How Labour have implemented the 2005 Conservative Mainfesto

[Democratic Hawk]

Coming next (if I have the time!) How Labour have not implimented their own 2005 manifesto.

It's only 2007

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

It would seem, on reflection, that some Conservative policies aren't WITHOUT merit

- I support restoring the link between State Pensions and earnings [this policy itself more is more sincere coming from Labour given that it was a Conservative government which abolished it]

- I favour the return of Matrons big-time Hattie Jacques style

- Given the threat posed to our national security, I totally support a minister with responsibility for homeland security

- I've always been anti-drugs even though I tried skunk once, didn't like it, never did it again

- I'm in agreement with a unified border force (clearly a Tory policy I do support as it's in line with my 'hawkish' instincts) to combat terrorism

- I support an Australian points-based immigration system too. I have absolutely no beef whatsoever with EU economic migrants, they are here to work not freeload. In fact, I consider it a huge compliment that so many are coming to the UK. That tells me what a great country I must be living in. I've never been big on multi-culturalism, too much accomodation and not enough assimilation there, which can create tensions

See, even an ardent Labour supporter like me, can agree with some Conservative initiatives although I am progressively centre-left, for the most part. Move onto crime and national security, however, and I'm probably as right as any progressive could be

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

I have a feeling Dave you've missed the point I was making here

Most likely

[Democratic Hawk]

I have a feeling Dave you've missed the point I was making here

Re: Labour's Manifesto. Don't mention the EU Constitution. Given that it was rejected by the French and the Dutch, it rendered Labour's pledge to hold a referendum obsolete

I, personally, favour a referendum on the Reform Treaty and would likely campaign for it in the event of one. I'd need to read it first. I'm not for surrendering the UK's permanent seat on the UN Security Council to any one, if that would be the case

I know when Cameron talks about it being "red tape", I suspect it's because of its too progressive, too 21st century.

From Richard Corbett MEP's blog:

David Cameron and his Tory Party are really plumbing the depths in the debate on the Reform Treaty. Cameron's article for this morning's Sun was rabid and riddled with untruths.

In particular, his claim that the Reform Treaty would "transfer power from our elected Parliament to the EU's unelected bureaucrats" is a flat out lie. In fact the opposite is the case. The Reform Treaty specifically increases the power of elected parliaments not bureaucrats by increasing the role of national parliaments and the European Parliament. It strictly limits EU action to the policy areas agreed by Member States in the treaties. Mr Cameron has either not read the Treaty or has no understanding of its contents - perhaps not surprising since he is too arrogant to meet with his right-wing counterparts in Europe.

He talks about Gordon Brown's "shameless arrogance" as being a "big cancer eating away at trust in politics". On the contrary, it is Cameron who is displaying shameless arrogance by telling lies to the British people.

Cameron's dishonest assertions follow on from William Hague's barmy claim that the Reform Treaty would see the EU take Britain's seat on the UN Security Council. This is simply not true.

Cameron thinks that he is a "euro-realist" and pledged to create a new-centre right group in Europe which would include the Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topalenek's Eurosceptic Civic Democrat Party. But the Czech PM is refusing to hold a referendum on the Reform Treaty as it does not create any new powers for the EU. Topolanek's stance speaks volumes about the Tories' opportunism and obsessive Europhobia.

David Cameron and his party seem to be pursuing a policy of 'little Englander' isolationism that would greatly damage Britain's national interests. For a man who hopes to become Prime Minister, his tactics and arguments on the Reform Treaty have been gutter politics of the highest order.

That is, partly, why he'd make a lousy PM. I find Cameron's pledge to take Conservative MEPs out of the EPP worrying. Our place is at the heart of Europe, Cameron would have us tooting from the fringe

Prime Minister Gordon Brown, on the other hand, will be feted on the international stage; accomplishing great things with a Democratic US president. God-willing this will come in 2008

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Howards message was easily the best since '97, while I can be angry at the hipocracy of Brown taking parts of it, I can also admire him for it.

