[syndicated profile] lib_dem_voice_feed

Posted by Caron Lindsay

Those nice people at Your Liberal Britain have already changed the way we do things as a party. Their initiatives  to help us create our vision of what a Liberal Britain could look like have been incorporated into the policy making process.

Now they are turning their hands to a new challenge for the General Election.

When you share something on social media, and it’s been liked by loads of people, have you had a look and seen whether it’s actually been liked or shared by someone who isn’t already a Liberal Democrat?

Social media can be a bit of an echo chamber. That’s why Your Liberal Britain has decided to tackle that to widen the reach of Lib Dem messages.

YLB’s founder Jim Williams told me:

The thinking behind the initiative is that thousands of Lib Dem supporters work hard every day to make the case for the Liberal Democrats online – but all too many struggle to break out of their echo chambers. And they often lack access to the party’s messages, not knowing which topic to best tackle at any one time.

The Online Champions community empowers these activists to break out of their echo chambers and speak directly to voters, not just to their friends.

We train our 200+ volunteers to win votes and swat aside trolls, using all the latest messages and resources from the party. And we connect these activists together, to form a tight-knit community that supports one another online.

The good thing about this is that you can do it at those times of day when it would be rude to deliver leaflets.

Online champions really seem to enjoy their work.


If you think it sounds interesting, you can sign up to become a volunteer here.

* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings

[syndicated profile] el_reg_odds_feed

Posted by Lucy Orr

The roots of multithreaded rendering software

Star Wars New Hope @ 40  In the 40 years since the release of the original Star Wars, special effects have changed beyond recognition.…

Britons are failing in their duty

May. 25th, 2017 06:02 am
[syndicated profile] tim_worstall_feed

Posted by Tim Worstall

MPs received almost 190,000 abusive tweets over a three-month period, research has shown.

One in 20 tweets to MPs were abusive, analysis by BCS, the Chartered Institute for IT, and the independent thinktank Demos found.

If it got up to 19 of 20 told the truth in that properly abusive fashion then we might be rather better ruled.

Well, yes Jessica, and they should

May. 25th, 2017 05:51 am
[syndicated profile] tim_worstall_feed

Posted by Tim Worstall

There’s a quote from Maya Angelou that I’m fond of: “When people show you who they are, believe them.” It’s a sentiment I think about quite a lot when I’m combing through harassment or threats online. Because you do want to believe that the person who calls you a “bitch” or who says you should be raped isn’t really like this – that they’re actually good people having a bad day, or a bad life. You want to see the best in other people.

But the truth is that who we are is very much about how we treat others – whether it’s on the street, in our homes or, yes, on the internet. That’s why I was so concerned to see the broad latitude given to online abusers in Facebook’s guidelines for dealing with harassment and hate speech. Their baseline approach appears to give harassers the benefit of the doubt at every turn.

Because people are indeed at liberty to be complete assholes.

For example, it’s perfectly allowable for someone on Facebook to write: “To snap a bitch’s neck, make sure to apply all your pressure to the middle of her throat,” because it’s not an example of “credible” violence that is a “call to action” – just a venting of frustration, they say.

Similarly, if someone were to send the message, “unless you stop bitching I’ll have to cut your tongue out,” it would be classified as an “aspirational” or “conditional” statement. So this direct threat would be permitted on the site.

Why would Facebook believe that this kind of abuse is not a real threat to people? Well, because it’s online.

Nope, those are pretty much the restrictions which apply to real world speech to. Incitement to immediate violence? Verboten. Near everything else? People are at liberty to be complete assholes.

That’s quite a dangerous leap: just because someone might not threaten a person to their face in the same way they would online, it doesn’t mean that threat or hate is any less real.

Err, yes, yes it does dearie.

And here we get to the heart of it:

People like this do not feel “indifferent” towards the targets of their ire simply because they’re on the internet. They feel hatred, they feel rage. We have no way of knowing – not really – who will end up being a real danger to people. But we don’t need to give them space and attention, and we certainly shouldn’t give them permission to spread their bile.

It’s not our permission to give luvvie. Free speech is a right.

They have a point

May. 25th, 2017 05:42 am
[syndicated profile] tim_worstall_feed

Posted by Tim Worstall

Majority of Britons think minorities threaten UK culture, report says

Our culture generally thinks that tweens get to go to singalongs without being shredded on the way out. It’s an odd thing to have as a part of a culture for sure but there it is.

