Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
Paywalled, but basically how does that work, please?
When you die, any money left in your private pension pot can be passed on without inheritance tax (and possibly you need to do this via the pension provider's "expression of wish" form rather than your will; I'm not sure about that so dyor) provided you are under 75, so what rich-enough people do is live off other savings (that would be subject to inheritance tax) and leave their pension pots intact to be passed on in full.
Thanks - sort of like what can happen with death benefit in some pension schemes, or life insurance policies, which are outside your will and estate anyway so can be directed completely independently. Obvfiously only good for people with private pension schemes already or working so they can build them up. And there are HMRC limits on those pension pots as far as tax free saving is concerned. At least at present. So if there is a change on the latter it may indicate a certain way of thinking.
Suppose Trump doesn't get the Republican nomination- what does he do next?
Fall in behind the nominee? Slink away? Throw dungballs from the sidelines? Run as an independent?
Trump will want to stay in the race as long as possible so he can milk his supporters for campaign contributions. Whether he'd run as an independent might depend on whether he can attract serious funding from one of his billionaire friends.
The independent run also depends on how willing he is to come third, how strong his sense of denial about that likelihood is, and how vindictive he would be towards a Republican party that had rejected him. He may also see it as a way to gain useful leverage with an eye to cutting a deal.
So what I'd say is that there are a very large number of factors at play, and almost none of them relate to how likely he would be to win.
I still expect to see him win the Republican nomination.
Problem is if you want to incentivise people saving for their retirement, then the ones with money are the ones which are going to benefit. Same with tax cuts. It's the people paying tax which win out.
When right wing media stops airing every Trump statement and instead leads with Trump scepticism, it has an effect.
Although you would hope the sheer lunacy of much of what he's tweeting/Truth Socialling would do that on its lonesome.
I mean, he's always been to put it mildly rather eccentric but right now his pronouncements are making the late lamented Plato look sane. Heck, they'd even raise eyebrows on Russia Today.
My once Trump-supporting friend in Florida ditched the guy some time ago, saying he was 'mad'. He doesn't explain this of course, but then he never explained why he liked the guy in the first place.
Anyway as a straw in the wind his view is significant. Trump for the nomination is definitely a lay.
Well, that would explain supporting Trump; glad your friend has returned to sanity
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
Paywalled, but basically how does that work, please?
Asking for a friend?
No; of no use to me as I don't have a private pension pot (and could not now have one BTW). But curious as to yet another way to evade capital and IHT. This is of obvious political sensitivity, as well as fiting in with the general Tory model of screw the workers.
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
Problem is if you want to incentivise people saving for their retirement, then the ones with money are the ones which are going to benefit. Same with tax cuts. It's the people paying tax which win out.
But there's no need to make pension pots a tax free inheritance, it should be added to the estate value and taxed as normal.
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
We don't often play the top teams. Mostly because we are a top team...
Paywalled, but basically how does that work, please?
The Telegraph paywall is easily bypassed by turning off javascript or, even more easily, by putting the link into https://12ft.io (e.g. entering the address at 12ft.io gives you this (I don't have any scruples about 'paywalls' that are so trivially bypassed. The Times, by contrast, does a proper server-side job and also only provides an abridged version for search engines (and so, also, only an abridged version via 12ft.io).
Paywalled, but basically how does that work, please?
Asking for a friend?
No; of no use to me as I don't have a private pension pot (and could not now have one BTW). But curious as to yet another way to evade capital and IHT. This is of obvious political sensitivity, as well as fiting in with the general Tory model of screw the workers.
Not an expert but my understanding is that if you haven't crystallised your pot it passes on death to the (pension) beneficiary outside of your estate and is therefore not subject to Inheritance tax. Happy to be corrected.
Away from ruminating and marvelling at the beauty of Eva Kaili, and back on topic, I'm wondering about these reduced Labour poll leads at the moment. What's causing them ? We should, as people have said, be getting higher poll leads from Labour if people are suffering with the weather and higher heating bills at the moment, which should also be shading into a general perception of struggling amid the cost of living crisis. Perhaps these effects will take time to feed through ? Or perhaps there's something different going on.
MoonRabbit I know is particularly interested in this topic, so perhaps she has something to contribute on it.
People won't be feeling the cost of heating their house in December until February or March.
Some folk have pre-payment meters.
Really depends how proactive and stubborn they have been in managing their direct debits. A lot of DDs were hiked before the energy support scheme came in and attempt to give a 12 months forward view.
So many will be paying an estimate, fair or otherwise, of both current costs and known future increases.
So, imho, it is hitting now cost wise. What I don't know, with payment much more easy and statements all online, is how many of those not on the breadline have yet noticed the erosion of their account balances.
A practice pioneered by Ovo by any chance? Sooner or later it will hit people's consciousness that Britain's second biggest energy supplier is majority-owned by one man. That's a man who started a business with £350K he'd saved in 2009 and 12 years later was worth £675M according to the Sunday Times's Rich List. Ovo charged customers in advance for electricity before it was common.
His bank must absolutely love him, given how many people his direct debiting will be putting into lovely tasty sexy chargeable debt.
So electricity suppliers are taking money out of customers' accounts for what they "estimate" they may be liable to pay in the future? It wasn't like that in the past.
Where is the left? The line to take is an absolute no-brainer:
1. Encourage the mass action of cancelling direct debits. (The only sensible line on DD is "Just don't do it".) 2. Promise to nationalise. No prevarication. 3. Tell the Tories, "Come on, let's hear you defend that c***." Force them to talk trickledown and entrepreneurialism. See if it works.
People used to be conscientious but have stopped bothering to report.
Assuming you mean meter readings rather than reporting direct debit misuse, Ovo rarely sends meter readers nowadays. Cutting that cost will have contributed to the majority owner's £675m, even in the absence of whoopsadaisy high estimates. It's not a customer's responsibility to read the meter. In addition, it sounds as though payments are being direct-debited for expected future usage, which is an outrage. A customer could get divorced, start working nights, turn the lights off more, or drop dead. Ovo has already been fined millions of pounds (although not £675m) for overcharging. Direct debit is a scam.
Labour has an open goal available here. They just need to score it.
Starmer Labour aren't very good at open goals. Today at PMQs Starmer hit the cross bar with the revelation that Johnson's legal fees for the Partygate enquiry continue being paid for from the public purse. An outrageously simple open goal that was scored on the rebound by a backbencher (who might even have been from the SNP?).
Labour’s frontbench is appallingly weak. Compare with the Big Beasts behind Tony Blair in Her Majesty’s Opposition of 92-97.
Argentina’s players celebrated their World Cup semi-final win over Croatia by singing a song that insults the English and references the Falklands War.
The Argentina squad, which includes five Premier League players, was seen chanting the words to the song in a video posted on the former Manchester City defender Nicolás Otamendi’s Instagram page after their 3-0 victory.
Translated, the key verse runs: “What happened, Brazil? The shrivelling five-times champion.
“Messi went to Rio and clinched the Copa. We are the Argentina army and we will always sing because we dream of being world champions.
“That’s how I am, I’m Argentinian. The English f*****s from the Falklands I don’t forget. That’s how I am, I come to sing and I follow Argentina everywhere.” The word putos, which is used to describe the English, can have homophobic connotations.
