Notting Hill Housing Association recently announced plans to get rid of carers leave, flexi-time and reduce basic terms and conditions of staff. They are refusing to go to ACAS and are refusing to allow the union to even speak to its Board members. This prompted Unison members to go on strike, backed by 93.5% of members in the strike ballot. The savings from getting rid of Carers leave for staff with young sick children or disabled dependants will save £30,000 per year, or a bit less than 1/5th of the Chief Executive’s annual salary.

John Gray reports on the first day of the strike:

Today was the first 24 hour period of strike action in Notting Hill Housing Trust. There was a fantastic picket and lots of active support for the Strike. We estimate that over 100 members came to join the protest outside Notting Hill headquarters alone.

Interestingly, the vast majority of the strikers were women who of course will tend to have by far the most to lose if these anti-family policies are scrapped.

Shame about the Notting Hill CMT member who tried to deliberately provoke the pickets by declaring loudly he was “very happy to cross the picket line!” with a big smirk on his face. No wonder the organisation is in such a mess with folk like him in charge!

There was plenty of press interest and messages of support from various trade unions and encouragement from other UNISON branches and trade councils. We were next to a busy street and spent a lot of time encouraging passing motorists to “toot” their horn in support. There was a very good atmosphere amongst the pickets. This being “Notting Hill” we even had a portable CD player blasting out Bob Marley songs.

This was a good first day and hopefully management will come to their senses and start to negotiate. If not – we will be back.

Check out “All Together Worse” for further information and pictures.

Spring is a time of year that full of firsts. The first newborn lambs. The first snowdrops and daffodills…

…and the first election leaflets to feature an inaccurately drawn graphs, the credit for which appears to be going [inevitably] to the Lib Dems in Camden for this delightful effort>

(Hat Tip: Ben Goldacre)

Obviously, the actual graph that Ben ran across is on the left with my own rather pointed commentary on the right.

So, what are we going to do about this kind of thing?

Rather than run through the usual exercise of taking the piss on a case by case basis, I thought we might try a bit of different approach in an effort to encourage political parties to be a bit more honest in their dealings with the y-axis.

So, today, I’d like to announce the official launch of Liberal Conspiracy’s own Graph-Fix service, which is open to all our readers of whatever political persuasion.

The way the service works is all pretty straightforward.

If you do receive an election leaflet that features a dodgy-looking graph, and it can be any kind of graph from any party, not just the LibDems, then all you need do is send a scan or digital photograph of the graph to me at talkpoliticsuk[at]gmail[dot]com along with the details of the party/candidate responsible and the constituency in which it was delivered.

For purely practical reasons, I would prefer that you only send General Election leaflets – unless you run across something particularly egregious in a local election leaflet – and because there are a fair number of boundary changes this time out, you should also include any information that the leaflet might contain about the source of the information contained in the graph.

I’ll then check the graph for accuracy and, if necessary, redo it so that it provides an accurate visual representation of the information it contains, after which I’ll contact the party in question and send them over a set of corrected image files for future use, including a high quality .eps file for use in their printed materials and jpeg and png files for use on their website.

If we get a few of these, then I’ll also produce a weekly round-up/rogue’s gallery post of the most egregious pieces of y-axis abuse I’ve received that week together with a few suitably sarcastic comments to keep you all entertained.

And that’s all there is to it…

Oh, and regardless of whether you do choose to make use of this service, I would still recommend that you take the time to scan and upload any leaflets you receive to the Straight Choice’s live election leaflet archive.

This is more a note than a full explanation as yet (as I’m currently travelling around S E Asia). I’ve booked the 12th of June as the second Liberal Conspiracy ‘Blog Nation’ event date.

Held in central London (sorry out-of-towners, hence the advance notice) – this event will be a forum of sorts for lefties to discuss, strategise and debate how we can build and push the Left. By that time we may have a Tory government, and so the event will be even more important.

We have space for about 100-120 people. The event will be free to attend but invite only (due to limited space) and focus on lefties who want to build a new left movement. I haven’t sent out any invites yet or even made any concrete plans other than confirm a venue for that date. Hence, this note. More details when I get back at the end of March.

On Sunday, the French went to vote in the first round of their regional elections, and delivered a heavy defeat for Right-wing President Nicolas Sarkozy’s Party.

