Politics

[JawD 31]

Thought Id post this. Its my accountants update on the recent review,

 

The Government's plans to reduce Public Expenditure are announced. What does it all mean and why do we need the reductions?

 

Any difference between money that Government collects, from taxation or sales of assets, and its expenditure, affect Government borrowing. If expenditure exceeds revenues, Government borrowing increases to bridge the gap and vice versa if revenues exceed expenditure.

 

Government debt is currently running at record levels, fuelled most recently by the efforts of the previous administration to fund the bail out of the banks and keep the economy out of recession. In order to maintain our national credit rating (and keep our interest rates at present low levels), the present administration is keen to demonstrate that we are serious about reducing our debt, hence the reductions in expenditure declared yesterday.

 

The rest of this report sets out a few of the key announcements; first the positive outcomes, secondly reductions in expenditure and last but not least a reminder of the tax changes in the pipeline that we already know about and three issues announced today that do affect tax regulations, not least the introduction of a permanent levy on bank profits.

 

 

Positive outcomes - expenditure increased or maintained

 

NHS is to get a small funding rise: From £104bn to £114bn by 2014-15.

International development budget increased to £11.5bn by 2014-15.

The schools budget will increase from £35bn to £39bn over the next four years.

A new Pupil Premium scheme to support the education of disadvantaged children. £2.5bn is earmarked and aimed at supporting children from the lowest income households to reach their potential and narrow the attainment gap.

The science budget will be frozen in cash terms. Allowing for inflation, this is a cut of less than 10% over four years.

Investment in transport projects of £30bn including widening the M25 and the Crossrail train project.

Child benefits are to be retained for all children to age 16, or age 19 if in full time education. The proposal to withdraw child benefit for higher rate tax payers is confirmed.

 

Key benefits for older persons:

 

Cold weather payments are to be retained and are now a permanent feature. Eligible households will receive £25 for each seven day cold spell recorded or forecast where they live.

Free TV licences for over 75's are retained.

Free bus passes for pensioners to be retained.

Free eye tests for pensioners to be retained.

Free entry to museums and galleries to be continued.

 

Other outcomes announced:

 

Equitable Life policy holders to be compensated, at last! Government to make £1.58bn available, payments to policy holders should start next year.

TV licence fees frozen for 6 years and the BBC have taken over budgetary responsibility for funding the World Service programs.

 

Reductions in expenditure

Total cuts are planned to be 19% over four years. By implication we could assume that there will be no immediate, draconian changes but rather a continuing process of public expenditure reform over the period.

 

We have highlighted some of the key cuts below:

 

Public sector workforce

 

£3.3bn of savings has been achieved by the enforcement of a two year pay freeze starting in 2011-12. There will also be a reduction in the public sector workforce by 500,000 over the next four years. The Government is hopeful that many of those displaced will be taken up by new vacancies created in the private sector. To facilitate this new initiative the existing benefits system will be simplified through the creation of a new Universal Credit - to ensure that it always pays to work.

 

Defence budget cut to £33.5bn by 2014-15

 

The Strategic Defence and Security Review published on 19 October 2010 sets out the proposed changes in the scope of defence spending for the next four years.

 

Welfare cuts £7bn a year

 

Over £30bn of the overall savings were announced in the June Budget, £11bn of this amount were welfare savings. Particular focus in the additional measures announced yesterday has been given to reducing welfare costs and wasteful spending. Particular emphasis has been directed at getting more people off benefits and into work.

 

Pensions

 

The pension age will gradually rise to age 66 for men and women and will be phased in between 2018 and 2010. The increase is required to ensure that future planned increases in State Pensions are sustainable in the long term.

 

Public sector employee pension contributions are set to rise and final salary pensions for MPs are to end.

 

Miscellaneous

 

Royal household spending to be reduced.

Police spending to fall by 4% per year.

 

A reminder of tax consequences

 

The following tax increases will be implemented next year as disclosed in the Budget June 2010:

 

VAT rise to 20% on 4 January 2011

National Insurance Contributions are to increase by 1% from April 2011

As part of his expenditure review George Osborne also announced the following changes that impact taxation:

 

£900m is to be invested in pursuing tax evasion.

As mentioned above, child benefit will be withdrawn from higher rate tax payers.

The UK will instigate a permanent tax levy on the profits of the banks. Details are to be published today.

