Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

How the papers are treating LIz’s first day – politicalbetting.com

12346»

Comments

  • Barnesian said:

    Adding the latest YouGov poll to the EMA (Exponential Moving Average) gives Labour a 11% lead and an overall majority of 30 with the proposed 2023 boundaries.


    That is a p*** poor return on an 11% lead.

    Starmer please explain!

    (Although, if we were to see an 11% Labour lead I suspect the majority would be more substantial. The trouble is there won't be anything like an 11% Labour lead.)
    Greens at double their 2019 levels is presumably a key factor. Doubt they can achieve that.
    As a rule of thumb add half the green total to the Labour one. This proved to be a good guide at the last couple of elections
    At the last couple of elections Labour was led by Jeremy Corbyn who appeals to the far left Green tendency. Labour isn't led by Jeremy Corbyn anymore.

    At this corresponding stage of the 2010-2015 Parliament when Labour was last led by a leader who wasn't Jeremy Corbyn, the Greens increased their vote from here, it didn't fall.
  • Mr. JS, over a decade ago now but I spent some time with a very nice young couple from Canada.

    I was somewhat taken aback when the gentleman suggested it would be appropriate to legislate to create limitations on the quantity (especially of low quality) food people buy to combat obesity.

    The conflation of political judgement and personality morality, seeing those with alternative views as sinners who are inherently wrong, is very concerning.
  • CD13 said:

    Football is going to the dogs.

    I watched a couple of games on BT SPORT recently (courtesy of freebies from Virgin). On both occasions, the underdogs went a goal up and shut up shop. Wasting time by falling over at the merest touch and playing dead. Embarrassing. If they were on the London underground, they'd never get off the floor.

    Why can't the referees send them off. Newcastle were one of the worst culprits and complained when the referee added eight minutes extra time. He could have added an hour, and left them with two players.

    They can. (Technically they would have to caution them once for 'ungentlemanly conduct' and then again for a repeat offence, but the Laws do give them the authority to so act.) The reality is that there would be an outcry and the FA would not support any maverick ref who went against the crowd. Anyone who has ever been a ref knows this, and the principle applies to other aspects of the game too where the Laws are flouted regularly and the refs turn a blind eye - dissent and foul language spring to mind, as does all the pushing and shoving at corner-kicks which regularly escapes attention and punishment.

    The root of the problem is that FA is an pawn in the hands of the Clubs, and an incompetent one at that. Twas ever thus, and I don't see it changing soon.
    A couple of rules that I would change in other sports

    Golf - no more practice swings (except maybe on the first tee ) - this applies from pro to club golf - I never take a practice swing and get irritated by my co-players doing so - FGS i think you are going to have 90 shots or more this round so dont take another 90 as practice. Golf is very slow as it is and this what puts a lot of people off playing. If you ban practice swings somebody will still win so everyone is still on a level playing field .

    Athletics - they really do need to look at the reaction times for false starts as its clear some legitimate starts have been called false and with the draconian penalty of no second chance they can ruin their own major events with this (not to mention ruin a dream of an athlete)
    Tennis - remove the second serve and allow net cords on serve (if its in, its in).
    I only play a couple of times a year and my double fault % is ridiculously high already. Make it one serve only, I am never serving overarm again!
    You would have to adapt. The game would change. I'd love to see a tournament trial of this to see how the big servers adapt. Would they continue to go for broke? Or would they have to tone down by 10%?

    On net cords I don't understand why if it happens on serve its discounted (assuming its a valid serve) but during a ralley its allowed to stand. Very odd.
    I would expect a lot of sports rules like lets were established in the early days when some VIP had lost an important point and demanded it replayed.
  • I happened to read the NYT today.
    Liz Truss’s gurning visage was on the cover and she was the top story, with a double page treatment also on Page 11.

    I couldn’t really fault it.
    Maybe it’s the editorials that are problematic.

    Since the Coalition, the NYT does seem to have a “thing” about the U.K… it appears in the opinion/in depth pieces. My American relatives noticed the difference between the reporting and what they see when they actually visit the U.K. - they are xth generation New York Democrats….

    The list comic bits are when the NYT quoted “people in the street” in the U.K.

    Who just happens to speak in American idiom…
    Were they “down the creek” at the time?

    I think the NYT “People Who Know Best” were terribly affronted that the U.K. electorate had the temerity to vote for Brexit and then were mortally offended when the UK’s “People Who Know Best” weren’t able to get out of it.

    That we haven’t subsequently sunk beneath the waves in an a smouldering ruin of destitution and penury has merely added insult to injury.

  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,507

    DavidL said:

    Icarus said:

    FPT

    Dynamo said:

    Did Liz Truss get into Merton College, Oxford, with only two A Levels?

    Applications per place for PPE in 2021-22: 8.3.

    However back in the day the system was that Oxford would do their own admissions testing 9 months before the public exams and if you passed that, you'd only have to get two Es (E being the lowest possible pass) to get your place. I think this was done to show Oxford's contempt for the public system.
    No, 2 Es was to qualify for the Local Authority Grant - nothing to do with attitude to the public system. As you observe most got As.
    Back in 1966 my Oxford college took more notice of my 7th term Oxford exams to offer me a place. They already knew my Maths , Physics, Chemistry A levels results: E, B, C. Whilst there I was President of Oxford University Liberal Club. I have not yet been asked to form a government.
    B, C and E ?

    Are you a member of the Royal Family ?
    My son got the equivalent of 4A*s in the Scottish equivalent to A levels and I suspect he was not that unusual in his cohort. IIRC his offer was A*AA. This is what the great inflation has done.
    Grade inflation so that everyone now gets As is mainly a consequence of adding better teaching to a simplified syllabus. Modern teaching is better informed by psychology. The syllabus in some subjects has been pared down so much that degree courses in those subjects need to run for an extra year to compensate. Whether grade inflation matters depends what exams are for, and no-one can agree on that.
    Why is it not possible to give out a fixed percentage of As, Bs? Get rid of A*

    A neighbouring son failed to get into Imperial. He got 3 As and an A*….

    If we are using A level grades to determine university places, they should actually differentiate.
    I think if the population taking the exam is large enough then awarding fixed amounts of grades is ok. But less so for small cohorts. It is genuinely possible for a cohort of 30 to be stronger one year than the previous or subsequent years, and it would be unfair to award the same number of A's to them. But across 100,000 students? It would work.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,942
    Ghedebrav said:

    algarkirk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Truss did not come from some poor background. She's middle class.

    As for the members of her Cabinet who are either women or from an ethnic minority, let's see how diverse they really are: -

    1. Chancellor - Kwarteng - privately educated at one of the most expensive London schools, then Eton and Cambridge. Became a financial analyst in the City. Parents: barrister & economist.
    2. Home Secretary - Braverman: parents: nurse & civil servant, uncle was the Mauritian High Commissioner to Britain, educated at a fee-paying school, Cambridge and the Sorbonne, a barrister.
    3. FS - Cleverley: privately educated, army, then a degree in hospitality management at a polytechnic. Set up a publishing company.
    4. Health - Coffey: independent Catholic school, Oxford, chemistry degree.
    5. Cop26 - Sharma: independent school for his education, a physics and electronics degree from Salford.
    6. International Trade - Badenoch: largely educated abroad, well connected middle class parents (a GP and Professor), studied engineering, then went into IT and banking.
    7. DEFRA - Jayawardena: comprehensive education, then banking.
    8. Transport - Trevelyan: private education, then accountancy and PwC
    9. Culture - Donelan: state educated, politics & history degree from York then marketing.
    10. Work & Pensions - Chloe Smith: state educated, English degree from York then management consultancy.

    It is not really as diverse as all that. Cleverley has probably the most diverse background of those in the top 4 positions.

    It is very representative of a certain slice of the English middle class. Of the wider nation - England, let alone, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - much less so.

    It is probably more reflective of the fact that non-white people have been able to assimilate successfully into the English middle class. Something worth celebrating but it helps reinforce an idea that social mobility/the glass ceiling is not really about race.
    Class is IMO far more determinative of your chances in Britain than pretty much anything else. But it's the one that gets talked about least in diversity training courses, certainly the ones I've been on, and is a much tougher nut to crack, even if the will were there, which I often doubt.
    This is true. We may have a long wait for a male, white, benefits class, single parent mother, drug addict father background who left school at 16 and comes from Millom, Whitehaven, Workington, Maryport or Barrow to reach PM, CoE, Foreign or Home Sec positions.

    But there is one other point. After decades of universal free education and the massive class mobility of a lot of the 20th century much has changed.

    The undiscussable point is this: innate ability, cognitive aptitude etc varies, and varies a lot. It's not all nurture. Some of it is nature. The 20th century rise of the ordinary bloke expanding the middle/lower middle class, + assortative mating may well have left a significant group of people behind in ways which can't be resolved easily.

    This can be invisible to movers and shakers. But it may be there. And 'class' may be a term which is proxy for deeper things.

    I've always believed that one of the reasons we don't get we don't get trade union leaders of the status of Ernest Bevin nowadays is that today they would've been educated rather than having to leave school at 13. Alan Johnson, I think, rather underlines the idea!
    That, and we overvalue grades and certain types of education and subject.
    The irony is that, just as the world of work has eroded the old blue collar vs white collar class/pay/social status thing, the spread of university degrees and their application has increased the rigid separation.

