Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
The Tries have a baked in 1/3rd of the electorate that simply dont care how incompetent/corrupt they are
A police investigation into peerages cost millions last time & came up with nothing,
but it did taint Blair somewhat (even tho Tories were equally culpable)
The Cox thing is different he doesnt seem to have broken any rules, its absolutely farcical that he was being paid a fortune to work from the caribbean to defend the BVI against HMRC (whilst we were being told we must go back to work) and neglect his job as an MP , hes in such a safe seat though that not much will change
be interesting to see what it does to the Tories long term poll numbers
he doesn’t even bother campaigning.
Nor does mine, I may have had a leaflet in 2015 I think. But then to be fair, neither do any of the other parties locally.
We have never had anyone canvass on the doorstep in the 26 years we have lived here, for any election at any level.
He has a 24000 majority up from 20000 in 2015
simply incorrect
No it isn't TJ. Cash-for-honours is very much associated with New Labour/Tony Blair, whether you like it or not.
I can't be arsed to read the last couple of pages but I see that binners has gone into one of his usual rants about "lefties". So a couple of points....
Firstly I wasn't passing judgement when I made the remark "that's another idea Johnson has pinched from Labour", it was more of an observation than anything else. I didn't say whether I thought cash-for-honours was a bad thing or a good thing.
Obviously you won't be surprised to hear that I am not impressed by the concept. But cash-for-honours is not very high on my criticism list of New Labour.
For me someone getting a seat in the House of Lords because they gave a political party a million quid is not any less acceptable than someone getting a seat in the House of Lords because they went to school with the Prime Minister, or because their great-great-grandad was a Duke, or because they are a Church of England Bishop.
In fact I think that giving someone a seat in the House of Lords because they have helped to finance a political party is as good as any other reason.
And as far as I know it isn't even illegal, which presumably is why despite being investigated Tony Blair was never charged in relation to cash-for-honours.
If you think cash-for-honours is a problem then you don't understand the problem.
Keir Starmer when he made his bid to become Leader of the Labour Party stood on a platform of the abolition of the House of Lords and its replacement with a fully democratic second house. Obviously he binned that committment as soon as he won the leadership election.
But that is exactly what is needed, a fully democratic second chamber. Ideally one which also fully represents the federal nature of a devolved UK, including English regions. Not some ridiculous hangover from a distant feudal age ffs.
Tinkering is not the solution, unless your aim is to maintain as much as possible undemocratic structures. Cash-for-honours bollocks is just one more distraction. The only solution is abolition.
Btw my apologies for making comments which might be interpreted as challenging the political purity of the echo chamber....... carry on slagging off the Tories and telling each other what a shower of ****s they are. I know it means a lot to some people. No idea what it's supposed to achieve though.
Cash for honours goes back to before the labour party existed. Yes Blair was in it up to his neck but it gores back way before him Wilson and the lavender list, Lloyd george and even James the 1st and 6th
But are they though? I’m sure there are plenty on here that earn more than an MP’s salary and a fair few that earn more than the Prime Ministers salary.
Oh really – what world do you live in?
I bet he's right, from replies on this forum it's clear there are plenty of wealthy members.
How senior do you need to be in London or the SE to earn more than an MP?
And as far as I know it isn’t even illegal, which presumably is why despite being investigated Tony Blair was never charged in relation to cash-for-honours.
It is illegal to sell a seat for cash. However its proving that it was a transaction that is the tricky part.
Getting back on topic: at what point does an ‘outside’ or ‘second’ job become the main Job?
I’m thinking what response anyone would get if they told their employer, as Geoffrey Cox did, that they'd be ****ing off to the Bahamas for a month and the stuff they’d be working on would be taking up pretty much all their time, but if their was anything that was really really important then they might be able to squeeze in a quick Zoom call?
… and if you could just keep paying my huge* salary in, as well as my expenses, that would be great.
Thanks
* I don’t care what you do, an MP’s salary (80 grand+) is an absolutely massive income to most people, including myself. Saying you need to supplement that (as Boris has done), in a society where loads of working people need to resort to food banks, is taking the ****ing piss! It just shows how utterly and completely detached from most peoples normality our political lords and masters now are.
How senior do you need to be in London or the SE to earn more than an MP?
