[Laurababora]

^^^ Exactly.

Cath, I get your points. And I agree with some of them. I understand its legal but to me its more of a moral issue. I'll admit, I voted Conservative in the last election. But even if I had voted Liberal I'd still be unhappy with this coalition because I wouldn't have voted for Jack Layton or Gilles Duceppe, just Dion. And that's who we'd be getting in this coalition. And like thescoobygang said, the timing sucks for them to do this. We JUST had an election. And even if they didn't do it as a power grab, that's exactly what it looks like. They should have at least waited longer to form this coalition government. It would have made them look like they had more legit reasons for doing it. And I'd also rather have another election than have this coalition government take over. Like I said before, I feel like my vote doesn't even matter anymore if this is what is going to happen when I do. Plus I can just see us accumulating a huge deficit with the way the NDP and the Liberals want to spend money (moreso the NDP than the Liberals). That's not what we need right now.

[*Ledi*]

Originally Posted by Laurababora (View Post) ^^^ Exactly. Cath, I get your points. And I agree with some of them. I understand its legal but to me its more of a moral issue.

If that's why this new coalition is bothering you, then how can you support someone like Harper? Especially if you know of the whole wiretapping controversy?

[Laurababora]

Because I believe Harper is a good leader, at least out of the leaders we have to chose from. And the party is more stable than the others are at the moment. I've always been a liberal but after the whole sponsorship scandal I couldn't in my right mind vote for them, especially with Martin at the helm. I like Dion but he's not a strong enough leader for this country and the fact that the party is willing to put him in as PM after they really had no confidence in him during the election disturbs me.

I actually didn't know about the wiretapping controversy. What was that about?

[*Ledi*]

Originally Posted by Laurababora (View Post) Because I believe Harper is a good leader, at least out of the leaders we have to chose from. And the party is more stable than the others are at the moment. I've always been a liberal but after the whole sponsorship scandal I couldn't in my right mind vote for them, especially with Martin at the helm. I like Dion but he's not a strong enough leader for this country and the fact that the party is willing to put him in as PM after they really had no confidence in him during the election disturbs me. I actually didn't know about the wiretapping controversy. What was that about?

I'd like to know why you think Harper is a good leader, because I personally think he's a liar and power hungry.

Anyway, here is an article from the Globe & Mail:

NDP considers legal action after Tories tape private meeting BRUCE CHEADLE THE CANADIAN PRESS November 30, 2008 at 5:58 PM EST OTTAWA — The NDP says it may pursue criminal charges after the Conservatives covertly listened in, taped and distributed audio of a closed-door NDP strategy session. NDP Leader Jack Layton can be heard on the tapes boasting to his caucus that he had prepared scenarios to bring down the government with the help of the Bloc Quebecois before the Conservatives issued their recent economic statement. The caucus talks took place Saturday and a recording of the meeting was delivered to the media on Sunday by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's staff. In response, NDP MP Thomas Mulcair said the government is panicking and desperate to change the channel on its economic management and may have committed what could be an illegal act. Mr. Mulcair said his party is looking into “the application of the Criminal Code,” in the taping. As for the substance of the call, Mr. Mulcair said the talks with the Bloc were perfectly normal consultations between parties in a minority government. They began only after the government's economic update was delivered last Thursday, he said. And Mr. Mulcair pointed as an example to consultations that took place between Mr. Layton, Mr. Harper and the Bloc's Gilles Duceppe in September 2004 when the Liberals were freshly installed as a minority government. Mr. Harper, who was leader of the Opposition at that time, held lengthy discussions with Mr. Layton and Mr. Duceppe aimed at supplanting Paul Martin's Liberal government without an election in the fall of 2004. Those talks did not invoke a coalition, but rather revolved around replacing the elected Liberal minority with a Conservative government led by Mr. Harper and supported by the New Democrats and Bloc on an issue-by-issue basis. During Saturday's conference call, Mr. Layton also is heard saying it doesn't matter what the policy issues are, they just need to defeat the Harper minority. He says he hopes a lasting coalition can be built that will survive two or three years in government. NDP spokesman Brad Lavigne said the Conservatives are merely trying to deflect attention from the government losing the confidence of the House of Commons. A spokesman for the Prime Minister's Office said there was nothing unethical about covertly listening in to the private NDP deliberations, taping those discussions and releasing them to the media. An unidentified Tory was “invited” to participate in the call, said PMO spokesman Dimitri Soudas. “Maybe the invitation was meant for the Bloc, and they accidentally invited us. We were invited. When you get invited somewhere you have the opportunity to choose to participate or not participate.”

