it is clear that Labour supporters such as “Left Is Forward” are mired in ideology and blind to reality. The days of “Them and us” politics are numbered, and as Mr Watts makes clear, Labour will get nowhere while it continues to berate voters for making “wrong” decisions.

  9. MickleMas says:

    Well, Peter Watt, are you proud that your silly article has generated a host of zombie replies?
    Sorry, we shouldn’t grace their status with such a term – let’s call them Tories!
    So, PW, what is your designation – Tory or zombie?

  10. Left Is Forward says:

    I don’t think Peter Watt wants to define himself as either a Tory or a Zombie. But he seems to want to give to succour to both groups!

  11. Stephen says:

    I wouldn’t be too worried about what IDS’s real intentions are or hurting his feelings. But where Peter has a genuine point is that do have to understand where those people who voted for other parties are coming from, communicate with them and convince them to vote for us if we are to achieve any thing at all – and I somehow doubt that we stand much chance of doing this if we start by insulting them or doubting their motivations – or even not bothering to listen to them in the first place. If you want to change anyone’s mind the first rule is to listen to their concerns rather than giving a lecture regarding your preconceived notions.

    As well as not listening – I see very little thinking going on as to where the last Government went wrong on the economy, because everyting I hear this is what most people are concerned about and is the basic reason why we lost the election. It is quite possible to construct such an analysis in Social Democratic/Keynesian terms rather than relying on the current Conservative Party analysis which appears to have become the most ac cepted explanation.

  12. Daffy says:

    Blog Post: We need to stop being arrogant thinking we have moral superiority and that we are the only party who care about the population.

    Comments section: How dare you suggest that the tories don’t eat babies and want to kill all the poor. Only we know whats best for the population- sometimes they are deluded and vote the wrong way.

    *Slaps Forehead*

  13. Alan Douglas says:

    You don’t need to understand WHY you lost the last election. You need to understand that your party was hi-jacked by a spiv and a thief, and that 13 years of telling the rest of us how to be, do and have (and how NOT to) according to THEIR precepts was quite unwelcome.

    As an example, I loath smoking, but YOUR enforcing various bans AGAINST the wishes of a huge swathe of our population I loathe even more. WHO THE HELL DID YOU THINK YOU ARE. Sadly, you still think the same thing, and will never change.

    Not that the coalition seems much different – they seem to have acquired the nanny mind-set you worshipped.

    Alan Douglas

  14. John P Reid says:

    Actually Mickie mas, when labour had the closed shop in the 70;s and people who refused to join unions were sacked from their jobs and not entitled to unemployment benefit , as in Michael Foots words “they had no one to blame but htemselves, for refusing to join a union”, the tories were more moral than labour in opposing this as its diosgraceful that you had to give money to a union or be sacked and not entitled to benefit.

  15. wolfy smith says:

    well done left is forward proved the article is totally correct

  16. Kieran E says:

    I don’t understand some of the vitriolic reactions to this article, or at least parts of it. All he seems to be saying as far as I can see is that, even if you vehemently disagree with Tory policy as many do, it is unfair to suggest they are somehow immoral and delight in causing suffering; they might well be very, very wrong, but most of them are still surely decent people who want to do good, and demonizing them rather than their policies is not a good tactic, even if it makes you feel good to do it.

  17. Ade says:

    I find good tools for helping find our way to truth in a discussion is to look into ‘critical thinking’ and things like conformity, there’s some interesting stuff on youtube about these topics.

  18. Chris says:

    “Left is Forward” yet you can’t seem to stop looking back. Since Thatcher was in power, there was a Labour Govt which lasted 13 years.

    At the end of that time, the gap between rich and poor was greater than it was at the start, unemployment was higher and the deficit (and level of debt) was eye watering. Social engineering had resulted in more low paid workers & a greater dependence on benefits – all done on purpose to increase the number of Labour voters.

    Blame Thatcher if you wish, blame bankers, blame ‘Nasty Tories’. Complain about how evil everyone else is, whilst sitting on your high horse. I don’t care, and nor does the millions of others who didn’t vote Labour. You are exactly what is described in the above article & the reason why people dislike your brand of politics.

