Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP

Don't Kill Bill said:
If it is so clearly right then get the law changed through the democratic process. No, you can't do that so you want it imposed by an outside authority you happen to agree with, anti-democratic indeed.
Click to expand...

What a shitty argument. You know full well that majority opinion isn't necessarily correct, and you also know full well that politicians aren't always doing the correct thing. The whole thing is effectively "boo, hiss, prisoners are scum like Europe, wahhhh." There's a whole array of policies which, if left to the realm of politics alone will take longer than our lifetimes to be implemented, I for one am rather happy that there's an institution which tells governments when their policies are unacceptable.
 
Silva said:
What a shitty argument. You know full well that majority opinion isn't necessarily correct, and you also know full well that politicians aren't always doing the correct thing. The whole thing is effectively "boo, hiss, prisoners are scum like Europe, wahhhh." There's a whole array of policies which, if left to the realm of politics alone will take longer than our lifetimes to be implemented, I for one am rather happy that there's an institution which tells governments when their policies are unacceptable.
Click to expand...

You don't agree with democracy?
 
Silva said:
It's not that I disagree with democracy, it's that where democracy leads to humans rights abuses it shouldn't have the moral high ground.

Why, don't you agree with human rights? (as long as we're drawing obviously incorrect conclusions here)
Click to expand...

Yes, and I've even stopped beating my wife. It was your point 'You know full well that majority opinion isn't necessarily correct, and you also know full well that politicians aren't always doing the correct thing' that I was taking to task for inconsistency.
 
712 said:
Yes, and I've even stopped beating my wife. It was your point 'You know full well that majority opinion isn't necessarily correct, and you also know full well that politicians aren't always doing the correct thing' that I was taking to task for inconsistency.
Click to expand...

Okay, let's take Ghana and Russia as two examples of countries with (even if corrupt) democracies, both have horrible gay-rights records - is it okay that the LGBT communities in those countries are abused, just because most people there are fine with it? Because I would argue otherwise.
 
Silva said:
Okay, let's take Ghana and Russia as two examples of countries with (even if corrupt) democracies, both have horrible gay-rights records - is it okay that the LGBT communities in those countries are abused, just because most people there are fine with it? Because I would argue otherwise.
Click to expand...

That's a very good question. In a democracy it's certainly possible for a minority to be awfully treated for long periods of time, and all power to those that campaign on their behalf. I can't think of a better method of government though personally, at least such campaigns can take place.
 
Silva said:
What a shitty argument. You know full well that majority opinion isn't necessarily correct, and you also know full well that politicians aren't always doing the correct thing. The whole thing is effectively "boo, hiss, prisoners are scum like Europe, wahhhh." There's a whole array of policies which, if left to the realm of politics alone will take longer than our lifetimes to be implemented, I for one am rather happy that there's an institution which tells governments when their policies are unacceptable.
Click to expand...


Fair enough but don't site anti-democratic in your reasoning because then your argument is deeply flawed.

The UK will be out of the EU and signed out of the convention soon enough, I think the momentum is now unstoppable. Forcing national govts to do things against the expressed democratic will of their people is far more wrong than stopping prisoners from voting. I know you can't see this but it is true. Rights impose on each other; there is no absolute unimpeachable font of justice. Given that all systems are imperfect I prefer to have a say through the democratic process in the laws I live by and people who break those laws shouldn't have a say in the laws others follow. If you want to argue the other way then that’s OK but the people you belittle haven't done anything to earn your low view of them, whereas the people who’s right you champion have done so.
 
712 said:
That's a very good question. In a democracy it's certainly possible for a minority to be awfully treated for long periods of time, and all power to those that campaign on their behalf. I can't think of a better method of government though personally, at least such campaigns can take place.
Click to expand...

Hence why generally-agreed upon human rights are a good way of keeping governments in check. It complements democracy by ensuring that politicians aren't allowed to take basic rights away from us. If there was a major campaign in the daily mail and BBC tomorrow trying to convince the UK to imprison all people with the username 712, then I imagine you'd feel rather hard done by, as unlikely as the scenario is. Of course, you'd be able to campaign against it, but what chance do you have to fighting against the daily mail and BBC?