The Chancellor indicated that there will be increases in child tax credits next year of £30, due in the main to indexation adjustments.

 

Don't forget that the effects will be felt in most cases over a four year period.

[Tom 13915]

My mate was on question time twice last night.

 

Ginger lad in the green.

[Papa Lazaru 0]

The problem is Chez that any elements of truth within it are lost in the sea of bile and non truths.

 

Pointing out the non-truths wouild be a start.

 

 

Its tempting but its like listening to talk sport when the Keegan crisis was going on. Sometimes its just not worth it. Like Polly Toynbee or the Mail its just preaching to the converted.

 

(I might if Im bored during the night in )

 

Just say you can't answer it, you'll feel better when you are honest with yourself!

 

And its noticeable you usually tend towards the "can't be bothered" excuse whenever Chez crops up here, maybe because he destroys you with ease and at will?

[Christmas Tree 4003]

My mate was on question time twice last night.

 

Ginger lad in the green.

 

 

The one joining the Navy?

[Christmas Tree 4003]

The problem is Chez that any elements of truth within it are lost in the sea of bile and non truths.

 

Pointing out the non-truths wouild be a start.

 

 

Its tempting but its like listening to talk sport when the Keegan crisis was going on. Sometimes its just not worth it. Like Polly Toynbee or the Mail its just preaching to the converted.

 

(I might if Im bored during the night in )

 

Just say you can't answer it, you'll feel better when you are honest with yourself!

 

And its noticeable you usually tend towards the "can't be bothered" excuse whenever Chez crops up here, maybe because he destroys you with ease and at will?

 

It's also noticeable you don't read threads well or you would see I answered several hours before you posted this drivel.

 

The reason FYI I don't argue much with Chez is that his arguments are usually at a very high economics theory level and I don't mind admitting it quite often sounds like gobbledegook.

 

Now run along or post something worthwhile to the debate

[Sonatine 10144]

The problem is Chez that any elements of truth within it are lost in the sea of bile and non truths.

 

Pointing out the non-truths wouild be a start.

 

 

Its tempting but its like listening to talk sport when the Keegan crisis was going on. Sometimes its just not worth it. Like Polly Toynbee or the Mail its just preaching to the converted.

 

(I might if Im bored during the night in )

 

Just say you can't answer it, you'll feel better when you are honest with yourself!

 

And its noticeable you usually tend towards the "can't be bothered" excuse whenever Chez crops up here, maybe because he destroys you with ease and at will?

 

It's also noticeable you don't read threads well or you would see I answered several hours before you posted this drivel.

 

The reason FYI I don't argue much with Chez is that his arguments are usually at a very high economics theory level and I don't mind admitting it quite often sounds like gobbledegook.

 

Now run along or post something worthwhile to the debate

 

That's the one thing good i'll say about you, the constant reminder of what a smug cunt you really are

[Gemmill 35528]

The reason FYI I don't argue much with Chez is that his arguments are usually at a very high economics theory level and I don't mind admitting it quite often sounds like gobbledegook.

 

CT, you realise that this basically translates as "because Chez knows what he's talking about, and my learned-it-from-The-Sun patter is no match for someone with some actual knowledge."

 

In other words, Papa L had it spot on.

[Guest alex]

Who'd have thought global macro economics would be a complicated subject? This is reminiscent of Neil Cox v David Ginola btw

[Christmas Tree 4003]

The reason FYI I don't argue much with Chez is that his arguments are usually at a very high economics theory level and I don't mind admitting it quite often sounds like gobbledegook.

 

CT, you realise that this basically translates as "because Chez knows what he's talking about, and my learned-it-from-The-Sun patter is no match for someone with some actual knowledge."

 

In other words, Papa L had it spot on.

 

 

Ofcourse that's what it means bright lad

 

Let's all discuss Chez's comments....

Its an excellent article but could be improved by citing the Eggertson's (2009) neo-keynesian model which predicts a multiplier effect 3 to 4 times that under normal circumstance when the interest rate is at the zero bound,

 

You first.

[Guest alex]

As I understand it Keynes was in favour of spending money to stimulated growth so it's a theory based on that and the effects the model describes are 3 - 4 times greater when interest rates are like they are now. I think.

[Monkeys Fist 39181]

Ofcourse that's what it means bright lad

 

Let's all discuss Chez's comments....

