The BBC apologised to Reform UK for a written report that described that party as ‘far right.’ It seems that it could be libellous to use the phrase in this way. But listening to a BBC report last night, I heard journalist Orla Guerin describe some in Israel’s government as ‘far right’ or ‘hard right.’ It is thus a phrase which could be used in different contexts to mean different things and so lacks precise definition. Richard Tice, leader of Reform UK says that to describe his party as far right implicitly means that he personally would be tarred with the same brush, and he could therefore sue for libel. Richard, join the cancel culture! What are we to make of this? An article on Wikipedia suggests that being ‘far right’ suggests one possesses a nativist, nationalistic world view, and may identify with fascist or Nazi movements. I can see that the last bit could lead to a libel action, which is presumably why the BBC’s lawyers thought it wise Auntie should apologise. And Orla’s description of a far right tendency in the Israeli government should invoke a torrent of complaints from its apologists.
If ‘far right’ means neo-Nazi, then I doubt Reform UK fits the bill. Throwing around the insult ‘neo-Nazi’ does little to inform debate. It seems sufficient to suggest they are to the right of the Tory party, which is bad enough. Looking at the photograph of its members on the Reform UK website’s home page, where fully 95-98% of the members are middle aged (or older) white males, one has a sense that this is a Trumpian demographic—no wonder the Tories are so worried. That’s their membership. Delving into the policies it may come as a surprise to learn that they are not anti-immigration per se, merely illegal immigration. They claim they want an emigration/immigration balance, so that if 400,000 people leave the UK, then 400,000 immigrants could replace them (sounds a bit like the Great Replacement Theory doesn’t it?) This may come as a surprise to those who simply want a stop to all immigration. On raising money to pay for their spending pledges, Reform UK wants to stop the Bank of England paying interest on quantitive easing payments to banks. I’m not sure I understand this policy, although if it were a realistic proposition it sounds eminently worthy. On climate change, I wonder if Reform UK are being fed garbage from the Tufton Street mafia. Here, confusion about the science is encouraged, which is to say a single counter intuitive blip is sufficient to overthrow a whole, long-term trend. And some of the ‘facts’ they present are simply wrong. For example, confusing the surface extent of sea ice and the thickness of sea ice doesn’t mean that sea ice is increasing. Perhaps we should accurately describe Reform UK as ‘Faragists.’ I know this sounds a bit like ‘Falangists’ but really! There’s no similarity.
0 Comments
I'm not quite sure where the Third Way has got to right now. I must look up Tony Giddens again on the subject. But as promised yesterday, I dropped in on Labour List's webinar on 'Bidenomics,' and have written a piece in response, as below.
‘A new Washington consensus is taking shape. I believe it is in our interest to embrace that consensus. But today Britain is little more than a spectator.’ So said Rachel Reeves in her Mais lecture. She didn’t go on to explain precisely what this new Washington Consensus consisted of. Having listened in to the Labour List/Progressive Policy [Washington based] Institute (PPI)webinar, I am even less sure what Reeves meant. Anybody who has heard of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act may also have heard that it came with a $2 trillion price tag, much of that money to be spent on clean energy. Yet Reeves has resiled from Labour’s earlier £28 billion green investment pledge. But wait! Will Marshall of the PPI said that in total Biden’s spending is nearer to $5 trillion, in new borrowing, sending US debt levels into the stratosphere. If this is the new Washington Consensus, then we’re definitely shying away from it, not embracing it. The economic catastrophe that is always invoked whenever the word debt is mentioned doesn’t seem to have occurred in the US—markets are buoyant and inflation is down. I can see why markets might be buoyant—there’s more money in the system for them to play with. As regards inflation, the reduction owes a lot to the fall in energy prices, a factor also helping to lower UK inflation. We may feel entitled to conclude that Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act is doing what it says on the can—or at least that it is not inflationary. Will Marshall also pointed to reduced unemployment amongst other positive indices to suggest that ‘Bidenomics’ was working. What then is so terrifying about it? In her lecture Reeves spells out what her fundamental building block of her future stewardship of the economy will be: ‘So let me be clear about the rules which will bind the next Labour government. That the current budget must move into balance, so that day-to-day costs are met by revenues. And that debt must be falling as a share of the economy by the fifth year of the forecast, creating the space to respond to future crises.’ The former part, that the current budget should move into balance, I seem to recall was George Osborne’s mantra in 2010 when he launched austerity. The legacy of austerity has been disastrous as we all know, not only devastating lives but undermining investment in productivity. The latter part of her comment, referring to reduced overall debt in five years’ time is precisely the language Jeremy Hunt has used to justify his recent cuts in National Insurance—a five year time scale is perfect for making optimistic predictions—which of course need never be fulfilled on the NIMTO principle, Not In My Term of Office. Where there may be some straws of a new Washington Consensus, they could be found in how the regulatory and planning regimes hold up new developments. There’s not much point having all that money if you can’t spend it. Removing planning barriers is a key plank of Labour’s growth agenda. It’s not yet quite clear what planning barriers are being talked about. We already have rules on taking designated ‘national infrastructure’ projects out of local jurisdiction. On the question of new houses, at what scale will these be built and who by? Will local authorities get the green light to borrow to build (and train builders to boot)? In their heyday, councils with their Direct Service Organisations (DSOs) had a complete supply chain—land, skills training and planning powers. They need those elements to work in harmony again (perhaps too with the return of something like Parker Morris standards!). So much for planning. But on the regulatory side, Reeves in her speech appears to be critical of New Labour’s approach to financial regulation—it was too lax in other words. But she doesn’t finger which regulations should have been strengthened. Are we going to have more financial regulation or less? Although it must be pretty clear by now what the post general election UK economic landscape is looking like, and indeed what the Tory traps for the next government are, Labour’s Treasury team is still holding out on detailing the fat, so to speak, on the institutional bones of their policy. It will be interesting to see, for example, how giving more oversight to the Office of Budget Responsibility will play out. It’s not just Tories who have complained about the OBR’s forecasting abilities. There are also, not mentioned by Reeves many other questions which whilst not necessarily bearing on the issue of growth directly will constrain the next UK government’s room to manoeuvre. Big revenue questions, such as whether to keep the pensions triple lock, whether to make up the shortfalls in local government financing (historic and current), meeting doctors’ and other pay awards, or continuing with the income tax allowance freeze —all these await the next Chancellor’s attention. One has to question the wisdom of promising now to keep corporation tax at 25%, which as Reeves says is one of the lowest rates amongst OECD countries. Why aren’t more businesses from those countries relocating here then? How has that level of corporation tax unleashed UK economic growth? As the Tories now seem to be finding out, talking of a low tax economy doesn’t appear to be boosting their electoral appeal. We shouldn’t emulate them. +In the 1990s there was a wave of building society demutualisations, often led by carpetbagger members who wanted a quick route to some cash. The concept of mutual ownership for them was simply an opportunistic deal, not a committed ideal. Most remaining building societies took steps to stop the carpetbaggers and the wave of sell-offs dried up. Now, a new approach is happening, with the Nationwide Building Society making an offer (which has been accepted) to buy Virgin Money in a deal worth £2.9 billion. That’s £2.9 billion Nationwide’s members won’t be seeing. Ironically Nationwide is not seeking its members’ approval for this deal, but Virgin Money’s shareholders will be asked to vote on it—and no doubt will vote yes when they see how much money they will get for their shares. And no doubt the directors all round will get fat bonuses and/or pay-offs when the deal goes through. I’ve always been suspicious of building society directors, and have always voted against their generous remunerations. In the coming years (but not just yet) ‘efficiency savings’ will follow as surely as night follows day, and many employees will be looking for new jobs.
