Home > Oz Politics > Costa’s catastrophe

Costa’s catastrophe

March 29th, 2011

A catastrophe like the one that befell the NSW Labor Party at the weekend can scarcely be attributed to a single individual, and indeed there were many contributors. But one person stands out above all others as deserving of credit or criticism – former Treasurer Michael Costa. Having risen through the trade union movement, he made his bones in Parliament as a union-busting Transport Minister. Appointed by the utterly hopeless Morris Iemma as Treasurer, he persuaded Iemma to privatise the electricity industry, in direct contradiction of the platform on which Labor had campaigned, and the previous repudiation of privatisation by NSW voters.

As the massive unpopularity of similar moves in Queensland had shown, Labor was doomed unless it repudiated Costa, Iemma and privatisation. The party managed the first two, but, not unfortunately the third.

In keeping with his entire career, Costa quit the day he became eligible for a Parliamentary pension, and immediately emerged in his true colours as an open enemy of the labour movement and the Labor Party.

As I said at the outset, it wouldn’t be possible for one person to do this alone. While I find it hard to attribute any real agency to Iemma, he and/or the Sussex street machine that nominated him to the Premiership could have stopped Costa if they wanted to.

Categories: Oz Politics Tags:
  1. Freelander
    March 31st, 2011 at 09:18 | #1

    @Alice

    The old story “Mistakes were made, but not by me.” Even Keating is in on the game with his message that privatization should have been forced down the public’s throat faster, harder and earlier, and anyone who opposed the dictatorship of the leader is a rat. Doesn’t bode well for the party’s future.

  2. Ernestine Gross
    March 31st, 2011 at 09:28 | #2

    @jakerman

    You write to me:

    “Please demonstrate how you believe the site will “mislead a lot of users”.

    You made up a quote.

    Surely, the problems with your post @1, page 2 have been exhaustively ‘demonstrated’ by now.

    The policy issue is the inconsistency of the pricing structure with the objective of reducing ghg emissions (see my post @33 above) through price signals. This policy issue is but one example of several I discovered over the years in NSW.

  3. jakerman
    March 31st, 2011 at 10:19 | #3

    Ernestine Gross :@jakerman
    You write to me:
    “Please demonstrate how you believe the site will “mislead a lot of users”.
    You made up a quote.

    Really, this was your quote:

    Here we are. Thank you for confirming that the switchsite is based on a lot of assumptions. As such this web-site is likely to mislead a lot of users. It is as useless as the School web-site for ‘consumer choice’ purposes.

    How did I make up a quote?

    Surely, the problems with your post @1, page 2 have been exhaustively ‘demonstrated’ by now.

    Nope, rather you’ve made strange claims like this:

    SJ, you have gone through the trouble of illustrating a) jakerman’s unit electricity price data @1,page 2 is false (because you have ‘reproduced’ the his unit price data for different quantities!)

    I’m trying but don’t know what you are saying here. Clearly SJ reproduced my method and got the same results.

    So please demonstre the problems with my post and how the Switch wise site “is likely to mislead a lot of users”

  4. jakerman
    March 31st, 2011 at 10:42 | #4

    I think Ernstine is arguing that the “unit electricity price data @1,page 2 is false ” in that that the average 3 bed home uses different power, to test the effect of I compared the same post codes using the same 8,000kWh p.a.

    As expected the effect was neglible. Adelaide and Melbourne stade the same, and Brisbane and Sydney reversed their 1 cent difference between each other.

    Loca kWh cost unit cost
    Adel 8,000 $2,261 $0.28
    Melb 8,000 $1,897 $0.24
    Sydn 8,000 $1,789 $0.22
    Brisb 8,000 $1,807 $0.23

  5. Ernestine Gross
    March 31st, 2011 at 12:05 | #5

    @jakerman
    @ #3, page 3*
    “So please demonstre the problems with my post and how the Switch wise site “is likely to mislead a lot of users”

    a) you have partly corrected yourself by now quoting part of a paragraph which I wrote (I said there are assumptions in the switchwise site “and as such it is likely to mislead a lot of users”.

    b) You are partly on the way of demonstrating to yourself what the problem is with your post #1, page2.

  6. Ernestine Gross
    March 31st, 2011 at 12:07 | #6

    The footnote * is: I’ve noticed one of my posts on page 2 is in moderation. Depending on the outcome, the location identifier numbers may change.

