UK Politics Thread XII: The Lockdown

[Hirota]

The reason people defected from the Labour Party is more than just a single issue, at least according to the Ashcroft poll.

I've highlighted the ones which were given by more than 50% of respondents.

And 62% of defectors who voted for Labour in 2017 would have continued to vote tory in 2019, which demonstrates Brexit wasn't the only reason they defected.

It's actually genuinely worth reading this entire thing, as it illustrated that for a great many people Brexit was important, but not the only reason for the defection of people from Labour to the Tories and the Lib Dems.

Me personally (since I am in the 2017 Lab to 2019 Con group) I would have picked "I did not believe Labour would be able to deliver...." and "The Labour Party no longer seems to represent people like me" I might have picked about Brexit...even though I voted remain in 2016. I didn't vote Tory to prevent Corbyn getting into power (although if it was an option I would have said I voted Tory to prevent Momentum getting into power)

What were the changes between 2017 and 2019 within the Labour Party that you felt forced you to go to the Tories instead?

I think I covered two (or three if I included Brexit) of the reasons that were available in the Lord Ashcroft Poll. I would also personally add Momentum. I would also personally add the failure to deal with the anti-semitism claims (true or not) that came within the party itself.

In other words I voted for a party other than Labour for the numerous other reasons other than outright not wanting Corbyn to be leader. I think he was a weak party leader (and thus I would be concerned about his competence as PM), but I like him as a individual and I'd want to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[Chan Island]

Why is everyone who typically leans left against more high speed rail in the UK ? I thought that was the left's thing.

Hey! I'm on the left and incredibly in favour of HS2. It ought to have been built 20 years ago.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

What were the changes between 2017 and 2019 within the Labour Party that you felt forced you to go to the Tories instead?

I think I covered two (or three if I included Brexit) of the reasons that were available in the Lord Ashcroft Poll. I would also personally add Momentum. I would also personally add the failure to deal with the anti-semitism claims (true or not) that came within the party itself.

In other words I voted for a party other than Labour for the numerous other reasons other than outright not wanting Corbyn to be leader. I think he was a weak party leader (and thus I would be concerned about his competence as PM), but I like him as a individual and I'd want to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Didn't Labour have the same issues in 2017, however?

[Novus America]

Why is everyone who typically leans left against more high speed rail in the UK ? I thought that was the left's thing.

HS2 basically a way to funnel more people and money into London. Most people on the left would prefer regenerating other parts of the country.

It the proposal had just been a high speed link between Birmingham, Manchester, and Leeds then I think it would have more support.

But if it was just between those three cities who ride it enough to make it viable?
Connecting other places via infrastructure to a major source of jobs can still help those places.

I mean it would be cool too If you would invest in rebuilding the manufacturing base in those places too, but obviously that is going to happen cause muh free trade and whatever.

[Fartsniffage]

HS2 basically a way to funnel more people and money into London. Most people on the left would prefer regenerating other parts of the country.

It the proposal had just been a high speed link between Birmingham, Manchester, and Leeds then I think it would have more support.

But if it was just between those three cities who ride it enough to make it viable?
Connecting other places via infrastructure to a major source of jobs can still help those places.

I mean it would be cool too If you would invest in rebuilding the manufacturing base in those places too, but obviously that is going to happen cause muh free trade and whatever.

Just those 3 places consist of over 7 million people. And the ride time would be short enough that it would be a reasonable commute.

There is no saying the London shouldn't have been added to the network, just in the second stage. Because as it stands North East and North West England are gonna be SOL when the second stage is cancelled.

[Novus America]

But if it was just between those three cities who ride it enough to make it viable?
Connecting other places via infrastructure to a major source of jobs can still help those places.

I mean it would be cool too If you would invest in rebuilding the manufacturing base in those places too, but obviously that is going to happen cause muh free trade and whatever.

Just those 3 places consist of over 7 million people. And the ride time would be short enough that it would be a reasonable commute.

There is no saying the London shouldn't have been added to the network, just in the second stage. Because as it stands North East and North West England are gonna be SOL when the second stage is cancelled.

But is there really that much demand to justify it?
Someone in Birmingham is probably still going to find more value in being able to go to London than Leeds.

Sure if the second stage is canceled only Birmingham benefits.

