Stop pandering to the lowest common denominator

The news today that nine universities in England are looking at offering interviews to "disadvantaged" youngsters even if their grades don't merit it annoys me immensely. Why should people who don't achieve the necessary results be offered interviews? It patronises them and it insults the students who have achieved the grades needed.

It also, much more damagingly, helps to perpetuate the system we have at the moment where failing schools (and for that read bad teachers) are allowed to thrive happy in the knowledge that somewhere further up the system someone will bail them out. I went to school in a deprived area and as far as I know only two students in my year went to university. That's not to say that everyone at my school was stupid but we had no encouragement and no support from 90% of the teaching staff. It was a fairly common thing to be told "No-one from this area will amount to anything" or "You'll never achieve anything". When we had our discussion - with the school librarian - about university she gave the same answer to everyone. Do an English degree. So when I asked about medicine her answer was "Do an English degree."

Pupils from disadvantaged areas don't need patronising, they don't need false methods of entry into university. They need good schools and strong teachers. They need teachers who tell them they won't amount to anything to be sacked. They need the first step to be the right one, not the final step to be a muddle.

Why Shouldn't MPs Holiday Abroad?

I've been meaning to blog about this for a few days but an entry on Tom Harris MP's fab blog and an article by Mayor Bo-Jo in the Telegraph brought it back to mind.

In all of the great witch-hunt of MPs over expenses one casualty seems to be their right to choose a family holiday abroad. The UK party leaders are falling over themselves to show their green/caring/committed to UK/thrifty credentials by holidaying in the UK and I'm sure the snippy comments will come in soon about fat cat Cabinet Ministers sunning themselves while catastrophe X happens.

But really, it's none of our business where anyone goes on holiday. I don't expect my boss to get snippy about my holiday destination or anyone who uses the services of my workplace to complain that I'm not holidaying in the UK, so why should we care where our MPs go with their families on holiday? Every family is entitled to go away and relax together and it is up to them where they go. Why should they have to justify it to their purient constituents - or worse a purient newspaper? The vast majority of MPs (from all parties) actually work very hard and face a lot of unneccessary criticism for the actions of some who are playing the system in an underhand manner. Let's not drive good people out of an important job just because they're not prepared to play our cynical games.

MPs have a tough job - let them enjoy their holidays.

Do they never learn?

Following the failed £120 bribe at the time of the Crewe and Nantwich by-election, the government is at it again.

A postponement of the 2p fuel duty increase has been announced. Yet again in the middle of a tricky by-election. Do Gordon Bown and Alistair Darling think we are mugs? Taxes are surely set for a reason - the economic well being of the country. If it's ok to change them every time the government looks like losing a seat in the House of Commons it means it wasn't necessary. If the revenue was needed then how is going to be replaced?

The government should stop trying to bribe the electors and treating us like fools. Hopefully it will backfire in Glasgow East in an even more spectacular fashion than in Crewe and Nantwich.

I WILL Stop Wasting Food - Maybe

I'm intrigued by Gordon Brown's latest proclamation that we should all stop wasting food. I agree with him - food wastage is a big problem and I'm as guilty as the next person. If not more so. It's not that I throw away perfectly good food. It's that I allow food to go off and then throw it out. I try to plan my menus and buy my food in advance. Store it properly. All that carry on. It all goes wrong when I get home from work at night. Sometimes, in fact a lot of the time, I get home and the last thing I can be bothered doing is peeling and chopping and making something sensible with the nice fresh food I've bought.

I don't think I'm alone in this one. I think in many households time in the evening is scarce and unless cooking is a particularly pleasurable activity it's something that doesn't become a priority. Relaxing, catching up with your partner's day, doing other housework all take precedence. And as a consequence we don't make that nice risotto we had bought fresh veggies for. We grab a snack or a takeaway.

The average British worker has a 45 minute commute and we work longer hours, have fewer holidays and a lower standard of living than our European neighbours. Is it any wonder we're knackered and can't be bothered cooking?

I get that it's wrong to waste food. I understand that we are putting pressure on our bank accounts and the environment by buying food we don't use, but frankly I don't want to be patronised by a man who has a stay-at-home wife, an army of staff, official dinners prepared for him and the ability to eat out every night at taxpayers' expenses without producing a receipt telling me where I'm going wrong in life. Yet another example of Government interference at its most insidious.