+It has been reported that the blogger and former UK diplomat Craig Murray is to stand in the general election for the Workers (sic) Party in Blackburn, although he hasn’t said so himself on his blog. If it’s true then it seems surprising, since he is an arch campaigner for Scottish independence. I would have thought he would stand for the Alba Party in Scotland. What am I missing? No doubt we’ll find out soon enough (n.b. this snippet has nothing to do with the Third Way). +It seems real Labour policies are on hold in a bid to provide ‘reassurance,’ as against the fears that were thrown up by that bearded chap in 2019. What is not clear is whether this reassurance approach is intended for voters, or merely the markets. Why do I ask these silly questions? Maybe it’s because I am not reassured (surprise, surprise). I’ve been reading Rachel Reeves’ recent ‘Mais’ speech. Contrast these two sections: The first: ‘The so-called ‘mini budget’ – with its programme of unfunded tax cuts, amidst a concerted attempt to undermine our independent economic institutions – dramatically changed the fiscal circumstances in which we must operate. In October 2021, the Bank of England base rate was 0.1 percent. In little over two years, that has risen to 5.25 percent. In October 2021, the OBR forecast that net debt interest would cost £29 billion this year. They now expect that cost to be £82 billion. These changed circumstances explain the decision that Keir Starmer, the Shadow Cabinet and myself recently reached over the scale of government spending attached to Labour’s Green Prosperity Plan, to strike the necessary balance between the imperatives of the energy transition and the real economic constraints we face.’ Then the second: ‘We know too – as the Office for Budget Responsibility has argued – that the future costs of failure to address the climate crisis will far outweigh the cost of action today.’ Well, not just the OBR, actually. Going back to the noughties we had Nick Stern’s report on the economics of climate change (I was calling for such a report before Gordon Brown latched onto the idea) which made the point forcefully. But Reeves is a typical creature of her professional milieu, prone to delaying the future (so to speak) whilst blinded by the present. But it’s handy to blame Truss for everything. Nick Stern demonstrated that climate change spending now was economically affordable in economists’ terms. But as President Harry S Truman reportedly said ‘Give me a one-handed economist.’ +Rachel Reeves' 'Securonomics' is I've just realised the new name for the Third Way. +Part three in this exciting series of blogs will appear to tomorrow after I've had the chance to consider the Labour List webinar on 'Bidenomics' I watched today. Heady stuff! Labour List are hosting an event tomorrow which piqued my interest. It appears to be sponsored by the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) (‘Radically Pragmatic’ according to their website) which is based in ‘Washington, Brussels, United Kingdom.’ It also appears to be known as the Third Way Foundation although I couldn’t find more info about that. Searching for this foundation on Google brings up Third Way.org but their personnel don’t appear to match. The president of PPI is one Will Marshall. His entry in Wikipedia includes this:
‘Will Marshall is one of the founders of the New Democrat movement. Since its founding in 1989, he has been president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank formerly affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). He served on the board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, an organization chaired by Joe Lieberman (I) and John McCain (R) designed to build support for the invasion of Iraq. Marshall also signed, at the outset of the war, a letter issued by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) expressing support for the invasion. Marshall signed a similar letter sent to President Bush put out by the Social Democrats USA on Feb. 25, 2003, just before the invasion. The SDUSA letter urged Bush to commit to "maintaining substantial U.S. military forces in Iraq for as long as may be required to ensure a stable, representative regime is in place and functioning."‘ Certainly it must have been pretty radically pragmatic to co-sign a letter alongside PNAC neo-con luminaries. Anyway, Mr Marshall will be one of the speakers at the Labour List event, which is called ’What can Labour learn from Biden’s economic programme?’ One might reasonably assume ’a lot.’ Another speaker is Claire Ainsley, listed as Director of the Centre-Left Renewal Project at PPI. This project is mentioned on the PPI website as follows: ‘The Project on Center-Left Renewal is headed by Claire Ainsley, formerly a top policy advisor to British Labour Party leader Keir Starmer. In April, Ainsley led a PPI delegation to Australia to glean useful lessons from the electoral and governing successes of that country’s Labor party. The project teamed up with Progressive Britain [formerly known as Progress] for a London conference in May featuring Starmer and other key Labour leaders. Ainsley and PPI also were highly visible at Labour’s Liverpool conference in October, releasing a polling and strategy document, Roadmap to Hope, on how Labour could begin to win back working-class voters who defected to the Conservatives in the 2019 election.’ So that’s who all those people were at last year’s conference! Labour List’s event will also be addressed by Kirsty McNeill, Labour’s parliamentary candidate for Midlothian, who ‘attended Progressive Britain/PPI U.S. trip.’ Progressive Britain’s luminaries include Liz Kendall, Roger Liddle, Pat McFadden and Bridget Phillipson. Topping things off will be James Murray MP, Shadow Secretary to the Treasury. Kirsty is no newcomer to the corridors of power, as her website reveals: ‘I started working for Gordon [Brown] when I was 27 because he’d noticed the work I’d done on the Board of Make Poverty History where I led on organising the 250,000 strong march in Edinburgh. I’ve worked across Europe and am a member of the European Council on Foreign Relations, a group that brings together foreign ministers, former prime ministers, European Commissioners and parliamentarians with leaders from NATO, business and the media.’ So, to witness a snapshot of the Atlanticist political influence process, I have signed on for tomorrow’s session and will report back in part two. Meanwhile, long live the Third Way! It’s there somewhere, hiding under some tumbleweed . . . Last week in a book sale I picked up for 10p a battered copy of a book entitled ‘Britain in Wonderland’ published in 1948 by Gollancz. The author was RWG (Kim) Mackay, the Labour MP for Hull North West, 1945 –1950.* What struck me (and convinced me to part with 10p) was the cover blurb ‘We want something more attractive than austerity at home, more imaginative than work or want, & more realistic than an impossible export drive.’ Dipping into Mackay’s immediate post-war analysis, it seems clear to me that many of the establishment remedies for a flailing economy are still being touted today, captured in the banal idiocy spouted by Osborne/Reeves/Starmer that the ‘credit card is maxed out’ with its echoes of Thatcher’s likening of the UK economy to a household budget. Mackay criticised the Attlee government for bringing a basket of short term fixes to the table when what was needed he said were long term solutions which could in turn have more immediate policy aims. He saw the creation of a single European market in a federal structure as being one of the long-term solutions for an industrial economy which needed a market greater than its domestic size to flourish. He was therefore an early exponent of European integration. Mackay supported Attlee’s great nationalisations but I suspect he thought they could have gone further. Having said that, I think he romanticised the Soviet economic model under ’Marshall Stalin’ - even if it did deliver some public goods in terms of greater literacy and healthcare (Tsarist Russia no doubt set a very low bar on those fronts).
How prescient was Mackay? The full section from which the cover’s blurb is taken says ‘There is no hope for the British people if we follow the present economic policy of the Government. We want a long-term policy which takes into account our changed position, phrased in terms which recognises the changes that have taken place in the world. We want something more attractive than austerity at home, more imaginative than work or want, and more realistic than an impossible export drive.’ (p.95) The three items here sum up where we are today: a failed austerity program about which we all now know and suffer the consequences; employment practices which are little better (if at all) than ‘workfare’ (where to boot wages have to be subsidised by the state) and finally the failed appeal to globalisation where we can see our ‘competitive advantage’ disappearing faster than Norman Wisdom’s space rocket (for those who remember). Mackay pinpoints a key failure of economic policy, referencing Lord Thomas Balogh (economist and later Harold Wilson advisor), ‘the more unequal the distribution of wealth between countries and within each country the more likely and the more violent is the world economic system. For the war which has destroyed large areas of Europe and Asia, continents where poverty was already acute and which at the same time increased the productive capacity of the Western Hemisphere and most especially of North America very sharply, necessarily increased the inequality of distribution of wealth in the world economy.’ (p.117) The fruits of globalisation have not changed since the accrual of wealth persists in the way Mackay and Balogh described. What they didn’t consider in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War was that the fruits of globalisation could now threaten human extinction thanks to the use of fossil fuels. At the time the natural world consequences were seen as an externality, not a concern of economics. But I wouldn’t condemn Mackay for that—I think the key quality of his thinking was that he was prepared to argue against a failed orthodoxy, even if it emanated from his own party. Now a failure to deal with climate change will just multiply the dangers inherent in global inequality. Starmer’s ditching of the £28billion green investment pledge is symptomatic of the lack of a long-term approach Mackay sought. Mackay also deals with the issue of national debt. To sum up: The credit card’s maxed out? My arse! *Mackay wrote ‘Britain In Wonderland’ after Victor Gollancz had heard one of his speeches in the House of Commons and asked if he would like to write it up as a book. I like the sound of that. +A brief visit to Edinburgh gave me the opportunity to see the seven Oscar winning film Oppenheimer. I'm not sure I would have given it so many. It was far too long at three hours for a start, and consequently seemed to travel down a lot of avenues which whilst relevant no doubt in the director's mind occasionally seemed too tangential for this member of the audience. Well, at least one got a fairly complete picture of Oppenheimer's activities in and out of bed (an opportunity for a bit of naked flesh to creep in). I also found the direction somewhat frenetic at times, as if quantum physics could be illustrated with brief explosive moments of galactic, primordial chaos. There were so many of these visual-sonic interjections they rather dimmed the impact of the big bang when it finally came - it didn't look nearly as impressive as the real thing. At the very local level I guessed right that most people who wanted to see it will have already done so, and thus the cinema was virtually empty. One reason I don't bother much going to the flicks anymore is having to share the space with gabbling, mobile phone wielding numpties. Despite the place being near empty, three of said types just had to sit near me, and I just had to tell them to shut up. Their behaviour is surely as irritating as a concert audience clapping between a symphony's movements. Another issue I have (you've got this far after all) is the deafening volume of the sound system. It was so loud it was at times impossible to discern what was being said. This seems to be a common feature of the contemporary cinema experience. It's like every time someone shuts a door it must sound like the apocalypse has arrived. Idiotic.
