How close is Michael Gove to the New Schools Network?


9:05 am - July 22nd 2010

by Clifford Singer    


      Share on Tumblr

What a curious beast is the New Schools Network, the "independent charity" that championed the plans for "free schools" now being rushed through Parliament by Education Secretary Michael Gove. Click on the group’s online form to "Sign up for more information" and a message appears:

We may pass relevant details to the Department for Education so they can provide assistance. If this is a problem please email us on…

How many other "independent charities" pass your details to government unless you email to object?

Then again, how many other charities get £500,000 from the government to implement the very policy they’ve been lobbying for?

At a time when the Treasury promises to scrutinise – if not eliminate – every penny of spending, it seems incredible that this grant received so little attention, not least because NSN director Rachel Wolf, who set up the organisation just nine months ago, is a former advisor to Michael Gove.

No wonder NSN cheerleaders were ecstatic when Gove got the education portfolio.

A few journalists, though, have raised questions. Tom Clark highlighted the network’s lack of transparency in an excellent report rather buried within Education Guardian, which prompted an angry response from supporter Toby Young.

And Jonathan Freedland, exploring the Coalition’s weak points, wrote:

There’s more gold in them there hills. I wait to hear Gove face questions on the hefty £500,000 dollop of public money he just ladled on to the plate of the New Schools Network, a six-person thinktank run by one former special adviser to Gove and "helped out" by another. The NSN is meant to give advice to parents looking to set up their own "free school" – Gove’s ideological pet project – but it’s hard to see how their guidance could be wholly impartial.

We’d like some answers to those questions too, and I have made the following Freedom of Information requests.

The Department for Education has until 5 August 2010 to reply:

DfE relationship with New Schools Network
1) Please send me a copy of the business case with costings presented to the DfE by the New Schools Network (referred to in your letter here: http://bit.ly/9ziO9o)

2) Please declare whether tenders were sought from other organisations for providing these services.

3) Please confirm whether you assessed the NSN’s funders to ensure that there was no possibility of a conflict of interest with the DfE’s work (eg to establish that none of the funders had a commercial interest in promoting free schools). If so, please supply a list of NSN’s funders.

The Anti-Academies Alliance newsletter has more about free schools and the New Schools Network.

Editor’s note: Unity earlier wrote about the New Schools Network on LC here.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
This is a guest contribution. Clifford Singer runs The Other Taxpayer's Alliance website. You can join the Facebook group here.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Conservative Party ,Education ,Westminster

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


1. the a&e charge nurse

A very quick perusal of the NSN Trustees, Sir Geoffrey, Sir Bruce, Professor Julian, etc, tells you in a blink of an eye that this lot simply do not have the faintest idea what life is like in some of our inner city hell holes – so what on earth makes them think a few pushy parents will alter the fundamental fabric (including educational environment) in these very deprived areas?

It’s not as if the academies (to cite one alternative model) have been a roaring success;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/leaguetables/6699781/Primary-school-league-tables-2009-academy-is-worst-school.html

There is one very simple and self evident measure that would improve children’s (educational) performance more than an any ideologically driven reorganisation, and that is for parents to spend 15-30 minutes each day with their child going over the x3 Rs – obviously this does not apply to families were there is adult illiteracy.

2. Illegal immigrant

As I’ve explained on here before, I think that the education plans are cracking and potentially the most important thing that this government will do (in the medium-term; short-term addressing the deficit is they key). However, I don’t expect many on here to agree :)!

However, the NSN does all seem a bit of a stitch-up to me. I’m sure that the people who are running it are eminently qualified, and that the service that they’ll be able to provide will be extremely useful to many people (both in helping some to set up schools and, importantly, dissuading others). But…

1. It strikes me that it should be a genuinely independent charity. Raise funds to resource the initial enquiries, and then why not run a commerical service for those that take it to the next step (they could help fill in forms, sell on useful infromation resources etc.)?

2. Why risk the reputation of the policy on something that people could so easily be construed as corrupt? I don’t doubt Gove’s intentions, but I can easily see why people would – and I’m pretty sure that I would have been up in arms about it had the previous govt done summat similar.

3. 500k is quite a lot of cash – anyone know how long that is supposed to last? That better not be an annual fee for a 6 person think tank that seems to sub-contract it’s work to the DoE!