Will I or Won't I Vote?

There's a question I never thought I would ask myself. With the elections only a week and a bit away I don't yet know whether or not I will be voting. I know that I won't be voting for a specific candidate - the Conservative Party have put two leaflets through my door since last year's election, both this week and one which was missing its second side. I just can't bring myself to vote Lib Dem even though the candidate is a good guy. I just wouldn't even consider voting for UKIP. So I have no candidate to vote for.

The question now is do I walk to the polling station and spoil my ballot paper? Part of me says absolutely I have to do this - voting isn't only a right, it's a duty and if we don't vote as individuals we have no cause for complaint. The other part of me isn't so sure. If I feel that the political system doesn't care for me, offer me a candidate I want to vote for or does anything to inspire my action why should I offer the victors legitimacy?

If I spoil my ballot paper (carefully, these people know how to claim a spoiled ballot paper as a legitimate vote) I have taken part in the election, increased the turnout yet my protest is not registered. If I don't show up then the turnout reflects my lack of support for any of the candidates. Although I will be classed as lazy and uncaring. I am neither, I wrote to my councillors this year about an issue which I felt strongly about. One replied saying she agreed completely with me but nothing else, one sent me a copy of the council's press release on the issue and the third didn't bother to reply. I copied this letter to the leader of the council, I didn't get a reply. Who is lazy and uncaring? Me or them?

Still, the thought of not using my vote is alien to me and now I'm left with a really difficult choice. Will I or Won't I vote this year?

Swearing Allegiance

Part of the Government's review of citizenship is to suggest that teenagers swear allegiance to the Queen. Mmm, this is a tricky one for me. I am an absolute monarchist, I believe the Queen has been a wonderful head of state and abhor the idea of a republic. Yet this makes me feel slightly uncomfortable.

I can't help feeling its a cheap stunt. Teenagers who feel alienated and at odds with the community won't all of a sudden change their minds just because they've been forced to attend a special assembly at school and recite some meaningless words. And presumably that's how they'll view them - the same way I viewed having to participate in Catholic masses at school. And is it a quick jump from swearing allegiance to the Queen (something I would have no problem doing) to swearing an allegiance to Her Majesty's Government?

And what about Republicans? I don't agree with the view, but to many people it is a passionately held opinion. Can it be fair to demand that they swear allegiance to the Queen? To some Catholics in Northern Ireland and the West of Scotland the monarchy represents repression of their faith.

Also, it seems ridiculous that we're asking young people to consider their rights and responsibilities as citizens at the age of 16. By then its far too late. And why only teenagers? Why not everyone?

There's nothing wrong with swearing allegiance to the Monarch, but I fear this is a poor way of encouraging good citizenship and loyalty to the country.

Time For MPs to Follow the Same Rules As Me & You

It's not been a good few days for the reputation of parliament or parliamentarians. First the brouhaha over the publishing of MPs' expenses and in the past couple of days the whole Derek Conway debacle.

Immediately the calls have come in for expenses to be slashed and for MPs to be barred from employing family members. As usual the reaction is an over-reaction. There is no need to bring in draconian measures, just treat MPs the same as the rest of us.

When I claim expenses from work I'm expected to hand in receipts. So don't slash MPs' expenses, just make them hand in receipts. Seems reasonable.

And there's no need to stop MPs employing family members, it's actually understandable wanting to have staff that you know you can trust 100%, but perhaps there should be less variation in the salary scales and an independent review and appraisal process in Parliament.

As with most things there's little need for new rules, just a little better enforcement of current ones.

Is 2 Years 2 Years Too Long?

I'm really heartened by the announcement that the Conservative Party will take a tough line on getting people to move from welfare into work. There are plenty of people who know that claiming benefits is a much easier ride than getting up at 7 every day and working for 8 hours. Anything that can be done to get as many people back into the workplace is a good thing. And pointing out that state benefits are not a right is a great place to start.

I've been properly unemployed once in my life and it was a horrible time. It took about 6/7 weeks to get an appointment at the Job Centre and when I finally did make it I was astonished by what I saw. I was sitting at a communal table, happily filling out my little forms, listening to one ned say to his pal "Just tell them if they don't give you money today you'll rob someone - that's what I do". When I handed my completed booklet to the advisor (and I do use that word under caution) it was clearly the first time in a long time anyone had done so.

