Chis Philp Corner

Croydon South


Very often when there’s a new MP or prospective MP they’re a complete enigma.  But Croydon South’s new Conservative MP to be  Chris Philp

– replacing Sir Richard "tricky dicky" Ottaway – gives us at least one clue as to his inner soul … he’s written/edited a book. 

Indeed he plugs it on his very own website so I felt it was incumbent on someone to read it.  Thus in the spirit of Sun Tzu’s great epigram...

....about knowing one’s enemy I thought I’d give it a peruse/read.  After all anyone who excels in defeating his enemies triumphs before his enemy's threats become real.  So let us saunter for a while through the imagination and machinations of Mr Philp before they become laws and government policy.... as some of them in this book that it is now 9? years old already have. 

Philp’s book has the exciting title of “Conservative Revival”.  Actually it’s not entirely fair to say it is entirely Philp’s book.  It’s actually a publication of the Bow Group – the Conservatives answer to the Fabian Society – one of the oldest Tory “think tanks”.  So written by a gestalt. 

To demonstrate their deep philosophical and political differences
the Fabian Society and Bow Group both have retangular logos
The fact they are both squares is very important to intersectional theory
(see below)

Whereas the Fabian society was an organic collection of like minded souls first brought together by unemployable poets ...

... and sexologists ...

Henry Havelock Ellis
A sexologist from Croydon

....that gradually grew into a small mass membership movement … the Bow Group founded in 1951 has a much more manufactured feel and so does this book.  Who wrote which bits exactly is not clear… but does it matter?  It has a similar prose style throughout so in my imagination every word is Chris Philp's.  That said a brief peruse of its list of previous chairmen of the Bow Group : Geoffrey Howe...

..., Leon Brittan, Norman Lamont, Michael Howard, Peter Lilley and Sir Christopher Bland leaves the casual observer in no doubt that this is a heavyweight organisation.  If the Fabian Society was the Masons, the Bow Group would be the Knights of Saint Columba.  Anyway, enough back story. 

The book starts with the much vaunted claim by Philp that he set up his first business at 24 and grew it to £100,000,000 before floating it on the stock market in 2004.  In the Spirit of Claude Littner and the Apprentice we checked the credentials and background assertions of this grandeose claim.

The business actually is/was a wholesale supply company called Blueheath described by "the Grocer" asmight turn over £100,000,000 in 4 years and making a £4,900,000 loss” the year before sale.  Perviously Philp had formed for McKiney and Co Management Consultants where he charged people who’d made a mess of their business for the business acumen they obviously didn’t have themselves.
Why he thought wholesale was the thing for him I do not know  but as The Grocer (which describes the merger as a “reverse takeover”) website explains …quantifying profit and loss in such a notoriously low margin business is very very difficult indeed.  

If ultimate grocer’s daughter Lady Thatcher was still with us perhaps she could quantify it for us… personally this is beyond my pay grade and I am at a total loss … But then again how do you quantify value anything realistically or objectively?  For example in 2005 the RRP of this book was £9.99.  Yesterday in November 2013 I bought it for 1p on Amazon.   Has it lost £9.98 worth in wit and wisdom since then?  Or has it not?

A harmonic oscillator in classical mechanics (A-B) and quantum mechanics (C-H). In (A-B), a ball, attached to a spring (gray line), oscillates back and forth. In (C-H), wavefunction solutions to the Time-Dependent Schrödinger Equation are shown for the same potential. The horizontal axis is position, the vertical axis is the real part (blue) or imaginary part (red) of the wavefunction. (C,D,E,F) are stationary states (energy eigenstates), which come from solutions to the Time-Independent Schrodinger Equation. (G-H) are non-stationary states, solutions to the Time-Dependent but not Time-Independent Schrödinger Equation. (G) is a randomly-generated superposition of the four states (C-F). H is a "coherent state" ("Glauber state") which somewhat resembles the classical state B.  With thanks to this man.

Of course there’s no doubt Mr Philp is a very clever man.  His Wikipedia page states he was “educated at St Olave's Grammar School in Orpington, and then at University College, Oxford where he was awarded a First Class Physics Degree and completed a Masters specializing in theoretical quantum mechanics”.  So cleverer than me by a long way... with me undergraduate degree from a red brick.  Almost the perfect Conservative profile infact -  Grammar school kid studies science at Oxford before turning to politics.  Very Thatcherite indeed.  As is his politics.  Which is very “forward looking”.

