| Oh - this is just brilliant 08:48 - Aug 6 with 26980 views | homer_123 |
Not only are the 50 million masks useless and not fit for purposes but the £252 million pound contract was to Ayanda Capital - and get this:
"It also emerged that the person who originally approached the government about the deal was a government trade adviser who also advises the board of Ayanda.
But he told the BBC his position played no part in the awarding of the contract."
and
"The government has also disclosed that the original approach to sell the masks came not from Ayanda Capital but from a businessman called Andrew Mills.
His company, Prospermill, had secured the rights to the full production capacity of a large factory in China to produce masks and was able to offer a large quantity almost immediately.
But the legal document seen by the BBC notes that Mr Mills requested the government instead sign the contract for the masks with Ayanda Capital, whose board he advises, because it could arrange overseas payment more quickly."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53672841 |  |
| |  |
| Balance? FFS on 14:53 - Aug 6 with 5339 views | Dyland |
| Balance? FFS on 13:06 - Aug 6 by Herbivore |
But if you're going to do things quickly wouldn't you be better off chucking the money at an established company with a proven track record of manufacturing or supplying PPE or related products rather than just giving it to your mates? That's the issue here. They've given that money to companies they have proven links with but who have absolutely no track record of supplying usable PPE. If you think that's okay then there's really no hope for you. |
No hope for him and little hope for mankind if he's in even a significant minority. |  |
| |
| Oh - this is just brilliant on 15:00 - Aug 6 with 5326 views | Dubtractor |
| Oh - this is just brilliant on 09:44 - Aug 6 by hampstead_blue |
How about this.
Bloke has a business - aim is to make a profit.
Business makes surgical masks - yawn.
Pandemic strikes - masks become sexy
He calls the Gov to sell them some - they are in a mad hurry
He tells Gov he can get the supply chain sorted - using another of his businesses
Stuff happens really quickly in a national emergency
Now, imagine the normal Gov tender regime.
That takes months. Specs are agreed internally, sent to tender, companies bid, bids are checked, spec checked, samples sent, checked, back to bid.....
Time marches on.....NOTHING happens. People die.
I'm not surprised this has happened but it's far from the shower you make out.
When you are in a mad hurry mistakes are made.
I'd rather the Gov made a few mistakes in these times than sat there with technical and slow but accurate tender processes.....the body bags would then be stacking-up but eventually you'd get the right masks......
Jus a balance. |
The lengths you will go to to defend this government are just embarrassing.
Shameless. |  |
| |
| Oh - this is just brilliant on 15:17 - Aug 6 with 5275 views | Libero |
| Oh - this is just brilliant on 15:00 - Aug 6 by Dubtractor |
The lengths you will go to to defend this government are just embarrassing.
Shameless. |
"I voted for them with real pleasure and joy" - hampstead blue
F*ck this government and f*ck anyone who voted for them. |  | | |
| Oh - this is just brilliant on 15:20 - Aug 6 with 5261 views | Herbivore |
| Oh - this is just brilliant on 14:50 - Aug 6 by jeera |
Luckily the UK has a magic source of endless cash, in the form of a tree. |
Things the UK has plenty of money for - giving big wads of cash to mates' companies for contracts they have no experience of delivering on. Painting a Union Jack flag on Johnson's plane. Mass advertising campaigns and contingency planning for an October 31st 2019 no deal Brexit that never happened.
Things the UK doesn't have plenty of money for - letting NHS staff park at work for free. Making sure kids in poverty get fed over the summer (until a footballer makes a fuss about it). Advance pandemic contingency planning.
Glad we have our priorities right at this time of national crisis. |  |
| |
| Oh - this is just brilliant on 15:30 - Aug 6 with 5240 views | Darth_Koont |
| Oh - this is just brilliant on 15:20 - Aug 6 by Herbivore |
Things the UK has plenty of money for - giving big wads of cash to mates' companies for contracts they have no experience of delivering on. Painting a Union Jack flag on Johnson's plane. Mass advertising campaigns and contingency planning for an October 31st 2019 no deal Brexit that never happened.
Things the UK doesn't have plenty of money for - letting NHS staff park at work for free. Making sure kids in poverty get fed over the summer (until a footballer makes a fuss about it). Advance pandemic contingency planning.
