Writing in this morning's Times, David Willetts continues to point the way towards a humane, yet still authentic, Conservatism:
"We talk as if the problem is just the supply of government. But, increasingly, I believe that the real problem has been the demand for government that grows as a consequence of a fractured and fragmented society. There are different ways in which this demand for government expresses itself. If people are living on their own, we know that they are more likely to use the NHS. If you feel rotten in the middle of the night and there is nobody beside you to mop your fevered brow and tell you not to worry, you go to A & E instead. This is just one example of a wider point: atomised individuals need more external support. Social liberalism doesn’t come cheap..."
David Willetts could also have mentioned the growth of crime, the sexually-transmitted disease epidemic caused by promiscuity, drug addiction or the welfare costs of family breakdown.
In his article David Willetts makes the important point that family breakdown and 'narrowing' (ie the moved from the extended to the nuclear family) have reduced mechanisms for equality:
"Why has Britain become a more unequal society with such pressure on the tax and benefits system to redistribute from rich to poor? The clue is in the family. We focus very much on the diversity of individual incomes. Of course, in a modern market economy there will be great gaps in individual income. But the big difference between more equal and less equal societies is that more equal societies have bigger households. You see things very differently if you measure incomes not by individuals but by whole households. A society in which well-paid individuals are sharing their income with other members of the family can end up quite equal. In Britain, by contrast, because we have unusually small households, that task of redistributing income falls much more heavily on the State since we do much less of it informally within the extended family.
That is why we need a Conservatism that proposes social reform to create a stronger society."
Social reform should be the rallying cry of twenty-first century Conservatives. Strengthening the family, helping young people escape from the conveyor belt to crime, rebuilding the inner cities, promoting school choice and investing in a free, innovative and effective voluntary sector should all be components of a social reforming conservatism.
David Willetts has offered an impressive intellectual case for social reform. IDS has also shown that it would be politically popular. It's a 'win-win' no-brainer.
"That is why we need a Conservatism that proposes social reform to create a stronger society." David Willetts
Quite so. Why not go that itsy-bitsy bit further and revive Robespierre's beguiling mission of creating the virtuous society? Who knows where that might lead.
"There has been an overall increase of 23% in single-person households in the UK between 1991 and 2001."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2758975.stm
But someone had better warn Malcolm Rifkind quickly:
"According to official statistics, the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea has proportionately more single-person households than anywhere else in the country, with 48 per cent of homes now occupied by one person, typically somebody still of working age."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-100-1478895,00.html
Posted by: Passing through | 01 June 2005 at 10:46
Not sure I get the point of the last posting. However, the rise in single-person households does have a knock-on effect. "No man is an island" etc.
People living alone, when they grow old or fall ill, need care and support. Question is - how is that to be provided? By rises in taxation, a workforce expanded through planned immigration, an expanded & reinvigorated voluntary sector, rise in private provision, vouchers, increased home sharing, encouraging stronger family ties...? I could go on.
Demographic change mean we need to look at these issues seriously, and come up with some answers. This is real-world stuff - about understanding the current state of society, and the direction it's taking. But it requires more brain power than deciding whether to wear a tie on Frost.
Posted by: Simon C | 01 June 2005 at 14:04
Anyone who would like to read a highly engaging and persuasive book exploding the myth that social and economic liberalism can happily go hand in hand should avail themselves of a copy of Dead Right, by David Frum.
It is written about the American polity, but I commend to Brits as well.
By the way - I had no involvement in its production, nor any financial motivation in recommending it!
Posted by: Tom Greeves | 01 June 2005 at 18:40
Conservatives tend to do themselves a serious disservice when they ruminate about social issues IME. For a start, they come across as preachy and authoritarian. Secondly, they often appear hypocritical as and when news leaks, as it inevitably does, about spectacular marital breakdowns among Conservative politicians.
As a social scientist, I can accept the great weight of social research showing that children are best served by growing up in stable, happy families. I can deplore with the best of them mounting evidence of failing social cohesion, dysfunctioning communities and criminal families.
The sad fact is that 40% of babies are now born to unmarried couples, that Britain has more in prison per head of population than other west European countries, except perhaps Portugal, and we have the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in Europe by a margin.
"There are 21,660,475 households in England and Wales according to Census 2001, and 30.0 per cent of these (6.5 million) are one-person households - up from 26.3 per cent in 1991. . . "
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=350
We also have one of the best performing economies in Europe. Possibly there is a connection between that and failing social cohesion. If so, the causal connections are not well understood and we have few, if any, notions of what new legislation or policy can be relied on to reform or correct what is considered to be social deviance.