I admit I question the viability of building all new tracks instead of upgrading the existing tracks though.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Just those 3 places consist of over 7 million people. And the ride time would be short enough that it would be a reasonable commute.

There is no saying the London shouldn't have been added to the network, just in the second stage. Because as it stands North East and North West England are gonna be SOL when the second stage is cancelled.

But is there really that much demand to justify the travel.
Someone in Birmingham is probably still going to find more value in being able to go to London than Leeds.

Sure if the second stage is canceled only Birmingham benefits.

I admit I question the viability of building all new tracks instead of upgrading the existing tracks though.

What's wrong with leeds? I quite like leeds.

[Novus America]

But is there really that much demand to justify the travel.
Someone in Birmingham is probably still going to find more value in being able to go to London than Leeds.

Sure if the second stage is canceled only Birmingham benefits.

I admit I question the viability of building all new tracks instead of upgrading the existing tracks though.

What's wrong with leeds? I quite like leeds.

Nothing really, just what is the major incentive for people to make the trip often enough to make the rail line viable?

[Fartsniffage]

Just those 3 places consist of over 7 million people. And the ride time would be short enough that it would be a reasonable commute.

There is no saying the London shouldn't have been added to the network, just in the second stage. Because as it stands North East and North West England are gonna be SOL when the second stage is cancelled.

But is there really that much demand to justify it?
Someone in Birmingham is probably still going to find more value in being able to go to London than Leeds.

Sure if the second stage is canceled only Birmingham benefits.

I admit I question the viability of building all new tracks instead of upgrading the existing tracks though.

The current time from Birmingham to London is 1 hour 21 minutes. HS2 cuts that to 49 minutes. £55 billion+ for 30 minutes off a train ride is ridiculous. Unless the lines continue further north it is a complete waste of time. And making the Birmingham - London link part of the second stage would have all but ensured the network got somewhere close to completed.

This is one of those projects where if the whole thing isn't done then it isn't really worth doing any part of it. It was sold to the public as a way to get the Northern Powerhouse started, stopping in the midlands pretty much pisses on that idea.

Apparently it was cheaper than upgrading existing track ways. I dunno why, I'm not a train engineer.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

But is there really that much demand to justify it?
Someone in Birmingham is probably still going to find more value in being able to go to London than Leeds.

Sure if the second stage is canceled only Birmingham benefits.

I admit I question the viability of building all new tracks instead of upgrading the existing tracks though.

The current time from Birmingham to London is 1 hour 21 minutes. HS2 cuts that to 49 minutes. £55 billion+ for 30 minutes off a train ride is ridiculous. Unless the lines continue further north it is a complete waste of time. And making the Birmingham - London link part of the second stage would have all but ensured the network got somewhere close to completed.

This is one of those projects where if the whole thing isn't done then it isn't really worth doing any part of it. It was sold to the public as a way to get the Northern Powerhouse started, stopping in the midlands pretty much pisses on that idea.

Apparently it was cheaper than upgrading existing track ways. I dunno why, I'm not a train engineer.

The way to get the 'northern powerhouse' started would to put in proper lines linking Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, leeds and Newcastle surely? Or is that too obvious for the government?

[Fartsniffage]

The current time from Birmingham to London is 1 hour 21 minutes. HS2 cuts that to 49 minutes. £55 billion+ for 30 minutes off a train ride is ridiculous. Unless the lines continue further north it is a complete waste of time. And making the Birmingham - London link part of the second stage would have all but ensured the network got somewhere close to completed.

This is one of those projects where if the whole thing isn't done then it isn't really worth doing any part of it. It was sold to the public as a way to get the Northern Powerhouse started, stopping in the midlands pretty much pisses on that idea.

Apparently it was cheaper than upgrading existing track ways. I dunno why, I'm not a train engineer.

The way to get the 'northern powerhouse' started would to put in proper lines linking Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, leeds and Newcastle surely? Or is that too obvious for the government?

Liverpool, Sheffield and Newcastle are part of phase 3. If it ever get that far. Spur lines from Manchester to Liverpool and Leeds to Sheffield, and a big yomp up the east coast from Leeds to Newcastle.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

The way to get the 'northern powerhouse' started would to put in proper lines linking Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, leeds and Newcastle surely? Or is that too obvious for the government?

