The Chaser Report - What (And Who) Is Next? - Election Recap

Episode Date: May 5, 2025

In Part 2 of Dom and Charles' epic recap of the 2025 election result, the two put their minds together to predict what is next for the major parties. Who will lead the Coalition? And what grand scheme will Labor put forward under Anthony "The New Howard" Albanese? But most importantly, what will happen to Trumpet Of Patriots? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Chaser Report is recorded on Gadigal Land. Striving for mediocrity in a world of excellence, this is The Chaser Report. Hello and welcome to The Chaser Report with Dom and Charles. And this is the second half of our election post-mortem in the case of Peter. We haven't really talked about him losing in Dixon, too, which is really interesting. There's so many interesting things from Saturday's election. We're going to keep unpacking them and take a look forward. What's the new Albanese term going to look like?

What is the opposition going to do from here? without Peter Dutton to lead them with his Queensland cop focus. And then some other Australia observations. What Charles of H. Fong? What happens to H Fogg from here? He's basically ruined his reputation. Well, but he's got name recognition. That's true.

He's very well known. Yeah, I think he should go on the comedy. And arguably, mission accomplished, because I don't know whether he's, this is one of the biggest bits of news come out of the election for mine. Clive Palmer has, A, said no more text messages. And B said, look, I'm too old. I'm not going to do, I'm not going to be involved in politics anymore. That was my last election.

So. I'd love to know. Did he, what was going through his head? He thought there was going to be a mass Trumpian movement. Don't all those billionaires hang out with Don't. So they hang out at Mar-a-Lago. I know Gina Reinhart does and Richard Pratt does. So the problem is that they actually believe, they've drunk their own Kool-Aid,

and they actually believe there's this sort of. Pro billionaire, pro billionaire wave of discontent. Yeah. That's extraordinary. Well, but I mean, I think when you're a billionaire, you not only drink your own Kool-Aid, but you kind of get to matter. You buy the company that makes the Kool-Aid. Yeah, yeah.

All right, let's take a break and then we'll get into the sort of post-mortem. So I think Trump of Patriots, we won't hear from them again, which in some ways is a pity because in terms of genuinely hilarious Australian party names, it's pretty good. I mean, to go, well, we can't call it the Trump party because it's too literal. And also, he probably, it's copyrighted. But the whole reason why they changed it from United Australia was because they missed out on the registration. Yes, I remember.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But then you don't have to, just immediately go to trumpet of Patriot. I just want to be inside the brainstorming session. I can't call it Trump. I know. Trumpet. Trumpet of what? Of Patriots.

Of all the things. Like, it is, yeah, I wonder if either an AI or a satirist who came up with that, with that party title. Yeah. Well, we should text them and find out. H. Fong. You're very welcome to come on the podcast. I want to get the first interview with H. Fong. Actually, Mark Riley had a good moment on Saturday night where he asked Clive Palmer for his mobile number.

Oh, that's pretty good. Yeah, that's very good. Anyway, so they're out. One Nation didn't do all that well either, interestingly. The far right didn't look so great. Even though the Liberal Party preferenced One Nation. Well, those preferences weren't worth very much, Charles. I'm not to say.

Okay, so let's start with, should we start with Labor? Where does, what's going to happen now? So the, Anthony. Well, Labor's, first of all, we've got to realize Labor's got to get the country back on track. Oh, yes. Well, Peter Dutton was going to do it. Criticism. Yeah.

Yeah. So it's obviously off the rails at the moment and it needs to be back on track. Speaking of rails, Charles, Albanese has always been Mr. Fast Rail. Fucking fast train. And you can't do it now. When's you going to do it? I know. But did he promise anything?

Like, no. Small target. He's got like, he's, remember, no, he did promise in the last election. And we had an episode on this where they have done some work on the very fast. They've done a very small. And it was like literally they took a sample out of the ground up in the hawksbury. Yeah, they did all these soil surveys working out the route. It was like literally, you know, I don't know, $12.50 worth of research.

Like I'm not in, I'm not in favor of Chinese. authoritarianism. Let me make that very clear because it's in these times you've got to say things like that just so everyone knows. Yeah. But, but, but China would have built that, that, that high speed rail line in 2010. We are using Uighur Labor would have been free. Like, really? Is that how they do it? I mean, not, not the Uighers. They wouldn't be free. But no, no, no, but the Labor would have been. But the Labor. Yeah, no, I mean, look, I don't, maybe we need, do we need to victimize our own subset of the population to have, as free labor.

