Turnbull told to “Bring out Your Dead”

It looks like Malcolm Turnbull has a major internal battle on his hands with revelations today that a number of leading business figures and supporters of the Liberal party have threatened to withdraw their financial support unless a number of “Howard era” MPs get the boot.

On the basis of anonymity, the leading Sydney business figure says Mr Turnbull and the Liberal party must be prepared to go through with “a full-scale public bloodletting” if those named on the list refused to budge from their seats.

According to The Australian, the list of 14 MPs includes Philip Ruddock, Bronwyn Bishop, Kevin Andrews and Bill Heffernan.

However, other sources suggest the list also includes: Wilson Tuckey, Andrew Laming, Alby Schultz, Joanna Gash, Margaret May, Bruce Scott, Michael Johnson, Alex Somlyay, Judi Moylan and John Forrest.

The list of names is being circulated within the Liberal Party accompanied by a commentary which says in part:

“The emerging issue federally for both the current leader and any other potential leader is team composition.

“And it is an issue. And finance donors from key players expect an upgrade.”

The screed from business says it is Mr Turnbull himself who must drive the renewal process, rather than “the slow moribund party organisational leadership”.

The author makes it clear the hit list was drawn up in consultation with like-minded business figures and says, ominously, that it is not exhaustive.

In response, senior Liberals yesterday described the call for renewal as “justified”, confirming that fundraising for the party had become much more difficult in the wake of the global financial crisis.

Perhaps what they really mean is “in the wake of a catacylsmic election defeat.”

However, in other reports, Mr Turnbull has denied that he has received any such list.

“Nobody sent that list to me,” he said.

“We have a strong team, a mixture of youth and experience, a mixture of people who have been in Parliament for a long time, people that have had long careers in other areas and have been in Parliament for a shorter time.”

It Mr Turnbull hasn’t seen the list, could it be because his name’s on it? An unlikely, but novel idea, given that he could represent a new, more youthful and more moderate persona in comparison to his Howard era counterparts.

Either way, it looks like the Liberal party are in for yet another rollercoaster week of internal bickering played out in the public domain.

The last Newspoll had the Coalition on 42 per cent behind Labor at 58 per cent and Mr Turnbull has sits at just 19 per cent compared to Kevin Rudd’s 67 per cent as preferred prime minister.

I imagine there will be a lot of frantic phone calls going on right now…

Advertisements

48 Responses

  1. This seems to be about as credible and well-sourced as the last Milne article we discussed.

  2. Reb, interestingly nary a mention of Costello who is equally past his use-by date. Conspiracy theory #squillion, might Costello be somehow involved in this? After all Costello is even more a worthy candidate re use-by-ness as Judi Moylan who at least had the youknowwhats to stand up to Howard and publicly. Costello might have had the guts to stand up to Howard privately, but never did so publicly until the Libs were goners.

  3. An addendum whether the list is true or otherwise, the obvious intention is to further destabilise Turnbull.

    Any politics/faction watchers out there? How many of the list are Turnbull supporters and how many of the ‘dead wood’ are Costello supporters?? Obviously if a number are Costello supporters then this blows my theory of a link to the Costello for PM push.

  4. Min, it is a mixed bag as far as I can tell and I don’t hold much credence to the author or the sensibilities of this alleged request of this phantom businessman.

    If this request was to be adhered to wouldn’t there be bi-elections to achieve this aim?

    I have a “hunch” that the coalition have more important issues to deal/survive with at the moment.

  5. There is no doubt that the article refers to the correct amount of “dead wood”.

    Though as an aside – why we have to be so disparaging about wood is beyond me, as I think this lot are just “dead”.

    Off load the lot of them. Blood letting is a great sport, as long as it is someone else’s blood being let.

    This side of politics is so unlike the other, as the ALP are more inclined to treat parliament as the sinecure for union hacks.

    If a union needs to renew its hacks or remove an incompetent hack, or if a union hack is aggressively ambitious – then a seat is found. They clock up the requisite number of years in parliament and retire having made a ‘wonderful’ (pronounced woeful) contribution to our ‘way of life’.

  6. Scaps..I was interested that the author of this rumour from a phantom businessman was written by long time Costello supporter Glenn Milne.

    Obviously as you say, multiple by-elections are not an option..although nice neat standing down/retirements as per Downer, Nelson and Georgiou clearly are.

