Tonight’s YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 36%, LAB 42%, LDEM 10%. The YouGov daily poll is still showing Labour leads between one and six points (with, at the risk of over analysing normal margin of error movement, slightly more towards the top end of that range than the bottom).


296 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – CON 36%, LAB 42%, LDEM 10%”

1 4 5 6
  1. @ Alec – “Do we have a big society based localism, or a society dominated by developrs and big business. Cameron hasn’t decided, because he doesn’t know.”

    Perhaps. Or perhaps he knows full well that behind the cloak of localism lurks the beast of big business waiting to pounce and feed and perhaps that is precisely what he, his party and their backers want.

    Each of the major reforms in Education (local, ‘free’ schools), Health (local GP run) and Planning have on the surface a seeming support of local issues. At their heart though is the clear opportunity for multi-national companies to step in to a market that was formerly closed, or at least problematic, for them to operate in. This could be down to shambolic accident but I rather think it is more by design.

    Big business is getting ever more adept at seeming to nurture their customers and their communities – think “every little helps” vouchers for schools and “helpful banking” and “for the journey” – whilst at the same time fleecing customers and small suppliers (the community). It would be no surprise if government was using similar tactics.

  2. Quick bit of research and it’s more common than I thought. The law (E&W only) allows for parents to be imprisoned for up to three months if their children persistently fail to attend school. This law came in around 2000 and between 2002 and 2006 71 parents were jailed. Parents can also be fined up to £2,500. In 2006, just under 3,000 we fined, although there are no details about the amounts. In terms of imprisonment – whad’ya know – it was mostly mothers sent to prison.

    Against this backdrop of fines and prison sentences, it makes Cameron’s child benefit cut threat look even more laughable. You would have to remove child benefit for 13 years to reach the maximum current financial penalty of £2,500.

  3. @Pete B

    Well in this case your first surgeon was cheering the second guy from the sidelines:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article733821.ece

    But you’re right, I blame the the philosophy underpinning prophylactic amputation in the first place. Whoever happens to be wielding the bonesaw one day or the next is largely irrelevant.

  4. Stuart Dickson

    I wonder if it’s Angus McLeod or his sources (perhaps both” who are wholly ignorant of how list MSP vacancies are filled?

    “Critics of the plan to allow MPs into the contest have pointed out that the party cannot guarantee that would happen without a by-election for Holyrood or a regional list MSP stepping down to make way for the new leader.”

    List MSPs must be replaced by the next on their party list, who agrees to fill the post. If no one does, then the vacancy continues until the next general election.

  5. Very concerned to read about the links between property developers and the Conservative Party – and the existence of the Consevative Property Forum.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/hands-off-our-land/8754006/Property-developers-pay-for-access-to-Conservatives.html

    This really does make the planning law amendment proposals look fishy and it’s certainly going to cause a lot of comment at the Lib Dem conference!

  6. SLAB Executive have approved the Murphy/Boyack plan

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-14865745

    Now “The proposals will be debated at UK party conference in September and a special Scottish Labour Party conference in Scotland on 29 October, when it will kick off its leadership process.”

  7. “As opposed to Labour who succeeded in making it worse? Or was the previous 13 years Thatcher’s fault as well?”
    New Labour was, apart from the concessions required to keep the left of the party happy (a bit like the current coalition), a centre-right party.
    There’s a reason Cameron calls himself, ‘the heir to Blair’.
    This had nothing to do with Thatcher.

    To argue, that because the Tories are now centre-right and wish to extend social hierarchy then New Labour can’t have been broadly the same, is a farce.
    It’s a false dichotomy and takes my argument out of context.

    For Tories, this would actually be a beneficial argument – the public voted for a centre-right Labour party 1997-2005 after the Tories had come to the end of their governance period (they had become ‘stale’) – the Tories then won in 2010 after Labour had done the same.
    This would be an argument that the British public are broadly centre-right and will continue to vote for whichever party is centre-right and ‘fresh’.

    I don’t agree with it myself, but it’s a nicely constructed talking point. ;)

  8. @ Amber Star

    “Cameron’s behaviour towards Nadine Dorries was a fine example of a school bully at work. Not the remark itself, that mistake could be made by anybody. But, if an actual apology was too much for him, he could have waited for the others to stop giggling & said: “Nadine, I’m sure you know that was accidental & I hope you aren’t upset by it.”

