Jeremy Corbyn

Looks like a new suit. Very smart but should have cut the label off. Purple tie for Lent too...amazing

It's his stump speech

Do you think the purple is to woo the kippers?

EDIT: Ah, International Women's Day - didn't know it had a colour.

Thornbury only just staying awake and Robertson is just in dismay/WTF is going on mode!

Becky L-B simply looks lost.

T'wit too woo....?

Can't imagine what you might mean.

Naughty edit 😉

Watch mine now..

God this speech is so bad..

Hammond just sitting back looking at the ceiling...

When he's got a proper suit on, he looks like a disgraced former geography teacher who's been told by his union rep to bloody well smarten himself up, as if he loses this industrial tribunal, he'll lose his pension as well as his job!

Our economy is not ready for breakfast!

Hammond can expect to get really dumped on re: the NIC hike - politically courageous, many journalists are freelancers and will be effected.

many journalists are freelancers and will be effected.

Typololz

NI dodging is one of the swerves of the self employed, good to see its been addressed.

I'm glad Corbyn used the word Breakfast today as it's synonymous with his leadership, Breakfast of the Dog's variety

aracer a while back there was an argument here about how tax in UK wasn't progressive so I did my own spreadsheet from something like 10k pa upto £250k. As income rose then so did the rate of tax paid. Where it gets fuzzy is with the self employed inc people who start a business and then sell it - 15% tax paid on millions/billions. However when we speak about PAYE the system is progressive.

We have less VAT in UK than most of the EU so you could argue bringing us back yo then"norm" would be regressive but we are the outlier. A bastion of progressiveness under the Tories 😉

aracer a while back there was an argument here about how tax in UK wasn't progressive so I did my own spreadsheet from something like 10k pa upto £250k. As income rose then so did the rate of tax paid

I'd like to have seen that spreadsheet as a regressive tax system must included all taxes as a percentage of income. Not just income tax.

You need to add in Vat , council tax, fuel duty , NI, insurance premium tax etc to complete the picture.

Income tax alone could be considered progressive but not the UK tax system.

Did the 259k figures also include pension contributions and other wealth management strategies to minimise tax?

The UK tax (and benefits) system is progressive

The UK tax (and benefits) system is progressive

How can it be. Lots of tax is levied at the same rate for rich and poor thereby eating into lower earners money more.

Also, council tax for instance doesn't proportionally increase with the value of the house.

Explain why you believe the tax 'system' to be progressive?

Please?

@rone, was income tax only as more than that gets quite subjective. As essentials like rent and food are vat free and utilities charged at a lower rate and any welfare/benefits are paid tax free the picture is quite complex. Then add in that lower paid get free access to NHS etc effectively paid for by others. Also as richer people tend to spend more money on "lifetsyle" they are paying a lot of VAT. The top 1% are paying 27% of income taxes, the notion that somehow that's not enough/unfair is bonkers. What Gov should be doingbis cracking down on avoidance (eg offshore corporates, gig economy and "service companies" which the likes of TV and Sports people abuse)

Did the 259k figures also include pension contributions and other wealth management strategies to minimise ta

No as above too subjective also low and behold people might be incentivised to save and not be a burden on the state / have money to spend in the economy in their retirement. As I posted beofre I saved quite a bit in my pension but I can get no where near the benenfits Corbyn has as his pension at £1.6m is way above the £1.2m threshold before punative tax rates kick in. Those on lower incomes with state pension provision could be argued to be on a negative tax rate as their pension costs far more to fund than they ever pay in tax and NI. Never mind the NHS.

@rone "council tax" was never supposed to be a tax which is why it's called Community Charge. Its to pay for services like rubbish collection which are not dependent upon property value.

@rone "council tax" was never supposed to be a tax which is why it's called Community Charge. Its to pay for services like rubbish collection which are not dependent upon property value.

Errm

The Community Charge was abolished in 1990 and replaced with Council Tax, which is most definitely based on property value.

[i]No as above too subjective also low and behold people might be incentivised to save and not be a burden on the state / have money to spend in the economy in their retirement. As I posted beofre I saved quite a bit in my pension but I can get no where near the benenfits Corbyn has as his pension at £1.6m is way above the £1.2m threshold before punative tax rates kick in. Those on lower incomes with state pension provision could be argued to be on a negative tax rate as their pension costs far more to fund than they ever pay in tax and NI. Never mind the NHS. [/I]

Yes, but this applies to ANYONE with a final salary pension, it's about a 2:1 factor in their favour over with only money-purchase type funds.

Obviously not unfair enough for Hammand to do anything about it...

I listened to John Macdonell being interviewed on Radio 4 this morning. He was talking about the burden of taxation, how its distributed, who does (and doesn't) pay what and the priorities of this government.

I found myself agreeing with pretty much everything he said.

does this mean I'm now a Marxist? 😯

Easy to say the right thing when you're not in Govt and never will be.

Well what do you want? Policies? Alternatives? I think you've forgotten the purpose of the present labour party...

[img] [/img]

No, even worse binners, it makes you a Tory.

Look back at policy not rhetoric and the difference between the two is negligible barring Labour's silly 50p MRT stunt. And yes, that was a Stunt, not sensible policy.

The tax take is generally pretty consistent over time with changes in make up that tend to transcend party policies. There are exceptions, like the evil death tax, but these are at the margin not the core.

was income tax only as more than that gets quite subjective.

Then you would agree the the tax system is regressive? Given IT only makes up 30% of the tax take.

I would disagree on subjective - basically more complex maths - which is by design.

Then add in that lower paid get free access to NHS etc effectively paid for by others.

Lower earners don't contribute to the NHS?

Also as richer people tend to spend more money on "lifetsyle" they are paying a lot of VAT.

They don't spend more as a percentage of the earnings though. That is what by very definition is a regressive tax system.

Not enough to pay for the services they use. My point was in relation to the tax burden, we hear that low earners are disproportionally impacted by taxes like VAT yet at the same time they are consuming more services than they are paying for.

@mike on pension tax relief so as a private sector defined contribution employee I should not get tax relief on my saving (max £1.2m which buys a pension of about £40k) whereas for example a state defined benefit employee like an MP or an NHS Surgeon has total tax free gold plated pension worth £1.6-£2m (pensions of £50k-£60k pa)

Rone the "rich" are spending on VATable items whereas low income person is spending largely on VAT free.

I've stayed out of this to avoid getting bogged down, but unless I missed something a bit earlier (there's a lot of this thread I've not read) talk of regressive tax was introduced by me in response to jamba suggesting VAT on food as a tax everybody would pay. I'm not personally desperately interested in discussion of whether the tax system as a whole is regressive or progressive (and I wouldn't necessarily trust the conflicting analysis of various economists with agendas).

So would anybody like to suggest that levying VAT on food wouldn't be a regressive tax? Hence that only seems a sensible idea to the honourable member for Clacton and those who share his particular political persuasions.

It's not regressive but granted the arguments as used by the LDs and equality trust are quite clever in being plausible at face value if ultimately misleading and meaningless

[quote=jambalaya ]Not enough to pay for the services they use. My point was in relation to the tax burden, we hear that low earners are disproportionally impacted by taxes like VAT yet at the same time they are consuming more services than they are paying for.

That's completely ****ing irrelevant. Everybody uses services, that's the whole point of a state which provides services, they're not doled out based upon your ability to pay.

[quote=teamhurtmore ]It's not regressive but granted the arguments as used by the LDs and equality trust are quite clever in being plausible at face value if ultimately misleading and meaningless

VAT on food? THM wins the prize.

Can I just check, do you mean that it's not regressive by [s]Captain Rum's[/s] your definition of regressive, or do you mean that the poor wouldn't pay a higher proportion of their income on VAT on food?

I was talking to rone

I will respond to your errors later but have meetings now

[s]Blue [/s]Red steel
[img] [/img]

That's completely **** irrelevant. Everybody uses services, that's the whole point of a state which provides services, they're not doled out based upon your ability to pay

Another 20 years of the Tory government and they will be. Assuming Corbyn doesn't unite the country behind him in the next few years.

Jess Phillips confirms that she would run for leader

I'm putting this on record, despite significant political differences, I would vote for her tomorrow!

I will respond to your errors later but have meetings now

Form a queue, morons! 🙂

[s]Blue[/s] Red steel

Shirley "Red steal", no ?

I'm putting this on record, despite significant political differences, I would vote for her tomorrow!

Well I wouldn't go [b]quite[/b] as far as that but she is excellent. I suppose thats exactly why the Labour Party have done all they can to sideline the sort of people we might vote for.

@aracer my point was in relation to the regressive tax argument, i think the "breakeven" are people that earn around £37k. They pay enough tax to pay for the services they use, note that includes a pro-rata share of corporate taxes and is for ONE person only. Yes of course we have a system which means everyone is entitled to the services and I support that 100%. My point is when campaigners talk of "inequality" and an "unfair" tax system when in fact the people at the bottom are significant net beneficiaries of it.

Most of Europe has VAT on food already.

Form a queue, morons!

Oi, I'm first in line

OK rone, lets explain why the UK has a progressive tax and benefits system and why the otherwise well-meaning people at the Equality Trust and the Lib Dems are telling porkies to make their false point.

Before the numbers, an important caveat: [b]It is (at beast) misleading to consider individual taxes in isolation[/b]

Ok the hard numbers:

Original Income: [b]Top quintile earns 14x the bottom quintile in the UK[/b]

Post tax and benefits income: [b]top quartile earns 4x the bottom quintile[/b]

Ergo - [b]the system is progressive[/b]. If you are interested you can go through each step from original income to final income from the ONS website, I cant be bothered here. It drops off at each stage except good old indirect taxes!!

So far, so good - lets look at the old stat that shows that the bottom Q pays more tax as a percentage of income than the top Q

The typical numbers:

Bottom quintile: Gross income 13.8k; direct tax 1.5k, indirect tax 3.6k, total tax 5.2k ie 37% of gross income
Top quartile: 83.8.7k, 19.8k; 10k; 29.8k ie 34% of gross income

ITS AN OUTRAGE - poor people pay 37%, rich bastards only pay 34%. REVOLUTION TIME!

But hold on one moment

What is gross income?

It is original income (your pay) PLUS any cash benefits - alarm bells should now be ringing

In the case of the bottom Q, the gross income of 13.8k is made up of 6.1k of original income and 7.7k of cash benefits

The clue is in the title - cash benefits

So the bottom Q gets 7.7 in cash benefits ie, a transfer from the state
They pay back to the state 5.1k
[b]They have a surplus of 2.5k from the state[/b] - yes they get back more from the state than they pay in both taxes combined. In actual fact their tax ratio is negative or should be.

So the LDs and ET either (1) dont understand how the numbers are made up or (2) are deliberately misleading people - you decide

FWIW the bottom two quintiles receive more in cash benefits than they pay back in taxes

Ill do VAT another time!!

[I]That's completely **** irrelevant. Everybody uses services, that's the whole point of a state which provides services, they're not doled out based upon your ability to pay. [/I]

In Jamba's defence he didn't say they were, just pointing out that there'll be a cutoff at tax/NI/VAT etc paid where below it you just don't cover what you cost. It's not a political statement, just fact.

And as people live longer (and most then generate large NHS-type costs) the cut-off will rise.

I've seen this with my Dad, even though he always had a well-paid job (ran a car factory) no way did he pay enough to cover the NHS-type costs he 'generated' in the last 5 years of his life.

John McD is giving The Donald a run for his money on making wild claims (well really he is mixing up debt and deficit buy hey ho he is only the Shadow Chancellor). A tax (ie smash and grab raid) of 20% of the ASSETS of the top 10% of the country (bound to include almost every NHS consultant and in fact most of fhe NHS GPs I know in the SE are in top 10% based on property value alone.

This isn't Torygrapgh spin he said it on camera at a Labour Party meeting

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/09/revealed-john-mcdonnell-calls-20-per-cent-wealth-tax-richest/

WHat are you objecting to exactly ?

is it just that you are one of the top 10% and you want to keep your money for yourself rather than help those much less fortunate than yourself?

You dont care if folk have to eat from foodbanks and cannot switch the gas on in winter

The reality is we have great inequality and for the small number of winners we have vast numbers of losers. I have never understood why folk only look at the rich and dont care about the poor or whey they think making the rich pay so that we have less poor is a such a bad idea

Could you explain the morality to me?

So John Macdonell, the shadow chancellor, and Jeremy's right hand man, was meant to be on QT tonight, the day after the budget, but isn't because.....

he missed his flight.

You really couldn't make it up!

Kind of serves as the perfect analogy for the present labour leadership

[img] [/img]

*awaits pictures of him in the pub with Dianne*

[quote=b r ]In Jamba's defence he didn't say they were, just pointing out that there'll be a cutoff at tax/NI/VAT etc paid where below it you just don't cover what you cost. It's not a political statement, just fact.

It's still irrelevant to the regressive/progressive nature of the tax system which is what he was trying to suggest it should be factored into. I'm not going to argue with THM's assessment though, because I tend to think it's correct to factor in the net transfer of money from somebody to the government - after all a tax allowance has fundamentally the same effect as a benefit payment. Though to some extent it's all missing the point because even in an overall progressive system there can still be taxes which are regressive and there's certainly a good argument to be made that a more progressive system than we currently have would be a good thing.

BTW as we're already completely OT I'll just mention one of my bugbears of political commentary - the Lib Dems still get slated for breaking their promise on University fees when the system they were responsible for introducing was far more progressive than the system it replaced and only detrimental to those earning well above national average wage. I'm still not sure why [s]lefties[/s] those with a social conscience think it's such a bad thing.

The reality is we have great inequality and for the small number of winners we have vast numbers of losers. I have never understood why folk only look at the rich and dont care about the poor or whey they think making the rich pay so that we have less poor is a such a bad idea
[b]Could you explain the morality to me?[/b]

Repeatedly smacking yer head in to a brick wall there, fella.

I'll never understand them so i dont try. Its like the mentality of the spoilt kid in the playground taking his ball because the games not going their way.
I dont think right wing mentalities ever had the opportunity to mature

The key issue Aracer is, to repeat, stripping out the effect on one part of the tax system is unhelpful and misleading. Individual tax policies may well be regressive - true - but is a mole away from rone's claim that we have a regressive system, We don't.

Well I think some of us are arguing different things and I've certainly never claimed the whole system is regressive.

However to go back to where I think this part of the discussion started (with Carswell's taxman's cheque strawman) jamba suggested spreading the burden of paying more tax on everybody by introducing a tax which is regressive in nature when taken by itself. It is useful to discuss the nature of just one part of the tax system in this case because it tells you what effect introducing it would have on the progressive nature of the whole system. Introducing a new regressive tax must have the effect of making the system as a whole less progressive (which I still think is a bad thing irrespective of whether the system as a whole remains progressive).

@mike on pension tax relief so as a private sector defined contribution employee I should not get tax relief on my saving (max £1.2m which buys a pension of about £40k) whereas for example a state defined benefit employee like an MP or an NHS Surgeon has total tax free gold plated pension worth £1.6-£2m (pensions of £50k-£60k pa)

Love to see you and JRM taking your message to the people of somewhere like Sunderland

I know you didnt and also that I didn't get back to addressing your question directly. I think we agree on "all food" (and bravo for avoiding the jaffa cake trap, there was q a good questioned primed there 😉 ) even if we are disagreeing on how regressive etc should be used!!! Personally, the debate about whether VAT in aggregate is progressive or regressive is intersting but it's technical and a bit dull.

Hopefully shakes hands on this 😉

[quote=teamhurtmore ]even if we are disagreeing on how regressive etc should be used!!!

I was hoping you might note the exact wording I used when describing the [b]nature [/b]of the tax concerned - thought that might be a way around that one. Anyway I'm not the one suggesting that benefits have the nature of a highly progressive tax 😉

>Blue Red steel

Shirley "Red steal", no ?

Given that they are not a tax why would they?

(Joking about odd English !!)

An update on Comrade Johns non-appearence (again) on last nights Question Time. Apparently he didn't miss his flight...

[i]The Labour MP tweeted: “Four hour delay on train & flights full, so sorry to miss @bbcquestiontime. Jinxed! Won't have this problem when we renationalise the railways."[/i]

Poor bugger. Him and Jezza don't seem to do too well with transport generally, do they? Well.... it'll all be fine when they do renationalise the railways. Who doesn't go misty-eyed for the good old days of the ruthless, almost germanic efficiency of Britsh rail

We don't know at this point whether the dog had also eaten his homework, or he had caught Dianne's migraine

Good point as no one has ever been delayed by something going wrong on the trains and if they are its almost definitely their fault

I assume his claim is fairly easy to check and rebut with actual facts.

FFS is this what it has come to - he was held up on the train so we criticise him for this
#scrappingthebarrel

Good point as no one has ever been delayed by something going wrong on the trains and if they are its almost definitely their fault

Pity - it would have been good to see him on the show.

[i]The Labour MP tweeted: “Four hour delay on train & flights full, so sorry to miss @bbcquestiontime. Jinxed! Won't have this problem when we renationalise the railways."[/I]

Only Sunderland, could've got a car there easily enough.

He's the shadow chancellor. He wants to be the chancellor. It was the day after the budget. He's meant to be on the countries weekly flagship political programme.

You seriously think 'the dog ate my homework, sir' is acceptable?

last time he was meant to be on it he did the same.

And this on top of Dianne's famous migraine, and none of them bothering to turn up for the meeting of the PLP after the Copeland defeat, because they were in the pub down the road.

Serious politicians, treading the path to government? Or a bunch of 6th formers playing at it, treading the path to the common room to wave some placards and moan about everything being, like, SOOOOOOO not fair?

Any idea on how nationalising the railways prevents damage to overhead power lines ?

Only Sunderland, could've got a car there easily enough.

Don't you remember? Labour voters don't have cars.

You seriously think 'the dog ate my homework, sir' is acceptable?

There is tons of stuff to hate and attack them for why bother to clutch at such trivial straws

Only Sunderland, could've got a car there easily enough.

Again its really not inconceivable that events beyond his control caused him to miss the event so its a pretty weak attack that serves only to show [ forgive me for the phrase] haterz going to hate

JY much as I admire everyone in the common room sticking up for poor old Jeremy - its quite sweet - this is just yet another example of the Laurel and Hardy-esque ineptitude and total weapons grade incompetence that make the idea of them ever forming a govenment a frankly laughable proposition. Hence their present catastrophic, yet still nose-diving polling figures

I'd like you to put me in charge of the countries economy, despite me not having the wherewithal to get myself from London to Sunderland for a very important appointment I've known about for weeks. Vote for me!

Erm... no!

"To be fair to binners, JMcD did say problems would be solved by renationalisation. When the problem he had was Network Rail's problem - the publicly owned Network Rail that is."

I think that was a joke, it's not a serious statement.

However if the Chancellor hasn't got the initiative/resourcefulness to get himself to Sunderland there's a serious problem. So I suspect it was an excuse. Wonder why?

Does a person actually need an excuse to not go to Sunderland?

Only Sunderland, could've got a car there easily enough

Depends when he started, I guess? Perhaps he was relying on the train running to schedule(*) and when the delay was announced it was already too late?

(*) naive, I agree.

Given that the BBC gave the reason as him having missed his flight, then it was the trains, I reckon its safe to assume he just didn't fancy it. like last time he was meant to be on QT, but never materialised

It'll just be the usual. They don't do preaching to the unconverted. Like the glorious leader himself, the only members of the public they're interested in meeting are the 6th formers at Momentum meetings. Real people are horrid anyway. They might ask awkward questions, or say nasty things about Jeremy

Much better to stay in the Islington bunker, and keep telling yourself ....Largest mass membership of any political party in Europe... blah, blah, blah....

Repeat until inevitable electoral armageddon

this is just yet another example of the Laurel and Hardy-esque ineptitude and total weapons grade incompetence that make the idea of them ever forming a govenment a frankly laughable

"Depends when he started, I guess? Perhaps he was relying on the train running to schedule(*) and when the delay was announced it was already too late?"

The obvious thing would be helicopter charter. I'm sure the BBC and Labour Party Budgets would stretch to that given the circumstances.

Mike you have totally avoided the point. Why should people who actually save for their retirement/pensions via Defined Benefit schemes be put at a massive disadvantage to those who do not. This is your proposal, why so ?

Our tax system under this Tory government and the Labour ones before it is far more progressive (by the measure of posters here) than are France, Germany, Hollamd, Belgium, Spain etc

"the trains were not running, the planes were full, it was too far to get there by car"

Are you seriously claiming that public transport or road are the only ways to get about?

If he'd have truly wanted to be there, he'd have been there. He's not flying to new Zealand FFS! He's going to the other end of the M1

Like Dianne's migraine, its blatantly obvious that its just some bullshit 'dog ate my homework' excuse. He just didn't fancy leaving the comfort of the echo chamber. As usual. They all seem terrified of encountering any of the actual electorate. hence the endless Momentum meetings being the only places they're seen, preaching to the rapidly dwindling fan club

He just didn't fancy leaving the comfort of the echo chamber. As usual.

Sorry, my irony-meter just blew a fuse. How many times on this thread are you going to say exactly the same thing?

BA run 6 flights a day from LHR to Newcastle.
BE run three flights a day from Southampton to Newcastle

He chickened out.

The shame of it is that he would have been sitting next to the forensically-focused Fraser Nelson.

That would have been worth watching. 😆

its blatantly obvious that its just some bullshit 'dog ate my homework' excuse

Politely go away and do this as until then its just you ranting as per usual about anything they do or do not do.

The same to the Captain

Again they are pretty inept why go to the effort to clutch at sch pathetic straws and make shit up to attack them

you just make yourself look silly and i cannot be arsed simply repeating this to you

Prove your claim or STFU

FWIW BA have two seats today before 5 and none after - they also only list 4 flights. I cannot check yesterday s it may depend on when he found out

If you do get some evidence lets see it - though i suspect you dont need facts to get in the way of your wailing- aimed more at binners than the CPT - Binners the cpt is being more rational than you about labour....think about it ...actually both of you think about it :Wink:

https://www.britishairways.com/travel/fx/public/en_gb?eId=111011&timestamp=0310111239&source=LowPriceFinderGraph&from=LON&to=NCL&depDate=10/03/17&retDate=11/03/17&cabin=M&journeytype=RT&restrictionType=LOWEST&source=LowPriceFinderGraph&ad=2&ya=0&ch=0&inf=0

"One can check whether the trains were delayed and whether the planes were full"

False dichotomy.

Again they are pretty inept why go to the effort to clutch at sch pathetic straws and make shit up to attack them

What it comes down to JY is that I quite fancy living in a country with a functioning opposition, and at least the vague possibility that we're not going to be permanently ruled by an increasingly right wing Tory party.

One can check whether the trains were delayed and whether the planes were full

Can one? One won't bother thanks. Like pretty much everyone outside the common room, I heard that cobblers announced by Dimbleby at the start of the programme, and thought "yeah... right. Bottled it, more like"

Politics is about perception. One can check Twitter etc to see the incredulity/hilarity/mockery it caused. About the same as Dianne's famous migraine 😀

This is not even worth discussing as I have pointed out elsewhere the Labour Party membership is wholly aware that they can not secure the vote of the middle ground nor do they want to. Their underlying fear is actually being in power, the membership wants to be an effective disruptive party with enough seats to cause problems (and keep the cash flowing) this is a position that no far left political party has achieved in Europe to date - that is Jeremy's desire. I have said it before the PLP MPs need to resign en masse and let the membership get on with it. It's no use harking back to the Labour Party of the 40s we live in a completely different country that has been reshaped by Thatcher and Blair.

It's going to be 5 years before "Brexit" dawns on the poor sods that voted it in, at that point there may be sufficient pain to make people look for a new political party as the false promises and the reality of a low corporate tax (higher personal tax) unaffordable housing, inflation and 100% employment minimum wage really bite.

I still can't believe that people can't see what the **** is going on the two tax increases in the budget are NIA and Dividend allowance both of which directly target small businesses? Yet the corporation tax cut is staggering and designed to get companies to launder tax receipts in the UK and not create jobs (we actually don't have enough people to actually increase jobs anyway) This government has to raise tax receipts on a monumental scale if we are to survive post brexit - there are very few places they can tax without causing political issues (as we have witnessed) Hammond knows he can not create an economy that will vastly increase tax via PAYE - there is only two ways to survive the DMZ of Brexit- tax or borrow and the borrow option is a backup plan. This is not a political rant May and Hammond have been boxed in by Brexit and now they have no excuse of a effective opposition to blame - this is a Russian roulette with an economy and I can read the body language of May Hammond Boris Davis etc and they are starting to step to the back foot just as the EU is getting onto the front foot(don't mistake this as posturing) they have most of the cards and please don't anyone mention that BMW need to sell cars so it's going to be fine it just demonstrates a lack of understanding of supply and demand in a premium product market I. E people will pay 10% more for a beemer but a French person will not pay 10% more for a UK produced vauxhall v a German one.