    If Turnbull does nothing..fails to refresh his team then he is going to look stale and tired. And this to me is why this has been published by The Australian. The latest Newspoll as mentioned by Reb means that time is just about up for Turnbull and he now has to take some decisive action re his team. I would start off with a new Deputy and this isn’t Hockey.

  7. Well, genuine or not, the Libs do desperately need to repackage the brand as it were, and get some new faces in front of the cameras if they want to remain relevant at all.

    The polls speak for themselves.

  8. Mr Andrews, a former workplace relations minister, is currently overseeing the Coalition’s post-election policy review.

    Andrews, the Minsister originally responsible for developing and implementing WCs is now in charge of ‘policy’ review. Lol. Howard demoted him. Nelson banished him and Turnbull ignores him and yet he is in charge of .

    Just about says it all re their problems.

  9. Plus Nature..Andrews performance in Immigration is a stand-out re the Haneef affair.

    From Wik..Andrews is also against euthanasia, stem-cell research and a member of the Lyons forum as ‘socially conservative Christian faction’.

    He has also spoken at the Family Council of Victoria,[36] an organisation which regards homosexuality as the manifestation of a psychiatric disorder.[37] The Family Council of Victoria also opposes sex-education and anti-homophobia policies in public schools, which it claims is “pro-homosexual indoctrination” of students.[38]

    Yep, just the bloke to help propel the Libs straight back to the 20th century…or is that too ambitious, 19th century is probably the more realistic.

  10. Yes Min he certainly wouldn’t be in favour of bi-elections (sic).

  11. If they were serious about getting rid of dead wood, they’d disband the party itself. Their reason for being – industrial relations radicalism – has been rejected by the electorate for the shite it is so there’s really no point in going on.

    The dogwhistling won’t work any more because even rednecks worry more about their jobs than they do “foreigners”. There remains no ruse by which they can con their way back in to place the pay and conditions of coming generations onto a slippery slope. They tried their best to get Australians working for third-world conditions, but they failed. They might as well call it a day.

  12. Well said Caney!

  13. (Min, on May 4th, 2009 at 1:11 pm

    Completely off topic, but tangential somewhat to observations about Andrews and a thought which had bubbled to the surface of mine mind when considering what is and isn’t ‘precious’, is the idea of Parliaments conducting ‘conscience votes’ on controversial things like those, when it’s reasonably apparent: a) that the nominal conscience of the nation’ consists of a transitory collection of elected randoms exhibiting sundry peculiar personal proclivities and with external, perhaps conflicting informing, interests to the job at hand; and b) if those things really were so controversial as to require a ‘conscience vote’, then they’re precisely the sorts of things that the individual consciences of members of the electorate can make for themselves, without the peculiar filters of sundry randoms’ personal consciences substituting for their own exercises of personal conscience.)

  14. if those things really were so controversial as to require a ‘conscience vote’, then they’re precisely the sorts of things that the individual consciences of members of the electorate can make for themselves, without the peculiar filters of sundry randoms’ personal consciences substituting for their own exercises of personal conscience.

    Except, of course, when those things aren’t actually legal, as pesky as that detail may be, and the representatives’ votes are required in their roles as legislators.

  15. Tony, on May 4th, 2009 at 4:45 pm

    On the contrary, I’d contend everything just ‘is’, or even just ‘is (im)moral’, until someone passes a law saying it is or it isn’t legal, Tony; but, yes, the votes of legislators are important for affecting the qualities of that consequential legislation and regulation of conduct, whether that’s the creating or disposing, lifting or lowering of a legal bar. It’s how that vote is conceived and exercised, particularly in the conventional form of ‘the conscience vote’, as part of that system of antecedents and consequents that was my object.

  16. “Except, of course, when those things aren’t actually legal, …”

    You mean, like homosexuality was under the Crimes Act, until the last few decades? (Yep, the old “abominable crime” of sodomy, no less. It used to get you a decade or so in chokey as a max sentence, if the coppers could ever prove it).

    I’m with legion on the conscience vote issue.

    It’s a wonderful 19th Century idea to allow The Great and Good we elect to represent-us to vote according to their consceinces on such issues, but what (apart from the fact that their bums happen to occupy seats in Parliament) accords the consciences of 150 Reps and 76 Senators any greater value or gravitas than the consciences of the 20-odd million constiuents they represent?