  7. Ernestine Gross
    March 31st, 2011 at 12:36 | #7

    @jakerman

    #4, page 3*

    You are on the way of understanding my point. In your post #1, page 2 you presented electricity prices for 4 locations as constant unit prices. This is clearly not true.

    On page 3 you pick 8000 units as a fixed quantity for the 4 location and conclude that there is not much difference. You overlook that the difference between your page 2, #1 unit prices, 1 for each of 4 locations, and the conditional (on 8000 units) average unit prices, 1 for each of 4 locations, increases with the difference between 8000 units and the model’s assumed units per location.

    If you wish to numerically demonstrate to yourself the problems with your post #1 page 2 you’ll have to put a series of alternative quantities (from 0 to say 20000, using increments of 100) for each location. Then you can compare the price schedules for the locations.

  8. jakerman
    March 31st, 2011 at 12:41 | #8

    Ernestine Gross :@jakerman @ #3, page 3*“So please demonstre the problems with my post and how the Switch wise site “is likely to mislead a lot of users”
    a) you have partly corrected yourself by now quoting part of a paragraph which I wrote (I said there are assumptions in the switchwise site “and as such it is likely to mislead a lot of users”.

    I quoted your paragraph the first time. I made up no quote.

    Please answer the question how is the Switch wise site “likely to mislead a lot of users”. What assumptions are likely to have such a significant and effect?

    b) You are partly on the way of demonstrating to yourself what the problem is with your post #1, page2.

    No, the opposite is true, I demonstrately clearly that your criticism had neglible impact. And prices are higher in privatised Adelaide and Melbourne and lower in Brisbane and Sydney.

  9. jakerman
    March 31st, 2011 at 13:19 | #9

    Ernestine Gross :@jakerman
    #4, page 3*
    You are on the way of understanding my point. In your post #1, page 2 you presented electricity prices for 4 locations as constant unit prices. This is clearly not true.

    Erstine you are grasping at straws, I

    If you wish to numerically demonstrate to yourself the problems with your post #1 page 2 you’ll have to put a series of alternative quantities (from 0 to say 20000, using increments of 100) for each location. Then you can compare the price schedules for the locations.

    Feel free to do this yourself. You may well find the difference between states changes at very high or low usage rates. But I’d be surprised if the changes were so radically different to the comparsion at average household useage.

    Using the average houshold comparsion Adelaide’s cost seem so high as to be statistically significant. The others are closer hence it is plausible that usage might have either neglible or minor effect on the overall unit price. But there is no support for the assertions that NSW and Qld are more expenstive than SA and Vic.

    Feel free to prove me wrong.

  10. jakerman
    March 31st, 2011 at 13:23 | #10

    That should read as: Erstine you are grasping at straws, I told you they were averages, and showed my methods. Using averages a method for interpreting data, that is different to being “clearly not true”.

  11. Ernestine Gross
    March 31st, 2011 at 13:45 | #11

    @jakerman

    As far as I am concerned, you are giving a demonstration of the corporatist-managerialist-pomo culture. Disappointing, jakerman.

    The simple way out for you is to write a correction to your post #1, page 2.

    To get back to the topic of this thread, nothing particularly bad happens to people who write a correction. But tribes of the said culture get voted out – eventually.

  12. jakerman
    March 31st, 2011 at 14:01 | #12

    ““this web-site is likely to mislead a lot of users”

    Followed by Ernestine’s continued declining to backup this claims.

    “I take it your numbers in your post #1, page 2, are not reproducable.”

    Demonstrated to be wrong.

    “jakerman’s unit electricity price data @1,page 2 is false (because you have ‘reproduced’ the his unit price data for different quantities!)”

    Demonstrated to be another over-reach.

    Ernestine, you’ve failed to demonstrate what I need to correct. I’ve (above) demonstrated what you need to correct.

  13. jakerman
    March 31st, 2011 at 14:04 | #13

    As far as I am concerned, you are giving a demonstration of the corporatist-managerialist-pomo culture. Disappointing, jakerman.

    Really? how so? You can answer than after you’ve attended to the other claims you so far failed to support.

  14. Ernestine Gross
    March 31st, 2011 at 14:15 | #14

    @jakerman

    Just stop this silly pomo stuff.