    Have seen many people crammed into the shit bottom of office work, when they would be happier & richer working with *both* their hands and mind. For example, an ex call centre “manager” I knew who turned a hobby into a bespoke cabinet making business.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,507

    CD13 said:

    Football is going to the dogs.

    I watched a couple of games on BT SPORT recently (courtesy of freebies from Virgin). On both occasions, the underdogs went a goal up and shut up shop. Wasting time by falling over at the merest touch and playing dead. Embarrassing. If they were on the London underground, they'd never get off the floor.

    Why can't the referees send them off. Newcastle were one of the worst culprits and complained when the referee added eight minutes extra time. He could have added an hour, and left them with two players.

    They can. (Technically they would have to caution them once for 'ungentlemanly conduct' and then again for a repeat offence, but the Laws do give them the authority to so act.) The reality is that there would be an outcry and the FA would not support any maverick ref who went against the crowd. Anyone who has ever been a ref knows this, and the principle applies to other aspects of the game too where the Laws are flouted regularly and the refs turn a blind eye - dissent and foul language spring to mind, as does all the pushing and shoving at corner-kicks which regularly escapes attention and punishment.

    The root of the problem is that FA is an pawn in the hands of the Clubs, and an incompetent one at that. Twas ever thus, and I don't see it changing soon.
    A couple of rules that I would change in other sports

    Golf - no more practice swings (except maybe on the first tee ) - this applies from pro to club golf - I never take a practice swing and get irritated by my co-players doing so - FGS i think you are going to have 90 shots or more this round so dont take another 90 as practice. Golf is very slow as it is and this what puts a lot of people off playing. If you ban practice swings somebody will still win so everyone is still on a level playing field .

    Athletics - they really do need to look at the reaction times for false starts as its clear some legitimate starts have been called false and with the draconian penalty of no second chance they can ruin their own major events with this (not to mention ruin a dream of an athlete)
    Tennis - remove the second serve and allow net cords on serve (if its in, its in).
    Cricket: if you hit the ball you have to run
    The game would be over in under an hour (and thats a test match). Some might call it an improvement. (Not me - I love a 5 dayer).
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,992

    Is a couple of weeks a good timeframe to judge any poll bounce?

    I want go get my Tory poll lead bet in early

    I'd say two years is a good timeframe.

    Swing back normally happens in election year, not before. See 2010-2015.
    That's not a honeymoon bounce though is it? We want a bounce, and we want it now (over the next two months at any rate). If we don't get it, good luck with your swing back.
    I couldn't care less if there's a honeymoon bounce now or not.

    Truss has an opportunity, a responsibility and duty to "deliver". If she does over the next two years she might get respect, even begrudging respect, and win the election. If she doesn't, she doesn't deserve to.

    The next two weeks polling is an absolutely irrelevant frippery.
    But the next two to three months is relevant. If as the voters get to know the Prime Minister and it turns out they don't like her and that is reflected in unchanged polling, her opportunity for pre- election swing back is greatly reduced, certainly in the event of no black swans.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,230

    The reason Labour needs bigger poll leads than the Tories has nothing to do with Starmer. The reason is that a disproportionate part of the Labour vote is in areas where there it has such a heavy majorities. The Tory vote is spread more evenly and is therefore more efficient in securing seats

    Is this not the reverse of what was seen in during the last Labour governments? What was the 2005 result - 35.2% for Blair and 32.4% for Howard (with a hefty 22% for the drunkard). Very efficient Labour votes plus damage to the Tories in the south from the Lib Dems giving a 66 seat majority.
    Indeed.
    There is no reason why it shouldn't revert back.
    My view is the Tories maxed out their potential efficiency last time. Can't see how they can improve it. Maintaining it will be nigh impossible.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,317
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Truss did not come from some poor background. She's middle class.

    As for the members of her Cabinet who are either women or from an ethnic minority, let's see how diverse they really are: -

    1. Chancellor - Kwarteng - privately educated at one of the most expensive London schools, then Eton and Cambridge. Became a financial analyst in the City. Parents: barrister & economist.
    2. Home Secretary - Braverman: parents: nurse & civil servant, uncle was the Mauritian High Commissioner to Britain, educated at a fee-paying school, Cambridge and the Sorbonne, a barrister.
    3. FS - Cleverley: privately educated, army, then a degree in hospitality management at a polytechnic. Set up a publishing company.
    4. Health - Coffey: independent Catholic school, Oxford, chemistry degree.
    5. Cop26 - Sharma: independent school for his education, a physics and electronics degree from Salford.
    6. International Trade - Badenoch: largely educated abroad, well connected middle class parents (a GP and Professor), studied engineering, then went into IT and banking.
    7. DEFRA - Jayawardena: comprehensive education, then banking.
    8. Transport - Trevelyan: private education, then accountancy and PwC
    9. Culture - Donelan: state educated, politics & history degree from York then marketing.
    10. Work & Pensions - Chloe Smith: state educated, English degree from York then management consultancy.

    It is not really as diverse as all that. Cleverley has probably the most diverse background of those in the top 4 positions.

    It is very representative of a certain slice of the English middle class. Of the wider nation - England, let alone, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - much less so.

    It is probably more reflective of the fact that non-white people have been able to assimilate successfully into the English middle class. Something worth celebrating but it helps reinforce an idea that social mobility/the glass ceiling is not really about race.
    Class is IMO far more determinative of your chances in Britain than pretty much anything else. But it's the one that gets talked about least in diversity training courses, certainly the ones I've been on, and is a much tougher nut to crack, even if the will were there, which I often doubt.
    I've never understood this obsession with class. It would have made sense 20 or 30 years ago. But what really is class anymore? To me it makes more sense to think of culture as being a determining factor. It seems to me that there is something that could be described as a "middle class culture", evidenced by things like going to university, having professional parents, reading books from an early age, and being involved in politics is often part of that, and this is reflected in the politicians we have. As far as I can see, there aren't any 'glass ceilings' preventing anyone from joining the 'middle class culture' if that is what they aspire to doing. Some people will be born in to it, others move in to it, some people drop out of it. I am in it and I suspect that most of the people commenting on here are.

    If you want to contemplate the problems facing the UK, I would suggest there is an ingrained prejudice against poor white people who don't feel part of or want to join the 'middle class culture', which comprise a very large section of the population who revolted once in the form of Brexit; and who will revolt again, given the opportunity. Nigel Farage said a few days ago that the next revolt will make him seem like a Notting Hill liberal, and I fear he is right.
  • Driver said:

    CD13 said:

    Football is going to the dogs.

    I watched a couple of games on BT SPORT recently (courtesy of freebies from Virgin). On both occasions, the underdogs went a goal up and shut up shop. Wasting time by falling over at the merest touch and playing dead. Embarrassing. If they were on the London underground, they'd never get off the floor.

    Why can't the referees send them off. Newcastle were one of the worst culprits and complained when the referee added eight minutes extra time. He could have added an hour, and left them with two players.

    No idea why football does not just stop the clock when ball goes out of play or for a player needing treament etc - no incentive to time waste then. Play 60 minutes of actual play and have a "hooter" system like rugby league.

    Also make a penalty kick less decisive by increasing the yardage to say a point where only 30% are scored - combine this with penalty goals where a goal is awarded upon a foul or handball which woudl mor eor less certianly have resulted in a goal without it and you then get the right compensation for a foul in the box and stop diving
    60 minutes with a stop-clock keeps getting mooted but AIUI, IFAB resists it because it's not easily implementable at all levels of the sport. Despite it being an obviously good idea at the professional level.
    We already have different rules at different levels. No VAR on Hackney Marshes, mate.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,041

    I often thought a radical rule in snooker (or maybe a tournament adopting it as a difference to normal snooker) woudl be to reverse the value of the colours so that black is 2 and yellow 7 - It is a lot harder to maintain a break using a yellow than a black so should be rewarded not penalised!

    Mostly you'd get players concentrating on the blue, I suspect, going back to baulk colours every time is too risky to make for a sensible strategy unless forced.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,764
    Nigelb said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    The Tories have made this country so unbalanced that a working class bloke from the South who lives in London is now posh! A man who goes to football matches and occasionally goes for a drink at the pub.

    But not Boris Johnson, oh no he's "one of the people". Liz Truss is from what I can tell more authentically of the people and working class but still the media and people here will call Starmer posh.

    Reality check, being a Londoner doesn't make you out of touch or posh, London has working class people who need help just like the Red Wall. This country is ruined.

    IMO 'poshness' is an attitude, and not a direct sign of privilege or upbringing. Starmer goes to football matches on free tickets worth ?>£1000? (and then fails to declare them in time). He is always smartly dressed. He gives the impression of being able to afford, and like, the finer things in life.

    I have zero problem with any of that. But it does not connect him with the red wall. And whilst London has poor people, many of the people in the red wall see 'London' very differently. AS I know from personal experience.

    This is where Rayner could help. Perhaps.