Its an excellent article but could be improved by citing the Eggertson's (2009) neo-keynesian model which predicts a multiplier effect 3 to 4 times that under normal circumstance when the interest rate is at the zero bound,

 

You first.

Basically means the price of eggs is set to double.

Next.

[Christmas Tree 4003]

Ofcourse that's what it means bright lad

 

Let's all discuss Chez's comments....

Its an excellent article but could be improved by citing the Eggertson's (2009) neo-keynesian model which predicts a multiplier effect 3 to 4 times that under normal circumstance when the interest rate is at the zero bound,

 

You first.

Basically means the price of eggs is set to double.

Next.

 

[Papa Lazaru 0]

The problem is Chez that any elements of truth within it are lost in the sea of bile and non truths.

 

Pointing out the non-truths wouild be a start.

 

 

Its tempting but its like listening to talk sport when the Keegan crisis was going on. Sometimes its just not worth it. Like Polly Toynbee or the Mail its just preaching to the converted.

 

(I might if Im bored during the night in )

 

Just say you can't answer it, you'll feel better when you are honest with yourself!

 

And its noticeable you usually tend towards the "can't be bothered" excuse whenever Chez crops up here, maybe because he destroys you with ease and at will?

 

It's also noticeable you don't read threads well or you would see I answered several hours before you posted this drivel.

 

The reason FYI I don't argue much with Chez is that his arguments are usually at a very high economics theory level and I don't mind admitting it quite often sounds like gobbledegook.

 

Now run along or post something worthwhile to the debate

 

Tell you what, i will as soon as you manage to, but i won't hold my breath!

 

Good to know i was right about you though, you won't take him on because he knows what he's talking about and is right and ending with a patronising insult shows you know i was right as well.

[Gemmill 35528]

The reason FYI I don't argue much with Chez is that his arguments are usually at a very high economics theory level and I don't mind admitting it quite often sounds like gobbledegook.

 

CT, you realise that this basically translates as "because Chez knows what he's talking about, and my learned-it-from-The-Sun patter is no match for someone with some actual knowledge."

 

In other words, Papa L had it spot on.

 

 

Ofcourse that's what it means bright lad

 

Let's all discuss Chez's comments....

Its an excellent article but could be improved by citing the Eggertson's (2009) neo-keynesian model which predicts a multiplier effect 3 to 4 times that under normal circumstance when the interest rate is at the zero bound,

 

You first.

 

I'm not the one claiming that the argument us littered with errors, our that I'm too tired to get into it, in lieu of just admitting that I don't have the first fucking clue what I'm talking about though. Which you finally seem to have admitted after 75 pages of bluster.

Edited October 23, 2010 by Gemmill

[ChezGiven 0]

As I understand it Keynes was in favour of spending money to stimulated growth so it's a theory based on that and the effects the model describes are 3 - 4 times greater when interest rates are like they are now. I think.

 

Not that hard to grasp really.

 

Where in a recession, in debt and interest rates cant be reduced any further to encourage consumer spending and the banks are reluctant to lend to small business looking to invest.

 

What do you do? Stimulate the economy which will pay off the debt in the long term, or slash spending to gain a more favourable rate from the bond market to keep financing the debt anyway?

 

The models used by Nobel prize winning economists suggest that the former is better. The proof will be in the pudding but if employment doesnt recover next year, then we could be looking at a situation similar to Japan in the 90s. How will we get the one million job losses back into work if the economy isnt growing? Answer is, with great difficulty.

 

Its not a straightforward choice between policies and quite rightly, the public sector should reduce in size as the economy has shrunk. The private sector contracts with the economy naturally, the public sector isnt governed by market forces so someone needs to decide to reduce budgets, to employ less people etc. A degree of this is correct. What the Chinese do is to ensure money they are spending is done in a co-ordinated way as part of an economic plan, building roads and transport links between manufacturers who are hierarchically linked in specific markets, using regional development agencies to ensure favourable lending rates to high potential local firms with export potential.

 

The governor of the BoE was in Newcastle in 2009 when he announced £30m of money to One North East to subsidise a scheme for local manufacturing to establish networks in hierarchically linked companies in Europe. This was one of the first areas Cameron (a self-proclaimed one nation Tory) targeted for reduced spending. Its that lack of coherence in Tory thinking, coupled with the aggressiveness of their attack on our welfare state that concerns me the most.