    What he did do was join in the laughter at her expense & upped it from joke to mockery by saying: “I’ll just leave this alone,” as if it were self-evident that the situation (& therefore by association Dorries herself) was irredeemable.

    And this behaviour shows Cameron’s poor social skills & lack of emotional intelligence.

    So, what Old Nat said is true: Bullying is an adult problem & it’s treated as acceptable behaviour by the majority. Provided it doesn’t manifest as physical behaviour, those who speak against it are e.g. politically correct, humourless, over-reacting etc.”

    I’m amazed at the difference in our respective views of this incident. I watched the Commons episode and I didn’t see anything sexist about it or anything about it that seemed like bullying to me. Frankly, where the sexism lies is that MPs laughed at Cameron saying a female MP was “frustrated.” This seems like a very unlikely response if Cameron had said the same thing to a male backbencher MP (let’s say Peter Bone).

  9. @ SoCaL

    I didn’t say David Cameron’s remark was sexist. I didn’t even say the remark itself was bullying. I said that his follow up was bullying. There’s a difference,

    Encouraging people to make an individual the butt of a disparaging joke, when you have ‘power’ over that individual, it is very unpleasant behaviour.
    8-)

  10. The way I read Cameron’s final response of “I’d better leave it there” or words to that effect was that he realised that whatever he said was going to be hooted and jeered and that would only cause further embarrassment for all concerned – including Nadine Dorries.

  11. An interesting development from the Telegraph website today:

    “The Daily Telegraph reported how Fiona Hyslop, the SNP External Affairs Minister, said a separate Scotland would choose between joining the EU and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA).

    The reversal of long-standing party policy prompted Labour to demand the SNP publish expert opinion on whether an independent Scotland would automatically retain EU membership following separation from the UK.

    If not, Scotland would have to apply for membership as a new ‘accession’ state. The distinction is significant as this would mean the British opt-out from the euro would not apply and Scotland would be forced to join the single currency at some point after joining.

    Scottish ministers are believed to have commissioned legal advice examining the issue, but they have refused an application for it to be released under Freedom of Information laws.”

    “…..Senior sources in Brussels told this newspaper the existing 27 member states would make a ruling in the event of a ‘yes’ vote, but this means Scots going to the polls not knowing which currency a separate Scotland in the EU would use.”

    Since there is no precedent, perhaps the more important issue is not the content of the legal advice but whether it there is any ruling to be made. (i.e. the credibility of the Telegraph sources suggesting that a ruling will be made). Given the difficulty that the UK had in negotiating its independence from the Euro in the first place, if the EU member states do need to make such a determination, the outcome doesn’t seem that difficult a one to call.

  12. pete B

    thatcher did not deregulate a bit, she and her govt*s deregulated a lot. the abolition of capital controls and exchange controls, the many changes to consumer credit laws, the demutualisation of building societies, the big bang, and numerous changes to pension laws all extended the wealth and power of the financial services industry. already by the time john major took over the financial services industry was more powerful than the govt and could not only shape policy but direct it. the govt of john major had neither the inclination or the power to rein in the city and their power grow. whether Mr brown had the inclination to rein in the city is a moot point because by that time the city were in control of the economy and were perfectly capable of throwing a tantrum if they didn’t like govt policy. this was the case not just in our country but in many other countries as well. and so the great game began, the leaders of the industry went round to each country in turn “relax these rules or we will move sinking your economy” why was this threat possible, because there were no capital or exchange controls. so as one country gave in to the blackmail and/or bribes so the industry went to the next country and demanded even more and no where were their threats more effective than the UK a country which had become almost entirely dependant on the industry. how many times has Gordon heard the thinly veiled threats of economic ruin and the promises of fabulous tax revenues. of course he gave in, even i would have given in and crossed my fingers, because at that point there was no possibility of refusal, what if the industry made good on their threats? and even after the bail outs,the uncovering of unimaginable fraud, the evidence of habitual law breaking and most blatant arrogant stupidity, even after that,they come back and deliver their threats and their promises “if you regulate us, we will leave” and the classic “just let us get on with our business and we will pay back all the money you gave us and more besides, honest it was just a little mistake, a few bad apples”. the nature of the beast has been revealed but the blue commenter’s [snip – AW] in the media are quick to plead the case for the financial services industry. every threat is justified and every empty promise is lauded, but here’s the rub, whereas before the crash they were all powerful now they mortally wounded, gangrenous with bad debt and oozing with as yet uncovered fraud. they need us without govt support they cannot survive and even with govt support their chances are less than 50/50. if ever there was a time to curtail their power, to make them a part of our society rather than the overlords, then this is it.