Indeed so forward looking is Chris Philp’s “Conservative Revival” that it has both a forward and a prologue...

.... and an introduction as well as a page detailing its contributors and “About Chris” before it actually even starts.  Indeed I was almost expecting to find the Contradiction from the House at Pooh Corner as well but… it would be unfair not to give the other contributers (who also have their own page) a credit since what started as a review of an old book seems to be turning into a wholesale plagerisation of their material.  They are/were :

Damian Collins (an advertising mate of MandC Saatchi group who stood as PPC for Northampton North and worked on the chapter “Repairing the Damaged Brand”). Now Member of Parliament for Folkestone and Hythe

Robert Halfon a former chief of staff to Oliver Letwin who worked on the chapter “Winning Neighbourhood Politics”.  Now MP for Harlow

Martin McElwee a former candidate for Leicester South from the Centre for Policy Studies who worked on the chapter “What the Polls Say”

Nicky Morgan a lawyer specialising in mergers and acquisitions who’s stood several times in no hope seats and worked on the chapter “Winning Neighbourhood Politics”.  Now MP for  Loughborough and Economic Secretary to the Treasury since October 7, 2013

Sarah Richardson a freelance hack who’s worked for our favourite Council Westminster, lost elections and worked on the chapter “Changing the Face of Conservatism”.  Still only a Cllr.

Dominic Schofield a backroom boy from the Conservative Research Department who also hangs out down Westminster Council and worked on the chapter “The New Labour Legacy”.  Still stuck on the "gold list".

The Forward by David Cameron talks of change and optimism and hope and praises the Bow Group

The Prologue by Charles “not a wifebeater” Saatchi also witters of hope and optimism and how David Cameron understands that dreams are important too.  For Lord Saatchi who I seem to remember for years advoiding talking about being Tory writes the prologues …it is all about mood … and seeking “real ideas with the unremitting zeal of an explorer hunting El Dorado”

In the introduction Mr Philp writes a lot of waffle about the unrepresentative nature of the Parliamentary Party and much of the later sections of the book are about how to get more women and black people selected as parliamentary candidates.   It is particularly ironic then that Mr Philp got selected by beating three women on an otherwise all women shortlist for the ultra safe seat of Croydon South.   Still, ladies, you cant say he didn't "check his privilege" first.  Mr Philp is acutely aware of inequality and that is why he will make it all evapourate.  Clearly the solution to the problem is to put a roundabout in the middle of the intersection and shout at everybody from it till they feel completely guilty. 

Also Suella Fernandes was a POC (this is like a BME only without the Polish and anyone from Europe) so he must be racist even if there's a very good section on how even after having put a BME politican in place as candidate there remains a problem in helping them to build up their local support base which white politicians dont seem to have.  Remember Racism is Privilege plus Power because Lee Jasper and Pat Bidol said so and anyone who uses dictionaries to define racism is a racist because these are a white man's invention.  Inventing your own definitions for language is always a good idea and doesn't result in anyone like Living Marxism being sued by ITN because they talk so much bollocks no one understands it and need a QC to point out to them that you can't just give everything your own meaning at a cost of £225,000.  Remember black people cannot be racist only the metropolitan police.  On the plus side we are allowed to call Mark Duggan's aunt slightly misguided because she is white people.

Louise Mensch is clearly wrong here.  Intersectionality is not the life of Brian.  It is the 4 Yorkshiremen sketch.  Remember a lot of white people stupidly think that black people can be racist.  They cant because despite David Cameron making some of them MPs none of them have any power. 

Remember privilege checking is not just a US form of inverted snobbery or a classic ad hominem fallacy. It is a complex sociological and scientific theory that has been well thought out by the best academic institutions and is not the dumbest political idea since Eugenics.  Adolf Hilter explains how the fact that racism and sexism can co-exist must result in the fact that they are both the same thing and interchangeable in every single situation and there is no such thing as ideological racism:

Anyway moving slightly back to reality and the text Philp notes that when “unattributed” in vote survey’s the Conservative Immigration policy had an astonishingly high agreement level of 67% but when it was tagged as a Tory policy this dropped to 34%.

