The Dim-Post

July 13, 2014

Political biohazard watch

Filed under: Politics — danylmc @ 6:54 pm

In the hypothetical Labour/Green/New Zealand First/Mana/Internet Party coalition that voters are being asked to put in charge of the country this election year, its hard to figure out which inter-party relationship is the most poisonous, or who would like to destroy whom the most. But now that Laila Harre’s gone and started pre-releasing Green Party policy on the same day as the Greens and justified it on the basis that she worked for the Green Party for fifteen months, and therefore owns all their intellectual property, somehow, I’m gonna nominate the Green/Internet Mana relationship as, from here on in, probably the most toxic.

What’s the strategy here? The original vision for the Internet Party was that it would be a, y’know, Internet Party, focused on digital issues and changing the government by turning out young non-voters. My guess is that Dotcom’s money has paid for some market research which has found that the number of non-voters passionate about copyright restrictions is close to zero, and that the demographic most sympathetic towards the Internet Party are current Green voters. Harre doesn’t share Dotcom’s interest in digital rights, or his legal problems, so her focus – like any other political leader – is purely on maximising her party vote. Which explains why the Internet Party is now a tiny cannibalistic version of the Green Party.

 

59 Comments »

  1. How does that compare to the intra-party toxicity within Labour and National?

    Comment by pete — July 13, 2014 @ 7:03 pm

  2. It’s a square of loathing – Maori/Mana-Green/Internet.

    Comment by Tinakori — July 13, 2014 @ 7:08 pm

  3. “justified it on the basis that she worked for the Green Party for fifteen months, and therefore owns all their intellectual property, somehow” – link?

    Comment by Sacha — July 13, 2014 @ 7:11 pm

  4. I am know I am a evil Tory but even I feel the greens have a slight right to be pissed about this
    On the same day it was a bit cheeky

    Comment by Graham — July 13, 2014 @ 7:33 pm

  5. Probably only amongst convinced party activists, who regard each other much as Spurs and West Ham supporters do. For those that don’t align themselves with a party, I don’t think “pinching policies” are a big issue as much as wanting somebody to clean up rivers or whatever.

    Comment by richdrich — July 13, 2014 @ 7:34 pm

  6. I guess the Greens will now know how Labour has been feeling all these years. Fairly amusing to see the Greens so keen to preach unity on the Left one minute and then the next turn on the Internet Party for white anting their vote.

    Comment by Swan — July 13, 2014 @ 9:00 pm

  7. Fair enough, but I’m gonna wait for something stronger than ‘Col Trotter sez he has heard rumours’* before I buy any stories of IMP electoral science wizardry.

    Left-wing commentator Chris Trotter has referred to rumours about “whole floors of brilliant IT-geeks all beavering away; unheard of political applications; unprecedented polling capability” thanks to Dotcom’s money.

    Rumours maybe but given the size of IMP’s bank account, and the particular skills of its rich backer, it also rings true.

    * suspect rumours were heard in pub from bomber

    Comment by Pascal's bookie — July 13, 2014 @ 9:02 pm

  8. That article really only gives evidence for a toxic relationship between the media an the left.

    Comment by pete — July 13, 2014 @ 9:03 pm

  9. Regarding the OP: This is exactly why the internet Party is a daft idea and I won’t be voting for it, despite supporting its general aims and values. The Green Party already does all that. Km Dotcom would have been better off donating a million to the Greens….though they may not have accepted his money.

    Comment by Steve W — July 13, 2014 @ 9:16 pm

  10. @Steve W: This mirrors Danyl’s original critique of Mana – that the party is a bad idea because it will, at best, take votes from the Greens. However, this assumes that there is nothing on the left of the centre that the Greens can’t/won’t provide policy-wise, which is not necessarily a given.

    Comment by kalvarnsen — July 13, 2014 @ 10:02 pm

  11. Wow, that’s quite a bitter post, all things considered. Good policy is good policy and is branding and IP, no?

    Comment by earlhonorific — July 13, 2014 @ 10:25 pm

  12. I’m going to label it ‘vote-culture’…

    Comment by Lee Clark — July 13, 2014 @ 10:35 pm

  13. I suspect that there is more than a little element of the MSM bigging up differences between the various parties on the left. The major actual development was the release of the river cleanliness policies, and the focus should have been on the low, low standards National have set. They got a small mention on TV3, but more time was devoted to the supposed conflict between the Greens and IMP.