PB Brains Trust - in the middle of the night it sounded like the boiler started making very loud, vibrating sounds. This morning I switched the boiler off temporarily and the sounds continued, then flicked the power switch by the wall and they stopped, so I think its perhaps the pump near the boiler that is circulating the water through the house. Not sure if its just struggling with the cold, or if I should be concerned, or not.
As it happens, I'm moving out of this house over the weekend and returning the keys to the estate agent we've let it through on Monday.
Do you think there's any reason to be concerned or disable the heating prematurely, or wait until I've moved out? Would rather not have no heating in this weather.
Argentina’s players celebrated their World Cup semi-final win over Croatia by singing a song that insults the English and references the Falklands War.
The Argentina squad, which includes five Premier League players, was seen chanting the words to the song in a video posted on the former Manchester City defender Nicolás Otamendi’s Instagram page after their 3-0 victory.
Translated, the key verse runs: “What happened, Brazil? The shrivelling five-times champion.
“Messi went to Rio and clinched the Copa. We are the Argentina army and we will always sing because we dream of being world champions.
“That’s how I am, I’m Argentinian. The English f*****s from the Falklands I don’t forget. That’s how I am, I come to sing and I follow Argentina everywhere.” The word putos, which is used to describe the English, can have homophobic connotations.
Looks like the career of Manxman Mark Cavendish is over. Doesn’t look like he’s going to manage to sign up for a team, and if he does it’ll be a tiny one. One cannot help thinking that that photo of him having a laugh with Lance Armstrong, Jan Ullrich and other drug cheats in the summer was an immense error of judgment.
It wasn’t that long ago he was very short odds for SPOTY.
Paywalled, but basically how does that work, please?
The Telegraph paywall is easily bypassed by turning off javascript or, even more easily, by putting the link into https://12ft.io (e.g. entering the address at 12ft.io gives you this (I don't have any scruples about 'paywalls' that are so trivially bypassed. The Times, by contrast, does a proper server-side job and also only provides an abridged version for search engines (and so, also, only an abridged version via 12ft.io).
You can see almost the same depth of articles from the Times simply by using Edge rather than Chrome as your browser.
Paywalled, but basically how does that work, please?
Asking for a friend?
No; of no use to me as I don't have a private pension pot (and could not now have one BTW). But curious as to yet another way to evade capital and IHT. This is of obvious political sensitivity, as well as fiting in with the general Tory model of screw the workers.
Not an expert but my understanding is that if you haven't crystallised your pot it passes on death to the (pension) beneficiary outside of your estate and is therefore not subject to Inheritance tax. Happy to be corrected.
If the deceased was over 75, the beneficiary of the pension pot will have to pay income tax on drawdowns.
So more beneficial than IHT for beneficiaries paying tax at the basic rate, and a deferal mechanism for higher rate taxpayers.
Twitter has not been paying either its offices rent or severance payments, reportedly. Cash flow problems ?
Considering he only owns a percentage of Twitter and that Tesla utterly dwarfs Twitter in its market cap, it would seem that devaluing Tesla to fund Twitter would be completely counterproductive for him on the face of it.
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
Paywalled, but basically how does that work, please?
The Telegraph paywall is easily bypassed by turning off javascript or, even more easily, by putting the link into https://12ft.io (e.g. entering the address at 12ft.io gives you this (I don't have any scruples about 'paywalls' that are so trivially bypassed. The Times, by contrast, does a proper server-side job and also only provides an abridged version for search engines (and so, also, only an abridged version via 12ft.io).
Problem is if you want to incentivise people saving for their retirement, then the ones with money are the ones which are going to benefit. Same with tax cuts. It's the people paying tax which win out.
But there's no need to make pension pots a tax free inheritance, it should be added to the estate value and taxed as normal.
Quite. One can see that an insurance policy is different in principle, as it's intended to support someone else. But a pension pot?
Would it be better if someone decided to spend all their money on themselves very quickly at the end of their life, instead of giving it to someone else? This is the question that opponents of inheritance never engage with.
Twitter has not been paying either its offices rent or severance payments, reportedly. Cash flow problems ?
Considering he only owns a percentage of Twitter and that Tesla utterly dwarfs Twitter in its market cap, it would seem that devaluing Tesla to fund Twitter would be completely counterproductive for him on the face of it.
Twitter ownership holds the prospect of influence and power; Tesla ownership - not so much.
Paywalled, but basically how does that work, please?
Asking for a friend?
No; of no use to me as I don't have a private pension pot (and could not now have one BTW). But curious as to yet another way to evade capital and IHT. This is of obvious political sensitivity, as well as fiting in with the general Tory model of screw the workers.
Not an expert but my understanding is that if you haven't crystallised your pot it passes on death to the (pension) beneficiary outside of your estate and is therefore not subject to Inheritance tax. Happy to be corrected.
I think it depends. I was executor of the estate of a relative who died in her 50s last year, She was single with no children and no named beneficiary for her pension pot. In her case, the pension pot did indeed end up forming part of her estate and hence subject to inheritance tax (had the value of her estate exceeded the IHT threshold).
Today I asked ChatGPT about the topic I wrote my PhD about. It produced reasonably sounding explanations and reasonably looking citations. So far so good – until I fact-checked the citations. And things got spooky when I asked about a physical phenomenon that doesn’t exist.
Paywalled, but basically how does that work, please?
The Telegraph paywall is easily bypassed by turning off javascript or, even more easily, by putting the link into https://12ft.io (e.g. entering the address at 12ft.io gives you this (I don't have any scruples about 'paywalls' that are so trivially bypassed. The Times, by contrast, does a proper server-side job and also only provides an abridged version for search engines (and so, also, only an abridged version via 12ft.io).
You can see almost the same depth of articles from the Times simply by using Edge rather than Chrome as your browser.
Using Edge is however (I assume, have not looked into this) complicated by my use of Linux
I'm mostly on Firefox and KDE Falkon (the latter uses the same family of engines as Chrome, which were forked from Apple's WebKit which was itself forked from KDE's KHTML - some things go full circle)
PB Brains Trust - in the middle of the night it sounded like the boiler started making very loud, vibrating sounds. This morning I switched the boiler off temporarily and the sounds continued, then flicked the power switch by the wall and they stopped, so I think its perhaps the pump near the boiler that is circulating the water through the house. Not sure if its just struggling with the cold, or if I should be concerned, or not.
As it happens, I'm moving out of this house over the weekend and returning the keys to the estate agent we've let it through on Monday.
Do you think there's any reason to be concerned or disable the heating prematurely, or wait until I've moved out? Would rather not have no heating in this weather.
I'm useless at anything practical, but if any help our pump for our orangery underfloor heating made a horrible noise a few years ago and it was due to no water flowing through it. It was very loud crunching noise. Once we got the water back it was fine. The pump surprisingly survived.
PB Brains Trust - in the middle of the night it sounded like the boiler started making very loud, vibrating sounds. This morning I switched the boiler off temporarily and the sounds continued, then flicked the power switch by the wall and they stopped, so I think its perhaps the pump near the boiler that is circulating the water through the house. Not sure if its just struggling with the cold, or if I should be concerned, or not.
