Politics in 2013

[Fishbone Jones]

Perhaps leaving before the High River RCMP mess blows up in his face :

 

[The Bread Guy]

Latest leaks anonymous sharing uses the word "substantial" in describing a cabinet shuffle coming today....

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is giving his cabinet a makeover today and the changes are being described as "substantial and significant."

He will carry out his cabinet shuffle at 11 a.m. ET at Rideau Hall.

"[It] will be a substantial and significant shuffle," a source told CBC's Evan Solomon, host of Power & Politics and The House. "There will be new faces and younger members alongside experienced and capable hands."

The source also said there will be new women in cabinet and that the government's focus will remain on the economy.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is keeping his job and Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird is also keeping his portfolio, Solomon reported ....

 

[Edward Campbell]

The new MND is Rob Nicholson.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Gordon O'Connor was, in my opinion, always a strange choice for whip. The whip is part drill sergeant major, part nursemaid, part political tactician and part father confessor. His (or her) job is to keep the back benches both (reasonably) happy and in line. I saw O'Connor as a capable minister ~ not especially quick on his feet but stable and reliable. I think he did a pretty good job in Defence but the PM, evidently, disagreed because he was "demoted" or, at best, moved sideways to Revenue. Some might argue that Chief Government Whip represents a promotion but I still find the man ill suited for that particular job. Mr O'Connor is 74 and I'm guessing that he can be shuffled out on the basis that he will (likely) not seek re-election.

Van Loan is a more difficult problem for the PM. He's one of the old time Progressive Conservatives who fought hard for the new, united CPC. He's a skilled lawyer and, by all accounts I have heard, was a competent minister. I think he needs to be kept in cabinet and not, obviously, demoted. Like the whip, the house leader should be both a bit of a dictator and a bit of a favourite uncle. His (or her) goal is to steer the government's legislative programme through the HoC and he must have a big stick but he should prefer to use the carrot as much as possible ... something about catching more flies with honey than with vinegar. But, assuming Vic Toews can be rewarded with a move to suitable senior bench as a judge then Van Loan migt be a good fit in Justice or in Defence if the PM wants to move MacKay to Justice.

Personally I don't have a huge problem with omnibus bills provided they are properly crafted - i.e. every part is, clearly, tied to the budget, for example.

I also think that there needs to be some unity on the messaging front but probably not as much as this PMO wants to exert. Members must, in my opinion, stand with the party on all key issues identified in the election platform. If you cannot support the platform then you ought not to have run on it.Equally, when your party leader stakes out a position, as Prime Minister Harper has done on abortion then I think MPs who choose to stay in the caucus must represent that position back to their constituents and support their leader. But there are many issues, it seems to me, for which parliamentary "freedom" is still or ought to be still available to all MPs.

So, Gordon O'Connor is gone, replaced as whip by John Duncan who resigned, earlier this year, as a result of "inappropriate communication" addressed to the Tax Court of Canada. But Peter Van Loan stays on as house leader. The back benches will be partially pacified.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

The new MND is Rob Nicholson.

So we get a minister generally ignorant of military matters, lest you count knowing that there was a fort at Niagara-on-th-lakes called Fort george, that saw action in the war of 1812, but otherwise a minister who has proven to be quiet, efficient and generally solid and untouched by scandals.

 

[GAP]

So we get a minister generally ignorant of military matters, lest you count knowing that there was a fort at Niagara-on-th-lakes called Fort george, that saw action in the war of 1812, but otherwise a minister who has proven to be quiet, efficient and generally solid and untouched by scandals.

Not necessarily a bad thing.....better than using it as a stepping stone to future considerations as leader......

May not be that bad if he uses good common sense...

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Military experience in an MND can be overrated.

I'll take analytic, common sense, decision making anyway of the week.

 

[UnwiseCritic]

http://o.canada.com/2013/07/15/canadas-new-defence-team-to-focus-on-budget-cuts-long-term-plan-for-military/

"While known as a strong supporter of Canada’s men and women in uniform and the minister in charge during the bloodiest years in Afghanistan, MacKay struggled to implement those cuts despite orders from Harper."


Struggled or stood up for the Canadian Military despite of Harper?