    If the various parties on the left want to win this election, somehow they have to deal with such MSM tendencies. The question is how.

    Comment by Glen — July 13, 2014 @ 11:01 pm

  14. I suspect that there is more than a little element of the MSM bigging up differences between the various parties on the left. The major actual development was the release of the river cleanliness policies, and the focus should have been on the low, low standards National have set. They got a small mention on TV3, but more time was devoted to the supposed conflict between the Greens and IMP.

    That’s what’s so clever about what Internet/Mana did. It’s almost impossible for a small party to get coverage for their policies, but if they release it on the same day as the Greens then they get in the news, because TV3 are ALWAYS going to look for conflicts. Yes, it means National doesn’t get held to account, and that the focus is on conflict on the left, but that’s not really Harre’s problem.

    Comment by danylmc — July 14, 2014 @ 6:24 am

  15. @6 nothing other than a hack journo’s assertions there – no quotes, nothing. I presume Harre has made a statement matching Danyl’s claims, somewhere. Let’s see it.

    Comment by Sacha — July 14, 2014 @ 7:57 am

  16. The quote is from Laila in this story: http://www.3news.co.nz/Green-Party-aims-to-clean-up-NZ-rivers/tabid/1607/articleID/352491/Default.aspx

    Comment by danylmc — July 14, 2014 @ 8:43 am

  17. Problem 1: The Internet Party is created a few months out from an election, it has practically no policy platform to be elected on and no capable political face to lead it but plenty of money.
    Problem 2: The Greens have a comprehensive suite of policies that resonate far more broadly than their 10-15% of the vote and a sympathy to many of Kim Dotcoms aims. However they can’t just take millions from Kim Dotcom without major brand damage and they are not able to offer Kim the high list places he would need as quid pro quo because of the democratic list ranking process.
    Problem 3: Laila Harre is an experienced political operator wanting to make a comeback via an existing political vehicle. She shares many of the goals and positions of the Greens and they appreciate her capabilities. However, the party leadership have neither the means nor inclination to parachute her into a top list ranking ahead of sitting MPs

    A decent conspiracy theorist would argue that when Russel Norman and Kim Dotcom caught up a few months back they stitched up a deal whereby Laila would leave the Greens and take her political skills and the Greens policy platform across to the Internet party in exchange Kim promises to focus on the Maori electorate vote and enrolled non vote to avoid cannibalizing the Greens. Kim gets his leader and policies and Russel gets a well funded and capable political ally for the Greens.
    It could be that there is no real division between the Internet and Green parties and that we are all being played by the Machiavelli of New Zealand politics and his German accomplice….

    Comment by richardg — July 14, 2014 @ 8:59 am

  18. Thanks Danyl. Laila, about 1:48 in that clip “Look, I contributed huge intellectual property to the Green Party in the 15 months that I spent working for them”. I guess the nature of her contract determines whether she handed over rights or not. And the Greens probably have some idea which ideas she brought and which she took.

    Comment by Sacha — July 14, 2014 @ 9:31 am

  19. I guess the nature of her contract determines whether she handed over rights or not. And the Greens probably have some idea which ideas she brought and which she took.

    I think the notion around IP of policies is pretty absurd. This is politics. If Laila wants to stab the Greens in the back and launch their policies ahead of them then she gets to do that. It’s all in the game, ends justifies the means, etc. But it is a very ruthless, unethical thing to do – pretending that it isn’t because she co-owns the Greens policies is absurd.

    Comment by danylmc — July 14, 2014 @ 9:45 am

  20. I guess the nature of her contract determines whether she handed over rights or not.

    You can’t have IP “rights” over public policies. At least, not in any legally recognised and enforceable fashion. So it doesn’t really matter what her contract with the Greens said.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — July 14, 2014 @ 9:50 am

  21. If Laila was working as a volunteer for the Greens, then she could claim some intellectual property over her contribution to policies for them. But she was on a salary, paid for by the Greens. Any contributions she made as a paid staffer belong to the Greens.

    Not that you can claim IP around policies. Just making the point that there is a difference between a volunteer walking away, and someone who got paid a fairly large amount of money to work for one political party, and she takes the results of that work to set up a rival.