If you find any of these jokes racist please remember that you are on a comedy club website reading an article about Chris Philp and it is not all about you and stop trying to prove you have any white friends by continuing to read and think about the content.  Obviously we may have got it wrong but we can never know the answers ourselves because we are not Lee Jasper - the respect candidate for Croydon North.  He and he alone defines what is and is not racist.  You wouldn't understand.  It's a white folks thing.  If white people didn't repeat Mr Jasper's inflamatory comments what would the far right have to be inflamed about?  Being rude about everyone else pointlessly is never counterproductive and even thinking of staying home with a warm beverage and watching Lilyhammer on Netflix will cause society to collapse due to a lack of activism. Cautious, careful people always casting about to preserve their reputation or social standards never can bring about reform.  And in no way are people in multi-racial relationships undermining Lee Jasper's arguments simply by living.  It isn't as simple as he just doesn't like Ebony and Ivory.  Remember it can all be sorted out by starting a racial hastag ...

... and white people do not suffer from racism and it is okay because we are the majority and you wont bang your head against international free speech laws on incitement to racial hatred.  Yes, we would take the pee out of the local BNP too but sadly our Spanish doesn't seem to be good enough.  Unfortunately we cannot satirise Carlos Cortiglia as he is an immigrant and we do not have enough privilege.  Remember racism is now prejudice plus power because some bird called Pat Bidol said so.

In-deed! Mrs Jellyby,” said Mr Kenge, standing with his back to the fire, and casting his eyes over the dusty hearth-rug as if it were Mrs Jellyby’s biography, “is a lady of very remarkable strength of character who devotes herself entirely to the public.

She has devoted herself to an extensive variety of public subjects, at various times, and is at present (until something else attracts her) devoted to the subject of Africa; with a view to the general cultivation of the coffee berry — and the natives — and the happy settlement, on the banks of the African rivers, of our superabundant home population. Mr Jarndyce, who is desirous to aid any work that is considered likely to be a good work, and who is much sought after by philanthropists, has, I believe, a very high opinion of Mrs Jellyby.”

Mr Kenge, adjusting his cravat, then looked at us.  "I used to admire your comedy," he said.  "I shouldn't admire it now. I should find it absurdly personal. Don't you agree? Feelings, insights, affections... it's suddenly trivial now. You don't agree; you're wrong. The personal life is dead in Fitrovia. History has killed it. I can see why you might hate me."

Linguistic notes for Tory MPs: Ava Alexis is actually a black person - not a coloured/colored person.  "Colored" is seen as racist because of its association with systems of segregation and the fact it is stereotyping.  Never-the-less intersectional feminists can still refer to all non-genetically white people as "people of colour/color" (POC) and this is not racist even if they are white women.  You probably think you can solve this problem by asking in what way a person would like to be addressed.  You are wrong this is, if not a Micro-Aggression, a Sub-Atomic Aggression.  There is no correct form of address - you are Tories and so all inherantly racist whatever you do. 

You might think you can solve the problem by selecting coloured or black and taking a 50:50 chance that you'll pick the right one.  However, you will always be wrong because all black people dont have identical opinions.  Just remember all black people are politically identical and you'll probably be okay.  This is similar to the N-word problem.  It is okay for black people to use it but not white people.  This may seem like inequality and perhaps it would be a good idea if no one used it but efforts have been made to solve the problem by spelling the word differently which makes all the difference.  To make it even more complicated Spike Lee is wrong telling Quentin Jerome Tarantino how to use the word in dramatic situations and Morgan Freeman has got it all wrong by even suggesting that everyone should just shut up.  If in doubt stick to calling everybody a BME or never mention the topic.

As to what the American Judiciary make of the theories of Katz, Bidol, Krenshaw and the Intersectional Critical Race Theorists let's not go there...

...well, let's go there and not question what they say ...after all they're all institutionally racist anyway so they're not going to support theories of
institutional racism, are they?  Who needs empirical data anyway?  If I want a logical analysis of why there are more young unemployed black men than white I'll ask a footballer.  He'll know the answers. 

That said for balance here are some statistics on black people in prison culled from the Guardian - statistics so disuputed even they had to correct them - seem to come down to...

"According to a range of sources, including the US justice department, about

12% of the US population is black and about 40% to 45% of the US prison population is black.