 

[Edward Campbell]

http://o.canada.com/2013/07/15/canadas-new-defence-team-to-focus-on-budget-cuts-long-term-plan-for-military/

"While known as a strong supporter of Canada’s men and women in uniform and the minister in charge during the bloodiest years in Afghanistan, MacKay struggled to implement those cuts despite orders from Harper."


Struggled or stood up for the Canadian Military despite of Harper?

I'm not sure how supporting too many bloated HQs, for example, can be seen as standing up for the CF. He may have stood up for some flag and general officers who are defending their Pentagon inspired empires, but that's not supporting the CF.

Further, one main premise of cabinet government is that it, the ministry, takes collective decisions and acts in unison; we were left with the impression that Minister MacKay acted alone, against the collective will of the ministry. Maybe there was/is more to it ~ there often is ~ but what we saw, in public, was sensible direction from the prime minister to make cuts in the C2 superstructure and push-back from Minister MacKay and Gen Lawson, saying that HQs were already as lean and mean as they can get.

Do you really believe that cutting field force training is "better" for the CF than eliminating overlap and duplication in several large, high ranked HQs?

 

[Remius]

While I agree with E.R. Campbell, my fear is that those things won't be where the cutting happens and that the Government will cut things that are easy to cut but will have a profound effect on morale, effectiveness and capabilities.  We are already seing the degradation of skills and knowledge from lessons learned in Afghanistan and our priorities are shifting.  While we may not be cutting CF personnel, cutting recruiting numbers might as well amount to the same thing.  Ammo, fuel, mothballing equipment...all easy and quick ways to save money and I fear, that history will repeat itself.  PLD, pensions etc etc.

Are they really going to cut bloated HQ's?  Do they even care?  Or is it about reaching a target they have set themselves and don't care how they get to it?

 

[MarkOttawa]

Jack Granatstein:

Nicholson inherits a mess at Defence
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/story_print.html?id=8662309

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Edward Campbell]

Jack Granatstein:

Nicholson inherits a mess at Defence
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/story_print.html?id=8662309

Mark
Ottawa

Professor Granatstein is nearly 180o degrees off course.

Previous military experience is of little if any use in a MND. While, arguably, Brooke Claxton was one of Canada's best ever MNDs, his military experience, as a WWI Battery Sergeant Major was useful mainly in allowing him to cast a jaundiced eye on the vast plans, based on far less less vast resources, of military commanders.

The government is embarked upon a course of action which does not put DND's interests very high up the priority list. This has been the normal state of affairs with only a very, very few (and all too brief) exceptions. The government's policies may not sit too well with Prof Granatstein but they got themselves elected and he didn't so he's free to snipe, snidely, from the sidelines.

Procurement is a mess. Even, I suspect, the government knows that. The civil service, at the senior levels, certainly does and it knows that it can and will find big, Big, BIG cash savings after it reforms defence procurement. But it, the mandarinate, also knows that reform is, itself, going to be disruptive, bloody - in terms of jobs lost and career ambitions (political and bureaucratic) scuttled, and expensive. The latter factor explains why it is on the back burner until the budget is balanced. Procurement will be reformed - and it will not matter which party forms the next two governments - but it, defence procurement, is an administrative/management rather than a political priority.

Prof Granatstein is right about one thing: "... there is no vision in the government on defence questions — there is none in sight on the Opposition front benches either ..." Had he left it at that I would have suggested he was only 90o off course, but he finished by suggesting that the government should listen to him and the arm chair quarterback in the RCMI in Toronto and that is the very worst thing the government might do. It isn't "twentysomethings" in the PMO who make policy, it is the smart people in the PCO and they are letting defence drift because it's not part of the government's centre core of programmes.

 

[Infanteer]

but he finished by suggesting that the government should listen to him and the arm chair quarterback in the RCMI in Toronto and that is the very worst thing the government might do.

Isn't that what got us pips and crowns?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Isn't that what got us pips and crowns?

BINGO!

As I have mentioned several times before, no serving officer, including Peter Devlin, who enrolled in 1978 or even Walter Natynczyk, who enrolled in 1975, ever wore pips and crowns. You would need to be my age (in my seventh decade) to remember them. That was the work of those who a) are active in Conservative Party politics, and b) have time on their hands. Look in the ranks of the "honoraries" for the culprits.