[syndicated profile] tim_worstall_feed

Posted by Tim Worstall

So the bomber has been known to them for 5 years. Multiple reports of he’s a dodgy one.

And? What could have been done? He had some dodgy ideas, certainly. But he didn’t actually do anything. Until, of course, he did.

Ecksian fantasies aside we’re not going to have internment for anyone who claims that suicide bombing is acceptable. So, what should have been done?

Drug Wars

May. 25th, 2017 03:28 am
[syndicated profile] crooked_timber_feed

Posted by John Quiggin

I got a preview of Drug Wars by
Robin Feldman and Evan Frondorf
. It’s not about the War on Drugs, but about the devices used by Big Pharma to maintain the profits they earn from their intellectual property (ownership of drug patents, brand names and so on) and to stave off competition from generics. Feldman and Frondorf propose a number of reforms to the operation of the patenting system to enhance the role of generics. I’m more interested in a fundamental shift away from using intellectual property (patents and brand names) to finance pharmaceutical research.

Drug Wars covers devices like product hopping and evergreening. The idea is to make small changes to existing drugs, so that generics aren’t exact substitutes. Ideally, this enables a whole new patent (evergreening). Even if not, the change means that generic copies of the old version can’t be substituted automatically when prescriptions are filled. All of this is backed up by massive advertising directed both at consumers (this is only legal in the US and NZ) and physicians.

The cost is mainly, though not exclusively, borne by the US government and US consumers. Other developed countries like Australia bargain with the drug companies to place their product on a list that can be purchased at low cost. If the price demanded by the company is too high, there’s no subsidy and sales are usually very limited. One of the central US aims in both the US Australia Free Trade Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (killed off by Trump) was to cripple the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and similar measures in other signatory countries. Less developed countries have also resisted the demands of Big Pharma to charge whatever the market will bear, with a fair degree of success.

Could this be done better. The ideal alternative would be an extension of public funding to cover drug development as well as fundamental research (which currently acts as an effective subsidy to Big Pharma). Some of this could be done on the current model of grants for research, but there could also be “prizes”, that is, payments for the successful development of drugs assessed as beneficial. Research results would be shared publicly, and products would not be patented (or, perhaps, patents would be held by the government that funded the work)

Again, ideally, all the developed countries would contribute, and share the results. But the US is large enough (around half of global sales of pharmaceuticals and half of expenditure by pharmaceutical companies) and does so badly under the existing setup, that it could probably act unilaterally.

Here are some relevant numbers, I’ve found around the place. All provisional, corrections welcomed

Looking at these numbers, I’d say that if the US government doubled the NIH budget and allocated all the money to drug development it would generate more new and useful drugs than are currently produced by Big Pharma in the US, given that a fair chunk of the $40 billion being spent is devoted either to competitive duplication in the race for new products or to non-productive activities like evergreening. Given that much of the cost of prescription drugs is ultimately borne by the government, even a 20 per cent reduction in total costs would be enough to offset the cost the government, with a big benefit left over for consumers.

[syndicated profile] crooked_timber_feed

Posted by John Holbo

A couple months ago I made fun of an ‘inspired by Steely Dan’ Apple Music playlist that seemed to be basically a random assortment of tracks by bands, all of which had covered one Steely Dan song at some point. As I put it at the time: “Also, the Mountain Goats?”

How wrong I was! Their new album, Goths, is out. It’s a glorious, slick, lounge jazz-tinged demonstration that Danliness is next to godliness, albeit not gothliness. It also sounds like Prefab Sprout circa Steve McQueen, yet another good thing. YouTube has not hoovered up the tracks yet, but here’s a nice acoustic cover of “Andrew Eldritch Is Moving Back To Leeds” (an early release from the album that didn’t quite do it for me; but the acoustic version sounds great. John Darnielle does the deceptively-simple-counter-rhythm strumming thing, which keeps life interesting, and his voice is sweet and clear. No guitar on the album itself.) From the album, I recommend “The Grey King and the Silver Flame Attunement”; also, “Wear Black”; also, get all your Gene Loves Jezebel nostalgia out with “Abandoned Flesh”.

[syndicated profile] political_betting_feed

Posted by TSE

The appalling events of Monday evening are dominating the election campaign. Young children and teenagers should be able to attend a pop concert without fear of being killed.  I struggle to understand the mind of a man that can choose to inflict so much pain and suffering on so many young people and their families.  Feelings are understandably running high: grief, anger, outrage and despair are mingled.

