Tuesday, January 20, 2009

A stupid anti-democratic campaign

I've finally found one other blogger that doesn't think that this bloggertarian-led campaign to expose elected representatives for the thieves and liars (that they obviously are!!?!) is a good idea.

But even Steve goes too far for me, saying that some whizzy GUI that made it pleasant for MPs to upload their expenses as it is go get pictures from iPhoto to Flickr would do the trick. 

This campaign is profoundly anti-political, and it's advocates are either willfully anti-political and anti-democratic, or the objective allies of those that are. It panders to the Poujadist agenda of the Daily Hell. When someone who is - by his own admission explicitly opposed to democracy as Guido is favours something - particularly in the sphere of democratic regulation - it's supporters need to check themselves. Are they willfully anti-democratic (in which case, carry on) or are they the useful idiots of the people who want to whittle away at the standing of democracy.

I know that there are some of them that actually don't understand why it's anti-democratic to hobble MPs with accountability while ignoring the way MPs rivals flex their muscles - but it's not a defence that is available to all of the supporters of this campaign. It's a common theme of this blog that a lot of self-styled liberals and libertarians don't understand the tension between liberty and democracy. While most literate libertarians are expressly in favour of direct democracy (and will therefore love this campaign), it's amazing how many of them aren't aware of this and imagine they can reconcile their views with representative government.

But one of the most alarming things about it is that it has acheived support from usually-sensible vaguely leftish types who don't have the defence of ignorance.

Here's why (reading this, remember the old adage that I'd have written a shorter post, but I don't have the time to do so....)...

1. It is not the role of Parliamentarians to be model citizens. Some of our greatest Parliamentarians were chronic alcoholics and serial monogamists. If there is a degree of venality among our 600+ MPs, then it means that our parliament is more representative than it would be if it were populated by the squeaky clean purveyors of public cant and certainty that these campaigners want. Let me be clear about this - if you support this campaign, I don't want MPs to be the sort of grandstanding pious shitheads that you want them to be. 

2. It is the role of Parliament to exercise it's distributed moral wisdom. If my MP does that well, but feathers his/her nest a bit in the process, I frankly couldn't give two fucks. So, are the supporters of this campaign doing anything to highlight the quality of deliberation? I doubt it - because there isn't some scapeable database that holds that information. 

3. It is a disincentive to the people who need the most effective form of incentivisation. We judge MPs and governement by their ability to do the job they are paid to do. They are given a salary and a set of expenses to do it with, and it's a good deal lower than a lot of middle ranking executives in the dismally-run failed capitalist institutions that we are all paying for today. If campaigns are whipped up to embarrass MPs, it means that those MPs abilities to do their job during their term of office is limited, and it means that elections become referendums on their personal level of cant - not their ability to represent. A bit of extravagance on days that they are away from home is not evidence that they aren't doing their jobs well, so it's largely irrelvant.

4. It only rewards stupidity. If an MP like Tom Watson who is genuinely interactive - who understands how to use new media tools to get lots of free advice - were skimming a bit off the top to pay for a few pots of flowers in his London residence (I doubt if he is by the way and from what I can see, he's a very honest bloke), he'd probably be better value for money that some dull-as-ditchwater demagogic tosser who publishes every bus-ticket and never says anything that isn't calculated to please everybody. The sort that this campaign will boost at the expense of a few refreshingly cavallier types.

5. Crowdsourcing accountability multiplies the degree to which people who are obliged to publish information are made accountable. Most of the organisations and individuals that rival MPs in dictating public policy do are not subject to the same rules on transparency.