    Miliband & Balls refused to admit and apologise for their mistakes. Until the Labour Party apologises we can’t start to think they may have learned from their mistakes. For me, that makes them unelectable.

  19. Chris says:

    Good to see this again. I remember reading it 5 years ago and thinking something along the lines of “excellent, hopefully they’ll get it together and learn from their mistakes…and be in in a position to win next time”
    Sadly that “hopefully” was misplaced!
    I went to vote on Thursday with the least enthusiasm I have ever had…and my first election was when Thatcher first won!
    I’ve voted for you everytime…BUT I would no longer say I’m one of your “supporters”.
    The reason I say that is I don’t feel you support me! I don’t feel you like me very much!
    I had a discussion along these lines a few weeks back at a party. A number of my friends felt the same way -several I know we’re switching their vote away from you. One was voting Tory because he felt at least Cameron knew what he was up to. A couple were voting UKIP because they believed that Farage stood for the “ordinary person”…
    But my main point was that noone though you guys “stood for” us anymore.
    It was said that you aren’t interested in anyone that doesn’t agree with you.
    I know that even Labour have softened their rhetoric on those who are worried about immigration but we know that’s all it is – rhetoric! In your hearts you still think (a la Brown) that anyone who might believe immigration is not so wonderful is a “bigot”! Actually they are often simply concerned about their (and their children’s) jobs. If they are wrong, then explain and persuade…but don’t ignore or dismiss their worries.
    Or the whole gay marriage thing (frankly not something that bothered me one way or the other – none of my gay friends are bother either, by the way).
    Several of my friends are church-goers and they simply believed that the gay marriage bill was morally wrong.
    They aren’t homophobic or bigoted…in my experience they treat gay people with as much respect as they do anyone else. Certainly I cannot imagine them denying anyone services or goods because of their sexuality…but we all know that you think there’s something looney or wrong or even evil about them. Or at least that’s the way it seems…
    (And yes, this is the attitude of the other (main) parties too but I’m interested in how YOU secure my and my friends’ votes)
    Bottom line – you come over as not liking us very much.
    If you can’t change…if you can’t show that you are interested in us and our hopes and fears for the future (and our children’s and our grandchildren’s), you’ll not win those votes back!
    And where you feel we’re wrong…say on Europe which I’m guessing will be the next big argument…don’t dismiss us as idiots, or bigots or whatever; explain to us how we’ve missed it! You guys don’t seem big on explanations or persuasion
    And if we can’t agree, then just except that…you may actually sometimes be wrong;and so might I be.
    We can agree to disagree on a particular point but I would hope that there will be more things that we might come together on.
    If you don’t change, this very probably will be the last time I vote for you.

  20. Tafia says:

    Left Is Forward – you keep saying the Tories have no mandate because more than half the people that voted didn’t vote for them etc etc etc.

    So here’s a little challenge for you.

    List all the General Elections since the Labour Party formed in which the Labour Party took more than half the votes cast.

    Not much of a mandate there either, eh?

    Labour’s problem is it cannot be all things to all men anymore. The type of Labour Scotland, Wales and large parts of northern England want is unacceptable down south and in the midlands and vice versa.

  21. Jane says:

    As always, Peter Watt presents a compelling argument. I myself voted Labour for many years (40). I did not vote for them at the last election and my reasons are as follows.

    1. The wrong leader. Ed Miliband did not convince me that he had leadership skills. I would have loved listening to him when I was at University with his pre distribution and his many other theories. Further, I associated him with Gordon Brown whom I have never forgiven for ousting Tony Blair. I thought Gordon was a dreadful PM. I also thought Ed Miliband should never have stood against his brother. I hope he reflects now on how he has alienated his brother and upset his mother and how his period at the helm has taken Labour back to the bad old days which will take years to resolve.

