33 Comments

• Ross Chmiel 18th Dec '07 - 10:53am

  Sounds like an excellent idea. May I suggest that we also ensure that we have at least one blogger on the panel from Scotland, Wales and England.
  The Scottish & Welsh parties often have different perspectives due to us having our own devolved bodies and being in four way fights (instead of just fighting Lab/Con). This would be a useful way of ensuring that our new leader is aware of the issues that affect us as these are often different to the issues that affect Lib Dems south of/across the border.

• Alix 18th Dec '07 - 11:39am

  The reason I think this is a VERY GOOD idea is that, hopefully, the interviewee gets a lot out of it as well – a well-informed interview panel on their side who won’t ask the obvious journo-questions, but will provide an outside(ish) sounding bound. And can do a lot of feeding-up and feeding-down via the blogs and their own local activity.

  Sticky buns for ALL!

• Alix 18th Dec '07 - 11:39am

  Sorry, sounding board. I don’t know what a sounding bound is. Maybe we could have one of those as well?

• Jennie 18th Dec '07 - 12:35pm

  “Panellists would have to be party members; they would have to have a diary published on Lib Dem Blogs Aggregated, and they would have to write up the interview for their online diary.”

  Well, bugger, that’s me out of the running on both counts then.

  * sulks *

  Still, I’m amused that on a day when Alix has posted on her journal about how important it is for Lib Demmers to talk to people outside their own inner circle, there’s a proposal to create a new cosy talking shop among the inner circle.

  Makes me giggle, it does.

• MatGB 18th Dec '07 - 12:53pm

  Course the easy answer there Jennie is for your almost exclusively politics blog that’s frequently about Lib Dem stuff to get listed on LDB. That means joining the party of course, but that only costs £6. If your local membership secretary had replied to my email I’d have got you the form already…

  I think, for this one, that it has to be LD members though, can’t give exlusive access to random non-members, else Guido’ll complain he’s being discriminated against, again…

• MatGB 18th Dec '07 - 12:54pm

  Oh yeah, and I ought to get around to listing my current blog on there, right? Been planning to since Conference anyway.

• Alix 18th Dec '07 - 12:55pm

  Meh, well, really they’re just two ends of the same process. Actually I think the interviews system will be somehting to boast about once we get it going. And the reality is that the cosy talking shop already exists – the fluffster’s purpose is to broaden it out and make it fairer.

  However, I do take the point – and I’ve been concerned about this for a while – that it probably looks like Lib Dem blogging is an arcane rather Doctor Who-centric world with its own private rules and relationships. Now, obviously this is true up to a point, but the important thing is that new blood is welcomed in very enthusiastically in my experience. It would be great to see more people blogging (if only occasionally) and more people contributing to Lib Dem Voice (says she who has never contributed) and if the prospect of chats with the people who actually do all the work encourages more people to blog, then that’s great. Because it means more highly trained Liberal Ninjas to mess about on national media news-sites.

  Become a Liberal Ninja today, I say.

• Jennie 18th Dec '07 - 1:42pm

  It’s just sour grapes really. See, I wave my grapes at you for they are sour. There is no more Doctor-Who-Centric world than mine, and I’m a classical liberal, but because I am from Yorkshire, and therefore tight as a duck’s arse, I find £6 rather a steep price to pay for something I think should be free (the ability to talk to those in power, or at least power relative to mine).

  That, and if I join my local party that means I’ll have to deal with my local party, and (having read the letters from Lib Dem councillors which regularly appear in my local rag, pro-censorship and anti-Liberal to a (wo)man that they are) that’s not something I relish. I’m all right trolling you Lib Dem bloggers, but actually having to argue with people face to face is too much like hard work, especially when long years of experience of arguing with Yorksher Folk has taught me that it won’t make a jot, whit, or iota of difference. Well, except to get me kicked out again as soon as I join. And that really IS a waste of six quid.

  See, my grapes are not only sour but defeatist.

• MatGB 18th Dec '07 - 1:53pm

  But if you don’t get involved, nothing changes, and Charlotte and Hywell’ll need some more help. Could buy it as a gift for you if you don’t object 😉

  And local parties frequently are stuck with whoever puts themselves forward as candidate, members then get to vote on selection, so if you’re a member, you get to influence these things y’see 😉

• Nick 18th Dec '07 - 9:08pm

  That, and if I join my local party that means I’ll have to deal with my local party

  To be honest, that’s not mandatory – we have a lot of members all over the country who almost seem to take pleasure in having as little to do with their local party as possible.