Well to the Cameron's credit the Conservatives are taking/have undertaken a thorough policy review. I've never read the 2005 manifesto, however, I gather it was so short it was reminiscent of something scribbled on the back of a postcard the night before it went to press

I've discovered one or two things I agree with. I keep a "big tent", my personal politics are eclectic, but I know where my centre of gravity lies

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

I can assure you that we do have healthy policy debates in the Labour Party; in fact, I insist on it at the Branch. Most of it is now undertaken by National Policy Forums. We've moved on the ruinous ructions of the 1980s , from which we, ultimately, emerged stronger. Much dogma was cast aside and not before time

I'm not a Conservative so it is not for me to comment how the party goes about its business. Though, I've been voicing my opinion as to what Cameron needs to do - sort of . Many in his party might not like it

Even that show was pilfered from other speeched and has the finger prints of Shrum all over it (which while not important on it's own, it puts an end to the short term pretence that Gordon had somehow 'abolished spin')

Well, personally, Gordon Brown using rhetoric rather similar to that of prominant Democrats shouldn't really come as a surprise. I consider the Labour Party pretty much a sister party to the Democratic Party, at least, from the New Deal onwards

The Conservative Party are welcome to the GOP, I don't mind - as long as you don't go there too

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

BTW, I was out this morning in the village from 10.00 to 12.30, street surgery whereby we go to the voters whether than them come to us

There were five of us stood there chatting and when I said if I was to meet Baroness Thatcher, I'd give her a kiss (no, seriously, I'd shake her hand) and shake Lord Tebbit's hand, if there'd been a whole in the road, the other four would have fallen through it

Funny old world, the most bizarre things happen even with me. I must be becoming more mellow with age

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

FTR there was alot in the Tory minfesto (drafted by Cameron remember) that Labour under Blair/Brown have lifted but as I couldn't find supporting dates/quotes etc I left them out

I'm actually considering buying the next one just to see the extent to which I'd agree or disagree with it. Nothing can change what I am though. The 'Hawk' is not for turning, not full-circle anyways

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

FTR there was alot in the Tory minfesto (drafted by Cameron remember) that Labour under Blair/Brown have lifted but as I couldn't find supporting dates/quotes etc I left them out

I'm actually considering buying the next one just to see the extent to which I'd agree or disagree with it. Nothing can change what I am though. The 'Hawk' is not for turning, not full-circle anyways

Dave

Well not intentionally anyway If the party turns you turn with it rather than turn away from the party. Knowing your past (very recent past) comments about Mrs T and Norman if you'd seriously shake their hands in this new climate it pretty much proves my point

Believe me that I will always hold the neo-liberal legacy of mass welfare dependency, that the 1980s ushered in, and the damage it did to social cohesion in much disdain. It's not surprising society is ruptured in parts

But I've grown to respect Thatcher as a conviction politician, I can't deny the old girl that. It does not follow that I share her convictions. You know me, Mr "Big Tent", consensus-building pragmatist that I am

I've not one jot of respect for David Cameron ; while I'm sure you feel the same towards Gordon Brown. To each, their own . I also take much exception to someone like David Cameron pontificating about levels of personal debt, coming from a guy who I dare say has never had to scrimp for anything in life, and all this "anarchy" scaremongering of his. Disgusting

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Yes, yes it does. LibDem please.

...who support privatising the Post Office, savage cuts to the Welfare State (or at least the parts of it that, you know, help working class people, as opposed to the sort of people who vote LibDem. They would, of course, expand it for them) that go beyond anything that the Tories dare to speak of these days and in general taking from the poor and giving it to the middle.

And this is just under Campbell. The next LibDem leader will almost certainly be further to the Right than him.

Hearing about their platform makes me favor them even more.

Because you're an economic reactionary

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Basically, if an election was held today, you would vote Labour if you want to vote Tory, vote Tory if you want to vote LibDem, and vote LibDem if you want to be spiteful

You're not far wrong I will vote Conservative because I am a classic liberal on personal freedom, civil liberties and an unobtrusive non surveillance state. Cameron has to stand up for 'Liberal England' because Menzies is to weak to do so.