[Laurababora]

Well, I think he's a good leader because first of all he can speak both French and English very well, which is important so that he can convey his party's plans to the Canadian public. I also think he's a good leader because he realizes the issues that are important to our country and doesn't have some idealistic ways to go about solving these issues (i.e. Kyoto, Carbon tax, etc.) He also realizes that this is not a time to go about spending millions of money on all sorts of social issues that are not necessarily needed. He handles debates very well, which is more than I can say about Jack Layton (who was dishing out personal insults to both Dion and Harper, which I did not like at all) or Dion (well, I have to give him the French debate. He did do well on it but sucked when it came to the English debate).

I'm not saying that I think he tells the public the complete truth because what politican does? But out of all the party leaders I feel like I can believe him more than Jack Layton or Stephan Dion. Although Stephan Dion doesn't really look like the type of guy who would lie. But I just can't see him as PM.

It's funny because I feel like the coalition government are liars and are power hungry. Well, mostly just power hungry.

As for the article, which thanks for posting btw, it doesn't really seem to implicate Harper but I can see why you'd question him about being a good leader from that. It doesn't say anything about him doing anything about it or punishing those involved. But I'd rather support someone who's party is involved in that kind of scandal than a party who is involved in stealing millions of taxpayers dollars. That's JMO.

[thescoobygang]

Originally Posted by Laurababora (View Post) Plus I can just see us accumulating a huge deficit with the way the NDP and the Liberals want to spend money (moreso the NDP than the Liberals). That's not what we need right now.

That is one of my fears as well. Sure, I would love a government that gave more money to the people but only if it is done responsibly.

I am reminded of a quote from The Matrix: "You have been down there Neo, you know that road, you know exactly where it ends." I think it's fair to say that the recent history of the Liberals has not been good. What if they 'misplace' money again? What if the NDP overspend? If together with the Bloc they have the majority in government, who will stop them from making foolish mistakes? Saying they 'have to co-operate with each other' doesn't convince me they will have a collective objective mind. More likely they will co-operate on any decision that is the complete opposite of the Conservatives whether is it good or not.

I am prepared to go back to voting Liberal...someday. But geez, not in their current incarnation. The Liberals need to clear out the old baggage (aka- the arrogant MPs of Chretien's day) and bring in new faces and fresh but flexible ideas. They need an image overhaul and party rebuild...something that they shouldn't be trying to do while running the country at the same time. The NDP are no better. They have zero federal cabinet portfolio experience right now. And I have seen enough of Jack Layton and Olivia Chow while living in Toronto to know that their idealism comes before practical sense.

I know people are saying that Stephen Harper brought this mess upon himself...and I don't dispute that. But I still don't feel a hostile takeover is the absolute best solution right now. Canada has changed a heck of a lot since World War I. Just because we had a 3 year Coalition a lifetime ago doesn't mean it will work now.


~tSG

[Laurababora]

^^Me too. I am prepared to vote liberal someday too just not if they decide to go through with this coalition thing and definitely not until they have a good leader and the party seems to be stable. I think they've even said that Iggy doesn't think the coalition is going to work or something like that. This coalition deal does not seem to be well thought out on the part of the Liberal party.

[Cathangel]

Party leaders aren't chosen democratically directly by the people: it's the members of their own party who choose them.

The Liberals have agreed to settle the leadership issue by having their current party leader head the potential coalition government up until the coalition ceases to exist. If the elected Liberal representatives have chosen to give their confidence to Stéphane Dion for the duration of the coalition, then Dion has all the legitimacy he needs to be the party leader and the head of the coalition government since of all the 3 parties supporting the coalition, the Liberals are the ones who have the most seats in the House and thus will have the key executive positions in this potential coalition government. So this aspect was never up to the people to decide to begin with.

So the Liberals and the NDP will form the government but all 3 parties will need to work together to keep this government alive because let's say the BQ decides to stop supporting the coalition, then the NDP and the Liberals together wouldn't have enough seats in the House of Commons to win a vote of confidence, thus why cooperation is an imperative and not a simple condition to make this government work.

