Jump to content
CB Fry

Britain's Next Top Prime Minister - Labour Leadership Election 2020.

Recommended Posts

Fair enough, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks. Her father was a Marxist academic so has something in common with Ed Miliband.

 

If she wins, can we have this to look forward to (sans picture of Dipak Nandy’s grave (he’s alive for starters))?

 

 

article-2439714-1869B7C000000578-487_638x421.jpg

Edited by shurlock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great to see certain candidates being ruled out because of their appearance. Very New Labour.

Image is everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do the bnp even exist anymore? Why are they caring about a Labour leadership candidate?

 

I don’t know about the BNP, but didn’t many right supporters join the Labour Party so that they could try and influence the leadership vote? Or was that just Duckie ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don’t know about the BNP, but didn’t many right supporters join the Labour Party so that they could try and influence the leadership vote? Or was that just Duckie ;)

 

Not sure we should take your definition of right as gospel given your history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don’t know about the BNP, but didn’t many right supporters join the Labour Party so that they could try and influence the leadership vote? Or was that just Duckie ;)

 

Seriously. What sort of bellend joins an opposition party to try and influence a vote?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seriously. What sort of bellend joins an opposition party to try and influence a vote?

GM ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure we should take your definition of right as gospel given your history.

 

People who say they vote Tory and then pay a couple of quid to influence the vote of the Labour leadership so that someone unelectable gets the gig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seriously. What sort of bellend joins an opposition party to try and influence a vote?

 

Duckie said he was going to. I don’t know if he did or not.

 

Still, things are looking brighter. From the recent voting stats if only over 65 voters voted there would be virtually no Labour Party but if only 18-25 year olds voted it would wipe out the Tory Party. The Tories are dying out as long as Labour can prevent their support changing horses in mid life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently Nigel Farage applied to join the Tories pre election in order to have a say in the leadership contest but the Tories turned his application down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair enough, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks. Her father was a Marxist academic so has something in common with Ed Miliband.

 

She also has a couple of big things in common with Jo Swinson

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seriously. What sort of bellend joins an opposition party to try and influence a vote?

 

Many (not me) thought that £3 for a vote in this particular election was worth it.

 

And I’m sure it swung the result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Duckie said he was going to. I don’t know if he did or not.

 

Still, things are looking brighter. From the recent voting stats if only over 65 voters voted there would be virtually no Labour Party but if only 18-25 year olds voted it would wipe out the Tory Party. The Tories are dying out as long as Labour can prevent their support changing horses in mid life.

 

You seem to naively believe that people stick to the same party all through their lives. I'm sure that there is evidence that people tend to vote more for left-leaning parties when they are younger and for right-leaning parties when they are older. That is in line with your assertion regarding the demography of the electorate by age, but you miss the point entirely that a significant number of those currently to the right of politics were on the left when they were younger. Therefore your conclusion that the Tory vote is dying out is complete nonsense. Labour couldn't stop their traditional support from changing horses in this election, so it is only by adopting policies and a leadership that is electable that will prevent it happening in future. That has little to do with the voting age.

 

Regarding people from other parties joining Labour to skew their leadership election, I tried myself to pay their paltry £2 or whatever it was to vote for Corbyn initially, but they belatedly applied a minimum previous membership term, probably realising that the massive increase of membership was down to numerous Tories joining to distort the vote. But then they were able subsequently to point to the massive increase in membership of the party as evidence of Corbyn's popularity, the idiots. :rolleyes: If they had any sense, they would have made membership £25 as a minimum, so that if people joined as spoilers, then at least party funds would have received a massive boost. I see nothing wrong with joining another party in order to vote for the most unelectable candidate as leader if you want. It is not much different in essence from tactical voting, is it? Parties appeal for donations to help their campaigns to win elections, so why shouldn't people effectively contribute their money attempting to weaken the opposition by facilitating the election of a weaker leader of that party?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Many (not me) thought that £3 for a vote in this particular election was worth it.

 

And I’m sure it swung the result.

 

That's rubbish - Corbyn would have won regardless, he 49.6% of full members' votes and 57.6% of affiliated supporters so the £3 sign-ups made no difference at all.

 

Any weirdo that paid £3 to vote for something they didn't believe in just gave money to the party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You seem to naively believe that people stick to the same party all through their lives. I'm sure that there is evidence that people tend to vote more for left-leaning parties when they are younger and for right-leaning parties when they are older. That is in line with your assertion regarding the demography of the electorate by age, but you miss the point entirely that a significant number of those currently to the right of politics were on the left when they were younger. Therefore your conclusion that the Tory vote is dying out is complete nonsense. Labour couldn't stop their traditional support from changing horses in this election, so it is only by adopting policies and a leadership that is electable that will prevent it happening in future. That has little to do with the voting age.

