YouGov on Leveson

YouGov’s weekly poll for the Sunday Times is now out here. The fieldwork was done a day later than usual, between Friday and Saturday, so it could contain some proper post-Leveson questions. The voting intention figures are CON 31%, LAB 44%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 10%.

As we’ve consistently seen, there is majority support for the principle of tougher regulation of the press – 68% of people think there needs to be tougher regulation, 21% do not. There is majority support amongst supports of all parties.

On the main dividing line that has emerged from Leveson, 58% of people think that there should be laws backing up the new regulatory system, compared to 26% of people who are opposed. Again, a majority of supporters of all parties back a new law. However, later questions in the survey suggest some reservations – 52% of people agree that MPs should have no role in the design of the system of regulation, and 47% of people think there is a risk of future governments using the laws to control the media.

Overall 25% of people thought that giving the state a role in the regulation of the press would be a major and welcome change, 21% of people think it would be a major but worrying change. 32% think it would only be a minor change and 22% don’t know.

Asked about the stances of the three party leaders respondents start to fall into more partisan responses. People think David Cameron is wrong to oppose the recommendation of new laws to back up new regulatory body by 50% to 29%, but Tory voters support him by 48% to 34%. Responses become even more partisan when YouGov asked why David Cameron was opposing the new laws – by 59% to 26% Conservative supporters think it is because he believes in the principle of the free press, by 74% to 8% Labour supporters think he is currying favour with newspaper editors . We see the same pattern in attitudes to Ed Miliband, Labour supporters think he is supporting the recommendations to protect the victims of press misbehaviour by 54% to 24%, but by 75% to 15% Conservative supporters think he is just trying to undermine the government.

It’s a lovely illustration of something I’ve written about before, of how people interpret political events through the prism of their pre-existing political views. Hence people tend to support legal underpinning for media regulation, but when current Conservative voters see David Cameron opposing this and Ed Miliband supporting it they see David Cameron acting out of principle and Ed Miliband being opportunistic, when Labour supporters see the same thing they see Ed Miliband acting to protect the victims of press intrusion while David Cameron sucks up to the newspapers. Events are as likely to reinforce existing political views as change them.

That doesn’t mean Leveson won’t have any impact – the 13 point lead for Labour in today’s poll is fairly high and we’ll see if it sticks, although that could equally be the knock-on impact of the high levels of UKIP support we’ve seen over the last few days.


326 Responses to “YouGov on Leveson”

1 2 3 7
  1. “58% of people think that there should be laws backing up the new regulatory system, compared to 26% of people who are opposed. Again, a majority of supporters of all parties back a new law.”
    While I don’t think a majority of the public will even remember Leveson in a few days time, it’s never a good idea to be on the wrong side of the public.

    Perhaps Cameron is thinking that he can stall any legislation until at least after the next GE, so any short-term damage might not last – whereas Ed has made himself an enemy of the press again (first over phone hacking, now over press regulation).

  2. @ Old Nat

    Remember that Congressional Debate that nearly turned into an actual fight fight between two Congressmembers I told you about in October?

    Here is the ending to that story.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83959.html

    IMHO, the anger felt by some is a lot of petty bs.

  3. Wonder how many of the 58% who support laws backing up the new regulatory system really know what effect that might be for future freedom of the Press?

    I don’t trust the Press much, but I trust the Establishment even less.

  4. TINGEDFRINGE

    The regulation would be against unethical intervention in and damage to the private lives of individuals. Does Miliband’s support for that make him an enemy of the press? I think not.
    Does it indicate that the UK press or sections of it may be encouraged to grow up and adopt a more responsible and civilised role in public and political life? I hope so.

  5. I wonder if some people defending the media status quo have thought about trying logical argument ?

    Hysteria and wild predictions of the end of free speech just aren’t doing it for me.

    Are there any real reasons why the status quo should be defended? Are we already at a near perfect and unimprovable postion re the media or is it one area of life where standards simply must not be allowed?

  6. “Does Miliband’s support for that make him an enemy of the press? I think not.”
    Okay – let me rephrase, it makes enemies of the major owners of the press who clearly do not want change.

    Perhaps, like with phone hacking, Miliband just doesn’t care – but it pretty much guarantees that the press will be ‘on side’ with non-Labour parties in 2015.