Liverpool, Sheffield and Newcastle are part of phase 3. If it ever get that far. Spur lines from Manchester to Liverpool and Leeds to Sheffield, and a big yomp up the east coast from Leeds to Newcastle.

Do we have to wait until phase 16 to see it? Newcastle is crap, Edinburgh is much nicer.

[Fartsniffage]

Liverpool, Sheffield and Newcastle are part of phase 3. If it ever get that far. Spur lines from Manchester to Liverpool and Leeds to Sheffield, and a big yomp up the east coast from Leeds to Newcastle.

Do we have to wait until phase 16 to see it? Newcastle is crap, Edinburgh is much nicer.

The lines up to Glasgow and Edinburgh are also phase 3. More correctly they're HS2 services on existing lines. So much faster but not full beans.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Do we have to wait until phase 16 to see it? Newcastle is crap, Edinburgh is much nicer.

The lines up to Glasgow and Edinburgh are also phase 3. More correctly they're HS2 services on existing lines. So much faster but not full beans.

At least we don't get Wales-level service. Wales gets missed out entirely because we're still unsure whether the talk of people living out there are fact or just rhumour.

[Novus America]

But is there really that much demand to justify it?
Someone in Birmingham is probably still going to find more value in being able to go to London than Leeds.

Sure if the second stage is canceled only Birmingham benefits.

I admit I question the viability of building all new tracks instead of upgrading the existing tracks though.

The current time from Birmingham to London is 1 hour 21 minutes. HS2 cuts that to 49 minutes. £55 billion+ for 30 minutes off a train ride is ridiculous. Unless the lines continue further north it is a complete waste of time. And making the Birmingham - London link part of the second stage would have all but ensured the network got somewhere close to completed.

This is one of those projects where if the whole thing isn't done then it isn't really worth doing any part of it. It was sold to the public as a way to get the Northern Powerhouse started, stopping in the midlands pretty much pisses on that idea.

Apparently it was cheaper than upgrading existing track ways. I dunno why, I'm not a train engineer.

Fair enough. If you started North downwards it would pretty much have to go all the way to London rather than stopping in Birmingham.

Although for the new tracks is that based on realistic cost estimates? Or ones that grossly understate the cost of building new tracks?
Seems to me spending that much to upgrade the existing tracks could probably improve travel times just as much if not more...
I might be wrong but I am not sure I trust their cost estimates.

The nice thing about existing tracks is you do not have to really damage any existing housing or environment unless it is so close to the existing tracks.

Would definitely have a lower environmental and archeological impact to use the existing tracks.

And you could actually get the trains running right away, admittedly not initially at full speed, on the whole thing but while gradually increasing the speed as you upgrade it gradually.

I mean the US did successfully build a high speed(ish) train on the Northeast corridor and it actually got running, admittedly not at full speed the whole way.

Meanwhile California tried something like HS2 and it turned out FAR more expensive and difficult to build the new track, and thus it is very possible it will never even get running at all.

Seems to me the all or nothing new track approach is higher risk. Especially as you pint out it Only cuts 30 minutes off the time.

[Fartsniffage]

The lines up to Glasgow and Edinburgh are also phase 3. More correctly they're HS2 services on existing lines. So much faster but not full beans.

At least we don't get Wales-level service. Wales gets missed out entirely because we're still unsure whether the talk of people living out there are fact or just rhumour.

We built them 2 bridges over the Severn. They've had their spending.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

At least we don't get Wales-level service. Wales gets missed out entirely because we're still unsure whether the talk of people living out there are fact or just rhumour.

We built them 2 bridges over the Severn. They've had their spending.

Why? Now they can get out and continue to rustle our sheep.

[Fartsniffage]

The current time from Birmingham to London is 1 hour 21 minutes. HS2 cuts that to 49 minutes. £55 billion+ for 30 minutes off a train ride is ridiculous. Unless the lines continue further north it is a complete waste of time. And making the Birmingham - London link part of the second stage would have all but ensured the network got somewhere close to completed.

This is one of those projects where if the whole thing isn't done then it isn't really worth doing any part of it. It was sold to the public as a way to get the Northern Powerhouse started, stopping in the midlands pretty much pisses on that idea.