  17. The Libs urgently need to get rid of as many right wing nasties as they possibly squeeze into the compost bin at LIb HQ.

    And get their political focus back onto middle Australia.

    By staging a political ‘big bang’ now, they could reposition themselves and get themselves back into the game. Even make a serious contest of the next election, strange as that sounds today.

    Sure it’s risky but compared to what? The Libs are currently on the road to nowhere while a poorly-led ALP government runs right off the rails – unchallenged despite mistaking tripping over television camera cables/mindless PR stunts for strategic policy development, parliamentary process and economic management.

    Obama and Rudd both came to power with great expectations and a wave of popular support. One is showing true leadership by his deeds – doing what he believes to be right, regardless of powerful vested interests and lobby groups – the other is acting like a thin-skinned, provincial big mouth. Eg, Obama takes the Israelis to task for war cimes; while Rudd, with a clear electoral mandate to take economically-beneficial actions on climate change, seeks to protect his own personal position in the short-term rather than put the public interest ahead of the corporate coal lobby.

    There’s a disturbing pattern already emerged of him failing to manage the big issues that require real leadership.

    I’m no fan of the neo-con Liberal Party, as currently constructed, but the unbalanced nature of our system of government is creating a store of big problems for the future that Rudd is not addressing.

    And he is not being held to account, not least because the current bunch of opposition hacks and idealogues have nothing credibile to offer the electorate.

    Costello, with all his baggage as a big-spending corporate apologist and the author of WorkChoices, should definetly go. Andrews is a serial failure and that that’s my take on Abbott too.

    You could put a bulldozer through the NSW Branch and the Young Liberal organisations and markedly improve the IQ of the political wing of the Party. It’s probably a good place to start.

    An opposition prepared to contest the middle ground and put forward policies that are clearly in the interest of Joe and Joesephine Public – not what corporate Australia or the Hillsong Church wants – would be back in business in a few months.

  18. That’s where referenda should be utilised, I know it hasn’t been a great success as far as the ‘yes’ is concerned but clear language that basically presents a black or white option would go a long way to improving the process.

  19. Legion and Evan,

    Fair points both, and it’s lovely musing about preferred hypotheticals, but what’s your practical solution? A referendum on anything which might be construed an issue of conscience?

  20. Don’t really want to rain on the tea-party but every vote made by a parliamentary representative is in fact a ‘conscious vote’.

    Members of Parliament in Australia (and in many other places) are Representatives of electorates not Delegates of electorates or political parties. Whether they follow party dictates or follow their own paths, in the final analysis, is a matter of conscience

  21. Try ‘conscience vote’ although in some instances, it might not be a ‘conscious’ vote. Lol.

  22. Slipping up?

    One who claims to be perfect should not make such misteaks…lol!

  23. Mark, on May 4th, 2009 at 6:05 pm Said:

    Interesting post as always, but not without some issues. For example, you say:

    One is showing true leadership by his deeds – doing what he believes to be right, regardless of powerful vested interests and lobby groups … Obama takes the Israelis to task for war crimes;

    Really? More like he lashed them with a feather. Did he cut aid? Did he do ANYTHING other than use ‘words’? What has Obama done re climate change?

    As for:

    Rudd, with a clear electoral mandate to take economically-beneficial actions on climate change

    Really? clear electoral mandate counts for nothing when you haven’t got the numbers. The concept of Mandate might help in the PR stakes but that’s about the limit of its impact.

    While I am not happy that Rudd is not achieving what I want him to achieve, I accept the realities of the political numbers. And so does Obama!

  24. make such misteaks (sic)

    Scaper everyone makes mistakes but not all are conscious of those mistakes when they appear in print. Lol.

    Yes I know. You were just changing feet. Lol.

  25. “The Libs are currently on the road to nowhere while a poorly-led ALP government runs right off the rails..”

    I’m afraid 67% of the population might disagree with the running-off the rails bit right now (judging by the PM’s current approval figures) but the road-to-nowhere-for-the-Libs comment rings true.

    Maybe if they ever got their act together and got-rid of the Howard-Era baggage (both in terms of people and policies), they could make inroads into Rudd’s astronomical ratings.