  7. The problem for Cameron is that it looks like he set up this enquiry, at huge cost, and is going to ignore the main thrust of it. Not only ignore it, slate it in public.

    Another problem is those who want Leveson implemented in full are putting on one side the victims and on the other the figurehead seems to be Rupert Murdoch…..guess which one the public will fall down on the side of.

    The Hacked Off website has got just under 97,000 people to sign it’s e-mail petition in less than 24 hours…..tells you all you need really.

  8. It does make you realise that Party politics is largely a whole lot of nonsense.

    A insists that X is Y.
    B insists that Y is X.

    And the solid reasoning beyond their arguments?

    Blinkered tribalism.

    No wonder that, once in power, all parties are more or less the same. Parties play to their respective tribes when in oppostion and, as soon as they are in government, they have to deal with reality. Which just doesn’t match up to any particular tribe!

  9. @RED RAG
    It is clear he`s taking a short-term hit for supposed longer-term gain…Whether that will materialise once the press have got what they want ,I am not sure…He may also not want skeletons tumble out of the cupboard by antagonising the press.

  10. TINGEDFRINGE “but it pretty much guarantees that the press will be ‘on side’ with non-Labour parties in 2015.”…..didn’t many people say the same thing when Ed M kept up the pressure on the media over the hacking scandal . Maybe it is bravado, maybe he sees it as a way of distinguishing himself with the voters, maybe he just sees it as right, maybe he sees a fight with Murdoch as a way of galvanising the people who may support him to go out and vote? It looks like he will stay on the same course whatever the consequences.

    Either way, as you say, Murdoch et all will go for him before the next election.

  11. I doubt the press with be uniformly against Miliband come 2015. And I doubt it will matter as much.

    First there has to be a long campaign of vitriol and that is not happening – the right wing press is UKIP issue obsessed. And any vitriol is being shared around. Miliband is turning out to be a figure that the press are not able to drum up much ‘hatred’ for a la Kinnock, Brown etc.

    Second – internet blogs and social media will play a much larger role in 2015 and those opinions are far more diverse and informative.

  12. “but it pretty much guarantees that the press will be ‘on side’ with non-Labour parties in 2015.”
    —————————————
    Well that will be a massive loss for Labour won’t it?.
    So be it. Better that Ed stands up for what is right and decent rather than bowing to the press barons for narrow self-serving reasons.

  13. At present thr right wing press either rubbish EM or ignore him.So perhaps in
    2015 they will launch an all out attack,but what form will it take.? He looks funny,speaks funny?They have already tried that and it did not work.

  14. Ann in Wales – I do think it quite funny the number of different ways the right wing media keep going for Ed M. As you say funny voice, looks funny, RED Ed, should be in the lead by more in the polls, can’t be trusted ask his brother….each one seems to have failed. It looks like many in the public seemed to have seen through it considering his satisfaction/dissatisfaction rating in the polls is now on par with Camerons. Wonder what their next jibe will be?

  15. Ann,
    Certain newspapers made a point of Leveson’s Jewish background – which I imagine will be pushed against Miliband. Similar things have happened to John Bercow.
    There’ll be nothing overtly racist or anti-Semitic, but if they take that angle, there’ll be the dog-whistle ‘foreigner’ things levelled against him.

    In the same way that Gordon Brown was a ‘Scot ruling over the English’ and Michael Howard was a ‘Romanian vampire’.

  16. “but it pretty much guarantees that the press will be ‘on side’ with non-Labour parties in 2015.”

    No change there then.

  17. SoCalLiberal

    If I was Faleomavaega – I’d spend more time in Samoa than Washington too! :-)

  18. TG

    I thought Howard had moved to Serbia?

    http://news.yahoo.com/vampire-loose-serbia-140736133.html

  19. at the 2010 GE only the Mirror and Sunday Mirror backed Labour. So it probably won’t be worse than that.

    Admittedly Labour have had a bit more backing from other newspapers in the past, though.