[ChezGiven 0]

http://www.ny.frb.org/research/staff_reports/sr402.pdf

 

Fiscal policies aimed directly at stimulating aggregate demand work better. These policies include 1) a temporary increase in government spending; and 2) tax cuts aimed directly at stimulating aggregate demand rather than aggregate supply, such as an investment tax credit or a cut in sales taxes. The results are specific to an environment in which the interest rate is close to zero, as observed in large parts of the world today.

[Rob W 0]

the problem is - when was any increase in Govt spending "temporary"

[ChezGiven 0]

The Brown stimulation package was a one off, the Obama package was a one off and the Chinese package was 2 individual stimulation packages. They were incremental to the long term fixed expenditure plans. They weren't annual commitments but one offs. The debate in the US is whether the Obama package wasnt big enough but the WSJ etc claim it failed. Krugman claims the US recession 'would have been worse without it'.

 

All tricky arguments to make when the sample size is one and there is no control arm for the experiment.

[Christmas Tree 4003]

Thought Id post this. Its my accountants update on the recent review,

 

The Government's plans to reduce Public Expenditure are announced. What does it all mean and why do we need the reductions?

 

Any difference between money that Government collects, from taxation or sales of assets, and its expenditure, affect Government borrowing. If expenditure exceeds revenues, Government borrowing increases to bridge the gap and vice versa if revenues exceed expenditure.

 

Government debt is currently running at record levels, fuelled most recently by the efforts of the previous administration to fund the bail out of the banks and keep the economy out of recession. In order to maintain our national credit rating (and keep our interest rates at present low levels), the present administration is keen to demonstrate that we are serious about reducing our debt, hence the reductions in expenditure declared yesterday.

 

The rest of this report sets out a few of the key announcements; first the positive outcomes, secondly reductions in expenditure and last but not least a reminder of the tax changes in the pipeline that we already know about and three issues announced today that do affect tax regulations, not least the introduction of a permanent levy on bank profits.

 

 

Positive outcomes - expenditure increased or maintained

 

NHS is to get a small funding rise: From £104bn to £114bn by 2014-15.

International development budget increased to £11.5bn by 2014-15.

The schools budget will increase from £35bn to £39bn over the next four years.

A new Pupil Premium scheme to support the education of disadvantaged children. £2.5bn is earmarked and aimed at supporting children from the lowest income households to reach their potential and narrow the attainment gap.

The science budget will be frozen in cash terms. Allowing for inflation, this is a cut of less than 10% over four years.

Investment in transport projects of £30bn including widening the M25 and the Crossrail train project.

Child benefits are to be retained for all children to age 16, or age 19 if in full time education. The proposal to withdraw child benefit for higher rate tax payers is confirmed.

 

Key benefits for older persons:

 

Cold weather payments are to be retained and are now a permanent feature. Eligible households will receive £25 for each seven day cold spell recorded or forecast where they live.

Free TV licences for over 75's are retained.

Free bus passes for pensioners to be retained.

Free eye tests for pensioners to be retained.

Free entry to museums and galleries to be continued.

 

Other outcomes announced:

 

Equitable Life policy holders to be compensated, at last! Government to make £1.58bn available, payments to policy holders should start next year.

TV licence fees frozen for 6 years and the BBC have taken over budgetary responsibility for funding the World Service programs.

 

Reductions in expenditure

Total cuts are planned to be 19% over four years. By implication we could assume that there will be no immediate, draconian changes but rather a continuing process of public expenditure reform over the period.

 

We have highlighted some of the key cuts below:

 

Public sector workforce

 

£3.3bn of savings has been achieved by the enforcement of a two year pay freeze starting in 2011-12. There will also be a reduction in the public sector workforce by 500,000 over the next four years. The Government is hopeful that many of those displaced will be taken up by new vacancies created in the private sector. To facilitate this new initiative the existing benefits system will be simplified through the creation of a new Universal Credit - to ensure that it always pays to work.

 

Defence budget cut to £33.5bn by 2014-15

 

The Strategic Defence and Security Review published on 19 October 2010 sets out the proposed changes in the scope of defence spending for the next four years.