Apparently it was cheaper than upgrading existing track ways. I dunno why, I'm not a train engineer.

Fair enough. If you started North downwards it would pretty much have to go all the way to London rather than stopping in Birmingham.

Although for the new tracks is that based on realistic cost estimates? Or ones that grossly understate the cost of building new tracks?
Seems to me spending that much to upgrade the existing tracks could probably improve travel times just as much if not more...
I might be wrong but I am not sure I trust their cost estimates.

The nice thing about existing tracks is you do not have to really damage any existing housing or environment unless it is so close to the existing tracks.

Would definitely have a lower environmental and archeological impact to use the existing tracks.

And you could actually get the trains running right away, admittedly not initially at full speed, on the whole thing but while gradually increasing the speed as you upgrade it gradually.

I mean the US did successfully build a high speed(ish) train on the Northeast corridor and it actually got running, admittedly not at full speed the whole way.

Meanwhile California tried something like HS2 and it turned out FAR more expensive and difficult to build the new track, and thus it is very possible it will never even get running at all.

Seems to me the all or nothing new track approach is higher risk. Especially as you pint out it Only cuts 30 minutes off the time.

It's a government project so what do you think? The budget for the whole thing was supposed to £55 billion with a nice reserve built into that. It's currently projected to be £106 billion and we've hardly broken ground. Fuck, they decided to build a fucking tunnel under London rather than just have it stop on the outskirts and use a regular train into the centre.

But it creating employment so that's good. All of it in London like but you can't have everything.

[Novus America]

Fair enough. If you started North downwards it would pretty much have to go all the way to London rather than stopping in Birmingham.

Although for the new tracks is that based on realistic cost estimates? Or ones that grossly understate the cost of building new tracks?
Seems to me spending that much to upgrade the existing tracks could probably improve travel times just as much if not more...
I might be wrong but I am not sure I trust their cost estimates.

The nice thing about existing tracks is you do not have to really damage any existing housing or environment unless it is so close to the existing tracks.

Would definitely have a lower environmental and archeological impact to use the existing tracks.

And you could actually get the trains running right away, admittedly not initially at full speed, on the whole thing but while gradually increasing the speed as you upgrade it gradually.

I mean the US did successfully build a high speed(ish) train on the Northeast corridor and it actually got running, admittedly not at full speed the whole way.

Meanwhile California tried something like HS2 and it turned out FAR more expensive and difficult to build the new track, and thus it is very possible it will never even get running at all.

Seems to me the all or nothing new track approach is higher risk. Especially as you pint out it Only cuts 30 minutes off the time.

It's a government project so what do you think? The budget for the whole thing was supposed to £55 billion with a nice reserve built into that. It's currently projected to be £106 billion and we've hardly broken ground. Fuck, they decided to build a fucking tunnel under London rather than just have it stop on the outskirts and use a regular train into the centre.

But it creating employment so that's good. All of it in London like but you can't have everything.

Fair point, so I am going to remain dubious the all new track was really the way to go.
At least with the California debacle they are going to use existing tracks in LA rather than a whole new tunnel, although it seems increasingly unlikely they will ever run a train anyways.

Meanwhile we did do the upgrade existing track thing kind of similar in idea (it runs from DC to Baltimore) and it actually runs pretty well and does not totally suck, even if it has to go slower in places where the upgrades still have not been done.

[Fartsniffage]

It's a government project so what do you think? The budget for the whole thing was supposed to £55 billion with a nice reserve built into that. It's currently projected to be £106 billion and we've hardly broken ground. Fuck, they decided to build a fucking tunnel under London rather than just have it stop on the outskirts and use a regular train into the centre.

But it creating employment so that's good. All of it in London like but you can't have everything.

Fair point, so I am going to remain dubious the all new track was really the way to go.
At least with the California debacle they are going to use existing tracks in LA rather than a whole new tunnel, although it seems increasingly unlikely they will ever run a train anyways.

Meanwhile we did do the upgrade existing track thing kind of similar in idea (it runs from DC to Baltimore) and it actually runs pretty well and does not totally suck, even if it has to go slower in places where the upgrades still have not been done.

Yeah, but this thing is supposed to run at faster than Shinkansen speeds. 250mph. You can't do that on existing tracks, no where near. Not even with upgrades.