Glad we have our priorities right at this time of national crisis. |
It's depressing isn't it? It's almost like we don't collectively know right from wrong. Or care.
But I suspect too many people think that they'll win from this sort of politics. And if it also creates losers that'll also somehow benefit them.
The truth is that everybody loses to a greater or lesser extent. Barring a tiny percentage of people who get very, very rich. |  |
| |
| Balance? FFS on 16:56 - Aug 6 with 5152 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Balance? FFS on 12:58 - Aug 6 by GlasgowBlue |
Surely the party with the best aspects of Labour and the Greens are the LibDems. Especialy at grass roots level.
Would make complete sense for the LibDems and the Greens to merge and get far better parliamentary representation |
They've always been closely aligned on the environmental side, so would certainly have a common purpose to rally around. It'd be a good move - you see Green parties in Europe doing well with a fiscal outlook similar to the Lib Dems here. |  |
| |
| Balance? FFS on 17:26 - Aug 6 with 5109 views | Ryorry |
| Balance? FFS on 16:56 - Aug 6 by Swansea_Blue |
They've always been closely aligned on the environmental side, so would certainly have a common purpose to rally around. It'd be a good move - you see Green parties in Europe doing well with a fiscal outlook similar to the Lib Dems here. |
Collating yours, Clapham's, GB & DK's comments (too many to reply individually to every post) - what would the chances of a 3-party alliance be in a bid 1. initially to outvote the tories in the HoP; then 2. oust them at the next GE, then maybe 3. some kind of loose coalition govt. on a manifesto of environment, manufacturing, job creation, house building?
Pie in the sky & zero chance, or ..? |  |
| |
| Balance? FFS on 17:30 - Aug 6 with 5103 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Balance? FFS on 17:26 - Aug 6 by Ryorry |
Collating yours, Clapham's, GB & DK's comments (too many to reply individually to every post) - what would the chances of a 3-party alliance be in a bid 1. initially to outvote the tories in the HoP; then 2. oust them at the next GE, then maybe 3. some kind of loose coalition govt. on a manifesto of environment, manufacturing, job creation, house building?
Pie in the sky & zero chance, or ..? |
Be nice wouldn't it. Anything to get this lot out. I can't see it though. Political sorts are far too invested in their own specific ideology - we see that with splits even within parties, let alone parties coming together.
Collaboration is much more common on the continent of course, but I think we'd need PR to be introduced to create the conditions where parties had to work together.
I could be wrong though as i'm far from informed on these matters! | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Balance? FFS on 17:38 - Aug 6 with 5090 views | Darth_Koont |
| Balance? FFS on 17:26 - Aug 6 by Ryorry |
Collating yours, Clapham's, GB & DK's comments (too many to reply individually to every post) - what would the chances of a 3-party alliance be in a bid 1. initially to outvote the tories in the HoP; then 2. oust them at the next GE, then maybe 3. some kind of loose coalition govt. on a manifesto of environment, manufacturing, job creation, house building?
Pie in the sky & zero chance, or ..? |
I'm assuming this is excluding the SNP. I think they're gone unless they're given support for another independence referendum or at least an even more decentralised and devolved UK.
But looking at the battle in England and Wales, an anti-Tory coalition sounds good. Problem is that there's a dearth of actual policies and commitment (barring the Greens) to actually reverse damage and injustice.
"Not as bad as the Tories" is a political response but it's not really a real-world solution to the challenges facing the UK. So they need to be spending these forthcoming years on actually changing the debate and shifting the focus.
Barring the Greens, I just don't see it. | |
| |
| Balance? FFS on 17:41 - Aug 6 with 5078 views | Ryorry |
| Balance? FFS on 17:30 - Aug 6 by Swansea_Blue |
Be nice wouldn't it. Anything to get this lot out. I can't see it though. Political sorts are far too invested in their own specific ideology - we see that with splits even within parties, let alone parties coming together.
Collaboration is much more common on the continent of course, but I think we'd need PR to be introduced to create the conditions where parties had to work together.
I could be wrong though as i'm far from informed on these matters! |
See your point. You'd have thought the current splits within both Labour & Cons (never was an abbreviation so apt for a political party) would inevitably end in the moderates in both breaking away to form their own party if they had the real drive and will for it.