Change really does have to come from the bottom up from ensuring that threats from thugs aren't taken as an excuse to ensuring that the advisors act as such.

But the one thing I did learn is how easy it is to become depressed and fall into a rut. Weeks of looking through newspapers and finding nothing you like the look of, failing to even get a job at the local supermarket all take their toll very quickly. It's far too easy (and understandable) to become unwilling to get out of bed for yet another day of being disappointed and depressed by your situation. That's why I think 2 years before instigating some form of community work is too long. After 2 years people have lost key skills and the energy for returning to work. A programme of community and voluntary work beginning after 6 months would be a much more suitable option. Perhaps with some sort of "bonus" scheme added and of course part-time to allow job-hunting to continue. Of course the 2 year limit should remain so that this doesn't become a substitute for work.

Tory Survey Benefits Cancer Charity - Yuck.....

The political blogs are in a bit of a tizz over the Caroline Nokes cancer survey. Conservative PPC Caroline Nokes branded one of her surveys (with permission, perhaps erronously given but given none the less) with the logo of Breast Cancer Care prominently branded and a promise to the electorate of a donation to charity for every survey returned. It wasn't a survey about health and it was made clear that it was a political survey from a political candidate.

The Guardian and Channel 4 both gleeful reported the story as a huge scandal. Conservative Home claims it's a non-story. The soon to be defunct Recess Monkey is terribly self-righteous about it all.

I don't think it's either a scam or a non-story. It's a sign of the growing cult of morality that politicians from all parties like to build up around themselves. It's twee, it's sickening, it's cloying. If I want to give money to a cancer charity I will. I don't want some candidate to tell me they're doing it on my behalf.

Giving money to charity used to be something that we did privately. Now politicians love to tell us about their donations, their marathon running, their arctic treks, and whatever else they do. It is demanded of MPs that they take part in sleepouts for homeless charities or give up their Christmas days to help in a hospital. If this is something that a particular politician feels strongly about then that's well and good. But leave the digital camera at home eh?

A Pointless Rule - But Your Rule

I've never been a fan of PPERA (the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act). You know the one that made the simple process of elections and donations to political parties a whole lot more complicated. And doesn't know the correct word is actually referenda. And established that idiotically useless body The Electoral Commission.

I never saw a reason to have to report donations to parties. The vast majority of which have always been open, honest and done with no intention other than helping parties out. But the Labour Party in their infinite wisdom brought in PPERA and established the Electoral Commission. So despite me not really seeing a reason to it all I obeyed the law on reporting donations. And it was generally really simple to understand and comply with.

Which makes the Labour Party's knowing acceptance of donations via a third party from David Abrahams incomprehensible. There is no room for doubt in the law. No wiggle room.

The Act states that a donation is (among many other thing):

"any reference to anything being given or transferred to a party or any person is a reference to its being so given or transferred either directly or indirectly through any third person;"

OK - a bit wordy, but you get the gist.

When Peter Watt says he didn't know he couldn't take a donation through a third party he is either lying or so utterly incompetent he should never have been in his position. Either way he was quite right to resign.

The Labour Party has to realise that when it brings in these annoying and pointless laws they don't just apply to the evil Tories (who they were doubtless introduced to trip up) but to themselves too.

Fat? Stop Eating So Much Then

***rant alert***rant alert***rant alert***rant alert***rant alert***rant alert***

It seems to be a week for the Nanny State annoying me. First it was drinking, now there is the report that says that Obesity isn't the fault of the individual and that the Government has to do "something".

Bollocks. Bollocks. Bollocks.

I'm overweight, I'm technically obese. Despite most things in this country being the fault of the Labour Government this isn't one of them. I know why I'm overweight - it's because I eat too much rubbish and don't exercise enough. I made a decision earlier this year to lose weight. I lost over 2 stone through sensible eating and exercise. I stopped the sensible eating and exercise and have put on a little bit of weight again.

I'm overweight because Krispy Kremes are tastier than vegetables as a snack. I don't hate myself, I don't have a childhood trauma that I'm hiding away from, I don't use food as a substitute for love. I like the taste of chocolate - it's a pleasant thing in life.

Stop bloody telling me that the decisions I make in life should be taken out of my hands and put into the hands of the goverment. I don't want some supercilious leftie telling me what I can do with my life.