    Dressing smartly is something that you will find unites a lot of people with working class roots who have gone up in the world. On the left it is something that really distinguishes the middle-class trots from those who had more humble beginnings. The latter are almost always far better turned out than the former.
    I have a photo, taken apparently in the 20s, of my coal-miner grandfather and his four coal-miner brothers dressed in their Sunday best. All very smart, with suit and waistcoat!
    All the old fellas in the pub when I was starting out would turn up in a suit.
    The gardener I sacked for voting Leave (local celebrity:"Inbred Ted") used to mow my lawn in a tie and zip cardigan.
    Disgraceful! Gardens blighted by weeds are an appalling eyesore. It's your civic duty to have a man on your staff at all times to maintain your land. What next? Sacking the cook and preparing your meals yourself with a microwave?
    Remembering Dura Ace's modded chainsaw, here's an appropriate pruning/weeding system for him.
    https://twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/status/1567410161353883649
    I recently took a link out of the chain (Stihl tell you NEVER to do this) and obviously didn't do a good enough job of peening the end of the pin as the chain snapped and nearly took my head off.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491

    The reason Labour needs bigger poll leads than the Tories has nothing to do with Starmer. The reason is that a disproportionate part of the Labour vote is in areas where there it has such a heavy majorities. The Tory vote is spread more evenly and is therefore more efficient in securing seats

    "Efficient" isn't necessarily the word I would choose after the anomaly has been increased by the Conservative driven boundary changes.
    The anomaly used to go the other way, it's not sinister, and the ability to put thumb on the scales of new boundaries is pretty limited.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,942

    I happened to read the NYT today.
    Liz Truss’s gurning visage was on the cover and she was the top story, with a double page treatment also on Page 11.

    I couldn’t really fault it.
    Maybe it’s the editorials that are problematic.

    Since the Coalition, the NYT does seem to have a “thing” about the U.K… it appears in the opinion/in depth pieces. My American relatives noticed the difference between the reporting and what they see when they actually visit the U.K. - they are xth generation New York Democrats….

    The list comic bits are when the NYT quoted “people in the street” in the U.K.

    Who just happens to speak in American idiom…
    Were they “down the creek” at the time?

    I think the NYT “People Who Know Best” were terribly affronted that the U.K. electorate had the temerity to vote for Brexit and then were mortally offended when the UK’s “People Who Know Best” weren’t able to get out of it.

    That we haven’t subsequently sunk beneath the waves in an a smouldering ruin of destitution and penury has merely added insult to injury.

    It wasn’t BREXIT - it was the election of Coalition. Which was seen as anti-Obamanomics. Since Obama’s expansion of government spending was The Only Possible Way out of 2008, the rejection of that meant that the U.K. must have collapsed into the Stone Age.
  • Barnesian said:

    Adding the latest YouGov poll to the EMA (Exponential Moving Average) gives Labour a 11% lead and an overall majority of 30 with the proposed 2023 boundaries.


    That is a p*** poor return on an 11% lead.

    Starmer please explain!

    (Although, if we were to see an 11% Labour lead I suspect the majority would be more substantial. The trouble is there won't be anything like an 11% Labour lead.)
    Greens at double their 2019 levels is presumably a key factor. Doubt they can achieve that.
    As a rule of thumb add half the green total to the Labour one. This proved to be a good guide at the last couple of elections
    As a rule of thumb the ever hopeful add half the SNP total to the Labour one. This proved to be a rubbish guide at the last couple of elections.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 16,258
    edited September 2022

    CD13 said:

    Football is going to the dogs.

    I watched a couple of games on BT SPORT recently (courtesy of freebies from Virgin). On both occasions, the underdogs went a goal up and shut up shop. Wasting time by falling over at the merest touch and playing dead. Embarrassing. If they were on the London underground, they'd never get off the floor.

    Why can't the referees send them off. Newcastle were one of the worst culprits and complained when the referee added eight minutes extra time. He could have added an hour, and left them with two players.

    They can. (Technically they would have to caution them once for 'ungentlemanly conduct' and then again for a repeat offence, but the Laws do give them the authority to so act.) The reality is that there would be an outcry and the FA would not support any maverick ref who went against the crowd. Anyone who has ever been a ref knows this, and the principle applies to other aspects of the game too where the Laws are flouted regularly and the refs turn a blind eye - dissent and foul language spring to mind, as does all the pushing and shoving at corner-kicks which regularly escapes attention and punishment.

    The root of the problem is that FA is an pawn in the hands of the Clubs, and an incompetent one at that. Twas ever thus, and I don't see it changing soon.
    A couple of rules that I would change in other sports

    Golf - no more practice swings (except maybe on the first tee ) - this applies from pro to club golf - I never take a practice swing and get irritated by my co-players doing so - FGS i think you are going to have 90 shots or more this round so dont take another 90 as practice. Golf is very slow as it is and this what puts a lot of people off playing. If you ban practice swings somebody will still win so everyone is still on a level playing field .

    Athletics - they really do need to look at the reaction times for false starts as its clear some legitimate starts have been called false and with the draconian penalty of no second chance they can ruin their own major events with this (not to mention ruin a dream of an athlete)
    Tennis - remove the second serve and allow net cords on serve (if its in, its in).
    I only play a couple of times a year and my double fault % is ridiculously high already. Make it one serve only, I am never serving overarm again!
    You would have to adapt. The game would change. I'd love to see a tournament trial of this to see how the big servers adapt. Would they continue to go for broke? Or would they have to tone down by 10%?

    On net cords I don't understand why if it happens on serve its discounted (assuming its a valid serve) but during a ralley its allowed to stand. Very odd.
    On would they adapt, yes of course. If you take the Cilic v Alcaraz match - Cilic's first serve % in was 51% and he won 74% of that 51%. He would be losing two thirds of his service points. Instead he would only use his standard second serve, which won 59%.

    One advantage of your suggestion is the elite level would be more open to people of average height and below. I would expect someone like Schwarzman would be in the top 5 despite being 5'7.
  • I'll say this for the Spectator, they'll happily print a wide range of views.

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-madness-of-truss-s-energy-price-cap

    We need more discussion about reducing usage. I saw somewhere that Germany had cut energy (gas?) usage by 15%.

    At £2,500 usage will drop significantly. The idea people will only stop using energy if we let the average bill reach £6,000 is one of the weirder bits of pb consensus wisdom.
    I haven't looked in full detail at how the cap works. Is it £2500 maximum for all residential properties? If so what incentive does someone already near the cap have to reduce usage?
    It’s a cap on the unit price - the £2,500 figure is an estimate based on average consumption

  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,507
    Driver said:

    CD13 said:

    Football is going to the dogs.

    I watched a couple of games on BT SPORT recently (courtesy of freebies from Virgin). On both occasions, the underdogs went a goal up and shut up shop. Wasting time by falling over at the merest touch and playing dead. Embarrassing. If they were on the London underground, they'd never get off the floor.

    Why can't the referees send them off. Newcastle were one of the worst culprits and complained when the referee added eight minutes extra time. He could have added an hour, and left them with two players.

    They can. (Technically they would have to caution them once for 'ungentlemanly conduct' and then again for a repeat offence, but the Laws do give them the authority to so act.) The reality is that there would be an outcry and the FA would not support any maverick ref who went against the crowd. Anyone who has ever been a ref knows this, and the principle applies to other aspects of the game too where the Laws are flouted regularly and the refs turn a blind eye - dissent and foul language spring to mind, as does all the pushing and shoving at corner-kicks which regularly escapes attention and punishment.

    The root of the problem is that FA is an pawn in the hands of the Clubs, and an incompetent one at that. Twas ever thus, and I don't see it changing soon.
    A couple of rules that I would change in other sports

    Golf - no more practice swings (except maybe on the first tee ) - this applies from pro to club golf - I never take a practice swing and get irritated by my co-players doing so - FGS i think you are going to have 90 shots or more this round so dont take another 90 as practice. Golf is very slow as it is and this what puts a lot of people off playing. If you ban practice swings somebody will still win so everyone is still on a level playing field .

    Athletics - they really do need to look at the reaction times for false starts as its clear some legitimate starts have been called false and with the draconian penalty of no second chance they can ruin their own major events with this (not to mention ruin a dream of an athlete)
    Tennis - remove the second serve and allow net cords on serve (if its in, its in).
    You mean "remove the first serve", of course. If there were only one serve allowed per point, the players would treat it like the current second serve not the current first serve.

    Agreed on net cords but only if it's returnable. You shouldn't be able to get an ace from a net cord that lands six inches past the net.
    Semantics whether the serve removed is the first or second, yes - just one chance to serve.

    I disagree on net cords. If you can benefit in a ralley from the ball hitting the net and it dropping down just by the net that should be valid in a serve too. Otherwise who determines if it was returnable? At the speed of top tennis servers the small deflection of just clipping the net is enough to make the returner struggle.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 10,172
    edited September 2022

    Is a couple of weeks a good timeframe to judge any poll bounce?

    I want go get my Tory poll lead bet in early

    I'd say two years is a good timeframe.

    Swing back normally happens in election year, not before. See 2010-2015.
    That's not a honeymoon bounce though is it? We want a bounce, and we want it now (over the next two months at any rate). If we don't get it, good luck with your swing back.
    I couldn't care less if there's a honeymoon bounce now or not.

    Truss has an opportunity, a responsibility and duty to "deliver". If she does over the next two years she might get respect, even begrudging respect, and win the election. If she doesn't, she doesn't deserve to.

    The next two weeks polling is an absolutely irrelevant frippery.
    But the next two to three months is relevant. If as the voters get to know the Prime Minister and it turns out they don't like her and that is reflected in unchanged polling, her opportunity for pre- election swing back is greatly reduced, certainly in the event of no black swans.
    Then why did Cameron get pre election swing back in 2015?

