Qld Nationals – merged one day, independent the next
Many people are pointing to the National Party’s performance in the WA state election as a positive result for them there, and contrasting it to their disastrous result in the federal by-election in the former National stronghold of Lyne. As Mike Steketee puts it in The Australian, “to be declared dead and resurrected on a single day on the basis of two election results is quite a feat.” The WA result is being seen as a sign that the Nationals will be more successful striking out on their own, rather than folding in with the Liberals, which is the trend here in Queensland with the newly merged Liberal National Party.
Even stranger though is the report that Queensland National Senator (or is that Liberal National Senator?) Barnaby Joyce, who just over a month ago supported the merger of the two parties and described it as “inevitable”, is now being quoted today as saying the Nationals “just have to … go down the path which is the most likely to succeed, which at this point in time looks like the West Australian model.”
The Nationals have some tough choices to make as a party at federal level and I don’t envy their situation. But I can’t see how you can portray yourself as fiercely independent advocate for the bush when you’re in Canberra, and then go back to Queensland and say you’re seamlessly intertwined with the Liberal Party.
39 Comments, Comment or Ping
AndyD
The situation in the West must look enticing but is the result “real”?
If the Carpenter government had not been trounced, or if the Liberals had managed a landslide win, would anyone be talking about the Nationals today? It’s only the wishy-washy metro result that’s made Brendon Grylls the number one lunch guest today.
Don’t get me wrong, I live in regional WA and voted Nationals and have a Nationals MP. I’m pleased at the outcome (as it stands) – maybe regional WA will be noticed for a while. Maybe we’ll get teachers in our schools, police stations in our towns – with police in them. Maybe regional petrol prices will fall?! Okay, that last one was just a joke, but maybe a WA government will remember we exist for a while.
But surely the reality is that this is most likely a one-term situation? Next election, either Labor or Liberal will most likely get the votes they need to govern and the wants and needs of country voters will be irrelevant again.
Or maybe (hopefully) I just don’t understand the numbers?
Sep 8th, 2008
philip travers
I thought some Nationals over in W.A. as farmers,anti -G.M.O.,and anti-nuke I thought ,if my memory serves me,or was it conservation matters!?Probably are very modern and definitive in outlook,more Oakshott than than what appears sometimes as reactionary types.The previous member before Oakshott was not an unpleasant personality,his policy directions ,left much to be desired.So It just well maybe,people voted for what seems positive,and thus in this blog the outcome,must be predicated on that.
Sep 8th, 2008
Hiro Sugita
Hi Andrew, I’m glad that you are still very active politically.
Ever since Mike Rann had formed a minority government with Karlene Maywald and Rory McEwen, both Maywald and McEwen increased their votes at the subsequent election, and Rann kept the coalition despite Labor winiing outright majority, I have been convinced the way forward for the National Party (and rural independents) are to cut historical tie with the Liberal Party and run a hard bargain for their rural constituents between two major parties. In other world, the Nats should become the third party in substance. I think the Weekend results in WA and Lyne have confirmed this.
Sep 9th, 2008
LORIKEET
I don’t think anyone could argue that Barnaby Joyce doesn’t know how to play politics.
All of the major parties will simply continue to marry/divorce as it suits them.
Don’t be surprised if we end up getting a wedding between Labor and Greens, if it should serve their purposes.
Sep 11th, 2008
Cassie ST
I’ve been saying for years that the Nats were mad not to recognise that they held the balance of power in the Lower House. (Or if they did behind closed doors, not to act on it more fulsomely.)
How they remained so wedded to the Libs even when Tim Fischer took them to the left on social and environmental issues, is beyond me, but I guess that’s dogma for you.
Sep 11th, 2008
me
The president of the Young LNP is an ex-Democrat though. I think the merger was successful. Some people just find it hard to come to terms with that.
Jan 28th, 2009
Tony
ME:
ME Says: The president of the Young LNP is an ex-Democrat
That is hard to believe. A total 360 Degree turnaround.