• Jennie 18th Dec '07 - 9:20pm

  “we have a lot of members all over the country who almost seem to take pleasure in having as little to do with their local party as possible.”

  LMAO. Oh, the joys of politics. And I thought Who Fandom was full of strife.

  Meh. I suspect Mat will be working his powers of persuasion on me soon. But until then I shall grape my sourness with all my might 😉

• Alix 19th Dec '07 - 12:09pm

  Pah, I trump your sour, defeatist grapes with my OPTIMISTIC BANANA!

  I just want to be clear I have understood this thread correctly. A Liberal Democrat has just suggested a quite complex representational system involving pools, voting etc, and except for Ross’ excellent suggestion, NOT ONE Liberal Democrat has argued with it, deconstructed it and built their own, or started a reply with the words “No, no, NO…”

  Things are looking up already!

• Grammar Police 19th Dec '07 - 12:56pm

  To make up for inefficient membership secretaries, it’s easy enough to join online: https://www.libdems.org.uk/support/join.html?ref=leader

  There is a big pic of Nick at the top of the page though ;o)

• James Graham 19th Dec '07 - 4:33pm

  I’ve often thought it might be nice to have a non-local party for people to join who for whatever reason don’t want to be a member of a local party. I for one feel I’m currently between local parties – I’ve bounced around from place to place over the past decade and for the past four years have only considered the place where I live to be temporary.

  In terms of party involvement (once you no longer have LDYS as an alternative) it gets tricky. Local parties vary enormously from place to place in terms of how pro-active they are at welcoming new members and I’ve not been a conference rep now for four years purely on the basis that no-one in my local party has known me well enough to vote for me (in fact, my current local party hasn’t even invited me to the AGM – so much for 2008).

  It would be nice to have an alternative association which I could get involved in, particularly in a place like London where the transport infrastructure means that local can be very broad indeed.

• Grammar Police 19th Dec '07 - 5:01pm

  I can see how that would be useful where the local party is rubbish, but would that not mean that rubbish local parties stayed rubbish, as good people would just get involved with the alternative association instead? Which is all well and good, apart from the fact that local parties organise local election campaigns etc.

  An alternative could be to amalgamate some local parties into larger unions? Then again that might mean that some areas get ignored completely. I’d love for Merton to be combined with Kingston, Sutton or Richmond, but then again, not if they expected Merton activists to always troop off to their target areas and never do any campaigning in Mitcham & Morden or Wimbledon . . . I guess you’d do it with guarantees like “min one target ward in each parliamentary constituency”, “£X budget per year” and “X number of action days per year”.

• MatGB 19th Dec '07 - 5:14pm

  I think a merger would probably be a bad thing, but some sort of more regional thing could be useful.

  To put JAmes’ idea a different way—I moved to Merton because that was where I rented my room, I was looking all over London, I have no loyalty to the area, but would like to help out (and indeed would like to have done more than I have). I felt no loyalty to the local party as I didn’t expect to be in it long.

  If we had a regional structure, or a way of organising potential activists like me that aren’t attached, I could’ve done more in seats we held or were building, as well as learning more, and also we could have a pool of activists that would every fews months also come to Merton to assist.

  I’m involved in things like Connect, I’ve worked in Cowley St, but am now moving to Yorkshire. No contact back from the local party yet, but I’m already in contact with 4 local(ish) activists through other things—we’re organising a Liberal Drinks fairly soon, and that’s always been at a level above local party level.

  I think there’s something here to build on. I also like the idea of something like Connect becoming an adult version of LDYS, the idea at least has potential. See you there tonight James?

• Grammar Police 19th Dec '07 - 6:55pm

  Hello,
  I don’t disagree with you Mat (indeed, I think Connect is a brilliant idea and I quite like the idea of a roving band of activists – a sort of more formalised version of the London activists list).

  Clearly, helping in other areas is a good training ground, and helping in other areas is good for targetting.

  However, I think we’d run the risk of hollowing out local parties of key and skilled activists. Local parties are the groups that currently run the campaigns and select the local and national candidates – and their good or poor performance is therefore very important.