    In midterms people grumble about the government and everything that's going wrong. As it goes close to the election people start to think seriously about the election and the opposition etc.

    Midterm polls are as useful as second hand toilet paper.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,507

    CD13 said:

    Football is going to the dogs.

    I watched a couple of games on BT SPORT recently (courtesy of freebies from Virgin). On both occasions, the underdogs went a goal up and shut up shop. Wasting time by falling over at the merest touch and playing dead. Embarrassing. If they were on the London underground, they'd never get off the floor.

    Why can't the referees send them off. Newcastle were one of the worst culprits and complained when the referee added eight minutes extra time. He could have added an hour, and left them with two players.

    They can. (Technically they would have to caution them once for 'ungentlemanly conduct' and then again for a repeat offence, but the Laws do give them the authority to so act.) The reality is that there would be an outcry and the FA would not support any maverick ref who went against the crowd. Anyone who has ever been a ref knows this, and the principle applies to other aspects of the game too where the Laws are flouted regularly and the refs turn a blind eye - dissent and foul language spring to mind, as does all the pushing and shoving at corner-kicks which regularly escapes attention and punishment.

    The root of the problem is that FA is an pawn in the hands of the Clubs, and an incompetent one at that. Twas ever thus, and I don't see it changing soon.
    A couple of rules that I would change in other sports

    Golf - no more practice swings (except maybe on the first tee ) - this applies from pro to club golf - I never take a practice swing and get irritated by my co-players doing so - FGS i think you are going to have 90 shots or more this round so dont take another 90 as practice. Golf is very slow as it is and this what puts a lot of people off playing. If you ban practice swings somebody will still win so everyone is still on a level playing field .

    Athletics - they really do need to look at the reaction times for false starts as its clear some legitimate starts have been called false and with the draconian penalty of no second chance they can ruin their own major events with this (not to mention ruin a dream of an athlete)
    Tennis - remove the second serve and allow net cords on serve (if its in, its in).
    I only play a couple of times a year and my double fault % is ridiculously high already. Make it one serve only, I am never serving overarm again!
    You would have to adapt. The game would change. I'd love to see a tournament trial of this to see how the big servers adapt. Would they continue to go for broke? Or would they have to tone down by 10%?

    On net cords I don't understand why if it happens on serve its discounted (assuming its a valid serve) but during a ralley its allowed to stand. Very odd.
    I would expect a lot of sports rules like lets were established in the early days when some VIP had lost an important point and demanded it replayed.
    Ah - you've seen my wife playing mini-golf and the special 'practice-shot' rule...
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,605
    Nigelb said:

    The Trump ‘special master’ ruling violates the principle that no-one is above the law
    Laurence H Tribe and Dennis Aftergut
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/07/the-trump-special-master-ruling-violates-the-principle-that-no-one-is-above-the-law

    And yet with the SCOTUS on his side it seems that this is no longer true.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,743
    Cyclefree said:

    algarkirk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Truss did not come from some poor background. She's middle class.

    As for the members of her Cabinet who are either women or from an ethnic minority, let's see how diverse they really are: -

    1. Chancellor - Kwarteng - privately educated at one of the most expensive London schools, then Eton and Cambridge. Became a financial analyst in the City. Parents: barrister & economist.
    2. Home Secretary - Braverman: parents: nurse & civil servant, uncle was the Mauritian High Commissioner to Britain, educated at a fee-paying school, Cambridge and the Sorbonne, a barrister.
    3. FS - Cleverley: privately educated, army, then a degree in hospitality management at a polytechnic. Set up a publishing company.
    4. Health - Coffey: independent Catholic school, Oxford, chemistry degree.
    5. Cop26 - Sharma: independent school for his education, a physics and electronics degree from Salford.
    6. International Trade - Badenoch: largely educated abroad, well connected middle class parents (a GP and Professor), studied engineering, then went into IT and banking.
    7. DEFRA - Jayawardena: comprehensive education, then banking.
    8. Transport - Trevelyan: private education, then accountancy and PwC
    9. Culture - Donelan: state educated, politics & history degree from York then marketing.
    10. Work & Pensions - Chloe Smith: state educated, English degree from York then management consultancy.

    It is not really as diverse as all that. Cleverley has probably the most diverse background of those in the top 4 positions.

    It is very representative of a certain slice of the English middle class. Of the wider nation - England, let alone, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - much less so.

    It is probably more reflective of the fact that non-white people have been able to assimilate successfully into the English middle class. Something worth celebrating but it helps reinforce an idea that social mobility/the glass ceiling is not really about race.
    Class is IMO far more determinative of your chances in Britain than pretty much anything else. But it's the one that gets talked about least in diversity training courses, certainly the ones I've been on, and is a much tougher nut to crack, even if the will were there, which I often doubt.
    This is true. We may have a long wait for a male, white, benefits class, single parent mother, drug addict father background who left school at 16 and comes from Millom, Whitehaven, Workington, Maryport or Barrow to reach PM, CoE, Foreign or Home Sec positions.

    But there is one other point. After decades of universal free education and the massive class mobility of a lot of the 20th century much has changed.

    The undiscussable point is this: innate ability, cognitive aptitude etc varies, and varies a lot. It's not all nurture. Some of it is nature. The 20th century rise of the ordinary bloke expanding the middle/lower middle class, + assortative mating may well have left a significant group of people behind in ways which can't be resolved easily.

    This can be invisible to movers and shakers. But it may be there. And 'class' may be a term which is proxy for deeper things.

    It may well be that some groups are left behind. But it is also possible that our society doesn't seek to understand or value what such groups do, who they are, how they live their lives and the contribution they make.

    I think this may be as much of an issue as the assumption that somehow anyone who does not "get on" in an approved middle class way is somehow a "problem" to be solved.
    Agree. Spot on.

  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,743
    edited September 2022
    edit
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,041
    ,

    Driver said:

    CD13 said:

    Football is going to the dogs.

    I watched a couple of games on BT SPORT recently (courtesy of freebies from Virgin). On both occasions, the underdogs went a goal up and shut up shop. Wasting time by falling over at the merest touch and playing dead. Embarrassing. If they were on the London underground, they'd never get off the floor.

    Why can't the referees send them off. Newcastle were one of the worst culprits and complained when the referee added eight minutes extra time. He could have added an hour, and left them with two players.

    No idea why football does not just stop the clock when ball goes out of play or for a player needing treament etc - no incentive to time waste then. Play 60 minutes of actual play and have a "hooter" system like rugby league.

    Also make a penalty kick less decisive by increasing the yardage to say a point where only 30% are scored - combine this with penalty goals where a goal is awarded upon a foul or handball which woudl mor eor less certianly have resulted in a goal without it and you then get the right compensation for a foul in the box and stop diving
    60 minutes with a stop-clock keeps getting mooted but AIUI, IFAB resists it because it's not easily implementable at all levels of the sport. Despite it being an obviously good idea at the professional level.
    We already have different rules at different levels. No VAR on Hackney Marshes, mate.
    VAR still implements the same laws, they just have an extra opportunity to get decisions right. GLT is the same.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,779
    edited September 2022
    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    The Tories have made this country so unbalanced that a working class bloke from the South who lives in London is now posh! A man who goes to football matches and occasionally goes for a drink at the pub.

    But not Boris Johnson, oh no he's "one of the people". Liz Truss is from what I can tell more authentically of the people and working class but still the media and people here will call Starmer posh.

    Reality check, being a Londoner doesn't make you out of touch or posh, London has working class people who need help just like the Red Wall. This country is ruined.

    IMO 'poshness' is an attitude, and not a direct sign of privilege or upbringing. Starmer goes to football matches on free tickets worth ?>£1000? (and then fails to declare them in time). He is always smartly dressed. He gives the impression of being able to afford, and like, the finer things in life.

    I have zero problem with any of that. But it does not connect him with the red wall. And whilst London has poor people, many of the people in the red wall see 'London' very differently. AS I know from personal experience.

    This is where Rayner could help. Perhaps.

    Dressing smartly is something that you will find unites a lot of people with working class roots who have gone up in the world. On the left it is something that really distinguishes the middle-class trots from those who had more humble beginnings. The latter are almost always far better turned out than the former.
    I have a photo, taken apparently in the 20s, of my coal-miner grandfather and his four coal-miner brothers dressed in their Sunday best. All very smart, with suit and waistcoat!
    All the old fellas in the pub when I was starting out would turn up in a suit.
    The gardener I sacked for voting Leave (local celebrity:"Inbred Ted") used to mow my lawn in a tie and zip cardigan.
    Disgraceful! Gardens blighted by weeds are an appalling eyesore. It's your civic duty to have a man on your staff at all times to maintain your land. What next? Sacking the cook and preparing your meals yourself with a microwave?
    Remembering Dura Ace's modded chainsaw, here's an appropriate pruning/weeding system for him.
    https://twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/status/1567410161353883649
    I recently took a link out of the chain (Stihl tell you NEVER to do this) and obviously didn't do a good enough job of peening the end of the pin as the chain snapped and nearly took my head off.
    Were you wearing a helmet and face guard? Or did you need a Black Prince style neck guard?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,507
    Driver said:

    ,

    Driver said:

    CD13 said:

    Football is going to the dogs.