As it happens, I'm moving out of this house over the weekend and returning the keys to the estate agent we've let it through on Monday.
Do you think there's any reason to be concerned or disable the heating prematurely, or wait until I've moved out? Would rather not have no heating in this weather.
Check whether the boiler outflow pipe has frozen overnight. (It'll be the one emptying into the drain.) Can be thawed by boiling water from a kettle in extremis.
You might ask why boiler companies sometimes sell new boilers without revealing this...
Would it be better if someone decided to spend all their money on themselves very quickly at the end of their life, instead of giving it to someone else? This is the question that opponents of inheritance never engage with.
Well, perhaps, but that is not the choice in this case, which posits two piles of cash, one subject to inheritance tax and the other (pension) not; the owner spends the first pile and leaves the second one tax free to an undeserving nephew. It is the IFS talking about this anomaly, not Jeremy Corbyn.
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
Yes, football is very unsatisfying in that regard. The opportunities to play other top 10 teams come round so rarely, and football is such a low scoring game dependent on how one or two moments turn out. England is at the stage now where they would expect to win against any of the teams outside the top 10, but wouldn't expect to beat other top 10 teams. It's sort of an achievement that England have got to this level. And yet you can't help feeling given England's size and resources that this is the minimum level England should really be at. Getting to a quarter final of a major tournament is no better than par.
Test cricket is also hard to win, and can also turn on brief moments. But test cricket overcomes this shortcoming with the concept of the series. Imagine if test cricket involved not just ten countries, but all the countries - with matches against the top 10 only coming round once or twice every two years.
PB Brains Trust - in the middle of the night it sounded like the boiler started making very loud, vibrating sounds. This morning I switched the boiler off temporarily and the sounds continued, then flicked the power switch by the wall and they stopped, so I think its perhaps the pump near the boiler that is circulating the water through the house. Not sure if its just struggling with the cold, or if I should be concerned, or not.
As it happens, I'm moving out of this house over the weekend and returning the keys to the estate agent we've let it through on Monday.
Do you think there's any reason to be concerned or disable the heating prematurely, or wait until I've moved out? Would rather not have no heating in this weather.
IANAE but it sounds like air in the system. Normally, there'd be an automatic air vent which should prevent that but some older systems have manual vents that need to be bled.
It's not clear if it's your property you're letting out for 6 months (in which case get it looked at now), or a place you are renting and now leaving (in which case, mention it to the letting agent so they can get it fixed).
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
When you put it like that, it's a wonder that anyone ever wins the world cup!
Paywalled, but basically how does that work, please?
The Telegraph paywall is easily bypassed by turning off javascript or, even more easily, by putting the link into https://12ft.io (e.g. entering the address at 12ft.io gives you this (I don't have any scruples about 'paywalls' that are so trivially bypassed. The Times, by contrast, does a proper server-side job and also only provides an abridged version for search engines (and so, also, only an abridged version via 12ft.io).
Wonder whethre archive.org has them too... Thanks, but I'm not really bothered to find creative ways around proper paywalls. If I wanted to read the Times articles then I'd pay. For the half-arsed ones, e.g. DT, even FT where they'll serve the article to you if you come straight from a Google search on the headline, I'll sometimes do it if mildly interested.
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
When you put it like that, it's a wonder that anyone ever wins the world cup!
32 teams turn up and for 31 teams it ends in (often bitter) disappointment.
That's where leagues are better: in a league of 20 clubs, maybe half a dozen maximum end the season bitterly disappointed (3 relegated plus those who just miss coming top or qualifying for Europe).
(I'm not suggesting the WC could be run as a league of course.)
Twitter has not been paying either its offices rent or severance payments, reportedly. Cash flow problems ?
Considering he only owns a percentage of Twitter and that Tesla utterly dwarfs Twitter in its market cap, it would seem that devaluing Tesla to fund Twitter would be completely counterproductive for him on the face of it.
That would be so if you view the situation through that of a rational economic actor looking to maximise their financial returns.
I would suggest that there is a lot of evidence that this is not a good framework for understanding Musk's actions in relation to twitter. A better way is to think of twitter as an expensive toy, or hobby. Perhaps even an obsession.
I buy a lot of yarn it will take me a long time to get round to knitting, my father-in-law buys car engines, Musk social media companies. As a billionaire, and former world's richest man, his toys are correspondingly more expensive than mine, but the psychology at play is not altogether different.
As I said last night though will be a posher party under Sunak again if Margate, Blackpool, Great Yarmouth and Rhyl go back to Labour along with the redwall but he holds most of the bluewall home counties seats
Sure, I’m Donald John Trump. Whatever you want, just name it and it’s yours. But you’ve got to love me!
Looks like Americans are going to cheerfully fling Rosebud on the bonfire. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
56% or registered Republicans still support him though.
Three scenarios seem possible:
1. Trump wins the nomination and flunks the GE. 2. Trump loses the nomination but stands anyway, splitting the GOP vote. 3. Trump slinks away saying he has successfully Made America Great Again and now has 'other priorities'.
As I said last night though will be a posher party under Sunak again if Margate, Blackpool, Great Yarmouth and Rhyl go back to Labour along with the redwall but he holds most of the bluewall home counties seats
So it will be more out of touch with the country and unelectable?
Or do you view posher as a good thing? Getting rid of all those impure Tories must be good for your soul.
No way this guy doesn't run now. DeSantis is not the bravest of politicians, but if both the party establishment and the polls tell him he'll win, that should be enough. He's ambitious, and he's not stupid.
The question is now whether there's another Republican who can beat him.
In Iowa Pence can beat both Trump and DeSantis if he wins over evangelicals in the evangelical heavy first caucus. That would then give him big momentum.
Morning Consult still has Trump ahead with Republicans, then DeSantis with Pence 3rd
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
When you put it like that, it's a wonder that anyone ever wins the world cup!
32 teams turn up and for 31 teams it ends in (often bitter) disappointment.
That's where leagues are better: in a league of 20 clubs, maybe half a dozen maximum end the season bitterly disappointed (3 relegated plus those who just miss coming top or qualifying for Europe).
(I'm not suggesting the WC could be run as a league of course.)
As I said last night though will be a posher party under Sunak again if Margate, Blackpool, Great Yarmouth and Rhyl go back to Labour along with the redwall but he holds most of the bluewall home counties seats
So it will be more out of touch with the country and unelectable?
Or do you view posher as a good thing? Getting rid of all those impure Tories must be good for your soul.
CON need all the seats they can get and would be very pleased to hold places like Great Yarmouth and Blackpool!
That's seemingly based on such a weak bit of wordplay (Jaws rhymes with (broken) laws, so Rishi is Jaws because he breaks laws?!? wtaf?), I'm embarrassed just reading it
As I said last night though will be a posher party under Sunak again if Margate, Blackpool, Great Yarmouth and Rhyl go back to Labour along with the redwall but he holds most of the bluewall home counties seats
It is quite an old poll - YouGov 21-23 November. It is interesting that the Conservative vote is around 6% higher for the coastal seats than the average nationwide opinion poll for that month.