4. They should sort out their website as well. Why not link to the academic evidence that they cite, rather than making people search it out?!

All-in-all, as someone who loves the policy, I’m not very impressed…

3. Flowerpower

How close is Michael Gove to the NSN? Very close. Is this a problem? Absolutely not.

The NSN performs a number of important functions that civil servants in Gove’s department could not. The most obvious is connecting groups of teachers/parents wanting to start a school with sources of capital to buy the buildings.

Two groups in my area have signed up with them. I’m peripherally involved with one, and from what I can see the NSN are very efficient and helpful. Far more so than state bureaucrats generally are.

Over at ConHome earlier this week there was the suggestion that the Coalition had to pass at least five key tests in this Parliament to deliver real social justice. One of which was:
‘Charities that are free from state ideology. Too many voluntary groups have become too close to the state.’
Oh, and another was, unsurprisingly, ‘A new generation of schools.’
Is it only charities that are/were too close to Labour who are the problem?

It will be very easy for NSN to be “very efficient and helpful. Far more so than state bureaucrats generally are”. As a quango and unlike “state bureacrats” they are not bound by the civil service code of conduct in terms of public accountability, transparency or fair and open competition for jobs.

Slightly off topic – but have seen little coverage of the adjournment debate which took place last night on the lobbying of a significant Tory donor in respect of the Forgemasters loan.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/22/lobbying-axeing-sheffield-forgemasters-loan

The letters in question were received after freedom on information requests.

6. the a&e charge nurse

[3] “from what I can see the NSN are very efficient and helpful” – providing you are on board with their agenda?

Sir Geoffrey & Co (in their mission statement) say that, “If they (schools) do not succeed, they should not stay open”.
What does this actually mean – has the bogus charidee produced objective and measurable criteria as what does or doesn’t constitute ‘success’?

For example, how on earth do we compare a school in Edlington, say, to places like this?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/3361042/Britains-richest-towns-10-1.html

Then again, how many other charities get £500,000 from the government to implement the very policy they’ve been lobbying for?

Haha – loads.

http://fakecharities.org/

8. the a&e charge nurse

[7] so do you view Mr Gove’s favourite charidee with exactly the same distain as the others you link to?

I’m not sure I view the others with disdain, I was just answering the question as to how many charities get govt money – answer: loads.

Yes, but lots of the charities on that list are clearly proper charities – no-one would claim CAFOD, ActionAid or Plan UK were fronts for the government, clearly.

Christian Aid too! That website is a complete joke; just about every anti-poverty charity that exists is criticised for being anti-free trade and therefore pro-Labour, which is a bit incongruous to say the least.

I’m making no judgment on whether the charities are “real” or not, or on the opinions of that site.

Merely answering the question raised in the OP.

13. Richard Manns

The only thing surprising about this, is how this blog missed all this behaviour for the last 12 years.

As for “ecstatic” when Gove got the position, since he’d been shadowing it for years, and Cameron made a big deal of keeping former shadow ministers in the same jobs as they’d shadowed, it was hardly a surprise.

That said, it’s not exactly edifying to see this continue.

14. Flowerpower

What’s all the fuss about?

The government wants to stimulate the provision of new schools and therefore gives a grant to the NSN to help them offer an advice service to interested parties.

Just as the government wants to reduce teenage pregnancies and therefore gives grants to the Family Planning Association and the Brook Advisory Centre to help them offer advice on contraception.

Third Sector organizations are ideally suited to these sorts of roles.

Big Society, not Big State. Geddit?

But if you’re genuinely worried about where Gove is going to find the 500 large ones, here’s how he could save a bob or two:

Government departments are paying the salaries of dozens of union officials, some earning more than £60,000 a year, who do no work for the taxpayer.

The Conservatives expressed horror last night at the “cadre of union officials” embedded across Whitehall.

Ten departments have revealed that they employ 46 full-time and 87 part-time officials to work exclusively for the unions at taxpayers’ expense. Their salaries cost between £150,000 and £4.5 million per department. They are also given access to office space, computers and photocopiers worth an estimated £1.2 million each year.

A Whitehall whistleblower has told The Times that union officials spent time on “far-left political campaigns and making up false claims about the Conservative Party”.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6833107.ece

#13 “That said, it’s not exactly edifying to see this continue.”