Similarly, in countries like Russia and Ghana, LGBT activists (see Pussy Riot) are regularly imprisoned or worse. It's very easy for us in 21st century UK to say that campaigning and democracy will do because we're living in one of the most comfortable societies that has ever existed, with a reasonable track of giving its citizens rights, but elsewhere in the world the task of gaining rights is far more difficult and if the right wing is annoyed by the fact that we have to accept the occasional ruling from the ECHR I can live with it because it's been one of the best things to happen to Europe and its people.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
Fair enough but don't site anti-democratic in your reasoning because then your argument is deeply flawed.

The UK will be out of the EU and signed out of the convention soon enough, I think the momentum is now unstoppable. Forcing national govts to do things against the expressed democratic will of their people is far more wrong than stopping prisoners from voting. I know you can't see this but it is true. Rights impose on each other; there is no absolute unimpeachable font of justice. Given that all systems are imperfect I prefer to have a say through the democratic process in the laws I live by and people who break those laws shouldn't have a say in the laws others follow. If you want to argue the other way then that’s OK but the people you belittle haven't done anything to earn your low view of them, whereas the people who’s right you champion have done so.
Click to expand...

I really doubt the out vote will win if it ever comes to a referendum. The winner will be the side which gets the most funding (like the FPTP/AV referendum) and who do you think the big businesses will be supporting? Because I can't see the likes of BMW and other multinationals being in favor of the out vote. In any short-term campaign, big money will win.

And I think it's anti-democratic because anything done to limit the voting rights of citizens is anti-democratic, regardless of public opinion. Going back to Russia and Ghana, I'm sure the general population would be fine with stopping the LGBT community from voting. Similarly, I think that whenever an attempt is made to stop people from voting, it's because of prejudice towards those people, in the case of UK, prejudice towards prisoners.

Sorry for my general twatyness.
 
Silva said:
Hence why generally-agreed upon human rights are a good way of keeping governments in check. It complements democracy by ensuring that politicians aren't allowed to take basic rights away from us. If there was a major campaign in the daily mail and BBC tomorrow trying to convince the UK to imprison all people with the username 712, then I imagine you'd feel rather hard done by, as unlikely as the scenario is. Of course, you'd be able to campaign against it, but what chance do you have to fighting against the daily mail and BBC?

Similarly, in countries like Russia and Ghana, LGBT activists (see Pussy Riot) are regularly imprisoned or worse. It's very easy for us in 21st century UK to say that campaigning and democracy will do because we're living in one of the most comfortable societies that has ever existed, with a reasonable track of giving its citizens rights, but elsewhere in the world the task of gaining rights is far more difficult and if the right wing is annoyed by the fact that we have to accept the occasional ruling from the ECHR I can live with it because it's been one of the best things to happen to Europe and its people.
Click to expand...

generally-agreed upon? Maybe that's the alternative to democracy I've been looking for.

On a more serious note, I tend to the left-wing myself, but don't assume only the right are anti-democratic, that really isn't so.
 
712 said:
generally-agreed upon? Maybe that's the alternative to democracy I've been looking for.

On a more serious note, I tend to the left-wing myself, but don't assume only the right are anti-democratic, that really isn't so.
Click to expand...

I'm not assuming you're anything - but on this issue, it does tend to be the daily mail that shouts the loudest and is annoyed the most.
 
But this isn't a mandatory organisation, so if you peeve a government (or populace) so much that they withdraw, you also take away the actual good stuff that being part of such a convention brings. I don't have any ideological opposition to (some) prisoners having the vote, just seems a bit of a trivial issue to have such a confrontation over.
 
Theon said:
The Government agreed to join the Convention, that is the point - no one made them do it.

Prisoner voting rights also won't be imposed by an outside authority, Government is responsible for implementing the decision (if they choose to). The ECtHR has given its view but they lack the capacity to alter domestic law.
Click to expand...

Not so,

Parliament has voted not to give prisoners the vote the court has threatened the awarding of sums of damages and the govt is being forced to bring in legislastion. Without the court and the threat it wouldn't happen.
 
Ubik said:
But this isn't a mandatory organisation, so if you peeve a government (or populace) so much that they withdraw, you also take away the actual good stuff that being part of such a convention brings. I don't have any ideological opposition to (some) prisoners having the vote, just seems a bit of a trivial issue to have such a confrontation over.
Click to expand...