And, Laura, I somewhat agree with you that their timing looks bad however the timing to form this coalition was not decided at the opposition's pure leisure. One key parlimentary vote to make the government legitimate is the budget vote. A majority of elected representatives of the House of Commons (50% of the seats + 1) has to approve of the budget that the elected party in executive power presents and if they don't, then the government has no budget to operate with and thus loses all of its legitimacy. Since we came out of a federal election in October and that the parliamentary sessions have only just resumed, a budget had to be presented and submitted to a vote only now.

Here's where Stephen Harper screwed up the pooch: not only did his budget not include provisionary measures for the economic crisis to come (because we WILL eventually be in recession even if we're not right now, as this global crisis is not slowing down anytime soon) but he also introduced certain executive measures (such as taking away the right to go on strike from those who work for the government) that not only were not featured in his electoral program but that were also completely unacceptable to a majority of people that the opposition of this House of Commons represents.

Normally, the opposition would just be content to defeat the government and go into an election but since we just came out of an election and the Canadian people do not want to go into yet another election, this is the only other viable, constitutional and legal option available to make this Parliament work, unless the Conservatives end the parliamentary session before the budget can be submitted to a vote of confidence next Monday and we have to wait until the next parliamentary session begins in January to see if the Coalition will still stand.

Protocol is not clear however if this motion of the Conservatives to end this parliamentary session will be accepted by the Governor General of Canada, as there are no precedents of parliamentary sessions being terminated before the government can be submitted to a vote of confidence so we will have to see how things unfold in the next few days.

[Laurababora]

Yes, I get that the leaders aren't chosen by the people but we chose WHICH leader we want in power. With this coalition that is being taken away from us. Also, they have only given confidence to Dion because there is no other leader at this point in time. That scares me. He should be chosen because they feel he can do the job not because he is their only option. I do like Dion as a person but I just don't feel like he's good enough to be leader of the party much less PM

I honestly can't see all three parties working together for long. Something will come up that will make one or more disagree with the other.

Yes, I get that the passing of the budget is when the opposition can make their move to bring down the government but, I may be wrong here, can't they bring down the government during their opposition days? The passing of the budget can't be the only time that they can do this, if I remember correctly. Although its been awhile since we've talked about this in one of my poli sci classes.

As for provisional measures how can you really be prepared for something so large scale? Even the U.S. was not prepared for their economic crisis. I understand that he should have at least shown some initiative but to have something already in place seems a bit pre-mature to me, especially considering how we don't know how hard this is going to hit us. I do get how people would be angry at him for getting rid of the right to strike.

I'd actually prefer another election than have this so-called coalition happen. I get that it is constitutional but in all honestly seems just a power grab, like I said earlier. At least then, if the Liberals or NDP get into power in an election, I'd have a voice in the process. With this it feels like I don't.

I hope that the Conservatives do that. I know its only delaying things but I'd rather delay and hope they come up with something than have this farce of a coalition happen and we see Dion as PM.

[Raonaild]

Originally Posted by Mio (View Post) I'm angry too. They're taking MY right to vote away, basically saying it doesn't count. WE'RE the ones who decide runs the government, not a bunch of school yard bullies who are throwing a temper tantrum because they didn't win the three legged race.

I've seen this opinion a lot, and frankly I don't understand it at all. YOU didn't vote for a Conservative government, YOU voted for your local MP, and the group with the most MPs in Parliament forms the government. That's how our parliamentary democracy works. Whether that government is comprised of a single party or a coalition of parties, the group that commands the most seats best represents the will of the Canadian voters. A minority party that represents only 38% of the popular vote in the country isn't exactly representing the majority, and to me that's much less democratic than the 44% (or 62% if you include the BQ and Greens) that we could get with this coalition.

Quite honestly, I'd much rather have a majority of MPs who are prepared to work together run the country, regardless of how they arrange themselves. If Harper had been prepared to do this, had worked with any one of the other parties to ensure he had the confidence of the House, rather than running the government like some sort of dictatorship, we wouldn't be in this position now.

