Re: Latham's Leichhardt meeting
- By Bob Gould
Michael Berrell is being a bit cute when he says the SEP didn't
advocate an informal vote. At the SEP meeting that we both attended,
I pressed Beams on the preference question, and he said that by law
they were required to indicate a preference, and therefore because
Liberal and Labor were equal capitalist parties, the SEP intended to
lodge a split ticket, allocating half of their above the line vote to
the conservatives and half to Labor. In anybody's language, that's an
What Berrell himself did, below the line, obviously with a slight fit
of conscience, is irrelevant to the point that the SEP, which he
supported and worked for, advocated an informal vote by this quite
direct route. An informal vote doesn't count, and in this case the
preferences of the SEP didn't count.
By this route, half the SEP vote went to the Liberals. Did the
presumably left-wing voters for the SEP know that?
Pip Hinman seems to resent my description of her article as
vituperative, etc. By any normal use of language, it was
vituperative. I'm not overly concerned by the abuse thrown at me, or
at Mark Latham for that matter. The DSP can abuse anyone, and its
tone and motives often damage it more than the target of its abuse.
What angers me mainly is Hinman's offensive tone towards the rank and
file Labor and Green activists and supporters at the meeting. The
whole tone of Hinman's report reeks of contempt for these people. The
reference to them as a clan, the ridiculing of their courteous tone
towards Latham, etc.
Hinman can't come to terms with the fairly sharp leftism expressed
courteously by about four-fifths of the speakers. She's quite
unprepared to concede any autonomy to leftist sentiments,
particularly if they come from ALP activists. She implies it's all
fraudulent. What a foolish, sectarian posture to adopt towards a big
slice of the active left-wing political people in the inner-west of
No wonder many of them are rather cautious about responding to DSP
initiatives when all they get is contempt and abuse because of their
Labor organisational allegiance.
The striking thing about the Hinman-Boyle-Riley approach is that it
concentrates entirely on the alleged role of Latham. They refuse to
give any significance to the fact that he's being constantly
challenged by forces to his right, and the Murdoch press in
particular is campaigning for his removal.
From the Murdoch camp's point of view, he's an unreliable Bonapartist
who concedes too much to the left part of his Labor-Green
The really offensive and stupid part of the DSP's approach, however,
is the complete contempt for the leftist views of the Labor and Green
activists and rank and file at the meeting.
Hinman treats them as poor, benighted fools who will inevitably be
betrayed by Latham. The reality is, however, that Latham is forced by
political circumstances to take the sentiment of the Labor rank and
file significantly into account, if he's to survive as leader. That's
the nature of his Bonapartism.
Hinman and company reduced mass politics simply to a formula about
rotten Labor leaders who are continually conspiring to betray. They
give no weight to the leftist sentiments of the rank and file in the
workers movement. That's about as stupid as you can get.
PAUL OBOOHOV'S SUBLIME COMPUTERISED MATHEMATICAL BULLSHIT
Oboohov has just posted a mystifying, almost incomprehensible, piece
in which he talks blithely about spreadsheets, etc, etc, and he
treats politics as if it goes in a straight line, confidently
predicting on the basis of his slightly lunatic spreadsheets that the
Labor vote will go down more or less forever.
Oboohov is a mechanical materialist and a mathematical mystic. The
nature of electoral politics is that two-party preferred votes
usually fluctuate, rather than going in a straight line. Malcolm
Mackerras, who is much more coherent and informative than Oboohov,
performed the useful exercise in The Australian of November 20-21 of
providing the two-party preferred votes back to 1949.
If you take 1993 as a starting point, the Labor two-party preferred
vote was 51.4 per cent. In 1996 it dropped dramatically to 46.4 per
cent. In 1998 it bounced back to 51.0. In 2001 it dropped back to
49.1 per cent. In 2004 it dropped back a little more to 47.3 per
cent -- still higher than 1996.
The most likely variant, if you discount Oboohov's self-interested
mechanical materialist DSP computer bullshit, is that in the next
election the ALP two-party preferred vote will bounce back a bit.
That's certainly what has happened over the past 10 years and over
the past 50 years, notwithstanding Oboohov's psuedo-science in the
service of the DSP's hopeful self-fulfilling prophecy about the
terminal decline of Labor.
>By Bob Gould...