Do I need to explain that MPs have rivals that are jealous of their power again? There is no FOI for commercial pressure groups (or any other kind). Civil servants may be technically responsible for keeping their receipts, but no-one is going to write a little app that will publish those - and if they do, fewer well-heeled vested interests will be waiting for this kind of ammunition. Ditto Quangos. What about journalists? Could someone please write an application that exposes any journalist who has ever been so unprofessional as to read a press-release from the Taxpayers Alliance?  This move will dramatically increase the accountability of only one section of the polity - the one that I elect that represents me. So thanks for that, you fuckers! This is an assymetric and profoundly anti-democratic move that will only please the rivals of elected representatives. These are people who have plenty to be pleased about anyway these days....

6. Elections. Remember them? We have the odious Standards Board that wastes £millions on ensuring that elected local councillors are entirely obedient to local government officers. Now we are looking for micro-accountability between elections for MPs as well. I bet that even No10 is delighted about this. Keep the bastards filling in forms instead of scrutinising legislation and doing their research on policy issues! 

7. Final point. Parliament is the only institution that represents the interests of the nation as a whole. Where have the republicans gone? Why is no-one shouting this from the rooftops? It is in all of our interests to make Parliament a powerful body at the expense of it's rivals. It is an institution that needs encouragement and support from the public.

Today, Parliament is in danger of being been turned into a dull, stupid worthy nest of groupthinkers - semi-clones without a spark of individuality. People who have no power to hold anyone to account because they are too busy filing their receipts. People who dare to stick their heads above the parapet even less than they do currently. There are plenty of things wrong with democracy, and plenty of political trends that are heading in the wrong direction, and this campaign will speed most of them along.

If you want to hobble any organisation, just impose a high level of accountability onto the individuals who run it. That's what we all seem very pleased to do, and I dread where it will leave us in the long term.

I'd agree, our democracy should be considerably more decentralised. But that is something that no-one is crowdsourcing a campaign about, is it?

There are 16 other points that I had intended to make, and the ones above could probably have been edited down to four points or up to nine. And it probably reads like a rant (which it is). But there it is.

Now I'm going to hit 'Publish' now - I don't even have time to check the spelling...

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

I totally agree with you - I generally do with Parliament and the Civil Service. I would hate a country run by mini-Robspierres.
I would make one exception, however. I've worked in Parliament and the Civil Service and I don't hold with incumbents funneling their funds to their political parties. It's done through all sorts of mechanism and, since money can't be spent twice, it means that staff are underpaid and/or having to work with inadequate office equipment (not all of it is supplied). It's not personal corruption but it is anti-democratic. Where a staffing allowance is not fully spent it is worth asking why, since only 10% may be spent on anything else.

Paulie said...

Yes! Really good point Anon. The way that political parties extract cash from some MPs and MEPs ('shared costs') is tantamount to blackmail.

The one bit of positive accountability that I'd like to see MPs have to have is a management board from their constituency party that jealously ensures that the party centre doesn't snaffle the resources that MPs can spend on research and representation.

ShaneMcC said...

1. Not asking MPs to be model citizens. Just asking them NOT to change the law to suit themselves better.

2. I don't think my MP is feathering his nest, but I wouldn't want him to do so. I don't think if he were feathering his nest he'd be a better MP.

3. Happy to MPs to be paid more and to choose what they spend that part of their money on. No need to do it on expenses though.

4. As per an MP who hides the detail of their expenses isn't a better MP.

5. How does an MP publishing the details of his/her expenses reduce their power? Yes some tabloid rags might complain about some items but those stories won't sell if the MP is genuine.

6. MPs have to fill in forms and submit receipts already.

7. I agree. Parliament should be supported and encouraged. Do you really think MPs CHANGING the law to conceal the details of their expenses is going to garner that support? They will get support when people can trust them. We can't go back to the good old days when our greatest parliamentarians were chronic alcoholics and this was hidden from the public. People want transparency from government and parliament and MPs voting to hold back that tide is not going to do them any good.

Paulie said...

Your point about changing the law to suit themselves (your key point, as far as I can see) is a daft one.