    I watched a couple of games on BT SPORT recently (courtesy of freebies from Virgin). On both occasions, the underdogs went a goal up and shut up shop. Wasting time by falling over at the merest touch and playing dead. Embarrassing. If they were on the London underground, they'd never get off the floor.

    Why can't the referees send them off. Newcastle were one of the worst culprits and complained when the referee added eight minutes extra time. He could have added an hour, and left them with two players.

    No idea why football does not just stop the clock when ball goes out of play or for a player needing treament etc - no incentive to time waste then. Play 60 minutes of actual play and have a "hooter" system like rugby league.

    Also make a penalty kick less decisive by increasing the yardage to say a point where only 30% are scored - combine this with penalty goals where a goal is awarded upon a foul or handball which woudl mor eor less certianly have resulted in a goal without it and you then get the right compensation for a foul in the box and stop diving
    60 minutes with a stop-clock keeps getting mooted but AIUI, IFAB resists it because it's not easily implementable at all levels of the sport. Despite it being an obviously good idea at the professional level.
    We already have different rules at different levels. No VAR on Hackney Marshes, mate.
    VAR still implements the same laws, they just have an extra opportunity to get decisions rightwrong. GLT is the same.
    Couldn't resist the edit!
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,041

    Driver said:

    ,

    Driver said:

    CD13 said:

    Football is going to the dogs.

    I watched a couple of games on BT SPORT recently (courtesy of freebies from Virgin). On both occasions, the underdogs went a goal up and shut up shop. Wasting time by falling over at the merest touch and playing dead. Embarrassing. If they were on the London underground, they'd never get off the floor.

    Why can't the referees send them off. Newcastle were one of the worst culprits and complained when the referee added eight minutes extra time. He could have added an hour, and left them with two players.

    No idea why football does not just stop the clock when ball goes out of play or for a player needing treament etc - no incentive to time waste then. Play 60 minutes of actual play and have a "hooter" system like rugby league.

    Also make a penalty kick less decisive by increasing the yardage to say a point where only 30% are scored - combine this with penalty goals where a goal is awarded upon a foul or handball which woudl mor eor less certianly have resulted in a goal without it and you then get the right compensation for a foul in the box and stop diving
    60 minutes with a stop-clock keeps getting mooted but AIUI, IFAB resists it because it's not easily implementable at all levels of the sport. Despite it being an obviously good idea at the professional level.
    We already have different rules at different levels. No VAR on Hackney Marshes, mate.
    VAR still implements the same laws, they just have an extra opportunity to get decisions rightwrong. GLT is the same.
    Couldn't resist the edit!
    It's vanishingly rare for VAR to incorrectly overturn an on-field decision.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,942
    Ghedebrav said:

    Cyclefree said:

    algarkirk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Truss did not come from some poor background. She's middle class.

    As for the members of her Cabinet who are either women or from an ethnic minority, let's see how diverse they really are: -

    1. Chancellor - Kwarteng - privately educated at one of the most expensive London schools, then Eton and Cambridge. Became a financial analyst in the City. Parents: barrister & economist.
    2. Home Secretary - Braverman: parents: nurse & civil servant, uncle was the Mauritian High Commissioner to Britain, educated at a fee-paying school, Cambridge and the Sorbonne, a barrister.
    3. FS - Cleverley: privately educated, army, then a degree in hospitality management at a polytechnic. Set up a publishing company.
    4. Health - Coffey: independent Catholic school, Oxford, chemistry degree.
    5. Cop26 - Sharma: independent school for his education, a physics and electronics degree from Salford.
    6. International Trade - Badenoch: largely educated abroad, well connected middle class parents (a GP and Professor), studied engineering, then went into IT and banking.
    7. DEFRA - Jayawardena: comprehensive education, then banking.
    8. Transport - Trevelyan: private education, then accountancy and PwC
    9. Culture - Donelan: state educated, politics & history degree from York then marketing.
    10. Work & Pensions - Chloe Smith: state educated, English degree from York then management consultancy.

    It is not really as diverse as all that. Cleverley has probably the most diverse background of those in the top 4 positions.

    It is very representative of a certain slice of the English middle class. Of the wider nation - England, let alone, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - much less so.

    It is probably more reflective of the fact that non-white people have been able to assimilate successfully into the English middle class. Something worth celebrating but it helps reinforce an idea that social mobility/the glass ceiling is not really about race.
    Class is IMO far more determinative of your chances in Britain than pretty much anything else. But it's the one that gets talked about least in diversity training courses, certainly the ones I've been on, and is a much tougher nut to crack, even if the will were there, which I often doubt.
    This is true. We may have a long wait for a male, white, benefits class, single parent mother, drug addict father background who left school at 16 and comes from Millom, Whitehaven, Workington, Maryport or Barrow to reach PM, CoE, Foreign or Home Sec positions.

    But there is one other point. After decades of universal free education and the massive class mobility of a lot of the 20th century much has changed.

    The undiscussable point is this: innate ability, cognitive aptitude etc varies, and varies a lot. It's not all nurture. Some of it is nature. The 20th century rise of the ordinary bloke expanding the middle/lower middle class, + assortative mating may well have left a significant group of people behind in ways which can't be resolved easily.

    This can be invisible to movers and shakers. But it may be there. And 'class' may be a term which is proxy for deeper things.

    It may well be that some groups are left behind. But it is also possible that our society doesn't seek to understand or value what such groups do, who they are, how they live their lives and the contribution they make.

    I think this may be as much of an issue as the assumption that somehow anyone who does not "get on" in an approved middle class way is somehow a "problem" to be solved.
    100% this. Working the bins may not carry the prestige or require the same training of a surgeon, but it is entirely as important to society and should be afforded the same respect.

    I married well above my station so can speak from vivid experience that folk paid from the neck down have every bit the same capacity for intellect, wit and culture as any number of doctors or lawyers. To which, I don't really buy the genetic argument here.
    It’s inherited - not by genetics, though.

    If you grow up in a home where both parents have degrees, high paying white collar jobs etc. then the (generally assumed, unspoken) expectation is that you will get a degree and a similar level (or better) of job.

    That’s before tuition (family and bought in), private schools, books on the shelves, reading as a part of daily life etc etc comes in
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,992
    kle4 said:

    The reason Labour needs bigger poll leads than the Tories has nothing to do with Starmer. The reason is that a disproportionate part of the Labour vote is in areas where there it has such a heavy majorities. The Tory vote is spread more evenly and is therefore more efficient in securing seats

    "Efficient" isn't necessarily the word I would choose after the anomaly has been increased by the Conservative driven boundary changes.
    The anomaly used to go the other way, it's not sinister, and the ability to put thumb on the scales of new boundaries is pretty limited.
    Equalising constituency numbers is fair enough.

    The terms and conditions, particularly using registered voter numbers rather than those eligible to register to vote, was as I recall a party political input to the changes.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,230
    Don't quite get why stopping the clock would be so tricky at all levels of football?
    All referees have a watch. Two in fact. All of them are able to be stopped. Otherwise how do they know how much time to add?
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 7,459
    edited September 2022
    Cyclefree said:

    algarkirk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Truss did not come from some poor background. She's middle class.

    As for the members of her Cabinet who are either women or from an ethnic minority, let's see how diverse they really are: -

    1. Chancellor - Kwarteng - privately educated at one of the most expensive London schools, then Eton and Cambridge. Became a financial analyst in the City. Parents: barrister & economist.
    2. Home Secretary - Braverman: parents: nurse & civil servant, uncle was the Mauritian High Commissioner to Britain, educated at a fee-paying school, Cambridge and the Sorbonne, a barrister.
    3. FS - Cleverley: privately educated, army, then a degree in hospitality management at a polytechnic. Set up a publishing company.
    4. Health - Coffey: independent Catholic school, Oxford, chemistry degree.
    5. Cop26 - Sharma: independent school for his education, a physics and electronics degree from Salford.
    6. International Trade - Badenoch: largely educated abroad, well connected middle class parents (a GP and Professor), studied engineering, then went into IT and banking.
    7. DEFRA - Jayawardena: comprehensive education, then banking.
    8. Transport - Trevelyan: private education, then accountancy and PwC
    9. Culture - Donelan: state educated, politics & history degree from York then marketing.
    10. Work & Pensions - Chloe Smith: state educated, English degree from York then management consultancy.

    It is not really as diverse as all that. Cleverley has probably the most diverse background of those in the top 4 positions.

    It is very representative of a certain slice of the English middle class. Of the wider nation - England, let alone, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - much less so.

    It is probably more reflective of the fact that non-white people have been able to assimilate successfully into the English middle class. Something worth celebrating but it helps reinforce an idea that social mobility/the glass ceiling is not really about race.
    Class is IMO far more determinative of your chances in Britain than pretty much anything else. But it's the one that gets talked about least in diversity training courses, certainly the ones I've been on, and is a much tougher nut to crack, even if the will were there, which I often doubt.
    This is true. We may have a long wait for a male, white, benefits class, single parent mother, drug addict father background who left school at 16 and comes from Millom, Whitehaven, Workington, Maryport or Barrow to reach PM, CoE, Foreign or Home Sec positions.

    But there is one other point. After decades of universal free education and the massive class mobility of a lot of the 20th century much has changed.