    How do I ‘demonstrate’ to someone like you that the average unit cost is a declining function of quantity when there is a fixed price component?

    And stop denying that you failed to state in your post#1, page 2 that you are quoting average unit prices that hold under unspecified conditions. Well, I suppose I should be careful here. Perhaps you truthfully don’t know what you are talking about and hence truthfully fail to notice that the content of your post #1, page 2 is, well, false and misleading.

    Do me a favour, don’t come back with something like ‘are you denying that the electricity prices in Adelaide aren’t higher than in Sydney and Brisbane’ because I’ll come back to your post #1, page 2 and this is all I am concerned about.

  15. jakerman
    March 31st, 2011 at 14:47 | #15

    How do I ‘demonstrate’ to someone like you that the average unit cost is a declining function of quantity when there is a fixed price component?

    That is not even the question. The question is how significant is the change and how large the range. I’ve demonstrated that at both average consumption (in various states) and at 8,000 kWh/year (in the same states) what the how the electricity charges between state compare. I contend that most households will be in a range that is extravagantly far for either the state average or 8,000 kWh. So that comparing average consumption costs/usage between states is a useful measure.

    For my assessment to be grossly incorrect we wound need 3 factors simultaneously:
    1) the standard deviation is household consumption would need to be large;
    2) the difference in fixed price component between states would need to be large;
    3) this distribution of household consumption would need to be very skewed so that high and low consumption household did not cancel out.

    And stop denying that you failed to state in your post#1, page 2 that you are quoting average unit prices that hold under unspecified conditions. Well, I suppose I should be careful here. Perhaps you truthfully don’t know what you are talking about and hence truthfully fail to notice that the content of your post #1, page 2 is, well, false and misleading.

    I can’t stop denying some thing that I haven’t started denying. I showed you my result, then when confusion began I told you how I got it. The content of in my post #1, page 2 was not false.

    Nick see: http://www.switchwise.com.au/
    Adelaide $/kWh = 0.28
    Melbourne $/kWh = 0.24
    Sydney $/kWh = 0.23
    Brisbane $/kWh = 0.22

    That I made a brief post without explaining my methods does not make the content false. An increasing number of your claims are false though Ernstine.

    Please correct your false claims that I’ve highlighted and also please support you multiple unsupported claims that I’ve likewise highlighted.

  16. jakerman
    March 31st, 2011 at 15:05 | #16

    Do me a favour, don’t come back with something like ‘[blah blah]‘ because I’ll come back to your post #1, page 2 and this is all I am concerned about.

    I.e. all Ernestine is concerned about is taking a one summary post and not the explaination of it that was provided to overcome confusion.

    Thanks for making that clear Ernestine.

  17. jakerman
    March 31st, 2011 at 16:05 | #17

    I just did a Switchwise comparisions for the the states at 5,000; 8,000; 9;000; 10,000; and 15,000 kWh/year. Then averaged them to get this table:

    Loca kWh cost unit cost
    Adel 9,400 $2,671.60 $0.28
    Melb 9,400 $2,182.80 $0.24
    Sydn 9,400 $2,217.80 $0.23
    Brisb 9,400 $2,105.60 $0.23

    [Note to Ernie, compare my average of the iterations with figures in my @1,page 2]

    Accros the five iterations Adelaide and Brisbane remain constant (each change by only 1c/kWhr). Melbourne is more expensive at 5,000 kWh consumtpion than at 15,000 kWh(26 vs 22 c/kWhr). But Sydny is cheaper at 5,000 and more expensive at 15,000 (23 vs 25 c/kWh).

    So not only is Sydney and Brisbane on average (23 c/kWh) no more expensive than Adelaide and Melbourne (28 & 24 c/kWh). But the pricing structure in Melboure is more perverse.