>What angers me mainly is Hinman's offensive tone towards the rank andOh really? Let's see what the sum total of Hinman's comments about
>file Labor and Green activists and supporters at the meeting. The
>whole tone of Hinman's report reeks of contempt for these people. The
>reference to them as a clan, the ridiculing of their courteous tone
>towards Latham, etc
the nature of and comments from this audience were:
"In the end Latham was let off lightly. The majority of questions and
comments, while critical of many of Labor's policy, were polite. This
was essentially a meeting of the clan, and while Latham got heaps of
applause, and a standing ovation at the end, not all were happy ...
"A passionate, but considered plea from a once-ALP stalwart ...
"There was clear concern about Labor's preference deals with the
far-right religious party ...
"... a concern about young people being sucked into the new
evangelicalism, and a call for Labor to set up a left youth movement
"While there were many true believers at the Leichhardt Town Hall
last night, there were many others who had come for a look-see to
find out of Latham had a fight-back plan. They were left disappointed"
I think that's all. Ridicule? Contempt? Pissing on? What a load of
hyperbolic rubbish. More like a sense that this was a politically
mixed group, some apparently uncritical of Latham, many asking very
pertinent questions, and many critical of Labor's positions and
looking for something more progressive. Bob manages over 3000 words
in 2 posts about this meeting, a lot of it about Pip's post, without
a single solitary word that she used quoted. This is simply shoddy
argumentation, and I suggest to Bob if he's going to continue
long-winded deconstructions of what other people supposedly wrote,
then referring to a quote or 2 would be a more honest approach. Even
more honest and relevant would be to not only endlessly repeat
comments along the lines of ...
>>The belligerent, unrepentant, mean-spirited sectarianism of the DSPtowards the members of the ALP who are pushing for a more leftist
outcome is an obstacle to the creation of a class-struggle left wing
in the workers movement<<
... but also cite an actual example or 2 - where are all these trade
unionists and activists, Labor, Green or otherwise, refusing to work
with the DSP and/or Socialist Alliance after being shocked by GLW
articles or whatever? You've said something about the free Craig
Johnston campaign ...
>>The Defend Craig Johnson Committee, in a statement that the DSP quotesin Green Left Weekly without comment, says there are many more ALP
trade unionist members of the committee than there are members of the
Socialist Alliance [last 2 quotes
... which merely shows the DSP is involved in a rather effective
united front (the point about the lack of comment is entirely
unclear, perhaps you're trying to show that GLW is being
inconsistent, if so the only inconsistency is with Bob's dishonest
caricature of the DSP's position on and tactics towards Labor).
Rather rather endless repetitions of the same arguments, let's have
some evidence from the real world. Where's all this hostility,
suspicion etc among decent Labor activists, what campaigns and
struggles has it wrecked? Doug Cameron? You're welcome to that
- By Bob Gould
Michael Berrell's response to my posts on the Labor Party border on
the eccentric. It's an eccentricity common on both the far left and
the far right, and one to which, to be entirely honest, most of us
sometimes fall victim.
Leaving aside Berrell's convenient amnesia about SEP preferences, the
eccentricity of his approach lies in his fully fledged conspiracy
theory of politics, particularly Labor politics.
He advances a conspiracy theory of a curious entity he creates in his
own mind called the Labor Party, an all-encompassing phenomenon
that's constantly conspiring to move its own politics to the right.
In the real world, the creaking Labor-trade union continuum is a
heterogeneous mass formation of competing groups, forces and
interests, containing a range of ideological positions, which are
often in conflict with each other.
This is obvious, particularly at a moment such as the present, when
there is conflict about which way the Labor and trade union movements
It may be comfortable for Berrell and other Marxist sectarians to
create this overarching conspiracy theory of Laborism, but it's
absolutely useless and counterproductive in developing ideas about
how to proceed in the current crisis of the labour movement.
In Berrell's mindset, all that's possible is to predict gloom and
doom and further shifts of the mass movement to the right until the
masses wake up and support the socialist sect of one's choice.
In the real world, of course, that won't happen.
This conspiracy view of labour movement politics is associated with a
similar left view of the bourgeois side of politics, which many
Marxists often treat as if there's some executive committee of the
ruling class somewhere deciding on broad policy and immediate moves.