Very top management levels in public service only No one bar a very few public servants. Medical consultants maybe if they get top merit awards.
Again this shows how divorced from reality some folk on here are about how wealthy they are
don’t care what you do, an MP’s salary (80 grand+) is an absolutely massive income to most people, including myself
On one level.
But given the actual shit/abuse and as we know much worse - that MPs have to deal with - personally I don't think it's worth the salary.
There are several lenses to view the way they are paid.
How senior do you need to be in London or the SE to earn more than an MP?
Newly qualified lawyer at City Law firm
newly qualified? Really?
I want my MPs doing it for public service not to enrich themselves. personally I think the salery too high.
An MP's salary is astronomical to me but I bet it isn't to many on here.
tj, I'll bet there isn't an executive role in the SE that offers less than an MP's salary and there'll be lots of add on's and bonuses at that level as well.
Our current system of expenses and allowances are massively open to exploitation. Increasing MP's salaries whilst removing extras would create transparency and make the job less attractive to wrong'uns whilst rewarding better and more suitable candidates, (no more wasting time filling out expenses for kit-kats and mucky movies.)
Paying ministers more whilst prohibiting them from taking a role within related industries for a period of 5 to 10 yearsis a something some other governments apply to mitigate against corruption and nest feathering.
newly qualified? Really?
Yep, some London offices of US firms are paying £150,000
EDIT: Oh by the way, the Lavender List was regarded as eccentric but historians don't believe there was any question of financial impropriety
tj - suggest you spend 15 mins online to become better informed about public sector/servant salaries, including county councils.
There are many with salaries which dwarf johnson's as PM.
Newly qualified lawyer at City Law firm
And what percentage of this countries population will ever come close to getting a sniff at that kind of career? And I wonder what background they would all come from? What schools they attended? Which universities they went to?
I personally think that our elected representatives should have at least some sort of financial connection to more than a tiny percentage of the people they claim to represent.
And some classic Boris - deflecting blame - ooh look at Geoffrey Cox but don't look at me.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59221290
What a ****
Oh I do know frank - and I know how few folk get £80 000 Very few. In the NHS only top managers and some consultants. In councils maybe the top teir of management
I live in the real world where 80 000 pa is a huge salery in the top few % of the country and beyond the dreams of most - and remember they still get a house in London bought for them. they still employ family in non jobs on expenses and still enjoy huge perks like cheap booze
£150k pa no extra jobs no personal expenses.
I have a couple of friends who I know are earning more than an MP, ones a hospital consultant and the others an IT contractor- through him I know a couple of others probably on a similar salary.
This is a decent enough village in between Nottingham and Derby, but not one of the posh villages. Certainly not London kind of salaries.
Boris bus on the way to "pick up" Cox...
remember they still get a house in London bought for them
No they don't
tj, you're way off the mark and allowing your personal views to obscure the facts.
And some classic Boris – deflecting blame – ooh look at Geoffrey Cox but don’t look at me.
It appears that it was a direct response to Labour asking for an investigation into the matter :
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59218438
Would it have been better if Johnson had simply ignored the issue?
There plenty to criticise Johnson for, and the Paterson shenanigans is an excellent example. The problem with frivolous unjustified criticism is that whilst it might be hugely satisfying to call Johnson a **** every time he moves it actually undermines serious criticism.
I have a couple of friends who I know are earning more than an MP, ones a hospital consultant and the others an IT contractor- through him I know a couple of others probably on a similar salary
A couple? And that’s the point. What percentage of the population are on £80k+. A tiny percentage. So for MP’s to be on that, as well as their incredibly generous bonuses and pensions is not even remotely representative of 99%+ of their constituents
It’s instructive that they use the -1% as their benchmark
And then there’s the elephant in the room .. that so many of them are obviously such complete imbeciles that they wouldn’t last 5 minutes in a ‘proper’ job
Imagine interviewing for an 80 grand a year job and Mark Francois or Richard Burgon rocking up?
Is this because Johnsons still pissed at Cox because he advised proroguation wasnt ilegal?
(even tho Cox was a brexiteer)
tj, you’re way off the mark and allowing your personal views to obscure the facts.