    I make no secret of the fact that I’m a leftie and supportive of the Government, but the fact remains that its just not good for sound Governance to have an opposition this useless and irrelevant. One thing that history definitely tells us is that any Government with enormous approval ratings tends to rest on its laurels and gets complacent, arrogant and out of touch in the long-run.

    Just look at what happened to Howard’s Government after the Tampa Election in 2001. If Labor had been on its game, Howard would have never gotten away with half the crap he did in succeeding years.

  26. Hey, you forgot a comma, or is it coma???

    Two feet at once…great party trick!

  27. Evan – “I’m a leftie and supportive of the Government”

    I’m always interested to understand what this means, and why this would necessarily entail support for the government.

    When the Keating supported a GST, was he wrong? Or was the ALP later wrong when it opposed it?

    When the ALP opposed a secret ballot before industrial action, was the ALP left or right? Now that it supports this policy does it have a different political complexion?

    When the ALP called cash payments a “bribe” was this left or right?

    Left vs right is a silly simplification of contemporary politics.

  28. Tom of Melbourne, on May 4th, 2009 at 9:34 pm Said:

    Left vs right is a silly simplification of contemporary politics.

    Indeed it is! But as a concept it still has some value, particularly when it refers to concepts such as ‘social justice’ and the like.

    Got to go ‘Shameless’ is on. What do we want?Cheaper Drugs Now as Frank says. SBS.

  29. “One thing that history definitely tells us is that any Government with enormous approval ratings tends to rest on its laurels
    Evan, on May 4th, 2009 at 7:25 pm Said:”

    Evan I am wondering what laurels the Rudd govt is resting on???

    I know they have just blown $50B in the biggest cash splash in Australian history but i wouldn’t call this a great achievement.

  30. ” I am wondering what laurels the Rudd govt is resting on…’

    Well Neil I don’t think they are, just yet. But its definitely a risk in the longer run.

    The fact is that once pollies of any stripe get into Government they tend to get a taste for the privileges and trappings of power: Snouts in the trough, and all that.

    Hell, the Libs certainly got a taste for it over their 11 years in the saddle Federally and so did many of the Governments that preceded them. For example I seem to recall Bob Hawke in his 70%+ heyday developing a taste for 25 year-old scotch and cigars while on VIP flights (at a time when the rest of us peasants were subjected to a balnket ban on smoking on aircraft).

    They all tend towards it, it’s just human nature.

    I just think a strong and effective Opposition is necessary to prick egos when necessary and bring high-flying Narcissists down to Earth, if nothing else.

    As for the cash splash, I’d rather they’d spent the dosh on infrastructure projects but Treasury signed-off on it and one way or another, the dough will end-up being spent on something (which, after all, was the only purpose of the payment).

    Whatever else it was, the cash payments to every man and his dog wasn’t your classic pork barrelling exercise, which as you know is normally targeted for specific votes, seats or demographics (a la John Howard). A party on close to 60% TPP hardly needs to buy votes by giving everyone a lolly-pop.

    I think the idea was to keep lolly-pop manufacturers and sellers and their employees in jobs.

  31. Hello again Nature 5,

    as part of his stimulus package, Obama recently announced $106 billion in funding for programs designed to reduce oil dependence/greenhouse gas emissions.

    More details from this link http://www.climatechangecentral.com/publications/c3-views/april-2009/green-economy-reaching-tipping-point

  32. “From new, highly fuel-efficient cars to renewable sources of power, there are a host of energy technologies that can spur the growth of new business, while creating millions of new jobs,” President Obama said in making the budget announcement of $106 Billion in funding designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

    “If we take the time now to start transforming our economy, we will enjoy the benefits of a lower-cost and more efficient energy supply for years to come,” Obama noted.

    It requires real leadership but … adopting the precautionary principle to manage something as huge as global warming does deliver measurable economic and ecological benefits.

  33. they have just blown $50B in the biggest cash splash in Australian history

    Nope, the record for ‘Biggest Cash-Splash in Australia’s History’ belongs to the Liberals. $314 billion between the 2004-2005 Budget and the 2007 election.

    They blew 94% of the mining boom windfall in just a couple of years! Thanks to Liberal waste/vote-buying, the government must now go into debt to cushion to cushion Australians against the global downturn.

  34. Well Caney i see you are in full support of your Lord and masters the ALP. The Libs were running large budget surpluses during this time. Not an easy thing to do.