 

Regarding people from other parties joining Labour to skew their leadership election, I tried myself to pay their paltry £2 or whatever it was to vote for Corbyn initially, but they belatedly applied a minimum previous membership term, probably realising that the massive increase of membership was down to numerous Tories joining to distort the vote. But then they were able subsequently to point to the massive increase in membership of the party as evidence of Corbyn's popularity, the idiots. :rolleyes: If they had any sense, they would have made membership £25 as a minimum, so that if people joined as spoilers, then at least party funds would have received a massive boost. I see nothing wrong with joining another party in order to vote for the most unelectable candidate as leader if you want. It is not much different in essence from tactical voting, is it? Parties appeal for donations to help their campaigns to win elections, so why shouldn't people effectively contribute their money attempting to weaken the opposition by facilitating the election of a weaker leader of that party?

 

Tactical voting is nothing like trying to sabotage another parties leadership contest.

 

People vote tactically because the voting system is not fit for purpose. I have only ever voted tatically in a GE because my preferred choice has no chance of winning so rather than waste a vote I vote for the choice of the two with a chance that best represents my views - there is nothing dishonest about it at all.

 

Pretending to be a member of a party you hate just to try and get a sh!t leader elected, is not just a bit weird but is just plain dishonest. You certainly can’t lecture anyone on being undemocratic if you support this sort of behaviour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Pretending to be a member of a party you hate just to try and get a sh!t leader elected, is not just a bit weird but is just plain dishonest.

 

Will George's 'thought police' be on the case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tactical voting is nothing like trying to sabotage another parties leadership contest.

 

People vote tactically because the voting system is not fit for purpose. I have only ever voted tatically in a GE because my preferred choice has no chance of winning so rather than waste a vote I vote for the choice of the two with a chance that best represents my views - there is nothing dishonest about it at all.

 

Pretending to be a member of a party you hate just to try and get a sh!t leader elected, is not just a bit weird but is just plain dishonest. You certainly can’t lecture anyone on being undemocratic if you support this sort of behaviour.

 

Oh, diddums. In your opinion voting for a party you don't support in order to ensure that another party's leader isn't elected Prime Minister is fine, whereas paying a poxy, almost negligible sum to join a rival party to vote for the most unelectable the leader of that party isn't? The small amount, not much above the price of a pint of beer, stacks up well as a small token insurance premium when measured against the economic cost that I would have to pay in the event of the Marxist becoming Prime Minister. I didn't say that tactical voting was dishonest, did I? But neither is joining a party to register a vote for its leader either.

 

I can understand how you, Gavyn and Soggy might not like that, but then why would I care a damn what annoys you? :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You seem to naively believe that people stick to the same party all through their lives. I'm sure that there is evidence that people tend to vote more for left-leaning parties when they are younger and for right-leaning parties when they are older. That is in line with your assertion regarding the demography of the electorate by age, but you miss the point entirely that a significant number of those currently to the right of politics were on the left when they were younger. Therefore your conclusion that the Tory vote is dying out is complete nonsense. Labour couldn't stop their traditional support from changing horses in this election, so it is only by adopting policies and a leadership that is electable that will prevent it happening in future. That has little to do with the voting age.

 

Regarding people from other parties joining Labour to skew their leadership election, I tried myself to pay their paltry £2 or whatever it was to vote for Corbyn initially, but they belatedly applied a minimum previous membership term, probably realising that the massive increase of membership was down to numerous Tories joining to distort the vote. But then they were able subsequently to point to the massive increase in membership of the party as evidence of Corbyn's popularity, the idiots. :rolleyes: If they had any sense, they would have made membership £25 as a minimum, so that if people joined as spoilers, then at least party funds would have received a massive boost. I see nothing wrong with joining another party in order to vote for the most unelectable candidate as leader if you want. It is not much different in essence from tactical voting, is it? Parties appeal for donations to help their campaigns to win elections, so why shouldn't people effectively contribute their money attempting to weaken the opposition by facilitating the election of a weaker leader of that party?

 

Given that I have voted for all 3 major parties in my lifetime why would I think that some people don’t change their voting habits? Also where is the evidence that vast swathes of people change from left to right when they get older? They used to say that at The Telegraph to try and persuade themselves that their dying readership would be replenished by new readers in middle age. Not so. Young Guardian readers become old Guardian readers and do not migrate to The Telegraph. Certainly not in numbers to make any difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given that I have voted for all 3 major parties in my lifetime why would I think that some people don’t change their voting habits? Also where is the evidence that vast swathes of people change from left to right when they get older? They used to say that at The Telegraph to try and persuade themselves that their dying readership would be replenished by new readers in middle age. Not so. Young Guardian readers become old Guardian readers and do not migrate to The Telegraph. Certainly not in numbers to make any difference.