I cannot see how a Centralists party (the liberals) can form a sucessful coalition or merger with a decentralist party (The Nationals).
Malcolm Fraser once asked the question why the ALP and the Liberal Party hadn’t merged (Two Centralist partys).
The Nationals need to remain as nationals(Not some hybred) they can still form a coalition after the election. The two party system is and always has been flawed. Lets not prolong or support it.
Tony
Jan 28th, 2009
LORIKEET
ME:
Which Democrats are you talking about? LDP or DLP or some other group?
The President of the Young LNP could also be the son/daughter of some kind of Democrat, and has rebelled against parental indoctrination for some unconnected reason.
Jan 29th, 2009
me
Tony,
Don’t take my word for it. His name is Simon Ingram, google search will reveal it.
Jan 30th, 2009
LORIKEET
ME:
I did a google search of Simon Ingram. I don’t know if we can consider the source reliable or not.
It said he previously ran as a Democrat for the seat of Ryan.
I read that he was a religious right zealot, totally opposed to political mergers.
If these things are true, how much credibility can he have now?
Jan 31st, 2009
Dave G
Lorikeet – Are you having a go at Simon just because he is religous? Sounds like Simon is just sticking up for what he believes in.
Feb 3rd, 2009
Andrew Bartlett
Simon did run as a Democrat candidate in 2004. I don’t see why that should disqualify him from subsequently joining a different political party if he feels it is more suitable. There were plenty of former Liberals who joined the Democrats over the years, as well as some who joined the Greens or others. One can hardly complain if some people decide to go the other way.
I don’t know his religious views and am not sure why they’re relevant anyway. I saw something suggesting he sent some emails around opposing the Lib-Nat merger. It may or may not have been wise to put such views in an email, but again he’d hardly be the only Liberal who didn’t support the merger
Feb 4th, 2009
LORIKEET
Dave G:
I just find it strange that a person opposed to mergers would join the LNP. It’s also quite a leap in ideology from Democrats to LNP in a lot of respects.
I also find it strange that ANY Christian would vote for, or stand for, Liberals or Family First (Rich Religious Right).
From my understanding of the teachings of Jesus, I would assume Christians would support the Moderate Left Socialists rather than Capitalists.
I’m also pretty sure banks would be more likely to receive a tongue lashing from Jesus – not a bailout package after they’ve ripped everyone off.
For a long time it has seemed as if we have Capitalists to both Left and Right.
Feb 4th, 2009
Tony
Lorikeet:
Thats right Lorikeet, the correct term is Global Corporatism.
Both the ALP and the Liberal Party hold this as a strong ideology.
Also known as economic rationalism. (Sell the countries assets on the lie that utilities in private hands and be run cheaper. (which has never been the case) and if the private company fails like Vic Power or Nsw Rail have, the people repurchase their stolen assets.
Successive rounds of theft from the public with a no lose option for corporations. (Wish it worked that way with small regional owned companies)
It commenced with Bob Hawke in 1984 and has continued on over successive governments. Paul Keating with the CBA,(boy could we do with that now) Howard with Telstra and a hosts of state government utilities.
But the robots will continue to vote A Or B. Unbelieveable but true.
Tony
Feb 4th, 2009
LORIKEET
Tony:
Well I think the major parties are both economically irrational.
I have previously described the proposed new regime as the Green Global Capitalistic Communists. This will be the end result of “Global Corporatism”.
Ken previously said this was a contradiction in terms, but when he sees the results of continuing economic irrationality, he will understand precisely what I mean.
Feb 4th, 2009
Simon Wallace
Lorikeet,
I would wager to say that perhaps Simon’s opposition comes from the entire movement from their former President down. See the following article from the Young Liberal President of the time, Shane Goodwin, that he put out two months or so before the merger of the two parties:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/young-libs-reject-proposal/2008/04/05/1207249519511.html
Maybe in this wave of solidality Simon was against and then when he met the people he was to merge with had a change of heart and thought he could work with them and they could work with him. I would agree if one is so against a merger why be in the party- I wonder if this Shane Goodwin with his posts in a national paper expressing his opposition is a part of the new mix or whether he also had a change of mind like Simon?