    2. The campaign was quite dreadful. It was directed at public sector workers – those who work in the private sector were ignored. It totally ignored the wealth creators and the aspiring working and middle classes. It bashed all who were wealthy – often through their own efforts. The City employs many people and contributes a huge amount to the exchequer. Ed threatened them – forgetting that they can move their headquarters to other countries.

    3. I was frightened of Labour gaining office from a purely selfish point of view. I was worried about the financial markets and the consequences in terms of my financial situation. I was also concerned about the increases in taxation to meet the many promises which a bankers bonus would never fund. In addition, I have studied the structural deficit during the last labour government and felt that we would follow the same path of borrowing more and increasing the nation’s debt.

    4. I was very offended and insulted when Ed Miliband said that New Labour had been ditched rather than renewed to meet new challenges. The arrogance of him thinking he knew better than a man who won three elections.

    5. Peter is right too regarding the arrogance of those who think that a ny politician from any political party want to make cuts and impose financial constraint on huge budgets. In my opinion, the last labour government encouraged the notion that it was Ok to live on welfare. It is quite damning to suggest the IDS wants to do anything other than improve the living of those who are at the bottom of the income scale. I am old enough to know that working not only provides additional income but the psychological benefits re also enormous. IDS did a tremendous amount of work on deprivation before holding this position.

    I could go on…..I am ashamed of them all – Shadow Ministers as well who have come out since the election with everything that went wrong. Why on earth did they not state this during the campaign. The electorate are not fools – EM thought they were.

  22. John pReid says:

    Jane so right,and I could think of several people, who agreed literally word for word

  23. Landless Peasant says:

    Labour certainly didn’t listen to me on Benefit Sanctions & therefore lost my vote.

  24. Mr Akira Origami says:

    ….and which party eventually listened to you?

  25. John P Reid says:

    Damn landless peasant, if only we’d listened to you, we would have won

  26. Martin Rice says:

    Jane love thanks for going through five brilliant points that show just why so many switched, like myself please Labour learn from your fuck ups here you came second across the bastard board by all accounts just please come back better than you were here as were dismal with Ed at the helm.

  27. Nigel Rushby says:

    I think we know that Ed was an electoral liability before he started on about that 19th Century Tory, just goes to show how strange and out-of-touch he was. Saddest thing is he thought he was an asset and not a liability to the working class movement in this country. It must be hard for the middle classes and the privileged to fully understand us oyks but how their heart bleeds for us because we are poor….. it is pathetic.
    Give us a leader, not from London, who actually understands a life of not having, who aspires to better because they know the feeling of poverty, of going without. Is there any real people left at the top echelons of the Labour Party, speak now please. People have seen enough of the Islington set.

  28. Martin Rowe says:

    I am normally a Tory voter who voted for UKIP this time round. I congratulate you on highlighting the very reason why I could never consider voting labour previously. This would be the start, the hard thing to do will be to convince centre right, drifting to centre voters like myself, that you won’t revert back to this state of mind. The arrogance of the left has truly grown into a most disagreeable Fascist beast which frightens normal working people and needs beheading! Good Luck!

  29. Gruff says:

    A refreshing appraisal. I know too many Labour voters (still) assuming the moral high ground because they refuse to entertain the possibility that both the left and right are aiming for the same (ish) thing, but through contrasting approaches. As a Tory voter, I hope Labour get their act together as it is in the interests of the country to have a strong opposition to hold the government to account.

  30. Rick Ardo says:

    Amazing that he original blogpost written after Labour’s 2010 defeat exposes all the same issues that Labour is discussing again in May 2015. Seems like Labour didn’t learn from the last defeat as the moral-high-ground brigade are once again out in force. Plus ca change, eh?

  31. Ringstone says:

    What’s the line from Leonard Cohen?