According to Roy Walmsley's World Prison Population List 2009,

the US jails 756 of every 100,000 of its population.
England and Wales 
jails 153 of every 100,000 of its population.

Based on the figures above,

America jails 3% of its black population,
and England and Wales 1%.

This means that a black person in the US is three times as likely to be imprisoned as in England and Wales
." However, there are more black people as a percentage of the UK prison population by a factor of 1.75. 

That is to say " the proportion of black people in jail in the UK was almost seven times their share of the population, whereas in the US the proportion of black prisoners is four times greater than their population share". 

So basically we're probably more racist than the US but this is ameliorated by the fact that we put substantially less people in prison in the first place.  Bored?  That'll probably be the real reason "CRT theorists" prefer stories to stats....?

While there are no laws against incitement to racial hatred in the US the crossover between some strands of CRT and potential incitement to racial hatred hasn't gone unnoticed.  Particularly in Arizona where the local state government passed laws against the teaching of CRT in state classrooms... believeing it to be a racially inflamatory offshoot of Marxist Critical Theory.  The exact wording of the law is that there should be no courses that
“advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.” This caused some problems when it resulted in books being removed from schools.  Exactly where collective moaning ends and incitement to racial hatred begins is question that is ...erm ... beyond my pay grade ...let alone privilege but it sounds to me that both of them are wrong.  Thet list of books removed from classrooms includes “Occupied America: A History of Chicanos,” Paulo Freire’s “Pedagogy of the Oppressed,” “Rethinking Columbus,” “Critical Race Theory,” Shakespeare’s “The Tempest” and “Chicano!: the History of the Mexican American Civil Rights Movement.”

As to Derek Bell's hypothesis that all the white people would vote at the ballot box to sell the black minority to aliens it's not impossible but one is reminded of the offer of Joseph Stalin to Winston Churchill at the Terhan conference.  As a neotiating position Stalin proposed executing 50,000–100,000 German staff officers more or less indiscriminately so that Germany could "not plan another war".  To which an outraged Churchill reportedly retorted that he would have no part in "the cold blooded execution of soldiers who fought for their country" and that he'd rather be "taken out in the courtyard and shot".  Perhaps the real problem is that if you say racism in the US people think of slavery, the KKK, the Civil War and segregation but if you say it in Europe people think of the systematic extermination of 6 million white people to no other purpose than a twisted idea of Eugenics - another of academias greatest clangers.  And of course Pat Bidol thinks of prejudice + power because she's bonkers.

What the Polls Say

Chapter 1 is entitled “What the Polls Say” and is a salutary lesson for politicians of all parties in their own dangerous capacity for self-deception.  The polls, points out Philp, are almost always right but perhaps due to politicians having to tell hacks how the polls are always wrong they begin to believe their own bullshit to a dangerous degree.  Page 8 includes a useful graph entitled “who won on which key issue in 2005” which concludes the

Tories won on Asylum

and Crime and Labour won on

the NHS, Education, Economy, Taxes and Europe …

...but the latter two by a thin margin. 

No one won on pensions. 

Immigration was the key Tory message voters heard …he concludes. 

Although what exactly winning is at this micro-level and whether it matters if the public like absolutely every policy remains unanswered.

Much analysis of statistics follows which I wont go into too much detail on as even the saddest political geek might find it a bit dull.  Suffice to say there’s an analysis of Tory support by region.  Scotland 15.8%, South East 45% etc.  Signs of Tory pick up in the midlands etc.

While Table 1.1 lists Constituencies they won in 1983 vs 2004 where they lost badly.  Philp concludes this is all down to a “damaged brand”.  “The brand problem means the most robust, coherent and attractive policies will have no impact on voters who mistrust our motivation” …

Fixing the Brand

Having identified that the problem is “brand” not policy Chapter 2 attempts to ask what is their “brand”? and how do they “fix” it?  Philp states brand is what people instantly think about the party and its values and belief and that trust needs to be built.

Liam Fox

It seems you can have the most intelligent and well-thought-through policies, but if nobody trusts you to deliver them or if the voters believe that you are actually trying to achieve something else (e.g. privates the NHS rather than improve healthcare) they will ignore the merits of the policy and vote for a different party.

Philp traces this back to Black Wednesday.  Back to Basics is raked over and Viz’s Baxter Basics and Little Britain’s Norman Fry MP are sited as erm… examples of message fail?