Anyway- all the power to him if he has managed to rise the ranks of the conservatives as fast as he has; he must have some go about him plus wasn’t Brendan Nelson, Peter Costello and a few others who are key players in the Federal Liberal scene involved in the ALP on some level in their earlier days?
Feb 5th, 2009
LORIKEET
Hi Simon
Thanks for the link. I think Shane Goodwin is right on track with his comments about the merger.
Liberals couldn’t win an election in Queensland on their own, despite the continuing incompetence of Anna Bligh. I have it on good authority that Labor will still win a March election in Queensland, despite losing some seats.
Rudd has come to her rescue with large amounts of money for schools, which I think makes it look as if he has been responsible for abysmal funding of education. However, don’t be fooled!
If you want accountability in the parliament, vote small. Put the major parties at the bottom of the voting order. Remember that Family First are pseudo-Liberals and Greens side with Labor. Put them down the bottom with their buddies and the remaining candidates at the top in YOUR preferred order.
Since the demise of the Democrats, Simon Ingram would have had to find a new party. He probably eventually realised he had more chance of being elected as part of LNP coalition, but still maybe Buckley’s chance with Springborg at the helm – an excellent observation. Also perhaps LNP were more in need of candidates.
It would be interesting to know if Brendan Nelson, Peter Costello et al previously belonged to other parties.
Perhaps Andrew can help us out.
Feb 6th, 2009
Simon Ingram
Hi All. I just thought I would reply to this string, considering I was mentioned so many times. It is true that back in 2004 I was a Democrat. Then the Democrats ceased to exist. Then I met Christ. Now I am LNP. The radical shift that Tony observes (which by the way could not be “360 degrees” or one would be facing the same way) I can put down to my new personal relationship with Jesus Christ. That is the reason I write because I was interested in Lorikeet’s comments:
“From my understanding of the teachings of Jesus, I would assume Christians would support the Moderate Left Socialists rather than Capitalists.”
Jesus Christ is my reason for being and my political inspiration. Jesus would be (in fact he is) radically left wing on some issues and radically right wing on others. The first church as described in Acts 2 would be an example of Jesus (his spirit) being very left wing. The parable of the talents (Matthew 25) would be an example of Jesus being centre-right (entrepreneurialism and free enterprise). God hating divorce, hating worship of any other gods, and wanting to protect unborn babies (Exodus 21) would all be exampes of times when Jesus Christ is very right wing, uncompromising, black & white, and no holes barred, on some issues.
Simon Ingram
Feb 9th, 2009
Tony
Simon Ingram
Simon Says: From my understanding of the teachings of Jesus, I would assume Christians would support the Moderate Left Socialists rather than Capitalists.”
Then why join the Liberals ?
I’d have thought you’d have been joining our bunch.
Tony
Feb 9th, 2009
LORIKEET
Simon Ingram:
I think there is some confusion as to what is politically left or right.
Liberals are primarily capitalists, selling us out as a nation, and playing right into the hands of multi-national global thieves. Labor is only a little better.
Jesus didn’t support banks. He turned the tables on the money lenders. He cared about ordinary people. That makes him both an humanitarian and a socialist.
What the hell are you doing with the LNP?
Tony:
It was me who made the comment about Jesus being a Moderate Left Socialist.
Feb 9th, 2009
Dolphins
SImon: As I understand it, most Christians believe that Jesus superseded the Old Testament, therefore making your reference to Exodus 21 (I presume you mean the ‘an eye for an eye’ bit?) somewhat puzzling. Do you mean that it is OK to kill somone who works at a place where abortions are performed? Please clarify.
Does your reference to divorce being hated by god mean that you would, if elected, work to do away with divorces for all the population? I’d like to see where that is spelled out in the LNP platform, could you cite it please?