    The undiscussable point is this: innate ability, cognitive aptitude etc varies, and varies a lot. It's not all nurture. Some of it is nature. The 20th century rise of the ordinary bloke expanding the middle/lower middle class, + assortative mating may well have left a significant group of people behind in ways which can't be resolved easily.

    This can be invisible to movers and shakers. But it may be there. And 'class' may be a term which is proxy for deeper things.

    It may well be that some groups are left behind. But it is also possible that our society doesn't seek to understand or value what such groups do, who they are, how they live their lives and the contribution they make.

    I think this may be as much of an issue as the assumption that somehow anyone who does not "get on" in an approved middle class way is somehow a "problem" to be solved.
    This essentially goes back to the New Right of the 1970s, and the idea that any work is morally improving and good work, with financial reward then roughly being a measure of how good that ( employed ) contribution is.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 1,217
    This thread has passed on.
  • Carnyx said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    The Tories have made this country so unbalanced that a working class bloke from the South who lives in London is now posh! A man who goes to football matches and occasionally goes for a drink at the pub.

    But not Boris Johnson, oh no he's "one of the people". Liz Truss is from what I can tell more authentically of the people and working class but still the media and people here will call Starmer posh.

    Reality check, being a Londoner doesn't make you out of touch or posh, London has working class people who need help just like the Red Wall. This country is ruined.

    IMO 'poshness' is an attitude, and not a direct sign of privilege or upbringing. Starmer goes to football matches on free tickets worth ?>£1000? (and then fails to declare them in time). He is always smartly dressed. He gives the impression of being able to afford, and like, the finer things in life.

    I have zero problem with any of that. But it does not connect him with the red wall. And whilst London has poor people, many of the people in the red wall see 'London' very differently. AS I know from personal experience.

    This is where Rayner could help. Perhaps.

    Dressing smartly is something that you will find unites a lot of people with working class roots who have gone up in the world. On the left it is something that really distinguishes the middle-class trots from those who had more humble beginnings. The latter are almost always far better turned out than the former.
    I have a photo, taken apparently in the 20s, of my coal-miner grandfather and his four coal-miner brothers dressed in their Sunday best. All very smart, with suit and waistcoat!
    All the old fellas in the pub when I was starting out would turn up in a suit.
    The gardener I sacked for voting Leave (local celebrity:"Inbred Ted") used to mow my lawn in a tie and zip cardigan.
    Disgraceful! Gardens blighted by weeds are an appalling eyesore. It's your civic duty to have a man on your staff at all times to maintain your land. What next? Sacking the cook and preparing your meals yourself with a microwave?
    Remembering Dura Ace's modded chainsaw, here's an appropriate pruning/weeding system for him.
    https://twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/status/1567410161353883649
    I recently took a link out of the chain (Stihl tell you NEVER to do this) and obviously didn't do a good enough job of peening the end of the pin as the chain snapped and nearly took my head off.
    Were you wearing a helmet and face guard? Or did you need a Black Prince style neck guard?
    I sense precautions are for pussies may be DA's watchwords, with the likely exception of motorbike gear.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,507
    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    ,

    Driver said:

    CD13 said:

    Football is going to the dogs.

    I watched a couple of games on BT SPORT recently (courtesy of freebies from Virgin). On both occasions, the underdogs went a goal up and shut up shop. Wasting time by falling over at the merest touch and playing dead. Embarrassing. If they were on the London underground, they'd never get off the floor.

    Why can't the referees send them off. Newcastle were one of the worst culprits and complained when the referee added eight minutes extra time. He could have added an hour, and left them with two players.

    No idea why football does not just stop the clock when ball goes out of play or for a player needing treament etc - no incentive to time waste then. Play 60 minutes of actual play and have a "hooter" system like rugby league.

    Also make a penalty kick less decisive by increasing the yardage to say a point where only 30% are scored - combine this with penalty goals where a goal is awarded upon a foul or handball which woudl mor eor less certianly have resulted in a goal without it and you then get the right compensation for a foul in the box and stop diving
    60 minutes with a stop-clock keeps getting mooted but AIUI, IFAB resists it because it's not easily implementable at all levels of the sport. Despite it being an obviously good idea at the professional level.
    We already have different rules at different levels. No VAR on Hackney Marshes, mate.
    VAR still implements the same laws, they just have an extra opportunity to get decisions rightwrong. GLT is the same.
    Couldn't resist the edit!
    It's vanishingly rare for VAR to incorrectly overturn an on-field decision.
    Evidence from last weekend suggests it does happen. Arguably the bigger issue is overuse. It was brought in for the Thierry Henry and Frank Lampard situations, not to decide if a striker's left nipple was slightly closer to the goal than the defenders arse cheek...
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,992

    Is a couple of weeks a good timeframe to judge any poll bounce?

    I want go get my Tory poll lead bet in early

    I'd say two years is a good timeframe.

    Swing back normally happens in election year, not before. See 2010-2015.
    That's not a honeymoon bounce though is it? We want a bounce, and we want it now (over the next two months at any rate). If we don't get it, good luck with your swing back.
    I couldn't care less if there's a honeymoon bounce now or not.

    Truss has an opportunity, a responsibility and duty to "deliver". If she does over the next two years she might get respect, even begrudging respect, and win the election. If she doesn't, she doesn't deserve to.

    The next two weeks polling is an absolutely irrelevant frippery.
    But the next two to three months is relevant. If as the voters get to know the Prime Minister and it turns out they don't like her and that is reflected in unchanged polling, her opportunity for pre- election swing back is greatly reduced, certainly in the event of no black swans.
    Then why did Cameron get pre election swing back in 2015?

    In midterms people grumble about the government and everything that's going wrong. As it goes close to the election people start to think seriously about the election and the opposition etc.

    Midterm polls are as useful as second hand toilet paper.
    Midterm polls suggest trends which as a political punter should be of interest to you.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147
    edited September 2022

    Dynamo said:

    FPT

    Dynamo said:

    Did Liz Truss get into Merton College, Oxford, with only two A Levels?

    Applications per place for PPE in 2021-22: 8.3.

    I expect there was a third one that wasn't in the reporting?

    However back in the day the system was that Oxford would do their own admissions testing 9 months before the public exams and if you passed that, you'd only have to get two Es (E being the lowest possible pass) to get your place. I think this was done to show Oxford's contempt for the public system.

    Being insufferably nerdy the kids who got into Oxford nearly always got high grades like AAA or the occasional AAB. But there were always rumours of some DGIF gigachad who got the place and then put in so little effort that they only got two E grades. If Truss decided she couldn't be arsed to show up for one of the exams that would indicate very large ladyballs and Mr Putin should be careful not to offend her any more than he already has.
    We also get Truss’ own A level results (presumably having been recently exhumed in Gavin Williamson’s Mum’s attic?) – she achieved an A in English, and A in Maths, a B in German and a C in Further Maths. Under her own plans, she would not have got a guaranteed interview (much less three!) and would most likely have not attended Oxford.

    https://wonkhe.com/blogs/what-are-conservative-leadership-candidates-saying-about-higher-education/
    AAB in 1996 from a girl from a Comprehensive school -- almost every Oxbridge College would have been absolutely delighted to receive such an excellent application.

    A* at A Level only started in 2010, and most folks do 3 A levels (so it seems fair to discount her worst one).

    Liz Truss, whatever her politics, has done well to get where she is.

    It does seem worth celebrating the *first* Comprehensive educated PM.

    And for Labour, it just keeps happening. Why do these 'firsts' never happen to them?
    AABC > AAB. C is a disappointing grade, but good for her for doing four A Levels. Nothing suspicious there then. This perhaps explains how she has a bit of a thing about Further Maths. (Which is not to her discredit. She's right that more students should study FM.) She probably pulled her socks up, given how she took a course in mathematical logic later.

    The "comprehensive first" is misleading. James Callaghan went to a non-selective state school and didn't go to university.
    Callaghan and Major did not go to University.

    Callaghan does seem to be the only PM who went to a Secondary Modern.

    Given the facts as reported on wiki, I'd certainly agree that Jim Callaghan's background was unambiguously very poor & working class.

    And his achievement in getting to the heights of PM was then a truly remarkable one.

    Thanks for pointing this out. It was very different times -- but I was not aware that Jim Callaghan's early life was such a struggle.
    Callaghan actually went to a grammar school, Portsmouth Northern Grammar. As did Major go to a grammar too
  • Has Truss dropped the register of her voice? Seems lower and slower than before.
  • dixiedean said:

    Don't quite get why stopping the clock would be so tricky at all levels of football?
    All referees have a watch. Two in fact. All of them are able to be stopped. Otherwise how do they know how much time to add?

    Ball in play varies from about 35-65 mins at top level football. The referees are certainly not adding on either ball out of play or anything consistent, it is more a feel number to suit key stoppages in the half.
  • I happened to read the NYT today.
    Liz Truss’s gurning visage was on the cover and she was the top story, with a double page treatment also on Page 11.

    I couldn’t really fault it.
    Maybe it’s the editorials that are problematic.

    Since the Coalition, the NYT does seem to have a “thing” about the U.K… it appears in the opinion/in depth pieces. My American relatives noticed the difference between the reporting and what they see when they actually visit the U.K. - they are xth generation New York Democrats….