Well, at least you concede that.

The Tories are in power now, not Labour, and they promised to govern with integrity and transparency. So let’s see some integrity and transparency, instead of just moaning about what Labour did.

#3 “I’m peripherally involved with one”

One more reason for me to stick with the state system I think.

@14 – well that’s got to stop (bet it won’t)

#14 All employers should be contributing towards full-time union officials. It’s just an example of government being a better employer than the private sector.

19. Illegal immigrant

Tim f @ 18

Are you serious?

20. Flowerpower

Clifford Singer

So let’s see some integrity and transparency, instead of just moaning about what Labour did.

There has been total transparency about the grant to NSN. The letter from Mela Watts to the NSN inviting them to take up the grant and detailing what the money should be spent on, the timetable for action, the date of review etc. was published on the department’s web site.

In point one of your FoI request you seem to acknowledge having read that letter.

But then in point 2. you appear (or pretend) not to have read the letter, asking a question the answer to which would be obvious to anyone who HAD read the letter.

Then we come to your preposterous point 3.

to ensure that there was no possibility of a conflict of interest with the DfE’s work (eg to establish that none of the funders had a commercial interest in promoting free schools).

Why on earth should having a commercial interest in promoting free schools be construed as a conflict of interest with DfE? The government also wants to promote free schools. The coincidence of interest ought to be apparent even to an idiot.

Your pursuit of this is the equivalent of asking the Department for International Development whether they have checked to see if the aid organizations they support might also receive charitable donations from individuals who have a “conflict of interest” on account of their desire to reduce global poverty or feed the starving. Absurd.

21. the a&e charge nurse

[14] “What’s all the fuss about?” – well, handing out chunky cheques might not seem particularly fitting after this Gove inspired financial fiasco?
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=6275

22. Flowerpower

the a&e charge nurse

Cancelling BSF wasn’t a fiasco. The fiasco was BSF. Now schools will get the buildings they need more quickly and efficiently.

23. the a&e charge nurse

[22] “Cancelling BSF wasn’t a fiasco” – so why did half of Gove’s OWN party form an orderly queue to kick his arse?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/jul/09/tories-criticise-michael-gove

#22 “Cancelling BSF wasn’t a fiasco. The fiasco was BSF. Now schools will get the buildings they need more quickly and efficiently.”

I hear grain production will be up too next year.

19 – oddly yes he is. He’s also in favour of secondary picketing and opposed to secret ballots if I remember correctly.

26. Illegal immigrant

Tim J @ 25

Thanks – I probably won’t start that particular argument on this thread.

I’ve met with some bonkers trade union types in my time, but a full-time, paid trade union rep in every work place?! Blimey – may have to have a lie down…

Yes, but lots of the charities on that list are clearly proper charities – no-one would claim CAFOD, ActionAid or Plan UK were fronts for the government, clearly.

That’s not really the point: they are given huge chunks of (our) cash by the government, which they then use to lobby the government.

The site is there to enable people to check; it’s there as a tool of transparency if you like; people can make up their own minds as to whether or not these charities deserve the money, or whether the money has influenced government policy or charity policy, etc.

DK

28. Rhys Williams

Free schools today , paying schools tommorow.

29. Rhys Williams

You have got to give it to the Tories and their bloggers.
This school act is the greatest piece of social enginnering since the birth of the red guard.
Set up schools that are either to be run by conservative church goers, the right leaning Jewish board of deputies, Imans or right wing free market charities.
Create a whole generation of left loathing, illiberal gay hating, free market loving and couldn’t give a fuck about the poor unless they beg wunderkin.
It will keep them in power for years.
Brilliant.
A whole generation of flowerpowers, illegal immigant, Matts and cjcjc’s
Brilliant. We will be the Texas of the north.
By the way boys why do you post on a left of centre website. I have no problems with this, but why ?

30. Richard Manns

@ Rhys Williams

I have to question a few things on your post.

The primary reason, and I think that I speak for many right-wingers, is to introduce choice and variety into the system, drive competition and improve standards. Given the predominance of Labour-supporting union membership in teaching today, claiming that the right are going to brain-wash a generation is a little hypocritical.