 

[Remius]

BINGO!

As I have mentioned several times before, no serving officer, including Peter Devlin, who enrolled in 1978 or even Walter Natynczyk, who enrolled in 1975, ever wore pips and crowns. You would need to be my age (in my seventh decade) to remember them. That was the work of those who a) are active in Conservative Party politics, and b) have time on their hands. Look in the ranks of the "honoraries" for the culprits.

I would just mention that several reserve unit officers have indeed worn pips and crowns on ceremonial dress and patrol dress.  But I understand your point.

 

[The Bread Guy]

As I have mentioned several times before, no serving officer, including Peter Devlin, who enrolled in 1978 or even Walter Natynczyk, who enrolled in 1975, ever wore pips and crowns. You would need to be my age (in my seventh decade) to remember them. That was the work of those who a) are active in Conservative Party politics, and b) have time on their hands. Look in the ranks of the "honoraries" for the culprits.

All the precursors to good idea fairy plans everywhere, it seems (present company excluded, of course, ERC)- well summed up.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is a good, solid, reasoned analysis of the cabinet shuffle from an unlikely source - Harper HaterTM Lawrence Martin:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/harpers-cabinet-shuffle-is-a-good-facelift-but-whats-behind-it/article13240121/#dashboard/alerts

Harper’s cabinet shuffle is a good facelift, but what’s behind it?

LAWRENCE MARTIN
Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Tuesday, Jul. 16 2013

The faces have been changed, some for the better. As a result of Monday’s shuffle, the federal cabinet will be younger, have a greater female presence and be stacked with effective communicators.

Whether policies will be different is not at all certain. We’ll find out in the fall with the Throne Speech. As for the important question of attitude, no sign of change is apparent. The authoritarian and confrontational approach that has found the Prime Minister in repeated trouble, even with his own caucus, is not about to soften.

Among the good appointments were two that strengthened Stephen Harper’s economic team. He moved the highly capable James Moore to Industry and workaholic Jason Kenney to a new portfolio, Employment and Social Development, which might be called “Jobs.”

Peter MacKay will be a good fit for Justice. Chris Alexander, one of the young bright lights of the party, is well cast in Citizenship and Immigration. Quebecker Steven Blaney is a surprise appointment to Public Safety, but anything is an improvement over the departing man from the Cro-Magnon era, Mr. Crime and Punishment, Vic Toews.

For surprises, how about a long-time Manitoba policewoman, Shelley Glover, being put in charge of culture as Heritage Minister? Rona Ambrose has not had a distinguished record, but she gets another big portfolio as she moves from Public Works to Health. Leona Agglukaq moves to Environment, replacing Peter Kent. In this non-green government, it is not a portfolio to be wished on anyone. Being from the North will help her optics, but Ms. Agglukaq is not much of a retail politician.

It was considered well possible that, given the protests over his democratically deficient style, Mr. Harper would make an effort to mend fences. There was talk he might move someone such as the well-liked MP James Rajotte into the House Leader’s position to replace Peter-the-Pitbull Van Loan. That didn’t happen. Nor did he reach out, as some hoped, to the dissidents in caucus by promoting one of them to cabinet. He did put in place a new government whip with John Duncan replacing crusty old Gordon O’Connor.

But if you wanted a real signal of whether there would be a change of character in the way things are done, look no further than one of Monday’s big shockers. Mr. Harper appointed one of his most belligerent, thuggish MPs, Pierre Poilievre, as Minister of State for Democratic Reform. This in-your-face move was reminiscent of his naming Tony Clement head of the Treasury Board following the $50-million boondoggle in which funds were redirected from border infrastructure purposes to beautification projects in Mr. Clement’s riding.

With Mr. Poilievre, with Mr. Van Loan, with no big changes in the Prime Minister’s Office where the power really lies in this government, the PM obviously feels no change of style is necessary.

Having fallen to 30 per cent support from 40 per cent in the last election, the Tories have lost one quarter of their support. The base is behind the party, but not many others are.