    You know when labor was elected in 2007 this mining boom was still going on. Labor had a chance to turn a $20B surplus into a $40B surplus as leftoid idiots like Peter Martin and other leftoid economists said Costello should have done.

    Well what happened??? Labor did not increase the budget surplus even though you people said it was something Costello should have done. There was no GFC when labor put down its first budget and the economy was still booming.

    maybe you are telling lies.

    Some other points to think about. If there were no AWA’s, reform at the waterfront and other Howard govt policies would we have had this mining boom??? If Labor had been in power would we have got such good prices for our minerals?? I say if labor was in power from 2003 there would have been no mining boom.

  35. Is there any link between this article and International Compost Awareness Week.

    http://www.compostweek.com.au/

  36. maybe you are telling lies

    Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t make it lies, Neil. It’s figures from Treasury.

    As a matter of fact, as a devotee of someone who Liberals proudly christened the Lying Rodent, it’s more likely you are telling lies, imitation being the sincerest form of flattery and all that.

    The facts again: The Liberals blew 94% of the mining boom windfall in just a couple of years.$334 billion taken in extra revenue, $314 billion blown away buying votes, leaving only 20 billion as “surplus”, a “surplus” they and the likes of you have done nothing but brag about ever since.

    Any high school economics student could tell the Liberals that no boom lasts forever, that a bust always follows. What did Howard and Costello do while the boom was sending floods of money into government coffers? Shovel it out the other door, bribing the elderly, the wealthy and the stupid with middle-class ‘welfare’, tax-cuts, handouts, and the greatest stream of government propaganda Australians have ever been subjected to. Overheating the economy, pushing inflation to among the highest in the western world, with interest rates going up in synch.

    … to the point where the proportion of average income needed to pay the interest component of the mortgage reached the highest level in history. The Liberals imposed more severe mortgage and interest rate stress than Labor ever did with 17% interest rates.

    They stand condemned as the most wasteful, short-sighted, self-serving economic mismanagers in history. Even the vote-buying failed as we kicked them out regardless, thank goodness.

  37. Facts. Underlying cash balances (in $m) with the % GDP in brackets)

    01/02 -983 (-0.1)
    02/03 7,486 (1.0)
    03/04 8,036 (1.0)
    04/05 13,616 (1.5)
    05/06 15,792 (1.6)
    06/07 17,208 (1.6)
    07/08 19,704 (1.7)

    And Neil thinks Labor had a chance to turn it into a $40 Billion surplus…. that is, he wanted Labor to either increase receipts or cut payments to get the surplus up to a 3.4% of GDP value.

  38. Neil re: If there were no AWA’s, reform at the waterfront and other Howard govt policies would we have had this mining boom???

    Hubby has worked on various mine sites from Karratha (’08) to Gove and numerous points in between – includes among others Pasminco, Moomba, Olympic Dam (’02 and ’04) and only ONCE has he ever been on an AWA…this is over a 12 year period and only for 3 months.

  39. Min the benefit of AWAs, particularly in WA, was not simply that they were used to employ people. Obviously not, as there are plenty of examples of these instruments not being used.

    As we have discussed in the past, there is a history of very disruptive/destructive turf wars in WA. This would hold up construction and operation of mine sites. These union activities had nothing to do with wages and conditions, they were about which union enrolled the members.

    WA has had state jurisdiction individual agreements since about 1992 or 93.

    AWAs and their state predecessors provided an option to dealing with warring unions. Projects could no longer be held up by unions fighting amongst themselves. They had to deal with their differences.

    This has been the case in WA now for the last 16 or 17 years. It is not a Workchoices development. The increased investment in WA has been in part because there has been a stable industrial environment to invest, build, and operate in the mining industry.

    No one should disregard the stable investment environment that these state and federal individual employment instruments have provided.

    It is naïve to suggest otherwise.

  40. And as previous, AWAs in WA refer to ‘the veggies’ only and not to the fly in-fly out tradies. Hubby agrees re the veggies. Sorry..have to choof, we’re going out to lunch with son, partner and little grandie.