Meanwhile, I’m not sure how you can say we hate Jews, since Michael Howard is Jewish and was our leader! And we had a Jewish-background leader (Disraeli) before the Labour Party existed.

Ignoring your homophobic allegations (the Parliamentary Tory Party has the greatest percentage of openly-gay MPs ever seen in the Commons), you seem to think that if 10% (Sweden’s percentage) of schools are “Free Schools”, then Tories will dominate for eternity. This doesn’t look like Tory brainwashing, this looks like your fear that a slight loss of state-run hegemony will break the left forever. Are you really that weak? Do you need to control, by legal force, 93% of the population’s formative years in order ever to be elected? I do not share your doubts about the left; you’re stronger than that!

31. Flowerpower

By the way boys why do you post on a left of centre website. I have no problems with this, but why ?

I never understand why you lefties have such a problem with the simple concept of debate. It’s what’s at the heart of democratic politics. It’s why we have elections and it’s what goes on in Parliament and in pubs. Some say that out of the clash of thesis and antithesis an altogether better synthesis will emerge. Others see it more as a clash of idea where some are stress-tested to destruction, leaving only the fittest memes surviving. Whatever – it’s all healthier than living in silos or echo chambers having one’s own prejudices endlessly reinforced.

32. Rhys Williams

“Ignoring your homophobic allegations (the Parliamentary Tory Party has the greatest percentage of openly-gay MPs ever seen in the Commons),”
Also the highest number of MPs that oppose gay rights. Also you are the party of the Michael Green and religious fundies

“you seem to think that if 10% (Sweden’s percentage) of schools are “Free Schools”, then Tories will dominate for eternity. This doesn’t look like Tory brainwashing, this looks like your fear that a slight loss of state-run hegemony will break the left forever.”
If the left had brainwashed the individuals in the state system, why in England do more state educated people vote Tory.
I actually think the idea of academies for certain inner city schools is a good one .
The Idea that outstanding schools should be given priority is my problem with that part of the legislation.
As for free schools it will be run by the local bigot or group of bigots who have nothing else in their lives and it gives them an opportunity to bully and coerce others in their local community

For most of the free schools will be run by religious nut jobs and/or free marketeers.
Also state schools have been mainly under the control of the Tory party for the last 60 years. They didn’t brain wash kids nor did Labour.
Free schools, by their very nature will. Just ask the Jesuits.
As for the left, based on the old principles of equality, fraternity and liberty is dead in the water. The neo liberals have won and your world is the future, or the way of the religious fundamentalist (of every creed)

“I never understand why you lefties have such a problem with the simple concept of debate. It’s what’s at the heart of democratic politics.”
I have no problem with debate, I love a good episode of question time.

” Some say that out of the clash of thesis and antithesis an altogether better synthesis will emerge.”
Watch it Flowerpower that sound a little too Marxist for me.

“Others see it more as a clash of idea where some are stress-tested to destruction, leaving only the fittest memes surviving. Whatever – it’s all healthier than living in silos or echo chambers having one’s own prejudices endlessly reinforced.”
No the point is the effort and the need to argue.
Don’t you have better things to do in your life than argue with a few troublesome lefties.
Also it is a left of centre debating forum, where the left discuss ideas to move forward. What do you gain from been involved in that debate.
You never intend to vote for left leaning party. So why post.
Is it the need for your views to be dominant or are you just bored and want a 10 minute argument.
Also you won, go out and celebrate. Burn a few effigies of Gordon

33. Flowerpower

Crikey Rhys W, you really are tribal. What happened to all that ‘beyond Left and Right’, post-ideological, ‘Third Way’ stuff Labour used to spout?

34. Rhys Williams

Do you believe in a third way or even a forth.?
As for been tribal, aren’t we all if we really honest.?

I dunno Rhys, some of the right-whingers on LibCon make interesting (if wrong) points, and it’s good to know the mind of the enemy after all ;)

36. Richard Manns

@ Rhys Williams

“No the point is the effort and the need to argue.
Don’t you have better things to do in your life than argue with a few troublesome lefties.”

We actually think that there might be a mutual benefit to discuss points with you. Your view that we righties should universally dismiss and ignore you is rather anti-intellectual and tribal.

“You never intend to vote for left leaning party. So why post.”