  20. but tingedfrance most of the press were going to support non labour parties whatever ed did. the papers don’t have the power to influence voting patterns to the same extent any more. 2010 labour unpopular after 13 years,brown no charisma and hardly any friends in the papers,even the guardian advised voting lib dem. what happened ? tories with the money for advertising , handsome youthful leader, most of the press supporting. they couldn’t even get a 1 seat majority. amazed even me,i was expecting a tory landslide. next election it will be far tougher for the tories. miliband would look ridiculous,grovelling to the press barons and they’d still say vote tory. the press have underestimated ed in the past and i think they recognize this now. he’s not bothered what the press say about him,many people get their news from different sources anyway. character assassinations can be ridiculed on various social media . press barons don’t have the power like the old days.

  21. Lefty

    There is one major difference with the 70s and now. That is that thatcher had a plan and a philosophical concept on which it was based. It may have been hidden from view but it was there, she also had support from the international establishment for her plans. I see no evidence that ed has a plan or a new direction and even if he did I see no support for a new direction in the international establishment. Of course it may be there, but I would like to know which economists or political thinkers he’s a big fan of. We knew with Maggie that she was enthusiastic about Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek and investigative journalists could have predicted her likely policies, can we do the same with ed?

  22. what did the FTsupport last time that is the one lab would like to get that the can possible achieve.

    The Sun will say Cons not been good but best of bad bunch better with LD so vote LD. The Guardian will say vote ABT depending on seat.

  23. “by 74% to 8% Labour supporters think he is currying favour with newspaper editors”

    I know this is just a little snippet on a relatively unimportant issue to most people,and as Anthony says this is along ‘party lines’. However this is the Labour vote as it stands today which would give them a healthy majority. Therefore I would say this is a firming up of the Labour vote (on Leveson at least).

  24. I read somewhere last week that The Sun will decide to whom they give their
    Support in 2015,depending on the state of the economy.So perhaps the Tories
    cannot be absolutely certain of unequivocal support from the right wing press.

  25. Watching Charlotte Church on Question Time on Thursday and Hugh Grant on Marr this morning, it strikes me that some of these much derided celebrities are more in touch with the public mood, and far better able to articulate it, than many politicians, commentators and journalists. Church, alongside old hacks like Simon Jenkins and Neil Wallis and politicians in the shape of the almost weirdly inarticulate Patrick McLoughlin and the over-excitable Chris Bryant, shone like a beacon of common sense and rationality. She connected with the studio audience in ways that were simply beyond her fellow panellists and spoke sincerely, passionately and with great articulacy. Ditto Grant vis a vis John Whittingdale this morning. Both of them, rather than their counterparts in the debate, appeared to be fully paid up members of the human race and they cut much more sympathetic figures in comparison. The journalists, politicians and commentators, and I find this more and more these days, appeared to be members of a club, largely insulated from the real world, convening debates that are mere echo chambers for the exchange of platitudes, clichés and tired assumptions. If you don’t believe me, watch anyone of the umpteen programmes that Andrew Neil presides over. If you want something to wean you off your political obsession, and make you despair of politics in general, just tune in to a Neil led discussion with Portillo, Abbott, Alistair Campbell and any number of old hacks like Quentin Letts that he often asks to join him. Ghastly, introspective, old pals club stuff at its very worst.

    The impact that people like Church and Grant have when they occasionally join the public discourse and, incidentally, risk all manner of ordure being poured over them by the establishment when they do so, illustrates just how stale and dislocated our politics and journalism has become. Is it any wonder that the public are shunning elections, buying less newspapers and that the most popular politician in the land is Boris Johnson? Johnson’s secret is that he does politics for people who hate politics. Clever man who captures the prevailing public mood.

    The solution? Multi-faceted and long term, but the emergence of a serious politician, with serious things to say, charismatically and persuasively, about the issues that matter to people could be part of the answer. Sadly, our political and journalistic culture, is not conducive to the creation and survival of such characters.

  26. Sorry my bad – who did the FTsupport last time this is the one Lab would like to get on side that is possible.

    The Sun will say Cons not been good but best of bad bunch better without LDs so vote Cons. The Guardian will say vote ABT depending on seat.

  27. @Paul
    “many people get their news from different sources anyway. character assassinations can be ridiculed on various social media . press barons don’t have the power like the old days.”
    ————————–
    A very telling point. The Internet is changing the way that ‘ordinary folk’ communicate and in some cases it is changing the way they organise ( e.g Arab Spring ). This is unwelcome in some countries and one way of keeping track of what the serfs are up to is to intercept their email and check which websites they visit, and of course who they network with.
    Surely we would never see such intrusion here, would we?
    :;)

  28. @ Tingedfringe

    Many thanks for picking up my query in the last thread about absolute maximum possible support for UKIP. It suggests UKIP have a current ceiling of somewhere between 15% and 20% with a heavy proportion coming from the Tories.