That's seemingly based on such a weak bit of wordplay (Jaws rhymes with (broken) laws, so Rishi is Jaws because he breaks laws?!? wtaf?), I'm embarrassed just reading it
As I said last night though will be a posher party under Sunak again if Margate, Blackpool, Great Yarmouth and Rhyl go back to Labour along with the redwall but he holds most of the bluewall home counties seats
So it will be more out of touch with the country and unelectable?
Or do you view posher as a good thing? Getting rid of all those impure Tories must be good for your soul.
No, obviously to win you have to win lower middle class and working class voters, as Boris did and Blair did.
However the Tory core vote under Sunak now looks a lot more like Major's Home Counties focused coalition of 1997 ie pretty posh, than Boris' broader based Tory coalition of 2019 which also won redwall seats in the North, the Midlands and Wales and seaside towns which are now heading back to Labour.
Sunak will likely save some southern Tory seats going LD which would have happened under Boris and Truss but at the expense of losing virtually all redwall and seaside town seats, some of which Boris at least might have saved
That's seemingly based on such a weak bit of wordplay (Jaws rhymes with (broken) laws, so Rishi is Jaws because he breaks laws?!? wtaf?), I'm embarrassed just reading it
As I said last night though will be a posher party under Sunak again if Margate, Blackpool, Great Yarmouth and Rhyl go back to Labour along with the redwall but he holds most of the bluewall home counties seats
It is quite an old poll - YouGov 21-23 November. It is interesting that the Conservative vote is around 6% higher for the coastal seats than the average nationwide opinion poll for that month.
In addition Labour is down 10% compared with average, and a higher other. Probably due to no big cities being included.
As I said last night though will be a posher party under Sunak again if Margate, Blackpool, Great Yarmouth and Rhyl go back to Labour along with the redwall but he holds most of the bluewall home counties seats
It is quite an old poll - YouGov 21-23 November. It is interesting that the Conservative vote is around 6% higher for the coastal seats than the average nationwide opinion poll for that month.
As I said last night though will be a posher party under Sunak again if Margate, Blackpool, Great Yarmouth and Rhyl go back to Labour along with the redwall but he holds most of the bluewall home counties seats
It is quite an old poll - YouGov 21-23 November. It is interesting that the Conservative vote is around 6% higher for the coastal seats than the average nationwide opinion poll for that month.
As it should be. Boris won the seaside towns by 22% over Corbyn Labour in 2019, Cameron won them by 16% over Brown and Miliband in 2010 and 2015, even May won them by 12% in 2017 despite just a 2% lead nationally and Howard won them by 5% in 2005 too.
Now Starmer leads Sunak by 6% in coastal towns. By far Labour's best performance in these generally white working class and pensioner heavy, Leave seats since Blair in 1997 and 2001
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
Yes, football is very unsatisfying in that regard. The opportunities to play other top 10 teams come round so rarely, and football is such a low scoring game dependent on how one or two moments turn out. England is at the stage now where they would expect to win against any of the teams outside the top 10, but wouldn't expect to beat other top 10 teams. It's sort of an achievement that England have got to this level. And yet you can't help feeling given England's size and resources that this is the minimum level England should really be at. Getting to a quarter final of a major tournament is no better than par.
Test cricket is also hard to win, and can also turn on brief moments. But test cricket overcomes this shortcoming with the concept of the series. Imagine if test cricket involved not just ten countries, but all the countries - with matches against the top 10 only coming round once or twice every two years.
The UEFA Nations League could be transformative in this regard, if the concept of tiered international competition takes root.
The biggest difference with cricket is that the top international players - like Stokes - rarely play domestic cricket. Imagine football where Harry Kane only plays half a dozen games for Tottenham every season because he's spending most of the year playing international games for England.
As I said last night though will be a posher party under Sunak again if Margate, Blackpool, Great Yarmouth and Rhyl go back to Labour along with the redwall but he holds most of the bluewall home counties seats
It is quite an old poll - YouGov 21-23 November. It is interesting that the Conservative vote is around 6% higher for the coastal seats than the average nationwide opinion poll for that month.
In addition Labour is down 10% compared with average, and a higher other. Probably due to no big cities being included.
Constituency: SNP 50% (+1) Lab 25% (-1) Con 13% (nc) LD 7% (-1)
List: SNP 40% (+2) Lab 24% (nc) Con 13% (-1) Grn 11% (-1) LD 6% (-2)
(YouGov, 6-9 Dec; changes from 30 Sep - 4 Oct)
Interesting for Scottish domestic policy, irrelevant for indyref2 now the SC has ruled the UK government and Westminster can refuse it indefinitely. It will likely need a hung parliament and SNP balance of power at the next election for any change, otherwise even Starmer probably doesn't grant one for years
Would it be better if someone decided to spend all their money on themselves very quickly at the end of their life, instead of giving it to someone else? This is the question that opponents of inheritance never engage with.
Of course not. They should be able to leave it as part of their estate. But the whole estate should be subject to IHT though.
A bigger issue might be those people whose pension pots run out:
In the past the pot had to be used to buy an annuity which was an attempt to address the age-old problem of none of us knowing how long we will need to fund our retirements for. George Osborne changed that. Recent low historic low annuity rates encouraged lots of people to take manage their own fund in retirement (or have it managed).
That may work out well for many but I can equally see it being a disaster for some through a combination of mismanagement, a bear market, and an over-eagerness to enjoy the early retirement years.
On thing's for sure, very few people are going to be able to maximise their own (as opposed to their descendent's) benefits from their pension pot. They'll either run short or leave a lot unused by the time they die.
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
When you put it like that, it's a wonder that anyone ever wins the world cup!
32 teams turn up and for 31 teams it ends in (often bitter) disappointment.
That's where leagues are better: in a league of 20 clubs, maybe half a dozen maximum end the season bitterly disappointed (3 relegated plus those who just miss coming top or qualifying for Europe).
(I'm not suggesting the WC could be run as a league of course.)
Don’t give FIFA ideas.
It's interesting to consider how the League / Premier League has completely eclipsed the FA Cup during my lifetime. Back in the 60s and before, I'd argue that winning the FA Cup was seen as a bigger prize than winning the old First Division. Now the FA Cup is a squad rotation side-issue for most Premiership teams.
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
When you put it like that, it's a wonder that anyone ever wins the world cup!
32 teams turn up and for 31 teams it ends in (often bitter) disappointment.
That's where leagues are better: in a league of 20 clubs, maybe half a dozen maximum end the season bitterly disappointed (3 relegated plus those who just miss coming top or qualifying for Europe).
(I'm not suggesting the WC could be run as a league of course.)
Don’t give FIFA ideas.
It's interesting to consider how the League / Premier League has completely eclipsed the FA Cup during my lifetime. Back in the 60s and before, I'd argue that winning the FA Cup was seen as a bigger prize than winning the old First Division. Now the FA Cup is a squad rotation side-issue for most Premiership teams.
TV.
Back in the day, there was very little live football on TV - but the FA Cup Final was a massive event.