I'm thinking like... Genuinely terrified to hear where this is going. Negative gearers. Oh, really? Round them up. You round them up and make them build fast rail for Australia. You can keep your tax concession. Yeah, but...

Well, this is the... Maybe that's how we abolish negative gearing. We don't abolish negative gearing. What we do is we say to them, you can have your negative gearing if you're prepared to do slave labor. Forced labor. Yeah, forced labor. It's a work for the tax break scheme.

Yeah. So, okay. let's put it out there. There were lots of attempted scare campaigns from the coalition during this campaign about what Labor would do if they won. So one of the things was abolished negative gearing that was claimed that they would do. Another was to just legislate the voice, bang, there you go. I mean, Albo denied these things, but this is the moment.

If they're going to do anything with a whopping great majority, probably with, I think they're looking pretty good in terms of the Senate as well. Yes. So this is the sort of John Howard work choices moment where Albo can do whatever he wants to do for a couple of years. No one can stop him. He doesn't need to be middle of the right now. Well, the Greens will hold the balance of power in the Senate, but only that...

Well, they're not going to say no to any of this stuff, are they? Like if Albao wants to go with some big nation building left-wing stuff. Albo wants to be John Howard, right? Like, that much is clear. Well, this is the question. This is the question. And so this is my strong prediction for how they'll do. Because clearly what needs to happen is, and Jim Chalmers actually said it on Saturday night.

he said productivity reform, which is code for tax reform, right? And the Teals, by the way, if the Teals do, if the Teals had had any balance of power, that's the thing they would have insisted on Allegra Spender was very clear on that. But like John Howe, you can't bring in a whole tax, new tax system without a sort of referendum on it really. And Howard was very brave to do that. You've got a good thing that one thing she did that was really impressive was take the GST to the 1990s election.

Yeah. And the sort of very, very interesting part about that election was that it was a tax system that he was selling. It was a whole new tax system. The actual slogan was, a new tax system, right. It wasn't the act, the new tax system act. And the whole point was it was revenue neutral. So you brought in this 10% tax, which could have been scary in the LP, could have run hard against it, which they tried to do. But it was also a whole lot of tax.

breaks on income tax. Abolished a whole bunch of state taxes and huge, like 20, 20 extra taxes were abolished. So it was this reformation of the tax system to be supposedly more efficient and equitable. The main point was that the GST went to the states. And no, so it wasn't actually putting the federal government in any sort of a better tax position at all. It was just making the states more efficient. More economically. In the view of economists. Having a growth tax attached to state revenue, which was really important. at the time, states were sort of starved of funds to be able to run hospital schools and roads.

Anyway, point is, 25 years later, the tax system clearly needs reform. And as you say, there are some really controversial taxes that clearly need to be abolished. Like, negative gearing is one. The capital gains tax system is also sort of broken. It's been, like, there's distortions around the concessions that you get for holding one type of wealth, but not another type of the world. Go and live in your house for, or pretend to live in your house for six months. Yes.

Oh, it's so, like there's all these sort of things where, but, but, and I want to introduce our listeners to a phrase that I suspect you're going to hear a lot over the next three years, which is the velocity of money. This is Charles trying to cue in future podcast clips to play back. Yeah. The velocity of money, right. Right. So the point is that.

This is not velocity points on your credit card, by the way. Most of Australia's money is tied up in. housing, right? Like, literally, that's where most money goes to die in Australia. Would you call that illiquid? Completely illiquid, completely stupid. I was actually checking if that was a word, but yeah, illiquid. Yeah, it's a completely, so it just literally go, you know, you pay most of the money that you'll ever make in your life into this house. And then you literally just are in hock to the bank for the next 25 years. So most of the money that you could be spending on productive economic activities

and that could be sloshing around the economy and being spent over and over again because that's what happens when you buy something that then employs somebody, that then that employee then goes and spends that money again. That's what the velocity of money is about, right? Right. And if you tie it all up in this dead asset

that's at the end of the chain, then suddenly that money is not spending more. Yeah, it gets taken out of the economy. It just gets taken out of the economy. And so actually, increasing productivity is about increasing the volatile money, which is all about stabilising house prices so they stop going up, which can only be achieved with proper tax reform. So my guess is that in three years' time, we'll turn around and having had three

years of preparation and sort of explanation, the Albanese government will take to the next election a tax package, which is far too big and unwieldy, to actually say, oh, this is a single, you know, it has a single line of attack. That it's another John Howard style, you know, reform of the whole tech system. That is my guess. So your suggestion. And I think it'll include mining royalties, which Labor has always wanted to do, and which is what stuffed up Kevin Rudd.