    Obviously they can do certain things to make them appear competent economically and not just a one trick pony on the EU but that will take some re-inventing.

    If I was asked the question I would say “never say never” even though I am strongly Labour/Green. Certain issues which they are strong on do appeal to me to some degree such as level of population (although immigration is only one factor and they need a rounded policy, assuming they are actually concerned with population issues and not just immigrants) . Also, not being able to have control over our own destiny- however that has less to do with the EU than it does with international free trade.

    What scares me most for this country is that there are very few productive things that cannot be done much cheaper elsewhere (manufacturing, farming, IT, call centres, financial services etc etc). So I don’t see where our future income will come from. Generally companies are getting bigger and have less problems with placing jobs/work overseas and I’m not sure where this ends. If I felt a right wing party had the policies to deal with this I would consider them despite hating the idea. Very clearly for now I don’t think UKIP does that for me at least.

  29. @ Alec

    Blimey- your post in reply to Squeezedmiddle in the last thread could have been mine word for word!

    The SME company I work for is also potentially picking up some business that might in part secure the future and turn it from Zombie to making a small profit. However I know that this has nothing to do with the general state of the economy just we may be able to take business from someone else. We are in manufacturing and from a high in the 1990’s we are down to 1/3rd of the size with 1/3rd of the workforce. Sadly we lost all that business to China and even sadder that has sent us down the same road to the stage where the complete finished article will probably eventually end up there and even more of a reduction in workforce even if the company survives.

    Anyway, the PMI’s start coming out from Monday and then we will know the real situation which is why we have PMI’s I guess!

  30. @ Ann In Wales

    I suspect the Sun will want to go with the likely winner to keep up their ‘proud’ record of calling it right. Not sure if they called it right in 1979 or 1974. Presumably in the 1960’s they were a Labour paper so potentially they have a track record lasting 50 years!

    I don’t read the Sun so I have no idea whether they are laying into Miliband to such a degree that it is a difficult one to do an about turn on, although they can probably swing something ‘with a heavy heart’.

  31. RiN

    Fair points. And of course one never steps in the same river twice.

    As a counterfactual, it would have been perhaps more interesting from a historical point of view had the crash come a year or so later and the Republicans won in 08. We’d have then had committed Austerity-driven establishments in the US, UK and EZ simultaneously. Had such globally co-ordinated Austerity worked or failed, that would have given a clear direction to the political discourse over the next decade or so. In particular, had it failed, a more radical reversion to reining in the perceived excesses of business, and to more active involvement of Govt in economic stimulus might have been irresistible on both sides of the Atlantic. The mirror image of 79-80.

    As it is, the rather muddy combination of half-hearted stimulus and austerity leaves room for argument on both sides, and makes pressing the case for a decisive move left or right electorally impossible.

  32. SHEV11,I believe you do not read the Sun,just look at the pictures!LOL.

  33. @leftylampton (FPT)

    Is the logical conclusion to your thesis that, just as Margaret Thatcher took on the ‘vested interests of the left’ — the Trade Unions, EdM must take on the ‘vested interests of the right’ — starting maybe with Murdoch and the other right-leaning press, then the banks? If he wants to re-regulate the banks, he will need at least EU support, otherwise the markets will trash the economy.

    ‘hacked off’ petition now at over 100,000 signiatures.
    :-)

  34. @AW

    UKPR Polling Average looking old atm. :-)

  35. CROSSBAT11
    ” the emergence of a serious politician, with serious things to say, charismatically and persuasively, about the issues that matter to people could be part of the answer. Sadly, our political and journalistic culture, is not conducive to the creation and survival of such characters.”
    Thanks for your usual pointer to common sense and reality.
    But does this need charisma?
    RED RAG
    And maybe he has been brought up to recognise the role and value of the Fourth Estate, and is looking for it to be self-regulated by people who see their tenure of financial control of the press as the lesser part of stewardship, and its management as important to the peculiar mix of interest and altruism that makes up a modern democracy.