    The list comic bits are when the NYT quoted “people in the street” in the U.K.

    Who just happens to speak in American idiom…
    Were they “down the creek” at the time?

    I think the NYT “People Who Know Best” were terribly affronted that the U.K. electorate had the temerity to vote for Brexit and then were mortally offended when the UK’s “People Who Know Best” weren’t able to get out of it.

    That we haven’t subsequently sunk beneath the waves in an a smouldering ruin of destitution and penury has merely added insult to injury.

    It wasn’t BREXIT - it was the election of Coalition. Which was seen as anti-Obamanomics. Since Obama’s expansion of government spending was The Only Possible Way out of 2008, the rejection of that meant that the U.K. must have collapsed into the Stone Age.
    Yes - fair point - Brexit simply added insult to injury.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,446
    Driver said:

    CD13 said:

    Football is going to the dogs.

    I watched a couple of games on BT SPORT recently (courtesy of freebies from Virgin). On both occasions, the underdogs went a goal up and shut up shop. Wasting time by falling over at the merest touch and playing dead. Embarrassing. If they were on the London underground, they'd never get off the floor.

    Why can't the referees send them off. Newcastle were one of the worst culprits and complained when the referee added eight minutes extra time. He could have added an hour, and left them with two players.

    They can. (Technically they would have to caution them once for 'ungentlemanly conduct' and then again for a repeat offence, but the Laws do give them the authority to so act.) The reality is that there would be an outcry and the FA would not support any maverick ref who went against the crowd. Anyone who has ever been a ref knows this, and the principle applies to other aspects of the game too where the Laws are flouted regularly and the refs turn a blind eye - dissent and foul language spring to mind, as does all the pushing and shoving at corner-kicks which regularly escapes attention and punishment.

    The root of the problem is that FA is an pawn in the hands of the Clubs, and an incompetent one at that. Twas ever thus, and I don't see it changing soon.
    A couple of rules that I would change in other sports

    Golf - no more practice swings (except maybe on the first tee ) - this applies from pro to club golf - I never take a practice swing and get irritated by my co-players doing so - FGS i think you are going to have 90 shots or more this round so dont take another 90 as practice. Golf is very slow as it is and this what puts a lot of people off playing. If you ban practice swings somebody will still win so everyone is still on a level playing field .

    Athletics - they really do need to look at the reaction times for false starts as its clear some legitimate starts have been called false and with the draconian penalty of no second chance they can ruin their own major events with this (not to mention ruin a dream of an athlete)
    Tennis - remove the second serve and allow net cords on serve (if its in, its in).
    You mean "remove the first serve", of course. If there were only one serve allowed per point, the players would treat it like the current second serve not the current first serve.

    Agreed on net cords but only if it's returnable. You shouldn't be able to get an ace from a net cord that lands six inches past the net.
    But if that happens in the rally then it counts, so why not with a serve?
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,446

    CD13 said:

    Football is going to the dogs.

    I watched a couple of games on BT SPORT recently (courtesy of freebies from Virgin). On both occasions, the underdogs went a goal up and shut up shop. Wasting time by falling over at the merest touch and playing dead. Embarrassing. If they were on the London underground, they'd never get off the floor.

    Why can't the referees send them off. Newcastle were one of the worst culprits and complained when the referee added eight minutes extra time. He could have added an hour, and left them with two players.

    They can. (Technically they would have to caution them once for 'ungentlemanly conduct' and then again for a repeat offence, but the Laws do give them the authority to so act.) The reality is that there would be an outcry and the FA would not support any maverick ref who went against the crowd. Anyone who has ever been a ref knows this, and the principle applies to other aspects of the game too where the Laws are flouted regularly and the refs turn a blind eye - dissent and foul language spring to mind, as does all the pushing and shoving at corner-kicks which regularly escapes attention and punishment.

    The root of the problem is that FA is an pawn in the hands of the Clubs, and an incompetent one at that. Twas ever thus, and I don't see it changing soon.
    A couple of rules that I would change in other sports

    Golf - no more practice swings (except maybe on the first tee ) - this applies from pro to club golf - I never take a practice swing and get irritated by my co-players doing so - FGS i think you are going to have 90 shots or more this round so dont take another 90 as practice. Golf is very slow as it is and this what puts a lot of people off playing. If you ban practice swings somebody will still win so everyone is still on a level playing field .

    Athletics - they really do need to look at the reaction times for false starts as its clear some legitimate starts have been called false and with the draconian penalty of no second chance they can ruin their own major events with this (not to mention ruin a dream of an athlete)
    Tennis - remove the second serve and allow net cords on serve (if its in, its in).
    Cricket: if you hit the ball you have to run
    ...resulting in most LBW shouts involving a mad scramble and run out attempt, because hitting the ball means you're not out LBW but you can be run out instead.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,446

    CD13 said:

    Football is going to the dogs.

    I watched a couple of games on BT SPORT recently (courtesy of freebies from Virgin). On both occasions, the underdogs went a goal up and shut up shop. Wasting time by falling over at the merest touch and playing dead. Embarrassing. If they were on the London underground, they'd never get off the floor.

    Why can't the referees send them off. Newcastle were one of the worst culprits and complained when the referee added eight minutes extra time. He could have added an hour, and left them with two players.

    They can. (Technically they would have to caution them once for 'ungentlemanly conduct' and then again for a repeat offence, but the Laws do give them the authority to so act.) The reality is that there would be an outcry and the FA would not support any maverick ref who went against the crowd. Anyone who has ever been a ref knows this, and the principle applies to other aspects of the game too where the Laws are flouted regularly and the refs turn a blind eye - dissent and foul language spring to mind, as does all the pushing and shoving at corner-kicks which regularly escapes attention and punishment.

    The root of the problem is that FA is an pawn in the hands of the Clubs, and an incompetent one at that. Twas ever thus, and I don't see it changing soon.
    A couple of rules that I would change in other sports

    Golf - no more practice swings (except maybe on the first tee ) - this applies from pro to club golf - I never take a practice swing and get irritated by my co-players doing so - FGS i think you are going to have 90 shots or more this round so dont take another 90 as practice. Golf is very slow as it is and this what puts a lot of people off playing. If you ban practice swings somebody will still win so everyone is still on a level playing field .

    Athletics - they really do need to look at the reaction times for false starts as its clear some legitimate starts have been called false and with the draconian penalty of no second chance they can ruin their own major events with this (not to mention ruin a dream of an athlete)
    Tennis - remove the second serve and allow net cords on serve (if its in, its in).
    Cricket: if you hit the ball you have to run
    As the game would be so much shorter you could extend one match to be 9 innngs long and it still be over inside three hours
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644
    .
    Ghedebrav said:

    Cyclefree said:

    algarkirk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Truss did not come from some poor background. She's middle class.

    As for the members of her Cabinet who are either women or from an ethnic minority, let's see how diverse they really are: -

    1. Chancellor - Kwarteng - privately educated at one of the most expensive London schools, then Eton and Cambridge. Became a financial analyst in the City. Parents: barrister & economist.
    2. Home Secretary - Braverman: parents: nurse & civil servant, uncle was the Mauritian High Commissioner to Britain, educated at a fee-paying school, Cambridge and the Sorbonne, a barrister.
    3. FS - Cleverley: privately educated, army, then a degree in hospitality management at a polytechnic. Set up a publishing company.
    4. Health - Coffey: independent Catholic school, Oxford, chemistry degree.
    5. Cop26 - Sharma: independent school for his education, a physics and electronics degree from Salford.
    6. International Trade - Badenoch: largely educated abroad, well connected middle class parents (a GP and Professor), studied engineering, then went into IT and banking.
    7. DEFRA - Jayawardena: comprehensive education, then banking.
    8. Transport - Trevelyan: private education, then accountancy and PwC
    9. Culture - Donelan: state educated, politics & history degree from York then marketing.
    10. Work & Pensions - Chloe Smith: state educated, English degree from York then management consultancy.

    It is not really as diverse as all that. Cleverley has probably the most diverse background of those in the top 4 positions.

    It is very representative of a certain slice of the English middle class. Of the wider nation - England, let alone, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - much less so.

    It is probably more reflective of the fact that non-white people have been able to assimilate successfully into the English middle class. Something worth celebrating but it helps reinforce an idea that social mobility/the glass ceiling is not really about race.
    Class is IMO far more determinative of your chances in Britain than pretty much anything else. But it's the one that gets talked about least in diversity training courses, certainly the ones I've been on, and is a much tougher nut to crack, even if the will were there, which I often doubt.
    This is true. We may have a long wait for a male, white, benefits class, single parent mother, drug addict father background who left school at 16 and comes from Millom, Whitehaven, Workington, Maryport or Barrow to reach PM, CoE, Foreign or Home Sec positions.

    But there is one other point. After decades of universal free education and the massive class mobility of a lot of the 20th century much has changed.

    The undiscussable point is this: innate ability, cognitive aptitude etc varies, and varies a lot. It's not all nurture. Some of it is nature. The 20th century rise of the ordinary bloke expanding the middle/lower middle class, + assortative mating may well have left a significant group of people behind in ways which can't be resolved easily.

    This can be invisible to movers and shakers. But it may be there. And 'class' may be a term which is proxy for deeper things.

    It may well be that some groups are left behind. But it is also possible that our society doesn't seek to understand or value what such groups do, who they are, how they live their lives and the contribution they make.