Harper accuses the opposition parties of playing politics, but he's the worst offender ... for years now the Conservative minority government has been taking advantage of the fact that the opposition parties have avoided triggering new elections (in the Liberals' case, due to transitions in their party leadership) to push things through Parliament as though they held the majority, because the majority opposition was not prepared oppose them and force an election. And now he's using the BQ's peripheral involvement in the potential coalition to play English and French Canadians against each other, heedless of the potential long-term damage he could do to the country in the process.

Personally, I'm not entirely thrilled with having the BQ as a federal party in the first place. However, over the years the focus of the party has seemed to move away from sovereignty, and these days is more of a regional party. I think there could actually be real advantages to having them work cooperatively with the government, to trying to move them inside the government tent. If they have a stake in the federal government, it seems like they'd have more reason to try to make it work rather than break it down.

[Cathangel]

Originally Posted by Laurababora (View Post) Yes, I get that the leaders aren't chosen by the people but we chose WHICH leader we want in power. With this coalition that is being taken away from us. Also, they have only given confidence to Dion because there is no other leader at this point in time. That scares me. He should be chosen because they feel he can do the job not because he is their only option. I do like Dion as a person but I just don't feel like he's good enough to be leader of the party much less PM

But that's just it: elections are not a personality contest but rather a party and ideology contest. We elect representatives of the House of Commons depending on their party allegiances and what those allegiances stand for and the leader whose party collects the most seats in the House becomes de facto the Prime Minister, not the other way around. One individual alone does not make a government: you need a party and an ideology behind this said individual to give the government a direction and a manner in which it acts.

Originally Posted by Laurababora (View Post) I honestly can't see all three parties working together for long. Something will come up that will make one or more disagree with the other.

The 3 parties have reached an agreement that garantees that none of those parties will leave the coalition or find a way to make the government fall before 2010 at the very least. To breach that agreement would be political suicide for each of those parties. So, again, and I cannot emphasize this enough: cooperation is an imperative, not conditional.

Originally Posted by Laurababora (View Post) Yes, I get that the passing of the budget is when the opposition can make their move to bring down the government but, I may be wrong here, can't they bring down the government during their opposition days? The passing of the budget can't be the only time that they can do this, if I remember correctly. Although its been awhile since we've talked about this in one of my poli sci classes.

Yes, they could defeat the government at a later time but that's only if they approve a budget in the first place for there to be a later time. If a government doesn't have an approved budget they cannot go on in their Parliamentary session.

Originally Posted by Laurababora (View Post) As for provisional measures how can you really be prepared for something so large scale? Even the U.S. was not prepared for their economic crisis. I understand that he should have at least shown some initiative but to have something already in place seems a bit pre-mature to me, especially considering how we don't know how hard this is going to hit us. I do get how people would be angry at him for getting rid of the right to strike.

The economic crisis is going to hit Canada: it's not an hypothesis at this point, it's only a matter of when. Now, at what scale it's going to hit Canada, we don't know but the Harper government added absolutely NO provisionary measures at all to face the crisis. It's like going at sea on a boat without a life jacket when there's a storm coming: you're not sure how handy that jacket would actually be to you but you decide to not bring it anyway and risk your life going into the storm. What happens if you get knocked unconscious and fall at sea and you have no life jacket? That's right: you drown when simply wearing a life jacket could have saved your life in the first place. See what I'm trying to say?

Originally Posted by Laurababora (View Post) I'd actually prefer another election than have this so-called coalition happen. I get that it is constitutional but in all honestly seems just a power grab, like I said earlier. At least then, if the Liberals or NDP get into power in an election, I'd have a voice in the process. With this it feels like I don't. I hope that the Conservatives do that. I know its only delaying things but I'd rather delay and hope they come up with something than have this farce of a coalition happen and we see Dion as PM.

The problem is that Canadians just got out of an election and by going into another election straight away, you risk that the participation % will fall below the 50% mark and that would become truly undemocratic.

The voices of the people are still heard in this process. The spreading of the votes remains the same that it was when each individual cast their vote on the last election day. It's just that now, more than one political party is willing to work symbiotically with one another to make the Parliament (executive + legislative branches) work. And this coalition is not a farce: the 3 parties together represent a majority of the Canadian people and therefore, they have all the legitimacy needed to govern.

