Big society: Hammersmith then and Tories now

From April 2007, we covered Tory Hammersmith and Fulham council as it started to dismantle Hammersmith’s voluntary sector.

Hammersmith’s voluntary sector funding cuts were barbarous.

Hammersmith & Fulman funding cuts demo

Hammersmith funding cuts demo

The council began with an in-year cut from £2.3m in the first half of the year to £1.9m in the second. A 26% cut was planned for 2008 to 2009. Organisations that served people who were unlikely to vote Tory, and/or presented a threat to Conservatism were at the top of the council’s blacklist. This was long before the recession and deficit ‘justified’ nuclear-grade cuts. Hammersmith’s was an ideological raid.

So.

Over the next little while, yours truly and a couple of other journalists will be using real-life histories like the one below to compare Tory pre-deficit public services rhetoric with their current public services rhetoric. Our aim is to show you exactly what Big Society means to millennium-era Tories. The deficit has nothing to do with it.

Here’s a piece to be going on with (Big Society rating of f-all at the end):

April 2007: It was purely by chance that the Hammersmith Law Centre discovered that Hammersmith and Fulham council was about to cut the centre’s funding by 60%.

Centre lawyer Tony Pullen happened upon the report that recommended the cut when he was thumbing absentmindedly through a council agenda that had arrived in the centre’s mail. The report was called ‘Voluntary Sector Funding, 2007 to 2009’ and proposed that the law centre’s annual £261,000 grant be reduced to £159,000.

‘We hadn’t had any warning. We hadn’t heard anything from the council,’ Pullen says. ‘I don’t know how we would have found out if I hadn’t seen that report.’

It wouldn’t have been long before the cheques started to bounce. The report recommended giving voluntary groups that were due to lose funding just six months to organise ‘strategies’ and ‘contingencies’ before cutting them loose. Continue reading

Big society gets small

The NCVO has been encouraging voluntary sector groups to share information about the effects they expect that public spending cuts to have on their organisations:

“All of these [public spending] cuts are sure to include some significant reductions across the voluntary sector – at least one third of the sector’s income is exposed to risk. More than 700 of you have already shared information about how these cuts will affect you – if you’ve not already done so, please do spare a moment to take our quick survey or email almanac@ncvo-vol.org.uk with your stories.”

You’ll find a spreadsheet with detailed responses from the 700 groups here. I spoke to the NCVO – this work is ongoing, so the list will grow. And grow, I imagine.

Mark Elms, Labour and other targets

We puddle now through the rain to Lewisham Town Hall, where local Labour centrist legend Sir Steve Bullock is due to hold a cabinet meeting on service cuts.

Sir Steve’s cabinet is positioning the ax (with a perverse enthusiasm, some say) over services the council could cut to fund its £3m share of the government’s in-year demand for £1.16bn local government savings.

But that, alas, is not all. Weirdly keen to shine in this first leg of the coalition’s local government service-slaughter challenge, Lewisham council has bullocked ahead and forecast a budget gap of up to £60m for 2011 to 2014 (although it’s still in the dark about government plans for key grants). It has already instructed officers to identify services to push up front for this second phase of the massacre. There’s little evidence the council is fighting for alternatives to keep the poor in this deprived borough afloat – moderate council tax increases in the top bands next year (the council is not compelled to accept Osborne’s incentives to keep increases down) or halts to the capital and PFI programme.

‘It would be easy to declare our opposition to the cuts the coalition is proposing,’ Bullock said in his May AGM address, as he piddled on any notion of combat with the government.

It is easiest of all to embrace the cuts ethos wholeheartedly. Lewisham cuts targets include a mass of jobs in the children and young people’s service, adult social care jobs and care packages, and daycare support for people with learning disabilities. Increased charges are proposed for services like meals on wheels and non-residential care (the complete hitlist is here).

It’s all very Hammersmith and Fulham when you get down to it. H&F Tories partly financed their much-celebrated lowered council tax by charging elderly and disabled people more for services like meals on wheels and homecare – the council ‘sacrificed free home care on the altar of a council tax reduction for which there was no legal requirement,’ Lord Justice Sedley said when three local people sought a judicial review of the Hammersmith charging decision.