All a bit hypocritical as far as Cameron goes since he seeks to opt out of the European Convention of Human Rights. For me rights and liberties are pretty much indistinguishable

As for the surveillance state, there is a very fine line between civil liberties and taking liberties. We don't, alas, live in an ideal world, and if surveillance exists to prevent those individuals and groups who threaten freedom from crossling that line, it's all well and good . This is why such measures as wire-tapping, ID cards and a DNA database serve only to enhance our rights and liberties

Furthermore, with rights and liberties comes responsibilities . Such felons as terrorists and violent criminals should forgoe their rights and liberties as far as I'm concerned

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Yes, yes it does. LibDem please.

...who support privatising the Post Office, savage cuts to the Welfare State (or at least the parts of it that, you know, help working class people, as opposed to the sort of people who vote LibDem. They would, of course, expand it for them) that go beyond anything that the Tories dare to speak of these days and in general taking from the poor and giving it to the middle.

And this is just under Campbell. The next LibDem leader will almost certainly be further to the Right than him.

Hearing about their platform makes me favor them even more.

Because you're an economic reactionary

Dave

Now now I support economic reforms... just not ones that move us closer to social democracy.

I'm pretty much a 'Third Way' centrist, a renewed social democrat, where the public and the private work together for the common good of society. I've no qualms with capitalism 'with a conscience', indeed, it's where it lacks such a conscience where I object

I've already pointed out what I don't like about neo-liberalism

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

A few points on the Chancellor's 'spending review'

Firstly, the lowering of economic forecasts. A sensible cautious thing to do given that it is too early to tell any wider possible effect of the “credit crunch”. Now for the more contentious stuff.

Had Labour raised the IHT threshold to £1m, definitely said ALL non-domiciles were to be taxed at a flat rate to fund it that would have been blatant clothes stealing. That hasn’t happened

I gather the non-domicile issue is going to wider consultation no doubt as to ascertain its feasibility and practicality. Do the ‘gains’ from it trump any potential ‘losses’ from imposing it? It’s important to establish that before proceeding with it.

The government may well have been looking at IHT long before Osborne’s proposals came to fruition, though that will no doubt come with some cynicism and derision. Resentment, however misguided (any one would think ALL estates paid it as it stood, which couldn’t be further from the truth), has been growing and, to a point, governments should, conditions allowing, be responsive. As for taxing non-domiciles this is something I understand Brown considered this as far back as 1995 when Shadow Chancellor.

As I’ve stated I have misgivings about taxing non-domiciles since I’m concerned it could pose wider economic risks and I’m standing by that. I feel much the same re-private equity; though most will agree they are too lightly taxed. Economic stability matters more than tax-cut giveaways here or tax-hikes there (to me anyway). Threaten that and we all potential losers . And I don't trust the Tories on that score, given their track record

As for the tax on planes, this irks me since the cost will, ultimately, fall on passengers not the airlines. Still, there seems to be something of a tri-partisan consensus here. Not enough of that in British politics.

As for the rest of the spending review? Steady away

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Had Labour raised the IHT threshold to £1m, definitely said ALL non-domiciles were to be taxed at a flat rate to fund it that would have been blatant clothes stealing. That hasn’t happened

Oh come on now Dave It's the same clothes, just shabbier and more exposed material

Since when did the Conservative Party have a monopoly on matters fiscal? Labour are just as entitled to cut, and raise, taxes as they fit . Labour don't cut taxes out of some ideological 'whim' founded on 'freedom'; nor do they, particularly, raise them out of some dogmatic 'folly' founded on 'equality' any more. Labour is a centre-left party, ideologically, a blend of Third Way and social democratic thought; though, constitutionally, of course, a democratic socialist party

Nevertheless, Labour have not raised the IHT threshold to £1m nor have they said they'll impose a flat levy of £25,000 on non-domiciles (I have misgivings as to whether such a levy should be imposed at all). So, no they have not stolen Tory clothes; any more than the Tories have stolen Labour's by talking about 'social justice' [something which the neo-liberal Right once had nothing but contempt for]. I'm sure increasing the tax on private equity will play well inside much of the Labour "big tent" but even there I have misgivings

The tax on flights, meanwhile, seems to be something of an area of tri-partisan consensus; originally, Lib Dem, then Tory, now Labour. I don't like it whether levied on the airlines or on passengers, because the latter will bear the brunt regardless. These so-called 'green taxes' are all very well but I see the burden fall, disproportionately, on lower and middle earners