    [Note to Ernie, compare my average of the iterations with figures in my @1,page 2]

    Loca kWh cost unit cost
    Adel 5,000 $1,429 $0.29
    Melb 5,000 $1,284 $0.26
    Sydn 5,000 $1,127 $0.23
    Brisb 5,000 $1,166 $0.23

    Adel 8,000 $2,261 $0.28
    Melb 8,000 $1,897 $0.24
    Sydn 8,000 $1,789 $0.22
    Brisb 8,000 $1,807 $0.23

    Adel 9,000 $2,538 $0.28
    Melb 9,000 $2,101 $0.23
    Sydn 9,000 $2,070 $0.23
    Brisb 9,000 $2,020 $0.22

    Adel 10,000 $2,815 $0.28
    Melb 10,000 $2,305 $0.23
    Sydn 10,000 $2,350 $0.24
    Brisb 10,000 $2,234 $0.22

    Adel 15,000 $4,315 $0.29
    Melb 15,000 $3,327 $0.22
    Sydn 15,000 $3,753 $0.25
    Brisb 15,000 $3,301 $0.22

    Loca kWh cost unit cost
    Adel 9,400 $2,671.60 $0.28
    Melb 9,400 $2,182.80 $0.24
    Sydn 9,400 $2,217.80 $0.23
    Brisb 9,400 $2,105.60 $0.23

  18. jakerman
    March 31st, 2011 at 16:41 | #18

    Correction the unit price average I provided was the unweighted average of the 5 iterations. When weighted to the average cost of the 5 iterations the mean unit price is as follows:

    Loca kWh cost unit cost
    Adel 9,400 $2,671.60 $0.284
    Melb 9,400 $2,182.80 $0.232
    Sydn 9,400 $2,217.80 $0.236
    Brisb 9,400 $2,105.60 $0.224

    Which is a 3rd decimal point change.

  19. Ernestine Gross
    March 31st, 2011 at 17:34 | #19

    jakerman, if you were to choose Red Energy in Adelaide then, given the total cost estimate obtained from the switchwise site would be $3889 for 15000 kwh p.a., resulting in an average kwh of 0.259

    I suggest, there are now enough illustrations of the problems with your post #1, page 2.

    Incidentally, I am not Ernie, I am merely a female.

  20. Ernestine Gross
    March 31st, 2011 at 17:39 | #20

    Ernestine Gross :@nick
    You say you have intimate knowledge of the industry.
    Have you noticed:
    A pricing structure for electricity (and water and gas) which consists of a fixed price (supply charge) and a unit price (no problem with a step function) does not provide appropriate price signals to consumers for environmental matters such as ghg emission reduction and water savings because those who save on resources (and hence negative externalities) pay a higher fixed cost, averaged over unit consumption. The total network fixed costs should be spread as a function of unit consumption of electricity (and water and gas).
    I had a look at the financials of Envestra and found that retail consumers’ (households) contribution to profits is disproportionately high. I am not surprised.
    Where is the regulator?Where is private enterprise to set appropriate price signals?
    Professor Garnaut made an apt comment today: ‘We should be less tolerant of … bullshit’. The following catch phrases came to mind: ‘efficiency gains’, ‘dynamic efficiency’, key performance indicators, transparency and accountability, moving forward, …. ,best practice, flexibility, ……, privatisation, debt ratings ….and this brings me back to the topic.
    What do you say?

    This post was in moderation for a long time. I allow myself to reprint it because I believe it is relevant for a point raised by Ian Milles.

  21. jakerman
    March 31st, 2011 at 18:21 | #21

    I suggest, there are now enough illustrations of the problems with your post #1, page 2.

    Yes these illustrations do put the problems into perspective. I just showed you my initial approach was robust (only the 3rd decimal point is different between the different approaches). I have shown the opposite. This contradicts your claims that my figures were false.

    Now Ernestine, you have some explaining to do: See comments 10, 12 and 13 on this page.

  22. Ernestine Gross
    March 31st, 2011 at 18:58 | #22

    jakerman,

    The sentence you missed to quote is:

    1. “jakerman, if you were to choose Red Energy in Adelaide then, given the total cost estimate obtained from the switchwise site would be $3889 for 15000 kwh p.a., resulting in an average kwh of 0.259″

    2. on page 2, #1, you stated electricity unit prices for 4 locations. After 20 posts or more you are still in the ex-post rationalisation mode. Let me know when you finally figured out what you wanted your per kwh prices to mean and for whom they are supposed to be meaningful and for what purpose.