  36. Either way, as you say, Murdoch et all will go for him [Ed M] before the next election.
    ——————-
    That appears to be what the Tories are counting on; but the press thought David Cameron was a shoo-in last time & it turned out that he wasn’t. He made it over the finishing line because the LDs got out & pushed!

    Will the press risk going to war with Ed M, only to find he’s elected anyway? That would cost them because it would make it clear that their period of influence is over; that they don’t know a winner when they see one; & an Ed M government would lose no time in clipping their wings.

    The thing is, the print media used to be big employers. They’re not anymore; so as far as Ed’s concerned they can toddle off & write their spiteful gossip from elsewhere. And they can forget about getting broadcasting licenses too.

    And Ed M need do only one thing to win (LOL), charge Sky etc. for using the BBC infrastructure – reversing the counter-intuitive situation which exists at the moment – & have the BBC use the income to outbid them on sporting events. Hands up those who don’t want to see all their favourite sports back on the ad free BBC? I think I see one or two hands… oh, it’s Rupert & James! ;-)

  37. Amber
    I will propose you for Minister Of Sport.
    Can we have our cricket back on the Beeb please?

  38. Richard in Norway

    Do you honestly believe that the majority of the British electorate are going to be worried (or even mildly curious) about what economist Ed Miliband likes and will use that as part of their information on selecting who to vote for in the general election?

    I really wish you were right and that the majority of the electorate would include information like that in their choice, however, it is as much as some of them can do to get themselves down to the polling stations.

    They won’t be worrying if Ed supports Stieglitz, Krugman or Blanchflower.
    IMO the electorate will be voting on the economy, NHS, schools, utilities, fuel and employment and the way things are going, it doesn’t look good for either of the coalition parties and I cannot see it changing that much between then and now. Even if it did, the colossal amount of damage that is currents being done to the NHS and people’s standards of living etc will not be easily forgotten. In my experience, people have principles until policies affect them personally, they then seem to change their minds.

  39. Mattie

    Wonder how many of the 58% who support laws backing up the new regulatory system really know what effect that might be for future freedom of the Press?

    I don’t trust the Press much, but I trust the Establishment even less.

    Umm, you do realise that the Press are part of the “Establishment”, don’t you? About as firmly embedded in as you can get. Though on the whole people trust Establishment figures such as Judges (67%) more than “upmarket” journalists (41%), MPs (37%) more than “mid-market” ones (20%), and frankly even estate agents (13%) or EU officials (16%) more than the tabloids (10%).

    http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/fbzcrjzz4y/YG-Archives-Trackers-Trust-110112.pdf

    It’s also worth pointing out that both BBC (60%) and ITV (52%) journalists scored better than any of their Press counterparts despite being under stricter controls than Leveson is proposing for the latter. So your attitude is somewhat unusual, or perhaps, if you examine it, you’ll find that your position is actually more nuanced that you have stated it.

    Any sort of media regulation is going to be about choosing the ‘least worst’ option. What is interesting is that few of those attacking Leveson’s proposals (rather than differing over minor details as say Chakrabarti is) are explicitly defending the current situation as the best possible. They’re just attacking the proposals and hoping that tyhings won’t change.

  40. Gracie,totally agreed.Apparently 10% of households cannot pay their energy
    bills at the moment,and winter has hardly begun.I wonder how long the Tories
    Have got before they have to start making inroads into the Labour lead.surely
    They cannot leave it to the general election?

  41. @ Amber

    I have put my hand up for the BBC to “get back” sporting events, because, yes, I don’t want to pay £20 to £30 a month to watch them. Plus the Premier League has largely spent the Sky money on paying massive salary bills which in turn has prevented good English players comng through the ranks which in turn has meant the chances of England ever winning the World Cup in my lifetime extremely remote! If Old Nat takes exception to the use of English I should point out that Scotland were never going to win the World Cup anyway :-)

    However I have to say that Sky totally transforned the coverage of football and to this day remain 10 times as professional as the BBC at presenting it (100 times as professional as ITV!). Also there were never any live games to speak of until Sky came along so it’s not like BBC would be taking them back- there is actually more live football on terrestrial now than there was in the 1970’s. That is not necessarily a good thing because it means less people need to go out and watch their local team.

    So yes, I think the result of Sky’s involvement has been bad, but it’s not their fault they have done a great job.