Would the LNP abolish all religions other than your particular brand of Christianity? I suppose that’s what you mean by mentioning the worship of false gods? Is there a reference to that in the LNP policy documents?
This is all a bit of a worry … ealry information from you might help us understand where you are coming from. Thank you.
Feb 10th, 2009
Simon Ingram
Dear Dolphin S: Christians who are bible-centred Christians acknowledge and realise that “the New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed and the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed”. Jesus most certainly did not “supercede the Old Testament”. Jesus is the subject of the Old Testament.
Exodus 21 refers to an unborn baby being as human and as valuable as a born baby. That is all I was referring to. I do not support anyone killing anyone.
If elected I would not lobby to change divorce laws, except perhaps I would personally love to see the end of “no fault” divorces which just make a mockery of marriage to begin with.
From the line of all of your interrogation, Dolphin S, I am led to believe that you are either an ALP hack or more likely someone within my own party who doesn’t like me and/or doesn’t like Christians, or both (most likely someone I know) who is intentionally seeking to trap me into writing something contradictory to party policy so that you can dob me in. Hence I am not going to engage with you any further.
Tony, yes I was quoting Lorikeet with the paragraph you quoted. They were not my words. I was replying to them.
Lorikeet, as I mentioned, Jesus is left wing on some issues and very right wing on others. To say “Jesus is a socialist” is an inaccurate/incomplete statement. Refer to my earlier posting.
Simon
Feb 10th, 2009
Dolphins
Dear Simon, I’d like to put your worries to rest. I am neither an ALP ‘hack’ whatever that may be, nor even a member of that or any other political party. I had not heard of you until your name popped up here, and was quite taken aback by what you were saying about Exodus 21 – ‘an eye for an eye’ is not how the justice system of Australia is based, as I understand it. So I asked for clarification.
I have no hidden agenda and do not dislike Christians as a group – blanket stereotyping is an attitude I find very unhelpful. I know many Christians whose beliefs impel them to do many good things in the community- and I can say that for my Muslim, Jewish, Coptic, atheist, Bahai and Buddhist friends too. Whoops, forgot the Hindu medical personnel without whom our little remote area would have no medical services at all. I’d be very unhappy to see Australia drift towards the type of religiosity we see in USA, and believe we all have a place here. It’s the person who believes that their way is the only way who annoys me, becuase it’s not helpful and not what most Australians want, I believe, and that I’d like to see everyone making an effort to accept the nature of this country today.
Feb 10th, 2009
Bob
So Simon, why do you only support the bit of Exodus 21 which (you say) relates to protecting the life of all unborn children? What about the verse supporting capital punishment? Or the one allowing a man to sell his daughter as a slave? Or requiring a person who strikes or curses their mother or father to be put to death?
Surely if you refer to one verse of the Old Testament to validate your belief, you have to support all the other verses.
For ease of reference, here is the full text of Exodus 21:
Ordinances for the People
1 Now these are the ordinances which you are to set before them:
2 If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment.
3 If he comes alone, he shall go out alone; if he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him.
4 If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone.
5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,’
6 then his master shall bring him to [a]God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently.
7 If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.
8 If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her.
9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters.
10 If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights.
11 If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.
Personal Injuries
12 He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death.
13 But if he did not lie in wait for him, but God let him fall into his hand, then I will appoint you a place to which he may flee.
14 If, however, a man acts presumptuously toward his neighbor, so as to kill him craftily, you are to take him even from My altar, that he may die.
15 He who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.
16 He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.
17 He who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.
18 If men have a quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but remains in bed,
19 if he gets up and walks around outside on his staff, then he who struck him shall go unpunished; he shall only pay for his loss of time, and shall take care of him until he is completely healed.
20 If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished.
21 If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.
22 If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide.
23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life,
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Feb 10th, 2009
Bob
26 If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye.
27 And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth.
28 If an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall surely be stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall go unpunished.
