pap Posted 2 February, 2012 Share Posted 2 February, 2012 As usual, got to partake in the extended edition of the Daily Politics yesterday, which incorporates Prime Minister's Questions. Even before PMQs, Andrew Neill and his cohort were talking about Ed's recent resurgence when dealing with Dave. Difficult to disagree based on yesterday's performance. Cameron was reduced to the level of debate normally reserved for SaintsWeb's most blinkered right-wing posters. Personal insults, representing one view as the whole picture, all the usual tricks. Miliband wasn't perfect. He really needs to keep his face still when Cameron is answering (gurning in disbelief at points, understandably). However, I'm calling yesterday a win for Miliband. First of many? Anyways, don't take my word for it. Daily Politics from yesterday right here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 2 February, 2012 Share Posted 2 February, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 2 February, 2012 Author Share Posted 2 February, 2012 C'mon now, trousers. Even Cameron managed a more articulate response than this (Still raw over Ontario?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackanorySFC Posted 2 February, 2012 Share Posted 2 February, 2012 C'mon now, trousers. Even Cameron managed a more articulate response than this (Still raw over Ontario?) Ed's "finest hour" is over now anyway - big brother is back with an interview in the New Statesman today disagreeing with Ed's anti business stance and defending some of Blair's achievements. Text book timing from big bro' on this one... ouch! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 2 February, 2012 Share Posted 2 February, 2012 Ed's "finest hour" is over now anyway - big brother is back with an interview in the New Statesman today disagreeing with Ed's anti business stance and defending some of Blair's achievements. Text book timing from big bro' on this one... ouch! http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2012/02/labour-social-government-party Time to rethink, not reassure David Miliband Published 02 February 2012] The big state is a political dead end for Labour. The public won't vote for the belief that government is the cure for all ills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 2 February, 2012 Share Posted 2 February, 2012 Ed's "finest hour" is over now anyway - big brother is back with an interview in the New Statesman today disagreeing with Ed's anti business stance and defending some of Blair's achievements. Text book timing from big bro' on this one... ouch! The unions are now realising the monumental cock-up they made when backing Ed. Whatever you think of his performances in the Commons (they'd have to improve from rotten wouldn't they), the fact is he is not up to the job. Cameron is useless in PMQs. He gets flustered too easily and is low on content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 2 February, 2012 Share Posted 2 February, 2012 Cameron is useless in PMQs. He gets flustered too easily and is low on content. Name a PM that has ever been "high on content" at PMQs? Isn't that part of the job description? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintfully Posted 2 February, 2012 Share Posted 2 February, 2012 Just to let everyone know - so far the coalition have only completed 6% of the cuts they propose. How do people think the economy will respond as the remaing 94% get implemented? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 2 February, 2012 Author Share Posted 2 February, 2012 Interesting article on politics.co.uk, David's intervention makes Ed Miliband look good. Politically, it is monumentally uninteresting, parroting the Blairite formula of "notions of merit, reward and responsibility" and a politics which "mobilises people, whether as patients or parents or employees or citizens, to make choices". Its tedium is in direct contrast to the frantic self-examination it triggers among the political classes, who are desperate to paint David as a messiah in the wings, primed to cut through the Tory ranks once his younger brother falls on his sword. David is not, and has never been, the hero he is described as. His current status is a product of the need for a media narrative. As the more charismatic and centrist of the two brothers, he was preferred by the press. His victory – were it not for those pesky unions – cemented the idea that he should be leader. But David would have received as hard a drubbing from the media as Ed did, for the simple reason they had mostly thrown in their lot with the government. It would be at least one parliament before they felt able to switch allegiances back to Labour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 2 February, 2012 Share Posted 2 February, 2012 Millipede is a waste of space but Cameron is no that far behind but a far better leader than millipede will ever be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackanorySFC Posted 2 February, 2012 Share Posted 2 February, 2012 Just to let everyone know - so far the coalition have only completed 6% of the cuts they propose. How do people think the economy will respond as the remaing 94% get implemented? Good - borrowing just topped £1trn, need to cut harder faster imo. Labour admitted they would have to cut 90% of the Conservative number yet havn't agreed with the tories on a single cut yet whilst not saying what they'd cut instead. Like the Labour party, I don't see what your point is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 2 February, 2012 Share Posted 2 February, 2012 Millipede is a waste of space but Cameron is no that far behind but a far better leader than millipede will ever be The West Lothian Question suggests you have no right to an opinion, if that's any help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 2 February, 2012 Share Posted 2 February, 2012 Cameron couldn't even win an election against the most unpopular Prime Minister of all time. Sums him up really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 2 February, 2012 Share Posted 2 February, 2012 The unions are now realising the monumental cock-up they made when backing Ed. Whatever you think of his performances in the Commons (they'd have to improve from rotten wouldn't they), the fact is he is not up to the job. Cameron is useless in PMQs. He gets flustered too easily and is low on content. I think not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 2 February, 2012 Share Posted 2 February, 2012 Fair Point Verbal . but salmond has not made a decision yet and as I was born in the City of Southampton I still have an interest Here a question Millipede or Salmond . difficualt one that possibly a goaless draw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 2 February, 2012 Share Posted 2 February, 2012 Ive got a meeting with David M next month. I'll ask when he's going to stick the knife in his brother, and does their mum mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 2 February, 2012 Share Posted 2 February, 2012 Ive got a meeting with David M next month. I'll ask why he stuck the knife in his brother, and did their mum mind. Ask this instead. I cant see Ed lasting the month myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 2 February, 2012 Share Posted 2 February, 2012 Milliband has done better the past 2 PMQ's, but he could hardly do any worse than he was. Yesterday I thought he poor over the bankers bonus using terms like "class war" will come back to haunt him. Scored an open goal on the NHS. However, the Torys were able to use lots of planted questions ( a New Labour tactic) over the welfare cap, so I pretty much scored it a draw (which is good for Ed). On the wider picture I think Milliband is playing the country for fools and the electrate dont like being played for fools.His "class war" on Bankers is phoney and pure opportunism. It's all very good baying for Fred Goodwin's blood and his knighthood, but a knighthood is nothing compared to the yearly pension of £703,000 waved through by a Labour cabinet (including Milliband and Balls) after RBS was bust. Milliband's line appears to be, "here's your £12mil pension pot" when in Government, but "lets have the knighthood back". Labour also set up a quango to run RBS, to keep it at arms length from ministers interfering, then calls for ministers to interfere.Cameron was right to call him a hypocrite. The British public will see right through these tactics and that coupled with his poor performance will do for him.The fact that he is so far behind in the polls against a posh, wet, Ted Heath like Tory leader in times of austerity, dont bode well for his election chances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 2 February, 2012 Share Posted 2 February, 2012 We've just ended up with the wrong Miliband. Ralph was the one who got away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 2 February, 2012 Share Posted 2 February, 2012 We've just ended up with the wrong Miliband. Ralph was the one who got away. Like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 2 February, 2012 Share Posted 2 February, 2012 Cameron couldn't even win an election against the most unpopular Prime Minister of all time. Sums him up really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 2 February, 2012 Share Posted 2 February, 2012 Ive got a meeting with David M next month Business or pleasure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 2 February, 2012 Share Posted 2 February, 2012 Labour admitted they would have to cut 90% of the Conservative number yet havn't agreed with the tories on a single cut yet whilst not saying what they'd cut instead. ^The inconvenient truth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 2 February, 2012 Share Posted 2 February, 2012 My first husband's son from is second marriage (tenuous I know but the best I can do) has been invited to a party at No. 10. He's in a flourishing rock band - I told him to be like Sir Mick Jagger and not to be used as a political football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 2 February, 2012 Share Posted 2 February, 2012 Is it or is it not true that Cameron failed to win a general election against what was probably the most unpopular prime minister since Anthony Eden? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 2 February, 2012 Share Posted 2 February, 2012 We've just ended up with the wrong Miliband. Ralph was the one who got away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 2 February, 2012 Share Posted 2 February, 2012 Business or pleasure? Definitely business. Most politicans of all shades are too narrow focussed / intense / worried about doing or saying anything the media will get hold of to be any fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 2 February, 2012 Share Posted 2 February, 2012 Definitely business. Most politicans of all shades are too narrow focussed / intense / worried about doing or saying anything the media will get hold of to be any fun. Even in his private life, he's bit of an odd one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 2 February, 2012 Share Posted 2 February, 2012 (edited) Is it or is it not true that Cameron failed to win a general election against what was probably the most unpopular prime minister since Anthony Eden? Not true.... Conservative/Labour General Election Results - 1955 thru 2010 Year..............Party/PM...................................Votes 2010..............Conservative/Cameron.................10,703,654 (36.1%) 2005..............Labour/Blair................................9,552,436 (35.2%) 2001..............Labour/Blair................................10,724,953 (40.7%) 1997..............Labour/Blair................................13,518,167 (43.2%) 1992..............Conservative/Major......................14,093,007 (41.9%) 1987..............Conservative/Maggie....................13,760,935 (42.2%) 1983..............Conservative/Maggie....................13,012,316 (42.4%) 1979..............Conservative/Maggie....................13,697,923 (43.9%) 1974 (Oct)......Labour/Wilson.............................11,457,079 (39.2%) 1974 (Feb)......Labour/Wilson.............................11,645,616 (37.2%) 1970..............Conservative/Heath.....................13,145,123 (46.4%) 1966..............Labour/Wilson.............................13,096,629 (48.0%) 1964..............Labour/Wilson.............................12,205,808 (44.1%) 1959..............Conservative/MacMillan.................13,750,875 (49.4%) 1955..............Conservative/Eden.......................13,310,891 (49.7%) HTH Edited 2 February, 2012 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 2 February, 2012 Share Posted 2 February, 2012 The bigger point is that the Tory Party have not won an overall majority in an election since they scraped into power in 1992 - 20 years ago! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 2 February, 2012 Share Posted 2 February, 2012 (edited) The bigger point is that the Tory Party have not won an overall majority in an election since they scraped into power in 1992 - 20 years ago! More people voted for Major's Conservative Party in 1992 than ever voted for Blair or Thatcher.... Edited 2 February, 2012 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 2 February, 2012 Share Posted 2 February, 2012 More people voted for Major's Conservative Party in 1992 than ever voted for Blair and Thatcher.... Ah, a convert to PR! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 2 February, 2012 Author Share Posted 2 February, 2012 Cameron is an utter muppet. John Bercow pointed out that the PM had been exceptionally well educated. That may be the case, but he doesn't seem to be putting that education to any meaningful use. His party's policies aren't getting the country out of the mire, he himself has repeatedly been shown to be unresponsive or ineffective as a leader. Even his two-fingered salute to the EU last month has been totally nullified by the complete failure to take any action on it. The policy is "yeah, we vetoed it, but if you go ahead and do it anyway, we probably won't say anything". I never get the sense that Cameron is taking the job entirely seriously, or that he has any sound political convictions of his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintfully Posted 2 February, 2012 Share Posted 2 February, 2012 Good - borrowing just topped £1trn, need to cut harder faster imo. Labour admitted they would have to cut 90% of the Conservative number yet havn't agreed with the tories on a single cut yet whilst not saying what they'd cut instead. Like the Labour party, I don't see what your point is? As usual the stupidity on this board knows no bounds. My point is that even the IMF recently argued that austerity alone would not bring down deficits - you need a combination of fiscal tightening and growth. If you do cuts without growth you get into a downward spiral - see Greece. Even our own govt is, somewhat ironically, calling for Germany to do more than just call for more austerity with that country because it knows that this will not bring a solution. So its not simply a question of more cuts = less debt; in case you hadn't noticed the govt recently said it would have to borrow another £158 billion because the economy hadn't grown as expected. Finally, I'm not a Labour party supporter - but I do like things like jobs and decent services. HTH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 2 February, 2012 Share Posted 2 February, 2012 Not true.... Conservative/Labour General Election Results - 1955 thru 2010 Year..............Party/PM...................................Votes 2010..............Conservative/Cameron.................10,703,654 (36.1%) 2005..............Labour/Blair................................9,552,436 (35.2%) 2001..............Labour/Blair................................10,724,953 (40.7%) 1997..............Labour/Blair................................13,518,167 (43.2%) 1992..............Conservative/Major......................14,093,007 (41.9%) 1987..............Conservative/Maggie....................13,760,935 (42.2%) 1983..............Conservative/Maggie....................13,012,316 (42.4%) 1979..............Conservative/Maggie....................13,697,923 (43.9%) 1974 (Oct)......Labour/Wilson.............................11,457,079 (39.2%) 1974 (Feb)......Labour/Wilson.............................11,645,616 (37.2%) 1970..............Conservative/Heath.....................13,145,123 (46.4%) 1966..............Labour/Wilson.............................13,096,629 (48.0%) 1964..............Labour/Wilson.............................12,205,808 (44.1%) 1959..............Conservative/MacMillan.................13,750,875 (49.4%) 1955..............Conservative/Eden.......................13,310,891 (49.7%) HTH All that chart shows is that less and less people are interested in voting as they see MPs as a waste of space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 2 February, 2012 Share Posted 2 February, 2012 Not true.... Conservative/Labour General Election Results - 1955 thru 2010 Year..............Party/PM...................................Votes 2010..............Conservative/Cameron.................10,703,654 (36.1%) 2005..............Labour/Blair................................9,552,436 (35.2%) 2001..............Labour/Blair................................10,724,953 (40.7%) 1997..............Labour/Blair................................13,518,167 (43.2%) 1992..............Conservative/Major......................14,093,007 (41.9%) 1987..............Conservative/Maggie....................13,760,935 (42.2%) 1983..............Conservative/Maggie....................13,012,316 (42.4%) 1979..............Conservative/Maggie....................13,697,923 (43.9%) 1974 (Oct)......Labour/Wilson.............................11,457,079 (39.2%) 1974 (Feb)......Labour/Wilson.............................11,645,616 (37.2%) 1970..............Conservative/Heath.....................13,145,123 (46.4%) 1966..............Labour/Wilson.............................13,096,629 (48.0%) 1964..............Labour/Wilson.............................12,205,808 (44.1%) 1959..............Conservative/MacMillan.................13,750,875 (49.4%) 1955..............Conservative/Eden.......................13,310,891 (49.7%) HTH Doesn't prove anything... he failed to win an election against what was probably the most unpopular prime minister since Anthony Eden... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Who? Posted 2 February, 2012 Share Posted 2 February, 2012 Call it a draw, the both get on my wick. Milliband really is the worse labour leader ever. If they are to get back in power, a new leader is require..... Smart fast, he just comes across terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_Jonny Posted 2 February, 2012 Share Posted 2 February, 2012 Is it or is it not true that Cameron failed to win a general election against what was probably the most unpopular prime minister since Anthony Eden? Gordon Brown was absolutely NOT more unpopular than Thatcher. You are totally mental if you think that is the case! (Yes I know she didn't lose an election and she stepped aside, but that isn't my point) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 2 February, 2012 Share Posted 2 February, 2012 Gordon Brown was absolutely NOT more unpopular than Thatcher. You are totally mental if you think that is the case! (Yes I know she didn't lose an election and she stepped aside, but that isn't my point) Thatcher won 3 elections and while she was unpopular by many, she had her supporters. As it happens, I liked and still like Gordon Brown. He was underrated in his efforts and success on averting total collapse of our financial system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 2 February, 2012 Share Posted 2 February, 2012 As often as not the public tend to vote against a PM they really don't like, as opposed to a selecting someone they truly admire. If a week is a long time in politics then 3 years must be a eternity, but my sense of the public mood is that I just don't get any 'vibe' that the majority of the British public are even nearly dissatisfied enough with the Prime Minister's performance to vote him and his party out of office. The voters are likely to continue to lay the blame for our economic woes at the door of the Labour Party, and lets face it, that is where it belongs . So I'll risk a whole £1 and predict that David Cameron will win the next general election, and win it with a outright majority I reckon. His coalition partners on the other hand may well be facing a electoral disaster. As for the Labour leadership, the unions (with all their customary incompetence) block voted for the wrong Miliband brother in my view - a grave error of judgment that will surely cost Labour dearly at the next general election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 3 February, 2012 Share Posted 3 February, 2012 You mean you sided with Poulantzas in Ralph's empiricist struggle against the Althusserian structuralists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 3 February, 2012 Share Posted 3 February, 2012 Thatcher won 3 elections and while she was unpopular by many, she had her supporters. As it happens, I liked and still like Gordon Brown. He was underrated in his efforts and success on averting total collapse of our financial system. And that is why I will never take you seriously when discussing politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 3 February, 2012 Share Posted 3 February, 2012 (edited) You mean you sided with Poulantzas in Ralph's empiricist struggle against the Althusserian structuralists? A socialist and empiricist - never met one of those before. Like oil and water, didn't think they mixed. Me, I prefer a bit of Hegel slapped with a dash of Taylor, MacIntyre and in my darker moments Schmitt. But each to their own, old chap Edited 3 February, 2012 by shurlock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 3 February, 2012 Share Posted 3 February, 2012 Doesn't prove anything... he failed to win an election against what was probably the most unpopular prime minister since Anthony Eden... All you're doing is highlighting an imbalance in our voting system in that you can have a party getting more votes in an election than the winning party did in the previous election yet not win enough seats for a majority. Nothing whatsoever to do with Labour rigging constituency sizes of course.... ;-) And, anyway, it's only those pesky Scots that stopped Dave getting an outright majority ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 3 February, 2012 Share Posted 3 February, 2012 Name a PM that has ever been "high on content" at PMQs? Isn't that part of the job description? Fair point, but his playground debating technique is demeaning for someone in charge of running the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 3 February, 2012 Share Posted 3 February, 2012 A socialist and empiricist - never met one of those before. Like oil and water, didn't think they mixed. Me, I prefer a bit of Hegel slapped with a dash of Taylor, MacIntyre and in my darker moments Schmitt. But each to their own, old chap Ah, Taylor (Charles), for I knew him well (I was a member of his seminar group when he was Chichele Prof at All Souls). Sorry to hear about your leanings towards Schmitt - he was not exactly an unreconstructed Nazi, but he (unlike a lot of his peers) worked very happily as a Nazi jurist and he never formally recanted his very significant collaboration (including book-burning) and refused 'de-Nazification' from a Party he joined in 1933. So I guess this makes you a Cameronite? And the 'empiricist' label was one applied by Poulantzas to Ralph: it's what structuralists did when confronted with a fact. Which - back on topic - is why it is a shame that Ralph is not at the intellectual heart of Labour, don't you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 3 February, 2012 Share Posted 3 February, 2012 Milliband has done better the past 2 PMQ's, but he could hardly do any worse than he was. Yesterday I thought he poor over the bankers bonus using terms like "class war" will come back to haunt him. Scored an open goal on the NHS. However, the Torys were able to use lots of planted questions ( a New Labour tactic) over the welfare cap, so I pretty much scored it a draw (which is good for Ed). On the wider picture I think Milliband is playing the country for fools and the electrate dont like being played for fools.His "class war" on Bankers is phoney and pure opportunism. It's all very good baying for Fred Goodwin's blood and his knighthood, but a knighthood is nothing compared to the yearly pension of £703,000 waved through by a Labour cabinet (including Milliband and Balls) after RBS was bust. Milliband's line appears to be, "here's your £12mil pension pot" when in Government, but "lets have the knighthood back". Labour also set up a quango to run RBS, to keep it at arms length from ministers interfering, then calls for ministers to interfere.Cameron was right to call him a hypocrite. The British public will see right through these tactics and that coupled with his poor performance will do for him.The fact that he is so far behind in the polls against a posh, wet, Ted Heath like Tory leader in times of austerity, dont bode well for his election chances. From someone on the opposite side of the political spectrum as yourself, I agree 100% with this post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 3 February, 2012 Share Posted 3 February, 2012 (edited) Ah, Taylor (Charles), for I knew him well (I was a member of his seminar group when he was Chichele Prof at All Souls). Sorry to hear about your leanings towards Schmitt - he was not exactly an unreconstructed Nazi, but he (unlike a lot of his peers) worked very happily as a Nazi jurist and he never formally recanted his very significant collaboration (including book-burning) and refused 'de-Nazification' from a Party he joined in 1933. So I guess this makes you a Cameronite? And the 'empiricist' label was one applied by Poulantzas to Ralph: it's what structuralists did when confronted with a fact. Which - back on topic - is why it is a shame that Ralph is not at the intellectual heart of Labour, don't you agree? Schmitt - his views on liberalism and its attempts to suppress conflict, the nature of sovereignty and the hidden influence of theological thinking in secular thought are as brilliant as they are disturbing. Guess you have to divorce content from context -his politics were ****- but to paraphrase Berlin, I am bored of reading people who are allies. I prefer to read the enemy, because the enemy penetrates the defenses. No I am not a Cameronite, though I don't particularly like Labour either. Through sheer accident, I've seen both parties and governments up close to feel anything but sceptical about current British politics. Back to Ralph, until political philosophy grapples seriously with human nature -and dare I say it, science- both left and right will be a jumble of wishful thinking and risk practical irrelevance. Edited 3 February, 2012 by shurlock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cat Posted 3 February, 2012 Share Posted 3 February, 2012 They are both pretty terrible, but I slightly favour Milliband because he isn't Cameron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brussels Saint Posted 3 February, 2012 Share Posted 3 February, 2012 I actually really like Cameron, who at least seems to enjoy being PM and for me is making a decent fist of an almost impossible job. He's competent and that’s all I ask from any PM (I also classify Blair, Thatcher and to a minor extent Brown in this category, but not Major who was poor) It's not just because I'm a Tory either, as I could not stand and did not vote for Howard, IDS and Hague. Miliband is shockingly bad however and potentially would be even worse than Kinnock might have been. There is no way Ed Miliband could win a general election, he's simply unelectable. David Miliband would be ok & I quite like Andy Burnham though I'm not sure he is PM material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now