The three didn’t win their review, but they drew attention to the truth of Hammersmith’s low council tax. I know that Labour readers will thrash me for comparing one of their councils with H&F’s Tory basketcases, but I’ll do it anyway, and will welcome a proper discussion when everyone calms down. Alternatives to cuts on the Lewishams scale must be found. After all, we’re supposed to be in this together. We’re not if local solutions are about piling costs on the poor.

I digress. Back to Lewisham town hall, where the NUT fronts a healthy-sized rally as the cabinet prepares to meet:

Lewisham cuts protesters

More photos from the event

I dip a toe in the rally, where I find that it is indeed Bullock and Lewisham Labour that people want to scrag. The coalition government gets a pass to quite an extent. The PCS is here, as well as the NUT and NASUWT, which means it’s just like the good old days, before the Tories got in – leftwing unions outside a town hall, screaming bloody death at the local Labour in-crowd. I waft round in an odd wave of nostalgia.

I speak to Kathy Duggan, a local primary school teacher, and NASUWT’s Lewisham secretary. She talks about the council’s response to the cuts agenda, and Gove’s plans for schools and academies, as you’ll see. She’s also furious about Mark Elms and his £200,000+ salary – boy, the unions came down hard on that one:

I also speak to Karen Jonason – a soon-to-retire deputy headteacher at Lewisham’s Pendragon school for children with learning disabilities. She’s circulating a petition to keep Crofton Park library open (Sydenham, Blackheath, Crofton Park, Grove Park and New Cross libraries are tagged for closure on Bullock’s list). She’s also a longtime Labour party member. She makes no excuse for this, even though I ask her to. ‘You fight from within.’

She thinks targeting Crofton Park library is ridiculous – ‘it’s always full of people, with kids always on the computers.’ Elderly people are regular library visitors, which Jonason believes saves the council money – ‘there’s a direct relationship between people staying active in the community and being able to live independently and look after themselves.’ The council believes that its libraries proposal would save about £750k – an amount Jonason feels is small beer.

Jonason’s argument is with council priorities – if money must be found, building and refurbishment work should be postponed ahead of cutting ‘small services’ like neighbourhood libraries.

I couldn’t agree more. There’s big money in these parts, but you need to know where to look for it. The council’s dreadful, and dreadfully expensive, PFI contracting process to date would be an excellent place to start – the National Audit Office has just rapped Lewisham’s knuckles for allowing its Brockley Housing project costs to increase from £44.6m to an extraordinary £115.91 million. Osborne’s spending review will assess PFIs, and the NAO is keen to hear more about their value:

As part of planned assessment of PFI housing through the 2010 comprehensive spending review and in view of a period of restraint and efficiencies in public sector spending, the department (for communities and local government) should consider PFI in the context of its other housing investment programmes, assess the different types of project used and ensure that value for money is a primary focus in terms of the selection of PFI as an investment option.

That’s where the real money is. Jonason knows, and I know, and we all know that these immediate service-slashing economies are false economies. Bullock’s huge list targets people we (literally) can’t afford to target. Makes you wonder what will happen when we really need to save.

An amusing little update: in another Gillian Duffy moment (time Labour politicians were shown the off-switches on their microphones) Sir Steve calls his concerned constituents fucking idiots. And me paying Lewisham well over £100 a month in council tax, too. How rude.

Lord Justice Sedley continued:

‘The object of this exercise was the sacrifice of free home care on the altar of a council tax reduction for which there was no legal requirement.

How Hackney cuts

Updated 11 July 2010. Information on cuts lobbies and organising groups at the end of this blog.

Have started to spend time in Hackney, with people likely to be affected by public sector cuts. Will post interview extracts here while I work on a longer piece with video, and go back to people to see how they’re getting on:

Anthony Rhoden:

I meet Anthony Rhoden at a Saturday afternoon Hackney Unites clinic for people who need free workplace and employment advice. Two Russell Jones and Walker solicitors are there as advisors, as well a TUC and local union rep.

A longtime (now unemployed) chef and restaurant worker, Rhoden says that he is a Unite organiser for bar and restaurant employees -‘there’s a lot of problems in the catering industry – there were lots of problems even before the recession. It happened to me all the time – wouldn’t get paid, or wouldn’t get all my pay. People don’t know they have rights. You get bullied all the time.’