I suspect atm Labour would want to wait & see how it goes with KS anyway. | |
| |
| Balance? FFS on 17:50 - Aug 6 with 5051 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Balance? FFS on 17:41 - Aug 6 by Ryorry |
See your point. You'd have thought the current splits within both Labour & Cons (never was an abbreviation so apt for a political party) would inevitably end in the moderates in both breaking away to form their own party if they had the real drive and will for it.
I suspect atm Labour would want to wait & see how it goes with KS anyway. |
I was hopeful that the breakaway of the Independent Group was going to kick something off. I think a lot of people were at the start, but that just died a death didn't it.There didn't seem a real appetite for change. | |
| |
| Balance? FFS on 17:53 - Aug 6 with 5040 views | Darth_Koont |
| Balance? FFS on 17:50 - Aug 6 by Swansea_Blue |
I was hopeful that the breakaway of the Independent Group was going to kick something off. I think a lot of people were at the start, but that just died a death didn't it.There didn't seem a real appetite for change. |
Problem was that they didn't really stand for anything. Even their "bucking of the system" was entirely within the system.
If they'd put "Change" in inverted commas it would have been more accurate. | |
| |
| Balance? FFS on 17:55 - Aug 6 with 5034 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Balance? FFS on 17:38 - Aug 6 by Darth_Koont |
I'm assuming this is excluding the SNP. I think they're gone unless they're given support for another independence referendum or at least an even more decentralised and devolved UK.
But looking at the battle in England and Wales, an anti-Tory coalition sounds good. Problem is that there's a dearth of actual policies and commitment (barring the Greens) to actually reverse damage and injustice.
"Not as bad as the Tories" is a political response but it's not really a real-world solution to the challenges facing the UK. So they need to be spending these forthcoming years on actually changing the debate and shifting the focus.
Barring the Greens, I just don't see it. |
We're further than ever from the real change you're talking about. Given that we've been conditioned ever since Thatcher's time to be financially selfish, I can't see it being a quick fix either. You're right - it will take many years to change the focus (if anyone has the will to go along with it).
I would have hoped evidence that we're going down the wrong road would start to change people's minds. But if 60,000+ excess deaths, a tanking economy, rising homelessness, deteriorating public services and increasing open corruption can't do it, nothing will. I've no idea how the debate gets changed. | |
| |
| Balance? FFS on 18:04 - Aug 6 with 5014 views | Darth_Koont |
| Balance? FFS on 17:55 - Aug 6 by Swansea_Blue |
We're further than ever from the real change you're talking about. Given that we've been conditioned ever since Thatcher's time to be financially selfish, I can't see it being a quick fix either. You're right - it will take many years to change the focus (if anyone has the will to go along with it).
I would have hoped evidence that we're going down the wrong road would start to change people's minds. But if 60,000+ excess deaths, a tanking economy, rising homelessness, deteriorating public services and increasing open corruption can't do it, nothing will. I've no idea how the debate gets changed. |
I think not perpetuating the debate would be a start. The very notion that the status quo somehow needs defending and just tweaking is totally wrong.
Change is good too and a powerful way to engage voters. Hopefully, progressive and objectively beneficial change but ideas themselves are desperately needed for political gains. Indeed, the Tories's recent success has been built around embracing the idea that the status quo needs changing (not that they really mean it). However, they totally outflanked the supposedly smarter centre that just wasn't particularly engaged in anything interesting. | |
| |
| Balance? FFS on 18:36 - Aug 6 with 4964 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Balance? FFS on 17:26 - Aug 6 by Ryorry |
Collating yours, Clapham's, GB & DK's comments (too many to reply individually to every post) - what would the chances of a 3-party alliance be in a bid 1. initially to outvote the tories in the HoP; then 2. oust them at the next GE, then maybe 3. some kind of loose coalition govt. on a manifesto of environment, manufacturing, job creation, house building?
Pie in the sky & zero chance, or ..? |
These "get the Tories out" coalitions never work.
Firstly, there are a lot of tribal voters out there who would only vote for the party they always have done.