The FOI provisions are hardly centuries old, and they were never *intended* to hobble democracy. If you want to have a swipe at parliament, you can say that FOI has had unintended consequences (that could have been avoided if traditional parliamentarians had been listened to when the bill was being drafted).

People may *want* transparency from government (though do they really? Isn't it just the chattering classes that want this?). But transparency of this kind doesn't make government better. The same way that the broadcasting of parliament overstepped the worst fears expressed by it's opponents.

Parliament concluded that 'soundbites' would never happen here - that they were 'unBritish'

Oh - and you completely sidestepped the main point that I made about relative transparency.

When the rivals of MPs are forced to disclose everything about the way that they exercise their huge - and growing - influence over legislation - then you may have a point. But not until then.

Changing the subject, WHAT A FANTASTIC SPEECH! Eh?

cartermagna said...

Paulie; Excuse me for being a bit thick here but how is asking your employees to be a bit responsible with money that isn't theirs unreasonable and anti-democratic? Going about the business of being an MP should surley incur next to bugger all in costs seen as profligate? Running a second home in london isn't beyond the means of people being paid over 60 grand a year is it? Especially if they're taking the piss and having their wives pay for the fucking windows to be cleaned at over £125 a month. It may *only* be 125 quid but it's still 125 quid that we paid for.

Remember kids, don't drink and type

Francis Irving said...

Julian Todd has written an excellent, referenced post which covers well an opposite point of view to Paul.

And yeah, he realises the expenses issue itself is trivial, and that that isn't really the point.

http://www.freesteel.co.uk/wpblog/2009/01/mps-expenses-at-the-battleground/

Paulie said...

Cartermagna: Read the post before commenting or don't comment at all.

Either will do.

Francis: That's excellent news. Surely it would make sense to expose all of the examples of opacity in the software procurement industries / railways / business community in general - and then, once you've got them to be accountable, ask MPs to step up to the plate?

You know perfectly well that the newspapers won't be interested in using this to drive up the quality of representation.

It's just a constant source of cheap sniping anti-politics stories.

If Parliament gives in on this one, the bar will simply be raised and some new 'transparency' will be demanded.

cartermagna said...

Paulie, I did read the post otherwise I wouldn't have left a comment.

ShaneMcC said...

@Paulie. Why is it daft that MPs shouldn't change the law to set themselves apart for no reason other than to conceal the details of their expenses.

I don't see this as an anti-politics campaign. Quite the opposite. I believe that if MPs are as transparent as possible then they will be more trusted and respected.

As someone once said the cover up not the crime is the story. At the moment MPs are planning the cover up of what I expect to be a very minor or non-existent "crime".

With regards to the transparency of lobbyists I couldn't agree more. I think the work being done by the Sunlight Foundation on matching campaign donations to voting records is fantastic.

I don't quite follow your point on the business community leading the way and then MPs could follow. Business are accountable to the people who own them, who fund them, who tax them. If a management team refused to show their board a detailed set of accounts they wouldn't be trusted for long.

Paulie said...

It isn't daft because it's a fairly recent piece of legislation that was passed by the current government. Admittedly it was badly drafted, but MPs are right not to provide such a hostage to fortune.

And hostage is the right word. You know as well as I do that the kind of disclosure that this campaign asks for won't increase the level of trust in parliament. It will just provide more ammunition for elected politicians rivals. To be honest Shane, I don't believe that you really think that "...if MPs are as transparent as possible then they will be more trusted and respected."

If you do, I'd be surprised.

The Sunlight Foundation are absolutely ubiquitous in the UK. Every clever geek I know is doing nothing but writing clever bits of code for them, they have well-funded charitable organisations all over the country giving them the kind of following wind that they deserve and the press jump on every bit of ammunition that they provide and use it to devastating effect. Charter 88, the Convention on Modern Liberty and MySociety are all over them like a rash.

Or not....

And let me just respond to your final para with the Hinternet catchphrase ROTFLMAO.

Are business lobbies obliged to provide full disclosure on every piece of lobbying, campaigning, adversarial legal work that they do in promoting their commercial interests?

Are they bollocks!

Andreas Paterson said...

Haven't said much on this so far, I'm in two minds. There was the point that senior civil servants do have to provide receipts for their expenses which swayed me one way however, on balance I'll be agreeing with Paulie.

As far as a practical measure for combating corruption this measure is next to useless, it's generally agreed by most serious observers that the MP's are not particularly corrupt. The most recent expenses scandals have been related to staff and had little relation to the publication of receipts.

MP's are scrutinized by the opposition and the press both of whom are willing to distort the facts in order to get a story. In fact, the press might choose to invent a campaign simply because it's a slow news day.

What we have in essence is an easy way to manufacture a scandal disguised as an anti corruption measure that will have so minor an effect it's barely worth it. I'm sorry but if you believe in any way it will inspire confidence in MP's you must be living on mars, statistics have generally proved a puny weapon in the face of Daily Mail outrage.

Rob said...

"it's a good deal lower than a lot of middle ranking executives in the dismally-run failed capitalist institutions that we are all paying for today."

£87.6m spent on expenses in 2006/07, there are 654 MPs (?), which is an average of nearly £134,000 per person. NO middle-ranking executive in any business would get away with £134,000 on expenses. You must be joking.

"I don't want MPs to be the sort of grandstanding pious shitheads that you want them to be."

Strawman alert - I don't want them to be "grandstanding pious shitheads" - many of them are already. I cannot see why being prevented from corruptly ripping off the taxpayer is going to turn them into a combination of Gladstone and Polly Toynbee.

"Parliament a powerful body at the expense of it's rivals. It is an institution that needs encouragement and support from the public."

And you think it will be more likely to gain support from the public if MPs are left alone to rip off taxpayers quietly and privately?

Anonymous said...

Your argument amounts to winking at a little bit of corruption.

Thanks but no thanks. I don't expect MPs to be moral paradigms but that doesn't mean we have to facilitate their abuse of public funds.

Barry said...

If they have nothing to hide they have nothing to fear. That is the same excuse they use on us.

I suspect what they fear is not just the cost, but their glaring hypocracy that they cannot defend.

We have a breed of righteous 'do as I say not as I do', puritanical and illiberal Members. They call for people to limit their drinking while quaffing heavily at my expense. They call for people to use less energy whilst many run two homes without good cause, travel huge distances without good cause and waste enormous amounts of resources. If their nannying is justified let them lead by example. If they wish to preach to us let them be the most pious.

The expenses system is a wheeze. It is being abused. It is not anti-democratic to have something on which I can judge whether my MP is suitable to represent me in Parliament.

Ex-researcher said...

The second anonymous poster isn't the same person as the first in this strand. This is the first one talking again. I am greatly suspicious of local parties having anything to do with the MP's office. They ask for money for their agent one way or another, and some are bad enough to want - and have a say - about the recruitment of staff favouring the kind they can push around.

Apart from that, perhaps the lobby industry/pressure groups etc could of their own accord say something about the cost of their campaigns which are intended to affect or alter policy. There is a charter that some INGOs have signed up to but it doesn't extend to such transparency as far as I'm aware. We want to know about money spent on MPs to see if there is an untoward link between funders and the representative so gifted. Lobbyists spend money on influencing policy, I think we should find out how much.

mags said...

1. It is not the role of Parliamentarians to be model citizens. Some of our greatest Parliamentarians were chronic alcoholics and serial monogamists. If there is a degree of venality among our 600+ MPs, then it means that our parliament is more representative than it would be if it were populated by the squeaky clean purveyors of public cant and certainty that these campaigners want. Let me be clear about this - if you support this campaign, I don't want MPs to be the sort of grandstanding pious shitheads that you want them to be.