This assessment by Richard Sennett does have a ring of credibility about it even though I don't share his avowedly leftist tendencies:
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/8db7bb98-d0a6-11d9-abb8-00000e2511c8.html
The fact is that income is now more unequally distributed than it was during the years of Mrs Thatcher's governments. The growth of the much-vaunted and promoted "knowledge based economy" disadvantages those with literacy and numeracy problems -- and by many reports, some 20% or so of adults are so challenged. In the run up to the election, the CBI was making the point that since New Labour came to power, 2 million school leavers have gone into job markets without the basic skills for work.
We know too that Britain shows up badly compared with peeer group countries in the percentage of 17 year-olds in full-time education or training. David Miliband, when he was an education minister, said: "It must be one of the most stunning statistics that we are 20th out of 24 OECD countries for staying-on rates [in education] at 17."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/2238424.stm
Posted by: Passing through | 01 June 2005 at 21:03
With reference to the previous post, if Conservatives do not take seriously the effects of social breakdown, fuelled as it is by "liberal" goverment policies, then sure as heck no-one else is going to. The challenge is not to shut up about these things, because they really DO need to be talked about; but to find a way of doing so without sounding "preachy". Full marks to this website for achieving that brilliantly, in my view.
As to the charge of "hypocrisy", surely the only logical alternative is to have such low standards that one will never have any difficulty in meeting them? It is NOT NOT NOT hypocritical to recognise the ideal, whilst at the same time acknowledging that we are all imperfect and will sometimes fall short. The liberal left have been very clever in peddling this concept of "hypocrisy", because, of course, they are uncomfortable with the very idea of objective right and wrong. Let not conservatives fall into their well-laid trap.
Posted by: Prudence Dailey | 01 June 2005 at 21:33
Thanks for that Prudence. However, I notice that you have failed to come up with any explicit proposals for legislation or policy framework to address the social issues that evidently concern you. Indeed, you haven't even been clear about what social issues do concern you. In short, it's all talk and only talk - exactly the complaint made of so much NewLab rhetoric.
Posted by: Passing through | 01 June 2005 at 22:50
OK, here's a couple of specific proposals:
1. US-style marriage education and sex education programmes specifically designed to bolster marriage and monogamy.
2. A tax and benefits system that does not penalise two-parent families, especially where only one parent is earning.
It would be possible to come up with a much longer list. But you get the idea. We could learn a lot from George W. Bush.
Posted by: Prudence Dailey | 01 June 2005 at 23:15
Well, Prudence, it's perhaps worth recalling here that Bush won the 2004 US presidential with 51% of the total vote, hardly indicative of extensive popular support in America's electorate. I respect Americans for that as I've a long political memory and Bush is easily the worst American president since from before the respected FDR, whom we have good cause to remember warmly as Britain's ally in WW2 at a time when we desperately needed trans-Atlantic allies.
As Lindbergh, the pioneering American aviator said in a speech as late as 1941, "The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt Administration."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/lindbergh/sfeature/fallen.html
We now have a better take on those in America who were facilitating the rise of the Nazis in the 1930s. Try this for an illuminating insight:
http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/new_world_order/bush_nazis.html
The burgeoning budget deficits of the Bush administration are potentially hugely damaging for economic stability, not because I say so but because that is the view of many leading American economists as well as Alan Greenspan. Bush's objections to stem cell research is an apt indication of his frail mental capacity - he wants to protect human embryos from medical research but is evidently entirely content to unleash an illegal war in Iraq which has led to thousands of Iraqi civilians being killed. IMO it would be unwise to regard Bush as an exemplar in Britain for anything this side of sanity.
Posted by: Passing through | 02 June 2005 at 08:30
Passing Through, the Bush Administration's foreign policy (which is the cause of its budget deficits) is not a valid reason to dismiss the domestic policies Prudence named.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 02 June 2005 at 09:38
Not really sure what the Nazis have got to do with it either - although I do remember my history teacher saying that "the last resort of the man who has no argument is to call his opponent a Nazi" - and most days or weeks there's usually an example in public debate that proves him right.
Passing Through - your argument appears to be that you accept there's a significant problem, but there's nothing that can be done about it. If that's right, we might as well pack up and go home.