I am really not you know. Its you that completely fails to understand the reality here
go look at some stats. Average income is around 30 000. £80 000 pa put you in the top 1 or 2 % of the country
Ids in the shit too
And Cox could be in quite serious trouble after all
https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1458204228082704386?t=UJoidopP4RHPp7Jh_kaIMw&s=19
I want my MPs doing it for public service not to enrich themselves. personally I think the salery too high.
Interestingly my gut feel is its a lot of money for what some of them do, and on the other hand probably fair for the best of the bunch. Do you want more of the good ones or more of those who are only in it to jump up some political ladder or milk it for the pension at the end?
Here's a test though TJ. Will you come back out of retirement - for £80K + expenses for the next five years, to traipse up and down from Edinburgh to London, meet constituents in the evening, get dragged to every crappy local paper photo opp, wearing a suit pretending you are delighted to be handing out the certificates of excellence at school prize giving, then coming back to an inbox full of people moaning about stuff you voted against anyway.
I'm not sure I would.
I wouldn't come out of retirement but ten years ago - like a shot. I'd be made for life with the amount of money and I do like a bit of public service
I wouldn’t come out of retirement but ten years ago – like a shot
How about the House of Lords then? Sounds ideal for a retired gentleman.....no voters/constituents to bother you and I believe that if the proceedings become a tad boring you are allowed to nod off.
Plus you get £305 per day attendance allowance, plus travel expenses and subsidised restaurant facilities.
Somewhere warm and comfy to sit plus you get to trouser 305 quid per day..... what more could someone with a keen sense of public service and in their twilight years want?
Mind you since apparently you haven't got a pot to piss in your best means of access is probably to get yourself ordained as an Anglican bishop.
"Imagine interviewing for an 80 grand a year job and Mark Francois or Richard Burgon rocking up?"
If the job wasn't as open to corruption and exploitation and was more open to scrutiny Mark Fracois wouldn't be interested.
As for monkey tennis guy, pay peanuts and you get monkeys.
See poly's point. We need ot encourage better candidates to run for office, for whatever party. At the moment it only seems to attract crooks and duffers.
The salary is fine, remember they also get expenses, excellent pensions, money towards second homes, over 50% more if they are a cabinet minister, 15 weeks holiday, subsided food, beer, travel etc.. it should be well paid, but they should also treat it like a full time job.
There are plenty of decent people in this country working for much less or even free for community groups / charities.
15 weeks holiday,
I can assure you very few MPs have 15 weeks "off" as that statement suggests. Even the useless ones.
Local MP had in 19-20 claimed a tad over £250k in expenses. £170k in accommodation and staff (£143k). I was about to say I'd be his staff for half that but given its John Lamont (con) there's not enough money in the world to make me spend time in the same room as the odious little twunt.
Python software engineer with a reasonable amount of experience will get more than £80k in London/se.
In fact I recently was involved in recruiting a python/aws engineer in the Ukraine (kyiv) for about that.
They are allowed 15 weeks, of course most don't, but many find time for second jobs.
The difficulty in comparing an MP 's salary with other similar professional jobs is of course, you could have your job taken away from you after 5 years and It could be nothing to do with you personally.
How senior do you need to be in London or the SE to earn more than an MP?
in IT, not particularly. Google (who don't pay exceptionally) pay £73k average for a software eng and £120k for a senior software eng (no people responsibility, just pushing out code). Grad salaries in London are around 60k.
https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/Salary/Google-London-Salaries-EI_IE9079.0,6_IL.7,13_IM1035.htm
https://www.levels.fyi/Salaries/Software-Engineer/London/
Tyson Fury earns more than that in a single fight, maybe they can all go and be heavyweight boxing champions the money seems rather attractive. Or maybe throwing out alternative jobs where you can earn in the top percentiles of UK earning is a meaningless distraction.
The difficulty in comparing an MP ‘s salary with other similar professional jobs is of course, you could have your job taken away from you after 5 years and It could be nothing to do with you personally.
5 years is a pretty secure position for a lot of people, I think that statement displays a lack of understanding of job insecurity for a hell of a lot of normal employees.
I personally think that our elected representatives should have at least some sort of financial connection to more than a tiny percentage of the people they claim to represent.
Isn't that what they're doing?
You know living the "Millenial experience" by having a side gig... As an MP.
All of those zero hours Deliverooists and Hermes drivers should be encouraged, they have a representative voice in Jeffrey Cox...
you could have your job taken away from you after 5 years and It could be nothing to do with you personally.
Or the other way of looking at it is you have a five year fixed term contract where it is incredibly hard to be sacked from.
A lot more stable position than one where you might get made redundant for nothing personal but just the job is being offshored to save a few quid.
No one needs more than 80k. There is no need for a second job. The only sympathy I have is for doctors etc maintaining their licence for the end of their stint in politics. Raising it would be counter productive imo as we don't need any more London centric money chasers, we need more people with an appreciation of what life is like in the rest of the country.
5 years is a pretty secure position for a lot of people, I think that statement displays a lack of understanding of job insecurity for a hell of a lot of normal employees.
I employee folks, I understand the insecurity that people face. There's a lot of them I wouldn't want as my MP
Even after only one period of office, MP's redundancy and pension packages are eye-watering (plus the housing benefits, exes etc whilst in office). If they wanted a job for life then maybe they haven't had very good careers advice.
The difficulty in comparing an MP ‘s salary with other similar professional jobs is of course, you could have your job taken away from you after 5 years and It could be nothing to do with you personally.
That's very secure job nowadays for those of us on zero hours contracts.
There is no need for a second job. The only sympathy I have is for doctors etc maintaining their licence for the end of their stint in politics.
We would need to include lawyers and accountants in that cadre as they need to maintain their professional standing (along with engineers and many other certified professions).
That’s very secure job nowadays for those of us on zero hours contracts.
So would you prefer to have a better contract or see everyone on zero hours?
No one needs more than 80k. There is no need for a second job. The only sympathy I have is for doctors etc maintaining their licence for the end of their stint in politics. Raising it would be counter productive imo as we don’t need any more London centric money chasers, we need more people with an appreciation of what life is like in the rest of the country.
I would say this creates the problem we already have.
I believe we should pay our MPs several times their current salary. That level of pay is (relatively) easily attained for the brightest and the best in the wider market, and I want the very brightest and the best employed as MPs. Paying less just creates an obvious culture of self interest. I mean does anyone actually think someone as plummy as Geoffrey Cox would survive on south of say £300k a year? Im not commenting on whether he'd be worth that, hell I don't know if he's worth £75k, but it's very obvious that he's not going to still be in the commons on just 75k pa + expenses. In order to create real competition for the job of MP, alongside a mechanism to ensure that illicit self-enrichment via other routes creates genuine risk of losing a lot, pay needs to increase many fold.
the salary thing is difficult. You want to pay enough to get the best people in, but not pay so much that people want to do it just for the money. Given the bredth of backgrounds\industries from which 'the best people' may come, I don't think there's an easy answer.
but it’s very obvious that he’s not going to still be in the commons on just 75k pa + expenses
Good. Your mistake is thinking money is the only reason to become a mp.
I appreciate money is not the be all for many, but its certainly a limiting factor and for sure reducing the money (or not increasing it) is very unlikely to yield a better crop of MPs just because they're more willing to work for less.
Pay should be commensurate with the leaders of industries that aren't in industries which have excessive pay scales. 75k isn't that number.
I also happen to believe that they should be held to far higher standards, and measured in terms of their performance in meaningful, published ways. I expect to get more for paying more and those that didn't meet the cut should be removed and new by elections held ahead of time rather than wait every 5 years to then re-elect the same slackers.
That level of pay is (relatively) easily attained for the brightest and the best in the wider market,
1% of the population reach that high level of salary.
This suggestion will be met with "some" resistance.
Although I agree. You don't get the best by buying cheap.
1% of the population reach that high level of salary.
So, the brightest and best, then?
1% of the population reach that high level of salary.
Luckily only 0.0009% of the population are MPs, so it won't cause much of a change.
This suggestion will be met with “some” resistance.
Yes it would. This country does have an issue with other's success. I also happen to believe many other public servants deserve much more money, and more urgently. Our whole system seems quite broken, but I don't see anyone in the HoP with either the motivation, smarts, or personality (or more importantly a combination of the 3) to fix it. Hence why I believe that a change of approach is needed.
75k isn’t that number.
Nor is the number that MPs actually make, it's just the headline.
MPs salaries are such a sideshow, lots of MPs could do quite fine without any salary at all, it's not the desperation of poverty that is making them take bribes or second 'jobs' is it.
Although I agree. You don’t get the best by buying cheap.
Sounds good, except our world does not work like that at all does it? It's more who you know and what you can get away with. There are plenty of incompetent, unqualified people holding down high salaries.
IIRC, one of the Scandinavian countries (Denmark?) MP’s live in state provided accommodation midweek, have free public transport passes they are expected to use and have a state appointed secretary etc for equivalent of the constituency office.
This, most definitely this. An accommodation block provided by the state whilst the MPs need to be near parliament. There is absolutely NO reason for a 2nd home in London, none whatsoever. When I have been required to work away from home I need to stay in a hotel within a set budget and need to provide receipts for ALL expenses. Why should our glorious leaders be any different?
In the interests of disclosure I earn nowhere near £82K. In fact I don't think anyone in my circle of friends will earn more than an MP, certainly not more than the PM.
I have worked in both "the city" and space industries. I have mostly found that the brightest are only considered so because they had the opportunities and life momentum to achieve in education, they are not naturally brilliant or special. The most successful are the ones who attach to the right clique once they are through the door.
Very few of them realise how lucky they have been, and/or understand the difference between them and a more normal life experience, and in fact frequently display Trump levels of arrogance and narcissism.
They are not people I would want running a country for the benefit of all.
Nor is the number that MPs actually make, it’s just the headline.
Aye thats true, but in order to get there they have created a house of cards which teeters on the verge of scandal at all times. Surely better to say 'listen, you're really well paid, in an open in transparent way. Go out and do a great job, just this one, nothing else, and you can keep getting well paid. Step out of those bounds and you're gone.'
I have found that the brightest are only considered so because they had the opportunities and life momentum to achieve in education, they are not naturally brilliant or special. The most successful are the ones who attach to the right clique once they are through the door.
This is a universal truth. Just look no further than our poor excuse for a PM, absolutely no relevant experience or skills at all. He is a journalist that could not hold down a job, famous for a lack of interest in details and the truth.
Absolutely, I have worked in many industries (City, IT, Sports) where idiots make a lot of money through luck, privilege, connections and anything else other than skill. But that doesn't mean its the case that we should not pay a premium still for the best. The trick would be to ensure that we actually get the best. Getting rid of the FPTP system would be a good start down that road as it virtually guarantees mediocrity. If nothing else could ever been said good about Bojo his demonstration that it's possible to rip up that playbook is an important lesson for all parties to learn going forward.
I think being an MP should attract (and be available to) a wide selection of folks. I don't think we should necessarily draw our MPs from a select group of the "professions" simply because those jobs are done overwhelmingly by white middle class white men. (just look at any picture of a bunch of MPs)
I'm not sure whether that's an argument for raising or lower the pay though
Aye thats true, but in order to get there they have created a house of cards which teeters on the verge of scandal at all times. Surely better to say ‘listen, you’re really well paid, in an open in transparent way. Go out and do a great job, just this one, nothing else, and you can keep getting well paid. Step out of those bounds and you’re gone.’
What is the minimum wage for honesty? Does everyone get a free pass if they earn less than an MP? Sure would ease the pressure on prisons, although being a shareholder in g4s and serco may not be so lucrative.
Wouldn't MPs voting to, say, double their salaries providing they followed their own rules be electoral suicide in the present (or any) climate?
I'm not sure that there's a definitive correlation between talent and salary, and I'm aldo not sure that paying MPs more would attract better MPs - is it reasonable to assume that Cox would still have been doing his consultancy work if MP salary was 130k, or 150k, or 180k? I think so. Would he be an MP if it was 80k and second jobs weren't allowed - possibly, possibly not, but I would hope he would spend more time on constituency matters if he weren't allowed to coin it in the Bahamas.
I don't want people to want to be an MP because of the salary, I want them to have a passion for doing the best they can for their constituents and their country.
Its funny isn't it that despite serious shortages of healthcare staff raising pay to " attract the brightest and best" is not a path taken but we need to pay mps saleries in the top 1% of the population to attract the "brightest and best" it really seems to work
personally I believe that a serious reduction in pay and perks would weed out those only in it to enrich themselves and thus mean a higher standard of MPs as they would be doing it for " public service" not cash
I mean does anyone actually think someone as plummy as Geoffrey Cox would survive on south of say £300k a year?