And I think it'll include carbon pricing. Because by 2030 under Labor, 73% of our electricity grid will be renewables, right? which suddenly starts meaning that our energy mix is really quite decarbonising. That is the perfect moment to actually bring in proper carbon pricing into the system because actually the interests who, you know, the fossil fuel interests who don't want carbon pricing suddenly don't have as much of the economy as they used to. So they find it harder to fight. And I think same with mining royalties.

If you spend three years working up a proper line of attack, which goes, it's actually time for mining companies to pay their fair share and look at all the tax cuts that the entire population will get out of making sure that actually we just have a little bit less money going overseas every time. And also the other thing is mining royalties, the other thing is social media company royalties. Like the fact that Netflix exports $1.5 billion a year from Australia and literally pays not. no tax on that is another. There's a whole lot of... Yeah, there's some parts of the economy. Swirling around about that. Yeah.

It's interesting too because, well, there you go. That's, I mean, let's just say that to begin with, the very thing that you have criticized Abonezzi for for three years, the lack of ambition that would be hugely reversed by all this. But, I mean, at this point, you're going, what's the point of having power if you don't necessarily do anything with it? And also, the thing is, what I think Alba had to do in the first three years is regain trust. Like, I didn't trust that he'd be, like, I don't think anyone in Australia trusted that the Labor Party actually knew how to govern without fucking everything up and blowing up the place

and having leadership battles and things like that. Don't you think, like, there was a sort of broken trust about how competent Labor could be in power, and he's repaired that. But now it's also, there's a sort of lesson of patience where it's not going to, like, it's not tax reform tomorrow. It's like, it'll be this boring process where by the time you're asked to vote for it in three years time, you sort of understand it enough and it's not scary enough to mount a proper scare campaign against it. And it just sort of seems inevitable and like it's going to happen. And then it boringly happen. Well, but also, even if there's a big swing against you because of the new tax system, you have so many damn seats to begin with that you can

afford to lose a few people all the way. So that's, one interesting thing about that is if they do that. Will they find someone who's actually half decent at marketing? Like the only thing you call it a carbon tax. If they'd call it a pollution tax, imagine how much harder it would have been to run against. And as you say, with the mining tax, what do they call it, the MMRRT, whatever else? Super, super mining tech. Yeah, yeah. If, as you say, if the picture had been, we're going to take the miners money and give it to you, because we all own these assets collectively as Australians, so we're going to use that money to give you all a big tax cut. Yeah. That would have suddenly, they wouldn't have been able to put ads in. That was the proposed. Yeah, yeah. They wouldn't have

be able to put the ads in all the cinemas going, oh, mining is so good for Australia. Like, literally saying, or you can say, this is the mining tax hospital. Like, put the sign on the hospital, this was built by the miners. Thank you, miners. Get Clive Palmer to open it. Yeah, like, call it the Clive Palmer Hospital if you have to. But there's a marketing thing that Labor's always been terrible at. Yeah. And explaining what they're doing and why it's good for everyone. Yes. And look, I don't see any signs that they're going to get better at that. But But hypothetically, you could. Jim Chalmers is not a bad communicator, but I think you're right about the story needing to be there.