I'm going to have a newly re-released Wispa for lunch just to rebel.

Leave Me and My Bottle of Wine Alone

So its not only the neds who down 20 Snakebites a night who are being targeted for government anti-drinking initiatives but the "middle class" drinkers whose bottle of Chardonnay a night habit who are being nannyed now.

First things first before I get accused of not caring about people with drink problems. Alcoholism is a disease and people who suffer need help not abuse, laughed at or most importantly - lectured about their habits. And it can hit all sections of society. When I was a student I worked in the cigarette/spirits kiosk of Safeway in a very working class area. The woman who came in from the suburbs every day for her litre bottle of Smirnoff was just as much an alcoholic as the old men who came in for their magnum of British sherry. She was just cleaner, better dressed and didn't drink sitting outside the shop. Apart from that there was little to distinguish them. And I felt sorry for them all, but kept selling them their booze because it really wasn't my business to interfere in their lives.

I think it is fine that there are suggested safe limits and that these are publicised. I think it's fine that alcohol bottle labels show how many units each bottle/glass contains. I think it is absolutely right and responsible that shop assistants/bar staff refuse to sell alcohol to people who are clearly hammered - and a little more of this would go a long way. But I am sick and tired of being told what I can and can't drink and how much I'm allowed to drink in a day.

I don't want the government to tell me how much I can drink and if I drink more than that it makes me at high risk or a dangerous drinker and I most certainly don't want the drinks companies to tell me (when advertising their overpriced products) to "drink responsibly". Please - if everyone drank responsibly the profits would plummet - don't be politically correct hypocrites and tell me that you don't want me to buy as much of your product as possible.

The government really has to learn to let us make our own choices and if those are the wrong choices then we have to pay the consequences but don't try to insist that government targets are the best way of running the lifes of individuals. They never are.

Protection of minorities or destruction of freedoms?

I've been meaning to blog for a few days about the proposed bill banning incitement of homophobic hatred in England and Patrick Harvie MSP's campaign to extend race hate laws to encompass discrimination against LGBT and Disabled people.

I'm torn on this. I truly believe that there is no place in any civilised society for the kind of abuse these laws are designed to stop. But will it just be abuse that is stopped or will it be used to stop genuine debate or expression of religious and moral beliefs? I have my suspicions that the laws will be interpreted in the narrowest possible manner which will crack down on genuine debate and not do anything to stop the spread of homophobia, racism etc.

There is a real conversation needed on whether or not gay couples should be allowed to adopt. My opinion is absolutely yes, but I respect the right of someone who says the opposite to say that in a measured way. Just because someone's religious or moral beliefs are totally opposite to my own or I find their views unpalatable doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to express those views. When we stop one side of an argument from speaking out we only encourage the extremists. The stifling of the debate on immigration is a perfect example. By accusing anyone who mentioned immigration in a negative manner of racism only the BNP was left speaking from one point of view. We've seen a Church of England vicar visited by the Police for expressing an opinion about Muslim women wearing the veil - I'm sure that this wasn't the kind of comment that the race hate laws were designed for, but that's what they are being used for.

I want to see an end to homophobic comments, I'd be quite happy to see certain rappers in jail for their song lyrics but I don't want someone visited by the police because they say in a reasonable manner that they don't approve of gay relationships. I think I'll reserve judgement on these laws until we see how they work in practice....

November Election?

It does seem to be the only topic of consideration on the lips (and keyboards) of anyone interested or involved in politics.

The Conservatives are playing "come and have a go if you think you're hard enough" and Brown isn't yet replying.

I've always been in the camp that said there won't be an election this year. I still believe that (although I've gone from 99% sure to about 75%). I just don't see why Brown would do it. Having spent 10 years plotting to become PM and making his desire plain the chance of risking it after only 100 days seems foolish. And while the claims that he has no legitimacy as he wasn't elected make a good playground taunt they actually mean nothing. We don't elect prime ministers, we elect parties and the Party Leader is PM. John Major didn't go in 1990 and there is no reason for Gordon Brown to go to the Palace now.

He's also missed the boat. A week is (as the old cliche goes) a long time in politics. If he had made an announcement this time last week it would have gone well, but the Conservatives have had a good week. Some good, sensible policies have been announced, a stunning show of unity was on display and by all accounts Cameron played a blinder. The polls are already showing an upturn for the Conservatives which, if the doubters can keep their opinions in check for just a bit longer, will probably continue.