    “We know the way to stop you, but we don’t have the discipline”

  32. Kevin Roderick says:

    fabulous statement. I voted conservative for national reasons…ie the promised in out Europe vote. I have been banging the exact same drum for ages. Did Ed really think that the COnservatives wanted to extend hospital waiting lists and allow endless migrants free use of our resources. Labour need to regain the centre ground and introduce policies which improve the lives of every citizen. Bankers are needed but need to be regulated. If I do a good job then I expect to be rewarded……etc etc etc

  33. Ian says:

    I have been very impressed with the way the Labour party has responded to this election defeat. Typically after losing an election Labour implode at least for a while, blaming anything but themselves and their policies. “The voting system was flawed”. “The government bribed the electorate just before the election”. “The electorate were duped by the governments lies.” “Our supporters were disenfranchised” etc.

    This time there have been plenty of people saying the above (see “Left is Forward” below) but most of the important people – those at the top of the Labour party – seem to be asking all the right questions. They have recognised that the election was lost fair and square, and the reason is that the Tories offered a much more appealing package to voters than they did. They made the dangerous assumption that they lost in 2010 because people were disillusioned with Blair/Brown and so tried to distance themselves as far as possible from that and lurch to the left. But in reality, while a very vocal minority of the hard left were disillusioned with Blair/Brown, for ‘ordinary people’ (including many that now vote Tory) Blair/Brown occupied the sacred centre ground that they feel best represented their views.

    You can’t win an election on the backs of the hard left and the poor. We now know how many people that includes – 9.4 million, not enough to win an election.

  34. Amanda King says:

    Understanding the need to listen , change and adapt is part of our human development . I would agree that attacking anyone for having a difference of opinion is wrong , but also beating yourself up for a loss is wrong too. Remember Scotland due to pressure and mistrust on the Tory’s meant they pushed for independence , they did not vote to do this, but what they chose to do is move away from any of the main parties remember conservatives lost seats too. Given it was a labour strong hold , therefore it was a hurtful lose. I asked family and colleagues from Scotland if they voted SNP they did not and cannot believe they won . That said , Scotland have to be admired for their passion for change and England could take note of this . Conserative gained 11 million votes. Labour gained 9 million voted and UKIP picked up the vote of those wanting radical change . Let’s look at the overall view of our voters. There are some common trends 1: economy ( no party has the right to say they are getting this correct we owe 1.4 billion in debt and we have sold most of our assets – and have made poor judgment in sales such as the post office -we sold a profitable business and kept the pension debt ? Beggers believe ). 2: health and the NHS how and why are all parties getting this so wrong yet saying we will get the money to fix the mistakes we are making – how wil 8 billion be raised ? 3: Tax – more people are on lower wages than there are on higher wages do we need to take from the volume of workers ? Ok what about tax evasion surely that should be a massive focus moving say 0.01 % on a large companies tax surely would have a much bigger impact than restricting benefits to a sick cancer child to 365 days . 3: education – did you see the data outputs from the 16 to 18 year olds on twitter and many other social media sites they often do not read main stream media – they were in uproar over the results . Many not happy with their parents choice of vote .. They are worried that university qualifications are now out of their reach and their future is effected . I wonder what the outcome would have been if the voting age had been reduced.

    I do not believe labour did not listen 9 million people agree. What I do agree with is that we could have listened more and expanded our reach and compassion for the people of the UK who are fed up of all parties and abstained from voting . To recognise that the global financial crisis and the wvariance continued wars are having a profound effect on everyone , how they see the world and the fear this creates. Coupled with major environmental changes which continue to dominate the news.

    It’s not objective to say anyone’s views are the perfect solution , but I have never seen so many so upset by an election – so passionate to go to the streets in protest and I cannot say those people were not fully convinced by data and facts of their reasons why, as much as a Tory ( or any ) voter all people are equal and are within their rights to protest and to vote as they see fit.

    My personal view is that if labour understands a much wider view whilst also sticking to it’s core, as a people’s party and fights to stand for the voice if it’s people .

    More importantly we all have a local MP who we can talk to all should watch closely listen and observe who is voting in parliament and on what issues, if we agree with it or not voice our opinion to our local MP. We may vote in a government but remember you too still have your views voice and ability to communicate this to you MP.

    Get involved and help change politics for a better future !
    This I found an interesting read

Leave a Reply