In a wide-ranging interview, UK writer and political commentator, Bea Campbell, spoke to Green Agenda editor, Clare Ozich, about the legacy of the Russian Revolution and communism; feminism and the end of equality; Green politics; and the current state of UK politics.



Edited transcript of interview

Clare Ozich: Green Agenda is today talking with UK author, playwright, filmmaker, journalist, political commentator, and broadcaster, Bea Campbell. Bea is in Australia for a speaking tour organised by the SEARCH Foundation to coincide with the hundredth anniversary of the Russian Revolution.

Welcome to Green Agenda, Bea. Thanks for taking the time to talk to with us.

Bea Campbell: Hello.

Clare Ozich: I am keen to talk with you about a range of things, including feminism and your book, End of Equality; Green politics; and the current state of UK politics – there’s a few interesting things happening there. But starting with the topic of your speaking tour, 100 years after the Russian Revolution. You were a communist until 1989, and your parents were British Bolsheviks. You’ve written, “I was part of the anti-Stalinist Euro-communist wing. We were clever, caused trouble, caught the imagination, but we lost. Or maybe we failed.” In that context, why is it important for us to be reflecting on the Russian Revolution and on the lost promise of communism?

Bea Campbell: Well, I think it’s important for everybody, because it was a miraculous event for those who made it happen. It was one of the moments when the majority classes of the most oppressed people in Europe, in Eurasia, so to say, took power. That’s an astounding thing. Absolutely astounding. It cannot be underestimated – those were days that shook the world. They changed the way that people imaged what ordinary people could do. It is astounding.

I think the thing that makes that complicated, however, is that the conditions in which it happened, they themselves knew, were contingent and very constrained; and they never expected to have to survive as a socialist project in their own solitary state, and they did. That was never what was in their political imagination, and it certainly wasn’t in the imagination of the Bolsheviks who were part of a really challenging and vigorous international network of revolutionary activists who stretched from the United Kingdom to Poland to the US, and then what becomes the USSR.

It’s a really extraordinary moment. I mean, let’s not forget, women didn’t yet have universal suffrage in Britain in 1917, nor in Australia. [editors note: non-Aboriginal women had the vote in Australia in 1917] These were very early moments in the most developed embryonic democracies in the world, and Russia wasn’t one of them. They were entombed by every imaginable block and barricade.

They were also faced with, instantly, the invasion of the West, who just didn’t want it to happen. The Revolution happened. It’s, in itself, not as it were a particularly violent moment, but it’s immediately beset by violent invasion, and then after the two, three years of that, they’re in the midst of a hugely violent civil war. I think part of the problem of trying to make sense of, what does that Revolution mean to us now, is that the narrative of the Revolution, however much you feel attached to it, has become hugely compromised by that history of violence, and the feeling that it was doomed.

In some ways, it was doomed, of course. But I think we’ve not been able to theorise what that violence meant for Russians in their everyday life. If you’ve been in five years of bloody war, you’ve had your Revolution, you’ve taken power, you’ve done this unimaginably majestic thing, and yet life is very hard, very, very hard, very hard for everybody. Not only are the material conditions of people in existence terribly hard, but war has ruinous effects on economies and societies. They had to deal with that as well.

Try and imagine, what does it mean for a Red soldier who’s been through all that to return home? Who is he? What is he? They have to deal with the aftermath of an entire generation of men who are living with trauma, and with the difficulty of trying to improvise at the same time a new economic system that’s never been tried before. I think that it was a hugely inspiring, momentous, miraculous event, or series of events, that were instantly beset by overwhelming problems.

That’s one set of issues, and there’s another set of issues, which is to do with the kind of politics that developed in Europe after that. Because Communist Parties throughout the world were created in the same moment, and were already part of socialist movements that had a different imagining of what a socialist revolution might be, and where it might be. If it was going to be anywhere, people imaged it would be in Germany, on Russia’s Eastern Front, and it didn’t happen in Germany. Germany itself, after 1917, lived with the consequences of the war, extraordinary pauperization, and extraordinary cleavages within progressive politics.

I think that it was a hugely inspiring, momentous, miraculous event, or series of events, that were instantly beset by overwhelming problems.