    Comment by dpf — July 14, 2014 @ 9:51 am

  22. @richardg

    Your conspiracy falls apart with problem 3. Laila is a skilled political operative with cabinet experience and a proven track record. Had she put herself forward for the GP list, I have no doubt a winnable list spot would have been hers for the taking.

    Comment by Phil — July 14, 2014 @ 9:59 am

  23. Anderton, not Laila, was the skilled political operator. He also had a dim view of her.

    Comment by Neil — July 14, 2014 @ 10:04 am

  24. Nah, the Greens are principles and outcomes people. They care about things like clean rivers and climate change and well fed kids. Slightly annoying, but the IMP are merely an inconvenience.

    Having David Shearer declare on television that his party wholeheartedly endorses oil drilling (as he did this weekend) is far more damaging to inter-party relationships. Because having the Labour Party veto things which are essential to the Greens existence is incredibly vexatious. It is as ideologically challenging as the Greens (hypothetically) voting for a 90 Day Hire and Fire bill would be for Labour.

    Comment by George — July 14, 2014 @ 10:24 am

  25. The inter-party coalition relationships I’m looking forward to include:
    United Future v Conservative
    and United Future v NZ First
    because Peter Dunne gets so petulant and throws such self-indulgent hissy fits.

    And Conservatives v everybody. I expect they will be a bit like Clive Palmer’s PUP over climate “tax”.

    More likely than any inter-party feud on the left, sad to say….

    Comment by MeToo — July 14, 2014 @ 10:32 am

  26. Good analysis Danyl.

    It’s no good moaning about is, as many of your commenters do here with silly arguments about so-called intelletual property.

    You’ve got to work out how to chop her off at the knees and then get on with it. Maybe you guys could all go up North and campaign for Kelvin D? The best result you could hope for would be DotKrim 4% and Hone chucked out.

    Comment by Adolf Fiinkensein — July 14, 2014 @ 11:00 am

  27. Pathetic, I’m a Green voter who definitely has shared ideology with InternetMana (hardly surprising considering the great similarities between the two). To see you coming in and attacking other parties like this is just sad. Perhaps Greens are in the same position as Labour now and need to get down off their high horse, perhaps a good turnout of voters for IM will help Green do some reflecting?

    Comment by Duncan — July 14, 2014 @ 11:05 am

  28. Internet MANA is about disruption — breaking up the cozy power blocs. Seems they’re not too fussy about who they disrupt. I suppose from a radical-insurgent perspective, the modern Greens seem very cozy and comfortable, inching towards power.

    It’s probably fair enough as a strategy for getting into Parliament, which should probably take precedence for them over getting into government, which still seems very unlikely.

    L

    Comment by Lew (@LewSOS) — July 14, 2014 @ 11:10 am

  29. perhaps a good turnout of voters for IM will help Green do some reflecting?

    Reflecting on what exactly, Duncan?

    Comment by Gregor W — July 14, 2014 @ 11:21 am

  30. We’re lucky then to have the Sparticists keeping IM from getting too establishment.

    Comment by Neil — July 14, 2014 @ 11:23 am

  31. Internet MANA is about disruption — breaking up the cozy power blocs. Seems they’re not too fussy about who they disrupt

    I don’t see this so much as disruption, more as a clever way to get Laila on the news. Which worked well, but also advantaged the government which is a rather more formidable power bloc than the Greens.

    Comment by danylmc — July 14, 2014 @ 11:26 am

  32. Is it just me, or does anyone else also have a feeling of bemusement that a common refrain from activists of the left over the last two years, namely; National has no coalition mates, is now coming back to bite the arse of Labour?

    Comment by Phil — July 14, 2014 @ 12:08 pm

  33. @Phil – given that the NZLP has pooh-poohed its natural coalition partners at every turn, it seems to me entirely predictable rather than a surprising arse-bite.

    Comment by Gregor W — July 14, 2014 @ 12:21 pm

  34. I think it’s possible to exaggerate how fractious a Labour/Greens/NZFirst coalition would be. Sure, there’s little ideological synergy between the Greens and NZ First beyond some vague economic nationalism, but there was a similar ideological clash between ACT and the Maori Party, and it’s not as if the Key government was constantly destabilised by them fighting with each other – they just basically ignored one another and focused on cultivating their relationships with National.