Security is a primal concern.  The knowledge that there are people who walk among us with malevolent intentions is chilling.  We know something of their aims, though not as much as we like to think.  Given the troubled history of many of those who have launched or planned such attacks, it sometimes seems that the malevolence is as important as the intentions, the cause legitimising the extreme violence.

How do we defeat an ideology?  Just why is it so attractive to some young people who have grown up in our country?  How do we dissuade those for whom that ideology is potentially attractive from taking it up?  What do we do with those who have already immersed themselves in its foul waters?  These are important questions and not ones that should be left to the security forces.

And so the rest of the campaign is likely to be dominated by security concerns.  This is an unmitigated disaster for Jeremy Corbyn, who the public strongly distrust on the subject.  It is far too late for him to regain their confidence on this subject now.

Politicians will – rightly – prioritise those risks that the public are most concerned about.  Yet we overestimate the chance of risks which are very obvious and underestimate more insidious risks. 

Thanks to the vigilance of our security services, terrorist attacks are mercifully rare.  You are much more likely to die from falling down the stairs than in a terrorist attack (and the measures to reduce that risk that you or I can take are far easier to put into operation). 

I note this not to minimise the unspeakable suffering that the families of those poor children are feeling but to note that there at any given moment there are many other families undergoing unspeakable suffering, unnoticed by the media or by public opinion.

In the absence of a truly catastrophic terrorist attack – which, worryingly cannot be completely ruled out – the everyday life of most British citizens is likely to be affected more by government decisions taken in other areas.  The government’s handling of the economy is much more likely to make a real difference to most of them.  The competing proposals for long term care of the two main parties would affect a much greater number of citizens than anti-terrorist policies.  The funding arrangements of the NHS have far more potential to save more lives.

And hanging over the next few years is Brexit.  The negotiations with the EU are shaping up to be difficult and demanding.  The outcome of those negotiations have the potential to set the country’s future for decades to come.

Theresa May called the election on the pretext of getting a mandate to conduct those negotiations in the manner that she thinks fit.  She looks set to get a mandate for something quite different.  It is doubtful, for example, whether she can continue to argue that sharing security information is a bargaining chip that Britain can play, now that the public have had a reminder of the potential consequences of doing so. 

The course of the rest of the election looks set now.  Theresa May will no doubt use whatever mandate she gets for whatever purpose she thinks fit.  Yet if Brexit does turn out as badly as many of the signs are suggesting, she may in time wish that there had been a more searching discussion during the election campaign of the options available to Britain.  The implementation of the biggest decision for decades is going by default.

Alastair Meeks

[syndicated profile] markpack2_feed

Posted by Mark Pack

Here’s the new film from the Liberal Democrats, in which Tim Farron expresses it far better than I could:

Manchester is my capital city. I love Manchester – Tim Farron

Disrespecting the dead

May. 24th, 2017 06:31 pm
[syndicated profile] snowinsummer_feed

Posted by Weaver

The second surprise of the campaign came on Monday night, when a bomber killed 22 at a concert in Manchester. Campaigning was suspended out of respect.

Respect is a quantity measured in hours, and the truce lasted less than a day. Foxface (C, prochain ancien prime minister) chose to militarise the streets of London, and sent troops into parliament.

Foxface has demonstrated her incompetence and weakness in the face of terror. And she has set her face against ordinary, decent people.

pic: KateProctorES

The people of Manchester sent a strong and defiant message, that life would go on as normal. Foxface wobbled and hid behind other people. It's what she does, it's the only way she knows.

The military are experts at their job. Their job is specialised and limited, and involves brute force. It's never appropriate to put them on the streets to do police work.

Consider the optics, think about what message this sends. Troops on the street instil fear and worry into law-abiding people. Simply having soldiers and armed police around, that strikes low-level terror into innocent people. The sight of troops marching into parliament intimidates decent people.

Foxface offers security, but not liberty. And if we trade away permanent liberty for the transient illusion of security, we have lost much for no gain.

Foxface is doing the terrorists' job for them.

Read this post in full at The Snow in the Summer or So-So.

[syndicated profile] political_betting_feed

Posted by Mike Smithson

Corbyn, May and the others are avoiding proper scrutiny

One of the main functions of an election campaign is to ensure that those who seek to govern us are subject to proper scrutiny something that is much easier to avoid in non-election periods.