Economic stability matters more to me than any personal gain or loss. Nothing comes at a cost to something else, like with the cut in the base rate of income tax from 22p to 20p that has come at the price of scrapping the 10p starting rate, which Labour introduced in 1999, IIRC, which will benefit some more than others. I'd have liked the 22p to be reduced to 20p and the 10p rate stayed, but we can't always get what we want

With the best will in the world, no government, doesn't matter which party, is going to please all of the people all of the time but without economic stability we are ALL potential LOSERS

Personally, I wouldn't have acted much on IHT. I see nothing wrong with incremental increases in the threshold, year on year, conditions allowing. I'd take an 'incremental' approach from Labour over any Conservative 'radical' approach. Not that strictly speaking Conservatives are radical; in fact, I'd feel more comfortable if they weren't

Labour has accepted much of the 'Thatcherite Settlement'. There is no going back to public ownership and such. It doesn't alter the fact that I hold 'neo-liberal' economics in much disdain given its mass welfare dependency legacy, which is way over and beyond what more 'new liberal' thought intended welfare to be

How do you think we have that ruptured society (my ruptured, Dave's "broken")? It's a consequence of the expansion of market forces, which tended to undermine social institutions like the family, the community, which are integral to social cohesion. No doubt cultural liberal attitudes played its part too. That is why capitalism does, to some extent, require regulation to protect humankind from its excesses

BTW, do you agree with SeanT that Labour is now a Christian Democratic Party in all-but name? I wouldn't mind if it was

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Dave, the Labour Party could become anything it wants; you'd still back it! I agree with SeanT on PB on the direction Labour is heading, it's not there yet and may never be if it keeps following our lot around

The morning the government, rightly has taken a walloping in the press this morning and I'm looking forward to PMQ's today. It was a smokescreen (that didn't in fact 'screen' anything) the fact that growth would slow and borrowing soar by £22bn. Part of me is pleased the Conservatives are setting the agenda but, as usual can't quite get that right. Turns out couples can already transfer allowances; 500,000 do, and all Darling did was re-confirm what we already know.

The problem is Labour isn't a 'Labour' party, it's not socialist, it's not social democratic and it's not christian democratic (not yet) it's reactionary. It's been in an ideological drift since about 2003, but more distinctively so since 2005 when the election, and with an unpopular PM, the party is dedicated to it's own survival in government. It's been drifting aimlessly since then and Gordon hasn't helped. He keeps talking about his 'vision' but we don't quite know what that vision is, because everytime he gives us a tidbit along comes a bad poll and where he stands changes. We've had the government over the course of the week mount a feeble attack on Conservative tax policy (and abusing the role of the civil service), followed by a partial implementation of five of those policies in the budget announcement.

Andrew ,

Has Labour increased the IHT threshold to £1m? No. That's the Conservative policy

Has Labour said ALL non-domiciles will be levied £25,000? No. That's the Conservative policy

As for the 'flight tax' wasn't that a Lib Dem policy, adopted by the Conservatives and now by the government? Nevertheless, a breath of fresh air. Something of a tri-partisan consensus

It's highly possible Brown and Darling were looking across a range of taxes in preparing the PBS and CSR long before Osborne announced his IHT proposals at the Conservative Party Conference.

I was asked today by a Conservative friend if I thought that the government's possible proposals had possibly been leaked somehow to Osborne, who then sought to launch a pre-emptive strike on IHT. I must admit that the thought hadn't even crossed my mind until then

We know growth in the economy is most likely to slow as a consequence of the "credit crunch". The IMF has warned of it; while the OECD has said that interest rates may need to fall to boost growth. Of course, the B of E is likely to keep them on hold until such time as they feel inflation (it's economic stability 'litmus' test) stays within target

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you in all seriousness think that Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems were actually ready for a snap election? I don't. Not to mention a host of practical reasons. Cameron got what he set out to do which was to stall any possible election

I could understand the media being upset had Brown, definitely, said that there was going to be an election and then went back on that but he didn't

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here's me thinking David Cameron had pledged an end to yah-boo politics with an aim towards setting a civil tone. That didn't last long

As for the EU Treaty, what happens will happen ...