+Having a wee trip to Edinburgh can have its downsides. My booked train I was informed became 'cancelled' so I had to rebook at extra expense. Then I got an email saying it was not cancelled after all, but by then it was too late to change back. I think I will get a refund. On return, my connecting train from York was half an hour late (another refund) - the reason for its lateness was 'it was late leaving the depot.' Which is like saying the train's late because it’s late, hardly an explanation. I think the time has come to compile a book of non-explanation explanations. Of course, the reason my original Edinburgh train was shown as cancelled was due to the best non-explanation ever, viz 'technical issues.' Such a publication could also have a big section on non-apology apologies. +The sad saga of Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle continues, as he failed to call Diane Abbott at this week’s PMQs, even though she was the subject of discussion. Hoyle has clearly lost his grip. In a bid to protect him (and Starmer) over his SNP Gaza amendment debacle, his three deputies have now rejected a request from MPs for an inquiry into what he and Starmer discussed. They concluded such discussions should be kept private, and it would set a precedent to reveal the content. Ironic, given Hoyle’s disregard for precedent. As I predicted (Blog 16th January) Lee Anderson has jumped ship again, now to the Reform Party. Being a man of honour he’s not resigning his seat to test whether his constituents actually want a Reform MP. That’s too risky, especially after Reform’s poor showing in the Rochdale by-election. But I hear you say, what about poor old Henry Grisewood? Indeed. As of today, Henry is still listed as Reform’s parliamentary candidate in Ashfield on the party’s website. This is what he has had to say ‘Henry is standing for Reform UK because he has had enough of the mediocre representation that has been given to the people of Ashfield and Great Britain, and believes that to bring true change, we need to change our voting habits, and not just continue to allow an unelected government to make vital decisions that are not a real representation of what the people need.’ (emphasis added) You’ve got to agree with Henry about the mediocrity. But now presumably he’ll be out door knocking for 30p Lee. That’s real change for you.
Thanks to BBC Radio Four's Profile programme I have learnt a little about Sir Paul Marshall, a mega-wealthy hedge fund chap who is the major backer of the baleful GB News. Happily, it seems GB News lost £42 million last year. They ought to ask themselves whether Rees-Smug and ‘30p’ Lee Anderson are worth it, two of their shining shining stars. Marshall is a committed Christian it seems, so as a mega wealthy person, gives a little bit of his wealth away to good causes, although I suspect he still wouldn’t be able to squeeze through the eye of a needle. And I’m sure that as wealth/income inequality has grown massively in the UK over recent years he probably doesn't see himself as part of the problem. But he is precisely one of the causes of inequality. Along with his industry compatriots. Now it seems he wants to buy the Daily Telegraph, which has led to the following headline in said paper (courtesy of MSN 10/3/24): ‘GB News-backer Paul Marshall ‘unfit to own a newspaper’, claims Telegraph bidder’. The bidder, the story reveals is a chap called Jeff Zucker, ‘the former CNN boss who now runs investment vehicle RedBird IMI, [who] criticised Sir Paul after he was accused of endorsing social media posts espousing “far-Right ideologies, Islamophobia, and conspiracy narratives”’. Apparently ‘The social media posts he “liked” on Twitter/X included ones that warned there had “never been a country that has remained peaceful with a sizeable Islamic presence” and that Muslim immigration was a form of “infiltration” that would lead to “the establishment of a totalitarian Islamic theocracy”, according to the charity Hope Not Hate. ‘ ‘Sir’ Paul has deleted the post and has said such thoughts do not represent his views, which begs a few questions. Perhaps he was just joking. Or can’t read.