TMay didn’t enjoy her inquisition by Andrew Neil on Monday night and I’ve little doubt that the other four who are due to be questioned are looking forward to their appearances with some trepidation. This is quite right and a healthy part of the democratic process.

From what I can gather we aren’t going to see a full return to the campaign until after the weekend which is a disgrace.

As someone born in Manchester very close to where several of the suspects live I am deeply touched by this tragedy and proud of the way that my city is coming together. But that doesn’t mean the general election campaign should be curtailed.

Every day the campaign is suspended in a win for the terrorists. The campaign needs to resume tomorrow.

Mike Smithson

Creationist Sues the Grand Canyon!

May. 24th, 2017 05:00 pm
[syndicated profile] skepchick_feed

Posted by Rebecca Watson

Support more videos like this at patreon.com/rebecca!

Sorta transcript:

Young-earth creationists are people who sincerely believe that our planet is 6,000 to 10,000 years old and that it was created as-is by the Christian god. They’re only off by about four billion five hundred thirty-nine million nine hundred ninety-four thousand years or so. So close! Keep trying, bros!

Despite the fact that they’re obviously wrong about basically everything they hold dear, young earth creationists just keep on trying. And so this month, a young earth creationist has filed a lawsuit alleging religious discrimination against the Grand Canyon. When I first saw that headline I assumed he was suing it just for existing. After all, the Grand Canyon is one of the most obvious, unavoidable signs that we live on a planet that has changed drastically over the course of billions of years. You can visit the Grand Canyon and literally see layers of rocks that range from two billion to 200 million years old, all neatly stacked up. You don’t even need to work to see it. You can take a helicopter down there and look. I did it, it was awesome.

You can see fossils, you can see ancient lava flows, you can see the impact of ice ages and you can even see the footprints of itty bitty lizards that lived millions of years ago.

So the mere existence of the Grand Canyon is, in and of itself, religious discrimination.

But the young earth creationist, a YouTube “scientician” named Andrew Snelling, is suing because he wants to take 50 or 60 rocks from the Grand Canyon to desperately try to prove that the entire thing is a lie, possibly created by Satan to test our faith. He applied for a research permit, but because that isn’t actual research, the National Parks Service said “no.” They only approve about 80 studies to take place in the Grand Canyon, and all of those are actual scientists doing actual science. So Snelling got rejected

And they were right to do so! Some people think that we should coddle young earth creationists, because denying them permits just makes them cry about censorship, and after all, science is about remaining open to new ideas. But young earth creationism isn’t new, and it can hardly even be called an “idea” at this point. It’s an old, stupid tenet held by idiots. The NPS has no obligation to let them cart off rocks and take up valuable park resources just to tilt at their windmills, just like the Hubble space telescope is under no obligation to grant time to members of the Flat Earth Society so they can do their “research” to prove that the Earth is sitting on the back of a giant turtle.

So here’s hoping that a federal judge knocks some sense into Snelling. Well, let’s be honest, that’s probably impossible at this point. So let’s just hope a judge is able to explain in simple, monosyllabic terms why Young-Earth Creationism isn’t science — it’s religion. And the National Park Service has every right to discriminate against religious crusades.

[syndicated profile] lib_dem_voice_feed

Posted by Stephen Tall

Our tenth and final update from the LDV Fantasy Football League. Congratulations to Alain Desmier, our runaway winner this season. His ‘Mountgrove Maulers’ have amassed a huge 2,417 points, over a hundred ahead of his nearest rival.

That places Alain in the top 500 world-wide, no small achievement given there are over 4.5 million players. And on top of that, he’s the Lib Dem canididate for Islington South and Finsbury, aiming to oust Emily Thornberry.

Congratulations and good luck, Alain! Well played, too, runners-up Andrew Hydon (2,314) and Christopher Morgan (2,272).

Here’s the final top 10 league table:

We’ll see you all again next season…

* Stephen was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from 2007 to 2015, and writes at The Collected Stephen Tall.

[syndicated profile] tim_worstall_forbes_feed

Posted by Tim Worstall

Yes, this is a manner of putting a cheery face upon matters, akin to whistling past the graveyard. For people I think are very smart and very well informed keep telling me that the appearance of a slight ineptitude in the White House is not due to misleading reporting, to the inevitable bedding down process of a new administration nor to the liberal war on all that is good and holy. Rather, the appearance comes from a certain level of ineptitude.