In reality the bourgeois side of politics is a collection of
competing interests and forces, although a dominant view of strategy
and immediate needs often emerges. Conflicts among the ruling class
are usually conducted in greater privacy than those in the labour
I am constantly amazed at the conspiracy view of the labour side of
politics advanced by Berrell, the Socialist Equality Party and Pip
Hinman and the DSP, when the conflicts within the broad labour and
workers movement are often so public and so clearly associated with
different broad political interests and views.
- --- In GreenLeft_discussion@yahoogroups.com, Nick Fredman <sra@s...>
>Well said, Nick. We are with the workers and the trade union leaders
> >>The Defend Craig Johnson Committee, in a statement that the DSP quotes
> in Green Left Weekly without comment, says there are many more ALP
> trade unionist members of the committee than there are members of the
> Socialist Alliance [last 2 quotes
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GreenLeft_discussion/message/10965 ]
> ... which merely shows the DSP is involved in a rather effective
> united front (the point about the lack of comment is entirely
> unclear, perhaps you're trying to show that GLW is being
> inconsistent, if so the only inconsistency is with Bob's dishonest
> caricature of the DSP's position on and tactics towards Labor).
> Rather rather endless repetitions of the same arguments, let's have
> some evidence from the real world. Where's all this hostility,
> suspicion etc among decent Labor activists, what campaigns and
> struggles has it wrecked? Doug Cameron? You're welcome to that
who are in struggle (see
and we understand and implement united front tactics pretty
effectively in the conditions we face.
Bob Gould has tried also outrageously to sort to put the DSP and the
Socialist Alliance in the same boat as that classical Trotskyist sect,
the Socialist Equality Party (which Gould once joined when it was the
Socialist Labour League)and hopes that someone on the list has not
enough context to spot this cheap shot. But a rally like the one in
Melbourne today shows the difference between serious socialists and
And Gould should know about the left and eccentricity...because he IS
an icon in that category and seems to enjoy that role. Folks and
Gould has no recent significant involvement in building any effective
united front but has a propensity for writing severely
fact-challenged, bombastic, self-noting (do an "I" count on his
article on the Leichhardt meeting), theoretically dubious posts but
when he is straining to convinnce us that it's fine when it is raining
(the ALP is going to the left!) he really has to heap on the abuse.
That is to be expected.
And his self-appointed attorneys shouldn't bother whining that this is
too personal or "beneath me". It is demonstrably not the latter and as
always a couple of lines in response to a Gould-size tirade is totally
justified on the excellent principle that those who give on the list
have to be prepared to take some back.
The totally Philistine references by Shane Hopkinson to "scolding
scoundrels", and Bob Gould to "sectarianism" and "united front" or
"united front from below" amaze me. Please study what that great
socialist said before you throw about ideas you obviously don't
They should read "Letter to Members of the Politbureau of the C.C.,
R.C.P.(B.) with Remarks to The Draft Resolution for the First Extended
Plenary Meeting of the Comintern Executive on Participation in a
Conference of the Three Internationals"
saying "scolding scoundrels" again. At least they should realise that
there is no political cost whatsoever in "scolding" certain scoundrels
and "scolding" ANY scoundrels in certain circumstances, in Lenin's view!
Then they should try and understand Lenin's perfectly sound criticism
of "left-wing communism" in his famous book. And after that, hopefully
they won't confuse "scolding" and "exposing" and will understand that
the latter is a neccesary part of (though obviously not all of) the
permanent work of any serious socialist.
Then, maybe, there will be the basis of some serious discussion about
these important political concepts and lessons.
- --- In GreenLeft_discussion@yahoogroups.com, "bobgould987"
>Bob Gould's slanders can be laughed off as sectarian eccentricity but
> Hinman and company reduced mass politics simply to a formula about
> rotten Labor leaders who are continually conspiring to betray. They
> give no weight to the leftist sentiments of the rank and file in the
> workers movement. That's about as stupid as you can get.
somewhat more effective use of the same slanders (some of them may
have been selected from his diatribes) are being used by conservative
trade union bureaucrats and other nasties in the "workers party" to
attack militant trade union leaders like jailed Socialist Alliance
member Craig Johnston.
Have a look, for example, at the cleverly-worded, but poisonous and
reactionary anonymous slander sheet currently being circulated in the
trade union movement.
Read it carefully. Then ask yourself: which side are you on?