  41. I wonder what happened to “the list of 14” story?

    It has completely vanished from all the online newspapers today…

  42. “And Neil thinks Labor had a chance to turn it into a $40 Billion surplus…. that is, he wanted Labor to either increase receipts or cut payments to get the surplus up to a 3.4% of GDP value.
    joni, on May 5th, 2009 at 10:22 am Said:”

    Well I read through what i said several times and that is not what i said. Its actually the exact opposite. Its what you people told me. I was told many times by people like Adrian of Nowra and i read it in Peter Martins articles and it was also implied by what Caney said. Leftoids stated that Howard wasted the mining boom by spending like a drunken sailor. The surpluses Costello produced should have been much larger.

    Trouble is when Labor had a chance to produce a bigger surplus last May they couldn’t do it.

  43. Trouble is when Labor had a chance to produce a bigger surplus last May they couldn’t do it.

    I see no flaws in Neil’s argument. Anyone?

  44. Tony and N5,

    I’ll take my response over to the ‘some people deserve to die’ thread, which seems more related to the tangential ‘hypothetical’, and will affect less the established flow of this thread.

  45. Tony, on May 5th, 2009 at 7:20 pm

    Just for fun, and just as a hypothetical argument by analogy…Perhaps it’s the same flaw which Neil makes when he asserts that there was no GFC prior to 2007/2008; arguably, however, that’s merely when the symptoms of the disease became undeniable and the toxic shock to the system, already metastatic in the system, caused it to visibly implode. In other words, the conditions precedent determine the inertial effects and the possibilities subsequent; the whole Australian economic system was predicated on an established state of affairs, and the carving out of another hypothetical path involves both denial about how the economic system came to be that way, and denial about what is possible to do in terms of that system upon receiving that inherited system in the state in which it was received. For Labor to have been in a position in 2008 to achieve the equivalent of an enlarged surplus foregone in former years, the Australian economic system would have needed not to be in the position it was, which was reliant on the revenues churn to both hide the foreign debt truck and to keep the punters sweet through nominal transfers. Changing that state of affairs, in the very short-term, would likely result in the established system shredding itself as a consequence of an endogeneous shock; a potential shock created by Costello-Howard that would only have been crystallised by a Rudd in doing as Neil says in the absence of any karmic hindsight. So, it’s something that would have required a) Costello-Howard not doing what they did for years and years, just as Caney et.al. say; and b) changing that pent-up inertia in the system over time, to avoid the economic shock, not in one hit.

  46. “Legion, on May 5th, 2009 at 8:38 pm Said:”

    Don’t really understand what you said but Caney said this

    “What did Howard and Costello do while the boom was sending floods of money into government coffers? Shovel it out the other door, bribing the elderly, the wealthy and the stupid with middle-class ‘welfare’, tax-cuts, handouts, and the greatest stream of government propaganda Australians have ever been subjected to”

    I was told many times by leftoids that Costello should have created larger surpluses. Well labor had its big chance last year. The boom was still on, revenue was still high, perhaps even higher. Unemployment had dropped a little bit from 4.3% to 3.9% and this would mean more revenue and less welfare payments.

    Perhaps producing surplus budgets is not so easy.

  47. Legion,

    No agency – not the Reserve Bank, the Treasury, or the Government – was predicting rough seas ahead when this government was framing its first budget. In fact, runaway inflation was the order of the day. So there was no need for stimulus spending – the opposite was in fact the case, according to popular “knowledge” at the time. Ideal conditions for surplus building, as far as anyone knew, wouldn’t you say?

  48. Firstly, let’s knock a few canards on the head.

    Perhaps producing surplus budgets is not so easy

    Producing a budget surplus is dead easy. In simple terms, a ‘surplus’ results from spending less than your income. BTW, at ‘Budget’ time both income and expenditure are ‘estimates’ or to put it another way they are ‘guesses’.

    These ‘guesses’ are not confined to a single year but are projected over many years. For the uninformed, they are called the ‘Forward Estimates’. Otherwise known as ‘guesses’ for the years ahead.

    As Tony correctly points out:

    No agency – not the Reserve Bank, the Treasury, or the Government – was predicting rough seas ahead when this government was framing its first budget

    The available evidence supported that ‘guess’ (Now shown to be well wide of the mark).

    As for:

    Ideal conditions for surplus building,

    No! Like the good years that preceded, it was a good time for investment in areas such as infrastructure, education and the like. It was not a time for ‘buying’ votes but investing as Costello will aver. Pity he didn’t have the bottle,

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: