Report on Sky that interest rates are to rise to 6% adding more to mortgage holders misery and the rates are likely to remain high for a considerable period of time
This crisis is looking very like 1991 to 2021 where negative equity prevailed, increased repossessions, and falling house prices
This is a deadly cocktail for the conservatives but in a wider context not good for any government but at least Starmer should receive a honeymoon for a whiie
They are going to hit 7 quite possibly 7.5%
Inflation isn't going down and the only available tool is a hammer against industrial jelly...
Report on Sky that interest rates are to rise to 6% adding more to mortgage holders misery and the rates are likely to remain high for a considerable period of time
This crisis is looking very like 1991 to 2021 where negative equity prevailed, increased repossessions, and falling house prices
This is a deadly cocktail for the conservatives but in a wider context not good for any government but at least Starmer should receive a honeymoon period for a whiie
Yes it's going to 6%. Maybe a little more maybe not.
Rates won't come down to any significant extent before 2025/2026.
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Cricket has rules *and* laws. The laws apply to all cricket in any proper match, from local level to international level, timed or limited overs match. The rules concern specifically to one competition such as field placing restrictions in ODI and how much time can be added on at the end of a rain interrupted day in a Test match.
Mr. eek, Skipton's got 7.5% (only £250 per month, mind) for existing customers.
First Direct £300/Mth ; Natwest £150/Mth both at 6 or 7ish%
If you've got enough funds you could set up regular savers with various different banks, and as they cycle to maturity reuse the funds. I've got a First Direct (From whom I have borrowed money at lower rates) one and a Natwest one both on the go. The First Direct one will mature in 5 months, at which point I'll probably set it up for another go round the saving merry go round.
Of course savers are not winning from the situation. If you can keep your shirt with a mortgage it is reducing in real terms whilst interest rates are below inflation; although it won't feel like it as monthly repayments are going up. Lowering inflation will help everyone.
Those regular savings account are great but don't actually offer 7% except for the first £300. For every subsequent month the payout is less...
And yep I use them but they really only cover £5000 or so and I have a lot more savings than that scattered round (this money is twin A's rent that will go back to her to add to her deposit / or pay for house improvements) when she buys.
Won't be in the next year / 2 years though if interest rates are going above 7% for that is going to create real problems....
O/T fascinating charts. The most interesting items are not the ones where they diverge, which are as expected, but those where they are almost identical, and reasonably salient. Therein lie the swing votes.
Report on Sky that interest rates are to rise to 6% adding more to mortgage holders misery and the rates are likely to remain high for a considerable period of time
This crisis is looking very like 1991 to 2021 where negative equity prevailed, increased repossessions, and falling house prices
This is a deadly cocktail for the conservatives but in a wider context not good for any government but at least Starmer should receive a honeymoon for a whiie
They are going to hit 7 quite possibly 7.5%
Inflation isn't going down and the only available tool is a hammer against industrial jelly...
Just for clarification I was referring to the BOE base rate
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
In every sport I've been involved in at a serious competitive level (cycling, shooting, BRSCC) everybody scumbags the rules to the maximum extent possible. In my brief and youthful flirtation with pro cycling the scumbaggery went way beyond the rules into cheating by any and every means possible.
PBers, please note close-to-final comment on previous thread by Peck, new poster but long lurker.
Thanks for the reference. I hope Peck carries on commenting. His post is interesting, novel and testable by the effluxion of time. There are at least 47 different ways of opposing the suggestion and the photo looks like the PM has wandered into a BNP rally and is hoping to escape without being noticed. In every respect a perfect contribution. Welcome.
One suggestion: does it really matter to the Tories whether a Scottish constituency is a SNP or Labour seat? The latter is if anything more likely to cooperate with the Tory Party as shown very well by recent history and various deals at local government level.
Edit: so removing Scotland means a permanent addition to the Tory numbers, either way.
This is correct IMHO. The Tories interest in Scotland is limited to about six things. Preserving the union with it, protecting its small core of support, trying to make sure Kate Forbes doesn't lead the SNP, (borrowing her to lead the Tories looks too long a bet), limiting the egregious additional funding it gets from England, allowing the SNP to implode, hoping Scottish Labour does the same after 2024.
Report on Sky that interest rates are to rise to 6% adding more to mortgage holders misery and the rates are likely to remain high for a considerable period of time
This crisis is looking very like 1991 to 2021 where negative equity prevailed, increased repossessions, and falling house prices
This is a deadly cocktail for the conservatives but in a wider context not good for any government but at least Starmer should receive a honeymoon for a whiie
They are going to hit 7 quite possibly 7.5%
Inflation isn't going down and the only available tool is a hammer against industrial jelly...
Just for clarification I was referring BOE base rate
As was I - I had priced in 6.5-7% as the BoE high but if the city is saying 6% at the moment I need to up my end point a bit...
As for the alternatives: I don't trust Dorsey, and hence Bluesky.
The CEO Dorsey hired also didn't trust Dorsey, so she insisted on a separate non-profit corporation independent of Twitter and not controlled by him. He still has a seat on the board, but beyond that no power over it as far as I can tell. Graber came from Zerocash, the other board member made Jabber, and the team seem to be the same kind of people, ie they're from the techie, non-hustler end of p2p/crypto.
Dorsey is a techbro. He operates, and thinks, like a techbro.
"He still has a seat on the board, but beyond that no power over it."
That means little - see the way Musk has operated in the past.
And if you want the ultimate reason not to go with Bluesky - Dorsey is backing RFK Jr. Before it has even started, BlueSky has gone over to the dark side.
You've lost me. He doesn't own or control the company. That means a lot. It means that if he wanted it to do some shitty thing involving RFK Jr or whatever, Graber and the team would tell him to piss off.
Or is the thought, he doesn't own it now but he could buy it from the people who do? Because that applies to all companies.
He's on the board, and the ownership situation, as explained, is rather opaque - and does not, as far as I can see, stop Dorsey having a big share?
They say it's owned by Graber and the team, not Dorsey. They could be lying, I guess?
Point of order - is there any difference over "Britain leaving the EU"? The dots seem to overlap on that one, presumably because people feel it's past history.
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
Grace was, of course, a notorious cheat alongside being the biggest box office draw in the land.
And you have no way of knowing that it was "exactly the same". Precise circumstances are needed to draw conclusions.
I suspect we are going to see a fair bit about fuel prices again today
Steven Swinford @Steven_Swinford · 1h Fuel retailers swallowed up the Govt’s 5p cut in fuel duty -intended to help people with cost of living - for their profit margins
Harriet Baldwin, head of Treasury select: ‘That whole £2.4bn cost to the Exchequer has gone straight to the bottom line of the retailers’
People old enough to remember when the Tory party actually stood for a few basic philosophical principles might wonder about this.
What is happening is that in a tightly contested free market for fuel the supermarket entrants, and the cheapest, are being told by Conservatives that their prices should be regulated because of the opinion that they are charging Xp a litre more than they should, and that there is something wicked and wrong about making profits - the amount of which should be for the state to decide.
No-one seems to regard this as weird. The BBC headlines it. The Overton window is all over the place.
Supermarket margins are being squeezed so they have less money to subsidise fuel prices with. Which makes smaller filling stations more competitive and secures their future.
Note the government response (the usual boilerplate) doesn't address most of his critiques at all.
The Economy and Healthcare are the two most important issues to both sets of voters.
Of course, 'The Economy,' is also a bit vague. A friend of mine's son has just secured a 5 yr fixed rate having been on a 2 yr that expired.
The result? He now has to pay double the amount each month on his mortgage: literally up from £700 to £1400 pcm.
The Conservatives are beating windward with the mainsail ripped to shreds, a faulty rudder, and a holed hull.
So that is £700 a month of spending which is now lost to the economy. Instead of having a disposable income to spend on products and services, the money gets burned on the inflation fire. Which means less money circulating, more jobs go, more companies go, we spiral downwards into a bigger economic pit.
This is the Tory tax. They have broken the economy and people are having to pay ever larger penalties.
That £700 is not lost to the economy. It is propping up company profits and being (finally) paid to savers.
Arguably not particularly useful redistribution, but not lost.
edit wrong context,
And sorry but it's £700 lost to local shops / businesses as the son will be cutting all expenditure to the bone... Multiple that a few times and the local shops will be closing down...
Keeping base rates at 0.5% or thereabouts, for 15 years, did real harm to the economy however. It penalised saving, fuelled debt, and boosted asset prices. If you want to know why we persistently spend more than we earn, that’s a large part of the answer.
Another way of looking at it is that it’s £700 going into savings and investment, rather than imports of consumer goods.
O/T fascinating charts. The most interesting items are not the ones where they diverge, which are as expected, but those where they are almost identical, and reasonably salient. Therein lie the swing votes.
Economy (of course) Taxation Law and order
James Carville is still right, more than three decades later:
I imagine a lot of changes of government around the world in the coming years, because the past few years havn’t been good, and the ire of the people usually goes to the incumbents.
Is it Thursday when rate decisions are made? I always forget.
It tends to be Thursdays. The next one isn't until mid August?
Maybe the Bank will come out with a 1% 'holiday season special' increase then?
More likely 0.5% with another 0.5% Sept
Naah. The Tories were quite strident a few months ago that inflation was already falling. So if it isn't then it must be the fault of the blob lefties like the Bank of England.
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
Save us, Oh Lord, walking…
(I think probably the only person who will get that is @el_capitano )
Report on Sky that interest rates are to rise to 6% adding more to mortgage holders misery and the rates are likely to remain high for a considerable period of time
This crisis is looking very like 1991 to 2021 where negative equity prevailed, increased repossessions, and falling house prices
This is a deadly cocktail for the conservatives but in a wider context not good for any government but at least Starmer should receive a honeymoon for a whiie
They are going to hit 7 quite possibly 7.5%
Inflation isn't going down and the only available tool is a hammer against industrial jelly...
Just a note for @Luckyguy1983 , who the other day suggested that rising interest rates indicated a crisis of creditworthiness - the yield curve on government debt is significantly inverted, with the implied interest rate on long dated gilts being much lower than that on the benchmark 2 year bond. Which is a very clear message that (for now) there are no real concerns about the UK's ability and willingness to service its debt in the medium to long term.
PBers, please note close-to-final comment on previous thread by Peck, new poster but long lurker.
Thanks for the reference. I hope Peck carries on commenting. His post is interesting, novel and testable by the effluxion of time. There are at least 47 different ways of opposing the suggestion and the photo looks like the PM has wandered into a BNP rally and is hoping to escape without being noticed. In every respect a perfect contribution. Welcome.
One suggestion: does it really matter to the Tories whether a Scottish constituency is a SNP or Labour seat? The latter is if anything more likely to cooperate with the Tory Party as shown very well by recent history and various deals at local government level.
Edit: so removing Scotland means a permanent addition to the Tory numbers, either way.
This is correct IMHO. The Tories interest in Scotland is limited to about six things. Preserving the union with it, protecting its small core of support, trying to make sure Kate Forbes doesn't lead the SNP, (borrowing her to lead the Tories looks too long a bet), limiting the egregious additional funding it gets from England, allowing the SNP to implode, hoping Scottish Labour does the same after 2024.
Kate Forbes is too rightwing even to lead Sunak and Hunt's Tories
Report on Sky that interest rates are to rise to 6% adding more to mortgage holders misery and the rates are likely to remain high for a considerable period of time
This crisis is looking very like 1991 to 2021 where negative equity prevailed, increased repossessions, and falling house prices
This is a deadly cocktail for the conservatives but in a wider context not good for any government but at least Starmer should receive a honeymoon for a whiie
They are going to hit 7 quite possibly 7.5%
Inflation isn't going down and the only available tool is a hammer against industrial jelly...
Rates won’t hit 7.5%. Look at wholesale price numbers to see where consumer prices will be heading.
Long-time lurker here. I was wondering today how English Tories might attempt to facilitate their preferred option out of the top two available in Scotland, which is to say an SNP bounce rather than a Labour landslide. And then I saw this photo... Never saw the Union Jack wrapped like that before. Must have taken some effort to make it look like the flag of St George with a little bit of decoration around the edge. Then another option for English Tories popped into mind: let Scotland go hang, and either push for English independence or else take such a big dump on Scotland that support for independence there rises to over 50% AND manifests as such in BritGE2024 somehow - meaning not necessarily with an SNP bounce but more likely with growing support among ScotLab voters and members. Just leak a phone call where Sunak makes a kilt or sporran joke or summat. Then bring in Penny and maybe someone who's posh and doesn't sound like JRM and they can say together that yes they bloody well are English and do think that England has its own interests... Aka selling Scotland down the river... And the Tories would never do that. Right?
Absolutely not, we are the Conservative and Unionist Party for a reason.
An English Parliament or restoration of EVEL would be helpful though as at the moment if the Tories won a majority in England yet Labour won a UK wide majority then Labour MPs could still decide English domestic policy
The table in the article is fascinating. But let me make a disquieting suggestion:
The votes that count in the sense of making a difference from last time are those of the switchers from 2019. This includes a fair number of PB contributors, including me.
It seems to me that very few of the switchers are doing so because of policy in any significant area; and there is almost no belief that a Labour government would be able to achieve much especially in the short term.
Nearly all the switching is about matters not in the list. Competence, honesty, moral exhaustion, decency, consistency, integrity, hope.
In a sense the table illustrates the extent to which the UK public (and pollsters?) distrust abstract nouns and theory of any description.
The election won't be won or lost on the issues in this list.
Interesting point, and I think Starmer has grasped it, possibly even unconsciously, as his entire focus is on that rather than more traditional themes. There was a period when Sunak seemed to be a threat in that respect, but I think his confidence in his apparent competence is being worn down by actually tryintg to govern with a fractious party and an unhealthy starting point.
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
PBers, please note close-to-final comment on previous thread by Peck, new poster but long lurker.
Thanks for the reference. I hope Peck carries on commenting. His post is interesting, novel and testable by the effluxion of time. There are at least 47 different ways of opposing the suggestion and the photo looks like the PM has wandered into a BNP rally and is hoping to escape without being noticed. In every respect a perfect contribution. Welcome.
One suggestion: does it really matter to the Tories whether a Scottish constituency is a SNP or Labour seat? The latter is if anything more likely to cooperate with the Tory Party as shown very well by recent history and various deals at local government level.
Edit: so removing Scotland means a permanent addition to the Tory numbers, either way.
The Conservatives propped up the SNP minority government of Salmond at Holyrood from 2007-2011 but the Tories have never propped up a UK Labour government at Westminster or Scottish Labour government at Holyrood
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
He threw the ball whilst Bairstow was in his crease !
I suspect we are going to see a fair bit about fuel prices again today
Steven Swinford @Steven_Swinford · 1h Fuel retailers swallowed up the Govt’s 5p cut in fuel duty -intended to help people with cost of living - for their profit margins
Harriet Baldwin, head of Treasury select: ‘That whole £2.4bn cost to the Exchequer has gone straight to the bottom line of the retailers’
People old enough to remember when the Tory party actually stood for a few basic philosophical principles might wonder about this.
What is happening is that in a tightly contested free market for fuel the supermarket entrants, and the cheapest, are being told by Conservatives that their prices should be regulated because of the opinion that they are charging Xp a litre more than they should, and that there is something wicked and wrong about making profits - the amount of which should be for the state to decide.
No-one seems to regard this as weird. The BBC headlines it. The Overton window is all over the place.
Supermarket margins are being squeezed so they have less money to subsidise fuel prices with. Which makes smaller filling stations more competitive and secures their future.
If a single petrol station can sell fuel at £1.359 for diesel why can't a supermarket sell it for a similar price.
The accusation is that the supermarkets have pocketed / stolen all the £2.4bn that the 5p cut cost the Government.
PBers, please note close-to-final comment on previous thread by Peck, new poster but long lurker.
Thanks for the reference. I hope Peck carries on commenting. His post is interesting, novel and testable by the effluxion of time. There are at least 47 different ways of opposing the suggestion and the photo looks like the PM has wandered into a BNP rally and is hoping to escape without being noticed. In every respect a perfect contribution. Welcome.