So there’s one mover and shaker who hopes to guide the UK out of its current hell hole into the next one. But I also read of other ones who seem to typify the age of private influence we live in. This came in the form of a book review (Cuckooland: Where the rich own the truth, Tom Burgis, William Collins) in the New Statesman where we learn about Mohamed Amersi and Ben Eliot and the way doors are opened (and sometimes closed) when money rubs shoulders with politics. Judging by the review I will have to read the book but suffice to say when these people talk about our country—they only envisage enhancing their own wealth, bugger the rest of us. None of this is new of course, and as we know the filthy rich can do what they like ‘as long as they pay their taxes’ (which they don’t at the level they should). Thankfully Labour will put a stop to all this. The filthy rich will not influence Labour’s policies in any way whatsoever. And what’s more, Labour will put a stop to cronyism in the awarding of public contracts, following the Tories’ VIP nudge-nudge wink-wink Covid PPE scandal. The latter bit will be very welcome, but I’m afraid I have little faith the former assertion will stand. Labour’s leaders may not inhabit the same milieu as the Tories, but the company of millionaires (preferably billionaires) will not be eschewed when the time comes. Government budgets used to be serious affairs, so much so that when a previous Chancellor of the Exchequer back in the Fifties hinted what might be in his budget before telling parliament he had to resign (subs to fill in the details). Now the biggest thing in Jeremy Hunt’s budget was all but officially announced well before the event. Namely, a two pence cut in National Insurance contributions—something that doesn’t help the poorest who are below the NI threshold, nor pensioners who don’t pay NI full stop. Middle income earners may benefit a little, although the freeze on uprating income tax thresholds will see more of their income clawed back. Big deal all round. Many commentators have looked at this budget through a lens focused on this year's general election, but it’s really about general election 2028 or 2029—the thinking being that by tying Labour’s hands to an unaffordable tax cut now, Labour (as usual) will have to risk a lot of unpopularity seeking to repair the damage done by the Tories. This then should pave the way for their return in the subsequent general election. Since the current Labour leadership faction is thoroughly wedded to economic orthodoxy, there seems little chance that they will escape a drubbing in four or five years’ time, and any modest gains in that period will be washed away just as they usually are. But as somebody once said, hope springs eternal.
Charles Bradlaugh, you died in vain. The nineteenth century radical MP was elected, and re-elected to the House of Commons several times. His plurality of elections happened because he refused to utter an oath pledging his faith in God. He wanted a secular oath. Eventually, such an oath was introduced, and is still an alternative today, as it is in the courts. (I can’t remember all the details of Bradlaugh’s history, so correct me if I’m wrong.) Fast forward to the oath taking of one George Galloway MP—according to the news he went full throttle: ‘“I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law, so help me God.” A picture had him clutching what looked like a Bible, but it could have been the Koran. George clearly didn’t have that radical no-nonsense firebrand rhetoric to hand on this occasion—I suspect he just wanted to get the officialdom over and done with as quickly as possible to make the most of the predictably limited time he will on this occasion spend in parliament. So, the King Charles III loyalist has sworn his allegiance to his liege, Charley Boy the Third. George’s fans everywhere will even now be drafting their excuses for their hero’s abject subject-status. For myself, a republican, taking the secular oath, which still had a reference to loyalty to the Queen was fairly straightforward. As you can see from the above, the oath includes the word ‘successors’ which so far as I was concerned could mean elected successors, never mind ‘heirs’ - I wonder who felt it appropriate to go one step further than ‘heirs?’ Anyway I took my cue on this oath-taking business from an RAF recruiting sergeant who told me when I signed up, in response to my declaration that I was an atheist, that it didn’t matter one bit if I swore on the Bible or a bottle of Newcastle Brown. My conscience was thus left undisturbed (although later in basic training they had me down as a Methodist for some reason).
|
Archives
November 2024
|