The undoing of Ed Miliband – and how Labour lost the election by Patrick Wintour in The Guardian

This Guardian piece http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/03/undoing-of-ed-miliband-and-how-labour-lost-election is a must read. Especially enjoyable is the pain it reveals on election night.

However what struck me hardest was this piece following Ed Miliband 'forgetting' to mention the deficit in a key speech:

'Miliband was so distraught that he shut himself in his hotel room, where a series of people, including his wife, Justine, joined him and tried to offer some reassurance – pointing out that the omission had not featured prominently in the BBC political editor Nick Robinson's report on the Six O'Clock News.'

How helpful of the BBC to not feature this omission prominently. How helpful of a BBC that did its best to try and get a Labour government elected.

Ed Balls 'daunted' by chancellor task - but the BBC will do their best to ensure that Ed Balls is in that position

The BBC report that:

'Ed Balls has told me that he is "daunted" at the prospect of becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer, given the scale of cuts a future Labour government may have to make.'

There follows a list of the key points that were discussed, unsurprisingly the matter of the last Labour government's overspending from 2003 not 2008 as Ed Balls and other Labour ministers have decided to claim was the case.

Here are the facts, I wonder if the BBC's Nick Robinson is aware of them, or does he prefer to take Ed Balls line?

Maybe the British public aren't as stupid as the BBC would like them to be as the latest IPSOS MORI poll finds Osborne leading Balls as the " most capable potential chancellor" by 38 to 33. Personally I'm staggered it's that small a margin...

The BBC's Nick Robinson spreading misinformation again

In this piece about the latest GDP figures Nick Robinson does his best to talk down the recovery, after all a recovery is not a recovery unless Labour say it is. But more concerning is the misinformation he spreads with this line:

'Today's figures tell a simple story. This is growth but - as they used to say on Star Trek - not as we know it.'

I presume that Nick Robinson is grasping for the line "It's life, Jim, but not as we know it.". However this, to the best of my knowledge, was never said in the original Star Trek series.


On consulting with a bigger Trekkie than me, I am informed that the line "No life as we know it" was used in the episode The Devil in the Dark. But that's still not quite what Nick Robinson claimed. It looks to me like another factual failure by Nick 'toenails' Robinson.

In the meantime here's The Firm with Star Trekkin'

Baroness Thatcher has died

Baroness Thatcher one of the great British Prime Ministers has died and I am waiting for the British left to rise to the occasion. Before long the nasty face of the British left will be much in evidence. In the meantime I am going to monitor the BBC. At the moment their lead article runs thus:

'Former Prime Minister Baroness Thatcher has died at 87 following a stroke, her spokesman has said. Lord Bell said: "It is with great sadness that Mark and Carol Thatcher announced that their mother Baroness Thatcher died peacefully following a stroke this morning." Baroness Thatcher was Conservative prime minister from 1979 to 1990. She was the first woman to hold the post. Her family is expected to make a further statement later. Baroness Thatcher, born Margaret Roberts, became the Conservative MP for Finchley, north London in 1959, retiring from the Commons in 1992. Having been education secretary, she successfully challenged former prime minister Edward Heath for her party's leadership in 1975. She won general elections in 1979, 1983 and 1987. Baroness Thatcher's government privatised several state-owned industries. She was also in power when the UK went to war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands in 1982.'

Such small accomplishments: privatised several state-owned industries and was in power when the UK went to war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands. How about rescued the UK economy from the despair of the Wilson/Callaghan Labour governments? How about turned the UK from 'the sick man of Europe' into one of the world's leading powers? How about went to the defence of the Falklands despite the opposition of the Labour party?

I suppose that a news organisation that the BBC's Jane Garvey recalled celebrated the 1997 Labour victory:

“I do remember… the corridors of Broadcasting House were strewn with empty champagne bottles. I’ll always remember that”

is unlikely to stay neutral on the death of the hated 'Thatch'


UPDATE:I see that the BBC's Political Editor, Nick Robinson, has stooped this low:

tweets: The dominant figure of post-war British politics is dead. Love her or loathe her, Margaret Thatcher shaped this country as few others did.