 

As you are more inclined naturally to believing what the Guardian says, then you will happily accept the conclusion reached by their journo in this article on the subject, wont you?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/03/do-we-become-more-conservative-with-age-young-old-politics

 

This means that the Conservatives probably shouldn’t be too worried about their support base thinning out and being replaced by younger, less conservative generations. If history repeats itself, then as people get older they will turn to the Conservatives.

 

And I thought that you had insisted that the Guardian was a newspaper of the centre, not the left? In any event, it isn't the case that reading a certain newspaper dictates one's voting intentions throughout one's life, is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given that I have voted for all 3 major parties in my lifetime why would I think that some people don’t change their voting habits? Also where is the evidence that vast swathes of people change from left to right when they get older? They used to say that at The Telegraph to try and persuade themselves that their dying readership would be replenished by new readers in middle age. Not so. Young Guardian readers become old Guardian readers and do not migrate to The Telegraph. Certainly not in numbers to make any difference.
Conflating the seismic changes happening to the print newspaper industry with political party affiliations is utterly moronic even by your exceptional standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Conflating the seismic changes happening to the print newspaper industry with political party affiliations is utterly moronic even by your exceptional standards.

 

Have you ever in your life managed to disagree with someone without finding the need to verbally abuse them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you ever in your life managed to disagree with someone without finding the need to verbally abuse them?
Don't worry. I'm sure someone will be along in a minute to agree with you about how jolly awful I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As you are more inclined naturally to believing what the Guardian says, then you will happily accept the conclusion reached by their journo in this article on the subject, wont you?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/03/do-we-become-more-conservative-with-age-young-old-politics

 

 

 

 

And I thought that you had insisted that the Guardian was a newspaper of the centre, not the left? In any event, it isn't the case that reading a certain newspaper dictates one's voting intentions throughout one's life, is it?

 

If you have any evidence that the older people get, the more likely they are to change their vote from Labour to Tory, I’d love to see it. I provided a simplistic example of that claim and how we didn’t find that reflected in the readership of The Guardian and The Telegraph. I have no idea how Guardian readers or Telegraph readers vote but I assume that the majority of Telegraph readers vote Tory and Guardian readers don’t. I said that The Guardian is not aligned to a political party. When I worked there the readership was found to be centre/left. We found no evidence of a migration to Tory supporting newspapers upon aging. If this was a “thing” you would think that there would have been some indication reflected in a change of reading habits. You might be able to tell me otherwise, but I don’t know of people of certain political persuasions who go out of their way to read newspapers with a different point of view on a regular basis. Obviously people change their voting intentions for all manner of reasons. I would imagine that personal circumstances would have more to do with it rather than age. You might be able to tell me different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you ever in your life managed to disagree with someone without finding the need to verbally abuse them?

 

He does have an awful potty mouth, especially when confronted with other posters with higher IQs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't worry. I'm sure someone will be along in a minute to agree with you about how jolly awful I am.

 

It is perfectly possible to disagree with someone without bullying them into submission. As I said earlier, all this is is a football forum where people chuck opinions, thoughts and ideas around. It is not a political think tank. It is not a place where the brightest of society come for enlightenment. It is a bunch of (mainly) blokes talking (mainly) ******** and disagreeing with each other about anything and everything. You obviously seem to think that you are superior to the rest of us and it is your job on a daily basis to belittle everyone else, giving your ego a boost in the process. It might work for you, but it just makes you look like a t**t. Try cutting out the abuse and see how that works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would imagine that personal circumstances would have more to do with it rather than age. You might be able to tell me different.

 

Read that Guardian article again. You are in the unhappy position of either having to agree with its conclusions (that people become more inclined towards the right politically as they grow older), or in contradicting your own argument if you disagree with the conclusion that it is mainly Tory voters whose numbers are decreasing as they die of old age. Which is it?

 

As for attempting to conflate people's readership of certain newspapers with their political views and claiming that if they didn't change their newspaper, they didn't change their political allegiance, I agree with CB. That is a simplistic example. A very, very simplistic one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Read that Guardian article again. You are in the unhappy position of either having to agree with its conclusions (that people become more inclined towards the right politically as they grow older), or in contradicting your own argument if you disagree with the conclusion that it is mainly Tory voters whose numbers are decreasing as they die of old age. Which is it?