Craig Johnston Campaign - Separating Fact from Fiction
In December, 2003, the ACTU Executive, which represents 46 unions and
1.8 million trade unionists, carried the following resolution:
"This meeting unequivocally condemns the use of criminal, violent and
intimidatory conduct in industrial and political activity as
anti-worker and anti-union.
"Unions uphold the important right of working people and their unions
to engage in industrial action to protect job security and to improve
pay and conditions of employment. Union members must also have the
right to protest and express political views. These are essential
rights in a democratic society.
"This meeting recognises that attacks by some employers and
governments on these essential rights in recent years have generated
frustration and anger. Workers, unions and union officials have been
subjected to extreme pressure.
"However, it is vital that the long standing opposition of the labour
movement to the use of violence, thuggery and intimidation in any form
and from any source is upheld. Such activity in fact undermines
democratic and union rights.
"Criminal, violent and intimidatory conduct is therefore condemned.
"There is a collective responsibility to uphold this stance throughout
the union movement. Those failing to respect this collective
responsibility by engaging in criminal, violent and intimidatory
conduct must therefore be denied the support, access to resources, or
collective protection of unions."
The ACTU Executive made this decision so their could be no
misunderstanding of their position following the Johnston Tiles,
Skilled Engineering, and other incidents involving violence bullying
The campaign to "Free Craig Johnston" is deceptive. It uses lies,
deception and misinformation in an attempt to have progressive
Australians support a misguided, politically-driven agenda.
This is the wrong direction in a period when the union movement has to
prepare to fight against another series of attacks by the Howard
government on workers' basic rights to organise and to collectively
Please read the background and political issues we set out here when
you are considering your response to requests for support from the
We urge you to reject the misinformation and support the deeper
traditions of democracy and solidarity of Australia's labour movement.
The Socialist Alliance and a small group of unionists are attempting
to rewrite history and portray the conviction and jailing of Craig
Johnston on serious criminal charges as a political conspiracy
involving governments, the courts, the ACTU, the AMWU, the police and
It really is time to separate fact from fiction.
Johnston is not in jail because of his activities as a union official,
he is in jail because he led a mindless rampage at Johnson Tiles and
Skilled Engineering in June 2001, which left many employees of these
companies traumatised, fearful, and confused.
The attempt to "spin" acts of violence, intimidation and industrial
lunacy as some kind of heroic defence of working people defies belief.
By donning a balaclava and leading the so called "run-throughs",
Johnston handed the enemies of the trade union movement a massive
political weapon to use against it.
Craig Johnston's politically and industrially inept approach to the
Johnson Tiles dispute meant that the real issue of the maintenance
workers' job security was sidelined and inevitably their fight was
abandoned as resources were diverted to defend criminal charges
against individual Unionists.
This Workers First action involved mindless damage to property and
threats to individuals as a substitute for collective action. This is
the opposite of traditional union militancy. It fails to develop the
political understanding of workers; it isolates workers and leaves
them as spectators in their own struggles.
Johnston was the leader of a faction within the Victorian Branch of
the AMWU called Workers First.
The original militant and successful campaigns supported by Workers
First in Victoria quickly degenerated into an orgy of self-indulgence
The faction's divisive tactic was to portray itself as ultra-militant,
aggressive and uncompromising, to create a myth that the union had
failed the members but Workers First had saved them.
The reality behind this myth was a lack of strategic leadership and a
lack of political understanding combined with a "bully boy" approach
to anyone who questioned their tactics. The Victorian AMWU became
isolated from the majority of its members and was the focus of
political and employer calls for new laws to deal with the overt
aggression promoted by Workers First.
Craig Johnston and Workers First misconceived and overestimated the
value of direct action. They came to believe that they were
They underestimated the value of political strategy to win the support
of workers and the public with reasoned argument and strategic,
sustainable, industrial action.
The coercive power of the State was underestimated. Working-class
principles were reduced to putting the faction first. Militancy and
politics were separated.
The dispute with Johnson Tiles was so badly handled by Craig Johnston
that it resulted in:
1. Unionists and activists being manipulated into violent incidents.
2. CFMEU members working at Johnson Tiles being terrorised.
3. Indiscriminate property damage at Johnson Tiles and Skilled
4. Workers and their families threatened with retribution and even
death. The so-called 'scabs' at Johnson Tiles were members of the
AMWU, as were the employees at Skilled Engineering.