Constituency: SNP 50% (+1) Lab 25% (-1) Con 13% (nc) LD 7% (-1)
List: SNP 40% (+2) Lab 24% (nc) Con 13% (-1) Grn 11% (-1) LD 6% (-2)
(YouGov, 6-9 Dec; changes from 30 Sep - 4 Oct)
Interesting for Scottish domestic policy, irrelevant for indyref2 now the SC has ruled the UK government and Westminster can refuse it indefinitely. It will likely need a hung parliament and SNP balance of power at the next election for any change, otherwise even Starmer probably doesn't grant one for years
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
When you put it like that, it's a wonder that anyone ever wins the world cup!
32 teams turn up and for 31 teams it ends in (often bitter) disappointment.
That's where leagues are better: in a league of 20 clubs, maybe half a dozen maximum end the season bitterly disappointed (3 relegated plus those who just miss coming top or qualifying for Europe).
(I'm not suggesting the WC could be run as a league of course.)
Don’t give FIFA ideas.
It's interesting to consider how the League / Premier League has completely eclipsed the FA Cup during my lifetime. Back in the 60s and before, I'd argue that winning the FA Cup was seen as a bigger prize than winning the old First Division. Now the FA Cup is a squad rotation side-issue for most Premiership teams.
I think that was always likely to happen with TV making the league a bigger event than it was 40 years ago. What's more interesting is that the Premier League has completely eclipsed other domestic leagues and the Champions League.
Constituency: SNP 50% (+1) Lab 25% (-1) Con 13% (nc) LD 7% (-1)
List: SNP 40% (+2) Lab 24% (nc) Con 13% (-1) Grn 11% (-1) LD 6% (-2)
(YouGov, 6-9 Dec; changes from 30 Sep - 4 Oct)
Interesting for Scottish domestic policy, irrelevant for indyref2 now the SC has ruled the UK government and Westminster can refuse it indefinitely. It will likely need a hung parliament and SNP balance of power at the next election for any change, otherwise even Starmer probably doesn't grant one for years
……
No, if we were going full Franco, we would abolish Holyrood altogether and remove Scottish MPs from Westminster and impose direct rule over Scotland and arrest Sturgeon for sedition a la Madrid and Catalonia
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
Yes, football is very unsatisfying in that regard. The opportunities to play other top 10 teams come round so rarely, and football is such a low scoring game dependent on how one or two moments turn out. England is at the stage now where they would expect to win against any of the teams outside the top 10, but wouldn't expect to beat other top 10 teams. It's sort of an achievement that England have got to this level. And yet you can't help feeling given England's size and resources that this is the minimum level England should really be at. Getting to a quarter final of a major tournament is no better than par.
Test cricket is also hard to win, and can also turn on brief moments. But test cricket overcomes this shortcoming with the concept of the series. Imagine if test cricket involved not just ten countries, but all the countries - with matches against the top 10 only coming round once or twice every two years.
This is integral to the WC's appeal though - that it's only every 4 years and involves match-ups you rarely or never see in the meantime. It's why it feels so special. As to winning it, football is THE world game and there are so many countries aspiring to succeed. The breadth and depth is huge. In previous times not so much, meaning more chance of a country developing a team streets ahead of the rest and able to win the WC without relying too much on the randomness factor. One thinks of Brazil in 1970.
Not now. To win the WC in the modern era, with the game as this turbocharged globalized supersport that everybody wants a piece of, is the hardest thing in international team competition. It needs so many factors to come together. If we ever do manage it - or perhaps better put, if it ever happens to us - it'll be amazing. "Amazing" in both senses of the word. Here's hoping. I'm 62.
Constituency: SNP 50% (+1) Lab 25% (-1) Con 13% (nc) LD 7% (-1)
List: SNP 40% (+2) Lab 24% (nc) Con 13% (-1) Grn 11% (-1) LD 6% (-2)
(YouGov, 6-9 Dec; changes from 30 Sep - 4 Oct)
Interesting for Scottish domestic policy, irrelevant for indyref2 now the SC has ruled the UK government and Westminster can refuse it indefinitely. It will likely need a hung parliament and SNP balance of power at the next election for any change, otherwise even Starmer probably doesn't grant one for years
……
No, if we were going full Franco, we would abolish Holyrood altogether and remove Scottish MPs from Westminster and impose direct rule over Scotland and arrest Sturgeon for sedition a la Madrid and Catalonia
Nice admission that the current Spanish Unionist policy is indeed Francoist.
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
Yes, football is very unsatisfying in that regard. The opportunities to play other top 10 teams come round so rarely, and football is such a low scoring game dependent on how one or two moments turn out. England is at the stage now where they would expect to win against any of the teams outside the top 10, but wouldn't expect to beat other top 10 teams. It's sort of an achievement that England have got to this level. And yet you can't help feeling given England's size and resources that this is the minimum level England should really be at. Getting to a quarter final of a major tournament is no better than par.
Test cricket is also hard to win, and can also turn on brief moments. But test cricket overcomes this shortcoming with the concept of the series. Imagine if test cricket involved not just ten countries, but all the countries - with matches against the top 10 only coming round once or twice every two years.
This is integral to the WC's appeal though - that it's only every 4 years and involves match-ups you rarely or never see in the meantime. It's why it feels so special. As to winning it, football is THE world game and there are so many countries aspiring to succeed. The breadth and depth is huge. In previous times not so much, meaning more chance of a country developing a team streets ahead of the rest and able to win the WC without relying too much on the randomness factor. One thinks of Brazil in 1970.
Not now. To win the WC in the modern era, with the game as this turbocharged globalized supersport that everybody wants a piece of, is the hardest thing in international team competition. It needs so many factors to come together. If we ever do manage it - or perhaps better put, if it ever happens to us - it'll be amazing. "Amazing" in both senses of the word. Here's hoping. I'm 62.
I take your point. But nevertheless, it doesn't seem unreasonable to compare England with our three major European rivals - France, Germany and Italy. In such a comparison, we are well behind all three since 1966.
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
Yes, football is very unsatisfying in that regard. The opportunities to play other top 10 teams come round so rarely, and football is such a low scoring game dependent on how one or two moments turn out. England is at the stage now where they would expect to win against any of the teams outside the top 10, but wouldn't expect to beat other top 10 teams. It's sort of an achievement that England have got to this level. And yet you can't help feeling given England's size and resources that this is the minimum level England should really be at. Getting to a quarter final of a major tournament is no better than par.
Test cricket is also hard to win, and can also turn on brief moments. But test cricket overcomes this shortcoming with the concept of the series. Imagine if test cricket involved not just ten countries, but all the countries - with matches against the top 10 only coming round once or twice every two years.
This is integral to the WC's appeal though - that it's only every 4 years and involves match-ups you rarely or never see in the meantime. It's why it feels so special. As to winning it, football is THE world game and there are so many countries aspiring to succeed. The breadth and depth is huge. In previous times not so much, meaning more chance of a country developing a team streets ahead of the rest and able to win the WC without relying too much on the randomness factor. One thinks of Brazil in 1970.
Not now. To win the WC in the modern era, with the game as this turbocharged globalized supersport that everybody wants a piece of, is the hardest thing in international team competition. It needs so many factors to come together. If we ever do manage it - or perhaps better put, if it ever happens to us - it'll be amazing. "Amazing" in both senses of the word. Here's hoping. I'm 62.
The opposite end of the spectrum being the cricket world cup which carries less weight and is less exciting than the major test series. I certainly wouldn't be interested in England playing France 5 times in a row during a football season.