 

As for attempting to conflate people's readership of certain newspapers with their political views and claiming that if they didn't change their newspaper, they didn't change their political allegiance, I agree with CB. That is a simplistic example. A very, very simplistic one.

 

It maybe so, but as I said, this is hardly a forum for in depth forensic discussion nor is it the font of all knowledge. What you can’t refute is that the Tories have an old voter base and Labour a young voter base. Only time will tell if that dynamic changes. It obviously will not remain the same but if doesn’t change significantly your Party will have problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It maybe so, but as I said, this is hardly a forum for in depth forensic discussion nor is it the font of all knowledge. What you can’t refute is that the Tories have an old voter base and Labour a young voter base. Only time will tell if that dynamic changes. It obviously will not remain the same but if doesn’t change significantly your Party will have problems.
The age of the average tory voter has lowered significantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, diddums. In your opinion voting for a party you don't support in order to ensure that another party's leader isn't elected Prime Minister is fine, whereas paying a poxy, almost negligible sum to join a rival party to vote for the most unelectable the leader of that party isn't? The small amount, not much above the price of a pint of beer, stacks up well as a small token insurance premium when measured against the economic cost that I would have to pay in the event of the Marxist becoming Prime Minister. I didn't say that tactical voting was dishonest, did I? But neither is joining a party to register a vote for its leader either.

 

I can understand how you, Gavyn and Soggy might not like that, but then why would I care a damn what annoys you? :p

 

If you don’t think pretending to be a supporter of a party you oppose, just to vote for a bad leader is dishonest then I give up. Luckily most people don’t reside in the gutter like you, if they did then our political system would be in an even bigger mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you don’t think pretending to be a supporter of a party you oppose, just to vote for a bad leader is dishonest then I give up. Luckily most people don’t reside in the gutter like you, if they did then our political system would be in an even bigger mess.

 

 

What a drama queen.

 

It’s no big deal to labour , otherwise they’d put controls in place

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is perfectly possible to disagree with someone without bullying them into submission. As I said earlier, all this is is a football forum where people chuck opinions, thoughts and ideas around. It is not a political think tank. It is not a place where the brightest of society come for enlightenment. It is a bunch of (mainly) blokes talking (mainly) ******** and disagreeing with each other about anything and everything. You obviously seem to think that you are superior to the rest of us and it is your job on a daily basis to belittle everyone else, giving your ego a boost in the process. It might work for you, but it just makes you look like a t**t. Try cutting out the abuse and see how that works.

 

it's not like you call people racist who you disagree with...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What a drama queen.

 

It’s no big deal to labour , otherwise they’d put controls in place

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Quite. I never managed to join because Labour realised belatedly that a massive surge in applications to join the party could be because a significant number of them were for the purpose of supporting the most unelectable candidate. It was naive of them to set the membership fee at such a pathetically low level, which encouraged rival party supporters to join and cause mischief, yet as I said, it allowed the Corbyn clique to claim that it demonstrated support for him and the shift to the left.

 

Aintforever claims that those votes didn't influence the decision anyway, and that those who joined to distort the vote wasted their money, so I don't know why he is so upset. And I expect that it also went on with supporters of other parties joining the Conservative Party to influence the two leadership elections since the referendum result. However, that would have cost a minimum of £25 and risked them being accused of dishonesty by prissy moralists on football forums.

 

Politics is a dirty business and the pursuit of power and influence makes it so. Whether it is getting more dirty over time because of the increasing ease of mass communications via social media is debatable, but it would be naive to believe that it was not always thus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quite. I never managed to join because Labour realised belatedly that a massive surge in applications to join the party could be because a significant number of them were for the purpose of supporting the most unelectable candidate. It was naive of them to set the membership fee at such a pathetically low level, which encouraged rival party supporters to join and cause mischief, yet as I said, it allowed the Corbyn clique to claim that it demonstrated support for him and the shift to the left.

 

Aintforever claims that those votes didn't influence the decision anyway, and that those who joined to distort the vote wasted their money, so I don't know why he is so upset. And I expect that it also went on with supporters of other parties joining the Conservative Party to influence the two leadership elections since the referendum result. However, that would have cost a minimum of £25 and risked them being accused of dishonesty by prissy moralists on football forums.

 

Politics is a dirty business and the pursuit of power and influence makes it so. Whether it is getting more dirty over time because of the increasing ease of mass communications via social media is debatable, but it would be naive to believe that it was not always thus.