    Comment by kalvarnsen — July 14, 2014 @ 1:08 pm

  35. Key (pun not intended) difference: First term National needed one of, not both, ACT and the MP. And, as you point out, they operate in basically separate spheres of policy interest. Unless something drastic happens, Labour will need both of NZF and the Greens, and then some more. That’s a very different kettle of fish.

    Comment by Phil — July 14, 2014 @ 1:17 pm


  36. Unless something drastic happens, Labour will need both of NZF and the Greens, and then some more. That’s a very different kettle of fish.

    Key is also (by appearances) a much more skilled manager than Cunliffe, and has no interest in destroying either of his coalition partners.

    Comment by George — July 14, 2014 @ 1:28 pm

  37. Destroying may be too strong a word. But knocking the Greens down from 11-13% to 5-7%? The entirety of Labour’s caucus would be pleased.

    Comment by George — July 14, 2014 @ 1:39 pm

  38. @Phil: Imponderables like the difference between Key and Cunliffe’s coalition management skills aside, I think NZF and the Greens have fairly separate policy interests.

    Comment by kalvarnsen — July 14, 2014 @ 2:21 pm

  39. I can’t really see any problem here. So they have a similar policy in their portfolio. Which should make them natural allies. They might grow the pool of people who would vote at all a little bit, by offering that policy from two different angles – one the middle class one, and the other coming from a more radical underclass group. I don’t think this is something that the Greens should fear at all, however much National would like to talk up that they should.

    The Greens need only say “we are happy that the Internet Mana party is in broad agreement with our principles on this, although of course we still suggest that voters vote directly for us if the environment is their key concern. But any vote for this policy is a vote well spent”.

    Comment by Ben Wilson — July 14, 2014 @ 3:52 pm

  40. It’s not about how fratricidal a “coalition of the losers” will surely be: hell, we know it’s already fratricidal and only going to get worse! The extreme communist left parties (Labour/Greens/Maori/Mana/Internet/NZF) are already spending more time and money attacking each other than attacking National — while ACT & Conservatives are spending much more time attacking the communists than National.

    The question is whether such a government would be legitimate with National by far the largest party.
    We already know the answer: absolutely not. Arguments that such a government is possible are undemocratic, undermine NZ’s partly-written constitution, and frankly are borderline treason. Precedents from Germany, Greece, Israel or Denmark simply do not apply to NZ – whatever leftist “constitutional lawyers” may claim. NZ’s precedents and history are brutally clear: the largest party has always formed the government right back to the first NZ government in 1891.

    If you want to look overseas, look to a country with a strong British Parliamentary heritage that has adopted MMP, the obvious case is Scotland, which is pretty much MMP, and which is currently government by a National majority single-party government. Prior to the last election, Scottish National was again the largest party but did not have an overall majority, so governed as a minority government, taking support from the left (Scottish Labour) and the right (Scottish Conservatives) as required.

    The only possible outcomes — on polling back to at least 2007 — for this election is either a National majority government, a National-led coalition, or a National minority government. Given how many of Helen’s policies Key has kept – oh right, all of them! – there’s no reason why a National minority government couldn’t just pass a Cullen-style budget with Labour’s support in any case. (Especially as English’s budgets have of course been far more leftwing than any budget Cullen ever passed).

    Comment by Angry Tory — July 14, 2014 @ 4:16 pm

  41. Ben: I think there are two issues with it:
    1. There is a risk that Internet fall below the threshold (if Kelvin takes Harawira’s seat off him). In that case, Green votes going to Internet results in a reduction in votes for the left. (Of course, being part of the VRWC I’d be OK with that)

    2. The usual power games of the political elite. It isn’t about whether the policies get implemented – if that were all that mattered then if another party is formed with identical policies to you, and gets half your vote, you’d care not at all. It’s actually about the power and getting your people into parliament. In which case it matters a lot if you lose half your MPs to be replaced with MPs from the Internet party. (I haven’t looked at the lists to compare, but I also suspect that in an objective review the Internet candidates near the top of their list aren’t as good as the last elected Green MPs, who are the ones who would get dropped from parliament. But that is based purely on the Green party having been around longer and presumably having more depth)

    Comment by PaulL — July 14, 2014 @ 5:30 pm

  42. If anyone had bothered to read the Internet Party press release you would see that their environment policies were developed in an on line forum with over 300 participants. Were they all Laila Haree?