Corners will have to be reduced, protection from wind installed, gradients changed. You're looking at taking 3 of the busiest lines out of service for decades.

[Novus America]

Fair point, so I am going to remain dubious the all new track was really the way to go.
At least with the California debacle they are going to use existing tracks in LA rather than a whole new tunnel, although it seems increasingly unlikely they will ever run a train anyways.

Meanwhile we did do the upgrade existing track thing kind of similar in idea (it runs from DC to Baltimore) and it actually runs pretty well and does not totally suck, even if it has to go slower in places where the upgrades still have not been done.

Yeah, but this thing is supposed to run at faster than Shinkansen speeds. 250mph. You can't do that on existing tracks, no where near. Not even with upgrades.

Corners will have to be reduced, protection from wind installed, gradients changed. You're looking at taking 3 of the busiest lines out of service for decades.

Will it actually run that fast though? Or on reality much slower than originally intended? My bet is on the latter.

And seems like the actual time improvements is a bit disappointing then considering the cost.
Maybe something less ambitious (obviously you could not get it that fast on existing tracks) might have been the way to go.

The Northeast corridor can already get up to 150mph in places, and possibly up to 220 (in places) on existing tracks without shutting any exist tracks down for any amount of time.
Is that extra 30 mph really justified by the cost?

[Fartsniffage]

Yeah, but this thing is supposed to run at faster than Shinkansen speeds. 250mph. You can't do that on existing tracks, no where near. Not even with upgrades.

Corners will have to be reduced, protection from wind installed, gradients changed. You're looking at taking 3 of the busiest lines out of service for decades.

Will it actually run that fast though? Or on reality much slower than originally intended? My bet is on the latter.

And seems like the actual time improvements is a bit disappointing then considering the cost.
Maybe something less ambitious (obviously you could not get it that fast on existing tracks) might have been the way to go.

The Northeast corridor can already get up to 150mph in places, and possibly up to 220 (in places) on existing tracks without shutting any exist tracks down for any amount of time.
Is that extra 30 mph really justified by the cost?

Yes it is meant to run at that speed. Hence all the crazy shit required to make it possible.

Shinkansen has a top speed limit of 200mph, so I kinda doubt that 220 number?

Operating speed Up to 150 mph (240 km/h)[4]
84 mph (135 km/h) average[5]
70 mph (110 km/h) average including stops[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela_Express

Yeah, I thought 220 was a bit on the high side.

[Novus America]

Will it actually run that fast though? Or on reality much slower than originally intended? My bet is on the latter.

And seems like the actual time improvements is a bit disappointing then considering the cost.
Maybe something less ambitious (obviously you could not get it that fast on existing tracks) might have been the way to go.

The Northeast corridor can already get up to 150mph in places, and possibly up to 220 (in places) on existing tracks without shutting any exist tracks down for any amount of time.
Is that extra 30 mph really justified by the cost?

Yes it is meant to run at that speed. Hence all the crazy shit required to make it possible.

Shinkansen has a top speed limit of 200mph, so I kinda doubt that 220 number?

So maybe it would have been better to start at trying to get it to go 150mph on existing track. Because that is probably cheaper and certainly can be done.

Well the new trains we are building (we also build our trains here which is nice) have a max speed of 220mph, although initially they will run at 160mph (currently they run 150 mph in places) in places with shorter term planned upgrades to 186mph in places, actually getting them up to 220 would require major track improvements of course, but it is theoretically possible to do in places, if we update the tracks enough or build a bypass on part of the route. They can only do that running straight and flat of course.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avelia_Liberty

The approach is very different, we are going for the more gradual, less ambitious route, but trains are actually running at 150 mph (in places), and we already have the new trains being built. So it is a safer bet. And much less expensive. Hell with 100 billion to dump into the NE corridor I bet we could get them up the fast in places.

And will the 250 mph speed actually be achieved? I mean can see why you can make a fair argument ours might never get up to 220 mph but I also doubt yours will get up to the full speed either. At least ours will run for sure (even if not at full speed), the new trains are do for delivery next year.

I cannot find much information on the actual rolling stock for HS2. Have you even started building the trains?