5. A pregnant Skilled Engineering clerical worker fearing for her
unborn child's health as a result of breathing fumes from a fire
extinguisher deliberately activated during the rampage.
6. Offices trashed and clerical workers terrorised by balaclava clad
7. Union leaders and Unionists diverted from defending their
membership as a result of lengthy legal proceedings,
Johnston's union, the AMWU, has long understood that violence,
bullying, and intimidation has no place in a successful union. On
this basis, the AMWU National Council called on those involved in the
'run-throughs' at Johnston Tiles and Skilled Engineering to cooperate
with the police and resolve the matter as quickly as possible.
Every unionist involved, except Craig Johnston, determined to plead
guilty to charges associated with the 'run-throughs'.
On July 30, 2003, 16 AMWU officers and activists pleaded guilty in the
Melbourne County Court to charges of unlawful assembly at Johnson
Tiles and Skilled Engineering on June 15, 2001. They were put on good
behaviour bonds of between 12 months to 3 years and fined between
$1,000 and $3,000.
Craig Johnston was charged with the most serious offences of threat to
kill, unlawful assault, unlawful imprisonment, affray, riot and
Johnston maintained the deception and lie that he was not guilty for
almost three years. During that period a massive amount of money -
estimated to be around $300,000 - was raised for the defence of the so
called Skilled Six, mainly from building workers in Victoria.
Many workers sacrificed wages to attend stop work meetings and the
rally outside the court on May 10, where Johnston again declared that
he was innocent and the victim of a political witch hunt.
Johnston left the rally, went into court, and amazingly did a huge
back flip and pleaded guilty to the charges he faced.
He was sentenced to 12 months jail, fully suspended, along with
substantial fines. Workers who had been deceived by Johnston's claim
of innocence for almost three years felt betrayed at his plea of
guilty and real support amongst building workers disappeared.
The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed the sentence as too
lenient and, at the end of August, the Victorian Appeal Court
sentenced Johnston to nine months jail, which he is now serving.
For your further information, the Appeal Court judgement can be found
The Political Issues
The symbolism of that day at Johnston Tiles cannot be overstated.
Three years after Howard and Reith made the balaclava-masked security
guard at Patricks an icon of their anti-worker policy, Johnston donned
the symbol of union busting, a balaclava, and led the violent
'run-through' at Johnson Tiles and Skilled Engineering.
Johnston handed Howard a huge weapon with which to isolate and vilify
the union movement.
The new Howard government, will no doubt, use the example of Skilled
Engineering and Johnston Tiles as a justification for further
anti-union legislation and increased penal powers.
Despite Johnston's belated plea of guilty in May, a new campaign has
commenced demanding the immediate release of Craig Johnston the
A small minority within the union movement supports this campaign
because they endorse Johnston's mindless militancy and lack of
working-class politics. This continues the ethos of Norm Gallagher's
Builders Labourers Federation which ended in the disaster of
deregistration in 1986.
The Socialist Alliance is leading this campaign because Johnston is a
prominent member of the Alliance. It uses the campaign to attack the
Left leadership of the AMWU and, more broadly, to attack the ALP.
Socialist Alliance asserts that the ALP and the Left in the unions
always sell out or mislead workers and so must be exposed and smashed.
John Howard couldn't agree more!
While Socialist Alliance calls Craig Johnston a militant working-class
hero, they also claim that they are for democracy, unity, and women's
They ignore the rights of innocent workers and pregnant office workers
to come to work and not be terrorised by balaclava wearing thugs or
so-called Union leaders misusing their position of power.
Following the Johnston Tiles disaster, Craig Johnston was accused by
one of his own women organisers of sexual assault, a matter recently
resolved in the Federal Magistrates Court. The young woman gave
evidence against Johnston at an AMWU National Council hearing.
Johnston, despite being given every opportunity, did not appear in his
Socialist Alliance is not credible when they assert Johnston is a
working class hero.
The Free Craig Johnston Campaign cannot be disentangled from the
destructive and enormously damaging methods of Workers First.