    3. With respect to 1 above, your out-of-thin air ‘robustness’ claim goes out the window.

  23. Alice
    March 31st, 2011 at 18:58 | #23

    @Freelander
    Freelander – as we speak Julia is giving her speech at the Whitlam Institute. She pays homage to old Gough who says Julia “made education the right of many instead of the privlieged few”

    Well thats all very nice but I dont like the title “the path to reform” because I know what it means….and if Julia had an ounce of sincerity she too would make education the right of many, not just the privileged few

    and take the &***%%$$### hecs of our poor kids.

    I cant stand hypocrites – here is Julia paying homage to Goughs egalitarian policies but have we seen her unshackle our kids from hecs?

    I come from a long line of labor voters but now, with me, the buck stops. Rignht here. I am sick to death of the labor party and I am happy to say why. They talk the talk but they dont walk the walk.

    Even my husband is amazed and my disloyalty and even he says “are you being fair? What she is saying sounds good”.

    The divide between what the Labor party says about fairness and what they do is all the more reason for me to be ticked off and yes, I am more anti labor than ever before in my life. The labor party has has turned.

    The mere fact she uses the expression “the path to reform” is enough for me.

  24. Alice
    March 31st, 2011 at 19:03 | #24

    How about “the path to fairness” or the “path to equality” or the “path to opportunity for all”

    anything but another bloody reform.

  25. jakerman
    March 31st, 2011 at 19:35 | #25

    Ernestine Gross :
    jakerman,
    The sentence you missed to quote is:
    1. “jakerman, if you were to choose Red Energy in Adelaide then, given the total cost estimate obtained from the switchwise site would be $3889 for 15000 kwh p.a., resulting in an average kwh of 0.259?
    2. on page 2, #1, you stated electricity unit prices for 4 locations. After 20 posts or more you are still in the ex-post rationalisation mode. Let me know when you finally figured out what you wanted your per kwh prices to mean and for whom they are supposed to be meaningful and for what purpose.
    3. With respect to 1 above, your out-of-thin air ‘robustness’ claim goes out the window.

    1. I don’t know what this point relates to.

    2. I’ve been consistent in how I’ve used the data. I’ve been comparing the costs of electricity for average households in different states. Let me know when you catch up.

    3. This ain’t “out of thin air” robustness, I’ve shown the working. If you are in denial, so be it.

    Now if you are up the standard you want to hold be to, please retract your false claims that I’ve identified and please support your unsupported claims that I’ve also identified see comments 10, 12 and 13 on this page.

  26. Ernestine Gross
    March 31st, 2011 at 20:14 | #26

    @jakerman

    1. a) I wrote: “if you (jakerman) were to choose Red Energy in Adelaide then, given the total cost estimate obtained from the switchwise site would be $3889 for 15000 kwh p.a., resulting in an average kwh of 0.259″
    1. b) Your list of calculations is Adel 15,000 $4,315 $0.29

    0.26<0.29 True or False, jakerman?

    2. (a) jakerman @1, p2: "Nick see: http://www.switchwise.com.au/

    Adelaide $/kWh = 0.28
    Melbourne $/kWh = 0.24
    Sydney $/kWh = 0.23
    Brisbane $/kWh = 0.22

    2. (b) jakerman @25, p 3: "I’ve been consistent in how I’ve used the data. I’ve been comparing the costs of electricity for average households in different states"

    The information in 2 (b) does not correspond to the information in 2(a).
    True or false, jakerman?

    3. "This ain’t “out of thin air” robustness"

    Why not?

  27. SJ
    March 31st, 2011 at 20:25 | #27

    jakerman

    I think you’ve adequately refuted the claims nick made on page 1 about the relative prices in the four states.

    Ernestine’s example doesn’t change the rankings. SA is still the dearest for someone using 15,000 kWh pa.

  28. Alice
    March 31st, 2011 at 20:26 | #28

    @jakerman
    Jakerman – give up. You are outclassed and outsmarted.

  29. Ernestine Gross
    March 31st, 2011 at 20:42 | #29

    jakerman, we have to bring this conversation to an end because it is derailing the thread.

    As far as I am concerned, the conversation came about because you posted 1 on page 2. I responded, as many people would do, by looking at my own electricity bill (I made the crucial information public). Your post made no sense (hence my later question for whom is your data supposed to be relevant and for what purpose).

    The PR lot of corporatist-managerialist private and public corporations often put numbers in the room which contradict or call into question the actual data people can observe. (How does one resolve this? I try to boil it down to True or False questions.)