Mr. Harper increased his female representation in cabinet to 12. That’s a record for any Canadian government and should help his appeal to that gender. The generational change, with the appointment of charismatic young performers like Michelle Rempel, is designed to help counter Justin Trudeau’s appeal.

But there is little suggestion in the shuffle that Mr. Harper wants to broaden the tent by reaching out to progressives. In the Labour portfolio, the highly partisan Kellie Leitch cannot be expected to alter the anti-labour pitch. Ms. Ambrose is not about to hit the reset button on health care. Joe Oliver remains in Natural Resources.

In Mr. Harper’s brief press conference Monday – the usual two questions in English, two in French and see ya later – he was asked whether he had hit the reset button.

He avoided a direct response. That was appropriate because while he had put new faces in the department-store window, decisions on what to sell were still to come.

I'm guessing that Lawrence Martin might be off course on Rona Ambrose and the "reset" button. My suspicion is that Prime Minister Harper does want to press "reset" <CTL> <ALT> <DEL> on health care. I think Minister Flaherty's unilateral, no discussion, take it or leave it funding decision was <CTL>. My guess is that Minister Ambrose will press <ALT> when she tells provinces that they can and should experiment with health care funding options without fearing cuts to federal funds just because they violate the outdated, unhelpful Canada Health Act. <DEL>, I think may come, for the Canada Health Act, after the 2015 election.

I also think Mr Martin is wrong when he says, in the final line, "decisions on what to sell were still to come." I think Prime Minister Harper just reaffirmed that what's on sale remains unchanged: fiscal prudence, a balanced budget in 2015 and no new taxes.

 

[Edward Campbell]

One thing Lawrenec Martin got right in the article I just posted was that "Having fallen to 30 per cent support from 40 per cent in the last election, the Tories have lost one quarter of their support. The base is behind the party, but not many others are." But I don't think Prime MInister Harper is anywhere near a panic button and this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from Abacus Insider explains why:

http://abacusinsider.com/politics-public-affairs/road-2015-voter-segmentation-rebuilding-conservative-majority-coalition/

THE ROAD TO 2015:REBUILDING THE CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY COALITION

Posted by David Colette on July 15th 2013

The federal Conservative Party has faced an unquestionably difficult spring.  Multiple ethics and spending controversies, a mini backbench revolt, slow economic growth, and the emergence of a dynamic and youthful Justin Trudeau as Liberal leader has the Tories now in second place in vote intention.  Abacus Data’s most recent ballot measure has the Liberals, Conservatives, and NDP statistically tied with the Liberal Party at 29%, the Conservatives at 27%, and the NDP at 26%.  This is the first time in our tracking (since November 2011) that the Conservatives are not in first place.

Today’s Cabinet shuffle is one attempt by the Harper Government to hit the reset button and present Canadians with the leadership team that will lead the Tories into the 2015 federal election.
In this paper, my objectives are to assess how Canadians judge the performance of the federal government overall and in certain key policy areas and to look at the segments within the electorate that the Tories need to bring together to replicate its successful coalition that allowed it to win a majority in 2011.

These insights are valuable as you consider how to present your priorities and agenda to a re-worked Harper Government as it sets its sights on re-election in 2015.

The Big Picture

Overall, the job approval of the Harper government is down six points since March to 31%.  This is the lowest approval score since Abacus Data started tracking the government’s approval rating in November 2011.  On specific policy areas, Canadians by and large do not distinguish between policy files except for accountability where only 20% of respondents either strongly or somewhat approved of the Harper government’s handling of the issue.

Harper Government Approval

Overall, just less than one third of Canadians (31%) said they either strongly or somewhat approved of the job that the federal government was doing.  Fifty percent of Canadians surveyed in June either strongly or somewhat disapproved of the federal government’s performance while 20% said they neither approved nor disapproved.
Among those who voted for the Conservative Party in the last federal election, May 2011 – a slight majority (54%) said that they somewhat or strongly approved of the federal government’s job performance while 19% disapproved.  Another 27% who voted Conservative in the last election neither approved nor disapproved.
With almost half of previous Conservative voters saying they either disapprove of the government’s performance or are neutral towards its performance is troublesome for the federal government and indicative of a need to revamp its agenda as it heads towards the 2015 election.