But let us step over that inconvenience and consider what is actually being asked for in this current budget proposal:

Great leaders, whether of sports teams, companies or countries, set audacious goals to spur followers on to great accomplishments. But the goal isn’t enough: A leader also needs a credible path to achieve it. And that’s the problem with President Donald Trump’s first budget.

There’s an importance to this setting of goals that we’ll come to:

President Donald Trump faced swift resistance from Democrats and a range of Republicans on Capitol Hill on Tuesday after offering a 10-year plan to balance the federal budget that depends heavily on cuts to government safety-net programs and expectations of big gains in economic growth.

WASHINGTON, DC – MAY 23: Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney holds a news conference to discuss the Trump Administration’s proposed FY2017 federal budget in the Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House May 23, 2017 in Washington, DC. Calling it a ‘New Foundation for American Greatness,’ the $4.1 trillion budget for would cut programs for the poor, including health care, food stamps, student loans and disability payments while offering big tax cuts for the wealthy. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The point being, as so many are noting, that this budget proposal asks for everything and a pony. We’re to cut benefits programs. True, as I’ve pointed out, not as much as some are shouting about.

We’re told that Donald Trump’s budget proposal is recommending substantial cuts to the food stamp, or SNAP, program. This is causing the predictable screaming from the usual quarters about how the poor will now have to boil ditchweed in order to avoid starving to death and so on. In fact though the proposals, as much as we’ve seen of them, return the program to about the size it was before the recession. Which seems an entirely reasonable thing to do. As the justification for the expansion during the recession was that very recession. So, once the cause of the expansion is over why shouldn’t we reverse the expansion itself? This is also the appropriate response to what I call the Keynesian Ratchet. Which is that in recession we are told we should increase government spending in order to end the recession. OK–but come the end of said recession no one ever wants to dial back those spending increases. The spending we undertook to get out of our economic woes seem to become just the normal baseline of the government going forwards. And so does Keynesian economics continue to grow the government.

That’s just a boring truism about government spending by the way, there’s nothing specific to Trump or the current day there.

We’re also going to cut taxes by an even larger amount. And this is all going to add up because economic growth. And I’m nearly as big a believer in the power of economic growth to make government sums add up as Art Laffer, Stephen Moore and our boss and host here, Steve Forbes. And I would certainly agree that changing the structure of how we tax ourselves will increase economic growth at no loss of revenue. Less corporate and capital taxation, more consumption, would have that effect just by purely normal and reasonable economic theory alone. But even I’m not quite buying the numbers, paltry as the specifics are, coming out of this budget.

I absolutely and entirely agree with these two from that budget as well:

Reductions in Federal Spending. We must scrutinize every dollar the Federal Government
spends. Just as families decide how to manage limited budgets, we must ensure the Federal
Government spends precious taxpayer dollars only on our highest national priorities, and always in
the most efficient, effective manner.

Regulatory Rollback. We must eliminate every outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective Federal
regulation, and move aggressively to build regulatory frameworks that stimulate—rather than
stagnate—job creation. Even for those regulations we must leave in place, we must strike every
provision that is counterproductive, ineffective, or outdated.

But then why not? We’re not going to find anyone at all who thinks government should just waste money nor have regulation just for the sake of having unnecessary regulation. But it’s still all true that it doesn’t quite add up:

“The assumed effects on growth are just huge and unwarranted,” said William G. Gale, a co-director of the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center and a former economic adviser to the first President George Bush.

The Trump administration promises to cut taxes, keep revenues steady and crank out average annual economic growth of 3 percent, but neither the budget nor the tax reforms previously outlined in sketchy form provide enough detail to figure out if that will happen.

However, here’s my point. The President’s Budget doesn’t have to add up and that’s not how I would read this one from Trump either. Note, please, that we’re still assuming that this is all deliberate, not a result of that ineptitude mentioned above. For here’s the actual truth about the American system. The President’s budget plan matters about as much as his fried chicken recipe. The constitutional arrangements are very clear here, it is the House committees which actualy write the budget. The President gets to say what he’d like them to do but they actually do the work, make the decisions. The President’s influence is to bully, cajole, bribe, threaten, them into including what he wants.

So, the budget proposal doesn’t in fact need to add up at all. It’s a wish list. I want you, I would like you guys to, I will push you guys to, doing all of these things. In the knowledge that only some fraction will ever happen and the final result is going to be the most horrible series of compromises.