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

The media feel like they've been taken for a ride and they need to vent off some steam.

Even I have to do that every once in a while

[Democratic Hawk]

The problem is Labour isn't a 'Labour' party, it's not socialist, it's not social democratic and it's not christian democratic (not yet) it's reactionary.

Labour, if anything, takes an incrementalist, rather than radical, approach to realising it's goals and objectives. Labour has, of course, reacted to Tory radical plans for IHT by making it's own more modest proposals, which may well have been in the works long before Osborne's announced his to much 'hype'

Any one would have thought Osborne's proposal was on par with the Second Coming, given the way it was spun by Tory cheerleaders. In the grand schme of things is increasing the IHT threshold from £300,000 to £1m absolutely necessary ? I think not

A threshold of £450,000, then increasing it incrementally in line with the average increase in house prices, would have sufficed.

Are you familiar with Steptoe and Son ? Albert was a don't rise above yourself Tory while the aspiring Harold was Labour . In the film Harold is planning for his "son" to go to Eton or Harrow and suggests that old man pay for it (he'd be dead by then) Albert didn't like that  and said "He can stand on his own two feet like I had to. I don't approve of inherited wealth"

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Oh almost forgot - a married couples tax cut has also been 'pinched'

This is the same proposal as the one Gordon Brown went on the Today programme to condemn as ''disadvantaging widows and abandoned wives.''

There may still be a few Conservative tax proposals they haven't yet taken on board but i'll report on them in due course I'm sure

As far as I'm concerned all families matter . There's a moral argument for that as well as marriage

Labour, if they have a will to do so, can take the initiative by introducing tax cuts of their own. We CAN do, the Tories CAN'T. I trust Labour to make more modest, realistic proposals than any of Osborne's more grand proposals, which were, frankly, 'over-hyped' by right-wing cheerleaders in the press

The more I think about it, the more I feel that Labour was wrong to propose changes to IHT, non-doms, CGT, as well as the 'flight tax' in the PRB (whether they had been prepared before Osborne's announcements or otherwise). There is nothing that couldn't have waited until the Budget proper

Not to mention the fact I have strong reservations about any of these 'ideas' whether on the part of Darling, Osborne or Cable, which I have already voiced, most vociferously

The bottom-line for me is "Economic stability BEFORE tax cuts and/or tax changes". I'm getting really peeved off with these silly little games of one-upmanship

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

And as for the whole 'tax/stability' thing. You can have a stable economy with tax cuts and it's what our economy is crying out for. If you champion tax cuts to boost growth and continued investment in public services (but not the 'slavish' uncosted annual increases for headline purposes that has no bearing on service delivery), again as the SNP did, you get business on your side and hard facts on your side that eventually drown out the cries of 'doctors'n'nurses' from the other side.

There is a hunger for tax cuts; people aren't daft. They know that if they get an extra £200 a year in their pockets from the taxman, the NHS isn't going to collapse or schools crumble.

Wouldn't tax cuts and an increase in public public raise borrowing and force up interest rates?

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

And as for the whole 'tax/stability' thing. You can have a stable economy with tax cuts and it's what our economy is crying out for. If you champion tax cuts to boost growth and continued investment in public services (but not the 'slavish' uncosted annual increases for headline purposes that has no bearing on service delivery), again as the SNP did, you get business on your side and hard facts on your side that eventually drown out the cries of 'doctors'n'nurses' from the other side.

There is a hunger for tax cuts; people aren't daft. They know that if they get an extra £200 a year in their pockets from the taxman, the NHS isn't going to collapse or schools crumble.

Wouldn't tax cuts and an increase in public public raise borrowing and force up interest rates?

Dave

I didn't say an 'increase' I said 'continued investment.' Personally I don't think public services need any more money. Spending needs to be capped inline with inflation until they can sort out their internal finances, gut the bureaucrats and  throw out the 'consultants.' Then after two or three years they can increase or decrease spending according to need. And thats the problem; this myth that public services need more money each and every year and we need to pay more and more in tax (or else we'll loose 'doctors'n'nurses') or else it will fall apart is a myth that needs to be exposed for what it is.