Evan Davis has tweeted this pearler:

I see Ken Livingstone has been unable to show any grace today, I suppose breaking the habits of a lifetime would be hard. Sky News quote him thus:

'Ex-London mayor Ken Livingstone tells Sky News Baroness Thatcher's policies were "fundamentally wrong". "She created today's housing crisis, she produced the banking crisis, she created the benefits crisis. It was her government that started putting people on incapacity benefits rather than register them as unemployed because the Britain she inherited was broadly at full employment," he says.

Full employment? Unemployment began to rise from the 4% level in early 1975 and by the time of the 1979 general election was at nearly 6%. The inefficiencies hidden by this employment level took some time to iron out.

Here's another of the BBC's favourites, 'comedian' Mark Steel

What a terrible shame – that it wasn’t 87 years earlier
— Mark Steel (@mrmarksteel) April 8, 2013

"hug a hoodie"

The BBC report that:

'BBC political editor Nick Robinson said the Conservatives, under Mr Cameron's leadership, had gone from a party promising to "hug a hoodie" to one willing to allow the public to "bash a burglar".'

There's a problem with that line and that is that as the BBC admit here:

'...David Cameron never says 'hug a hoodie'; that famous phrase was in a press release issued by Labour'

So why is Nick Robinson perpetuating a falsehood?

Should the BBC's Nick Robinson have been fired for this admission?

Back on 1 September 2010 Nick Robinson blogged that:

'I would like to apologise for my reporting of the relationship between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in the years they were together in government. Some said it was tittle tattle, others that it was speculation, a few dared to suggest that it was fabrication.

I now accept that I made mistakes. Things were worse - much worse - than I reflected at the time. '

If Nick Robinson heard the rumours about what was really going on between Blair and Brown but chose not to report them then he is guilty of deliberately withholding information from the public. If he did not know, why didn't he; enough other people did?

Unless Nick Robinson's role as chief political correspondent for the BBC involves protecting senior Labour figures and the Labour party?

Adam Boulton endears himself to Peter Mandelson, not!

Peter Mandelson does not like answering questions does he. I did like the heckle when Peter Mandelson says "Adam you're not standing for election either..." and a voice says "neither are you!". Note the way Peter Mandelson stares at the audience and Adam Boulton daring him to argue with 'the Prince of Evil' and seems very fond of democracy for a man who has had to retire from politics in disgrace twice and is now an unelected very senior minister. Do watch the way Peter Mandelson closes down Nick Robinson and controls Ed and Yvette. Ed Balls's junior Mandelson.Campbell impression is as irritating as ever and his staring eyes are quite frankly scary. Meanwhile Yvette Cooper just looks as though she will cry if anyone questions her too hard.

It seems that even the tame media, such as Nick Robinson, are now ready to turn on Peter Mandelson and his acolytes who have controlled the reporting of the Labour party's policies since 1995. Peter Mandelson's "Let's be clear" is as key a sign of coming dishonesty as Gordon Brown's "to be honest".


From the same conference came Andrew Neil's questioning of Ed Balls. Andrew Neil being one (if not the only) senior BBC journalist to have rumbled New Labour for what it is and to have been willing to question them hard over tha last 10 years or so.
Apologies for the Peter Mandelson 'choices' reprise at the beginning. More Ed Balls scary staring eyes and Peter Mandelson cutting off debate as well as Ed Balls being better able to answer a question on Peppa Pig than cuts.

How is this taking £6 billion out of the economy and why does Gordon Brown never answer the question?

Watch Gordon Brown thought of as an economic genius when he obviously doesn't know what he is talking about. What the fuck is he talking about when he says that the Conservative plans to cancel the 1% NI increase will take £6 billion out of the economy? How is that the case? Will the £6 billion just disappear or will it be available to spend by the companies who will not have to pay it? Perhaps the companies will use it to invest in equipment or take on new staff, what does Gordon Brown think will happen to the £6 billion not taken in higher taxation? I get the feeling that Gordon Brown is such a centraliser that he cannot conceive of money being spent other than in the public sector, for what he means is that his public sector will be denied £6 billion, that his carefully constructed client state will be denied yet more money.

To give Nick Robinson some credit he does gently push Gordon Brown as to why he claimed the businessmen had been deceived, but Gordon Brown just doesn't answer. He really seems to think that only he understands what is happening as everyone else has been deceived. In Gordon Brown's mind he really does bestride the world as an economic genius whilst we are all idiots. Gordon Brown really needs to be pressed on this subject again and again and maybe Jeremy Paxman would do that but Gordon Brown has apparently chickened out of a Jeremy Paxman interview; that's Gordon 'fearty' Brown in action again.