One of the things that I think is interesting about that moment is, what does it tell us about the early moments of what we would recognise as modern progressive political parties that were being formed in the first decades of the 20th century? They are being formed amidst this huge cleavage between a Marxist left that’s brought the revolutions and democratic socialists who, in the main, don’t. I don’t think we’re living with that cleavage now, but I think it took an awful long time for that to be resolved. And it’s only resolved in some senses because the Soviet Union, as such, ended.

That then had its own consequences, because the end of the Cold War has led to the proliferation of war, and it led to a tremendous dispiriting sense of defeat amongst social democrats across the world, and a bad time for social democrats because the end of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War was the triumph of neoliberalism, and the global impact of that, and the sense that the language of neoliberalism was now the language of life. Now, of course, something very interesting is happening, which is that the language is changing, and people’s imagination about what could be possible in radical politics is really being shaken up most marvellously. That’s a long answer.

Clare Ozich: That’s a great answer. Thank you. I think there’s something really interesting about, and I’m no expert in this, but something really interesting about the plight of socialist and Marxist political parties in the early part of the 20th century, versus the social democratic parties, versus the more central liberal parties, and the effort that went into crushing the socialist parties and the ramifications of that for when fascism politics came around, that kind of splitting and dividing of the broader left and, the consequences of that for Europe in the 20th century.

Bea Campbell:   Yes, yes. Well, I think it is very interesting, because I come from the communist tradition. My family were communists, and I’m shaped by that. I mean, I’m shaped by that and by the way that democratic socialism after the Second World War created a welfare state, and I am a creature of the welfare state. My education, my home, my health, all of these are the gift of that welfare state. And also something else that was really, really important, a sense that the working class was a class that had to be answered and addressed and heeded, and that we weren’t just problems of history. A hugely optimistic moment for working class people, and it was for me.

a sense that the working class was a class that had to be answered and addressed and heeded, and that we weren’t just problems of history

I think to that extent, I know it feels very, very odd, it feels really, really odd, over the last three decades, to witness the devastating assault on that history and the institutions that were created then, and the values that were created then. You know, we don’t speak the same language. Now it’s being rediscovered, but for the last three decades, a critique of capitalism was hardly a game you wanted to play. And sweeping privatisation. Let me give you an example. The kind of housing that I lived in as a kid was what we called council housing. You would call it community housing.

Clare Ozich: Or public housing.

Bea Campbell: Public housing, yeah. My parents thought, my mother thought, happiness was a kitchen with cupboards in it. We didn’t think that this was poor people’s housing, we thought this was where people lived. And there are many people of my generation who lived in that way. It was the majority form of working-class housing. It now isn’t. It just isn’t. The working class was the majority class in Britain until relatively recently. It’s hung on, actually. Our sense of class belonging hung on for a long time. And in the last few years, really very recently, that’s changed. The majority of people in Britain don’t think that they’re working class. The consequences of some of that, we are yet to discover. It may not be quite what we expected it to be.

But so many things have changed. To return to your question, one of the things that’s associated with the Bolshevik Revolution is that it made sense that, yes, something like that could be done. And at the same time, a huge split across the left everywhere in the world between the, as it were, pro-Bolsheviks and mainstream social democracy, and that persists for another 50, 60 years. It’s only really with the decline of the Soviet Bloc that that cleavage mattered less. I don’t know that it matters at all now.

Then the second thing, which is that since the moment of Thatcherism and the transformation of welfare states everywhere, and then the economic crash of 2008, and then the prevailing austerity programmes everywhere, tell us about a terrible defeat for progressive politics and for the working class. And so whatever gets to be put together now, whatever kind of recovery gets built, it’s being built in the aftermath of defeat. All sorts of things have to be reimagined and reinvented. It’s a very, very interesting moment, I think, and it does, in a funny kind of a way, go back to 1917.

Clare Ozich: I think that a point you just made then about reinvention and reimagining is really crucial, because we can’t go back in time, obviously, so it’s kind of, how do we take the values, and potentially the same language, but certainly the values and the ideas, and refashion them for what comes next, rather than, just thinking we can drop ourselves back 50 years or 100 years or 150 years?

Bea Campbell:   Well, I think something that’s really important that has to be reclaimed is that socialism was always about democracy, emancipation, social justice, and equality. Now, Russia did not become a model of those things, and so I think probably for young people, or indeed anybody, looking for a model of a radical imaginative project, what does it look like? Well, it doesn’t look like Russia.