Secondly, as seen at the general election, there isn't a vociferous anti Tory majority. Studies have shown that if the GE was run with a second preference voteing system, the Tories get the second preference from a number of Lib Dems and Labour voters as well as the obvious ones like the Brexit Party and UKip.
Thirdly, despite our system being based on voting for a constituency MP, most people tend top vote for who they want to be Prime Minister. At the last election it was a choice between Johnson or Corbyn. Getting Labour voters to vote for another party for the sole reason of "getting the tories out" just doesn't compute for a lot of people.
To win a Labour majority, Kier Starmer needs to gain 123 seats in the next general election. Given that the SNP have Scotland in the bag, to get to a working majority that doesn’t involve concessions to the SNP, Labour would need to win in many Tory strongholds as well as winning the red wall back.
To do this, Starmer has to be seen as a Prime Minster in waiting and the Labour front bench a government in waiting. Not part of a ramshackle coalition of four or five different parties that aren't the Tories. [Post edited 6 Aug 2020 18:37]
|  |
| |
| Balance? FFS on 18:51 - Aug 6 with 4953 views | Ewan_Oozami |
| Balance? FFS on 18:36 - Aug 6 by GlasgowBlue |
These "get the Tories out" coalitions never work.
Firstly, there are a lot of tribal voters out there who would only vote for the party they always have done.
Secondly, as seen at the general election, there isn't a vociferous anti Tory majority. Studies have shown that if the GE was run with a second preference voteing system, the Tories get the second preference from a number of Lib Dems and Labour voters as well as the obvious ones like the Brexit Party and UKip.
Thirdly, despite our system being based on voting for a constituency MP, most people tend top vote for who they want to be Prime Minister. At the last election it was a choice between Johnson or Corbyn. Getting Labour voters to vote for another party for the sole reason of "getting the tories out" just doesn't compute for a lot of people.
To win a Labour majority, Kier Starmer needs to gain 123 seats in the next general election. Given that the SNP have Scotland in the bag, to get to a working majority that doesn’t involve concessions to the SNP, Labour would need to win in many Tory strongholds as well as winning the red wall back.
To do this, Starmer has to be seen as a Prime Minster in waiting and the Labour front bench a government in waiting. Not part of a ramshackle coalition of four or five different parties that aren't the Tories. [Post edited 6 Aug 2020 18:37]
|
Just a quick clarification: do you mean studies on the most recent GE, or over historic GEs, have shown that a number of Lib Dems & Labour would put Tory as second preference? Because I would find that very strange, and probably a result of people not understanding fully what "2nd preference" means - because if you're not voting Tory as you don't want them in power, why would you give your 2nd preference to a Tory?
And, if we did have PR or some kind of 2nd preference, I'd like to be able to vote for any party that could potentially take a Westminster seat, eg, SNP, PC, etc, that would make things interesting...
Agree with you re: Starmer and the SNP though, and I think it would be crazy not to at least think about a relationship between Labour and SNP. I mean, if we could have the fundamentalist nutters from the DUP holding us to ransom, would Sturgeon be any worse than Arlene Foster?? |  |
| |
| Balance? FFS on 19:48 - Aug 6 with 4911 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Balance? FFS on 18:36 - Aug 6 by GlasgowBlue |
These "get the Tories out" coalitions never work.
Firstly, there are a lot of tribal voters out there who would only vote for the party they always have done.
Secondly, as seen at the general election, there isn't a vociferous anti Tory majority. Studies have shown that if the GE was run with a second preference voteing system, the Tories get the second preference from a number of Lib Dems and Labour voters as well as the obvious ones like the Brexit Party and UKip.
Thirdly, despite our system being based on voting for a constituency MP, most people tend top vote for who they want to be Prime Minister. At the last election it was a choice between Johnson or Corbyn. Getting Labour voters to vote for another party for the sole reason of "getting the tories out" just doesn't compute for a lot of people.
To win a Labour majority, Kier Starmer needs to gain 123 seats in the next general election. Given that the SNP have Scotland in the bag, to get to a working majority that doesn’t involve concessions to the SNP, Labour would need to win in many Tory strongholds as well as winning the red wall back.