Also didn't Tony Blair also promise to serve a full term before the 2005 election?

Is the BBC's Nick Robinson calling Gordon Brown a liar

The BBC's Nick Robinson in his piece today on the calling of the general election writes:

'Image Two: Alistair Darling emerging from the famous black door at Gordon Brown's side. The chancellor the prime minister planned to sack is now seen as a key electoral asset.'

Hold on a moment, didn't Gordon Brown flatly deny that he was ever planning to sack Alistair Darling? Here's the video...
So was Gordon Brown lying at that press conference or is Nick Robinson misleading the public now? It surely has to be one or the other...

Nick Robinson tells only part of the Labour equivalents to Lord Ashcroft story

Nick Robinson reports on Lord Ashcroft's statement re his tax-status in a long piece that starts thus:

"At last. The truth is out. The man who's bankrolled the Tories for much of the past decade and has consistently refused to answer questions about his tax status has finally come clean. Michael Ashcroft is a "non-dom" - in other words he's not been paying British taxes on his non-UK earnings throughout the time he's been central to the Conservatives campaigning."

In one comment near the end Nick Robinson does manage to mention one of Labour's non-dom financiers

"Labour MPs have long obsessed about the man they accuse of trying to buy an election in a country in which he does not even bother to be fully resident for tax purposes. Their attack is blunted somewhat by the fact that Gordon Brown made Sraj Paul - a Labour donor and non-dom - a peer and a member of the Privy Council."

But that is it. So for a more extensive list of Labour's money-men, you should turn to Iain Dale:

"latest figures show that since 2001, Labour have taken over £10 million from eight reportedly ‘non-dom’ donors:

• Lord Paul – £69,250 in donations to Labour, including £45,000 to Gordon Brown’s leadership campaign. A close friend of Gordon Brown and appointed to the Privy Council last summer, he has admitted to being ‘non-dom’.
• Lakshmi Mittal - £4.125 million in donations to Labour.
• Sir Ronald Cohen - £2.55 million in donations to Labour. Cohen was appointed chair of the Social Investment Taskforce, which was announced by the then Chancellor, Gordon Brown.
• Sir Christopher Ondaatje - £1.7 million in donations to Labour.
• Sir Gulam Noon - £532,826 in donations to Labour.
• William Bollinger - £510,725 in donations to Labour.
• Mahmoud Khayami - £985,000 in donations to Labour including £5,000 to Hazel Blears’ deputy leadership campaign. He has helped bankroll two flagship schools, one of which Gordon Brown opened, and was personally thanked for a donation by Tony Blair.
• Dr David Potter - £90,000 in a donation to Labour. He has previously delivered a lecture at Downing Street."

That's just over £10.5 million to Labour from non-doms but to the BBC it's just not a news story.

So since 2001 Labour non-doms have contributed around £7million to Labour's coffers whilst Lord Ashcroft has contributed around £5million to the Conservative party. Yes I can see why the BBC ignore the Labour non-doms.

Sir Gus O'Donnell speaks

So whilst Sir Gus O'Donnell did not warn Gordon Brown over bullying but did feel he had to talk to him about his behaviour towards staff. Nick Robinson grows a pair; I am staggered.

Attack, attack, attack

The BBC are doing their best to move the 'Gordon Brown is a bully' story along this morning with the 08:10 BBC Radio 4 Today interview trying to turn the story into a negative one about the National Bullying Helpline. Take a listen to the interviews, and it was interviews because Anne Snelgrove seemed to have refused to appear with Christine Pratt and aren't the BBC doing well at muddying the waters and attacking Christine Pratt for breaching confidentiality. "Commercial gain" is one of the new angles and "angling for business" was the line of attack.

Why do I sense the malign influence of Peter Mandelson at work here? Throwing mud to obscure the original story and seeing what dirt sticks to the people who dare to attack the 'Dear Leader'.

Nick Robinson who summed up the matter went a little off-message though, I'll post his exact words when Listen Again is a available and I have some free time; it's going to be a long work day today...