Q: Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the job the federal government led by Stephen Harper is doing?
(Source: Abacus Data, June 2013, n=999)

But which policy areas is the government strongest and weakest and what does that mean for the coming Cabinet shuffle?
Among all respondents, the Conservative government is perceived to be doing better (or lower disapproval ratings) in its handling of international trade (35% approve vs. 28% disapprove) and crime reduction (33% approve vs. 32% disapprove).  Over a third of respondents said they neither approve nor disapprove of the government’s performance in these areas.

Respondents are more divided in the government’s handling of keeping taxes low (31% approve vs. 41% disapprove), economic management (32% approve vs. 40% disapprove), and job creation (33% approve vs. 39% disapprove).

The Harper government is weakest on health care and accountability in government.  While 32% approve of the government’s performance on the health care file, 45% disapprove.  Worse, only 20% of Canadians approve of its handling of accountability in government while 58% disapprove.

It is also clear that very few Canadians who disapprove of the government in general give it credit for progress in any specific policy areas.  There is a strong relationship between disapproving with the overall performance of the government and evaluations of its performance on specific policy areas.

Q: Do you approve or disapprove of the job the federal government is doing in the following areas?
(Source: Abacus Data, June 2013, n=999)

2011 Conservative Voters – Approval of Government Performance

When we compare the approval among all eligible voters to that of those who voted for Conservative Party in 2011 there are some differences in the overall approval of the government.

Those who voted for the Conservative Party in 2011 are much more likely to approve of the job the government is doing on all issues. However, with about 40% of past Conservative Party supporters not approving of the government’s performance in specific policy areas, it is clear why support for the federal Conservative Party is down significantly in the past few months.

Q: Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the job the federal government led by Stephen Harper is doing?
(Source: Abacus Data, June 2013, n=999)

Among Conservative voters in 2011, a majority approve of the Harper government’s performance in international trade, crime reduction, health care, economic management, and job creation.  However, less than a majority approve of its performance in keeping federal taxes low and on government accountability.

Q: Do you approve or disapprove of the job the federal government is doing in the following areas?
(Source: Abacus Data, June 2013, n=999)

Incumbent governments need to retain its past supporters by delivering what it promised at the time these voters supported them.  With shaky economic news, higher than average unemployment, and significant ethical lapses, the government’s reputation among its supporters is tenuous at best.

A shuffling of the federal Cabinet provides the government an opportunity to reset and present a new team of ministers to tackle some of the issues facing the country.  But a new team won’t be enough.  The Harper government needs to find a way to rekindle its relationship with its supporters and give them a reason to vote for them again in 2015.

The Conservative government has found success in the past when it  delivered for its supporters. Masters of “transactional” politics, the early years of the Harper Government were about delivering for its core target markets: GST cuts, childcare benefit, tough crime and justice measures, tax credits for transit and sports, and investments in infrastructure.

But since winning a majority in 2011, it has delivered very little to most of its supporters.

While scrapping the long-gun registry and ending the Wheat Board’s monopoly on selling Western Canadian grain delivered to its mainly rural and small-c conservative base (its core supporters), middle class, suburban voters has been largely ignored since 2011.  Transactional politics requires constant attention and delivery to your consumer (voters).

These voters, middle aged and women, living in the suburban regions around Vancouver and Toronto, should be the focus for the government as its outlines its agenda for the next two years.  Without their support, the Conservative majority will disappear in 2015.

But if you’re the federal Conservative Party, how might you divide the electorate and build an agenda to retain and mobilize your base while bringing home those voters who may have voted Conservative in 2011 but are now either undecided or thinking of voting for an alternative?

In the next section we segment the political market from the Conservative Party’s perspective.  The Cabinet shuffle and its coming agenda will likely try to appeal to these groups.

Understanding and demonstrating how your agenda aligns with these groups should be a critical part of your GR strategy going forward.

Federal Conservative Voter Segment Profiles

A Note on Methodology

Using data collected from our national surveys from March to June, 2013, we segmented the Canadian population into five groups based on the previous voting behaviour and current federal vote intentions.  The analysis is based on interviews with 7,124 Canadians conducted online with representative panels.  The data set was weighted by age, gender, education, region, and month due to differences in sample size across the four surveys.  The data is not meant to represent current public opinion but to illustrate the relationship between variables.  The large data also allows us to drill down and better understand smaller, but important segments of the electorate not possible in a survey of 1,000 respondents.