Would you gut the bureaucrats through compulsory redundancy (unacceptable), voluntary redundancy (somewhat acceptable) or through natural wastage (acceptable)?

Perhaps public spending need not have been accelerated to the extent that it has had the public services not been starved of cash beforehand

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

And as for the whole 'tax/stability' thing. You can have a stable economy with tax cuts and it's what our economy is crying out for.

As well as lower interest rates to boost growth. Default becomes a problem when the cost of borrowing is so high people can't afford to pay it back. Punitive interest rates are no longer tolerated by voters and who can blame them?

I'm a cautious sod when it comes to taxation; hence all the reservations I have with Darling's, Osborne's and Cable's proposals. I sceptical of any tax cuts born out of some ideological whim founded on freedom, any more than I do any tax rises born out of some dogmatic folly founded on equality

Ideally, Corporation Tax should be tapered in relation to number of jobs created in the UK. More jobs =  more employment = more monies raised from Income Tax and National Insurance. This would offset the loss of revenues derived from Corporation Tax. Of course, this is something that would have to be done with all caution. Ideals are one thing, of course, practicalities quite another. It might breach transnational rules I don't know.

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Perhaps public spending need not have been accelerated to the extent that it has had the public services not been starved of cash beforehand

Dave

The problem today is the same problem as now; no one has a clue on how to spend the money. Spending on the NHS may have doubled under Labour (it doubled under the Tories too) The NHS in particular needs a full blown audit. As for bureaucrats, that should be up to individual hospitals and local trusts as opposed to centrally imposed consultants to the tune of £7bn a year.

I'd always believed that things worked more effectively and efficiently at a decentralised level of operation but having seen it in effect in education, it seems to be that this has only served to increase the number of admin and ancilliary staff; well in my experience anyway

There are three areas in which the NHS should be improved:

- An eradication of the 'postcode' lottery
- An eradication of these bugs
- That very sore need for more NHS dentists

I don't know about you but I think any trainee dentist intending to work exclusively in private practice should pay their own costs of training; those who intend  to do part-private and part-NHS should be self-funded and state-funded pro rata; whole those who intend to do NHS-work alone should be totally state-funded. I'm not sure how it works at the moment

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

I didn't realise this thread was going to become a regular place for posting stolen ideas

Next up as announced in the Guardian

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/gordonbrown/story/0,,2198584,00.html

Brown Pledges a Bill of Rights

As announced by David Cameron: June 26th 2007

http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=130578

Will the government's proposed Bill of Rights be identical to that of Cameron, however ? From the article, seemingly not. Cameron will oppose the government's plans. I'd rather the government best anything the Conservatives have to offer

Indeed, this Bill of Rights would co-exist alongside the Human Rights Act. Very different from the Conservative idea

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

So you agree they stole the idea itself even if they plan a different execution? Brilliant I'm getting somewhere!

Well, if they are plannning a different execution then it isn't the same is it ?

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

So you agree they stole the idea itself even if they plan a different execution? Brilliant I'm getting somewhere!

Well, if they are plannning a different execution then it isn't the same is it ?

Dave

Of course it's not the same, It would be a little too obvious if what they adopted was exactly the same That isn't the point I've been making all along; everything they propose is a poor rehash of Tory policy (often policy they have recently opposed such as changes to IHT for example) and this is the latest example (there will be more soon if the grapevine is correct)

If and when Labour introduce initiatives which match Tory proposals then I'll acknowledge certain things are being stolen but not until. I've already done IHT, non-domiciles and flight tax to death and as you know I'm almost as unamored with Labour proposals as I am the Tory ones

As far as rights are concerned, the 2005 Labour Manifesto reads:

We are proud to have brought in the Human Rights Act, enabling British citizens to take action in British courts rather than having to wait years to seek redress in Strasbourg. But rights must be balanced by responsibilities . So well will continue to bear down on abusive or frivolous claims.

Indeed, I consider a Bill of Rights to be the logical next step to take. A Conservative government intends to scrap the Human Rights Act, this government does not

Dave