I think the facts are against you - there are things that can be done - Prudence has come up with a couple of examples, and I would commend Mel P's pamphlet "America's Social Revolution" (Civitas 2001) and Jill Kirby's work for the CPS as useful sources.
Posted by: Simon C | 02 June 2005 at 10:15
Two points. I documented from impeccable American sources claims about Bush's familial connections with facilitating the rise to power of the Nazis in the 1930s.
Secondly, it happens I grew up living in inner London during WW2. It also happens that on 27 July 1944 a V1 flying bomb, the German precuror of cruise missiles, dropped down at one end of the road where I lived then and on 26 January 1945, a V2 ballistic missile landed at the other - dates checked against archive records.
"By early September [1944] the 2,350 V1s which had fallen on London had killed some 5,000 people and injured 15,000 others. But there was still one final challenge to withstand: the rocket attacks by V2s, the first of which arrived on 8 September . . During the worst period, January 1945, there were five V2 explosions somewhere in London every day. By the end of March, when the rocket launchers were withdrawn from Holland, 518 had hit London and killed 2,724 people." [Francis Sheppard: London - A History (OUP, 1998) p.338]
It comes as a salutary reminder that some prominent Americans, beyond reasonable doubt, acted to promote and encourage the Nazis. I am by no means the only one on either side of the Atlantic who sees parallels between the aggressive policies of the Neoconservative doctrines of the Bush administration and those of the Nazis. The authoritarian content of what is dubbed Social Conservatism is therefore quite unsurprising.
Conservatives in Britain are better advised to avoid odious trans-Atlantic alliances and exemplars. Churchill and Roosevelt got on well, as did Macmillan and Kennedy, despite or even because of the Conservative-Democrat split. Those represent far better exemplars to follow.
Btw as developments in the Deep Throat story continue to unfold, I came across this:
"As their relationship developed, Woodward [of the Washington Post] says he noticed Mr Felt 'was a man under pressure' who did not agree with the way the Nixon administration was operating and 'thought the Nixon team were Nazis'."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4602567.stm
Posted by: Passing through | 02 June 2005 at 15:38
I still don't see the relevance of this to championing policies along the lines laid out by Dr Wade Horn, say, where couples are given counselling to help prepare them for marriage.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 02 June 2005 at 17:15
Passing through, I really don't understand what this has to do with David Willets thesis which seems eminently sensible to me.
If you're interested my fathers house in Coventry was also blown up during World War 2
Posted by: malcolm | 02 June 2005 at 17:25
'It is NOT NOT NOT hypocritical to recognise the ideal, whilst at the same time acknowledging that we are all imperfect and will sometimes fall short.'
VERY well said, Prudence. We need to explode, once and for all, the preposterous notion that politics and morality don't mix. It is a fatuous argument.
Quite why libertarians don't recognise that there are moral implications in, for example, the State funding abortion or scaling back tax breaks for married couples I don't know. Well actually, I have a fair idea - they are deliberately disingenuous.
Posted by: Tom Greeves | 02 June 2005 at 21:12
Or endorsing 'safe' (sic) injection sites for drug addicts.
The Government is rarely neutral about 'moral' issues. By providing funding or by refusing to offer its support, it is taking a stance.
Conservatism at its best has always taken a view on such matters. We are not and should not become a heartless, brutal, libertarian party.
Posted by: Tom Greeves | 02 June 2005 at 21:16
You can't have libertarianism and a welfare state.
You could in principle, create a society in which people who wouldn't work, or who failed to save for their retirement, or had children out of marriage who they couldn't support, or developed drug problems, or were alchoholics, were left entirely to their own devices. If they were to starve to death, than so be it. It's likely that in such a society, most people would lead sensible lives, rather than face the very unpalatable consequences of living feckless lives.
Victorian England was similar to this, although the workhouse stood between the feckless and outright starvation. Victorian England worked rather well as a society.
However, I think it's unlikely that a modern electorate would accept that people who lead feckless lives should face such consequences. We have two choices therefore. Either accept that people who lead feckless lives have a right to the same entitlements from our society as people who live prudently, which has broadly been the approach of most Western societies over the past 40 years. Unsurprisingly, the number of people who lead feckless lives has tended to increase over that period, because the taxpayer relieves them from the consequences of their own folly.
Or else, place limits on what they can claim from our society, while at the same time, rewarding those who live prudently.
Posted by: Sean Fear | 02 June 2005 at 23:45
The One Nation agenda is absolutely right not to think about poverty in purely material terms. “Values” decay undeniably has tangible effects on communities and individuals alike.