But I think what has impressed me is actually some aspects of the story, which sort of seemed frustratingly stupid, like we're just going to play a dead bat to the cultural war issues. We're not actually even going to fight against these terrible things that people are saying has actually proved to be quite, there's a politics there. that I think a lot of people are misinterpreted as being cowardly, but actually turns out to be genuinely wise. Well, this is the whole kind of Karl Rove thing in a way, where you're kind of going, the most important thing to do in politics is work out what the conversation's about. And so if the conversation's about things where Labor is generally not much respected,

and even at this point, even after this landslide, I reckon if you did a survey, if you did a survey tomorrow, which party is better at managing an economy, national security, defense, all that kind of stuff, people would still say the coalition because it's so deeply in their brand. But the question is, what do voters care about in an election? And when they care about education, health, welfare, a government essentially, a big government looking after them, that's when they vote Labor. So the question is, which of those things do voters care more about in an election? And that determines who wins. So by controlling the conversation

and insisting that it be about the future, building things, health, welfare, helping people. And you refuse to engage on the other stuff, or you shut it down, then you are controlling the narrative in the conversation and you're controlling what people are talking about. And there's such a trap in saying, no, no, no, we're also good at national security and playing on that ground. But you're just, you're not going to win that argument. You're not going to change people's mind about that. What the thing you can change their mind about is that it's less important at the moment. Yeah. So any changes you think, I mean, I think the other overarching narrative that was clearly there on Saturday, which we hadn't really seen before, was

the idea that Australia is the greatest country on earth, right? Thank good as someone finally had the guts to say that, Charles. There's a real jingoism that was there under Hawke. Yeah. And that essentially Labor abandoned the 25 years. John Howard took that up. Yeah. I mean, as much as we laughed at the wallabies track seats, that was his brand.

But I did, I thought it was a great line. You know, the Medicare card is not red or blue. It's green and gold. Yeah, that was, I mean, James Jefferys, if you come up with that, the elbow special writer, that was pretty, pretty well done. Yeah, that was a really, and, and I think, you know, with Trump sort of making it Fortress America, you know, you will see a rise in nationalism and patriotism and jingoism across the world. Now, I think, you know, those things have to be handled very cautiously.

But I think one of the things that the left has lost in it sort of dalliance with neo-levels, liberal policies and globalism and, you know, free trade is great and everything like that, is the ability to sort of go, to have a sort of left-wing patriotism, which is actually, let's be optimistic about the good things about living in Australia. And that's what the Times favor that. And Medicare is a moment of national pride and national branding is actually, even though we've heard so much about Medicare over the years, it hasn't been tied to Australian identity in that way.

Yeah. And it is quite smart because good. Goodness knows, at this point in time, with the US being such a dystopia, we are all relieved that we are not the US in so many ways. Yes. And Medicare is at the heart of that. The notion that you can go to a hospital if you have a heart attack and it won't cost you anything is such a positive story to tell.

And it will become even more necessary over the next three or four years as the US tries to erode our PBS, our pharmacy will benefit schemes. And that will be the line of attack. And we really do need a political consensus, you know, a bipartisan consensus on not attacking that particular aspect of Medicare because it is one of the great schemes in the world in terms of public health. I mean, I know that Labor is planning to make the cost even cheaper in this term. But, yeah, the coalition, if there's one thing Peter Dutton really did very well in this campaign

and we'll get on to where the coalition goes from here, he really did try to neutralise Medicare as a source of scare campaigns. He saw what Albao was trying to do. Yes. And so he was very keen to agree on all that stuff. If the next coalition leader doesn't do that, they'll make life very hard for themselves. Let's talk about who that might be in a few moments.

The Chaser Report, less news, more often. Okay, so this is our post-election washer. Where does the coalition go from here? I mean, they are in absolute disarray. One theory that I saw floated in the media today, Charles, was the notion that someone, one of the tiny, whatever it is, 30-odd coalition MPs, and I suppose even one of the smaller, I think like a dozen or so liberal MPs or 15 or so liberal as opposed to LNP.

Last time I checked there were more LNPNPs than liberal MPs in this Parliament. That doesn't surprise me because in Victoria they've only got... Yeah, they've been nowhere. They've got no one in Melbourne and then maybe a couple... In Sydney, they've got five. So, yeah, there's not many places where they've only... there are pure libs. Pure lib.

But it's got to be a pure lib or, I suppose, a Queensland. It could be a caucuses with them. Yeah. The theory is to someone falls on their sword and they bring in Josh Frydenberg into by-election. I mean, that's the kind of levels they're going to try and bring someone in who has a degree of name recognition. But the problem, there's a couple of problems there. One is the Victorian Liberal Party hate each other. They're in court all the time against each other.