    in the 1980s the conservatives freed us from the tyranny of the unions but delivered us into the tyranny of the banks. today the conservatives have the opportunity to put right that mistake, but the noises we hear from them are not encouraging, “time to stop bashing bankers” they haven’t been bashed, at most they have received a very limp slap on the wrist

    rant over

  13. @RiN

    “but here’s the rub, whereas before the crash they were all powerful now they mortally wounded, gangrenous with bad debt and oozing with as yet uncovered fraud. they need us without govt support they cannot survive and even with govt support their chances are less than 50/50. if ever there was a time to curtail their power, to make them a part of our society rather than the overlords, then this is it.”

    Richard,
    Totally agree.

    One of the priorities of the government should be to work with the rest of Europe, especially Germany, France and possibly Switzerland together with the US to bring in regulation to prevent the banks being “too big to fail”, eg separating retail and investment banking. In addition, some form of limit on salaries and/or tax on huge salaries.

    Unfortunately the current government has too many friends in banking so it won’t happen and the opportunity will be lost.

  14. @ Phil

    Independence within Europe is a fascinating topic. Without a prior ruling about separating states being given automatic membership based on the ‘mothership’s’ status, the SNP are up the creek without a paddle on this proposal. Just for starters, there’s a queque to join the EU with, I believe, Turkey at the front.

    I can’t see the EU being enthusiastic about new members to either the EU or the Euro. And nobody will be joining with an exemption from helping with future bail-outs.

    IMO, independence could mean being willing to go it alone, outside Europe. That’d mean Scottish people would have no right to a Britain without borders. It was always the (false?) assumption that Scotland would automatically be part of the EU – on the same terms as the UK – which avoided discussion of this potentially huge problem.
    8-)

  15. Peter Bell

    ‘Unfortunately the “current government” has too many friends in banking so it won’t happen and the opportunity will be lost’.

    So no change there then

  16. Phil

    A ruling does have to made. I have seen legal opinion both ways on whether Scotland would have to apply for membership of the EU as a new accession state or not.

    Largely, they depend on how the 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties is interpreted. Would Scotland be considered as a “newly independent State” defined as “a successor State the territory of which immediately before the date of the succession of States was a dependent territory for the international relations of which the predecessor State was responsible.”

    Since the citizens of such states (ie former colonies) had no role in determining their foreign relations, the former treaty obligations are largely abrogated.

    Alternatively, Scotland could be seen (along with rUK) as covered by Article 34 “Succession of States in cases of separation of parts of a State” in which case “any treaty in force at the date of the succession of States in respect of the entire territory of the
    predecessor State continues in force in respect of each successor State so formed”.

    Naturally politicians on both sides of the debate confidently assert that their stance is absolutely the case! :-)

  17. @oldnat

    A ruling does have to be made indeed. The whole scenario of an independent Scotland in an interdependent Europe where we have no clear idea of our legal status regarding EU, EFTA Nato seems a willing act of self indulgence which we cannot afford and which we do not need.

    Were I drawing up a nation state from scratch then obviously I would want a free and independent Scotland – but not from here frankly – we have little concrete to gain that we cannot gain from our own efforts within a fairly benign UK willing to discuss our governance reasonably, and a vast amount to lose!!.

    I suspect Alec’s view on this is similar to mine – some kind of independence within the UK – or devo max – and it probably chimes with many in the Labour and Libdem parties – and possibly one or two tories!

    It does beg the question as to the point of the SNP at all – I have never really got its purpose since it ceased to be a vehicle for the independence fundies – another centre left party in a country full of centre left parties(of course old nat believes the Labour party a right wing party so avoids this one!)