[Laurababora]

Originally Posted by Cathangel (View Post) But that's just it: elections are not a personality contest but rather a party and ideology contest. We elect representatives of the House of Commons depending on their party allegiances and what those allegiances stand for and the leader whose party collects the most seats in the House becomes de facto the Prime Minister, not the other way around. One individual alone does not make a government: you need a party and an ideology behind this said individual to give the government a direction and a manner in which it acts. The 3 parties have reached an agreement that garantees that none of those parties will leave the coalition or find a way to make the government fall before 2010 at the very least. To breach that agreement would be political suicide for each of those parties. So, again, and I cannot emphasize this enough: cooperation is an imperative, not conditional. Yes, they could defeat the government at a later time but that's only if they approve a budget in the first place for there to be a later time. If a government doesn't have an approved budget they cannot go on in their Parliamentary session. The economic crisis is going to hit Canada: it's not an hypothesis at this point, it's only a matter of when. Now, at what scale it's going to hit Canada, we don't know but the Harper government added absolutely NO provisionary measures at all to face the crisis. It's like going at sea on a boat without a life jacket when there's a storm coming: you're not sure how handy that jacket would actually be to you but you decide to not bring it anyway and risk your life going into the storm. What happens if you get knocked unconscious and fall at sea and you have no life jacket? That's right: you drown when simply wearing a life jacket could have saved your life in the first place. See what I'm trying to say? The problem is that Canadians just got out of an election and by going into another election straight away, you risk that the participation % will fall below the 50% mark and that would become truly undemocratic. The voices of the people are still heard in this process. The spreading of the votes remains the same that it was when each individual cast their vote on the last election day. It's just that now, more than one political party is willing to work symbiotically with one another to make the Parliament (executive + legislative branches) work. And this coalition is not a farce: the 3 parties together represent a majority of the Canadian people and therefore, they have all the legitimacy needed to govern.

Sad to say this but most Canadians vote for the person and not the party. I wish it were more about the ideology but most Canadians are not interested in politics and have no interest in finding out about each party's platform. So as much as I agree that that is the way it should be, its not for most people. My dad in fact votes that way.

Yes, they have agreed to a coalition right now, but that's not to say it won't change further down the road. I agree it would be political suicide but has that really stopped parties from getting involved in such things?

I agree. It's not a question of if there is a crisis, there will be one. I totally see what you are saying and I completely agree. But I think since it hasn't been that long since the last election and there has been all this news about a coalition forming as well as many other issues, the Conservatives may not have had much time to formulate provisionary measures. I'm not saying that's right, just saying that its a possible reason for why we haven't seen any provisionary measures yet.

As for lower voter turnout if another election were to be called, I'd disagree with that. Have you seen how much response online there has been to the coalition? Even CTV and MSN.ca have written articles on it. Not just against the coalition but for it as well. I think if an election were to occur, that we could see higher turnout rates because this coalition plan has caused Canadians to actually care about politics, which I never really thought possible.

An interesting point that I read somewhere was that yes 60% of the population didn't vote Conservative but how many of this 60% didn't vote at all? I'm just curious about that. And in my opinion Parliament already works. I don't understand why we need three parties to get together to bring down the current government to try and make it work when it works fine for me already. Yes, there are flaws but I like how Parliament is already. And when I said the coalition is a farce I meant that was my opinion of it.

BTW Cath, just gotta say that I'm really enjoying this debate. I don't often get to debate anyone in my house about politics because they know I can get pretty passionate about it.

[Raonaild]

Originally Posted by Laurababora (View Post) An interesting point that I read somewhere was that yes 60% of the population didn't vote Conservative but how many of this 60% didn't vote at all? I'm just curious about that. And in my opinion Parliament already works.

That's 60% of the voters, not 60% of the general population.

And the problem is, Parliament is not working. The Conservative minority clearly does not have the confidence of the House. That's why the opposition parties are trying this approach.

As for why they should not just call an election instead - I don't think the real issue is how many people would vote or not, I think the problem is that we'd just end up with basically the same seat distribution and the same deadlock we already have, only the country would waste another $300 million in the process, and Parliament would be dissolved for another 6+ weeks for an election. I don't know about the rest of you, but personally I was quite nervous about all the bad economic news that happened during our last election, when Parliament was incapable of responding. I'd hate to see that happen again.

Originally Posted by Laurababora (View Post) Yes, I get that the passing of the budget is when the opposition can make their move to bring down the government but, I may be wrong here, can't they bring down the government during their opposition days? The passing of the budget can't be the only time that they can do this, if I remember correctly. Although its been awhile since we've talked about this in one of my poli sci classes.