In a recession, though, people count themselves lucky to have a job, even if they’re abused in it. That’ll be nowhere more the case than in Hackney. Hackney’s unemployment figures are already the worst in London, with a June 2010 TUC analysis putting the ratio of people claiming jobseekers’ allowance to available jobs at 24:1.

‘There’s no work anywhere,’ says Rhoden. He looks at me oddly when I put to him the coalition’s idea of moving the unemployed to areas where there are jobs. Like me, he’s not sure such a place exists. It ain’t in an obvious vicinity, that’s for sure. Joblessness will be even worse in Hackney, and in places like Lewisham and Deptford, if the public sector is hit as badly as the coalition proposes to hit it. Councils and the NHS are the biggest employers in these areas – there’s almost nowhere else to go.

Rhoden says he wants to start his own catering business, but that he signs on for now. He lives in temporary accommodation in Wigan House (he’s lived there for three years, waiting for his old block to be rebuilt) and relies on a housing benefit to meet his rent of about £100 a week.

The conversation takes a turn for the disturbing when we get to the subject of this housing benefit and the government’s targeting of it: Rhoden refuses to believe that housing benefits will be cut. He doesn’t talk about campaigning against the cuts – he says that he never ‘gets involved in the politics. I’m not a political person. The politics never changes anything and it never helps us.’

Now I’m looking at Rhoden oddly. Very. I wasn’t expecting this – I was as primed as ever for anger and a tide of anti-Cameron obscenity, but had nothing up the sleeve for denial. I tell Rhoden that George Osborne has housing benefits very much in his sights, and that if Osborne wins, Rhoden may find his housing benefit entitlement takes a ten percent hit.

Rhoden shakes his head. He says again that ‘there’s no way that they’ll cut the housing benefit.’ I say I hope he’s right and that I hope he knows something I don’t. The truth is that I suspect that Rhoden is exactly the type of guy Osborne is after – and exactly the type of guy Osborne wants the everyone-on-welfare-is-a-scrounger brigade to get after – because he’s been collecting JSA for more than 12 months. If he continues to collect JSA, which he may have to if his catering business idea doesn’t fly, he could be looking at losing ten quid a week, even as a council tenant.

‘There’s no way that they’ll cut it,’ Rhoden says firmly. ‘There’s no way they will do that. They will leave housing benefit alone.’ I has absolutely no idea how to interpret this confidence. It could be innocence – if Rhoden doesn’t follow politics, he may not know that Osborne is after housing benefits. That’s hardly a happy thought – he’s unlikely to be the only one. I suppose it could be the misplaced hauteur the right forever bangs on about – Rhoden isn’t worried about benefit cuts, because he’s confident the state will forever pick up his various tabs.

Of course – he wouldn’t be the only one. There are plenty of people with high expectations of handouts. One of the Russell Jones and Walker solicitors makes this point when she tells me that her firm was involved in a lot of final deal negotiations for well-placed City staff when the banks crashed.

‘The reality is that it didn’t hit them very hard,’ she says. ‘They negotiated good deals to leave, and then not very long after they left, they were negotiating good deals into other jobs.’ She says that by comparison, it can be very difficult to negotiate reasonable deals for people leaving the public sector.

She and the other Russell Jones and Walker solicitor say that from their perspective, very little has changed in the banking industry. They say that people are still awarded bonuses, but they just have them deferred so that they appear to be collecting nothing, or a lot less right now. ‘They like it like that. It looks like they’re not taking very much now, but they will just collect it all in the future.’

I wonder if the grassroots is up for a fight for public services, though. I want it to be, but that’ll hardly make it happen. Who would lead such a fight? Public sector trade unions? Hah. The PCS may put up a geniune fight, but Unison won’t.

I attend a meeting of Hackney locals and trade union members which is led by Brian Debus – a man who is walking testimony to Unison’s hatred of popular pro-public service, leftwing activists. Debus is one of the four Socialist party activists Unison has banned from office for demanding that Unison stop funding the pro-privatising Labour party. There is a great deal of difference between what Unison does and what it says.

This meeting of about 50 people knows that. It agrees that unions are too weak and too slow to organise effectively against the coalition juggernaut.

Union membership is low. Strike action is notoriously difficult to organise. Solidarity strikes are illegal. Legal strike action is painfully hard to achieve: unions must ballot, then request permission to strike from industrial action committees that are made up of people who’d prefer to make history as negotiators, rather than pinkos. If strikes go ahead, they may backfire. The Murdoch media hates the public sector and strikers, and will doubtless happily publish coalition press releases that claim public services were easily delivered on days when half the public sector workforce was out.