The Socialist Party topped the poll with 29%, ahead of the Centre-Right UMP on 26%. The Green Party finished third with 12%, with the far-right National Front fourth with 11%.

In total, parties of the left gained more than 53% of the vote, the first time in decades that the Left has gained more than half the vote in the first round of any national elections.

In a fortnight, the top two candidates in each region will take part in a run off election, and it is likely that the Socialists will repeat their success in 2004 and retain control of 20 of France’s 22 regions.

More info here and here.

The next Presidential election in France will be in 2012. With recent opinion polls showing Angela Merkel losing popularity in Germany, election gains for the liberals and greens in the Netherlands, as well as the troubles that our Tories have been having, the signs are that the centre right is losing popularity all across Western Europe.

Sad news that Labour MP Ashok Kumar suddenly passed away today. Thoughts of all of us at Liberal Conspiracy are with his family.

From Kerry McCarthy’s blog:

MPs were shocked today to learn of the sudden death of Dr Ashok Kumar MP. I didn’t really know him, and consequently was surprised – pleasantly surprised – to see this email from the BHA paying tribute to his brave work on humanist issues.

BHA mourns Dr Ashok Kumar MP (1956-2010), politician and distinguished supporter of Humanism

The British Humanist Association (BHA) has expressed its sorrow at the death of its Distinguished Supporter, Dr Ashok Kumar MP. Ashok Kumar was a great supporter of the BHA, a committed and active member of the All Party Parliamentary Humanist Group, and a self-described life-long “liberal humanist”.

Andrew Copson, BHA Chief Executive, said, ‘Ashok was a long-standing supporter of Humanism and often went out of his way to get involved in and further humanist issues in Parliament. Ashok was especially interested in education, and was opposed to the divisive and discriminatory “faith schools” system, preferring inclusive schools and objective religious education, not religious instruction. In fact, Ashok spoke of the dangers of segregation and religious indoctrination consistently over the last decade, and in almost every Education Bill.’

‘Ashok also took the lead in Parliament in campaigning for a national holiday on the anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth, in honour of one of the fathers of modern science and one of Britain’s greatest scientific minds. The loss of Ashok’s commitment, good humour and humanist outlook will felt by many in and outside of Parliament.’

Speaking in a House of Commons debate called in 2006 by his fellow humanist MP, Dr Evan Harris MP, he commented on the failure of Alan Johnson to ensure that faith schools would take pupils of other backgrounds:

‘I am against segregation, and I think that in his great spirited way the Secretary of State was trying to break down barriers and avoid future segregation. For that he was slapped down by the whole religious lobby. I find that very sad, because the Secretary of State was thinking, as we say in new Labour, for the long term—not tomorrow or the day after but perhaps 15 or 20 years’ time. We do not want groups of people in society who believe that one religion is superior to another—a generation in which some believe that the only way is jihad and others believe it is Khalistan, and in which there are also Hindu fundamentalists. By the way, I am of Hindu and Sikh descent, and I am very happy to be so, although I am a non-believer. I was raised in both of those beliefs and went to a state school. I had no problem with learning about all faiths.’

Oh dear…

Trevor McDonald Meets David Cameron attracted nearly 1.7 million viewers on ITV1 last night, Sunday 14 March – less than half the audience for Gordon Brown’s interview with Piers Morgan on the same network last month.

The Conservative leader opted to submit to a fly-on-the-wall documentary rather than an interview, with McDonald and the cameras following him at work and at home.

ITV1’s resulting 60-minute documentary attracted 1.689 million viewers and a 10.8% share from 10.15pm, according to unofficial overnights.

This compared with Morgan’s interview with Brown, seen by 4.2 million viewers, a 22.7% share, when it screened in the same Sunday-night slot on 14 February.

If that weren’t bad enough, the Guardian are also reporting that Cameron was well beaten in the ratings by both Match of the Day 2, on which the featured games were Man Utd v Fulham and Sunderland v Man City, and by a repeat of episode three of Great British Railway Journeys, which saw Michael Portillo travelling from Todmorden to York with a trip on the Embsey and Bolton Abbey Steam Railway thrown in for good measure.