 

Welfare cuts £7bn a year

 

Over £30bn of the overall savings were announced in the June Budget, £11bn of this amount were welfare savings. Particular focus in the additional measures announced yesterday has been given to reducing welfare costs and wasteful spending. Particular emphasis has been directed at getting more people off benefits and into work.

 

Pensions

 

The pension age will gradually rise to age 66 for men and women and will be phased in between 2018 and 2010. The increase is required to ensure that future planned increases in State Pensions are sustainable in the long term.

 

Public sector employee pension contributions are set to rise and final salary pensions for MPs are to end.

 

Miscellaneous

 

Royal household spending to be reduced.

Police spending to fall by 4% per year.

 

A reminder of tax consequences

 

The following tax increases will be implemented next year as disclosed in the Budget June 2010:

 

VAT rise to 20% on 4 January 2011

National Insurance Contributions are to increase by 1% from April 2011

As part of his expenditure review George Osborne also announced the following changes that impact taxation:

 

£900m is to be invested in pursuing tax evasion.

As mentioned above, child benefit will be withdrawn from higher rate tax payers.

The UK will instigate a permanent tax levy on the profits of the banks. Details are to be published today.

The Chancellor indicated that there will be increases in child tax credits next year of £30, due in the main to indexation adjustments.

 

Don't forget that the effects will be felt in most cases over a four year period.

 

 

Nice to have it laid out without all the spin.

[Christmas Tree 4003]

The problem is Chez that any elements of truth within it are lost in the sea of bile and non truths.

 

Pointing out the non-truths wouild be a start.

 

 

Its tempting but its like listening to talk sport when the Keegan crisis was going on. Sometimes its just not worth it. Like Polly Toynbee or the Mail its just preaching to the converted.

 

(I might if Im bored during the night in )

 

Just say you can't answer it, you'll feel better when you are honest with yourself!

 

And its noticeable you usually tend towards the "can't be bothered" excuse whenever Chez crops up here, maybe because he destroys you with ease and at will?

 

It's also noticeable you don't read threads well or you would see I answered several hours before you posted this drivel.

 

The reason FYI I don't argue much with Chez is that his arguments are usually at a very high economics theory level and I don't mind admitting it quite often sounds like gobbledegook.

 

Now run along or post something worthwhile to the debate

 

Tell you what, i will as soon as you manage to, but i won't hold my breath!

 

Good to know i was right about you though, you won't take him on because he knows what he's talking about and is right and ending with a patronising insult shows you know i was right as well.

 

 

An apology would have been fine. A bigger man and all that

[Christmas Tree 4003]

The reason FYI I don't argue much with Chez is that his arguments are usually at a very high economics theory level and I don't mind admitting it quite often sounds like gobbledegook.

 

CT, you realise that this basically translates as "because Chez knows what he's talking about, and my learned-it-from-The-Sun patter is no match for someone with some actual knowledge."

 

In other words, Papa L had it spot on.

 

 

Ofcourse that's what it means bright lad

 

Let's all discuss Chez's comments....

Its an excellent article but could be improved by citing the Eggertson's (2009) neo-keynesian model which predicts a multiplier effect 3 to 4 times that under normal circumstance when the interest rate is at the zero bound,

 

You first.

 

I'm not the one claiming that the argument us littered with errors, our that I'm too tired to get into it, in lieu of just admitting that I don't have the first fucking clue what I'm talking about though. Which you finally seem to have admitted after 75 pages of bluster.

 

Sums up your contribution so far, perfectly . Internet warrior mode tbf

[Christmas Tree 4003]

As I understand it Keynes was in favour of spending money to stimulated growth so it's a theory based on that and the effects the model describes are 3 - 4 times greater when interest rates are like they are now. I think.

 

Not that hard to grasp really.

 

Where in a recession, in debt and interest rates cant be reduced any further to encourage consumer spending and the banks are reluctant to lend to small business looking to invest.

 

But we're not any more

 

What do you do? Stimulate the economy which will pay off the debt in the long term, or slash spending to gain a more favourable rate from the bond market to keep financing the debt anyway?

 

Sounds great. What if the economy doesnt pick up, how long do you keep borrowing and stimulating all the time racking up not only the debt, but the hideous interest on that debt? The tory plan allows for business growth, less debt and far cheaper interest terms on that debt.

 

The models used by Nobel prize winning economists suggest that the former is better.