The issue (for most(or the daily mail more specifically)) is with Europe, and they along with the Telegraph in some cases have spent years whipping up an Anti-Europe sentiment among their readers because it's what sells papers.
 
Ubik said:
But this isn't a mandatory organisation, so if you peeve a government (or populace) so much that they withdraw, you also take away the actual good stuff that being part of such a convention brings. I don't have any ideological opposition to (some) prisoners having the vote, just seems a bit of a trivial issue to have such a confrontation over.
Click to expand...

It's a ridiculously trivial issue, and the UK is undermining everything the EU stands for.

How important that is I'm not sure
 
It's not 'the UK', it's a few powerful newspapers in the UK. Hell, at the last election the BBC went to lengths to explain that the conservative party is split on Europe.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
Not so,

Parliament has voted not to give prisoners the vote the court has threatened the awarding of sums of damages and the govt is being forced to bring in legislastion. Without the court and the threat it wouldn't happen.
Click to expand...


It is so. The United Kingdom is a dualist constitutional system so domestic and international law don't exist in tandem. They are different things and the ECtHR cannot alter domestic law. The only reason the Convention has any applicability in our Courts is because of the Human Rights Act - national legislation.

If you're saying the government is indirectly forced to bring in legislation because of political pressure or sanctions, then that may be so, but its a different thing. They won't do so anyway, there has been far too much grandstanding for them to backtrack now.
 
Silva said:
The issue (for most(or the daily mail more specifically)) is with Europe, and they along with the Telegraph in some cases have spent years whipping up an Anti-Europe sentiment among their readers because it's what sells papers.
Click to expand...


They use it to feed their argument on Europe, but I don't think that's the cause of this particular issue. The cause is basically that generally people don't think prisoners deserve the vote. We as a country tend to tack right on these kind of issues, for better or worse.
 
Silva said:
I really doubt the out vote will win if it ever comes to a referendum. The winner will be the side which gets the most funding (like the FPTP/AV referendum) and who do you think the big businesses will be supporting? Because I can't see the likes of BMW and other multinationals being in favor of the out vote. In any short-term campaign, big money will win.

And I think it's anti-democratic because anything done to limit the voting rights of citizens is anti-democratic, regardless of public opinion. Going back to Russia and Ghana, I'm sure the general population would be fine with stopping the LGBT community from voting. Similarly, I think that whenever an attempt is made to stop people from voting, it's because of prejudice towards those people, in the case of UK, prejudice towards prisoners.

Sorry for my general twatyness.
Click to expand...

Its Christmas your allowed.
In a way I hope you are right about the referendum but I don't see it. If Scotland leaves the UK in their referendum then we are certain to have one on the EU and we will vote to leave. The only hope at the moment for those who wish to stay in is that the politicians never actually give the people a referendum on it. I am 50/50 on the whole issue by the way which is really annoying me, but I can't make up my mind.

The counter argument is that prisoners lose their right to vote when they commit the criminal act and get sent down, that is their choice and they knew about it when they did it so tough shit. I don't know how much tax payers money has been spent sending these cases and defending these cases but however much it is, it is too much. The UK is right, if the Court wants to differ then fine and well but imposing it against the free will of parliament is an awful thing to do. The rights of millions of voters mean nothing compared to the rights a few muggers and rapists who probably don't give a shit about the issue either. The campaign to get out is going to be so easy a child could win it, with this kind of ammunition.
 
I think the whole issue is surrounding the current blanket ban we impose, I don't believe they're calling for Murderous Barry to be allowed to vote for the Killing is Reasonably Acceptable Party (KRAP had to be reused eventually). Given the choice I'd personally probably try avoid locking people up if their crime isn't terribly serious, but there we go.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
Its Christmas your allowed.
In a way I hope you are right about the referendum but I don't see it. If Scotland leaves the UK in their referendum then we are certain to have one on the EU and we will vote to leave. The only hope at the moment for those who wish to stay in is that the politicians never actually give the people a referendum on it. I am 50/50 on the whole issue by the way which is really annoying me, but I can't make up my mind.