But what is the role of government in addressing this?
Freeing charities from state bureaucracy, extending the role of community councils, and ending the senseless discrimination against religious organisations are all strong initiatives. So is NYC-style zero tolerance policing.
I also think that there is a potential material response. When beefing up its tax proposals for the next manifesto, the Conservative Party should consider investing most or all of the money it identifies for tax relief in dramatically raising the personal allowance. This would lift millions of people in material poverty out of the tax system altogether, and hugely benefit the “hard-working families” struggling to make ends meet. It would also be a significant incentive to escape the cycle of dependency.
Also, we need to watch our tone. I am a single-person household. I am also a homeowner, net contributor to the Exchequer and churchgoer (though not as often as I should). I am not wild about being lumped in with a statistic purporting to represent societal decline. Neither, I imagine, would be the millions of single parents, gays and unmarried couples who work hard, pay their taxes and “play by the rules”.
A Conservative government should do what it can to address real social decay, but recognise its limits. Government can’t create families or communities. Today’s social decay is the result of ham-fisted attempts to do just that, not increased material wealth. What makes us think the state can train people to be parents? And tax breaks for marriage don’t exactly scream home, hearth and back to the 1950s to me.
The One Nation agenda and compassionate conservatism will fail, and harm the party in the process, if we allow them to be hijacked by judgmental authoritarianism.
Posted by: Bob | 03 June 2005 at 13:20
Hear,hear Bob.Very well put.
Posted by: malcolm | 03 June 2005 at 15:18
"Also, we need to watch our tone. I am a single-person household. I am also a homeowner, net contributor to the Exchequer and churchgoer (though not as often as I should). I am not wild about being lumped in with a statistic purporting to represent societal decline. Neither, I imagine, would be the millions of single parents, gays and unmarried couples who work hard, pay their taxes and “play by the rules”."
Agree with all you say about tone, Bob. But that mustn't be used as an excuse to duck the issue. You clearly are not doing that - but too many "modernisers" in the party do.
There is a difference between societal decline, which does exist and needs addressing, and societal change - which the rise of single-person households is one manifestation of. The impact that has also needs to be addressed. We cannot pretend that there is no impact.
I work for a charity involved in palliative care. Palliative care delivers health and social care to people living with long-term life-threatening conditions. Looking over the next 20 years, we need to plan the way in which services will be delivered. We won't have the workforce to deliver all the services that will be required. So we will need to find other ways.
This is likely to involve a significant increase in the voluntary sector:
"If the demand for care continues to increase at present rates and if we are to meet the pressures of demographic change in the future - then we will never be able to meet demand entirely with professional carers. Even if we had the money - which we never will -there just won't be enough people to work in the sector. That means we have to find ways to increase the capacity of care, within families, within neighbourhoods and within comuunities. And volunteering and the voluntary sector will take on a new and even more pivotal role."
Not a conservative. That was a Labour minister, Stephen Ladyman, in 2004.
This is natural territory for conservatives. That's why Labour is moving onto it. They don't understand it, and will get it wrong. We mustn't let that happen.
We need to focus on the issues at stake. If we do that, and really get to grips with them, we will find that there's no need to get too hung up on tone of voice.
Posted by: | 03 June 2005 at 17:11
I'd just like to log on and say that even though I am a libertarian I find this well reasoned criticism of social liberalism quite persuasive.
I beleive that the libertarian model of society guarantees the most moral, prosperous and civilised form of society.
However, I also agree with the points made on this site that permissiveness on such things as drugs actually aids the forces of the left. If we don't offer conservative sollutions to the vulnerable in society then the Left will implement them by default and it will be increadibly destructive to our liberties.
As people are weened off their infantile dependence of the state and correspondingly start behaving like adults we can afford to be more tollerant of drugs etc but not before.
By the way I think the current war on drugs is a farce. Why do we expend so much resources in controlling the supply and hardly none on demand. Why does a seller face a heavy sentence in prison and a buyer a slap on the wrist? All we seem to create is a highly lucrative black market for criminal gangs to kill each other over.
Posted by: Mark | 04 June 2005 at 16:41
xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2
Posted by: JEROGatch | 24 October 2006 at 12:51
MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE
idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG idisk.VIDEOSBLOG
$uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies $uperEVAvideos-movies
Posted by: bbn | 14 November 2006 at 12:32