You miss the point. Parties change, and so does the political environment. We may influence where the “right” actually is, similarly this website influences the leading thoughts of the left. Parties don’t stand still!

“Also it is a left of centre debating forum, where the left discuss ideas to move forward.”

No, it’s a forum where left-of-centre predominates. Why not join the debate? I do not pretend that the left is always wrong, so I might learn something. Stop being so tribal.

“As for been tribal, aren’t we all if we really honest.?”

This is a philosophical fallacy. You confuse “a little tribal” with “absolutely tribal”. Others treat that as a minor failing that, in intellectual discourse, they try to avoid. You seem to treat it as the sine qua non of being left-wing.

Oh, and don’t use a full stop before a question mark! :P

@31 Flowerpower

I never understand why you lefties have such a problem with the simple concept of debate.

Woah there, Flowerpower! Did you miss the 200+ comments on the “don’t ban the burqa” thread? People arguing for and against but all/most from a liberal-leftie perspective? Personally I’ve no problem with debate. It’s when the debate gets dragged into off-topic tangents that’s annoying (ie every BNP thread turns into a history lecture about Islam/ism) and unfortunately it seems to be the right-wingers who use this tactic. I can’t speak for lefties on rightist blogs because I don’t read ‘em :) Paul Staines put me off…

38. Rhys Williams

“We actually think that there might be a mutual benefit to discuss points with you. Your view that we righties should universally dismiss and ignore you is rather anti-intellectual and tribal.”

But isn’t that what you do.
I have not seen one post by any of the right wingers who stray from the party line. Where is their mutual benefit ?
As for anti intellectual.
Most of the debates are tribal and certainly lack any intellectual rigour.
Anyway if you have read my post it was the effort and the need for argument that I cannot understand..
As for tribal, I get a little tired at this aimed at the left.
Tory voters, if you look at voting patterns, are just as tribal as Labour voters.

“This is a philosophical fallacy. You confuse “a little tribal” with “absolutely tribal”. Others treat that as a minor failing that, in intellectual discourse, they try to avoid. You seem to treat it as the sine qua non of being left-wing.”
Also link to me where you have not taken a tribal line of argument

As for degrees of tribalism. In a sense your right
Most people pick a political party because of it’s general views are in line with the individuals.
I have had major problems with both the Lib dems and labour.
Lib dems because of the orange bookers and Labour because of Iraq.
I have flitted between the two, like most lefties.
But you develop as an individual by personal experience and your family values. So you going to be lightly tribal. At least I admit it.
You are as tribal as Dennis Skinner but you haven’t the courage and personal insight to accept that fact.
Also is “righties” a word

39. Rhys Williams

Dr P
Don’t get me wrong. I have no problems with them posting. It is their motives that seem strange.
It seems they are caught up in blogosphere version of the classic Python sketch

40. Just Visiting

Mr S Pill 37

Personally I’ve no problem with debate. It’s when the debate gets dragged into off-topic tangents that’s annoying (ie every BNP thread turns into a history lecture about Islam/ism)

S’funny – the last BNP thread (about the marmite ad) – hasn’t got the word Islam used even once?

Nor the one before that (Richard Barnbrook sacked).

41. Just Visiting

Rhys

I have no problems with them posting. It is their motives that seem strange.

That’s highly patronising.
Do you find suspicious motives in heterosexuals posting on homosexual forums?
Cricket fans chipping in on football sites?

Anyway, on an internet forum isn’t the norm to debate what people actually say – not what you guess at is their motive.

42. Rhys Williams

That’s highly patronising.
Do you find suspicious motives in heterosexuals posting on homosexual forums?
Cricket fans chipping in on football sites?

Anyway, on an internet forum isn’t the norm to debate what people actually say – not what you guess at is their motive.