The counter argument is that prisoners lose their right to vote when they commit the criminal act and get sent down, that is their choice and they knew about it when they did it so tough shit. I don't know how much tax payers money has been spent sending these cases and defending these cases but however much it is, it is too much. The UK is right, if the Court wants to differ then fine and well but imposing it against the free will of parliament is an awful thing to do. The rights of millions of voters mean nothing compared to the rights a few muggers and rapists who probably don't give a shit about the issue either. The campaign to get out is going to be so easy a child could win it, with this kind of ammunition.
Click to expand...

If you're struggling on the in/out debate, think about it this way: the EU won't accept a trade deal on our terms immediately after we tell them to feck off - after all we're a small island and they're an entire subcontinent. What we offer them is far less than they offer us, so for them it will be more economically and politically viable just to tax hell out of UK products, the insulation would effectively ruin the UK economy and the wealth disparity between London and the rest of the country will only be made worse. You also have to remember how multicultural the UK is now, so you'd assume most foreigners will vote in and their British friends will be inclined to want to keep the open doors policy with the EU. Scotland leaving the UK would make it far less predictable though, but I doubt Scotland will leave, I can't imagine Parliament ever letting that happen.

I don't think there's been any social policy issues which will actually sway people one way or another - they're just going to enforce peoples opinions (i.e, my approval of the ECHR or Farage's disapproval of anything with the word Europe in it.)
 
Theon said:
It is so. The United Kingdom is a dualist constitutional system so domestic and international law don't exist in tandem. They are different things and the ECtHR cannot alter domestic law. The only reason the Convention has any applicability in our Courts is because of the Human Rights Act - national legislation.

If you're saying the government is indirectly forced to bring in legislation because of political pressure or sanctions, then that may be so, but its a different thing. They won't do so anyway, there has been far too much grandstanding for them to backtrack now.
Click to expand...


It is doing so even as we speak. Last week it was rumoured in the news that the govt is bringing forward legislation, it will give some prisoners the vote, as few as it can no doubt. The mechanism isn't relevant to the issue is it? The people we vote for and represent us say one thing this court says another. If we are forced to do this by threat of thousands of pounds per prisoner in compensation then the court has altered our laws against our wishes whatever the mechanism. It is bad, not good as some say, for democracy and will lead to us leaving its jurisdiction the campaign will put the worst offender they can find who is given a vote, and put the most innocent victim of that crime and rightly ask why we care so much about one and not the other. Simplistic but very powerful and people will be very angry about it.

 
Silva said:
If you're struggling on the in/out debate, think about it this way: the EU won't accept a trade deal on our terms immediately after we tell them to feck off - after all we're a small island and they're an entire subcontinent. What we offer them is far less than they offer us, so for them it will be more economically and politically viable just to tax hell out of UK products, the insulation would effectively ruin the UK economy and the wealth disparity between London and the rest of the country will only be made worse. You also have to remember how multicultural the UK is now, so you'd assume most foreigners will vote in and their British friends will be inclined to want to keep the open doors policy with the EU. Scotland leaving the UK would make it far less predictable though, but I doubt Scotland will leave, I can't imagine Parliament ever letting that happen.

I don't think there's been any social policy issues which will actually sway people one way or another - they're just going to enforce peoples opinions (i.e, my approval of the ECHR or Farage's disapproval of anything with the word Europe in it.)
Click to expand...



If it was that simple the debate would have been over years ago. Here is the other side’s argument.

We are net importers of EU goods taxing the shit out of our exports to the EU is never going to happen as we would tax the shit out of theirs and they sell more shit to us than we sell to them. The EU is now run by Germany for Germany and BMW sell too many cars here to go down that route. I think London has most to lose as a financial centre for Europe if we do leave but these issues are small beer when compared to the wider problem. The EU isn't working.

Everything it runs turns to shit and we have lost control of our own destiny in the world. We need to build trade with the rest of the world and being in the EU has prevented us from doing so while destroying whole sectors of our economy which we are going to need. The true cost of policy lead from Europe has been enormous and we need to take control back to make the big decisions quickly enough to meet the new reality and challenge from the east.

It takes forever to get agreement in the EU and even when we are right like about the Euro we get out voted and we are still paying 400£ a year per household to the common agricultural policy.