So the idea that, you know, they would become collegial enough to orchestrate some clever thing in Victoria, it's just never going to happen. But also, they'd have to win the biology. Yeah, it's a terrible idea. Yeah, so I'll break it down. James Patterson has also been mentioned in that breath. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Because he clearly wants to come down from the upper house.

So right now, as of recording, the Liberals have 14. The LNP has 15. The Nationals have 10. the CLP have none, and those are the four elements of the coalition. So, I mean, there's four main contests. Angus Taylor, who spearheaded Peter Dutton's economic platform, which involved the Libs having higher taxes, like personal tax rates in the end, than Labor. And what was the other astounding thing?

Oh, it was the surplus thing where there's two years where. Oh, yeah, where larger deficits. Yeah, large deficits and then, but then it'll be back on track. But only if you reelect us next time having increased the surplus. So, no, that, I mean, Angus Taylor, it's interesting to the extent to which Labor figures went out of their way to neutralise Angus Taylor. I mean, Jim Chalmers, the first thing he said was, look, don't forget this was Angus Taylor as well. He's not credible.

And I don't know if that's because they have internal polling saying he actually is someone that might be a strong candidate or if they just really don't like Angus Taylor. Yeah, I don't know what it is. Jim Chalmers shouldn't have done that because surely it's in Jim Chalmers' interest to have Anger's Taylor as the opposition leader. That said, I think we've already worked out. We've already worked out who should be the opposition leader, which is Barnaby Joyce. Remember, Barnaby Joyce was nowhere to be seen in this campaign.

Well, he's had a major health crisis. And everything fell apart. We were saying Barnaby Joyce might be the leader worth looking at. He's just announced that he has prostate cancer, so he's going to have to take a bit of time to do with that. Oh, that's a bit. But certainly as brand names go, but I mean, the people who are being... Because I was talking to a journalist on Saturday night who was saying the most impossible person to interview is Barnaby Joyce because, well, actually, he said the most impossible person to interview is Clive Palmer, because Clive Palmer does not listen to your questions at all.

Charles, based on wasting experience, I take your Clive Palmer and I raise you Bob Catter. Right, exactly. But of all the sort of people who could conceivably become an opposition leader, Barnaby Joyce is in that chaotic space. but actually very personable and would do really well in that space. So I reckon, I don't know, I reckon, well, it's a pity that it's counted out for health reasons. Well, look, he hasn't been discussed. The people who have been...

Yeah, and also he's a gnat, so it's the wrong party. But so we've got Dan Tian. Dan T and Susan Lee. Yeah, Angus Taylor and Andrew Hastie. But Andrew Hastie's called himself as not wanting to do it. No, Andrew Hasty's interesting. He's the former S-A-S-G guy. He seems, I mean, he's got...

He had a massive... He had a massive swing to himself, to the libs in his seat. He was the only lib across the entire country who had a... Like, it was over 5% swing towards Labor in an election where Labor got a temper-s-swing-z-swing towards it. You know, like, it was just very noticeable. So obviously, Andrew Hastie, but I think he's probably keeping his powder dry because he knows how to fight a battle. Well, you normally, I mean, we said this last time, and it was actually surprising. It generally, the first opposition leader after a change of government doesn't last very long.

Yeah. In Bill Shilton's case, he dragged that out for a very long time, but they tend to not succeed. Yes. Dutton did much better than people thought that he would and survived the full term. But, yeah, in fairly dramatic fashion is not an option in all kinds of ways now. And some ways, it's more elegant to lose your seat on the circumstance like that rather than just trying to hang around and fix it. So, yeah, there was someone, you might remember them. name. I don't criticize myself at all for not knowing the name. There is a young

Liberal MP who I think lost his seat on Saturday night. His son-in begins with W. William Waltham. Waltham. This is a guy who was being hailed. Like Sarah Ferguson said his name on the panel as you've lost your leader in waiting. Yeah, leader in waiting. I've never heard of what's his name? Tom Wolfenstein or something. It's his, it's not Wolfenstein, but it's It, Wollahann. Keith Wallahann. Keith Wallerhan. From Menzies.

Ah, what a huge lot. Keith. So. Wallahan was, ah. With the best, I mean, he's 47. He's younger than me. If only Keith had been there. He was only there for three years.