To do this, Starmer has to be seen as a Prime Minster in waiting and the Labour front bench a government in waiting. Not part of a ramshackle coalition of four or five different parties that aren't the Tories. [Post edited 6 Aug 2020 18:37]
|
Fourth, genuine options of bucking the system with a positive alternative are met with waves of character assassination and innuendo while completely failing to address the social injustices being challenged! |  |
| |
| Balance? FFS on 19:59 - Aug 6 with 4896 views | tractordownsouth |
| Balance? FFS on 18:36 - Aug 6 by GlasgowBlue |
These "get the Tories out" coalitions never work.
Firstly, there are a lot of tribal voters out there who would only vote for the party they always have done.
Secondly, as seen at the general election, there isn't a vociferous anti Tory majority. Studies have shown that if the GE was run with a second preference voteing system, the Tories get the second preference from a number of Lib Dems and Labour voters as well as the obvious ones like the Brexit Party and UKip.
Thirdly, despite our system being based on voting for a constituency MP, most people tend top vote for who they want to be Prime Minister. At the last election it was a choice between Johnson or Corbyn. Getting Labour voters to vote for another party for the sole reason of "getting the tories out" just doesn't compute for a lot of people.
To win a Labour majority, Kier Starmer needs to gain 123 seats in the next general election. Given that the SNP have Scotland in the bag, to get to a working majority that doesn’t involve concessions to the SNP, Labour would need to win in many Tory strongholds as well as winning the red wall back.
To do this, Starmer has to be seen as a Prime Minster in waiting and the Labour front bench a government in waiting. Not part of a ramshackle coalition of four or five different parties that aren't the Tories. [Post edited 6 Aug 2020 18:37]
|
My view has always been that Labour and the Lib Dems should stand aside in 3 or 4 constituencies each to get rid of some Tory MPs. However, a full on pact wouldn’t work as you say, because socially liberal/economic conservative Lib Dem supporters won’t support Labour and likewise, socially conservative Labour supporters won’t vote yellow. |  |
| |
| Oh - this is just brilliant on 20:05 - Aug 6 with 4888 views | reusersfreekicks |
| Oh - this is just brilliant on 09:44 - Aug 6 by hampstead_blue |
How about this.
Bloke has a business - aim is to make a profit.
Business makes surgical masks - yawn.
Pandemic strikes - masks become sexy
He calls the Gov to sell them some - they are in a mad hurry
He tells Gov he can get the supply chain sorted - using another of his businesses
Stuff happens really quickly in a national emergency
Now, imagine the normal Gov tender regime.
That takes months. Specs are agreed internally, sent to tender, companies bid, bids are checked, spec checked, samples sent, checked, back to bid.....
Time marches on.....NOTHING happens. People die.
I'm not surprised this has happened but it's far from the shower you make out.
When you are in a mad hurry mistakes are made.
I'd rather the Gov made a few mistakes in these times than sat there with technical and slow but accurate tender processes.....the body bags would then be stacking-up but eventually you'd get the right masks......
Jus a balance. |
Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Yeah corruption, shady deals, people essentially nicking public money. It's all good eh? |  | | |
| Balance? FFS on 20:42 - Aug 6 with 4853 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Balance? FFS on 18:51 - Aug 6 by Ewan_Oozami |
Just a quick clarification: do you mean studies on the most recent GE, or over historic GEs, have shown that a number of Lib Dems & Labour would put Tory as second preference? Because I would find that very strange, and probably a result of people not understanding fully what "2nd preference" means - because if you're not voting Tory as you don't want them in power, why would you give your 2nd preference to a Tory?
And, if we did have PR or some kind of 2nd preference, I'd like to be able to vote for any party that could potentially take a Westminster seat, eg, SNP, PC, etc, that would make things interesting...
Agree with you re: Starmer and the SNP though, and I think it would be crazy not to at least think about a relationship between Labour and SNP. I mean, if we could have the fundamentalist nutters from the DUP holding us to ransom, would Sturgeon be any worse than Arlene Foster?? |
I think it was based on the 2015 GE. There was also one of the Mayoral elections, I forget which, where the Labour candidate won the first round but the Tory won the election based on second preference votes. I may have imagined that second one but I'm sure it's correct.
edit: There are millions of people who are comfortable floating from Labour to Tory and vice versa. That's how elections are won.