Horrendous economic news excused by the BBC

The BBC have excelled themselves this lunchtime. They report that "Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation rose 0.6% last month, taking the annual rate up to 2.9% from 1.9% in November." but it's not one of the main headline stories and although the article contains such information as, the very scary, "That was the biggest monthly rise in the annual index since records began and exceeded the City's expectations for an increase to 2.6%." and "This was a rise from 0.3% in November, and also constitutes the biggest monthly rise in the annual rate of RPI inflation since 1979." The BBC are quick to list the reasons why we should not worry and so provide their Labour government with excuses:

"The annual increase in CPI mainly came about because of a number of unusual factors that had depressed prices a year earlier."

I would suggest that such terrible economic news under a Conservative government would have received somewhat more complete coverage, more wailing and bemoaning the economic disaster and interviews with the opposition. However under a Labour government all is peace and quiet, don't scare the population especially this close to an election.

In fact this news means that we are just starting on the path to traditional Labour high inflation, in fact stagflation which I and others have been predicting for quite some time now. Don't expect to see or hear Robert Peston or Nick Robinson discussing Stagflation any time soon, after all there is a general election to be secured for Labour first. As I have said before, there is still time to buy gold (and silver).

Number 10 summed up

“What comes out of No 10 is lots of barmy ideas. It’s the worst possible kind of policy making, which is ‘here is a problem, let’s have a kneejerk reaction to it tomorrow on what we’re going to announce’ and quite frankly the less contact with No 10 the better.”

“All the worst bits of policy making come from the centre. It’s these people who think you change the world by publishing a strategy. And you don’t change a thing by publishing a strategy, it makes no difference whatsoever.”

“It’s no great secret that Gordon is not strategic...a cacophony of silence and confusion... The centre [No 10] is certainly dysfunctional and the Cabinet Office is fragmented.”

“It’s worse than under previous prime ministers. With Blair they did invite you to meetings, but not with Brown. They contracted into a little bunker. I had a very good working relationship with Downing Street under Blair but that changed when Brown came in and it contracted to a very small circle of people. You just got orders from Downing Street, not consultation, and that is still continuing today.”

These quotations form an alarming account of the void at the heart of this Labour government from a group of 60 senior civil servants from across Whitehall. They've contributed to a study by the Institute for Government, and the above are some of their comments.

I wonder if the BBC's ace political expert Nick Robinson will deign to cover this story or will he wait for something for favourable to the Labour party?


Thanks to Burning Our Money for the spot.

Laying it in with a trowel

Nick Robinson as usual decides to cover a major story from a Labour supportive angle:

"Dressed in a dark suit and sombre tie, his voice deeper and more gravelly than usual - suggesting he'd had even less sleep than usual - and with damp eyes occasionally glistening in the camera lights, Gordon Brown sought to limit the damage created by a carelessly written letter to the mother of a soldier killed in Afghanistan.

The prime minister's tone was, at times, painfully personal as he strove to demonstrate the emotional connection which modern politics demands and with which he is so obviously uncomfortable.

So, after describing himself as "shy" he insisted that he did "feel the pain of those who'd lost loved ones". Without directly referring to the death of his own baby daughter, he declared that "I'm a parent who understands the feelings when things go dreadfully wrong".

His message was that he had been trying to offer comfort, to do his duty and would never have intended to cause further grief."

Good grief; anyone would think that Gordon Brown was the only man working in Britain. All managers need to get their work/life balance right. It is accepted by most that Gordon Brown does not delegate enough and thinks that appearing to work 24/7 will make him seem dependable and hard-working.It used to but I think people have realised that it is the quality of work that counts not the hours spent.

Over the last week Gordon Brown did not need to break with tradition and campaign in Glasgow North East, he chose to have photo-opportunities at the G20 and Berlin Wall celebrations were they necessary for the man who claims to be saving the world economy?

Gordon Brown seems to micro-manage, I have worked for such bosses and they make very bad leaders. Either they delegate more and trust in those they delegate to or the businesses suffer. Gordon Brown is unwilling to delegate after all who in Cabinet is up to the task other than him? When leaders try and do too much the result is mistakes and a dispirited workforce. In this case we have mistakes by the lorry load and a dispirited Cabinet, Labour party and Country.