I think rugby gets the right balance. The 6 nations and autumn tests plus tours mean the top teams have fairly regular opportunities to test themselves against each other, but the RWC is still a special event and means more than the tests.
How about making the regional tournaments i.e. the Euros and Copa America into something closer to a league, played over a 4 year period with playoff finals to ensure excitement at the end. And then have the world cup remain as-is? That would be a closer fit with the 6-nations / RWC format.
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
Yes, football is very unsatisfying in that regard. The opportunities to play other top 10 teams come round so rarely, and football is such a low scoring game dependent on how one or two moments turn out. England is at the stage now where they would expect to win against any of the teams outside the top 10, but wouldn't expect to beat other top 10 teams. It's sort of an achievement that England have got to this level. And yet you can't help feeling given England's size and resources that this is the minimum level England should really be at. Getting to a quarter final of a major tournament is no better than par.
Test cricket is also hard to win, and can also turn on brief moments. But test cricket overcomes this shortcoming with the concept of the series. Imagine if test cricket involved not just ten countries, but all the countries - with matches against the top 10 only coming round once or twice every two years.
This is integral to the WC's appeal though - that it's only every 4 years and involves match-ups you rarely or never see in the meantime. It's why it feels so special. As to winning it, football is THE world game and there are so many countries aspiring to succeed. The breadth and depth is huge. In previous times not so much, meaning more chance of a country developing a team streets ahead of the rest and able to win the WC without relying too much on the randomness factor. One thinks of Brazil in 1970.
Not now. To win the WC in the modern era, with the game as this turbocharged globalized supersport that everybody wants a piece of, is the hardest thing in international team competition. It needs so many factors to come together. If we ever do manage it - or perhaps better put, if it ever happens to us - it'll be amazing. "Amazing" in both senses of the word. Here's hoping. I'm 62.
I take your point. But nevertheless, it doesn't seem unreasonable to compare England with our three major European rivals - France, Germany and Italy. In such a comparison, we are well behind all three since 1966.
"Since 1966" covers much more than the modern era. And those three are only our "major European rivals" because they have won the most, so it's a little bit of a circular argument.
Twitter has not been paying either its offices rent or severance payments, reportedly. Cash flow problems ?
Considering he only owns a percentage of Twitter and that Tesla utterly dwarfs Twitter in its market cap, it would seem that devaluing Tesla to fund Twitter would be completely counterproductive for him on the face of it.
As was paying $44bn for it in the first place.
Just because he's very rich and successful doesn't mean he's particularly smart outside his area of expertise.
Tesla stock was massively over-valued, and Musk took a load of personal loans against his Tesla holdings, to enable the Twitter purchase.
So, as the Tesla stock falls (it’s been behaving more like a tech company stock than a car company stock, both on the way up and on the way down), he’ll be facing margin calls on the loans, hence the need to sell the stocks and dilute his holding in Tesla.
There’s also rumours of Starlink being floated out of SpaceX, or even SpaceX itself going public next year once Starship is flying.
Constituency: SNP 50% (+1) Lab 25% (-1) Con 13% (nc) LD 7% (-1)
List: SNP 40% (+2) Lab 24% (nc) Con 13% (-1) Grn 11% (-1) LD 6% (-2)
(YouGov, 6-9 Dec; changes from 30 Sep - 4 Oct)
Interesting for Scottish domestic policy, irrelevant for indyref2 now the SC has ruled the UK government and Westminster can refuse it indefinitely. It will likely need a hung parliament and SNP balance of power at the next election for any change, otherwise even Starmer probably doesn't grant one for years
……
No, if we were going full Franco, we would abolish Holyrood altogether and remove Scottish MPs from Westminster and impose direct rule over Scotland and arrest Sturgeon for sedition a la Madrid and Catalonia
"we" ? I think such fantasies are fairly exclusively yours.
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
Yes, football is very unsatisfying in that regard. The opportunities to play other top 10 teams come round so rarely, and football is such a low scoring game dependent on how one or two moments turn out. England is at the stage now where they would expect to win against any of the teams outside the top 10, but wouldn't expect to beat other top 10 teams. It's sort of an achievement that England have got to this level. And yet you can't help feeling given England's size and resources that this is the minimum level England should really be at. Getting to a quarter final of a major tournament is no better than par.
Test cricket is also hard to win, and can also turn on brief moments. But test cricket overcomes this shortcoming with the concept of the series. Imagine if test cricket involved not just ten countries, but all the countries - with matches against the top 10 only coming round once or twice every two years.
This is integral to the WC's appeal though - that it's only every 4 years and involves match-ups you rarely or never see in the meantime. It's why it feels so special. As to winning it, football is THE world game and there are so many countries aspiring to succeed. The breadth and depth is huge. In previous times not so much, meaning more chance of a country developing a team streets ahead of the rest and able to win the WC without relying too much on the randomness factor. One thinks of Brazil in 1970.
Not now. To win the WC in the modern era, with the game as this turbocharged globalized supersport that everybody wants a piece of, is the hardest thing in international team competition. It needs so many factors to come together. If we ever do manage it - or perhaps better put, if it ever happens to us - it'll be amazing. "Amazing" in both senses of the word. Here's hoping. I'm 62.
The opposite end of the spectrum being the cricket world cup which carries less weight and is less exciting than the major test series.
Strongly disagree to the "carries less weight" ("is less exciting" is in the eye of the beholder). To England and Australia, the Cricket World Cup is more important than anything except The Ashes. I'd argue that even the T20 WC is probably more significant than any single bilateral Test series outside of The Ashes too. To all other cricket playing nations, I strongly suspect that the CWC is more important than any bilateral series.
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
Yes, football is very unsatisfying in that regard. The opportunities to play other top 10 teams come round so rarely, and football is such a low scoring game dependent on how one or two moments turn out. England is at the stage now where they would expect to win against any of the teams outside the top 10, but wouldn't expect to beat other top 10 teams. It's sort of an achievement that England have got to this level. And yet you can't help feeling given England's size and resources that this is the minimum level England should really be at. Getting to a quarter final of a major tournament is no better than par.
Test cricket is also hard to win, and can also turn on brief moments. But test cricket overcomes this shortcoming with the concept of the series. Imagine if test cricket involved not just ten countries, but all the countries - with matches against the top 10 only coming round once or twice every two years.
This is integral to the WC's appeal though - that it's only every 4 years and involves match-ups you rarely or never see in the meantime. It's why it feels so special. As to winning it, football is THE world game and there are so many countries aspiring to succeed. The breadth and depth is huge. In previous times not so much, meaning more chance of a country developing a team streets ahead of the rest and able to win the WC without relying too much on the randomness factor. One thinks of Brazil in 1970.
Not now. To win the WC in the modern era, with the game as this turbocharged globalized supersport that everybody wants a piece of, is the hardest thing in international team competition. It needs so many factors to come together. If we ever do manage it - or perhaps better put, if it ever happens to us - it'll be amazing. "Amazing" in both senses of the word. Here's hoping. I'm 62.
I take your point. But nevertheless, it doesn't seem unreasonable to compare England with our three major European rivals - France, Germany and Italy. In such a comparison, we are well behind all three since 1966.