  18. Iceman

    “It does beg the question as to the point of the SNP at all – I have never really got its purpose since it ceased to be a vehicle for the independence fundies”

    Fortunately, large numbers of Scots did! You may think that SLAB would have continued to campaign and fight for increased Scottish autonomy, if the SNP hadn’t existed. I (and thousands of others) disagree.

    “I suspect Alec’s view on this is similar to mine – some kind of independence within the UK – or devo max – and it probably chimes with many in the Labour and Libdem parties – and possibly one or two tories!”

    It is quite clear from the polling evidence that DevoMax is the preference of most Scots. Since the LDs and Labour retreated into a unionist lager (Peroni pun intended), voting SNP is the only way currently to bring about that increased autonomy. Of course, it may be that SLAB/SLD (and one or two Tories) will change tack, and campaign hard for fiscal autonomy. That would be good – if unlikely.

    I do realise, of course that many Labour supporters are feart of change.

  19. @ Roger Mexico

    “As OldNat says it’s not the most common form, but ‘induced’ bullying could happen for at least three reasons. One is as a sort of self-importance – making yourself the centre of attention. Of course this may have to be triggered by the victim behaving in a provoking manner to get the reaction, so a form of mutual bullying may form. The victim then gets self validation by being the centre of attention. if you think about it, internet ‘trolling’ is of this type. It also gives the victim the feeling that they right because everyone is attacking them.

    The second and saddest form is sometimes found in those children or adults who have grown up in homes with little affection, where the only recognition comes in discipline and violence. For them being bullied is the only form of attention, maybe even affection, they know. But it’s still better than nothing. I think there are studies that show young animals will prefer all sorts of abuse to an environment with interaction.”

    I think that’s a very British view of things. I think maybe there’s a societal difference as Americans are adverse to bullies and we don’t like bullying or think it’s justified. And usually we do something about it. Almost every major single successful social movement (including the American Revolution) seems to be a response to someone else’s bullying.

    “The third type of ‘induced’ bullying is what you might call the ‘martyr complex’. the woman you mentioned in the TV series would be a good example of this. People seek situations where they suffer abuse because it makes them feel virtuous. It can result in a sort of co-dependence between victim and bully – often with the victim feeling they can’t leave the situation because the bully ‘needs’ them.

    Of course all these situations are rarely deliberate or even conscious. People just get locked in patterns of behaviour and are unable to step out of them.”

    I think this woman does it for the money she makes on Bravo and for the attention she gets to help her career. She was one of the many who came out to LA hoping to make it as an actress and get her big break. This show gives her lots of publicity and results in all sorts of media opportunities and auditions for her.

    “I don’t think anyone is arguing that “poor social skills are an excuse for bullying”, just that they may be used as an excuse for it

    In a sense bullying is always an admission of failure. The bullies are admitting they are unable to interact with everyone in a normal way. Of course it is arguable that in some environments that bullying becomes the norm. but that’s another story, though one very relevant to modern economics.”

    Perhaps. I don’t look at Wall Streeters (or in your case, Fleet Steeters) as bullies so much as they are simply self-entitled. They believe in their own superiority that the rest of the public owes them. But I guess it’s how you define things.

  20. The independence of Slovakia is surely analogous to what would happen to an independent Scotland in the EU.

    Southern Ireland is in the Euro and N.ot and the main problem seems to b cross border movement caused by relative currency fluctuation – so if Scots in the border areas want to shop in Berwick or Carlisle it won’t really matter what currency they use as I’m sure retailers will be flexible.

  21. DAVIDB
    “The independence of Slovakia is surely analogous to what would happen to an independent Scotland in the EU.”

    Not really, as far as this part of the debate is concerned, since Czechoslovakia wasn’t a member of the EU. There are a number of examples in the EU where countries using the euro are adjacent to non-eurozone ones.

    This aspect of the debate is whether any country in the world should bother even debating independence, until the international community will recognise its independence and, if so, on which basis.