Nick Robinson takes a breath and continues:

"Like any public gathering a prime ministerial news conference develops its own mood and personality. Often with Gordon Brown it's been one of irritation or anger at his unwillingness to answer straight questions.

On this occasion though the mood was more sympathetic. Many journalists know first-hand that Gordon Brown has poor eyesight and poor handwriting and feel that his staff should have checked this letter and prevented it from being sent.

They know that the prime minister struggles to express sincerely held emotions. They know that the Sun is out to get him and is channelling the raw grief of those who have lost family in Afghanistan to do so. It's clear from the phone-ins, the text messages, the blogs and the like that many share that sympathy."

Really I have heard very little sympathy for Gordon Brown over the past few days, most people's detestation of him has grown and even people who I have not really thought of as 'political' have expressed their displeasure with his actions.

The Sun is out to get him? This is along the lines of The Today programme this morning and it won't wash. The BBC didn't point out that the press was anti-John Major in 1995-1997, nor did they point out how the Labour spin machine and the media were working together in 1995-2000. It is strange that Nick Robinson like the Today programme now decide that it is so unfair.

Nick Robinson tries to blame Gordon Brown's staff; has it occurred to the experienced political journalist that they are possibly scared to correct anything Gordon Brown does, his temper is well attested to.


Nick Robinson continues:

"It is equally clear, though, that many will feel passionately that the prime minister has got it wrong again. They will point out that the prime minister said he'd apologised to Jacqui Janes when in fact he only did so in a statement issued the day after they spoke on the phone.

They will feel that he tried to explain away her anger about the lack of equipment for British troops by putting it all down to her grief. They will feel that Gordon Brown himself used the emotions surrounding Remembrance Day, the return of five more bodies from Helmand Province and even his own personal grief to avoid the tough questions about Afghanistan."

Many do feel this way because the lack of funding for the armed forces is blatantly true, also that Gordon Brown's decisions to use the army for party political purposes stink.


Nick Robinson continues:

"People's reaction to this story will, in large part, be determined by their pre-existing attitude to Gordon Brown and to the continuing presence of British troops in Afghanistan.

What must follow now - at least once President Obama unveils his plan - is a debate about whether there is another strategy which would more effectively safeguard Britain.

Gordon Brown made clear that he'd looked at and rejected the option of bringing the troops home and creating "Fortress Britain" with money saved.

He made plain that he'd examined and rejected the idea of focussing the military effort exclusively on al-Qaeda while ignoring the rise of the Taliban."

I disagree, there are many who agree with Gordon Brown about the need to continue the operation in Afghanistan who think he was crass in his attempts to right a wrong. There are many who have sympathy for Gordon Brown who think he has screwed up here.


Nick Robinson concludes:

"The real debate - beneath all this anguish - is surely whether men like Guardsman Janes died in vain or made a sacrifice that is vital to protecting their country. It is a debate that has scarcely begun."

No, that is the debate the BBC want us to have with the desired conclusion that it is all in vain and that the troops must come home leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban. The debate many want is when can we have an election and rid ourselves of this control-freak, incompetent who still thinks he's the best man for the job when so much evidence is to the contrary.

Edited highlights of yesterday's Today interview with Peter Mandelson

My article on the interview can be found here.


Thanks to 10 Drowning Street for the clips.

Nick Robinson desperately spinning for Labour

Nick Robinson looks increasingly desperate as he tries to spin for Labour. Let's ignore his habit of seemingly only blogging on days when he can post anti-Conservative angled articles. This morning he posted this humorous piece about the likely spin that would be employed by each of the three main parties after the Norwich North by-election result became known. It's quite a good idea and one that I have toyed with before, although Nick Robinson's is not a great example of the genre. His piece is harsh on the Conservatives, soft on Labour, fair on the Lib Dems and as is usual at the BBC treats the Greens as the fourth party of British politics.

Then the result of the by-election was declared and Nick Robinson had to post again. This time he had to accept, presumably through clenched teeth, that:

"A massive 16.5 swing, not far short of what they got in Crewe and Nantwich, will allow the Conservatives to say that this is much better than the results I alluded to in my earlier post.

Labour, on the other hand, will point out that the swing originated largely from a collapse in their vote (-27%) and much less by an increase in the Tory vote (just 6.5%).