Why not, what are your motives to post on a left of centre site.
There are plenty of other sites, to air your views.
It has to be the need for either the complete dominance of your point of view or a psychological need for an argument to fill the empty void of your life.
I think probably most of you are failed middle managers.
Apart from Matt who is probably a failed catholic priest or just visiting who just hates immigrants.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    How close is Michael Gove to the New Schools Network? http://bit.ly/bn6gtS

  2. Clare Lewis

    RT @libcon: How close is Michael Gove to the New Schools Network? http://bit.ly/bn6gtS

  3. Thetis

    links to Unity: NSN happy to offer PR advice to Steiner schls RT @libcon How close is Gove to the New Schools Network? http://bit.ly/bn6gtS

  4. Other TaxPayers Alli

    Our Freedom of Info requests on Gove's dealings with free school "charity", at @libcon http://bit.ly/aocTuu

  5. MyDavidCameron

    RT @OtherTPA: Our Freedom of Info requests on Gove's dealings with free school "charity", at @libcon http://bit.ly/aocTuu

  6. diana smith

    RT @OtherTPA: Our Freedom of Info requests on Gove's dealings with free school "charity", at @libcon http://bit.ly/aocTuu

  7. Tim Beadle

    RT @OtherTPA: Our Freedom of Info requests on Gove's dealings with free school "charity", at @libcon http://bit.ly/aocTuu

  8. Andy Sutherland

    RT @OtherTPA: Our Freedom of Info requests on Gove's dealings with free school "charity", at @libcon http://bit.ly/aocTuu

  9. Myles Winstone

    RT @OtherTPA: Our Freedom of Info requests on Gove's dealings with free school "charity", at @libcon http://bit.ly/aocTuu

  10. Angela la Land

    RT @mydavidcameron: RT @OtherTPA: Our Freedom of Info requests on Gove's dealings with free school "charity", at @libcon http://bit.ly/aocTuu

  11. Chris Paul

    RT @OtherTPA: Our Freedom of Info requests on Gove's dealings with free school "charity", at @libcon http://bit.ly/aocTuu

  12. Alasdair Ross

    RT @OtherTPA: Our Freedom of Info requests on Gove's dealings with free school "charity", at @libcon http://bit.ly/aocTuu

  13. Lovely Horse

    RT @ThetisMercurio: links to Unity: NSN happy to offer PR advice to Steiner schls RT @libcon How close is Gove to the New Schools Network? http://bit.ly/bn6gtS

  14. sunny hundal

    How close is Michael Gove to the New Schools Network? http://bit.ly/a7Ei6c (asks @otherTPA)

  15. Richard George

    RT @sunny_hundal: How close is Michael Gove to the New Schools Network? http://bit.ly/a7Ei6c (asks @otherTPA)

  16. andy c

    RT @OtherTPA: Our Freedom of Info requests on Gove's dealings with free school "charity", at @libcon http://bit.ly/aocTuu

  17. Andy Sutherland

    RT @sunny_hundal: How close is Michael Gove to the New Schools Network? http://bit.ly/a7Ei6c (asks @otherTPA)

  18. Sarah Raphael

    RT @sunny_hundal: How close is Michael Gove to the New Schools Network? http://bit.ly/a7Ei6c (asks @otherTPA)

  19. andrew

    How close is Michael Gove to the New Schools Network? | Liberal …: Lee Griffin posted on The scandal of no prose… http://bit.ly/d5rpUe

  20. Nancy Crown

    How close is Michael Gove to the New Schools Network? | Liberal … http://bit.ly/9GXc8t

  21. Chris Jones

    The Con-Dem govt cuts education but it supports the New Schools Network run by a friend of Gove with £500,000 http://tinyurl.com/33q3fvy

  22. Giota Alevizou

    RT @chrisrjones: The Con-Dem govt cuts education but supports the New Schools Network at £500K http://tinyurl.com/33q3fvy

  23. Tony Parkin

    Sorry – corrected link: "How close is Michael Gove to the New Schools Network" for those who missed story the first time http://ow.ly/6ghqL

  24. Cribsheet: 30.08.11 | Topuniversities Over The world - Top universities and Education

    […] Liberalconspiracy.org echoes her sentiment: […]

  25. Cribsheet: 30.08.11 | dailywebday.com

    […] given taxpayers’ money in order to act as a propaganda machine for a political agenda.”Liberalconspiracy.org echoes her sentiment:“how many other charities get £500,000 from the government to implement […]

  26. Cribsheet: 30.08.11 |

    […] Liberalconspiracy.org echoes her sentiment: […]

  27. sunny hundal

    @greglinehan @hugorifkind cronyism http://t.co/bSDcUMam // ignoring evidence http://t.co/9Gmo214M // flip-flops http://t.co/f8dbZoiu





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.