  22. Oh! for an edit function!

    ” until the international community will recognise its independence” = until the international community has decided that it will recognise its independence

  23. @ Old Nat

    until the international community has decided that it will recognise its independence
    ————————————————
    …until the international community has decided HOW it will recognise its independence, I think is more to the point.
    8-)

  24. @oldnat, @amber, @davidb

    As for the “there’s a queue, and Turkey’s in front”…er, Croatia is the next one in (1/1/2013),[4] followed by Macedonia and/or Montenegro and/or Iceland, if they qualify and still want to do so. Turkey’s application is stuck for, ahem, complicated geopolitical reasons[1]

    As for would they be *let* in: I’ll bow to Oldnat about whether they’d be considered an new applicant accession state or not. But, should they be considered an applicant starting from scratch, the problem would not be rUK (who, perhaps counterintuitively, would prefer[2] Scotland to be in the EU), nor the European institutions[3], but countries like Spain which have secessionist movements of their own that they’d want to discourage.

    Honestly? I think Scotland would accede, and quickly. But it’s not a slam-dunk…

    Regards, Martyn

    [1]: translation: Turkey cops still kill people for fun and Germany would rather eat its own sick than let Turkey in
    [2]: e.g. the Scotland/England border would be an EU external border otherwise
    [3]: the EU deals with the countries of the former Yugoslavia, where the bodies are hidden in trenches and the fields are landmined. Seriously, do you think deep-fried Mars bars and Frankie Boyle are scary?
    [4]: h ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_the_European_Union

  25. Amber

    I had already made that point. If you want to argue that Scotland is currently a colony, and it’s political representatives have had no role in determining its foreign policy, please feel free to do so.

    I’d be really, really interested to see how you make that argument.

  26. I think a lot of the issue surrounding Scotland and the EU will be clarified when Belgium breaks up. Of course that divorce will be unbelievably messy, but it should give us answers about treaty succession.

  27. @ Martyn

    As for the “there’s a queue, and Turkey’s in front”…
    ————————————-
    I assumed people would ‘get’ that I meant in front of Scotland in the scenario I was exploring… “and Germany would rather eat its own sick than let Turkey in” was what I was implying i.e. it could be a very long wait to join, if Scotland had to apply for membership.
    8-)

  28. Martyn

    ” I’ll bow to Oldnat about whether they’d be considered an new applicant accession state or not.”

    Unfortunately, I don’t get to decide! :-)

    More importantly, the referendum won’t take place during the current turmoil in the EU/eurozone. The political situation may be quite different in 2015.

    Naturally, those opposed to Scottish independence are demanding (why do politicians have to constantly “demand” things – it’s a very unattractive position to take) a referendum during the period of maximum uncertainty. Those for it, prefer to delay.

    That’s just politics.

  29. RiN

    I have always hoped that the dissolution of Belgium would come first!

  30. @ Old Nat

    I had already made that point. If you want to argue that Scotland is currently a colony, and it’s political representatives have had no role in determining its foreign policy, please feel free to do so.

    I’d be really, really interested to see how you make that argument.
    —————————————————–
    If your assertion is correct, the SNP have nothing to fear from putting the legal advice which they received into the public domain. So why won’t they? They didn’t hold back the advice they received about Al-Megrahi, so why the secrecy, all of a sudden?
    8-)

  31. Amber

    I think you have the assertions the wrong way round. I was quite clear that I have seen both sides of the argument, and there is seldom an absolute in international decisions.

    I was simply inviting you to give some justification for your stance. I’m not the “fundie” (to quote Iceman) in this debate.

  32. @ Amber Star

    “I didn’t say David Cameron’s remark was sexist. I didn’t even say the remark itself was bullying. I said that his follow up was bullying. There’s a difference,

    Encouraging people to make an individual the butt of a disparaging joke, when you have ‘power’ over that individual, it is very unpleasant behaviour.”

    Fair enough.

    He seemed like he was embarassed rather than he was trying to make her the butt of his joke (he had just made a double entendre by calling one of his own female MPs “frustrated”). If anything it seemed like he was the butt of a joke and was sitting down out of his own embarassment.

  33. Old Nat

    First we break up Belgium then we break up the UK.

    I’m thinking of a song in case your wondering

    After that it’s Spain and Italy possibly the French basqe region would join an independent basque state, corsica. Germany is already federal but we could see moves to a loosening of ties. Brittany has an independence movement with strong ties with the cornish movement but I think that might be a state to far. Can anyone add one that I have missed, I don’t know too much about eastern europe, whether their states are stable entities.

  34. RiN

    The Basque situation is interesting, in that the Vienna Convention has a provision covering a “newly independent state” formed from two or more territories.