    I believe the conversation brought out that the debating method involving selective quotes is not helpful.

    One point I wanted to get across is that the reference to the switchsite is not helpful regarding your post 1, page 2 (later posts contained several examples in support of my opinion on the limitations of ‘consumer choice assistance’ web-sites, such as switchwise, not exluding the outcome that its ‘products’ (ie the numbers spewed out) is misleading to many people. You kindly provided a text excerpt from the web-site which contains the usual disclaimers.

    Good night

  30. jakerman
    March 31st, 2011 at 23:00 | #30

    SJ, for the record as you’d be able to workout from your repeating my method, I used the default plan provided in each state (the default being the plan more people use).

    Would be more thorough to repeat with the cheapest in each state to compare. But its late.

  31. Freelander
    March 31st, 2011 at 23:38 | #31

    @Alice

    Yes. She could have said you, Gough, who “made education the right of many instead of the privlieged few”. “And we, of modern labour, who climbed that ladder to opportunity, and since then, have progressively been removing the rungs”.

  32. jakerman
    April 1st, 2011 at 08:52 | #32

    In the interests of keeping Quiggin Readers well informed (and ready for debate), I have repeated my method using cheapest provider options. It tells a different story to the one found using default providers. A less straightforward story in comparing privatized vs government provider states. Adelaide is still the most expensive, but now Melbourne is the cheapest. So Nick’s argument has some support from the Melbourne data but not from Adelaide.

    Thanks to Ernestine for pushing me to dig deeper, apologies for not doing better earlier:

    Annual Cost
    kWh/y 5,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 15,000
    Adel $1,312 $2,081 $2,339 $2,597 $3,889
    Melb $980 $1,448 $1,604 $1,760 $2,540
    Sydn $1,048 $1,664 $1,925 $2,186 $3,490
    Brisb $1,074 $1,676 $1,877 $2,077 $3,070

    Equiv price $/kWhr
    kWh/y 5,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 15,000
    Adel 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26
    Melb 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.17
    Sydn 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.23
    Brisb 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.20

  33. Alice
    April 2nd, 2011 at 08:10 | #33

    @jakerman
    Jakerman – go the sandpit – all these silly numbers you post are obscuring my vision.

    @Freelander
    Exactly – which is why people dont like modern labor.

  34. Ernestine Gross
    April 2nd, 2011 at 10:14 | #34

    @Alice

    Can’t you see that jakerman’s numbers raise interesting questions?

    For example:

    1. The price schedule of the cheapest supplier in Melbourne is least consistent with the objective of reducing ghg emissions through price signals.

    2. Why don’t people switch to the lowest cost provider (ie is Costa et al totally wrong with their microeconomic reform?)

  35. jakerman
    April 2nd, 2011 at 10:27 | #35

    Ernestine,

    It would be interesting to calculate which state’s power would rise most under a carbon price. Victoria use a lot of brown coal. SA use less brown coal, and more gas and wind than Vic.

    Melbourne’s pricing structure seems perverse.

  36. Ernestine Gross
    April 2nd, 2011 at 11:59 | #36

    jakerman,

    Indeed, your first question is interesting. The second point seems to me to be related to the divergence in objectives between public and private.

    IMHO, it is the nitty gritty detail which affects policy outcomes in reality. Micro-economic reform has introduced policy coordination problems which make the introduction of ghg emission reduction mechanisms more complex (more complex than first year undergraduate micro-economic texts for sure)

    I’d like to pay my respect to you for your work and I am grateful for the experience of getting out of the pomo-type debating method (one needs two to tango out of it).

    With the benefit of hindsight, your method of using data and data analysis tools made available to the public is a good one.

    Unless we get special permission from our host to continue, I suggest we either move the crucial data to the sand pit and continue (after Wednesday please) or we stop..

  37. jakerman
    April 2nd, 2011 at 13:08 | #37

    Ernestine,

    I can’t think of more relevant data at present, so I’ll go with the latter.

  38. Alice
    April 4th, 2011 at 20:05 | #38

    Poor Costa couldnt help himself writing to the SMH today to say what a fine job he did as Police minister …. (police minister with his hand in the real estate merry go round till of insider trading from NSW labor planning decisions?)

    Oh spare us all.. (cretins all of them).

Comment pages
1 2 3 9652
Comments are closed.