The meeting decides that the fight for services has to be rooted in communities, like the poll tax resistance. I think of Rhoden at this point, and wonder what will happen when he works out that the money is about to go.

Lobbies and meetings this week:

Camden TUC meeting to organise against cuts on Monday 12 July

Lewisham council: lobby against council cuts at Lewisham council buildings, Catford, Wednesday 14 July 5.15pm. Organised by the NUT.

News of cuts at Lambeth, and proposals to try and keep local people in employment.

Southwark Unites will hold a meeting against the cuts on Monday 19 July.

More to come.

Twitter Updates for 2010-07-01

  • RT @greenroofsuk: Icelandic whaling begins>On plus side, they mite b planning 2 pay Barnet council back in whaleshit #
  • I might leave a comment on Cleggie’s site, but would rather communicate the old way – put pen to paper, then wipe my arse on it. #
  • Hope the Tamils come back to Parliament Sq. I’d like to see Boris try & kick them out…http://bit.ly/ceHOpF #
  • @AlJahom @Charonqc Agreed. Ban this & ban that – achieves nothing. I’m a non smoker (ish) & couldn’t give a shit if others smoke round me in reply to AlJahom #
  • @TiggerTherese Well, exactly. Lots of people wd like a whole doco to explain things that have happened to them… in reply to TiggerTherese #
  • @bilbobaggins2k r u ginger? @moreutterpiffle & I have both had sex with a ginger (1 each) in reply to bilbobaggins2k # Continue reading

Poor people: too declasse to save?

So.

During the recent election campaign, I attended a packed parliamentary candidates’ hustings meeting in Lewisham-Deptford, my home manor. I bring it to you now as evidence that anyone relying on the political class to fight for public services should head out now to lie down on the M4 (the middle class does seem prepared to sacrifice the poor).

The meeting was just so appallingly civilised.

Five prospective MPs sat before the voting public in the middle of a recession, an expenses scandal, a public services funding crisis and – lest we forget – a war, and people just sat there and politely heard all five out. I found it hard to credit.

Perhaps we were looking at a crisis of representation. The audience was overwhelmingly white (which Lewisham-Deptford is not), apparently well-appointed, and inclined to kowtow, as the middle class seems fated to when presented with a lineup of wannabe service-cutting zealots. Well-mannered people asked civilised questions about MPs’ expenses, and touched on the recession and topup fees. Their prospective overlords gave answer in turn. I can say for a fact that I’ve been to less cuddly key parties. Middle class foment was as wedded to the horizon as it ever has been.

Things almost picked up about 20 minutes in when a commotion kicked off down the back, but alas – nothing useful was allowed to come of it. A young, local black man made his way into the meeting. His name was Tony Hambolu and he told us that lived on Deptford’s Tanners Hill estate. Straightaway, he got stuck into incumbent and prospective candidates about his cramped living conditions, and unemployment, benefits and social problems on Tanners Hill. He had to shout to make himself heard over a suddenly-ranting, one-issue long-hair – a bloke who had the face to tell Hambolu to shut up and stick to relevant topics, as you’ll see in the video below – but he stuck with it for as long as he could.

Hambolu saw the problem with the meeting – and indeed with millennium politics – immediately.

‘When they’re sitting in your face, you don’t want to tell them the truth!” he yelled at his fellow audience members while pointing at the candidates. ‘There are people in council flats that have got six children, living in a three bedroom flat, living on benefits every two weeks. What do you want to do about it? Please tell me. How are you going to help people? How are you going to help people?’

‘Let’s stick to the issue,’ the ranting socialist said. ‘Let’s stick to the real issue, which is environment and technology.’

Hambolu didn’t think environment and technology was the real issue, particularly. The yelling went on for a while. ‘You’re all full of shit, man,’ the kid said in the end. He stomped out. That, unfortunately, was that. Nobody on the platform, or in the audience, asked him to stay, or went outside to call him back in, or insisted that the candidates dealt with the points that he raised.

A commentator on a Deptford blog later put it this way:

“Tony had a point, but talked over everyone, lost his temper and ended up effing and blinding. His emotions got the better of him – a real shame because he really had something to say.”