    It does not, however, make provision for such a new state formed from two territories combining from different states “in cases of separation of parts of a State”.

    Peoples do cause problems for politicians. :-)

  35. @ SoCaL

    If anything it seemed like he was the butt of a joke and was sitting down out of his own embarassment.
    —————————————————
    Okay, in your take, DC is socially inept & all of his vaunted PR ability can be undone simply by his own careless use of a single word…. ;-)

  36. @Richard in Norway

    I can tell you that despite the Lega Nord blowhards, who are now seeing serious damage in the polls from their association with Berlusconi, Italy is nowhere near breaking up. “Padania” as Lega Nord likes to call the north, doesn’t exist, so there is not even an historical border where two different parts could be separated. That is not to say that it behaves like a normal unitary state. It is may be an ungovernable mess, but it is a single, unified, ungovernable mess.

  37. Old Nat

    As you can see I am a believer in small state

  38. Robert

    Perhaps I am being overly enthusiastic, but Italy has only been a unified country since 1871?: and the regional stresses to appear to be extreme, but I bow to your superior knowledge. I thought you had a strong connection with France or is that another Robert.

  39. socalliberal
    I agree with your assessment of Cameron’s perfromance at PMQ’s.

    However re this:
    “as Americans are adverse to bullies and we don’t like bullying or think it’s justified.”

    Pity your governments don’t think the same way.

  40. SOCALLIBERAL

    Re Amber star comment
    “Cameron’s behaviour towards Nadine Dorries was a fine example of a school bully at work. Not the remark itself, that mistake could be made by anybody. But, if an actual apology was too much for him, he could have waited for the others to stop giggling & said: “Nadine, I’m sure you know that was accidental & I hope you aren’t upset by”

    I am with Amberstar on this. As a keen Coalitionite, I have been a fan of much of what DC has said and done. I was disappointed by his childish and immature response to an MP who is noted to be difficult. It is his job to manage not to mock her. Unlike Amberstar I do not believe that his original comment was accidental, but staged managed, which is why he did not apologise and then answer the question.

  41. @amber

    Oh, gottit, thanks. As I’m sure is obvious, I had my sense of humour removed at a young age… :-)

    @RiN

    I’m watching “QI”, and so must absent myself from my post as resident UKPR elf. As a first approximation, the answer would be “all of them”. It’s Europe: the borders are always in pencil, never in pen… :-)

    Regards, Martyn

  42. Martyn

    I have a Passion for historical maps, the changes in European borders have been astonishing the case of Poland is particularly interesting. But we still cling to an idea of permanence, when just a brief walk back in history shows us just how much and quickly things can change. Mind you we don’t need to go too far back, Yugoslavia and eastern europe give us ample examples. Who could have foreseen moldavia?

  43. @RiN

    You’re not wrong.

    Regards, Martyn

  44. @ Amber Star

    “Okay, in your take, DC is socially inept & all of his vaunted PR ability can be undone simply by his own careless use of a single word…. ”

    He’s not dumb or anything (certainly he’s a lot smarter than a good number of presidents we’ve had) but he’s not exactly the smartest person on the planet. It’s entirely possible he’s socially inept. And PR can be undone by politicians in single words or phrases.

    @ Pete B

    “Pity your governments don’t think the same way.”

    Yes but notice something odd that’s happenned. When we’ve done the bullying, we’ve had it come back in our faces. Look no further than the Vietnamese. What they did to us was something we would have done to others. When we act like bullies on the international stage, we have inevitably screwed ourselves.

    @ Henry

    “I am with Amberstar on this. As a keen Coalitionite, I have been a fan of much of what DC has said and done. I was disappointed by his childish and immature response to an MP who is noted to be difficult. It is his job to manage not to mock her. Unlike Amberstar I do not believe that his original comment was accidental, but staged managed, which is why he did not apologise and then answer the question.”

    You guys are probably right. You know this guy far better than I do and you know your own politics and social etiquette far better than I do. I just share my initial impressions.

  45. God grant that Cumberland
    Shall by his mighty hand
    Victory bring.

    May he seditions hush
    And like a torrent rush
    Rebellious Scots to crush
    God save the king

  46. Wrong thread

1 4 5 6