  42. Wonder how many of the 58% who support laws backing up the new regulatory system really know what effect that might be for future freedom of the Press?

    -Probably about as many as of the 42% who don’t.

    One thing that the newspapers have all consummately ignored is the Levenson proposed as part of the statute the guarantee of Press Freedom equivalent to the US First Amendment

    With the Autumn statement next week which is almost certainly going to undermine the Coalitions fiscal credibility even more and will no doubt be easily portrayed as showing that Osborne equates a reduction on tax relief for those fortunate enough to be able to put £1,000 a week into their pension pots (ruling out 99% of the Population) as equivalent to cuts in income for the poorest in the country.

    Whose betting 20% lead for Labor by Christmas

  43. Shev11 and Amber,I agree with both of you.Those blasted adverts are very
    Annoying,however we only have Sky to watch Tennis and it does mean that
    We can see all the Grand Slams and many other tournaments which would
    Not be available on the BBC.I hate swelling Murdochs coffers though.

  44. Gracie

    No I don’t believe that the public care which economists ed reads anymore than they cared which ones Maggie read, all I was saying is that although this era has an uncanny resemblance to the 70s and the public may be or soon will be ready for a radical shift as they were then. I don’t see where that radical shift will come from, there are no clues so far that ed will do anything more than the usual status quo, the only sign of radicalism is on the right, with the ukip and right wing Tories saying we need more cuts in public spending and more deregulation……. My fear is that its this radicalism which will win in 2020 especially when major parts of the establishment either support such ideas or are not opposed ideologically but rather pragmatically. So I agree with Lefty that we are at a major turning point but it could go either way and I don’t see any awareness on the left that there is a once in a generation opportunity. In the 70s the right was very aware that that opportunity existed. but its true that this discussion is beyond the realms of day to day polling, but I believe the polling is reflecting the sence of crisis, in particular the public’s expectation that the economic crisis will continue for many years indicates that the public is losing faith in the present economic model.

  45. Shevii

    ” Generally companies are getting bigger and have less problems with placing jobs/work overseas and I’m not sure where this ends”

    In the days of capital controls those big companies didn’t have so much power. Odd that money has more freedom of movement that people!!

  46. Gracie/Ann

    You’re right of course about the public’s disinterest in which economists LoO’s favour. Few people would have given much thought to Thatcher’s favouring if Hayek on the way to the poll booths in 79.

    But this IS still an obviously important point. Because the philosophy driving the LoO should he/she become PM will shape what they do in office. So the question of whether Miliband believes in radical refocusing of economic direction is very important.

  47. I have to say that for once I am not happy with a YouGov question;

    “Do you think MPs should or should not have a say in the design of the system of independent regulation?”

    “Yes, MPs should; it’s important for MPs to give the regulation a legal underpinning”

    “No, MPs should not; the involvement of MPs in this way threatens the principles of a free press”

    I think if you are going to talk about MP’s you should talk about Journalists not the Press and the other way round if you want to talk about the Press use Parliament.

    I also don’t like the use of “freedom”.

    Given that we know the public have a fairly low opinion of MP’s and a high regard for freedom I wonder just how fair this question is.

    Try rewriting it the other way round;

    “Do you think Parliament, as the UK’s democratically elected law making body should or should not have a say in the design of the system of independent regulation?

    “Yes, Paliament should; it’s important in order to protect individual privacy to give the regulation a legal underpinning

    “No, Parliament should not; the involvement of those we elected in this way threatens the way journalists can do their work.”

    Peter.

  48. @ Ann in Wales

    Annoying,however we only have Sky to watch Tennis and it does mean that we can see all the Grand Slams and many other tournaments which would not be available on the BBC.
    ————————-
    They would; it’s much cheaper to show international sport than it used to be. The BBC just doesn’t bid for sport. That could & should change.
    8-)

  49. @ ShevII

    However I have to say that Sky totally transforned the coverage of football and to this day remain 10 times as professional as the BBC at presenting it…
    ——————-
    Yes, the BBC coverage is woeful; it’s almost as if the BBC has an unwritten, non-compete agreement with Sky: The BBC don’t even try to do well at anything which is designated as being Sky’s turf.
    8-)

  50. Peter Cairns

    on those YG questions

    What an excellent post. It was the first thing that came to mind when I read Anthony’s introduction to the thread.

1 2 3 7