What else can you say but…

…Mwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

At the end of last week Tory MP Christopher Chope shouted “object” in the Houses of Parliament. By doing so he has more or less ensured that the Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Bill will not pass before Parliament is dissolved and an election is called. This was a Bill with cross party support which was intended to be passed before Brown must call an election.

This Bill was introduced as a consequence of Liberia being brought before the courts in the UK. Greg Palast reported for Newsnight:

Liberia received debt relief worth $4bn from the international community in 2007 under the heavily indebted poor countries initiative, including $2bn from private-sector bondholders. Insiders to negotiations allege that two US financiers, Eric Hermann and Michael Straus, allowed other creditors to accept a low payout from Liberia, then quietly transferred their holdings to two other firms, which then sued in Britain for the debt in full.

The Bill would have protected the 40 countries helped by the heavily indebted poor countries initiative. It was also drafted to include measures to prevent assets being seized which are intended to help Liberia.

Three Tory members were in the house when the Bill was being discussed.As The Guardian makes clear, for some time no one knew which of Christopher Chope, Andrew Robathan or Simon Burns had raised this objection. This point should be reiterated, when challenged in Parliament the member who shouted, who we now know to be Christopher Chope, childishly refused to speak up.

I e-mailed the MPs involved in an attempt to find who had killed the BIll and received a single response. This was from Simon Burns making it abundantly clear that he whole heartedly backed the Bill. I am sure Christopher Chope has had a lot of explaining to do this weekend but he has still failed to even acknowledge my question.

Christopher Chope had concerns about the Bill, his objection was entirely within the rules of parliamentary protocol and he was also entitled to refuse to identify himself when challenged, but that does not mean what he did should not pass without condemnation.

This was a Bill introduced by a Labour MP, Andrew Gwynne, and supported by David Cameron and the Conservative front bench. I suspect that this is an example of an MP going rogue. Mr Chope spoke at inordinate length in previous debates hoping to stall the legislation.

As an “honourable” member objected to this Bill’s consideration a further vote must now be arranged for this to be passed into law. Since we are so close to an election, there does not appear to be time remaining in this parliamentary session to do so. The Bill is dead in the water and Christopher Chope killed it. Sadly, the consequences for him are likely to be minor compared to the damage which may now be visited on countries in the Developing world in this Bill’s absence.

If David Cameron cares about his party’s image and really is a compassionate conservative he will promise to reintroduce this Bill and help some of the world’s poorest people.

Our friends at London Citizens have two opportunities for people who want to learn more about community organising.

You can apply for their Summer Academy, an internship which involves working on campaigns such as helping marginalized workers get a Living wage; working in East London on the CitySafe campaign to tackle violence through rebuilding a community; working with migrants and asylum seekers as part of the Strangers into Citizens campaign.

Or you can study an M.A. in Community Organising at Queen Mary University.

More info on their website, here.

Our friends at Left Foot Forward are hosting an excellent debate in the comments on this post between critics and supporters of Lib Dem plans to raise the starting threshold at which people pay income tax:

Tim Horton and Howard Reed argue:

“The Liberal Democrats’ proposed tax cut fails the fairness test.

Spending £17 billion on increasing the personal allowance is a very poor way to help those on low incomes. It could actually harm the welfare of low-income households by increasing inequality and relative poverty.

The measure would do nothing to help the very poorest, who don’t have income large enough to pay tax;

Only around £1 billion of the £17 billion cost (6 per cent) actually goes toward the stated aim of lifting low-income households out of tax;

Households in the second richest decile would gain on average four times the amount than those in the poorest decile; and

The policy would increase socially damaging inequalities between the bottom and middle.”

Alix Mortimer replies:

“These are what Ben Goldacre calls zombie arguments. No matter how many times you knock them down, they always get up again.
…
There are dozens of Lib Dem policies that “don’t help the very poorest who don’t earn enough to pay tax”, just like there are dozens of Labour policies that don’t – because they are about other things. This policy is about a fairer tax system. It does what it says on the tin. It will make the tax system fairer and flatter, and in the process it will offer the greatest proportional help to people who pay tax but are nonetheless on low pay.

For people who don’t earn enough to pay tax, we have a little thing called a welfare state. And, coincidentally, the welfare state as constructed by Labour currently includes so-called “tax credits” paid over to households earning up to about £70k in some cases. As I’m sure you know another Lib Dem policy is to taper those tax credits. High-minded claims about Labour’s opponents failing to concentrate funds on the poorest are not well-founded.
…
You have reinterpreted the “stated aim” to suit your purposes. The stated aim is to make the tax system fairer. This has the *effect* of lifting low-earners out of poverty. Two, you are implicitly assuming that absolute gain is more important than proportionate gain. This can pretty easily be knocked on the head. £300 per year will make far more of a difference to someone earning £12k than someone earning £30k. And *everybody* earning £12k will feel that difference. Ignoring this simple truth suggests a disturbing lack of interest in people’s actual circumstances.
…
There *is* a debate to be had about the only point in which actual figures are quoted, i.e. point 2. This debate is largely about principle. The two questions are “Does absolute gain matter as much as proportionate gain?” and also “Should the tax system be fairer and flatter as a matter of principle?”. To which my answers are of course no and yes respectively, and accordingly, I don’t mind that the tax cut goes to everyone. It’s just a fairer tax system. I like fair tax systems. Your respective answers are yes and don’t care, so far as I can see.”

Boris Johnson will break his promise to keep all ticket offices manned on the London Underground it was announced yesterday.

Up to 800 jobs will go across the network including 450 ticket office positions and 200 other station posts.

TfL admit that this will mean many more unmanned ticket offices across the network, although none will close permanently.

In Boris Johnson’s Transport manifesto he promised to ensure that “there is always a manned ticket office at every station.”

However, the recession, losses from the PPP, and Boris’s own spending commitments means that he will now break that promise.

The Liberal Democrat’s London Transport spokesperson Caroline Pidgeon said today:

“Boris Johnson was elected promising to defend ticket offices and stop any planned closures that the previous Mayor was proposing across the London Underground network. Today’s announcement is a breathtaking breach of that key commitment he made to Londoners. It’s a complete u-turn.”

Labour’s London Transport spokesperson Val Shawcross said:

“This is the latest in a long line of broken Boris Johnson promises. He was elected on a pledge of protecting ticket offices and the staff who keep our stations safe but cuts, especially at outer London stations, will make them less safe and passengers feel less secure.”

Union bosses have also pledged to fight the decision. RMT General Secretary Bob Crow said this afternoon:

“If these cuts to jobs are bulldozed through by TfL it will turn London’s tube stations into a muggers paradise. RMT will fight to protect passenger and staff security on London Underground and in the event of compulsory redundancies and the undermining of tube safety we will have no hesitation in balloting for action.”

London Underground insist that there will be no compulsory redundancies, and point out that more and more people now use pre-paid Oyster Cards.

And with Boris already raising fares year on year, this is a painful but probably necessary pill for us to swallow.

Thanks to our friends at Political Scrapbook for this:

With more than 39,000 views, David Cameron’s airbrush hairbrush moment is the 3rd most viewed clip on YouTube. And that’s internationally – not just in Europe or the UK.

Bad business:

“Gallup’s annual update on Americans’ attitudes toward the environment shows a public that over the last two years has become less worried about the threat of global warming, less convinced that its effects are already happening, and more likely to believe that scientists themselves are uncertain about its occurrence. In response to one key question, 48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41% in 2009 and 31% in 1997, when Gallup first asked the question.”

“A majority of Americans still agree that global warming is real, as 53% say the effects of the problem have already begun or will do so in a few years. That percentage is dwindling, however. The average American is now less convinced than at any time since 1997 that global warming’s effects have already begun or will begin shortly.

Meanwhile, 35% say that the effects of global warming either will never happen (19%) or will not happen in their lifetimes (16%).

The 19% figure is more than double the number who held this view in 1997.”

“In similar fashion, the percentage of Americans who believe that global warming is going to affect them or their way of life in their lifetimes has dropped to 32% from a 40% high point in 2008. Two-thirds of Americans say global warming will not affect them in their lifetimes.”

“In 2003, 61% of Americans said such increases were due to human activities — in line with advocates of the global warming issue — while 33% said they were due to natural changes in the environment. Now, a significantly diminished 50% say temperature increases are due to human activities, and 46% say they are not.”

“Roughly half of Americans now say that “most scientists believe that global warming is occurring,” down from 65% in recent years. The dominant opposing thesis, held by 36% of Americans, is that scientists are unsure about global warming. An additional 10% say most scientists believe global warming is not occurring.”

A letter in the Guardian, co-ordinated by Colin Burgon MP, calls for a second fiscal stimulus to boost the economy:

The Conservative party’s calls for immediate cuts to the economy have been met by a growing chorus of criticism, warning that this risks sending the economy back into recession (Report, 8 March). The government was right to stimulate the economy with a variety of measures last year and so offset some of the worst effects of the recession. Yet, as some of the world’s leading economists have pointed out, the fragile nature of the recovery means that fiscal stimulus is still required. However, according to the IMF, Britain is one of only two G20 countries not currently planning any such fiscal stimulus in 2010.

A programme of government investment would not only stimulate the wider economy in the short term, but would increase long-term growth, thereby lowering the debt levels through a higher tax take. To this end, we encourage the chancellor to use the forthcoming budget to announce a second fiscal stimulus – especially in housing and transport, where investment has fallen most, and with a focus on developing a low-carbon economy – which would both help to secure economic recovery and create much needed jobs.

You can see the list of liberal-lefties who have signed it here.

Since 1948, Britain has supported the idea that state pensions, health care, education and other public services are best provided by society as whole. But this idea is now under threat.

A coalition of campaigning groups, including the British Medical Association, trade unions and community groups, are organising a demonstration on 10th April in London at 12pm.

You can find out more here or sign the petition here :

We the undersigned believe the welfare state and public services are an essential part of any civilised society – pooling the risk across the population and providing support and services to us all. We therefore call on the next government to reject any further cuts and privatisation and instead protect and improve the welfare state and public services as the most effective way of tackling poverty and inequality in our society.

Here’s what the Tories say:

“We want to see a transformation in the role of community groups, social enterprises and the voluntary sector to help build a stronger society for all of us.

We would enhance the role played by charities, voluntary organisations and social enterprises in tackling the problems facing our society.”

…and here’s what they actually do:

“Last week, the Westminster City Partnership ended ten years of partnership with the voluntary sector, by voting to relegate voluntary and community representatives to a powerless advisory role, with no voting rights.

Following the vote, voluntary sector representatives Drew Stevenson, Jackie Rosenberg and Bernard Collier walked out of the meeting.

After the meeting, Bernard Collier, Chief Executive of Voluntary Action Westminster said: “It’s hard to see the logic behind this decision, which ends ten years of partnership working with Westminster’s voluntary and community sector. It’s a u-turn in terms of local policy – and flies in the face of the policies of all three main political parties. We’re deeply unhappy with this decision.”

The decision comes shortly after the decision to cut £500,000 from the voluntary sector grants budget.”

India’s Upper House voted on Tuesday by 186-1 for the Women’s Reservation Bill, which would see one-third of the seats in the Lok Sabha (India’s House of Commons) reserved for women for a period of 15 years.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said:

‘This is a momentous development in the long journey of empowering our women.

‘The bill that is going to be passed today is a historic step forward, a giant step forward in strengthening the process of emancipation (of women),

‘Our women faced discrimination at home, there is domestic violence, they face discrimination in equal access to education, healthcare, there are all these things. All these things have to end if India were to realise its full potential.’

‘What we are going to enact today is a small token of homage to the sacrifices our women have made in nation building, in the freedom struggle, in all other nation building activities.’

There are currently 59 members in the 545-member Lok Sabha. The new rules will set a floor of 181 women MPs. This method of a national quota will see all women constituency contests between the different political parties in chosen constituencies, which may rotate over time.

In the highly unlikely event that Britain were to adopt as radical a gender equality measure as India, the number of women in the House of Commons would rise from the current 126 to at least 216 women MPs.

More information here

Campaigning group Power2010 has announced plans to target those MPs who have consistently opposed cleaning up and reforming our political system.

In their bid to rid Parliament of anti-reform MPs, the grassroots campaign is drawing up a list of culprits from all major parties wanted for “crimes against democracy” and from today is asking members of the public to nominate MPs at www.power2010.org.uk/wanted.

Power2010 will then launch major campaigns in selected constituencies, highlighting sitting MPs’ poor records on democratic reform and civil liberties.

Ex-minister Tony McNulty is first in their sights. The former minister, who resigned in disgrace last year following allegations over his expenses, is a well-known champion of the government’s unpopular ID card scheme and an opponent of a transparent Parliament.

Power2010 volunteers and activists are planning to descend on Harrow East, beginning next week, plastering “Wanted for crimes against democracy” posters across town, whilst thousands of “swing” voters in the constituency will receive targeted campaign literature highlighting his opposition to a cleaned up reformed politics.

In the coming weeks the campaign will be targeting other MPs from all parties.

A new report by the TUC, which is published today to coincide with the start of its annual Women’s Conference, indicates that women are likely to bear the brunt of any job losses resulting from early cuts in public services.

The report, Women and the Recession – One Year On, warns that early public spending cuts would hit female employment hardest because around four in ten women work in public sector occupations, compared to less than two in ten men.

Of particular concern here is the fact that those regions in which women are most likely to rely on the public sector for employment (Wales, the North East and Yorkshire and Humber) also have some of the highest male unemployment rates in the country, making it very likely that early spending cuts, of the kind favoured by the Tories, will result in a substantial rise in the number of families in which neither of the parents are in work.

The report also notes that job losses and other cuts in public expenditure will have a long-term impact on women by substantially reducing their retirement income.

Currently, the average income that women receive in retirement is a third less than the male average, a figure that would be far worse were it not for the superior record of the public sector in providing decent pensions for women and lower-paid staff. With women holding almost two-thirds (64.5 per cent) of defined benefit schemes in the public sector, any cuts in pension rights would disproportionately fall on them.

The report also estimates that women are currently subsidising the public sector to the tune of around £5billion a year in unpaid overtime.

Commenting on the report, TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said:

“Slashing public spending may satisfy fiscal hawks and city traders but it would cause misery to millions of people who have already suffered from the recession. A fresh wave of public sector job losses could leave many families with both parents out of work.

“Many women choose to work in the public sector because it offers secure work with a good work-life balance and a decent retirement income. It’s hardly fair that these are now all under threat thanks to the mistakes of super-rich bankers, who are already back collecting their bonuses.

“When politicians talk about the need for deep spending cuts they rarely say how this would affect ordinary working people. But as our report makes clear – women would have to pay for these cuts with their jobs and pensions.”

The full report can be downloaded here.

He is the leading advocate of the British Tea Party vanguard, yet Daniel Hannan MEP may be slipping sensibly down the Palin-o-Meter scale this morning.

Hannan makes a series of partisan points in his paean of praise to Eric Pickles, but he also offers a rare acknowledgement from the right that wanting lower spending and less government as a matter of principle is a minority pursuit, quietly admitting that “the country” can not be convinced on that basis.

If the Conservatives win the next election – and I remain convinced that they will – there will need to be drastic action to restore order and sanity to our public finances. In order to win that argument, ministers will need to convince the country, not just that large minority who want spending reductions on principle. It is perfectly possible to have voted Labour in 1997, wanting the government to spend more on public services, but to feel that things have gone too far. It is perfectly possible to have been satisifed with the level of taxation and borrowing as recently as 2008, but to be horrified by our Greek-level deficit today.

You could call this the ‘most taxpayers don’t agree with the taxpayers alliance’ insight.

It may be churlish to quibble with this tacitly centrist advocacy – but you could question “large minority” a bit too.

Findings depend on what question is put and how. But the longest established British Social Attitudes academic series, offered lower spending and lower taxes against either the status quo, or more spending with higher taxes, then even moderate moves in favour of the “populist” Taxpayers Alliance/Tea Party mission win the support of 8%.

With most of the party base believing the answer is more more Tory Red Meat, this apparent outbreak of centrist sensiblism from Daniel Hannan may come as some small measure of relief.

In his attack on Lord Ashcroft today, Norman Tebbit explained the Daily Mail test.

“Many, many years ago the Daily Mail Question was explained to me by Harry Legge-Bourke, then chairman of the 1922 committee, when he said of a certain course of action that was being discussed: ‘If you would not be happy to read that in tomorrow’s Daily Mail, then don’t do it.’ That Daily Mail test is the one that matters above all in politics.”

Tebbit became one of an increasing number of Tories to criticise Lord Ashcroft publicly.

No word yet from Tebbit on whether he felt that Ashcroft, a dual national, also failed the “cricket test”.