    Comment by Andrew R — July 14, 2014 @ 6:21 pm

  43. She’s an energetic woman.🙂

    Comment by Sacha — July 14, 2014 @ 6:38 pm

  44. “a more radical underclass group” – doubt that fits the Internet Party side of the deal.

    Comment by Sacha — July 14, 2014 @ 6:39 pm

  45. > In that case, Green votes going to Internet results in a reduction in votes for the left.

    Yes, although the Greens are hardly to blame for Labour having very little tactical sense.

    > It’s actually about the power and getting your people into parliament.

    Sure, but it’s also about getting your people into government and if there is a party that grows your sympathetic block and has a whole screed of very similar policy, that becomes more likely. I don’t know if the Green Party would see going from 13% support to 12% but 2% support going to an Internet Party that entirely agrees with most of their policy as a big loss. They’re a party of MMP, after all, not some self-entitled FFP dinosaur, and furthermore it’s a party of policy and vision. If their policy gets more support, they’re winning.

    Comment by Ben Wilson — July 14, 2014 @ 6:39 pm

  46. > doubt that fits the Internet Party side of the deal.

    Yeah, who knows. I think that’s what Harre is meant to appeal to. You know I didn’t really think she’s the best choice, but then I had a different idea of what IP stood for in the first place. And now it’s done, I guess we can wait and see.

    Comment by Ben Wilson — July 14, 2014 @ 6:42 pm

  47. NZ’s precedents and history are brutally clear: the largest party has always formed the government right back to the first NZ government in 1891.

    As of the beginning of 1997, NZ’s precedents and history are brutally clear: the Prime Minister had always been a man. Therefore, Jenny Shipley’s takeover undermined the constitution and was borderline treason.

    Comment by Simeon — July 14, 2014 @ 7:10 pm

  48. @Angry Tory

    Everything about comment 41 is ridiculous. It is not unconstitutional for a government not to include the largest party. It is most certainly NOT treason to suggest such a government. If the alternate had a clear majority, it would be quite fittingly in the spirit of majoritarian democracy that they get power.

    It doesn’t matter one stuff if it’s never happened before. There’s a first time for everything.

    It probably won’t happen. That’s the most you can really say, based on your statistical arguments. Those do not carry moral force. They are merely numerical coincidences. To suggest they should be enforced against a possible majority will is failing to grasp democracy. There never was a female Prime Minister of NZ before Jenny Shipley, either, but that didn’t mean there was some unwritten constitutional rule about it.

    If Winston Peters ends up in a position to choose, it’s likely he’ll choose National. But it’s not compulsory.

    > the largest party has always formed the government right back to the first NZ government in 1891.

    Um, except that the first election was in 1853, although it’s dubious that it had authority. The election in 1855, however, was legitimate. And there were no parties AT ALL. That continued for 40 years.

    Comment by Ben Wilson — July 14, 2014 @ 7:21 pm

  49. @Simeon: Snap!

    Comment by Ben Wilson — July 14, 2014 @ 7:22 pm

  50. Hey Angry Tory, still spouting bullshit. Why didn’t you treat Dim post readers to your ‘country quota’ idea too? You really do have a problem with reality, National are not lefty communists, take your meds, there’s a good chap.

    Comment by RBG — July 14, 2014 @ 7:47 pm

  51. @Ben: In relation to being happy about your party getting smaller, but your ideas getting bigger: you have more faith in the Greens than I do. And their unhappiness at Harre copying their policy would suggest that my view is closer to reality than yours.

    In terms of your overall argument, I suspect it hinges on whether the internet party is really growing the vote share. So far it looks to me like they’re taking existing votes rather than enthusing new people to get out and vote, and I think at the margin they’re pushing people in the middle from Labour to National due to nervousness about Dotcom and his general dodginess. To put it another way, I doubt there’s anyone who was previously thinking of voting National who is saying “hey, that Dotcom’s a great guy, I think I’ll vote Labour now so that they can go into coalition with him”. I do, however, believe there’s at least some people who were previously thinking of voting Labour who are saying “that Dotcom looks dodgy as all hell, I think a National-led coalition would be safer”. I guess election day is when we’ll find out for sure how many of which, and to some extent it’s all academic anyway, Dotcom isn’t going to stop what he’s doing, so the left have to make the best of it.