Eh? I cannot disagree. Why would anyone? Stating the obvious apart from, of course, the last sentence which presupposes that anyone who agrees with the campaign wants 'pious shitheads' for MPs.
Rank stupidity.


2. It is the role of Parliament to exercise it's distributed moral wisdom. If my MP does that well, but feathers his/her nest a bit in the process, I frankly couldn't give two fucks. So, are the supporters of this campaign doing anything to highlight the quality of deliberation? I doubt it - because there isn't some scapeable database that holds that information.


Eh? It's OK to be corrupt as long as you can distribute moral wisdom? WhoTF decides what is moral wisdom? And the idea that 'the quality of deliberation' derives from 'moral wisdom' is therefore moot. Where the idea of scalability(I presume that is what you mean)comes into it is therefore beyond this mere mortal.



3. It is a disincentive to the people who need the most effective form of incentivisation. We judge MPs and governement by their ability to do the job they are paid to do. They are given a salary and a set of expenses to do it with, and it's a good deal lower than a lot of middle ranking executives in the dismally-run failed capitalist institutions that we are all paying for today. If campaigns are whipped up to embarrass MPs, it means that those MPs abilities to do their job during their term of office is limited, and it means that elections become referendums on their personal level of cant - not their ability to represent. A bit of extravagance on days that they are away from home is not evidence that they aren't doing their jobs well, so it's largely irrelvant.


Eh! Their ability to do their job is limited because they have to account for that which they do spend? Come again? Yer 'avin' a larf, mate!
Try setting up a basic(scaleable) spreadsheet and filling it in each morning/evening - if you cannot do that - you really should reconsider your vocation.
As for their re-election becoming referendums on their cantonese(my bad!)if they don't have the bollocks to stand up and tell the truth as they see it but succumb only to peurile perorations in case of embarrassment they are no more deserving of the position than, well I was about to say you or I but I withdraw the latter.
'A bit of extravagance on days' etc means simply they are happy to rip off the taxpayer, just like you. Nothing to see here. Move on. We are the Socialists are we, we are, we are the Socilalists are we.




4. It only rewards stupidity. If an MP like Tom Watson who is genuinely interactive - who understands how to use new media tools to get lots of free advice - were skimming a bit off the top to pay for a few pots of flowers in his London residence (I doubt if he is by the way and from what I can see, he's a very honest bloke), he'd probably be better value for money that some dull-as-ditchwater demagogic tosser who publishes every bus-ticket and never says anything that isn't calculated to please everybody. The sort that this campaign will boost at the expense of a few refreshingly cavallier types.


Eh? WTF? and again Eh? WTF?.

Oh, now I see 'we're skimming a bit off the top to pay for'..... that's alright then.

I'm a Socialist and I'm OK,
I skim all night and I spin by day.


5. Crowdsourcing accountability multiplies the degree to which people who are obliged to publish information are made accountable. Most of the organisations and individuals that rival MPs in dictating public policy do are not subject to the same rules on transparency.

Do I need to explain that MPs have rivals that are jealous of their power again? There is no FOI for commercial pressure groups (or any other kind). Civil servants may be technically responsible for keeping their receipts, but no-one is going to write a little app that will publish those - and if they do, fewer well-heeled vested interests will be waiting for this kind of ammunition. Ditto Quangos. What about journalists? Could someone please write an application that exposes any journalist who has ever been so unprofessional as to read a press-release from the Taxpayers Alliance? This move will dramatically increase the accountability of only one section of the polity - the one that I elect that represents me. So thanks for that, you fuckers! This is an assymetric and profoundly anti-democratic move that will only please the rivals of elected representatives. These are people who have plenty to be pleased about anyway


Eh! First sentence: the fuckers who stand for Parliament do so on a transparent basis? Since when? Both side are guilty but the ones in power just shit themselves when their bluff is called.


Secondly, Oh, get him! There are rivals.


These must be THESE! 'What about journalists? Could someone please write an application that exposes any journalist who has ever been so unprofessional as to read a press-release from the Taxpayers Alliance? This move will dramatically increase the accountability of only one section of the polity - the one that I elect that represents me. So thanks for that, you fuckers! This is an assymetric and profoundly anti-democratic move that will only please the rivals of elected representatives.

EH! 'but no-one is going to write a little app that will publish those' see point, oh who cares, no need to write an app, even Microsoft got there before you. Dick.



6. Elections. Remember them? We have the odious Standards Board that wastes £millions on ensuring that elected local councillors are entirely obedient to local government officers. Now we are looking for micro-accountability between elections for MPs as well. I bet that even No10 is delighted about this. Keep the bastards filling in forms instead of scrutinising legislation and doing their research on policy issues!



Eh!

How many Labour party members were voted in?
Before they were declared unfound?
How many Muslim guys,
Before they were declared unsound?
And how many Dhimmis of Muslim land?
Said they were really proud?

The answer, my fiend(deliberate)will blow in the wind.....



7. Final point. Parliament is the only institution that represents the interests of the nation as a whole. Where have the republicans gone? Why is no-one shouting this from the rooftops? It is in all of our interests to make Parliament a powerful body at the expense of it's rivals. It is an institution that needs encouragement and support from the public.

Today, Parliament is in danger of being been turned into a dull, stupid worthy nest of groupthinkers - semi-clones without a spark of individuality. People who have no power to hold anyone to account because they are too busy filing their receipts. People who dare to stick their heads above the parapet even less than they do currently. There are plenty of things wrong with democracy, and plenty of political trends that are heading in the wrong direction, and this campaign will speed most of them along.

If you want to hobble any organisation, just impose a high level of accountability onto the individuals who run it. That's what we all seem very pleased to do, and I dread where it will leave us in the long term.

I'd agree, our democracy should be considerably more decentralised.


Eh! WTF?

I see here full circle. I was once a stupid Labourite but now I am better. Repeat ad nauseum.

I have never read anyone as thick a yourself, Sir and I hope to never do it again.

Paulie said...

*facepalm*

D-Notice said...

"When someone who is - by his own admission explicitly opposed to democracy as Guido is favours something - particularly in the sphere of democratic regulation - it's supporters need to check themselves."

The Ad hominem argument fallacy.

Paulie said...

Nope - the ad hominem fallacy doesn't really apply here.

I'm not saying "don't listen to him because he's a bollix", I'm saying that someone who comments extensively on the morality of politicians - someone who has admitted that he does it because he hates the very idea that elected politicians should have power - is very supportive of a campaign that is, in fact, hugely disproprortionate to the problem in hand.

This country does not have corrupt politicians for the most part. In comparison to almost anywhere in the world, this is a non-issue in the UK. Someone who deliberately exagerates this issue is very keen on this campaign. Tells you something, doesn't it?

The origins of a campaign tell you a good deal about it's intentions.

D-Notice said...

"Someone who deliberately exagerates this issue is very keen on this campaign. Tells you something, doesn't it?

The origins of a campaign tell you a good deal about it's intentions.
"

In that case, it's an Appeal to Motive fallacy. :-)

Paulie said...

Oh gawd....

Still not convinced of that one either. 'Appeal to motive' would undermine my criticism of the argument if that was it's intention. But my intention here, surely, is to illustrate the proportionality of the issue.

Someone with a good deal of influence makes a big deal of a minor issue that isn't really worth worrying about. Why?

ivan007 said...

FWIW, you changed my mind last time you wrote on the subject. Frankly, I can't be bothered to read even your post on it, let alone the to-ing and fro-ing in the commentary (good commentary though, you struck a chord here). But I did decide that my prurient interest in humiliating MPs was juvenile and pointless and thus I held off joining any Facebook groups or signing any petitions on the subject.
And then Gordon goes and drops the whole thing anyway ...

Ministry Of Steve said...