[Fartsniffage]

Yes it is meant to run at that speed. Hence all the crazy shit required to make it possible.

Shinkansen has a top speed limit of 200mph, so I kinda doubt that 220 number?

So maybe it would have been better to start at trying to get it to go 150mph on existing track. Because that is probably cheaper and certainly can be done.

Well the new trains we are building (we also build our trains here which is nice) have a max speed of 220mph, although initially they will run at 160mph (currently they run 150 mph in places) in places with shorter term planned upgrades to 186mph in places, actually getting them up to 220 would require major track improvements of course, but it is theoretically possible to do in places, if we update the tracks enough or build a bypass on part of the route. They can only do that running straight and flat of course.

The approach is very different, we are going for the more gradual, less ambitious route, but trains are actually running at 150 mph (in places), and we already have the new trains being built. So it is a safer bet. And much less expensive. Hell with 100 billion to dump into the NE corridor I bet we could get them up the fast in places.

And will the 250 mph speed actually be achieved? I mean can see why you can make a fair argument ours might never get up to 220 mph but I also doubt yours will get up to the full speed either. At least ours will run for sure (even if not at full speed), the new trains are do for delivery next year.

I cannot find much information on the actual rolling stock for HS2. Have you even started building the trains?

We've been running 125s on general trackways since the early 70's. We even manage that speed on twisty sections of track using Pendolino trains. The Kent-London Eurostar route runs at 186. Bumping to 150 wouldn't really be a big enough gain to bother with the expense.

And of course the rolling stock isn't built or even fully designed yet. Government program, remember? But it shouldn't be a huge problem, Japanese trains can already run at that speed, they're just limited due to the specially built tracks not being up to those speeds.

[Novus America]

So maybe it would have been better to start at trying to get it to go 150mph on existing track. Because that is probably cheaper and certainly can be done.

Well the new trains we are building (we also build our trains here which is nice) have a max speed of 220mph, although initially they will run at 160mph (currently they run 150 mph in places) in places with shorter term planned upgrades to 186mph in places, actually getting them up to 220 would require major track improvements of course, but it is theoretically possible to do in places, if we update the tracks enough or build a bypass on part of the route. They can only do that running straight and flat of course.

The approach is very different, we are going for the more gradual, less ambitious route, but trains are actually running at 150 mph (in places), and we already have the new trains being built. So it is a safer bet. And much less expensive. Hell with 100 billion to dump into the NE corridor I bet we could get them up the fast in places.

And will the 250 mph speed actually be achieved? I mean can see why you can make a fair argument ours might never get up to 220 mph but I also doubt yours will get up to the full speed either. At least ours will run for sure (even if not at full speed), the new trains are do for delivery next year.

I cannot find much information on the actual rolling stock for HS2. Have you even started building the trains?

We've been running 125s on general trackways since the early 70's. We even manage that speed on twisty sections of track using Pendolino trains. The Kent-London Eurostar route runs at 140. Bumping to 150 wouldn't really be a big enough gain to bother with the expense.

And of course the rolling stock isn't built or even fully designed yet. Government program, remember? But it shouldn't be a huge problem, Japanese trains can already run at that speed, they're just limited due to the specially built tracks not being up to those speeds.

Well bumping it up to 150 then 160, then 180 probably would not cost that much. Especially as the 140s are not north of London. You could just buy the new 220 trains from us and run them at 160 mph to start with short term simpler upgrades to 186 (oh well the French are actually building them but we force them to build them in the US also your probably do not need to meet our absurdly high crash worthiness standards).

I mean the balls to the wall all or nothing approach might get the biggest improvements on paper but I am somewhat dubious (well honestly of course completely so) it will get done properly, on time, without outrageous cost.

And since the trains are not built yet, and neither are the tracks, sure in theory they might get that high in places (the track still has some curves it appears) but in actuality? I will believe it if I see it. I would not be surprised if the tracks cannot actually do as well as planned.

And right now the trains are just vapor ware. Who will build them? The Japanese I guess? Where will they be built?

I still think maybe the more gradual approach would be safer and possibly cheaper, even if not as fast (on paper at least).

But eh, I guess too late now. I guess we will just have to see how it turns out.
I like the idea, but I doubt you can blame me for doubting your government’s ability to execute it.