29 If, however, an ox was previously in the habit of goring and its owner has been warned, yet he does not confine it and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and its owner also shall be put to death.
30 If a ransom is demanded of him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is demanded of him.
31 Whether it gores a son or a daughter, it shall be done to him according to the same rule.
32 If the ox gores a male or female slave, the owner shall give his or her master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.
33 If a man opens a pit, or digs a pit and does not cover it over, and an ox or a donkey falls into it,
34 the owner of the pit shall make restitution; he shall give money to its owner, and the dead animal shall become his.
35 If one man’s ox hurts another’s so that it dies, then they shall sell the live ox and divide its price equally; and also they shall divide the dead ox.
36 Or if it is known that the ox was previously in the habit of goring, yet its owner has not confined it, he shall surely pay ox for ox, and the dead animal shall become his.
Feb 10th, 2009
LORIKEET
Bob:
When thou betteth two women $100 each that they cannot shutteth up for 3 days and they winneth the bet, thou shalt shelleth out said monetary amount so that Lorikeet may purchaseth rugs for the homeless.
Since thou hast proven to haveth no integrity in these matters, thou oughtest to forfeiteth all rights to picketh on other posters, regardless of political affiliation.
Feb 10th, 2009
Bob
Dear Lorikeet (off-topic and attacking other posters as usual)
On 11th January I wrote I bet both of you (not each of you) that you couldn’t shut up for 3 days. You responded (with abuse as usual) on the 12th January.
Despite the assertion you made in that comment that you had an IQ in the top 2 per cent of the population, my no doubt lower IQ and humble mathematical ability still keeps telling me that the 12th January is only 1 day after the 11th January, not 3 days.
Feb 10th, 2009
LORIKEET
Bob:
I think anyone reading here on a regular basis would know that your general input is only name-calling to stymie debate. Readers are not stupid.
Did you specify when said shutting-up needed to commence? I think not.
Did you donate $100 to cancer research as requested by Naomi?
Did $100 go to buying rugs for the homeless?
You have posted 2 very long boring consecutive comments, making assumptions and extrapolations about Simon Ingram’s personal beliefs – without even one innovative thought amongst it.
Now I suggest you leave him alone, stop making excuses, and shell out the hush money forthwith.
Feb 11th, 2009
Tony
Simon Ingram:
Simon Ingram Says: Jesus Christ is my reason for being and my political inspiration. Jesus would be (in fact he is) radically left wing on some issues and radically right wing on others. The first church as described in Acts 2 would be an example of Jesus (his spirit) being very left wing. The parable of the talents (Matthew 25) would be an example of Jesus being centre-right (entrepreneurialism and free enterprise). God hating divorce, hating worship of any other gods, and wanting to protect unborn babies (Exodus 21) would all be exampes of times when Jesus Christ is very right wing, uncompromising, black & white, and no holes barred, on some issues.
If what you say is correct then it is still hard to figure why you chose the young liberals as youre party of choice.
Lorikeet says: Liberals are primarily capitalists, selling us out as a nation, and playing right into the hands of multi-national global thieves. Labor is only a little better.
Thats true lorikeet. The raw capilalism we have witnessed by both the major parties (in the name so called ecnomic rationlism) has been unparalled.
It would be hard to maintain a christian stance while being a party of a duopoly that has seen the gap between the have and the have nots rise to unprecendented hights. (not unlike the 19th century capitialists.
It is possible, and there is a party that maintains its social(socially left) responsibility while promoting (centre-right) free enterprise. This party is also a Pro-Life Party and supports the traditional family unit while not compromising its principles.
The LNP is not that party, nor is the ALP. (and obviously not the greens)
So Simon how come you ended up in the liberals ?
Tony
Feb 11th, 2009
Bob
Dear Lorikeet
You really don’t have a clue do you?
Firstly, I did not post 2 long consecutive comments, I posted a long quote to provide the full text of Exodus 21 so readers could know what Simon was referring to. I made no assumption at all about Simon’s beliefs. I asked some straightforward questions in an effort to found out how consistent his views were.