    I think this may be as much of an issue as the assumption that somehow anyone who does not "get on" in an approved middle class way is somehow a "problem" to be solved.
    100% this. Working the bins may not carry the prestige or require the same training of a surgeon, but it is entirely as important to society and should be afforded the same respect.

    I married well above my station so can speak from vivid experience that folk paid from the neck down have every bit the same capacity for intellect, wit and culture as any number of doctors or lawyers. To which, I don't really buy the genetic argument here.
    Indeed.

    I suggest one way to erode class divisions is to reduce wealth or income inequality. Pay bin men more and CEOs less.
  • kle4 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Foxy said:

    This advance in Kharkiv oblast seems to be visually confirmed, and if the UKR can hold it, significantly exposes the Russian forces around Izium to encirclement. A key cross roads.

    https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1567395435685216256?t=C6uYJt6gp_YjfA3cNDxTYw&s=19

    Yep I would not have predicted that at a similar time to the advance in Kherson. Zelensky's spokesman Arestovych is starting to sound remarkably bullish. I hope he's right. Scholz is stalling on sending a hundred German tanks though. Can't think why.
    Igor Strelkov/Girkin said yesterday that the war will end in total defeat for Russia and it's only a question of when.
    Which would be utterly remarkable when thinking back to conventional wisdom six months ago.
    Russia.
    Militarily weak. But with the economic clout to cause chaos.
    How come we were so wrong?
    Invading places is hard.

    I like the classical historical approach was to just withdraw, scour the area of supplies, and the invader would then have to retreat.

    I think the Scots outwitted the English that way many times.
    We have football matches for that these days
  • Phil said:

    kle4 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Foxy said:

    This advance in Kharkiv oblast seems to be visually confirmed, and if the UKR can hold it, significantly exposes the Russian forces around Izium to encirclement. A key cross roads.

    https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1567395435685216256?t=C6uYJt6gp_YjfA3cNDxTYw&s=19

    Yep I would not have predicted that at a similar time to the advance in Kherson. Zelensky's spokesman Arestovych is starting to sound remarkably bullish. I hope he's right. Scholz is stalling on sending a hundred German tanks though. Can't think why.
    Igor Strelkov/Girkin said yesterday that the war will end in total defeat for Russia and it's only a question of when.
    Which would be utterly remarkable when thinking back to conventional wisdom six months ago.
    Russia.
    Militarily weak. But with the economic clout to cause chaos.
    How come we were so wrong?
    Invading places is hard.

    I like the classical historical approach was to just withdraw, scour the area of supplies, and the invader would then have to retreat.

    I think the Scots outwitted the English that way many times.
    That’s because historically armies relied on foraging in order to feed themselves. So if you scoured an area of supplies, you were making that region impassable to an army of any significant size. Occasionally an army crossing central Europe would over-forage, starve out the local peasantry entirely & find themselves in the unenviable position of having no food source for their return at the end of the season.

    In the modern era armies are supplied by train or by road; the way to destory an army without fighting is to cut off its transport links.
    Which is the basis for the argument that the discovery of the potato was the most significant factor influencing the industrial revolution (grown underground so not vulnerable, cheap in absolute terms, and high calorie to cost ratio) as it allowed for growth in population and labour surplus
  • CD13 said:

    Football is going to the dogs.

    I watched a couple of games on BT SPORT recently (courtesy of freebies from Virgin). On both occasions, the underdogs went a goal up and shut up shop. Wasting time by falling over at the merest touch and playing dead. Embarrassing. If they were on the London underground, they'd never get off the floor.

    Why can't the referees send them off. Newcastle were one of the worst culprits and complained when the referee added eight minutes extra time. He could have added an hour, and left them with two players.

    They can. (Technically they would have to caution them once for 'ungentlemanly conduct' and then again for a repeat offence, but the Laws do give them the authority to so act.) The reality is that there would be an outcry and the FA would not support any maverick ref who went against the crowd. Anyone who has ever been a ref knows this, and the principle applies to other aspects of the game too where the Laws are flouted regularly and the refs turn a blind eye - dissent and foul language spring to mind, as does all the pushing and shoving at corner-kicks which regularly escapes attention and punishment.

    The root of the problem is that FA is an pawn in the hands of the Clubs, and an incompetent one at that. Twas ever thus, and I don't see it changing soon.
    A couple of rules that I would change in other sports

    Golf - no more practice swings (except maybe on the first tee ) - this applies from pro to club golf - I never take a practice swing and get irritated by my co-players doing so - FGS i think you are going to have 90 shots or more this round so dont take another 90 as practice. Golf is very slow as it is and this what puts a lot of people off playing. If you ban practice swings somebody will still win so everyone is still on a level playing field .

    Athletics - they really do need to look at the reaction times for false starts as its clear some legitimate starts have been called false and with the draconian penalty of no second chance they can ruin their own major events with this (not to mention ruin a dream of an athlete)
    Tennis - remove the second serve and allow net cords on serve (if its in, its in).
    Cricket: if you hit the ball you have to run
    Archery: competitors fire at each other.

    [For the benefit of some of our readers I should make it clear that this is a JOKE.]
    Outrageous! You can’t joke about that.

    You’ll upset @Morris_Dancer - you shoot an arrow not fire it!

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563

    CD13 said:

    Football is going to the dogs.

    I watched a couple of games on BT SPORT recently (courtesy of freebies from Virgin). On both occasions, the underdogs went a goal up and shut up shop. Wasting time by falling over at the merest touch and playing dead. Embarrassing. If they were on the London underground, they'd never get off the floor.

    Why can't the referees send them off. Newcastle were one of the worst culprits and complained when the referee added eight minutes extra time. He could have added an hour, and left them with two players.

    They can. (Technically they would have to caution them once for 'ungentlemanly conduct' and then again for a repeat offence, but the Laws do give them the authority to so act.) The reality is that there would be an outcry and the FA would not support any maverick ref who went against the crowd. Anyone who has ever been a ref knows this, and the principle applies to other aspects of the game too where the Laws are flouted regularly and the refs turn a blind eye - dissent and foul language spring to mind, as does all the pushing and shoving at corner-kicks which regularly escapes attention and punishment.

    The root of the problem is that FA is an pawn in the hands of the Clubs, and an incompetent one at that. Twas ever thus, and I don't see it changing soon.
    A couple of rules that I would change in other sports

    Golf - no more practice swings (except maybe on the first tee ) - this applies from pro to club golf - I never take a practice swing and get irritated by my co-players doing so - FGS i think you are going to have 90 shots or more this round so dont take another 90 as practice. Golf is very slow as it is and this what puts a lot of people off playing. If you ban practice swings somebody will still win so everyone is still on a level playing field .

    Athletics - they really do need to look at the reaction times for false starts as its clear some legitimate starts have been called false and with the draconian penalty of no second chance they can ruin their own major events with this (not to mention ruin a dream of an athlete)
    Tennis - remove the second serve and allow net cords on serve (if its in, its in).
    Cricket: if you hit the ball you have to run
    Archery: competitors fire at each other.

    [For the benefit of some of our readers I should make it clear that this is a JOKE.]
    Outrageous! You can’t joke about that.

    You’ll upset @Morris_Dancer - you shoot an arrow not fire it!

    Actually you loose an arrow.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,042

    CD13 said:

    Football is going to the dogs.

    I watched a couple of games on BT SPORT recently (courtesy of freebies from Virgin). On both occasions, the underdogs went a goal up and shut up shop. Wasting time by falling over at the merest touch and playing dead. Embarrassing. If they were on the London underground, they'd never get off the floor.

    Why can't the referees send them off. Newcastle were one of the worst culprits and complained when the referee added eight minutes extra time. He could have added an hour, and left them with two players.

    They can. (Technically they would have to caution them once for 'ungentlemanly conduct' and then again for a repeat offence, but the Laws do give them the authority to so act.) The reality is that there would be an outcry and the FA would not support any maverick ref who went against the crowd. Anyone who has ever been a ref knows this, and the principle applies to other aspects of the game too where the Laws are flouted regularly and the refs turn a blind eye - dissent and foul language spring to mind, as does all the pushing and shoving at corner-kicks which regularly escapes attention and punishment.

    The root of the problem is that FA is an pawn in the hands of the Clubs, and an incompetent one at that. Twas ever thus, and I don't see it changing soon.
    A couple of rules that I would change in other sports

    Golf - no more practice swings (except maybe on the first tee ) - this applies from pro to club golf - I never take a practice swing and get irritated by my co-players doing so - FGS i think you are going to have 90 shots or more this round so dont take another 90 as practice. Golf is very slow as it is and this what puts a lot of people off playing. If you ban practice swings somebody will still win so everyone is still on a level playing field .

    Athletics - they really do need to look at the reaction times for false starts as its clear some legitimate starts have been called false and with the draconian penalty of no second chance they can ruin their own major events with this (not to mention ruin a dream of an athlete)
    Tennis - remove the second serve and allow net cords on serve (if its in, its in).
    Cricket: if you hit the ball you have to run
    Archery: competitors fire at each other.

    [For the benefit of some of our readers I
    should make it clear that this is a JOKE.]
    On a similar basis, remove all the ridiculous electronic gear in fencing and go back to whoever draws first blood.

This discussion has been closed.