EU infighting, more polls … Philp cites the BBC R4 Today’s focus group who given a list of immigration policies during the 2005 campaign picked the Tory one but on being told it was the Tory one attempted to revoke their decision

Other campaigns are analysed : Gerge W, Clinton, Rudd…

Advertising we are told works best when brutal simplicity exposes a major area of difference between candidates or parties. 

John Kerry on Iraq.  Having discovered that problem is the brand in Chapter 3 Philp proposes how to fix this by literally changing the face of Conservative by changing the colour and sex of the parties candidates. 

This is particularly ironic since a graph on page 28 states that what most repels most people from political parties is positive discrimination, ....

....while what repels most people from the Tories is being seen as mainly for the rich and business and being unrepresentative and stuff. 

So clearly the solution is to have a policy of positive discrimination but not call it positive discrimination.


When is positive discrimination not positive discrimination?  When it’s an A list.  Or when it’s called affirmative action for legal reasons.  Remember Positive discrimination is by no means an ideal solution. There is no single, ideal solution. But by working together, hopefully one day the many pointed shapes of polygon land can smash the Scale of Oppression once and for all.  Even if we dont have any solid policies and no one knows what the hell it means.

So… the parliamentary assessment board by which CCHQ approves candidates has been overhalled by Professor Jo Silvester.  It now assesses candidates by 6 criteria:

lecturing other people
political conviction

Okay I may have changed the critera a bit but if you want to know what it really is you should by Mr Philp's book.  The Bow Group clearly needs every penny it can get on Amazon.

So anyway the notorious A list is drawn up on the results of this
Professor Jo Silvester test.  400 candidates who underwent the tests were analysed at the 2005 election.  Philp tells us gleefully that the birds are as good as the blokes. 

Philp explains that those who did well in target seats in 2005 were automatically put back on the approved list, those who didn’t fight a seat or contended a non-target seat where they “couldn’t be monitored” are made to sit all the tests again …or struck off.

Winning Neigbourhood Politics

Chapter 4 “Winning Neigbourhood Politics” is about getting down to Local Campaigning in the Hood.  

“Once Liberal Democrats get in they are hard to remove” notes Mr Philp as if describing squirrels in his loft or a particularly nasty form of woodworm that has infected a piece of Victoriana. 

Local Candidates make a difference, he says.  Also he notes that there are more close seats than for 20 years.  10.2% within 2000 votes in 2005 up from 5.7% in 2001. 

North Norfolk and Solihull are noted as places of catastrophic 9000->10,000 vote swings to the Lib Dems.  Local campaigning, hypothesises Philp, comabats voter cynicism and apathy by personalising the process.  Yes, it’s incumbency pull again.  At this point there’s some waffle about politics not being a science and building relationships under the heading “How to Campaign Locally”.  In politics relationships are “everything”.   

Invite people to tour the Commons. 

Get them to pick littler. 

There are case studies.  The "Candidate for Harlow" states that counter-intuitively constituents need to know that a PPC isn’t there just to get into parliament – mainly because they are … and explains how to play your violin in public for the newspapers by telling people how you too overcame obstacles.  Even if they were very small road bumps rather than a military assault course. 

Celebrity endorsement, involving local “figures” and sucking up to lobby groups are all carefully analysed as tactics.  Campaign on issues that matter to local people – even if personally you find them rather dull. 

There’s some more moaning about being seen as the party of the rich.  Philp concludes that the solution to this one is to bang on about social justice and suck up to the vulnerable. 

There are some moans about poor office facilities and suggestions that bullshit is better if written personally.  Some valedictory stuff about the Conservative “Voter Vault” software.  Know thine enemy stuff.  Relationships again.  Core messages.  Repetition. Repetition.  Repetition.

There is no magic number of leaflets although we probably want to avoid the situation in Leicester South by-election where residents put notices on their front doors requesting no further leaflets".

The New Labour Legacy

Chapter 5
“The New Labour Legacy” moves onto the “elephant in the room” -  New Labour… stating Gordon Brown raised taxes without making the UK go bust (it’s an old book).  Government expanded and the number in the welfare system increase.  “For the first time in decades British state expenditure on public services now matches Continental levels”.