And when did you think your shutting up was supposed to commence from – 2010?!
Seeing you keep insisting on being rude and apparently getting away with it, despite the comments policy, I have no problem being rude back to you.
For someone who claims to have a high IQ, you really are amazingly stupid.
“Bob:
I think anyone reading here on a regular basis would know that your general input is only name-calling to stymie debate.”
To Lorikeet the pot, from Bob the kettle.
Feb 11th, 2009
LORIKEET
Bob:
Have it your way. You’re a lovely person. You have never called anyone names (racist, turkey etc.
At least 3 men have tried to tell you something about your blogging behaviour, but I guess they must be idiots as well.
BTW I have a bible on the bookshelf I can consult any time without enduring your lengthy unoriginal “epistles”.
Simon Ingram can support any ideology he chooses, since we’re supposed to be living in a democracy.
Dolphins’ comment about the New Testament superseding the Old Testament was quite accurate.
In the Old Testament, the Jews are God’s chosen people. The Christians more or less overturned that idea with the writing of the New Testament.
Feb 11th, 2009
LORIKEET
Now let’s get back to the tin tacks of why Simon Ingram has joined the LNP.
I think it’s fairly clear that the Bligh Labor government stands to lose a few seats at the upcoming State election (schools, hospitals, public transport, selling out our farmers, unwanted additions to the water supply – fluoride, sewage, etc etc).
That means that the LNP will likely gain quite a few new seats, while probably not gaining government. ( I have not found Springborg to be a very popular person, and I don’t think most people have forgotten the abuses of Howard at the federal level.)
So Simon’s best shot at gaining a seat in the Parliament is via the LNP. If your main aim is to sit, first you have to stand for a party likely to be elected.
But I would still encourage people to vote for the smaller parties, in the hope of breaking the monopoly/duopoly scenario.
What we need is a polyopoly/multiopoly of independent thinkers. If people changed their voting habits, we might have a better government.
Think about it, please.
Feb 12th, 2009
Dolphins
Why don’t you both donate the same amount of money to help bushfire victims and pipe down? Haven’t we learned anything this last week about the importance of life, and how fragile it is?
Feb 12th, 2009
Tony
Dolphins
Dolphins says: Why don’t you both donate the same amount of money to help bushfire victims and pipe down? Haven’t we learned anything this last week about the importance of life, and how fragile it is?
Another thing the fires have taught us is the need for controlled burn offs. I listened to an aboriginal talk this week on how even they had controlled burnoffs.
The Greens have a lot to answer for.
It wont be too long before they try to blame it on Global Warming.
Tony
Feb 12th, 2009
The Feral Abacus
Personally, I think the notion of offering financial inducements to commenters to be silent is extremely suspect. And to my thinking, it is a notion that is quite antithetical to the ethos and intent of this blog.
Bob, I also think that attempting to retrospectively impose conditions so that you can weasel your way out of a wager is poor form indeed. No-one could accuse you of being a gentleman.
Tony, you & I managed to successfully & agreeably run a small wager on this blog to the benefit of MSF. Any thoughts?
Feb 12th, 2009
ken
Feral – technically we are all silent
wrt to bob’s challenge i did note at the time that the L had replied immediately after the post hence losing the bet. Although in hindsight I suspect Lis on “moderation alert’ so thats probalby the casue of the confusion.
Notwithstadning there’s too much wagering as it is in this country full stop.
Feb 16th, 2009
Qld Election
Will the Qld Democrats be contesting the 2009 Queensland election???
Feb 23rd, 2009
Andrew Bartlett
Taking your usual approach to being ‘on topic’, censorship fan/branch stacker? Still, I guess it’s closer than commenting on the bushfires.
As I am sure you know, there is no political party registered in the Democrats name in Queensland, and has not been for a number of years. This means it is not possible for a candidate to use the Democrat name on the ballot paper.
Feb 23rd, 2009
Reply to “Qld Nationals – merged one day, independent the next”