There was an uncomfortable truth in there somewhere: that people may participate in democracy, but they must toe arse-tight etiquette lines while at it. Raise a difficult point in a loud, angry voice, and you’ll be abandoned on the grounds of taste.

I had a camera, so followed Hambolu out of the meeting and asked him to expand on his views.

‘They’re putting money in irrelevant things,’ he said. ‘You’re characterising the wrong things. Housing, benefits issues, work, lots of people are out of work. The safety of our children…they are not tackling those problems, and they expect us to vote for them. All these MPs, they don’t look for the real people, the real voice, the people that actually have problems. All these people work. They don’t know about the real issues going on in society.’

PS – please excuse the ghastly standard of the second part of the vid. Have improved since then.

Women – hear me roar

Right.

Liberal Conspiracy – a site I generally love with a passion – has managed to find yet another educated, well-off woman to write a ‘women are victims and sad fannies’ piece.

I can’t tell you how furious this stupendously male vision of the female state makes me. (I’ve got a couple of articles to finish in the next day or two, and after that, I’m going to write on this in more detail). I leave you with this for now:

The young woman in the piece tells us that she’s had the good fortune of an excellent education, health, and choice and opportunity (which, in my opinion, should pretty much be where the article ends):

“I am twenty-one years old. Female. British. Middle class, and agnostic. I attended a good university, and came out with an arts degree. If I want to make money, I can, and if I don’t, I can borrow it without impediment. I don’t feel the need to compulsively buy things. I’m healthy, and I don’t hate myself.

No one will stop me if I want to leave my country, stay in my country, sleep in until midday, go out and not come home, get a boyfriend, get a girlfriend, study, drop out, claim benefits, get married, or do none of the above.

Am I the freest woman in the world?”

The answer to that question is ‘Yes – on the strength of your description of yourself, you are among the freest women in the world, by about the length of the Gobi,’ but that doesn’t stop our heroine embracing the liberal left’s cherished notion that educated women who choose how to live their lives and control their fertility, etc, are forever doomed, by virtue of their genitalia, to a life sucking on the hind tit (a tit, by-the-by, that will always be half empty):

“Except that I’m not. I can’t walk home at night alone without looking over my shoulder. I will never fight on the front line for my country. I will statistically earn less than my male peers for doing the same job, and if I stop to have children my career will almost inevitably suffer.

I am bound by social conventions, those barriers we place in our own minds, received from others. I wouldn’t dream of never shaving (and neither would most British men and women). I was desperate to pluck my eyebrows and wear a bra by the age of 12. If I don’t exercise, I feel guilty.

Every accomplishment is a second-long thrill, followed by the question: ‘what now?’ If I went into politics, I would have to spend my life lying and smiling and caressing egos before I got anywhere near to power.”

The writer makes an attempt to weave religion into the piece – I think she’s trying to argue that liberation from God ought to liberate women from social constraint – which indeed it does, but of course – no female writer today is allowed to think or imply that this liberation is genuine. All statements women make about liberation must, by today’s misogynist definitions, acknowledge that for women, there is always a catch – that even if we have degrees, good jobs, and control over our fertility, we are still small, scared, and on the receiving end.

I put this comment the article. I was pissed off at the time, but hell – why not? A girl is surely allowed to tell blogworld where it’s gone wrong:

“Is there actually an active campaign here now to find as many women as possible who will paint themselves as victims in 600 words? Am I the only women of the liberal left’s acquaintance who feels this obsession with publishing this type of whinge is sexist in the extreme? Why not just replace half the site with a nice pic of a Stepford wife?

This article is fucking offensive and I’m keen to know why its type is continually solicited, by both the blogworld and the mainstream media. Anorexics, bulimics, depressives, girls who are too scared to walk down the street – talk about falling over yourselves to reinforce male stereotypes of women as sad, weak little creatures. I’m a woman and a feminist and I’m sick to the teeth of this whining, middle class shit. Stop talking about your minor worries for Christ’s sake. Your personal experiences are neither representative, nor important. Neither are mine. Nobody cares. Start writing about people other than yourselves and get a sense of perspective. Use your advantages to help people who haven’t been as lucky as you. Women are smart, strong and capable. Stop insisting that we’re all just creeping around quietly, waiting for a good raping.