"Since 1966" covers much more than the modern era. And those three are only our "major European rivals" because they have won the most, so it's a little bit of a circular argument.
We are like a handful of other very good but usually frustrated teams - the Netherlands, Belgium and Portugal (and Croatia given recent history?). That's the way I see it:
- The big 6: France, Germany, Italy, Spain (just), Brazil, Argentina - The next lot: Belgium, Netherlands, Portugal, England, Croatia
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
Best losers in the world, a title and cup at last.
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
Yes, football is very unsatisfying in that regard. The opportunities to play other top 10 teams come round so rarely, and football is such a low scoring game dependent on how one or two moments turn out. England is at the stage now where they would expect to win against any of the teams outside the top 10, but wouldn't expect to beat other top 10 teams. It's sort of an achievement that England have got to this level. And yet you can't help feeling given England's size and resources that this is the minimum level England should really be at. Getting to a quarter final of a major tournament is no better than par.
Test cricket is also hard to win, and can also turn on brief moments. But test cricket overcomes this shortcoming with the concept of the series. Imagine if test cricket involved not just ten countries, but all the countries - with matches against the top 10 only coming round once or twice every two years.
This is integral to the WC's appeal though - that it's only every 4 years and involves match-ups you rarely or never see in the meantime. It's why it feels so special. As to winning it, football is THE world game and there are so many countries aspiring to succeed. The breadth and depth is huge. In previous times not so much, meaning more chance of a country developing a team streets ahead of the rest and able to win the WC without relying too much on the randomness factor. One thinks of Brazil in 1970.
Not now. To win the WC in the modern era, with the game as this turbocharged globalized supersport that everybody wants a piece of, is the hardest thing in international team competition. It needs so many factors to come together. If we ever do manage it - or perhaps better put, if it ever happens to us - it'll be amazing. "Amazing" in both senses of the word. Here's hoping. I'm 62.
I take your point. But nevertheless, it doesn't seem unreasonable to compare England with our three major European rivals - France, Germany and Italy. In such a comparison, we are well behind all three since 1966.
"Since 1966" covers much more than the modern era. And those three are only our "major European rivals" because they have won the most, so it's a little bit of a circular argument.
At the next World Cup, the song lyric “30 years of hurt” (from Three Lions), will itself be 30 years old!
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
Yes, football is very unsatisfying in that regard. The opportunities to play other top 10 teams come round so rarely, and football is such a low scoring game dependent on how one or two moments turn out. England is at the stage now where they would expect to win against any of the teams outside the top 10, but wouldn't expect to beat other top 10 teams. It's sort of an achievement that England have got to this level. And yet you can't help feeling given England's size and resources that this is the minimum level England should really be at. Getting to a quarter final of a major tournament is no better than par.
Test cricket is also hard to win, and can also turn on brief moments. But test cricket overcomes this shortcoming with the concept of the series. Imagine if test cricket involved not just ten countries, but all the countries - with matches against the top 10 only coming round once or twice every two years.
This is integral to the WC's appeal though - that it's only every 4 years and involves match-ups you rarely or never see in the meantime. It's why it feels so special. As to winning it, football is THE world game and there are so many countries aspiring to succeed. The breadth and depth is huge. In previous times not so much, meaning more chance of a country developing a team streets ahead of the rest and able to win the WC without relying too much on the randomness factor. One thinks of Brazil in 1970.
Not now. To win the WC in the modern era, with the game as this turbocharged globalized supersport that everybody wants a piece of, is the hardest thing in international team competition. It needs so many factors to come together. If we ever do manage it - or perhaps better put, if it ever happens to us - it'll be amazing. "Amazing" in both senses of the word. Here's hoping. I'm 62.
The opposite end of the spectrum being the cricket world cup which carries less weight and is less exciting than the major test series.
Strongly disagree to the "carries less weight" ("is less exciting" is in the eye of the beholder). To England and Australia, the Cricket World Cup is more important than anything except The Ashes. I'd argue that even the T20 WC is probably more significant than any single bilateral Test series outside of The Ashes too. To all other cricket playing nations, I strongly suspect that the CWC is more important than any bilateral series.
Interesting perspective. I suppose it depends on whether you're a fan of limited overs cricket or not.
Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?
France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).
The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.
It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.
By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998
Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.
England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.
Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...
True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.
We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.
The ref in the Argentina/Netherlands game raised a few Dutch eyebrows.
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
We did what was expected of us. No more no less. One main issue with the England team is they don't often overperform which is what you need to win Trophies. We are very solid but don't often beat the other top teams
England are the only European team to have made the last 8 in the last three major international competitions, and they made the top 4 in two of them and the top 2 in one of them. I think that's a pretty good record and with a slightly different rub of the green the team would have lifted at least one trophy. If they can maintain that consistent quality then they will win eventually.
We're established as top tier now under Southgate. A real achievement. As for winning the WC or the Euros - but esp the WC - in the next decade or so I think we can be optimistic but it's still odds against. There's such fine margins at the business end of the knockout stages. You have to win 3 big pressurized matches in a row where in at least 2 of them the teams will be well matched. So you need to find a performance AND things have to fall for you. This latter aspect is underappreciated imo. There's a high element of randomness in play. And it doesn't all even out over the piece because WCs, like goals within a match, are rare events.
Yes, football is very unsatisfying in that regard. The opportunities to play other top 10 teams come round so rarely, and football is such a low scoring game dependent on how one or two moments turn out. England is at the stage now where they would expect to win against any of the teams outside the top 10, but wouldn't expect to beat other top 10 teams. It's sort of an achievement that England have got to this level. And yet you can't help feeling given England's size and resources that this is the minimum level England should really be at. Getting to a quarter final of a major tournament is no better than par.
Test cricket is also hard to win, and can also turn on brief moments. But test cricket overcomes this shortcoming with the concept of the series. Imagine if test cricket involved not just ten countries, but all the countries - with matches against the top 10 only coming round once or twice every two years.
This is integral to the WC's appeal though - that it's only every 4 years and involves match-ups you rarely or never see in the meantime. It's why it feels so special. As to winning it, football is THE world game and there are so many countries aspiring to succeed. The breadth and depth is huge. In previous times not so much, meaning more chance of a country developing a team streets ahead of the rest and able to win the WC without relying too much on the randomness factor. One thinks of Brazil in 1970.
Not now. To win the WC in the modern era, with the game as this turbocharged globalized supersport that everybody wants a piece of, is the hardest thing in international team competition. It needs so many factors to come together. If we ever do manage it - or perhaps better put, if it ever happens to us - it'll be amazing. "Amazing" in both senses of the word. Here's hoping. I'm 62.
I take your point. But nevertheless, it doesn't seem unreasonable to compare England with our three major European rivals - France, Germany and Italy. In such a comparison, we are well behind all three since 1966.
"Since 1966" covers much more than the modern era. And those three are only our "major European rivals" because they have won the most, so it's a little bit of a circular argument.
We are like a handful of other very good but usually frustrated teams - the Netherlands, Belgium and Portugal (and Croatia given recent history?). That's the way I see it:
- The big 6: France, Germany, Italy, Spain (just), Brazil, Argentina - The next lot: Belgium, Netherlands, Portugal, England, Croatia
I think that's generous to Argentina. They went 28 years without winning a trophy and I'd say the Copa America is easier for them to win than the Euros is for us to win (not least because it's been played more often than the Euros in that time).
