Just after ten in the morning, 21 September, Keith. You said that everyone was in favour of good quality housing. Not lots of lots of housing. That was not mentioned. I do not agree that the Tories were that bothered about good quality housing. They sold off the good quality housing to the council tenants who were in the best ones, cut-price to the people they were wooing in order to turn them into into property-opening, Tory-voting capitalists. Simultaneously, she was selling off, again way below their value, the public utilities and (OK, later) the railways to get millions of people to buy cheap shares for the same reason. That stuff belonged to all of us, but the Tories sold it to the relative few who had enough spare dosh to make a quick buck. The crappy housing, that stayed crappy housing, was left to the poorest people in inner cities who were a lost cause to the Tories in terms of voting support. That's the Toryism that you support and don't want to discuss and that's what makes you right-wing. You helped to initiate the good-quality housing strand by saying everyone wanted it and that's what I responded to. You didn't not mention it, Keith, but then you hurriedly tried to dash off along a different track that you thought was more in your comfort zone. Actually, apropos of the terrible house-building record of all sides, I can't argue with you. But I can argue with your usual disreputable tactics that a lot of people around here find so bloody tiresome and dishonest. It is also very lame to suggest that we shouldn't take more refugees because of a housing shortage. They are not living in houses in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, are they, in their millions, but I suppose that, for you, they're far enough away for them to be of little concern. And you have the cheek to suggest that I should be looking up "humanitarian".