But we do have to reinvent it, because the sway of global capitalism now is a completely different phenomenon than it was in 1917, or indeed in 1945. So we’ve got a job to do. Additionally, it’s a job to do that can’t rely on a given vocabulary and a given perspective. But what we have got is amazing resilience of people’s commitment to the idea that democracy might be good. I don’t think that it’s been, in some cases, very good. But when they do have an experience of it that engages them, then it is good. The equality and the values that people adhere to they may not know what it means, may not know how to do it, but like it. And people are very fearful for the earth. Don’t know necessarily what to do about it, and they’re not helped in thinking about what to do about it by governments in the main.

The agenda has changed. The vocabulary has changed. And like I said, we’ve got a job to do of finding out what, in terms of our demands of and engagement with the institutions, what that all might look like. But for the first time in a long time, I have to say, I’m feeling optimistic. Not, you know, not with Trump and the Party Congress in China, these are no good reasons for feeling optimistic. However, I do.

Clare Ozich: Well, to take you back to what I imagine was another optimistic time for you, and that being the 1970s, I wanted to ask you about the publication that you co-founded, Red Rag: A Magazine of Women’s Liberation and Marxism. It’s a pretty awesome title. I want to ask you about the intersections between feminism and Marxism at that time. What did Marxism give to women’s liberation and vice versa in the 1970s, do you think?

Bea Campbell: It was a group of women who were in the Communist Party who set it up, who were all involved the Women’s Liberation Movement. Obviously, there were many women from the left who had experiences of revolutionary politics or progressive politics in the US and in the UK in the 1960s, and who emerged from that with a really stringent critique of the sexism of the ’60s. I think for the Communist Party women, a really important axis for us was this – we were part of the element within the Communist Party that was anti-Stalinist, that was against the invasion of Czechoslovakia by Russia in 1968, that was against a kind of authoritarian performance of communism. Feminism was entirely part of that critique.

For us, I think what was in our minds was that we were part of a kind of redemptive project. We were trying to find a way of being communist that wasn’t horrible, Stalinist et cetera. I think our fear for the Women’s Liberation Movement was that here was a bounty of new ideas and new ways of doing politics that were hugely challenging to all traditional forms and what we weren’t going to do was import into the Women’s Movement a sense that the vanguard party somewhere else knows how to do things. In fact, we wanted the Party to go the other way.

And so when we set up Red Rag, it was partly to find a space for a kind of left feminism to have its voice, but also, in the definition of the magazine, we didn’t call it a socialist, hyphen, feminist magazine. We didn’t work on the assumption that those two things were necessarily compatible. We didn’t know. We were going to try and work it out.

Clare Ozich: That’s been a bit of a ongoing project, that relationship between feminism and socialism, kind of ever since.

Bea Campbell: And we were faced, you see, with another dilemma, which was that the labour movement was the great mass movement in Britain that promoted equality, but didn’t practise it. Indeed, it was a major instrument of the organisation of inequality in the workplace. It was implicated in inequality in the workplace big time, and so we had a critique of labourism and of capitalism and were trying to give voice to that as well.

Clare Ozich: It strikes me that there’s something really important about publications like that in political education and in the development of ideas. I know socialist movements and feminist movements, Women’s Liberation, are examples that are replete with lots of rich history of those sorts of publications and expanding political debate. I wonder if today, given that so much political debate happens more online than perhaps around journals and articles and people sitting around talking about them, whether that’s changing the nature of political debate, whether it is becoming a bit more fractured, in a way. Do you have any reflections on that?

Bea Campbell: You know, I don’t know about that. I recognise what you say, and I certainly recognise that some of the Twitter storms that happen are primitive and brutal and unedifying. However, I can think of one online women’s group that I’m in where our online conversations might be a sentence and it might be that somebody’s written a paper, and it might be that somebody hasn’t written a paper, but are going to, but then they’re having a think about something and will say, “I’m having a think about X,” and we all pitch in.

There are results that might be a paragraph, and it might be a thousand words. I’m not that pessimistic about those online contexts. I think they are contexts where people who, in another moment, wouldn’t have access to each other. That group I’m thinking of, we live all over the place. We don’t live near each other. If we were only able to connect geographically, well, we wouldn’t, really.