The trip to Iraq didn't go as well for Brown as he had hoped. People saw it as the shabby headline grabbing trick it clearly was.

And then there's just the practical reasons. It's hard enough to get people to go out to vote on a warm spring evening in May - it will be damn near impossible in November. Particularly in Scotland and Wales where election fatique will still be in place.

If there's a postal strike it will screw up postal votes and the delivery of election communications - a death knell for many of the smaller candidates.

And of course the register is 11 months old. Even with the rolling registration now in force about 10% of the population wiill still be losing their votes.

Of course the cynics among us may think this plays well with Brown, I'm not sure. A determined Get Out The Vote operation could kill some of his marginal seats. And as for Scotland? The SNP are doing well, despite some defeats in the chamber they are still in their honeymoon period. This could take out some MPs where Brown can least afford to lose them - if he can't keep his backyard happy can he keep the rest of the country?

An election now would be a massive waste of time and money. I don't think Brown will go. Having said that - I did make sure to post my electoral registration form just in case....

You'll Win On Health - Just Get It Right

There are three subjects that the electorate care about - health, crime, education. Get those three right and no matter what else is happening you'll win the election. Other issues will have an impact but if you don't get these three core issues right then you're dead in the water. William Hague knows that - about 90% of the country backed the Save the Pound campaign in 2001, people queued up to sign the petition but in the end it didn't change their vote. People care about the environment but will choose who to vote for based on who'll get the yobs off their streets, not who'll save the polar bears. And try being in the line of fire when parents don't get their first choice schools - county councils change hands over these issues.

David Cameron is absolutely right to take Brown on over the Health Service. It's in a shocking state and people care and will choose who to vote for based on who they trust on health. Telling people that despite the spin local hospitals and services are under threat and pledging to protect them is a winning strategy. As long as people have faith you will act on it. Nicola Sturgeon can vouch for that one.

But for god's sake get it right. You had a great start to the week - I bet members loved the thought of a bare-knuckle fight on such a key issue, then it all went wrong. Turns out the research wasn't good enough, local MPs weren't fully on board and then an idiot researcher (probably the same one who bollocksed up in the first place) got bullied into apologising. Things like this detract from the strong central message.

A couple of tips - get your research right from the start and double check the work of 17 year old Emily and Tarquin, make sure the local MPs/PPCs know what's going on in their area and are fully behind it, know that the vested interests (the Trust managers) will come back at you and be ready to take them on too, never apologise to them and for god's sake keep going. Use Andrew Lansley more - he's attractive and appealing to the general public. Oh and yes - keep banging on about health.

Health, crime, education. Might never be the causes de jour - but will always be the things the swing voters care about.

Designer Babies

I'm concerned about the potential for "saviour siblings" and the relaxation of the rules which MPs are apparently calling for. "Saviour siblings" is a highly biased way of describing these babies, it makes it sound all very cuddly, innocent and positive. Of course "designer babies" is equally as biased and has less positive connotations. The idea sounds positive enough, allow embryoes to be developed which will help to cure illness in children. But what is the cut-off? What will happen if the babies born turn out not to be as helpful as had hoped? What is the extent of their usefulness? Blood transfusions? Gene therapy? Organ harvesting?

To me this is a dangerous precendent to set and there are many, many more questions to be answered before such a move could be allowed.

Babies are not a commodity be it in monetary or genetic terms.

In defence of David Cameron

Since I left the Conservative Party two years ago (at roughly the same time as David Cameron became leader but not because of that) I have undergone a real change in attitude towards it. When in the past people told me that the nasty element so often seen was the face of the party I argued against that, but I came to realise that they were right. Not that every member is nasty, in fact some are fantastic and there are some elected representatives who are fantastic and who I would vote for, and even work to see elected again. But the truth is that the real face of the Conservative Party is too often the smug, sneering, nasty, frothing-mouthed, Daily Mail reader that we're all used to.

And boy has is reared itself up over David Cameron and his trip to Rwanda. The howls from the loony wing of the Party have been deafening. How dare he go to Africa and find out what's happening around the world? Why do we care what happens to the colonials? The Rwandans don't vote - why bother? Why wasn't he in the country looking at the flood?