Also, Matthew Upson has scored a goal in a knockout game at the World Cup more recently than Italy!
Comments
That said, and I'm not the first to say this, we do seem to have accepted this defeat philosophically.
So what I'd say is that there are a very large number of factors at play, and almost none of them relate to how likely he would be to win.
I still expect to see him win the Republican nomination.
(Apologies)
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/britains-coastal-towns-have-turned-their-backs-on-the-tories_uk_639acc0ee4b019c696297302
The Tesla share price has sunk more than 50% since the start of the year
https://www.standard.co.uk/business/elon-musk-sells-3-6-billion-tesla-shares-after-wealth-drops-109-billion-since-january-b1047357.html
Fourth sale this year, apparently.
Cash flow problems ?
As it happens, I'm moving out of this house over the weekend and returning the keys to the estate agent we've let it through on Monday.
Do you think there's any reason to be concerned or disable the heating prematurely, or wait until I've moved out? Would rather not have no heating in this weather.
It wasn’t that long ago he was very short odds for SPOTY.
So more beneficial than IHT for beneficiaries paying tax at the basic rate, and a deferal mechanism for higher rate taxpayers.
See https://www.gov.uk/tax-on-pension-death-benefits
https://archive.ph/
There, saved you a quid. Happy Christmas!
I'm mostly on Firefox and KDE Falkon (the latter uses the same family of engines as Chrome, which were forked from Apple's WebKit which was itself forked from KDE's KHTML - some things go full circle)
You might ask why boiler companies sometimes sell new boilers without revealing this...
It's sort of an achievement that England have got to this level. And yet you can't help feeling given England's size and resources that this is the minimum level England should really be at. Getting to a quarter final of a major tournament is no better than par.
Test cricket is also hard to win, and can also turn on brief moments. But test cricket overcomes this shortcoming with the concept of the series. Imagine if test cricket involved not just ten countries, but all the countries - with matches against the top 10 only coming round once or twice every two years.
It's not clear if it's your property you're letting out for 6 months (in which case get it looked at now), or a place you are renting and now leaving (in which case, mention it to the letting agent so they can get it fixed).
Sure, I’m Donald John Trump. Whatever you want, just name it and it’s yours. But you’ve got to love me!
Looks like Americans are going to cheerfully fling Rosebud on the bonfire. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
That's where leagues are better: in a league of 20 clubs, maybe half a dozen maximum end the season bitterly disappointed (3 relegated plus those who just miss coming top or qualifying for Europe).
(I'm not suggesting the WC could be run as a league of course.)
I would suggest that there is a lot of evidence that this is not a good framework for understanding Musk's actions in relation to twitter. A better way is to think of twitter as an expensive toy, or hobby. Perhaps even an obsession.
I buy a lot of yarn it will take me a long time to get round to knitting, my father-in-law buys car engines, Musk social media companies. As a billionaire, and former world's richest man, his toys are correspondingly more expensive than mine, but the psychology at play is not altogether different.
Three scenarios seem possible:
1. Trump wins the nomination and flunks the GE.
2. Trump loses the nomination but stands anyway, splitting the GOP vote.
3. Trump slinks away saying he has successfully Made America Great Again and now has 'other priorities'.
None look great for Republicans.
Or do you view posher as a good thing? Getting rid of all those impure Tories must be good for your soul.
Morning Consult still has Trump ahead with Republicans, then DeSantis with Pence 3rd
https://morningconsult.com/2024-gop-primary-election-tracker/
Blackpool!
Constituency:
SNP 50% (+1)
Lab 25% (-1)
Con 13% (nc)
LD 7% (-1)
List:
SNP 40% (+2)
Lab 24% (nc)
Con 13% (-1)
Grn 11% (-1)
LD 6% (-2)
(YouGov, 6-9 Dec; changes from 30 Sep - 4 Oct)
I can't believe you thought it worth sharing
However the Tory core vote under Sunak now looks a lot more like Major's Home Counties focused coalition of 1997 ie pretty posh, than Boris' broader based Tory coalition of 2019 which also won redwall seats in the North, the Midlands and Wales and seaside towns which are now heading back to Labour.
Sunak will likely save some southern Tory seats going LD which would have happened under Boris and Truss but at the expense of losing virtually all redwall and seaside town seats, some of which Boris at least might have saved
Now Starmer leads Sunak by 6% in coastal towns. By far Labour's best performance in these generally white working class and pensioner heavy, Leave seats since Blair in 1997 and 2001
The biggest difference with cricket is that the top international players - like Stokes - rarely play domestic cricket. Imagine football where Harry Kane only plays half a dozen games for Tottenham every season because he's spending most of the year playing international games for England.
Has some interesting additional questions but is focused, as could be expected, on what Labour should do.
A bigger issue might be those people whose pension pots run out:
In the past the pot had to be used to buy an annuity which was an attempt to address the age-old problem of none of us knowing how long we will need to fund our retirements for. George Osborne changed that. Recent low historic low annuity rates encouraged lots of people to take manage their own fund in retirement (or have it managed).
That may work out well for many but I can equally see it being a disaster for some through a combination of mismanagement, a bear market, and an over-eagerness to enjoy the early retirement years.
On thing's for sure, very few people are going to be able to maximise their own (as opposed to their descendent's) benefits from their pension pot. They'll either run short or leave a lot unused by the time they die.
Back in the day, there was very little live football on TV - but the FA Cup Final was a massive event.
Not now. To win the WC in the modern era, with the game as this turbocharged globalized supersport that everybody wants a piece of, is the hardest thing in international team competition. It needs so many factors to come together. If we ever do manage it - or perhaps better put, if it ever happens to us - it'll be amazing. "Amazing" in both senses of the word. Here's hoping. I'm 62.
https://twitter.com/quimtorraipla/status/1603332019743752192?s=46&t=8rha7ZqfQ1k0UWnXErJ6Uw
Lawyers? Unpopular? Never.
I think rugby gets the right balance. The 6 nations and autumn tests plus tours mean the top teams have fairly regular opportunities to test themselves against each other, but the RWC is still a special event and means more than the tests.
How about making the regional tournaments i.e. the Euros and Copa America into something closer to a league, played over a 4 year period with playoff finals to ensure excitement at the end. And then have the world cup remain as-is? That would be a closer fit with the 6-nations / RWC format.
Just because he's very rich and successful doesn't mean he's particularly smart outside his area of expertise.
So, as the Tesla stock falls (it’s been behaving more like a tech company stock than a car company stock, both on the way up and on the way down), he’ll be facing margin calls on the loans, hence the need to sell the stocks and dilute his holding in Tesla.
There’s also rumours of Starlink being floated out of SpaceX, or even SpaceX itself going public next year once Starship is flying.
I think such fantasies are fairly exclusively yours.
- The big 6: France, Germany, Italy, Spain (just), Brazil, Argentina
- The next lot: Belgium, Netherlands, Portugal, England, Croatia
Also, Matthew Upson has scored a goal in a knockout game at the World Cup more recently than Italy!