Clare Ozich: I mean, I say this, editing an online publication. I know people read it, but I don’t necessarily know who they are and what they do with it. You know, which is great and fine and wonderful in many ways. But I guess the broader point is, it’s about creating communities, and one way was geographic and now there are potential other ways of creating communities.

I just want to move on more broadly onto the current state of feminism and women in the world. You speak about being intoxicated by the Women’s Liberation Movement, which is a wonderful phrase. But like many revolutions, of course, its promise hasn’t been fulfilled. In your last book, The End of Equality, you argue that we’re now living in a time of neoliberal neopatriarchy. I think liberalism and the patriarchy have had a pretty close relationship for decades/centuries. What, to your mind, are the characteristics of neopatriarchy and its intersection with neoliberalism?

Bea Campbell: Right. Yes, okay. Well, neoliberalism in the sense that the current global manifestations of the dominance of market ideology, they are not classical liberal regimes, where the assumption is that capital is free entirely to rule the world, and what you need is a minimal state, and merely a state with a monopoly on force. What we’re witnessing now is very different from that. The freeing up of capital in the United States or in Britain still depends on a relationship to the state, and in the case of, say, China and South Korea, capital is freed up in many respects and works alongside very strong, very authoritarian practises at the level of the state that create the conditions that maximise capital’s freedom of movement.

Now, to have that combination of a strong state, and an interventionist state, and huge freedom for capital, means that we’re not talking about a pre-19th century regime for capital. It’s a complicated relationship, so that’s why I call it, and that’s why it is called, it’s not me that invented it, but that’s why it’s called neoliberalism.

Neopatriarchy, for a similar reason. The kind of patriarchal value, discourses, structures, in the UK in 2017 are not the same as the patriarchal discourses of ISIS or Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is a good example of a very traditional form of patriarchy, where women’s freedom of movement is absolutely constrained and controlled. That isn’t the case in Australia, it isn’t the case across Europe and Asia, or vast parts of Asia, anyway. Something else is afoot, so I think it’s not helpful just to think that what it is is just patriarchy. It’s neopatriarchy in the sense that, if you want to be an astronaut, then you’re allowed. You know what I mean? There are no bounds and prohibitions on girls when it comes to education, and indeed, there are more girls in universities throughout the West than there are boys.

What is unchanged, however, is the sexual division of labour and the distribution of resources between men and women. I mean, that’s changed a bit, but not much. And so it’s neopatriarchy in the sense that the conditions of a female life are very different from those lived by a woman in Afghanistan, or our grandmother’s generation. But patriarchy is not dead, and it lives in the institutions, and it lives in ways that make the project of equality, at the moment, impossible.

For example, if we look at pay, the gender pay gap has been stable or getting worse for 20 years. Now nobody who’s interested in the question of pay has any idea how that is going to change, and nobody has an expectation that it will. One of the reasons that it doesn’t change is because of the moment of motherhood and the distribution of labour between parents, the distribution of care and responsibility between parents, and parents and children and the state. Those relationships are absolutely decisive.

Where I live, since 2008, the assault on the welfare state is a direct hit against the kind of resources that facilitate women’s … well, a bit of equality, actually. For instance, hiving off the social services and social care industry to the private sector, which has happened wholesale, means that that is now a sector populated by women on zero-hours contracts. I don’t know whether that zero-hours contracts means anything to you. You may have a different term. But zero-hour contracts are where you don’t have a contract with employment, basically. You don’t have employment rights, you don’t have paid holidays. You may be working 15 minutes in this house getting an old lady up, and then you’ve got to get yourself to somewhere else where you’re going to do 15 minutes giving somebody their breakfast. Your journey time isn’t paid for, your pension isn’t paid for, you’re always vulnerable to having your hours changed or moved about at the whim of the employer. It’s just terrible. The majority of care workers in Britain work in that kind of regime now. Imagine that. 30 years ago, they worked for the local authority, and they had a pension and they had holiday pay. And they may even have had training.

Because of that huge change in the conditions of employment, it’s very difficult to imagine what would be the forces that could be brought to bear that could equalise men and women’s earnings. And it’s no use just comparing the hourly rates of men and women and this or that sector. You have to look at men and women’s earnings across a week, across a year, across a lifetime. And what we see is that the gender differential in those terms just isn’t changing.

Clare Ozich: That’s right. That’s absolutely right.