Well, let's take the last point - yes, for some people the flooding this week has been devastating. But really - do they want some politician to fly over them in a helicopter tutting and rolling his eyes? If he didn't have a bucket and a mop to help clear up then he wouldn't be of any use to anyone. But on the other hand, he had already visited flooded areas in his own constituency before he went to Rwanda. A Prime Minister must be able to concentrate on several urgent issues at once, running the country and fulfilling international duties cannot stop because of a crisis. Instead our leaders must be able to juggle lots of balls in the air.

And it was a good thing going to Rwanda. If we want to stop genocide happening in the future we have to understand what happened and why. We must learn to read the signs. No genocide ever starts as a genocide - it starts with name-calling, it starts with exclusionary policies and it starts with labelling people as different. If we can recognise the first stages then maybe we can help stop the second, third stages taking place. And if we can stop genocide occuring, if we can help people to be safe in their own countries, maybe we can stop so many coming to the UK (shameless nod to right-wing sensibilities).

13 years ago the world stood by and allowed a genocide to take place in Rwanda. And the genocide is still taking place there - women and children are still dying of AIDS; people are still dying from their wounds and killings are continuing. I'm delighted that David Cameron went to see for himself what is happening in Rwanda. It can only make him a better politician and perhaps even a better Prime Minister.

How not to balance the books

So the NHS not only turned about its deficit last year but had a £500m surplus.

This is not a good thing when waiting lists are on the increase, operations cancelled, junior doctors cannot find work, hospitals are unclean and patients and staff are just generally fed up.

The NHS is not a profit making organisation - a £500m surplus is as bad as a £500m deficit as it implies that more emphasis has been placed on cost-cutting than on patient care. Still, I'm sure that there have been plenty of clip boards purchased.

The NHS is in a real mess at the moment and the government are doing nothing about it other than claiming everything is better than under the Tories (a decade ago).

Ban on Gay Men Giving Blood

A few weeks ago I signed yet another petition on the 10 Downing Street website. This one was calling for the ban on gay men donating blood to be over-turned. On the day after International Day Against Homophobia to receive the following reply just summed up why the day is needed and why we can't claim that the UK is quite there with equal rights:

"The Government has a duty to ensure that any rules applied to blood donation by the National Blood Service (NBS) achieve a balance between risk reduction and security of supply. The self exclusion criterion concerning gay men has been reached through a close analysis of the epidemiology of confirmed HIV and Hepatitis B positive tests among blood samples from people donating blood at United Kingdom Blood Service sessions.

The Government has been advised that every year from the analysis of nearly three million donations collected by the United Kingdom and Irish Blood Services, about 40 donations are confirmed to be positive for HIV. Of these, a third to a half are given by men who, following further enquiries by the NBS, reveal that they are gay men. Some are donating for the first time but some have given at least once in the previous two years and tested negative on the previous occasion. These figures indicate that some gay men are still giving blood in spite of the current rules.

Although safer sex campaigns have had an impact, it is still considered that the risk of gay men being infected with HIV remains sufficiently high to include the criterion that they should not donate blood. Unfortunately, this means there will be healthy gay men who would be suitable for giving blood but who are excluded by the rule.

However, it is not practical to expect donor session staff to be able to differentiate between gay men with lower or with higher risk lifestyles, so all gay men have to be excluded."

So - because 0.006% (or 0.0006 - it's 6.666667e-4 for you maths geeks) of blood transfusions are affected approximately 7-10% of the population are stopped from giving blood. And who are the other two-thirds to half of the donors whose blood is contaminated?

This is institutionalised homophobia dealing in ridiculous stereotypes of the worst kind. And its shameful coming from a government which claims to be commited to equality

Eurovision - Taking It All A Wee Bit Seriously

Apparently some vacuous Lib Dem MP has tabled an Early Day Motion calling for a review of the Eurovision voting. Far be it for me to accuse anyone else of taking Eurovision too seriously, after all my shrine to Terry in pride of place in our living room, but honestly....

Is this the best the Lib Dems can come up with? It's hardly a matter of parliamentary importance that the Eastern European nations are ganging up on the poor hard done by nations of the West. Don't let him hear Terry's class suggestion that we should build a wall between east and west, he'll be out there in a flash.