Jesus Christ, but this fucks me off.

And while we’re at it – if we’re all so concerned about women as equals, and we’re all such great feminists and so in tune with the female mind, why are there two pictures of gorgeous young birds in their underpants on the homepage?

As I say, I’ll come back to this soon. I want to expand further on stories of feminist success, and clearly need to write something that is substantiated, and speaks a little more of maturity. I hope the liberal left will join me.

The Labour people need

Never one to pass up on local democracy’s offerings, yours truly recently attended the new Lewisham council’s inaugural AGM.

I went partly because I pay council tax in Lewisham and like to clap eyes on the hapless schmucks in charge of it at the dawn of each municipal term’s disasters. There was another draw, though. It struck me that as one of Labour’s outright London wins at the recent elections, Lewisham had real potential as a pain in Cameron and Clegg’s mingled butt, particularly in the fight for local public services. Lewisham is a place where Labour could round on the coalition’s cuts programme, and begin to restore the ‘tacit covenant’ that Jon Cruddas and Jonathan Rutherford believe Labour must have with constituents – ‘a covenant about housing, work and security, a sense of neighbourliness and community.’

So it was that I arrived at Lewisham’s AGM with my tongue hanging out. Would third-term mayor Sir Steve Bullock be my kind of Labour? A frothing, Ted Knight-esque commie threatening sabotage and overspend to defend services seemed a bit much to hope for, but I thought Sir Steve might say a few fighting words about wrangling extra funds out of government for Lewisham’s poor. At the very least, he might pretend resistance.

Sir Steve and I began to go our separate ways in the ideological sense about a minute into his AGM address. It occurred to me that his speech sounded less like a warning to the Cameron-Clegg coalition than a job interview for it. Certainly, he evidenced distaste for a Labour rebellion against the coalition threat.

‘It would be easy to declare our opposition to the cuts the coalition is proposing,’ he began. ‘I intend to invite the leaders of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat groups to meet to discuss Lewisham’s relations with the government.’ Sir Steve hoped good relations with central government would ensue.

So far, so hopelessly civilised.

Like so many of today’s political visionaries, Sir Steve was eager to retail the notion that massive public spending cuts were crucial to the restoration of the national economy. ‘Whatever the outcome of the general election, severe cuts would have been made to public expenditure… unless we transform the way public services are delivered, the impact on our community could be devastating.’

The specifics of this transformation weren’t available at the AGM, so I got Sir Steve on the phone after it. I’ve covered local government for a long time now, and know all too well that the phrase ‘transforming the way our public services are delivered’ tends to present in real-life as abortive outsourcing initiatives, failed public-private partnerships, and/or replacing staff with useless web applications.

We had a nice chat, but didn’t get far with it. ‘It’s early days,’ Sir Steve pointed out. He assured me he was not an outsourcing zealot – ‘I’m not going to follow a privatisation agenda for the sake of it’ – but he’ll work with the private sector when there’s advantage in it. We’ll wait and see if any other ideas are in the ether. What we can say now is that cutting jobs, or sending them out of the borough would be disastrous. The council is the biggest employer in Lewisham.

Regarding local Labour’s relationship with the Cameron-Clegg coalition: Sir Steve expected respect. ‘One of the lessons of the past is that you consult local government [before implementing change], rather than implementing change and seeing what happens.’

I asked Sir Steve if the coalition had indicated it would consult. He said it hadn’t indicated that it wouldn’t. I told him tales of Tory Hammersmith and Fulham council, which keeps council tax down by charging the poor for homecare and meals. I’ve seen the H&F cabinet’s consultation process in action, too, at protest meetings: it largely involved running for it when furious meeting attendees went postal.

Sir Steve said he drew strength from a recent gathering of local government worthies, where new communities secretary Eric Pickles flashed a powerpoint slide that read ‘localism, localism, localism.’ Indeed. Tony Blair once had a slide that read ‘education, education, education.’ Powerpoint isn’t always a genuine read.

That’s it for now: post-election local Labour rhetoric as the party begins its fightback on behalf of – well, itself, mostly, on this early evidence, but hopefully others. Suffice to say for now that Lewisham needs local public services. It has high child poverty rates, high unemployment and problems with youth crime. Cruddas is right – a tacit covenant would be good. An explicit one would be better. I’ll hang out for either.