Road to 2015: Simple Mathematics

The way back for the federal Conservatives to get into majority government territory (around 40%) is a matter of simple mathematics.  Let’s remove the 11% of our sample who are “Disengaged”.

If the Conservative Party is successful at rebuilding their coalition and mobilizing them to vote, it can get close again to the magic 40% number:

          Loyalists (24%) + Newcomers (4%) + Punctures (4%) + Switchers (5%) = 37%

The Conservative base of support is about 24% of the electorate.  They can likely count on these generally older, more male, suburban and rural voters.  They are enthusiastic about the government and almost all of them approve of the job the government is doing and most think the country is generally headed in the right direction.

Add the Newcomers (4%), new voters who are younger and more likely to be new Canadians, support the Conservative agenda and most approve of the government’s agenda.  These two groups are the easiest conversions for the Tories and gets them to 28% – about where they currently are polling in most public polls released recently.

Getting to 37% by adding the Punctures and Switchers is a bit more difficult.

Punctures (4%) haven’t completely abandoned the Tories for another party but are disappointed in the Harper Government’s policies.  They are more likely to be either pre-retiree or retired women, living in suburban communities.  They voted Conservative in the past but the Conservatives need to deliver something to them and demonstrate why Conservative policies are in their self-interest and the interests of their families.

Finally, Switchers (5%) are quite disappointed in the Harper Government.  Forty-five percent (45%) think the country is heading in the wrong direction and only 34% approve of the government’s job performance.  As this group is primarily middle-aged men living in urban and suburban communities, pocketbook issues, leadership, and competence are appeal themes to this group.

A majority of Switchers (58%) say they would vote Liberal if an election was held at the time of the survey with another 29% voting NDP and 11% voting Green.  These voters are pro-business but feel let down by Tory ethics issues and the underperformance of the economy.  Questioning Justin Trudeau’s experience and competence to be Prime Minister may loosen these voters but the Conservative Party needs to offer them something to come back into the Conservative tent.

How does your agenda align with these voters?

Government relations and advocacy is increasingly about mobilizing supporters and demonstrating to government stakeholders that your issues and “asks” align with the concerns and priorities of key voter groups.

“All Canadians” are not important in the new world of political marketing where relationship management, transactional politics, and delivery trump what used to be considered “good public policy”.

For many government stakeholders, both at the federal and provincial levels, good public policy is policy that meets the needs of target voter segments.

Data, whether in the form of membership attitudes and priorities or public opinion research, is the new currency in Ottawa.  Because of Access to Information requests or requirements of public disclosure of all Government of Canada public opinion research, government is doing less strategic public opinion research.  Along with informing your own strategy, you can provide valuable, independent data to government. 
Strategically designed and segmented analysis demonstrates you understand their political priorities.

Next time you are thinking about how to convince government to support your agenda, ask yourself, what do the “punctures” think of our policy recommendations or how will “switchers” react to a proposal policy change?  Answering these questions will focus your GR strategy and provide you insights to share with government stakeholders as they all focus on the road to the 2015 General Election.

David Coletto is CEO of Abacus Data and leads its Public Affairs research practice. He has a PhD from the University of Calgary and is an adjunct professor at Carleton University.

One is tempted to write Q.E.D. except of course that the demonstrandum bit ~ getting from the 30% that Lawrence Martin concedes to the 40% that most observers think will produce a comfortable majority government in 2015 ~ has yet to be done, but Mr Coletto outlines how the CPC can get there.

 

[Remius]

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/07/15/pipsqueak-promotion-cheapens-shuffle

A surprising article from the Sun.  Not so surprising is who authored it...

 

[Edward Campbell]

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/07/15/pipsqueak-promotion-cheapens-shuffle

A surprising article from the Sun.  Not so surprising is who authored it...

Warren Kinsella and Pierre Poilievre are two sides of the same coin. It happens that Mr Poilievre is not someone with I would, willingly, dine, but then I feel exactly the same about Mr. Kinsella, and for exactly the same reasons.