Bea Campbell: It’s entirely to do with these new regimes of remuneration. And the politics of time and the politics of care, and the relationship between welfare states and citizens.

Clare Ozich: Yes. And as you mention, the very real decline of the welfare state. “Decline” is the wrong word. It’s been an active destruction.

Bea Campbell:   Yes, exactly.

Clare Ozich: Now, you became a member of the Green Party in the UK, as I understand it, back in 2009, and have stood as a candidate. I read a Guardian article where you wrote about becoming a member of the Green Party, and I really liked the analysis that you provided. You wrote:

“Macho, manic productionism relies on force, it valorizes conquest of nature and other humans. It marginalises the means of reproduction – how societies sustain themselves, breathe, give birth, grow and rest, clean up; how people take care, give pleasure and cooperate.”

You went on to say that “The sexism – and destructiveness – of modernity was not evolutionary, it was a bitter political struggle. The outcome: men’s movements masquerading as egalitarian and socialist.” And that “Green ideology represents the reconciliation of production and reproduction – that is what yields sustainability.”

There are a couple of really interesting things in that. One, your critique of “macho productionism” is a critique of left politics as much as industrial capitalism. But secondly, I think highlighting that very clear element of Green politics and what I think makes it different to other politics, and that is a rejection of domination, whether it’s over nature or over each other, and really highlights that clear shift that we actually have to make as a society if we’re going to live in a just world and a world that will continue to thrive and provide us with the ability to live.

How do you think we’re going on making that shift in how we see the world? That shift that I think Green politics represents, that other politics doesn’t?

Bea Campbell: Well, I think that it’s very uneven. I think at one level with every year that passes, the Green story is better understood by people and better understood by more people. Green Party people are present in political institutions in a way that they weren’t 10 years ago, so that’s important. There are two caveats to it, I think. One is that I think social democratic parties do get greener, and that’s very good. It means that they’re alive to the issues that are being raised by Green activists and Green Parties. The more alive they are to those issues, the more difficult, in a way, it is for Green Parties to survive, because some of the thriving of Green Parties has been partly because of social democratic parties being not good, and socialist parties not being very good on this. I mean, I think Australia always stood out, because Australian communists were among the first to really find a practical way of enacting a green agenda, with Jack Mundey so many, many years ago. Really brilliant.

It’s also been the case that socialists and Greens have a natural affinity to each other. But how that works out in numbers and representation, it’s tricky. We’re already seeing that. We’ve seen it now several times, in the ups and downs of Greens in local and national elections. For example, in Britain, in England, the Green vote went down in the last general election, and that’s partly because the Labour vote didn’t just go up, but the Labour agenda and the Labour manifesto was Greener than it’s ever been. A confidence that Labour was a progressive party once again has huge implications for the Greens. I know that many Greens have left the Green Party and joined the Labour Party. I mean, we have this argument weekly, regularly, in my own household, because my partner has re-joined the Labour Party.

She’s a person who had been in and out of the Labour Party all of her adult life. You know, leaves when it goes to war and when it does something absolutely abominable, and re-joins when there’s a moment of hope. She’s very – like many, many people, many, many people – very excited about this moment. A lot of Greens, you know, were people who were in the Labour Party or the Communist Party and just got fed up and joined the Greens, and also were entranced by the Green agenda, as I am, but now live in hope that that could be transferred to a Labour agenda. These things are difficult, aren’t they? Tricky. And the electoral systems don’t make it easy. And ours makes it more difficult than yours does.

Clare Ozich: Yeah, that’s right, much tougher in the UK. In that context, what do you think of the prospects of the Labour Party now, its revival?

Bea Campbell: I think something extraordinary is afoot. If we go back a bit, when the leadership election took place, let’s not forget, Jeremy Corbyn stood because he was part of a coterie of people who, as it were, kept the flame, and said, “Go on, it’s your turn, you go and do it this time.” So he did, never expecting in a thousand years to win. What they experienced during that election campaign was that at the hustings, people were turning up in their hundreds, and they were prepared to listen to a slightly boring speaker – because you know, he’s not the best speaker in the world – but enunciate ideas that they believed in and that they thought were possible, and radical and doable.

What’s to not like about the public housing programme? What’s to not like about a foreign policy that is predicated on peace and justice rather than war, rape and pillage?