 

Coming from the same wet fanny who howls and dismisses everything he doesn’t agree with as undemocratic (despite it being, you know, democratic). Priceless Les.

Edited by shurlock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quite. I never managed to join because Labour realised belatedly that a massive surge in applications to join the party could be because a significant number of them were for the purpose of supporting the most unelectable candidate. It was naive of them to set the membership fee at such a pathetically low level, which encouraged rival party supporters to join and cause mischief, yet as I said, it allowed the Corbyn clique to claim that it demonstrated support for him and the shift to the left.

 

Aintforever claims that those votes didn't influence the decision anyway, and that those who joined to distort the vote wasted their money, so I don't know why he is so upset. And I expect that it also went on with supporters of other parties joining the Conservative Party to influence the two leadership elections since the referendum result. However, that would have cost a minimum of £25 and risked them being accused of dishonesty by prissy moralists on football forums.

 

Politics is a dirty business and the pursuit of power and influence makes it so. Whether it is getting more dirty over time because of the increasing ease of mass communications via social media is debatable, but it would be naive to believe that it was not always thus.

 

I'm not upset in the slightest, just think it's a bit of an odd thing to do, but I guess these forums are a magnet for all sorts of weirdos.

 

It's particularly strange that you seem to think sabotaging another parties internal politics is fair game given how much you like to preach about democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it's not like you call people racist who you disagree with...

 

I call people racist who I think are racist just like people call me a lefty. That is hardly abusive is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not upset in the slightest, just think it's a bit of an odd thing to do, but I guess these forums are a magnet for all sorts of weirdos.

 

It's particularly strange that you seem to think sabotaging another parties internal politics is fair game given how much you like to preach about democracy.

 

Sorry that I misjudged your mood as being upset when you spoke of gutter politics and dishonesty. To that I'll add your implied opinions that my failed actions were weird, odd, strange and hypocritical, but note that you were not at all upset. :lol:

 

Regarding the jibe about my views on democracy, no doubt you will be grateful for the prompt from Gavyn, who also loves preaching about democracy whilst lauding the establishment elite who have tried the best to thwart it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I call people racist who I think are racist just like people call me a lefty. That is hardly abusive is it?

 

Are you really trying to conflate the two things as being somehow of equal standing? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Equal standing? What difference does it make? If someone is a racist, they are a racist. If some is a lefty, they are a lefty. Do you have a problem with racists being called out? Batman seems to but then he has always had a problem with Johnny Foreigner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyway Wes, this thread is supposed to be about the a Labour leadership, can we get back on topic?

 

A good idea, before you embarrass yourself more by trying to infer some sort of equivalence between being called a racist or a leftie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Equal standing? What difference does it make? If someone is a racist, they are a racist. If some is a lefty, they are a lefty. Do you have a problem with racists being called out? Batman seems to but then he has always had a problem with Johnny Foreigner.
Yes but the problem arises because someone isn't a racist just because you call them one. It's pretty rich for someone like you to pretend this forum is just a bit of a laugh and telling people to chill out when you've been throwing around terms like racist at posters you disagree with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A good idea, before you embarrass yourself more by trying to infer some sort of equivalence between being called a racist or a leftie.

 

How about antisemite pal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Equal standing? What difference does it make? If someone is a racist, they are a racist. If some is a lefty, they are a lefty. Do you have a problem with racists being called out? Batman seems to but then he has always had a problem with Johnny Foreigner.

 

Not me who regularly criticises Yoshida

 

Ya daft racist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not me who regularly criticises Yoshida

 

Ya daft racist

 

A) I have criticised Yoshida for ages.

B) What does the fact that I think that he isn’t a great Premier league player got to do with racism?

C) Please tell me you are joking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes but the problem arises because someone isn't a racist just because you call them one. It's pretty rich for someone like you to pretend this forum is just a bit of a laugh and telling people to chill out when you've been throwing around terms like racist at posters you disagree with.

 

Why are you so protective of racists? You are the same with Katie Hopkins and Tommy Robinson too. Anyone would think you were an alt right supporter. Who have I called a racist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why are you so protective of racists? You are the same with Katie Hopkins and Tommy Robinson too. Anyone would think you were an alt right supporter. Who have I called a racist?
I've barely mentioned either of them, you're the one who keeps referring to them (that's the third time you've brought them up this year so far.) it's a really bizarre obsession you have with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A) I have criticised Yoshida for ages.

B) What does the fact that I think that he isn’t a great Premier league player got to do with racism?

C) Please tell me you are joking.

 

You criticise him because of his race. Clearly!

That is because you are a daft racist. The fact you can’t see it is alarming. Probably a generational thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})