Workers First, led by Johnston have:
1. Attempted to justify violence, bullying and intimidation as
legitimate union tactics
2. Led a number of disputes that have resulted In "glorious defeats",
such as Johnston Tiles
3. Played a destructive, sectarian and factional role within the AMWU
4. Sacrificed workers to their concept of uncompromising antagonism.
5. Blockaded the AMWU offices in Victoria for a month.
6. Intimidated and marginalised anyone who opposed their tactics.
7. Created unprecedented and massive financial deficits in the
Victorian Branch of the AMWU.
8. Destroyed the AMWU Victorian Branches proud reputation of being
tough and smart.
9. Ignored and trampled over the rights of individuals including female
employees of the AMWU.
The Way Forward
Support for the Free Craig Johnston Campaign is not a take it or leave
it issue. The Howard government is determined to destroy the
Australian trade union movement. It has already used the findings of
the Cole Royal Commission into the Building industry to expose the
vulnerability of the building unions in Victoria. The Free Craig
Johnston Campaign is a free kick for Howard because it equates
militant trade unionism to bullying, violence, intimidation and death
We do not support, and we are not asking you to support, the jailing
of Craig Johnston. We are not supporting the sentencing actions of the
criminal courts in this, or other, particular cases. What we are
asking you to do is to understand that the Free Craig Johnston
Campaign is a vehicle of the Socialist Alliance to attack the
leadership of left unions in Australia and to divert us from the unity
required to combat the attacks of the Howard
Australian working people need strong militant unions. Genuine
militant unions are based on the solidarity of men and women members,
and their families, taking well informed and democratic decisions
which the public can understand.
The union movement will only win the coming battle through its own
solidarity, its determination to fight back, and its credibility with
the Australian people.
We urge you to take on board this information about the Free Craig
Johnston Campaign as you, or your union or community organisation, is
challenged on this issue in the coming weeks.
We urge you to discuss the impending attack on workers' rights in your
own organisation, network and community, and to join in a
broadly-based campaign against Howard's industrial policy. The
Australian people can win this important fight if we unite on the
fundamental principles of democracy, equality and solidarity and we
are not diverted on the basis of lies, misinformation and political
Drafted by Unionists Against Violence
- By Bob Gould
Nick Fredman and Peter Boyl, react very sharply to my account of Mark
Latham's meeting at Leichhardt Town Hall.
Boyle attacks me for recounting the events in the first person. It
would have been difficult for me not to give an account in the first
person because I attended the meeting and spoke at it. Apparently
it's all right for Pip Hinman to lie about what I said, mainly by
omission, but if I correct the record of what I said, which
inevitably has to be in the first person, I'm accused of some kind of
The difficulty Boyle has, is that he's a puffed-up example of the
species Lenin used to describe as the "committee men". He spends all
his time in the DSP building, bossing around people in a small circle
and he's obviously rather resentful of my activities as an old
agitator. As he says, to each his own.
The rather more sinister aspect of Boyle's and Fredman's posts is
their unashamed use of the amalgam method of polemic used so
notoriously by the Stalinists in the 1930s.
Because I make a detailed critique of the DSP's political activities,
they both imply that I'm in some way in league with Doug Cameron.
Apparently, if someone can find some words in what they say is a
Cameronite leaflet that are similar to my critique of the DSP, that's
sufficient to tar me by implication as a Cameronite. What a nasty,
Stalinist kind of argumentation that is.
I demand that if Fredman and Boyle make such implications that I'm
somehow in league with supporters of Cameron, they produce evidence
to that effect, rather than ugly, Stalinist innuendo.
- Bob Gould sternly demands:
> I demand that if Fredman and Boyle make such implications that I'mFreakin hell Bob, calm down. I hereby retract any suggestion or
> somehow in league with supporters of Cameron, they produce evidence
> to that effect, rather than ugly, Stalinist innuendo.
implication that you are or have ever been in league in any
Cameronites, or ever consorted with any other forces of darkness.
Now how about you follow my suggestion and produce some actual evidence
next time you want to go on and on and on about the shocking effect on
the class conscious activists of DSP's supposed nasty, spiteful,
brainless etc etc sectarianism? The only person who seems to be
publicly attacking Socialist Alliance and GLW at the moment is Doug
Cameron, and this is in fact a good thing. That's the point I was
making. Where's all the decent or even half-decent Laborites hostile to
or suspicious of the DSP because of this supposed sectarianism? That's
the real question - and one you seem to be now avoiding.