Which is where who The Donald is comes in. He’s from a business background. One very different from my own and clearly very much larger scale. But that’s how you do a business negotiation. You go in asking for the Sun and the stars–absolutely as much as you can still consistent with getting across the threshold to be allowed to negotiate–and perfectly happily settle only for the Moon at the end. So why not have a budget proposal that asks for everything? You know very well that you cannot up your demands once started but you can always compromise and retreat a little in order to gain agreement.

Which is one possible explanation of this Trump budget proposal. It’s an opening negotiation no more and it’s Trump’s business background that makes it such rather more than those of predecessors. Why not ask for everything when you know you’re only going to get some fraction of what you ask for? And as to it not adding up that doesn’t matter because of the known need to compromise later.

[syndicated profile] lib_dem_voice_feed

Posted by The Voice

This is Welsh Lib Dem leader Mark Williams’ statement on the Manchester attack.

I am deeply shocked and saddened by the events that took place in Manchester last night, which took the lives of at least 22 people and has injured 59 more.

This attack is an act of utter barbarity that was aimed directly at thousands of our children and young people.”

I praise the brave action of our emergency services, who acted quickly to tend to those at the Manchester Arena.

As a parent myself, I can only imagine the anguish that many are feeling, and my thoughts and prayers go out to all of those affected.

[syndicated profile] scalziwhatever_feed

Posted by John Scalzi

In my dream last night, I was annoyed at my cats for not sufficiently appreciating the in-ground pool I had installed specifically for them.

Can you blame me? I think not.


May. 24th, 2017 02:24 pm
[syndicated profile] andrew_hickey_feed

Posted by Andrew Hickey

So, on Saturday, after being down in That London watching the Beach Boys and meeting up with friends for a couple of days, I decided I needed a few days without seeing any people or doing anything.
Since then:
I discovered a friend who lives in Australia was in town for one day and wanted to meet up (this was great fun, but took energy. I’m *very* glad I did it though, especially given all the below.)
I got commissioned to come up with a bunch of ideas for videos from a regularish freelance job I have, and so I’ve had to spend the last two days coming up with ideas for nonthreatening childrens’ stories. During which time…
Some utter shit decided to bomb the city I live in and kill a bunch of kids, just to be a bastard.
My wife received news her citizenship had finally been approved, after eleven long years of effort.
My wife *also* got a job interview, at basically no notice, for what if she’s accepted would be a dream job.
I then discovered that one of the children still missing after the attack is a relative of my sister’s partner, and I’m worried sick for him and his family.
I also discovered, in the same phone call, that an old family friend has just been arrested for murder (not the murders mentioned above).
And then this morning I had to help my wife find the place for her interview, because she’s blind and not great at finding new places anyway, and especially not great at it when public transport to the place she had to go (at only a few hours’ notice) has been shut down and rerouted because of the aforementioned utter murdering shit blowing children up in one of our major transit hubs.

Obviously I don’t mean to compare all these things, which are very, very different in importance and impact from each other. But all of them (even the good ones) took more energy than I was expecting to have to expend over the last couple of days, so if I don’t post on here for a day or two, or if I don’t do something I said I was going to, it’s because at this point I’m basically delirious from adrenaline poisoning.

Back soon.

matgb: Artwork of 19th century upper class anarchist, text: MatGB (Default)

British Liberal, house husband, school play leader and stepdad. Campaigner, atheistic feminist, amateur baker. Male.

Known to post items of interest on occasions. More likely to link to interesting stuff. Sometimes talks about stuff he's done. Occasionally posts recipes for good food. Planning to get married, at some point. Enjoying life in Yorkshire.

Likes comments. Especially likes links. Loves to know where people came from and what they were looking for. Mostly posts everything publicly. Sometimes doesn't. Hi.

Mat Bowles

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

October 2015


Stuff and nonsense

I'm the Chair of the Brighouse branch of the Liberal Democrats & the membership secretary for Calderdale Lib Dems and run the web campaign for the local candidates. I have a job, a stepdaughter and a life.

Here's the legal text:
Printed by Dreamwidth LLC, Maryland, USA. Published and promoted by Mat Bowles (Liberal Democrat) of Brighouse, West Yorkshire.

Popular Topics

Designed by

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios
Page generated May. 25th, 2017 10:44 am