The opposition parties can bring down a government during a confidence motion. Budgets are automatically considered confidence motions, as are Throne Speeches - if a budget doesn't pass, the government falls. I believe opposition parties can also raise their own confidence motions. But what the Conservatives are trying to do now is "prorogue" Parliament prior to the budget vote scheduled for next week, which would suspend the House and nobody could vote on anything until Parliament is reconvened at some undefined point in the future.

[sunnykerr]

If they called an election tomorrow, though, I'd be interested in voter turnout for Quebec. We have a tendency to be very political, but we (along with the rest of Canada) just went to the polls a month ago, we're going back again next week to vote for our premier... and then a third time? I think people are a bit fed up.

Or maybe it's just me.

And you know I like politics, and I want to be involved.

I have no problems with a coallition, and that has nothing to do with the fact that Harper gives me the willies.

I have no fears with regards to overspending or policies being shifted one way or another because of one party being part of the coallition. Hello, the BQ is in there and I don't think this would mean separation for Quebec (please God, let it not mean separation for Quebec).

I think it would be tricky because, much though I personally am a fan of both Jack Leyton and Stephane Dion (who also both speak the two official languages, though Dion seriously needs to take an immersion class or something to clarify his pronounciation), any party leader is bound to come with some version of a Type A personality. It's part of why I'm not too afraid, because I figure they'll keep each other in check (like members of democratic governments should). But it also makes me curious as to how that would work.

The other tricky part is that Dion is stepping down as soon as they find another Liberal leader, right? Or has that changed? So, inasmuch as I seem to understand that he would be the leader of this coallition... what does that mean? Would Ignatieff take over for him if/when he wins leadership?

I guess the main thing about the coallition not scaring me is that I was already relieved that it was a minority government for Harper. Of course, I hadn't thought that one very far and look at where we are now. But, like I said, Harper gives me the willies. Way too conservative for my taste.

[Raonaild]

So, as expected, PM Harper has asked GG Jean to prorogue Parliament, and she's agreed, effectively suspending our government until Jan. 26.

GG agrees to suspend Parliament: Harper

For all Harper's high-minded talk of democracy, I fail to see how suspending the House and stopping a confidence vote like this is so much more democratic then allowing the vote to occur and the government to fall. And for the next month, we'll have to endure a desperate, scorched-earth PR campaign from the Conservatives to spread fear and hatred amongst various groups in the country (French/English, East/West, etc. etc.). And in the meantime the various crises facing the country - economic, environmental - will go unaddressed.

I blame one person for this crisis: Stephen Harper. If he had any honour, if he cared about the country over his own ego, he would resign, and either turn the government over to the coalition or to another member of his party who might have better luck making the minority government work. Other politicians have resigned for much less.

Originally Posted by sunnykerr (View Post) I think it would be tricky because, much though I personally am a fan of both Jack Leyton and Stephane Dion (who also both speak the two official languages, though Dion seriously needs to take an immersion class or something to clarify his pronounciation), any party leader is bound to come with some version of a Type A personality. It's part of why I'm not too afraid, because I figure they'll keep each other in check (like members of democratic governments should). But it also makes me curious as to how that would work.

That's why I fail to see why the coalition is a bad thing. In a minority situation, no single party can dictate the direction of government, it will only work if there's comprimise. That's what Harper's government failed to do, and that's why they're going to fall. And even when one party has the majority, they should always be trying to work with the other parties - government functions better that way.

Of course, coalitions are no more stable than minority governments. It's not likely the coalition will last for long, and it's very likely there will be an election before the 18 month agreement is up.

Originally Posted by sunnykerr (View Post) The other tricky part is that Dion is stepping down as soon as they find another Liberal leader, right? Or has that changed? So, inasmuch as I seem to understand that he would be the leader of this coallition... what does that mean? Would Ignatieff take over for him if/when he wins leadership?

It's completely within our system for a party, even the governing party, to change leaders and therefore PMs between elections (note that the PM has to be an elected MP though, if a governing party were to pick a new leader who wasn't already an MP, they couldn't become PM without being elected first). It's happened before, most recently with the Chretien -> Martin transition. Usually it's expected that a new election will follow, but that isn't required by our parliamentary system.