Albo would be in trouble. Okay, so who was Keith Wallachan? Keith Wallerhan was only there for three years. He was an Australian Army officer before that and a commercial barrister for 12 years. So the Wallahan truck is, is derailed at the first opportunity. But no, the fact that someone I had never heard of, and that's, I'm sure that's on me, not having heard of Wallahad, was being seen as the leader in waiting? Yes.

That doesn't, it's not very positive about the others, is it? Now, I reckon Tim Wilson is going to win Goldstone. You think he will? Yeah. Which means he also would be putting his hand up, wouldn't he? Well, of course he will. Yeah. I mean, it doesn't mean anyone likes him, but Tim Wilson's personality is such that he will definitely

put his hand up. Yeah. No matter what. So it could come down. I think, look, my predictions. I don't know anything about the Liberal Party's internal machinations. My guess is they should put in Dan Tien just because he's not Angus Taylor. As at the, as at the, oh, no, this is only from yesterday.

Anyway, I think, I, look, to be honest, Dom, I don't really care who. I don't think I care enough to continue this conversation. I just actually, like, it'll be some idiot and they probably won't ever become Prime Minister. As at the time of recording this podcast. Brendan Nelson. Sorry, Daniel leads by 95 votes. So that's an interesting seat. But postals are yet to come and the postals are breaking hard in favour of shows.

Yes, yes, they. People who think that the post is a good way of getting ballot paper made to be. Pro Tim Wilson. Okay. So, look, who knows? It is completely mysterious and it's not even clear who the potential candidates will be. But I think a hard, Switch to the right is exactly what Australia wants at the moment.

And I think maybe, and this is unconfirmed, but I have heard rumours that the Liberal Party have realised they've got a problem with their image, they've got a problem with their brand. And I've heard whispers that they're looking at picking up the brand name Trumpet of Patriots. I was just about to say. From Clive Palmer, because he's not going to use it anymore. Perhaps they could get the... And rebrand the Liberal Party as trumpet of patrons. The most recognisable name in Australian politics.

H. Fong could be the new leader. And the great way to advertise that would be to text everyone in Australia and let them know. But I mean, look, there is a fundamental question here, which is going to be very interesting to see. Well, do you think that the Liberal Party will return to the values of decency, low tax, moderate government with integrity? I mean, the Liberal Party to win has to win the centre. It's an axiom in Australian politics that if you're going to win an election in a country, in a country with compulsory voting. Yes.

I mean, all the Trump stuff, and this is perhaps it's something that should have been pointed out at some point during the process of planning this election. You have to win the centre because everyone has to vote. So you have to appeal to actually everyone

in this country. But I think the problem is, my understanding is there were lots of American consultant. Yes, there were. We know now that, what's his name? Chris Lecifida, the Trump election campaign manager came out.

But the starting point, Charles, of the coalition's campaign this time, step one was, we don't need to win back the tell seats. We don't need to get those ones back. And as Zoe Daniels' experience is showing, maybe they were winnable with a different message. Yes, yes.

Like saying to those voters, well, your candidate's not part of a government. You don't get any good stuff. But the problem is you're thinking in terms of what should a party do, but you've got to remember that all the people who are left in the Liberal Party are the people on the right who don't believe that. So while you sort of like, oh, like, I was doing to somebody on the weekend who literally is in the Liberal Party,

who was saying one of the problems that the Liberal Party has is that people nowadays actually see the internal battles as more important than winning the election, that actually beating the person who's more left wing in the Liberal Party than the, you know, like those. But they've exterminated the moderates. I mean, this is the whole reason why they're atil to begin. begin with.

Those people, I mean, Allegra Spender, given her personal CV, could quite easily have been in the liberal party, you might think. Oh, definitely. If those sorts of people are accommodated, I mean, the fact that Malcolm Turnbull is the persona non-grada. They're all basically libs, the old style lives, Malcolm Fraser lives. If you had, and John Howard's whole broad church thing, I mean, it's, it ain't a broad church and that's, and but Charles, if the decision on the next leader is being made by the

people who are in the seats at the moment, as it must be, yes, who's left to make the point that maybe winning back those till seats and actually winning over the centre might be a way to win the next elections. Maybe they'll listen to the podcast and, uh, and ponder that. Or perhaps Charles, they'll listen to Sky News instead and go very hard against trans kids. Well, I know what my money's on. Sorry, kids. We're part of the Iconiclus network.

Catch you tomorrow.