Job creation and wage rises in the public sector are bigger than the private.  I wonder why he needs to conflate two separate variables?  It’s like adding together X + Y to make Z?  There's also some stuff about how the transfer of funds from south to north via the creation and relocation of public sector jobs didn't cause catastophy.

In other words we had a big state and the sky didn’t fall in. 

Cameron is credited with crediting Labour – like he had a choice.  And then we examine the elephant in a series of sub-headings

Taxing and Spending.

Tax Receipts rose from £296.4 billion in 96/7 to £396.8 billion in 2004.  A 16.5% increase in income tax.  Tax as a % of GDP will reach 38.5% by 2008-9 – the highest level for 24 years.  Philp then has a near mental meltdown trying to figure out why people would ever pay more tax and what smoke, mirrors, revolving doors and distraction techniques must have been deployed to make this happen.

Derren Gordon Brown

There are simple answers like the country might have needed it and could afford it but these are anathema so … Brown is likened in Biblical references to the Master in the parable of the talents – a “hard man” who “takes out what he does not put in” and “reaps what he does not sow”.

Of course the parable is actually about investment risk but this seems lost on Philp who insists all Labour’s investments were expenditure and says it doesn’t know one from the other … like he does.  He talks about the British Economy no longer resembling its Anglo-Saxon counterparts.  As an Iberian I found this racist. Finally Philp throws his hands up in despair that no one wants low taxes and says the next election should be fought on Labour’s spending plans … in other words he suggests stealing policy?  Or at least promising to match Labour’s spending …and then quietly cutting spending when in Number 10? …leading the voters up the garden path?

Benefits System

Next Philp rants about the benefits system saying the tax credit is all about making the distribution of wealth flatter but not making households with sprogs better off.  Then there’s a rant about more means testing.  Bedroom Tax?  And of course a “trapped on benefits” section.


This is a rant about Labour being shit at education and inequality which seems slightly obsessed with Oxbridge.  Personally I never even applied because I was put off by the snobbery and am too thick to go there anyway.  A Professor Paul Cheshire of the LSE department of stating the blatantly obvious states sagely

“Our results show that getting your children into a better school is conditional on income… households lacking the means to move will face reduced opportunities”. 

More bollocks about Oxbridge slagging off Comprehensives

New Internationalism

Tony Blair led the US in military action against Serbia over Bosnia and Kosovo rather than following them.  Incorrectly? it points out these and the Afghan war were “sanctioned by the UN”.  In the case of the former this is sort of half true and in the latter there was no actual UN resolution. The Iraq war is quaintly described as “bold” but this book is "not the place to rehash the issues for and against”. 

Probably because the Conservatives and voted for it and who asks any questions about foreign policy at a general election anyway?  So... Philp simply observes that there’s been more “activism” overseas than in previous administrations.  A rather nice lefty word for it all.

Public Services

Is a long section on increasing public spending.  Tony Blair promised to match EU spending, GB increased healthcare spending by 43% in the NHS over 5 years from 6.7% to 9.4% of GDP in line with EU average. 

Philp then outlines every area of increased spending.  Education £38bn in 1997 -> 67bn in 2008 while slagging off discipline in schools and banging on about failings before a grudging admission that some good may have been done.

The State Payroll – too many civil servants paid too much rant

North South divide – actually another rant about there being too many civil servants

Another moan that increased public spending didn’t make the economy collapse.

By this point sever boredom had set in as I skimmed through sections on reducing the demand for government, targeting dependency, bottom up, public services … which actually contains the graph “Should richer people be able to access better public services?".

Choice.  Location.  Witterings about the North and the Future..... blah blah blah blah blah....

Conservative Vision for a Better Britain

Most of Chapter 6 “Conservative Vision for a Better Britain” does what it says on the tin.  A vision for a prosperous community, create incentives, create enterprise economy, a “compassionate society", a grudging  admission that the UK’s spending on the NHS as a %age of GDP is not “about right”, a long with opportunity for all, a strong and free nation, a safer and fairer world …

....the tropes, memes, clichés or whatever new words we have for cliches and policies that tumbler and leak out of Tory coalition government every day.  I could almost hear Jim Hacker.  Anyway you dont need me to explain this chapter anyway now is now.

Photo Credits
Fell off the Back of Wikipedia
or party political websites where not stolen from the BBC
and mostly statistical data anyway which cant be copyrighted
even by the saddest people