    For the left, the biggest possible disaster would be:
    1. Internet party takes votes from the Greens, and Harawira loses to Kelvin
    2. Internet party, and Dotcom, push some centrist minded voters from Labour to National

    Net impact is that Green lose votes to Internet party, where they’re wasted, and at the same time the existence of the Internet party with all the shenanigans results in the left as a whole losing some votes. Either of these two points would be a problem in isolation, together they’d be a disaster.

    Comment by PaulL — July 14, 2014 @ 8:18 pm

  52. The best part about Angry Tory is that he seems to think that the Scottish Nationalists are the Scottish equivalent of the National Party. (Although the bit about it being treason to consider German politics was good too).

    Comment by kalvarnsen — July 14, 2014 @ 11:23 pm

  53. >In terms of your overall argument, I suspect it hinges on whether the internet party is really growing the vote share

    It certainly does. It’s actually quite hard to discover if it is. We’ve become quite adept at telling all sorts of stories about how the vote share moves around without any solid evidence at all. We would not actually know if the “biggest possible disaster” scenario did in fact happen. Green votes could go down, IP votes up, and yet they could very easily not be the same voters, or even for any reasons at all that go to any relationship between the parties.

    Also, there is clearly “biggest possible gain” scenario. It’s also one of the few scenarios that might actually put the Green party into Government for the first time, in an extremely strong position. Would it really be tremendously to their disadvantage that one of the parties they needed to side with had nearly identical policy in some large areas? They’d barely need to compromise at all.

    My regret is that the biggest possible gain scenario was reduced by the choice of Harre as leader. It’s up to her to actually show why the Internet Party is even called that. If it doesn’t end up being about the Internet at all, then you’re kind of right, all the IP does is add risk to the Green vote total. But we shall see. Maybe a new space will be created.

    Comment by Ben Wilson — July 15, 2014 @ 10:58 am

  54. KDC keeps himself in the news, keeps the conspiracy theories swirling and has mananaged to con quite a few pundits into taking it all seriously.

    Can’t see Key being unhappy with that.

    Comment by Neil — July 15, 2014 @ 9:11 pm

  55. The conspiracy theories being cooked up at The Standard and Public Address must be making Ian Wishart feel somewhat superfluous.

    Maybe time for some to learn the lesson – no matter how many tlmes someone said Clark was a lesbian it didn’t make it true.

    Rumours are just rumours not matter from the left or right.

    Comment by Neil — July 15, 2014 @ 11:19 pm

  56. @ kalvarnsen

    Well to be fair to out Tory chum, the Scottish Nationalists were indeed often described as “The Tories in Tartan” in earlier times. By the late 60s it was beginning to define itself as a moderate social democratic party, but the Right of the SNP (particularly rural MPs who had won their seats from the Tories) remained critical of this direction. And then, of course, you have this new young generation of left-wing activists in the late 70s/early 80s (including current leader Alex Salmond) seeking to move the Party further Left to a more overtly Socialist position and – after an often bitter and protracted battle for control of the Party – finally predominating – turning their strategic attention further away from conservative rural nationalist areas and towards Glasgow, Edinburgh and other parts of urban Scotland. The aim was to compete with Labour rather than Tory for the richer pickings of the progressive vote.

    Comment by swordfish — July 16, 2014 @ 2:06 am

  57. @swordfish: Yeah, well, Angry Tory was specifically talking about contemporary Scotland, so the historical rural-conservative elements of the SNP are not really relevant.

    Comment by kalvarnsen — July 16, 2014 @ 9:44 am

  58. @Swordfish @Kalvarnsen – …except that Angry Tory wasn’t saying the Scottish Nationalists were ideologically similar to the New Zealand National Party – he/she was simply saying they were comparable in the sense of being the largest party in the parliament.

    Of course, Angry Tory’s statements about it being constitutionally necessary for the largest party to be in government are just angry partisanship, and he or she would quickly change tack if he or she lived in Australia, where the right-wing Liberal-National coalition have often become the government through having more MPs between them even when Labour was the largest single party.

    Comment by kahikatea — July 16, 2014 @ 10:28 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: