Tell us what you really think Dr Crawford

Hon. Josh Frydenberg MP 18th October 2017
Minister for the Environment & Energy
PO Box 6022
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Open letter re your Monty Pythonesque electricity plan

I understand you have devised an ingenious plan to rectify the current government-directed
destruction of our once reliable and affordable power system. According to media reports,
your scheme will require electricity retailers to do essentially what they are currently doing,
while the “renewable” rorters do what they are currently doing, and electricity distributors
continue to do what they are currently doing.

Despite the fact that everyone will be continuing as at present (except of course that we will
now pay for some more government officials to oversee this plan, and for some more
bandaids), I understand that you and the Prime Minister are confident that electricity prices
will fall in maybe ten years time, by a paltry amount, and the lights will stay on because you
have willed it so.

Could you please clarify whether your advisers got the script for this plan from Monty Python
or from Blackadder. Attribution should go to the right source.

I understand the crux of your ingenious scheme is that retailers will be obliged to purchase at
least 1MW of electricity from baseload sources for each 1MW of unreliable (i.e. wind and
solar) electricity they purchase. What exactly do you think they are doing at present?

Dr Finkel’s report was grossly misleading in multiple ways. However, he did provide some
basic facts pertinent to your plan. On p. 87 of his report, he noted that “In FY2016, 76 per
cent of electricity produced in the NEM came from coal-fired generators.”

So the ratio of electricity from coal-fired baseload sources to all other sources was 3:1 in 2016– and those other sources included gas and legacy hydro. Dr Finkel’s projections (Figure 3.8in his report) are for the ratio of baseload to intermittent sources to be 3:1 in 2020 and 1.5:1 in 2030 under his Big Lie “Clean” Energy Target, and 2:1 in 2030 under current arrangements.

Consequently, your mandated 1MW:1MW requirement would make no difference to the
behaviour of wholesale purchasers of electricity in the immediate future and indeed for
decades. Consequently it will not deter the “renewable energy” rorters from building more
unreliable, intermittent power stations causing increased variability across the grid and more
expensive power which your government forces electricity consumers to purchase.

Your ingenious plan demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how the introduction
of intermittent power generation has created system unreliability and doubled real electricity
prices in Australia, and how it will continue to do so.

In short:
• Intermittent wind and solar is highly expensive electricity, requiring the combination
of high wholesale prices plus LRET subsidies (paid by consumers) of a roughly
similar amount, to make them viable.

• Because of the subsidies and the nature of the NEM, subsidised generators are able to
always place their output into the grid, at the expense of baseload generators, with the
latter then being turned into intermittent generators – not because of any deficiency on
their part but because they keep getting shut out of the grid on an intermittent and
unpredictable basis.

• Since they are thus prevented from operating at full capacity, baseload generators then
also require high prices per MWH in order to be viable, and those necessary prices
increase as the intermittency forced on them increases.

• Given that the proportion of intermittent generators is continuing to increase under
your policy, and thus also the intermittency forced onto baseload generators, and given
Australian government is driven by irrational ideology, no independent party will
invest in new baseload plant or in the refurbishment of existing plant.

• Wind and solar generators are not just intermittent, they also fail to provide the
frequency control and other functions essential to a widespread grid and which are an
intrinsic part of baseload generators. Thus the increasing proportion of intermittent
generators also adds increasing instability to the grid.

• Because of the multiplicity of intermittent generators mushrooming around the
country, much more transmission infrastructure is required. Each of those generators
requires an expensive substation to convert its output into a form suitable for the grid,
plus new transmission links. The cost of this comes out of the pockets of electricity

• Many members of the public have responded to your high electricity prices (and in
many cases encouraged by government subsidies) by placing solar panels on their
roofs. Most of them remain connected to the grid because they also want electricity at
night (adequate battery storage is very expensive) which cannot come from solar
farms, and only sometimes will it come from wind farms, so you need additional
investment (either legacy baseload or new gas-fired installations) to back up those
private investments. All that investment has to be paid for by end-users. In addition,
local distribution networks have consequent less demand on them, so their owners are
requiring increased per household connection charges to meet their costs.

• You and previous governments have produced a Rube Goldberg structure of
government agencies to oversee the NEM, which have destroyed affordable and
reliable electricity, and whose failure is rewarded with expansion. In addition, you
have duplicated at the national level government officials that once existed only at
state level. Electricity consumers and taxpayers pay for this mess.

• The financial sector has got in the act offering hedging instruments so various parties
can cope with the financial uncertainty caused by this system, uncertainty we never
had before the NEM and intermittent power. The financial sector employs people and
capital to provide those hedging instruments. That is a real cost which again
ultimately comes out of the pockets of electricity consumers.

• Where once electricity in each state was produced by a state government responsible
to its electorate, it is now produced by an unscrupulous oligopoly whose members use
every tactic they can to game the fake market Australian governments have created
and thereby add further costs to consumers in order to pad the profits of their largely
foreign owners.

As I pointed out in an earlier letter to you, this complex mess over which you are presiding
and which you refuse to correct is costing the Australian community an excess and wholly
unnecessary cost of between $30Bn and $50Bn per annum. Yes, that is measured in tens of
billions of dollars each year. It is increasing each year and it is destroying tens of thousands
of jobs.

Despite that knowledge, while presiding over a system where real consumer electricity prices
are now twice what they were before your NEM started, you insult the Australian people by
claiming you’ll deliver them a reduction of less than 5% in maybe a decade’s time, when you
will be long gone from office. In other words you are telling them the country will have to
suffer unaffordable power prices now and for decades – because you and the Prime Minister
are too gutless or incompetent to fix it.

And all of this is done supposedly to limit the beneficial trace-gas carbon dioxide, despite
your Chief Scientist having testified to the Senate that totally abolishing Australia’s emissions
of carbon dioxide would make virtually no difference to the world’s climate.

More of the detail behind these points is explained in my letter to you re AEMO’s recent
misleading advice to you and in my open letter to Dr Finkel, of which you also have a copy.

I pointed out previously what is now being commonly recognised. There is only one way to
restore affordable, secure electricity to Australia and its citizens. It has two parts:

• Abolish now all subsidies for particular forms of electricity supply. That means the
RET-based subsidies for wind and solar in particular but also the various other forms
like preferential funding for intermittent power generators.

• Offer long-term government contracts for low cost dispatchable electricity supply
which is also able to provide the other characteristics needed for stable supply (e.g.
frequency control) sufficient to meet Australia’s electricity requirements with the
safety margin we once enjoyed.

If you do not understand that, you are too clueless to be worth feeding. If you do understand
it, then the policies you are following are outright treachery against Australia and its people –
and all the Liberal and National party members who support this treachery are also culpable.

Dr Michael Crawford

[email protected]

cc: Members of Australian Parliament and other interested parties

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy, Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

57 Responses to Tell us what you really think Dr Crawford

  1. RobK

    That’s an “i wish I’d written that” letter.

  2. If you do not understand that, you are too clueless to be worth feeding. If you do understand
    it, then the policies you are following are outright treachery against Australia and its people …

    They are not worth feeding
    the policies they are following are outright treachery against Australia and its people

  3. PeterPeterum

    Absolutely spot on. None of the points made by Dr Crawford are debatable. They are indisputable facts. However, there is absolutely no chance, as long as Turnbull keeps the top seat for himself, that this policy will change. He has set out, either deliberately or incompetently, to wreck Australia and the Liberal party on the way. I despair.

  4. A Lurker

    Okay, remind me just who here was in favour of Turnbull for Prime Minister?

  5. egg_

    If you do not understand that, you are too clueless to be worth feeding. If you do understand
    it, then the policies you are following are outright treachery against Australia and its people …

    D. All the above.

  6. Nathan Trevor

    The night Turnbull took office I posted a map of Australia with a SOLD stamp on my FB page.
    I was so right.

  7. Nathan

    Dr.C: what you describe as gaming the market is perfectly valid behaviour from the generators. Market’s work when prices can reflect the true supply/demand curve. When generators price their output higher during constrained network conditions, this simply tells the market that there is a chance to profit through investment in the constrained region.

    Also the government shouldn’t be offering any contracts for supply, they should sell all generation capacity and allow private enterprises to sort it out. You correctly complain about the government distorting the market, then recommend more of the same?

  8. Tel

    You and previous governments have produced a Rube Goldberg structure of government agencies to oversee the NEM, which have destroyed affordable and reliable electricity, and whose failure is rewarded with expansion.

    The purpose of that is to ensure no one can complain, because there’s infinite capacity for misdirection and buck passing. When it all fall in a heap, there will be no one to blame, because every department will point the finger at every other department. It’s classic obfuscation of responsibility.

    This all makes perfect sense, you simply have misunderstood the objective.

  9. cui bono

    Rest assured the 23 year old adviser who handles this correspondence will deem it undeserving of a response beyond ‘ The Minister thanks you for your correspondence and it has been noted. Further information about the Turnbull Government’s Powering Forward blahh blahh can be found at’

  10. RobK

    Randomly Intermittent Renewballs ride on the cost coat-tails of peaker machines because they fluctuate so much the grid sees them as a massive random load or no load, depending on the vagaries of the weather. They bid low with baseload, then everyone is paid on the highest peaker bid. The renewballs suppress baseload capabilities to have it made up by peaker gas which is dearer. All bidders get the higher price. The scheme is broken, needs fixing.

  11. Tel

    Offer long-term government contracts for low cost dispatchable electricity supply which is also able to provide the other characteristics needed for stable supply (e.g. frequency control) sufficient to meet Australia’s electricity requirements with the safety margin we once enjoyed.

    I personally think it would be better to run an electricity futures market where generators can sell contracts for fixed capacity at fixed times. Then let the traders take it from there.

    Admittedly, regime change and sovereign risk would discount those contracts somewhat, but at least it would provide some planning horizon to work off.

  12. RobK

    The scheme in WA is different to the NEM.

  13. herodotus

    The destruction of our power system is grounds for prosecution of all those involved.

  14. Mark M

    At what point do the deplorables get to make the elite politicians lives miserable, just as they work to diminish our quality of life?
    Soon, I hope.

  15. A Lurker

    The destruction of our power system is grounds for prosecution of all those involved.

    Indeed. They are the actions of an enemy fifth column.

  16. Tel

    Now why did that go into moderation?

  17. Tel

    Anyway… if you check the ASX, they have electricity futures contracts documented.

  18. min

    I sent this to Josh also hopefully he did read it . I have been warning him for ages that he will be tarred and feathered-the same as Turnbull. I see Mishaelia has been given the treatment as there appears to have been a set up with Someone warning AWU.

  19. Shine a Light

    Many, many years ago the expression bullshit baffles brains captured many imaginations.
    It seems to have grown legs and raced into the top ranks of society and mutated into gobbledegook.

  20. Shine a Light

    Rumfield talked about the known unknowns about 10 years ago. ALL you needed to know was a little bit of algebra to understand that but you would have to be a rocket scientist plus a few years time to decode pricing electricity.

  21. Megan

    If you do not understand that, you are too clueless to be worth feeding.

    Complete statement of fact. Applies to all politicians on both sides of the House.

  22. manalive

    They admit it themselves, Turnbull & co consider ’tackling Climate Change™’ and their Paris commitment to be more important than the welfare of the citizens of Australia who elected them, pay their salaries and will sooner than later keep them in the manner to which they have become accustomed, in retirement.
    When Turnbull ratified that Agreement he must have known that the we are especially disadvantaged by that commitment because unlike most other signatories we don’t have nor likely to have any nuclear power (due to political cowardice) and the topography and climate doesn’t allow for much hydro.

  23. classical_hero

    Some Mothers Do ‘Ave ‘Em.

  24. ArthurB

    I presume that the engineers and technocrats who are responsible for running power stations would agree with everything in the above article. I also presume that the managers and executives of the power companies are aware of the realities of generating power, but prefer to game the system because they can make more money for their shareholders (and more bonuses for themselves).

    If you think that the situation can’t get any worse, I would remind you that the Turnbull government may collapse in the near future, Labor wins the subsequent election and implements its policy of more renewables.

  25. Mon

    What a great letter.
    Get the feeling it would not be welcomed in the mail box of Turnbull.

  26. Pete of Perth

    I live in hope that mao,s next speech will receive the same tesponse as Ceausescu’s last speech on the 21 Dec 1989

  27. Pete of Perth

    …. the crowd effectively telling him to “piss off”..

  28. Rabz

    ‘appy now, are we, voters?

  29. buckshot

    Good letter. There needs to be a wake up call to these politicians, who admittedly, are probably harangued 24/7 by climate beggars.

  30. Delta

    The analysis is not quite correct. What the latest NEG (after Finkel) does is impose a WA style capacity market on the NEM while leaving the energy price cap at $14,200. In WA the energy price is capped at about $350. The NEG has added a whole area of uncertainty and extra costs much as described above.

    The end result is that retailers are required to provide a reliability guarantee by contracting for a specified percentage of dispatchable capacity at all times when they take power. This percentage will be set by AEMO and be specific for each region. AEMO will then take this information across all retailers, aggregate it, and then dispatch a certain amount of dispatchable power to cover their assessment of a credible contingency (say the loss of a main generator). In this way they “should” be able to prevent another SA type system black by having enough inertia in the system at all times. And the generators dispatched by AEMO in this way would be out of merit order and, if necessary, other generation would be curtailed as is happening now at times to wind generators in SA.

    But overlaying all this bureaucracy is an emissions guarantee where retailers will be given an emissions target and (somehow) be obliged to meet the target. They can do this selecting the suppliers for their power or by trading with retailers who exceed their target or they can buy “carbon credits” internationally. Effectively it’s a cap and trade to satisfy the warminstas in government, i.e., the fools who signed up to Paris agreement and intend to meet its commitments. (What, no carbon trading or cap and trade Josh? And pigs fly).

    No one knows how the “emissions guarantee” will play out but it is quite conceivable that it could work against the “reliability guarantee”.

    The future looks pretty bleak for the NEM because it is not being fixed. Rather more bureaucracy has been added to (try to) make it function and keep the light on and there is no guarantee that the fixes will work. But it will add enormously to costs, particularly as subsidies for renewable continue as does the renewable energy target. And in this mess, who would build a base load power station?

    Crawford’s solution is the only sane one.

  31. Nerblnob

    Good letter, addresses reality without getting entangled in the pointless AGW debate.

  32. Shine a Light

    If brevity is the soul of wit, there is an obvious conclusion to be drawn on pricing electricity.

  33. Nathan

    Yes it is broken, but not because generators re-price their output to take advantage of transport constraints on the transmission network.

  34. Dr Fred Lenin

    Abolish career pollies and corrupt political parties .The career polliemaggots are elected to serve the unelected u.n.communust fascists in New York ,never mind the people , they are only there to provide the money the reds need to squander on creating their own legacy . The National Gngrene Laboral Party is a creation of the communist interlekchools ,who are the theoreticians of communism , paid by the taxpayers. Destroy the aparat ,drain the swamp . Abolish career pollies and their corrupt parties .

  35. wal1957

    I can understand what he’s written, it seams like common sense to me.
    The trouble with this is that nobody in either house, (except maybe Abbott), nobody will admit that they well and truly F#@ked a perfectly working electricity grid.
    Look at Sth Aust, for heavens sake, an Eveready or Duracell battery is not going to provide baseload power! Not in my lifetime anyway.
    For what the politicians, and their advisors have done to this country, they should be behind bars. And I don’t mean just this current pack of A$$holes either.
    Could the directors and senior staff of a private, listed company get away with what politicians and advisors do?…. With utter immunity?

  36. egg_

    this complex mess over which you are presiding and which you refuse to correct is costing the Australian community an excess and wholly unnecessary cost of between $30Bn and $50Bn per annum.

    Yet, the turds shafted our car makers for far less loose change.

  37. Chris M

    I like this guy. We need him to perform lobotomies on a whole bunch of these lunatics to stop them from harming us. Adelaide is a little town and can be laughed off, when the summer supply shortage blackouts come to Sydney or Melbourne it’s all over for them.

  38. Jimf

    Josh might need to put on Mal’s Magic leather jacket to answer this one 🤔

  39. yarpos

    “Absolutely spot on. None of the points made by Dr Crawford are debatable. They are indisputable facts”

    You think you are debating with rational people who do not have their snouts in the trough

  40. John Constantine

    The welfare services economy can survive on ruinables electricity, as long as the debt can keep flowing to supply the Ponzi population importation client boom.

    The demand destruction of shifting baseload demanding industry to overseas hellhole as war reparations for racism and colonialism will progress the ruinables economy until we achieve Stalinisation.

  41. jock

    Having worked for a major utility , this says it all. We have forgotten that despatchability and reliability of supply is paramount. Why a 100% uptime rule for poles and wires but not generation. The real reason is that the renewable sector thought they could get awsy with not building backup/ peakers to cover their intermittancy. If they had then current proces would be even higher.

  42. duncanm

    but prefer to game the system because they can make more money for their shareholders

    they would be negligent as public companies to do otherwise.

  43. duncanm

    cc: all national daily papers

  44. Gengis

    Great, but you to need to mention the unmentionable and that is Nuclear Reactors, what’s wrong with these words that no one dare write!

  45. Shy Ted

    I agree with every point but the government has magic and that trumps everything.

  46. Cynic of Ayr

    OK, there’s a simple way to reduce power prices tomorrow.
    ALL subsidies be paid for out of Internal Revenue.
    That’s right. The government has to find the money itself, instead forcing power suppliers to pay for expensive power, and then passing the cost onto the retail price of that power.
    The renewable subsidy is paid for by retail customers via high power prices.
    The subsidy, and therefore the higher power prices are caused directly by Government law or regulation.
    Therefor, the subsidy is a TAX.
    How can it be anything else?

  47. Michel Lasouris

    Gengis, I’m with you on that! I can’t see any yawning black holes in the good Doctors argument BUT I notice he doesn’t cover the “elephant in the room” or as Dorothy Dix questioners have it…..” Is the Minister aware of any other policies?”

  48. OldOzzie

    Perhaps David Penberthy could mention it to his wife – “Kate” Ellis is an Australian politician, representing the Division of Adelaide in the Australian House of Representatives for the Australian Labor Party since 2004.

    Given his article today in HeraldSun and Advertiser

    David Penberthy: Power companies are playing us for bloody mugs

    IF you asked Professor Stephen Hawking to explain the workings of the Australian electricity market he would probably fold up his keyboard in bewilderment and ask for an easier topic. Something like the origin of black holes or the probability of extraterrestrial life, or why bread always lands butter-side down when it falls off the kitchen bench.

    Save for vague reassurances about the creation of “downward pressure” on prices, there is not a politician in the land who has yet put a credible and precise dollar figure on the savings they can secure on our quarterly power bills.

    And none of the savings is significant anyway when set against the jaw-dropping increases in the cost of power over the past five years.

    Energy policy operates in an ideologically hyper-charged environment. Politicians of every hue argue over everything from the reliability of renewables and our capacity to store power, to gas policy in the context of exploration and exports, the merits or otherwise of putting a price on carbon.

    In this interminably contested space, we have created a target-rich environment for the energy giants to get away with absolute murder when it comes to jacking up prices, however they see fit.

    They can use any excuse under the sun — and often all of them — to justify price hikes that are sending an increasing number of household budgets down the toilet and forcing businesses to the wall.

    A bit over a year ago, I wrote a column about AGL’s decision to increase power prices by 12 per cent — more than nine times the rate of inflation and adding $230 a year to the average power bill.

    That announcement coincided with a profit for AGL in the 2015-2016 financial year of $720 million, money which it uses in part to pay its American boss Andrew Vesey a handy base salary of $2.27 million, benefits of $250,000 and bonuses of $4.39 million — adding up to a package of $6.9 million. This is on top of the $1 million sweetener they slung him a few years back for the hardship of moving from the US to war-torn Australia.

    Despite being weighed down by profit, AGL insisted the price rises were essential due to the “cost and availability of coal and gas supply for electricity generation as well as the changing mix of generation output’’.

    One year on and here we go again. AGL, which remains as obscenely profitable as ever with its profit forecast this financial year expected to top $1 billion, announced in June that it needed to increase prices by 18 per cent, adding a further $350 a year to the average power bill.

    This time, amid the continuing orgy of rhetoric over energy policy, AGL found itself in the happy position of having even more excuses at its disposal.

    “Wholesale prices have increased for several reasons, including high gas prices and limited gas availability on the east coast, the closure of ageing coal-fired generators, and an uncertain policy environment,” AGL said in a statement.

    It’s the wholesale price, the gas price, it’s the availability of gas, it’s coal, it’s Mabo, it’s the vibe. Up they went again. A 30 per cent increase in one 12-month period, achieved this time via the cynical, profit-driven means of simply replacing the old seasonal winter rate with a flat year-round fee.

    Ka-ching. The chickens are now coming home to roost in the form of our winter energy bills, and what a scarily ugly bunch of chooks they are. My winter electricity bill last year was an already absurd $2310; the one that arrived in the post last week was $2599.54.

    In fact, the full amount of the new charges in this winter bill were $2942.40, discounted down if I paid by November 2 — even though there’s a separate late fee of $12.73 for failing to do so, suggesting that the so-called “discounted” rate is a bit of a meaningless try-on by a company that’s simply obsessed with its bottom line.

    Every person I know is in a similar boat, proportionally. We are a family of six, which explains the bill always being on the big side, but I know people who live alone, and couples who are empty-nesters, who’ve faced comparable increases in percentage terms.

    It’s beyond a joke. As a free-market person, I would normally argue that businesses perform best and create the most opportunities when given a pretty free rein.

    But when it comes to the actions of these power companies, I have growing sympathy with calls from average and low-income people for draconian intervention in the energy space.

    Now, you clearly can’t separate cost from the policy settings that governments have created, especially in states where pure thinking about the need to act on climate change has gazumped pragmatism, resulting in over-reliance on renewables that don’t yet provide reliable and affordable base-load power.

    But beyond that, with the multifaceted argy-bargy surrounding energy policy, the power companies can cash in amid the confusion of it all, in a perverse triumph of the interests of shareholders over the needs of customers.

    AGL irks me the most because Andrew Vesey has postured as something of a Twitter darling, sucking up to the renewables crowd with his disingenuous boasting about how AGL is “getting out of coal”.

    This is despite the fact that it bought three coal-fired stations in NSW in 2014, derives 90 per cent of its current power from coal and gas, and will be the last Australian power company to wean itself off coal in some three decades’ time.

    The political debate around power is focused on how we make it. The real debate among normal people is a more specific and urgent one — how much we pay for it.

    Well, we pay too bloody much. If the power companies keep playing us for mugs, they should brace themselves for some nasty populist policies. People have had a gutful of their gouging ways.

  49. Robdel

    As others have said, it is doubtful if Josh will ever get to read Crawford’s brilliant letter. A minder will see to that.

    In my view, the populace will only be shaken out of their torpor when electricity becomes totally unaffordable and the lights go out regularly. Our pollies has better watch out then. People will want their heads on a platter plus their minders.

  50. Delta

    Nothing much will change in the near future given the culture and management at AEMO.

    Just look at this discussion that was posted at the AICD Linked In group.

    The first comment says it all, “The video presents like the “typical renewable energy ideological propaganda piece” , How about the really important stuff?, cheap prices and reliable 24/7/365 power. Where are the declining price cost curves and evidence showing that the prices will be lower than today? Unless some serious changes are made we will only get rising prices year after year after year. Also , having such a large % of power generated by wind? I think they going to be seriously mistaken. Perhaps scrap the AEMO?

    Then look at the reply with the link to AEMO board and governance. It’s all about risk, regulation and compliance but nothing about costs to the end user.

  51. Whalehunt Fun

    The penalty for treason always way, and shoukd be today, the death penalty and the seizure of all assetts of the family. That would not be justice. The penalty would be too mild, but it would be a start. It would be a deterrant to others. It would a move toward justice.

  52. Pingback: Sound reasoning: two recent examples | The Stebbing-Heuer Project

  53. Rusty of Qld

    I’m with Whalehunt fun his comments from another article but the comments fit most government efforts:
    Whalehunt Fun
    #2534388, posted on October 27, 2017 at 12:04 pm
    the gallows might be a tad excessive in the modern world.
    Seriously? Where someone forcibly removes my money (tax) and then frivolously wastes it I want worse than capital punishment. Capital punishment is for mere murders and child molesters. For these filth I want waterboarding followed by a slow hanging drawing and quartering and I want the seizure of absolutely all assets of the family. I want the family left nailed homeless and starving. And I want the right to perform the waterboarding and the hanging and the drawing and quartering all auctioned off to the highest bidder so as to gain some little money back.

  54. Rayvic

    “Perhaps David Penberthy could mention it to his wife – “Kate” Ellis is an Australian politician, representing the Division of Adelaide in the Australian House of Representatives for the Australian Labor Party since 2004.”

    If Penberthy has mentioned it to his wife, she would need to be very careful to show that she does not believe him. Otherwise, she will be expelled from the Labor Party.

  55. Pingback: Tell us what you really think Dr Crawford | Catallaxy Files | Cranky Old Crow

Comments are closed.