He did when he was Attorney General.
Just look no further than our poor excuse for a PM, absolutely no relevant experience or skills at all.
He had more relevant experience on becoming PM that either Tony Blair or David Cameron.
He did when he was Attorney General.
Did he though? He would get another £100k a year basic on top of his MPs wage, and then probably still work on the side too. Also, given its a temporary position, he'd factor in future earnings if it did mean he couldnt do side work. Like say a million quid from the BVI.
He had more relevant experience on becoming PM that either Tony Blair or David Cameron.
Yeah, nice examples.
I think we should to be clear in this argument... £250+k is not a lot of money in terms of this discussion. The names mentioned Cox, Bojo, etc. are/were/will be taking way more than that each year. So what we're talking about is a pay cut for many MPs, and a pay rise for others. Levelling it out such that being an MP is no longer an opportunity for self enrichment on a virtually unlimited scale, but recognising that it's one of the most important jobs in the UK, and paying commensurate to such importance.
Of course, many will think it's not important. And thats probably the crux of the problem. It should be the very pinnacle of employment, the gold standard to which all others are held. Instead it's a bloody cess pit in the main. Granted paying people more wouldn't fix that in of itself, but it would provide the opportunity to make a clean break from the past, and reset the expectations of our elected MPs.
the salary thing is difficult. You want to pay enough to get the best people in, but not pay so much that people want to do it just for the money. Given the bredth of backgrounds\industries from which ‘the best people’ may come, I don’t think there’s an easy answer.
The pay isn't meant to be a motivator, it's not banking. Being an MP is supposed to be a "public service" role, you take it up to represent your constituents, a majority of whom apparently vote for an MP who supposedly represents their interests and concerns...
(IMO) MPs should get a wage in line (nationally) with someone in a senior managerial position in wider industry, someone expected to do a 40-70 week with no overtime, travel expenses covered and it expressly stated that any other professional interests are declared, cause no conflict with doing their primary role as MP and take up no more the, let's say, 10 hours a week on top of their parliamentary commitments...
Here's a stupid question, do MPs have an employment contract?
I think there is some conflation of the assumed responsibilities of MPs and ministers in this thread.
Being a no-mark backbencher MP is really not equivalent to being a 'leader of industry'. Looking at managerial salaries in the NHS and Civil Service would be a better comparator than the private sector anyway.
Also if you get outside of the SE bubble, many currently-elected MPs - even Conservative ones - couldn't dream of earning £100k+ (because it is a six-figure salary minimum when expenses are taken into account) in another field.
He would get another £100k a year basic on top of his MPs wage, and then probably still work on the side too.
No outside work when Attorney General
Also if you get outside of the SE bubble, many currently-elected MPs – even Conservative ones – couldn’t dream of earning £100k+ (because it is a six-figure salary minimum when perks are taken into account) in another field.
And thats fine too. Give them 250k a year say, and if they spend 150k of that a year supporting local charities etc. because they couldn't dream of / wouldn't know what to do with the money, thats fine. Im sure they can use that in their re-election pitch.
I think there's an assumption that somehow high pay would = less 'worthy' applicants. Far from it I would think. If you're genuinely not in it for the money just think of the additional difference you could make to small causes within your community with a couple hundred grand a year to spend at your discretion.
if they spend 150k of that a year supporting local charities etc. because they couldn’t dream of / wouldn’t know what to do with the money, thats fine. Im sure they can use that in their re-election pitch.
😀 Have you met many MPs? (with over a decade working in Whitehall, I have)
Although I agree. You don’t get the best by buying cheap.
You dont necessarily get the best by buying expensive either.
There are lots of jobs which pay relatively low and yet you still can get the best going into them. Look at many R&D or academic research jobs in physics and maths where there would be plenty of opportunity to make a lot more money in the city.
The idea that with Johnson and co paying them more would make them less self serving seems rather flawed. I would suggest the likelihood is they would still be looking for other money making opportunities on top.
😀 Have you met many MPs? (with over a decade working in Whitehall, I have)
Yes I have had the mis-fortune of meeting a number. Most of which were complete arses. My least favourite was lunch with Andrew Bridgend. You can imagine how much fun that was.