I can't make up my mind who is right but every time I hear about rights to vote for prisoners or Bulgarian politicians having a go because we are concerned about how many people may be planning to come to the UK, I think do we really need all this agro and what aren't we doing that we should be while we are arguing the toss about this and that pointless rule.

By the way once people are here they seem to want to kick away the ladder for others pretty quickly.
 
Silva said:
If you're struggling on the in/out debate, think about it this way: the EU won't accept a trade deal on our terms immediately after we tell them to feck off - after all we're a small island and they're an entire subcontinent. What we offer them is far less than they offer us, so for them it will be more economically and politically viable just to tax hell out of UK products, the insulation would effectively ruin the UK economy and the wealth disparity between London and the rest of the country will only be made worse. You also have to remember how multicultural the UK is now, so you'd assume most foreigners will vote in and their British friends will be inclined to want to keep the open doors policy with the EU. Scotland leaving the UK would make it far less predictable though, but I doubt Scotland will leave, I can't imagine Parliament ever letting that happen.

I don't think there's been any social policy issues which will actually sway people one way or another - they're just going to enforce peoples opinions (i.e, my approval of the ECHR or Farage's disapproval of anything with the word Europe in it.)
Click to expand...

That's good enough for me.
 
I'm loving what UKIP is doing to the Torries. The latest issue being fox hunting, with Farage turning up to a boxing day hunt. The conservative party will eventually lose all support from the far right, and it's going to be glorious - it'll hopefully have a worst effect on the right wing than the lib dems/labour have on the left.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/fox-hunting-nigel-farage-shows-2961931
 
Silva said:
I'm loving what UKIP is doing to the Torries. The latest issue being fox hunting, with Farage turning up to a boxing day hunt. The conservative party will eventually lose all support from the far right, and it's going to be glorious - it'll hopefully have a worst effect on the right wing than the lib dems/labour have on the left.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/fox-hunting-nigel-farage-shows-2961931
Click to expand...
It's what Cameron has done to the Tories, really. He chose to try and modernise the party and it's backfired massively. Done sod all for them, electorally, and managed to completely alienate the social conservatives.

I'm quite torn on it. I'm instinctively in favour of things that reduce Conservative electability but it's disappointing to see how many people have been so upset with his stance on things like gay marriage. As well as the amount who are drawn to UKIP's fear-mongering over immigration.
 
If the nutters stay within the Conservative party, they are somewhat tempered by it. If they leave and have nothing to lose, they can say what they really think.

I prefer closet racists/homophobes to unrepentant ones. I think they're less infectious.
 
Did you miss the whole gay marriage thing? Because it was mostly the Tories who were most angered by it, and said the most idiotic/homophobic things about it in the house of commons. The law was dragged through by the Lib Dems and Labour. The back benchers aren't so much closet bigots as they are largely ignored, and I'd rather they were ignored as part of a marginalized UKIP than a section of one of the two most powerful parties in the UK.
 
I think you guys underestimate the innate conservatism of the British (mainly English) public.
 
Silva said:
Did you miss the whole gay marriage thing? Because it was mostly the Tories who were most angered by it, and said the most idiotic/homophobic things about it in the house of commons. The law was dragged through by the Lib Dems and Labour. The back benchers aren't so much closet bigots as they are largely ignored, and I'd rather they were ignored as part of a marginalized UKIP than a section of one of the two most powerful parties in the UK.
Click to expand...
No, I followed it religiously.

I understand the argument. I just fear the thought of UKIP becoming so popular it's legitimised. Not because I think it could ever gain any serious power itself but because I fear the legitimisation of far right sentiments.
 
What do you mean by conservatism?

Assuming you mean right wing, I think you overestimate it. Because if the polls are anything to go by, it's been a while since a right wing party won an outright majority (either in the popular vote or representation in parliament). Public opinion is largely against the tory party. On many single issues the public is fairly left wing (80% of the public being against blood sports, for example, see article above). A gay marriage law has been passed. And public opinion is even pro-legalizing cannabis: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...drugs-the-law-lags-behind-public-opinion.html
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
No, I followed it religiously.

I understand the argument. I just fear the thought of UKIP becoming so popular it's legitimised. Not because I think it could ever gain any serious power itself but because I fear the legitimisation of far right sentiments.
Click to expand...