 

The IMF, CBI, OBCR, Markets etc etc disagree

 

The proof will be in the pudding but if employment doesnt recover next year, then we could be looking at a situation similar to Japan in the 90s. How will we get the one million job losses back into work if the economy isnt growing? Answer is, with great difficulty.

 

The facts are that the economy has been growing and every major forecaster is forcasting that this growth will continue. Employment is also rising and is also forecast to continue with a net reduction in unemoployment by the end of the parliament. You can quote this guy til your blue in the face but that doesnt mean you or he is right. His your doom and gloom scenario is not currently happening, the opposite is happening and forecast to continue.

 

Its not a straightforward choice between policies and quite rightly, the public sector should reduce in size as the economy has shrunk. The private sector contracts with the economy naturally, the public sector isnt governed by market forces so someone needs to decide to reduce budgets, to employ less people etc. A degree of this is correct. What the Chinese do is to ensure money they are spending is done in a co-ordinated way as part of an economic plan, building roads and transport links between manufacturers who are hierarchically linked in specific markets, using regional development agencies to ensure favourable lending rates to high potential local firms with export potential.

 

But again forecasts are for growth. And also again, the markets seem to back these predictions.

 

The governor of the BoE was in Newcastle in 2009 when he announced £30m of money to One North East to subsidise a scheme for local manufacturing to establish networks in hierarchically linked companies in Europe. This was one of the first areas Cameron (a self-proclaimed one nation Tory) targeted for reduced spending. Its that lack of coherence in Tory thinking, coupled with the aggressiveness of their attack on our welfare state that concerns me the most.

 

I think its quite clear that the Tories have a whole realm of policies relating to generating private growth and foreign investment. With regard to the welfare state, they are only doing what Labour should have done, wanted to do, but couldnt do because of infighting. (Source J.Powell & A. Darling this week).

 

This has been gone over many times and its a no brainer because as you say, the proof is in the pudding and no one will be proved right or wrong for several years.

[spongebob toonpants 3643]

The facts are that the economy has been growing and every major forecaster is forcasting that this growth will continue. Employment is also rising and is also forecast to continue with a net reduction in unemoployment by the end of the parliament. You can quote this guy til your blue in the face but that doesnt mean you or he is right. His your doom and gloom scenario is not currently happening, the opposite is happening and forecast to continue.

 

 

 

Its all summed up in these couple of sentences for me. You have proved time and again you haven't got a clue what you are talking about, but at least you are consistent - you believe the tories know what they are doing, and you are backing them up

 

I don't mind a bit of blind political support, in my opinion you know what your basic principals are and you support the party that represents them. I'll be honest CT, I have a lot more respect for someone like you, who has picked a side and is sticking with it, than for people who don't vote or who are swayed by whoever is being supported by Murdoch at the time.

 

I obviously think you are wrong, and disagree with pretty much everything you post, but I'll be honest its these floating voter wankers I cant stand

[sammynb 2934]

Being on the other side of the world means that my point of view is easily dismissed by those that don't want to hear it but from here watching the pound and US dollar at a 10 year low against the world power that is the Australian peso it is a sign of the troubling times for the English economy.

A low valued currency is great for a primary resource exporting or manufacturing country but for England a services based economy of banking, finance and business services it is a dangerous and arrogant to think otherwise.

[Gemmill 35528]

The reason FYI I don't argue much with Chez is that his arguments are usually at a very high economics theory level and I don't mind admitting it quite often sounds like gobbledegook.

 

CT, you realise that this basically translates as "because Chez knows what he's talking about, and my learned-it-from-The-Sun patter is no match for someone with some actual knowledge."

 

In other words, Papa L had it spot on.

 

 

Ofcourse that's what it means bright lad

 

Let's all discuss Chez's comments....

Its an excellent article but could be improved by citing the Eggertson's (2009) neo-keynesian model which predicts a multiplier effect 3 to 4 times that under normal circumstance when the interest rate is at the zero bound,

 

You first.

 

I'm not the one claiming that the argument us littered with errors, our that I'm too tired to get into it, in lieu of just admitting that I don't have the first fucking clue what I'm talking about though. Which you finally seem to have admitted after 75 pages of bluster.

 

Sums up your contribution so far, perfectly . Internet warrior mode tbf

 

Oh dear. It's "why you taking about yourself?" time.