The truth is that Mr Cameron has done more than enough to look on course for an election victory and Labour has done badly enough to fear that one is inevitable. "

Here's the result:
Chloe Smith (Con) 13,591 (39.5%)
Chris Ostrowski (Lab) 6,243 (18.16%)
April Pond (LD) 4,803 (13.97%)
Glenn Tingle (UKIP) 4,068 (11.83%)
Rupert Read (Green) 3,350 (9.74%)
Craig Murray (Ind) 953 (2.77%)
Robert West (BNP) 941 (2.74%)
Bill Holden (Ind) 166 (0.48)
Howling Laud (Loony) 144 (0.42%)
Anne Fryatt (NOTA) 59 (0.17%)
Thomas Burridge (Libertarian) 36 (0.1%)
Peter Baggs (Ind) 23 (0.07%)
Con majority 7,348 (21.37%) 16.49% swing Lab to Con
Turnout 34,377 (45.76%, down 15.33% on gen election)

So what do we see? First of all a collapse in the Labour vote, I wonder if they will return at the general election or are they lost for a while yet. A Lib Dem vote that seems not to have benefited from the Labour collapse. A Conservative vote that is increasing but not spectacularly. UKIP and not the Greens are once again shown to be the fourth force in British politics, maybe the BBC could take note. A UKIP vote that increased without adversely affecting the Conservative vote. Minor parties and independents still doing better than in previous elections, will that continue to the general election?


As an aside what was George Galloway doing on Question Time last night? His Respect Party is a very minor party, certainly polling fewer votes than the BNP who I don't recall ever having anyone on the QT panel. Was he there as a serious politician or a celebrity; either way I, for one, would rather not see him again.

The deteriorating state of UK public finances

The BBC have done their best to hide theirreport on The Centre for Business and Economic Research (CEBR) findings that "a £100bn programme of cuts and tax rises is needed to repair the UK's public finances." This major story that blows a hole through Gordon Brown's claims that public spending will not be cut under a Labour government is not one of the nine main Business news stories instead it sits as the top "More From Business" story. The BBC report includes this rather bland reportage:

"The CEBR says that if the Conservative party wins the next general election then the deficit will be plugged with £20bn in tax rises and £80bn in spending cuts.

And it says if Labour holds on to power then it predicts £40bn in tax rises and £60bn in spending cuts.

"It is likely that any government - particularly a new one - will be forced by political necessity to announce its fiscal consolidation programme early while it is still possible to blame the need for it on the previous government," said CEBR chief executive Douglas McWilliams. "

No denying comment from Gordon Brown? No acceptance or denial comment from Alistair Darling? No comment at all from anyone? No article by Nick Robinson or Robert Peston on the myth of Tory Cuts v Labour Investment?

Anyone would think that the BBC were trying to bury this story... I wonder how soon they will dare to drop it off the "More Business Stories" list?

"I've always told the truth"

From 1:04 in this extract from Nick Robinson's interview with the Prime Minister you will hear Gordon Brown say "I've always told the truth", twice.

Come on let's list all the times that Gordon Brown has not told the truth, send them to David Cameron so he can ask Gordon Brown about them at next week's PMQs.

Maybe Gordon Brown means that he has "always told the truth" but not all the time.

The more I watch that piece of video the more I notice the look on Gordon Brown's face the first time he says "I've always told the truth", very different from the expression when he repeats the risible claim seconds later. Take a look and see what you think.

Do also note Gordon Brown's turn on fake smiles at random points during this interview. Not as creepy as his recent YouTube appearance or his infamous Countdown appreciation video, but still just plain odd.

Rewriting history Nick Robinson style

Here's an extract from Nick Robinson's latest blog entry

"There will be no e-mail. There will be no letter. Not tonight. Perhaps never.

Ever since James Purnell's dramatic resignation from the cabinet there has been what one of those working to unseat the prime minister describes as "a battle of the bodies". It is a battle that Gordon Brown is currently winning.

Not only did no cabinet minister follow Mr Purnell's lead but also few junior ministers have done so."

Why the arbitrary cut-off that only those that might have followed James Purnell count? What about Hazel Blears and Jacqui Smith who left earlier in the week. Not long ago any Cabinet Minister resigning would have been big news, now gone and forgotten.

What about the "few junior ministers" line? How many have resigned in the last week? More than two or three I believe.