Re your last point. It would destroy Labour in Scotland and make the Tories the de facto party of the Union. Labour lurching to the left with a leader who was lukewarm about the union saw the Tories become the second party in Scotland, ahead of Labour.
There are a lot of working class unionists who would desert Labour if they did a deal with the SNP. [Post edited 6 Aug 2020 20:54]
| |
| |
| Balance? FFS on 20:44 - Aug 6 with 4848 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Balance? FFS on 19:59 - Aug 6 by tractordownsouth |
My view has always been that Labour and the Lib Dems should stand aside in 3 or 4 constituencies each to get rid of some Tory MPs. However, a full on pact wouldn’t work as you say, because socially liberal/economic conservative Lib Dem supporters won’t support Labour and likewise, socially conservative Labour supporters won’t vote yellow. |
Oddly enough, the LibDems do better at elections when Labour leans more to the centre (Blair, Brown) than they do when Labour go more left (Miliband, Corbyn). No idea why. | |
| |
| Balance? FFS on 22:16 - Aug 6 with 4776 views | Clapham_Junction |
| Balance? FFS on 20:44 - Aug 6 by GlasgowBlue |
Oddly enough, the LibDems do better at elections when Labour leans more to the centre (Blair, Brown) than they do when Labour go more left (Miliband, Corbyn). No idea why. |
Lib Dem support fell off a cliff due to the coalition, so I don't think their poor performance in the last three elections was anything to do with Miliband or Corbyn. |  | | |
| Balance? FFS on 22:36 - Aug 6 with 4755 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Balance? FFS on 22:16 - Aug 6 by Clapham_Junction |
Lib Dem support fell off a cliff due to the coalition, so I don't think their poor performance in the last three elections was anything to do with Miliband or Corbyn. |
Clegg didn't do them any favours did he. And now he's helping Facebook subverse democracy. What a lovely guy. | |
| |
| Balance? FFS on 00:27 - Aug 7 with 4692 views | Ryorry |
| Balance? FFS on 17:50 - Aug 6 by Swansea_Blue |
I was hopeful that the breakaway of the Independent Group was going to kick something off. I think a lot of people were at the start, but that just died a death didn't it.There didn't seem a real appetite for change. |
I actually signed up as a supporter for that. The ensuing emails were extremely few & far between (a total of a handful at most iirc, over months) and their campaign itself that followed beyond uninspiring or unattactive. I found it about as exciting and sparky as an invite to join a WI group for knitting for babies (the WI, babies & knitting are all as alluring as boiled cabbage to me, not remotely interested in any of them). | |
| |
| Arf on 06:36 - Aug 7 with 4623 views | bluelagos |
| Arf on 10:55 - Aug 6 by Dyland |
I genuinely don't know if it's considered inappropriate now. Developing World maybe?
Whatever :) |
When I worked in the developing world I would be corrected if/when I used the term "3rd world", especially when I worked for NGOs where people are very 'right on'.
3rd world is seen as condescending rather than offensive. 'Developing world' recognises that development is a continum along which every county moves, albeit some have developed faster and some are very much still on that journey.
Given than 'Developing world' also implies a hierarchy of development, I remember Oxfam staff talking about "The south" which is a collective for the developing world, given that there is a north/south global split (Australia / NZ / Japan being the most obvious exceptions)
So yeah, preferable to use 'developing world' imho but on a scale of 1 to 10 in offensiveness, (where the N world is 10, coloured is 5) i'd place '3rd world' at a 2. Not meant to be offensive but there are better terms.
You did ask!
As for the OP, reminds me of a number of corruption/fraud investigations I did in Nigeria. Giving a contract out, without a tender, to your mates and it turns out to be a cr@-p company that delivers sh1te...genuine flashback to an investigation into a marketing dept contracts I did.
Incompetence or corruption? Does it matter? Well if corruption can be proven, then jail term should be the consequence. Chances of that happening? Sfa. The govt ruled that usual tender processes were not required thus a 'get out of jail' card was provided in advance.
So you settle on incompetence and sack a few. Meanwhile someone is sitting pretty on £25-£50m profit and can settle anyone who lost their jobs.
So Dyland, I concur absolutely, as someone who has spent years investigating fraud and corruprion in the developing world, this (assuming the twitter thread is correct) absolutely is the sort of thing you would come across there. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