To put in perspective how likely UKIP is to be legitimate, BBC news was going around asking people if they voted for UKIP and one of the people who did laughed and said no when asked "do you think they'll ever get into power", public opinion of UKIP is that they're the anti-Europe party, and even when the Conservatives far right join them, they'll still just be the anti-Europe party. UKIP and the Green Party are basically stuck in that awkward position where no matter what policies they put forward, public opinion of them will remain one-dimensional.
 
For UKIP, that is because Farage himself brings every single question he is asked back to the EU. He's become a caricature of the stereotpical old school Tory as he's become more popular. I think he'd be taken more seriously if he could actually answer questions without 'since the EU/ the Euro/ Romanians etc etc).

UKIP aren't taking support only from the Tories though, that is the issue I guess.
 
Silva said:
To put in perspective how likely UKIP is to be legitimate, BBC news was going around asking people if they voted for UKIP and one of the people who did laughed and said no when asked "do you think they'll ever get into power", public opinion of UKIP is that they're the anti-Europe party, and even when the Conservatives far right join them, they'll still just be the anti-Europe party. UKIP and the Green Party are basically stuck in that awkward position where no matter what policies they put forward, public opinion of them will remain one-dimensional.
Click to expand...
The thing is, as you say, they don't need to win a thing to affect the Conservatives. The more support they get, the more the Tories will feel they have to pull right. The more the Conservatives pull right, the more Labour will, as they'll see the chance to 'seize the centre ground'. It's begun already, Miliband has said some idiotic things about immigration, this last year.
 
Silva said:
What do you mean by conservatism?

Assuming you mean right wing, I think you overestimate it. Because if the polls are anything to go by, it's been a while since a right wing party won an outright majority (either in the popular vote or representation in parliament). Public opinion is largely against the tory party. On many single issues the public is fairly left wing (80% of the public being against blood sports, for example, see article above). A gay marriage law has been passed. And public opinion is even pro-legalizing cannabis: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...drugs-the-law-lags-behind-public-opinion.html
Click to expand...


Perhaps. But what it means to be 'conservative' changes each generation. I'd readily describe myself as very conservative in outlook, but I'm supportive of gay marriage, and very much opposed to the drug war.

I just think the Tories speak the language that younger people understand more than Labour right now. How else do you explain Boris Johnson's incredible popularity? It's inexplicable to me.
 
Milliband just has a terrible PR team, remember the Greggs debate? The tit actually went and bought some pasties, giving the 24 hour news cycle an embarrassing clip to use over and over. I wouldn't really over-think his rhetoric at this point, like most oppositions, he's just reacting to things to try and get some airtime. And most of what he says is pretty negligible, I doubt it'll have any bearing on his potential government.

africanspur said:
For UKIP, that is because Farage himself brings every single question he is asked back to the EU. He's become a caricature of the stereotpical old school Tory as he's become more popular. I think he'd be taken more seriously if he could actually answer questions without 'since the EU/ the Euro/ Romanians etc etc).

UKIP aren't taking support only from the Tories though, that is the issue I guess.
Click to expand...
Even if that wasn't the case, they'd still be seen as one-dimensional - take the Green party, they don't bring everything back to the environment but if you were to go out and talk to people about them, what do you think they'd say?
 
Andrew~ said:
Perhaps. But what it means to be 'conservative' changes each generation. I'd readily describe myself as very conservative in outlook, but I'm supportive of gay marriage, and very much opposed to the drug war.

I just think the Tories speak the language that younger people understand more than Labour right now. How else do you explain Boris Johnson's incredible popularity? It's inexplicable to me.
Click to expand...

Boris Johnson's popularity is in large part down Have I Got News For You, he'd be just another posh toff without it.

And I'd say you're a capitalist, not a conservative. At least I've seen nothing on here to suggest you'd base an opinion on tradition/cultural norms.
 
Silva said:
Milliband just has a terrible PR team, remember the Greggs debate? The tit actually went and bought some pasties, giving the 24 hour news cycle an embarrassing clip to use over and over. I wouldn't really over-think his rhetoric at this point, like most oppositions, he's just reacting to things to try and get some airtime. And most of what he says is pretty negligible, I doubt it'll have any bearing on his potential government.
Click to expand...
I agree. It's the effect of the rhetoric on community cohesion that worries me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.