That had not happened for a very, very, very long time. That hasn’t happened since the early ’80s, and New Labour liquidated the space for those ideas, made them seem to be ridiculous and impossible. Well, we now know, of course, that they’re not ridiculous. They’re reasonable. And they’re not impossible, they are doable. And indeed, they are necessary. But the amazing thing was – and I think this was because it was a leadership election, it wasn’t just any old election, it was a leadership election – that in a leadership election, these ideas could be promoted, and if you voted for it, it might become important.

People really did. They really believed it could happen, and it did happen. And of course they were then confronted with the devastating bad behaviour of the parliamentarians who, lest we forget, were shaped in the image of Blair and New Labour, and they were stunned and furious, and they sabotaged the project for a good two years. It’s interesting, I think they now know the game’s up, and they need to shut up and join it or do something else with themselves. There have been some very interesting voices, very surprising voices, beginning to emerge, saying, “Hold on a second, this is good, this is really good. What’s to not like about the public housing programme? What’s to not like about a foreign policy that is predicated on peace and justice rather than war, rape and pillage?” You know, what’s not to like? So it’s crucial that those ideas were aired in a leadership election. Had they been put forward at resolutions, at party conference, any old time, it wouldn’t have worked. That’s somewhat important.

Then the other thing is that I think, and I found this rather lovely, that here’s this bloke who, what can you say about him? He’s disciplined, he’s likeable, he’s amiable, he’s a nice bloke, he doesn’t lie, he doesn’t bullshit, he says what he means, and he thinks that what he means is worth it. And people love that, and they forgive the slight boringness, because they think that “Yes.” They just think, “Yes.” And the fact that he, you know, was known to wear a jumper that his mother had knitted, and the Westminster commentariat saying, “Oh, you’re wearing a jumper. Who knitted that jumper?” He says, “Well, my mother, actually.” So the listeners, some might think, “Oh, this is ridiculous.” A lot of people think, “Oh, that’s nice.” He has what you call a community garden, and we call them allotments. People would talk about how he’s estranged from popular culture. Let me tell you, my nephew, who’s 40, and he’s a bit of a hippie, rambling person. Rambling in the sense of wandering. Goes to the music festivals in the summer, a cool dude. He and his partner have an allotment, which is treasured. People save up for allotments. People love allotments. They love them. One of the most popular programmes on the BBC radio is Gardener’s Question Time. So the idea that this makes him somewhat alien couldn’t have been more wrong. It might be alien to the commentariat, but it is not alien to most average citizens, you know? It’s nice. And it shows that he’s not just a career politician. It shows that he’s a bloke who does other stuff.

All of the things that the commentariat thought distanced Corbyn from the citizenry, they got wrong. They got wrong. They also got wrong that they wanted to represent this as a person who’s from middle-class Islington, he’s got nothing in common with poor people in de-industrialized towns in the North. Well, the fact is that Labour, New Labour, couldn’t have been more distant from the de-industrialized towns of the North. And this new Labour agenda is the first in a long time that’s got anything to say about their conditions of existence. So it’s just a very, very interesting moment. And I have to say, I remember when Robin Cook, the first foreign secretary in the Blair government, and he proposed early in his tenure an ethical dimension to foreign policy, and it was instantly told off and it was instantly blocked. And now the Labour shadow foreign secretary, Emily Thornberry, who’s a real star in all of this, she said something very simple, which is, “We want a foreign policy based on peace and justice.” We haven’t heard those words for a long time. And everybody is sick of these wars. Everybody’s sick of it.

Clare Ozich: That’s heading back to that question about the shift and whether it’s happening.

Bea Campbell: Well, the issue of whether it is it doable? Can they win? I think they’re more likely to be able to win than Labour has been for an awful long time, because they’ve got a really scientific, surgical election machine, and they’re targeting some key seats as well as really, really trying to work some other seats. It may well be that can pull off the defeats of some Tory champions, and that would be remarkable. I think one of the things that is yet to happen is the performance of the Labour Party as more than an electoral machine, but as a social movement. It is to be hoped that that can happen.

Clare Ozich: Then the challenge will be, if they win and are exercising power, how all that comes together and is reflected back outwards.

Bea Campbell: Indeed.

Clare Ozich: Thank you so much for talking with me today.

Bea Campbell: You are completely welcome.