They are given a salary and a set of expenses to do it with, and it's a good deal lower than a lot of middle ranking executives in the dismally-run failed capitalist institutions that we are all paying for today.

You can't possibly verify that statement unless you have unfettered access to both sets of accounts.

Oh look, your entire ridiculous argument destroyed in only two sentences, and one of them is yours. Epic fail.

Barry said...

Good point Minsitry.

The eevil capitalist pigs can be removed much more easily than an MP. There is little risk of an MP losing their job so why should they get a whacking great reward?

Which failed capitalist institutions are we propping up? When banks operate under regulations and Governments that encourage lending large amounts to poor people that is hardly capitalist. The clammy hands of the state have been touching up the banking sector for years and it's all gone horribly wrong.

Paulie said...

*facepalm* squared

Neil said...

"The eevil capitalist pigs can be removed much more easily than an MP."

Open any recent copy of Private Eye, scan for the word "bonus", then get back to us on that one.

TBRRob said...

God what a load of nonsense.

First -- any right minded Liberal knows that democracy isn't the be all and end all of a free society. It is simply one of a number of tools used to maintain a free society.

Second -- thousands and thousands and thousands of companies around the world including the one I work for cope perfectly well with getting their employees to properly account for their expenses. So why the f**k should Politicians be let off the hook?

Politicains are elected to represent the views of their electors. Not to take our cash and spend it on whatever they want. In fact you could argue this will add to democracy because it will provide people with information to know whether their politician is a money grabbing c**t or not. And then make the decission they wish to based on that.

Paulie said...

"Politicians are elected to represent the views of their electors."

No they aren't.

will said...

p情趣用品,情趣,情色,成人,A片,自拍,情趣用品,情趣,色情,成人影片,色情影片,免費A片,情趣用品,情趣,成人網站,A片下載,日本AV,做愛,情趣用品,情趣,美女交友,A片,辣妹視訊,情色視訊,情趣用品,情趣,色情聊天室,聊天室,AV,成人電影,A片,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣商品,情趣,情趣情色,A片,AIO,AV,日本AV,色情A片,AV女優,A漫,免費A片,A片下載,情色A片,哈啦聊天室,UT聊天室,聊天室,豆豆聊天室,色情聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,080視訊聊天室,080聊天室,080苗栗人聊天室,免費視訊聊天,上班族聊天室,080中部人聊天室,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天,成人聊天室,一夜情聊天室,辣妹視訊,情色視訊,成人,成人影片,成人光碟,成人影城,自拍情趣用品,A片,AIO,AV,AV女優,A漫,免費A片,日本AV,寄情築園小遊戲,情色貼圖,色情小說,情色文學,色情,色情遊戲,一葉情貼圖片區,色情網站,色情影片,微風成人, 嘟嘟成人網,成人,成人貼圖,18成人,成人影城,成人圖片,成人影片,UT聊天室,聊天室,豆豆聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,080聊天室,080苗栗人聊天室,080視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室情趣用品,A片,aio,av,av女優,a漫,免費a片,aio交友愛情館,a片免費看,a片下載,本土自拍,自拍,愛情公寓,情色,情色貼圖,色情小說,情色文學,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,色情遊戲,嘟嘟情人色網,一葉情貼圖片區,色情影片,情色網,色情網站,微風成人,嘟嘟成人網,成人,18成人,成人影城,成人圖片,成人貼圖,成人圖片區,成人小說,成人電影情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,自拍,UT聊天室,聊天室,豆豆聊天室,哈啦聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,080聊天室,080苗栗人聊天室,H漫,A片,AV,AV女優,A漫,免費A片,愛情公寓,情色,情色貼圖,色情小說,情色小說,情色文學,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,色情遊戲,SEX,微風成人,嘟嘟成人網,成人,18成人,成人影城,成人圖片,成人貼圖,成人圖片區情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣商品,A片,A片,A片,A片,A片,A片,中古車,二手車