  You mention that you’d have liked to have done more locally – whilst we’re not the best local party, I assume this was largely because of time limitations, as there’s actually a fair amount going on and we also try to encourage people to get involved across London too when there are opportunities. So, even if this pan-London body had existed, would you have done more?

  If, instead, not being involved locally is more about there not seeming a point because where one lives is relatively weak, then why should any of the band of regional activists be inspired to help in weak places either, ever? And even if they do, we get results where names get known, where people’s problems are actually sovled, where we actually talk about local issues – not where a gang of Lib Dems turn up once or twice a year.

  We might just end up with a situation where the ambitious and the uber-activists (not necessarily the same) are formally encouraged to abandon where they live, campaign in strong areas, and leave weak local parties well alone.

  As I understand it, one can currently be a member of any local party, regardless of where you live, and there’s enough information on a regional level of what’s going on round about if you’re interested in it. And local parties should encourage people to get out a bit more too.

  But similarly, if you’re keen, engaged, have some spare time on your hands, then I think the party should encourage you to be active locally – either where you live or where you work – as it’s only through constant, consistent work and good people that we can turn around those areas we underperform in.

• MatGB 19th Dec '07 - 7:14pm

  Ah, you’re looking at it from the perspective of recruiting more existing activists. I’m looking at it from the perspective of semi-active armchair members (which is what I really am).

  People who feel like they’d like to be more involved, but aren’t currently. And no, it’s not that I wanted to do more locally (as in Merton), more that I probably could have done more in London, or for the party overall. And I’m not looking at it from the “stripping out local parties” thing, more that people like me (and even less active than me) who can’t really count as a local activist, may be better in a more regional group of similarly minded, and help out in ways they feel they can, without the purely ‘local’ stuff.

  I know, from the perspective of a politics geek, that local campaigning and leafletting and similar is essential, we need local councillors in order to get more votes, etc etc etc.

  But, if I’m completely honest, it bores me, and it likely bores others as well (and they won’t be as aware of the importance as me). Apply the economics principle use comparative advantage. Local level stuff, bin collection, etc is bloody important, but I care not. Hence I’m involved online—and I’m planning to get more involved online (Alix’s post today for example).

  We need some way of keeping potential occasional activists involved that isn’t ‘local’, because while that is essential, it’s not for everyone, and puts some people off.

  Credit though: You got me to do more campaigning in the 9 months I lived here than the 4 years I lived in my previous LP, they never even contacted me to chase me when I lapsed, and they definitely had my address change, I checked.

  Advantages and drawbacks. I shall think on this I think.

• Grammar Police 19th Dec '07 - 8:26pm

  Fair enough, but is campaigning on a regional level actually any different to campaigning on a local level? What could you have done for London or the Party that you couldn’t have done in some form for the local group?

  Indeed, we need people with a more regional-based eye to make sure that our campaigns (and by this I don’t just mean Focuses – a Focus is just a newsletter, a campaign is doing things that actually change people’s lives) aren’t just all about bin collection or damaged pavements.

• Grammar Police 19th Dec '07 - 8:28pm

  I think we need to get local parties away from thinking that “local” campaigning means just bins and pavements – this is boring to many people.

• Laurence Boyce 19th Dec '07 - 8:38pm

  Thanks Millennium, you’re a REAL STAR! I’d very much like to be on the list notwithstanding the fact that the terms seem to exclude me as well as Jennie. If you could get around this, I would do my write up either for LDV or as a Facebook note.

• Jennie 19th Dec '07 - 8:42pm

  * pokes Laurence *

  You’ve got fluff on your tongue 😉

• MatGB 19th Dec '07 - 8:57pm

  Oh! Matron!

  @ Grammar: I don’t, honestly, know. I did do some admin work at Cowley St (mostly the voluntary stuff was Conferences), and probably could have done more, and I suspect more could be done at London region or similar.

  Plus, yes, I think we need to do more local campaigning on national issies, ID cards & NIR would be a good current issue with the recent data losses, etc.

  I guess it’s not just what could I have done, but what could the party make use of at a local, semi-local (ie nearest 4-5 constituencies not London as a whole), etc. Not just what is being done, but what could be done if we had the hands. I suspect we currently recurit volunteers for regional stuff from exisitng LP volunteers, maybe there is potential to get volunteers directly that haven’t done stuff before?

  London or SW London Focus-style news blog? Administrative assistance, tracking members when they move within the region, sharing articles for Focus, etc?

  And other things that we’ve got members (and indeed supporters) with the skills for that I wouldn’t even think of.

• Alex Wilcock 2nd Mar '08 - 10:55pm

  And another bump for the opportunity to interview top Lib Dems either for your own blog, or to write it up here!

  To recap Millennium, above: the people short-listed for the Liberal Democrat Blogger of the Year Award were invited to interview Ming last September; my beloved Richard, at Millennium’s behest, then did all the work of organising interviews with the two Leadership candidates (more time and effort than you might think!); then the first bunch of us decided to open it up first to the prize-winners from the other categories, then – as Richard’s been organising more of them – Millennium’s post above was the next attempt to open up the interview panel, followed by the invite to join in for Ed Davey (when the first two people to volunteer on LDV and one who got in touch directly got to turn up alongside some of the original crew – and so could you!).

  As this is the most-read Lib Dem blogging site, it seemed the best place to put the invites, rather than just the ego-and-stats-boosting option of us just mentioning it on our own blogs. So keep your eyes peeled for when the next one comes up.

• Alex Wilcock 2nd Mar '08 - 11:29pm

  (DEEP BREATH)

  OK, now, I don’t like having a go at another Lib Dem, particularly one I’ve not met and who may be very nice in real life, but there are two things I dislike more: someone having a go at the man I love (well, everyone’s protective of their loved ones); and cowardly attacks without naming people but when everyone knows who the attack’s on, which offends my sense of natural justice. If I set out to criticise someone, I do it in my own name and name them outright so they can reply, rather than spreading bile like a gutless worm. And I admit I made a little sideswipe earlier, so here’s something open, honest and attributable.

  So, let’s be clear: do not be put off applying here by the self-aggrandising innuendo of Norfolk Blogger Nich Starling, who thinks he’s not good enough for a general invitation and had to have a special personal one. Because the only possible alternative explanation is that there’s a secret cabal of people offered special favours to suck up to the establishment and expressly martyr Mr Starling (rolls eyes).

  If you’re reading this, chances are you’re involved in politics. And, look, you know things don’t happen by magic, don’t you? Someone has to get their finger out and do it, and hard work gets results where sitting and whingeing doesn’t. Why, then, do these interviews take place?

  Because Richard had the idea and took it upon himself to do all the work: everything from chasing MPs’ diary secretaries to buying the doughnuts. And other people than the six who were short-listed come along because Richard did the work of getting out invites on here for everyone to read, after starting this discussion about how to invite people.

  Why doesn’t Mr Starling interview top Lib Dems?

  There are two possible explanations.

  Is it because, as he claims, there is a secret (widely publicised on Lib Dem Voice) cabal of people who have (unnamed and so handily unprovable) friends in high places and are hand-picked from people who are slavish apologists for the establishment (no, no, don’t titter, madam, you might even believe it if you’ve never, ever read any of the blogs in question, though it’s ironic that the only one Mr Starling links to is James Graham’s tearing Ed Davey into pieces – gosh, James, what are you like when you say what you really think?), all of them part of a London-only elite (like Jonathan from Market Harborough, Linda from Bedfordshire, Jonny from Oxford and Manchester, etc, etc…)?

  Or is it because he didn’t bother asking to come along when Millennium asked for volunteers, has never, ever dropped Millennium a line, and can’t be bothered to organise any interviews of his own, believing it more productive to pour poisonous and ludicrous accusations on the people who actually bothered to do something positive and, by implication, particularly the person who does all the work?

  Only you, dear reader, can unpick this impossible conundrum to discover the truth.

  But seriously, please, if you want a fair, free and open Liberal Democrats, don’t be put off. If you, too, have stayed up too late at night reading The Da Vinci Code, you’re of course free to believe there’s some shadowy conspiracy, but it’s one to which everyone has been invited, and will continue to be.

  I decided to reply to this open invitation to make the point, and to make it where it’s likely to be read by the largest number of Lib Dems. And, I’ll be frank, because I raised an eyebrow at replying on Mr Starling’s blog, which is subject to his censorship and which would be a reply to a post he’s already put weasel words into since his initial outburst in an effort to make what he said look less daft. It’s no less nasty, though (as I write, at least!): no apology; no constructive suggestions; just changing some of the facts to cover his a**e while still having a go at other people for no reason.

  Now, I’ve never met Mr Starling. Most of what he writes isn’t much to my taste, though I’ve quoted him approvingly a few times on my blog when he’s written stuff I thought was good. I’ve got no axe to grind, no chip on my shoulder, and he’s never run over my dog. But I might read him more often if there was less self-righteous paranoia; sometimes he writes like anyone who doesn’t acknowledge that he, personally, is the greatest thing since sliced bread must be part of a global conspiracy against him. What other reason could there be? Well… Some people just have different tastes. That’s the point of blogging, surely?

  So, Mr Starling, if you’re reading – chill! Not everyone has to conform to the view that you’re the greatest blogger on Earth, but that doesn’t mean they have anything against you. And it takes poverty of imagination to assume that if you don’t get a special personal invite, there’s some inner cabal that lives only to get at you. But what really gets my goat is you trying to enforce your ignorance on other people by telling everyone that only some secret group gets to interview the top Lib Dems. And just why was your first response to accuse other Lib Dems of everything under the sun rather than, you know, ask someone for the facts? Play nice. If you can get to London the day the next interview takes place and you volunteer early, you’ll be coming along. If for some reason you can never leave Norfolk, why not organise interviews of your own with Lib Dems there? Or do an interview live online? But if you’re just too grand to read Lib Dem Voice like all the rest of us and too lazy to do any work yourself, don’t into yet another drama queeny strop.

  Reader, if you have a Lib Dem blog or are a Lib Dem willing to write up your interview for Lib Dem Voice, seize your chance to interview people through the interviews Richard organises. And if you aren’t first to volunteer and don’t get a place, try again, or – here’s a thought – why not pick a Lib Dem MP and interview them yourself rather than expecting it all to be handed to you on a silver platter? That’s what Richard does, after all.

• Alex Wilcock 3rd Mar '08 - 9:19am

  A very happy Libdemday to all of you at home, or work, or out on your mobiles!

  And in case you’ve been agog for the next instalment of all this, I posted a little something on Mr Starling’s blog last night in reply to his third re-write (if anyone wants a copy of what he originally said, drop me an e-mail and I’ll send it!); it’s not got through his wall of censorship yet. I’ve had a few messages this morning saying they’re in the same limbo.

  But do feel free to defend him, attack me, or vice versa, or – even better – to make some positive suggestions about how to improve the marvellous example of bottom-up, do-it-yourself Liberal Democracy in action that is the bloggers’ interview, do post here. Not only is LDV widely read, but you aren’t reliant on someone deciding whether you’re important enough to be allowed to speak 😉

• Jennie 3rd Mar '08 - 11:12am

  At the risk of being labelled a whinger, Alex: I think it’s rather misleading to call anything you, Richard, or Millenium do “bottom up action”.

  * veers wildly to resist the horrendously bad taste joke that’s looming in her subconscious *

  To copy and paste your section of my morning rant:

  “I’m angry with Alex Wilcock for thinking that being in your mid thirties is “middle-aged” and who blogs extensively about how he’s not in a privileged position in the Lib Dems, despite having been a member for the entire life of the party, being a big name in LDYS for most of those years, being the youngest ever member of the federal policy committee, etc.. I’m willing to believe that it’s possible for anyone to get as far as they like in the Lib Dems if only they put the work in, but it’s not always possible or even desirable to sacrifice your life to the extent that’s necessary just on the off chance that you might be one of the lucky ones who gets noticed. And it’s ALWAYS the guy at or near the top who says “well, I’m just an ordinary person and I did it, so you can too!”. Nobody ever listens to the several who fell by the wayside or got bogged down in real life and didn’t make it.”

  Do come and comment: http://community.livejournal.com/theyorkshergob/50376.html. I could do with a good argument, and a nice Who-loving intellectual like yourself should give me a good one 😉

• Alex Wilcock 3rd Mar '08 - 12:23pm

  At the risk of just becoming the guy who rushes at anyone who has a go at Richard to beat them about the head…

  Fair dos for not saying I’m a bottom-up activist (and for a morning spot of innuendo), but I wasn’t referring to me – I was referring to the way the bloggers’ interviews are organised. As much-stated above, the first one was a combination of Ming and the Blogger Award judges; very top-down, then. But since then, they’ve all been organised by Richard, who holds no party office and didn’t know a single one of the MPs’ staff members he had to keep ringing and e-mailing in some cases for weeks at a time to sort out a booking (come to think of it, I didn’t know them either, with one exception). He doesn’t work in the Palace of Westminster or any party body, and he’s had to learn how to get in touch with people entirely as he goes along. He’s definitely not been ringing MPs with the words “My other half is a member of the Federal Policy Committee, so I am an important person!” because he’s neither Hyacinth Bucket nor an idiot (and if I’d done any of the organising, I wouldn’t have done anything so absurd either).

  So in what way is what he’s been doing not bottom-up activism, exactly, even ignoring the anyone-who-asks-first appeals for other people to come along? He’s an ordinary member who has an elephant who blogs, and does a load of volunteer work to make sure these interviews happen, and other than the Ming thing, he’s had the same starting point as anyone else who might have done it (but didn’t): find out who the people are he needs to contact and keep pestering them until they give in, then juggle everyone’s times and try to get a room booked somewhere. Yes, some MPs have been very willing, but it’s not party grandees who’ve done the legwork.

  As I’ve said before, if anyone wants to organise the same sort of thing, no doubt they can, if they want to put the work in… It’s just that no-one else has, that’s all.

  ((HUGS)) and I’ve replied to your morning rant at the bottom of it!

• Jennie 3rd Mar '08 - 12:57pm

  “didn’t know a single one of the MPs’ staff members he had to keep ringing and e-mailing in some cases for weeks at a time to sort out a booking…”

  No, but he had the time and inclination and determination to do that (and this is where my grapes get sour again). And even if he didn’t /know/ them I bet they’d heard of him, and I bet more than one of them reads Millennium. The Lib Dem pond isn’t THAT big, or I wouldn’t have made the ripples I have, and Millennium is one of the biggest fluffy elephant-shaped fish in it.

  (for good reason, IMHO. His was the first Lib Dem blog I ever read, if you don’t count Mat’s, and it’s still in my top three)

• Alex Wilcock 3rd Mar '08 - 1:18pm

  Jennie, you’re having an angry morning, I’m having an angry morning, so I don’t want to wade in with my Richard-protecting club again (and I don’t have your e-mail to be pacific and huggy), so I’ll be shorter. Please stop moving the goalposts about what you’re saying. It’s nic that you like Millennium – I’ll tell him – but your logic seems to mean that the second someone does anything in public and might therefore be recognised, they’re one of the inner circle. Which is batsh*t-crazy. “He had the time and inclination and determination…” Well, so bleedin’ what? How does that stop it being bottom-up activism? He made the time! When he’s doing this stuff, I’m lucky if he gets home by nine, and he’s knackered! So here’s a question: when someone puts themselves out without any pay or any leg-ups, what makes hard work so despicable? What about a “thank you” instead?

  (Stuffs large amount of chocolate in mouth and goes to stick head under cold shower)

• MatGB 3rd Mar '08 - 1:23pm

  Oh look, Nich is being an arse (again). Reminds me why I rarely read him, I only ever did when I was reading Mr Dale’s whitewash (sorry, Diary), and the Lib Dem Blogger that’s Tory approved isn’t a label I’d want.

  (not getting involved in the other discussion, I think you’ve both got a point)

• Jennie 3rd Mar '08 - 1:27pm

  Sorry for goal-post moving. Logic is not strong in me today. Or ever, probably.

  Even shorter: I’m not saying it’s despicable that he has the time/inclination, etc. I’m saying I’m jealous that I haven’t, because I’d really quite like to.

  I’m also jealous that you can have chocolate (I’m allergic).

  Still, I’m writing a nice vitriolic post ripping into Nadine Dorries for thereapeutic purposes.

• Alex Wilcock 3rd Mar '08 - 2:24pm

  Thanks Mat for pouring balm, and thanks Jennie; sorry for being a grouch. Everyone else can stop wincing now. Meanwhile, how do you cope – other than punching Nadine Dorries, which does indeed sound therapeutic – without chocolate? There are many days I simply wouldn’t get through without industrial quantities of the stuff.

  Now, if anyone would like to make any happy, sparkly positive suggests for Millennium, who’s been shaking his head at me all morning…