One suggestion: does it really matter to the Tories whether a Scottish constituency is a SNP or Labour seat? The latter is if anything more likely to cooperate with the Tory Party as shown very well by recent history and various deals at local government level.
Edit: so removing Scotland means a permanent addition to the Tory numbers, either way.
The Conservatives propped up the SNP minority government of Salmond at Holyrood from 2007-2011 but the Tories have never propped up a UK Labour government at Westminster or Scottish Labour government at Holyrood
Confusing radically different systems there.
2007-2011 was on specific bargaining on specific issues to pass the budgets, like the Scottish Greens or LDs (before the recent semi-coalition of the [edit] SGs with SNP, though). Quite normal in proportionally elected parliaments with minority governments. The only anomaly was that Slab generally refused to take part at all even to the extent of voting against its own proposals on occasion where the SNP had recognised their merit and incorporated them into the bill.
Edit: an example was when the SCUP got - or claimed credit for - an increase in police numbers at the same time as the Tory government in London was reducing police numbers in English (and possibly Welsh - I forget) forces.
I suspect we are going to see a fair bit about fuel prices again today
Steven Swinford @Steven_Swinford · 1h Fuel retailers swallowed up the Govt’s 5p cut in fuel duty -intended to help people with cost of living - for their profit margins
Harriet Baldwin, head of Treasury select: ‘That whole £2.4bn cost to the Exchequer has gone straight to the bottom line of the retailers’
People old enough to remember when the Tory party actually stood for a few basic philosophical principles might wonder about this.
What is happening is that in a tightly contested free market for fuel the supermarket entrants, and the cheapest, are being told by Conservatives that their prices should be regulated because of the opinion that they are charging Xp a litre more than they should, and that there is something wicked and wrong about making profits - the amount of which should be for the state to decide.
No-one seems to regard this as weird. The BBC headlines it. The Overton window is all over the place.
That is toy conservatism. Nobody ever denied that cartels and gouging and predatory pricing are things the free market needs protection against
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
Note the government response (the usual boilerplate) doesn't address most of his critiques at all.
The Economy and Healthcare are the two most important issues to both sets of voters.
Of course, 'The Economy,' is also a bit vague. A friend of mine's son has just secured a 5 yr fixed rate having been on a 2 yr that expired.
The result? He now has to pay double the amount each month on his mortgage: literally up from £700 to £1400 pcm.
The Conservatives are beating windward with the mainsail ripped to shreds, a faulty rudder, and a holed hull.
So that is £700 a month of spending which is now lost to the economy. Instead of having a disposable income to spend on products and services, the money gets burned on the inflation fire. Which means less money circulating, more jobs go, more companies go, we spiral downwards into a bigger economic pit.
This is the Tory tax. They have broken the economy and people are having to pay ever larger penalties.
That £700 is not lost to the economy. It is propping up company profits and being (finally) paid to savers.
Arguably not particularly useful redistribution, but not lost.
A key problem right now is it *isn’t* being paid to savers.
4.25% available from Yorkshire Building society
1.35% from HSBC - guess where a lot of money is being moved to today...
I opened a 1 year ISA at 4.96 a couple of weeks ago - it's not amazing, but you can do a lot better than the big names are offering.
Report on Sky that interest rates are to rise to 6% adding more to mortgage holders misery and the rates are likely to remain high for a considerable period of time
This crisis is looking very like 1991 to 2021 where negative equity prevailed, increased repossessions, and falling house prices
This is a deadly cocktail for the conservatives but in a wider context not good for any government but at least Starmer should receive a honeymoon for a whiie
They are going to hit 7 quite possibly 7.5%
Inflation isn't going down and the only available tool is a hammer against industrial jelly...
Rates won’t hit 7.5%. Look at wholesale price numbers to see where consumer prices will be heading.
I think the headline inflation rate will start to fall pretty soon, as the peak fuel prices from this time last year drop out of the numbers. There’s also a fair amount of sticky inflation around, so I think that while getting to 5% will be relatively easy, getting right back to 2% will be more difficult, and the pressure on central banks will remain for at least another year.
The single biggest factor is still the Russians being in Ukraine. The quicker we can kick them all back to Russia, the quicker the economy recovers.
I suspect we are going to see a fair bit about fuel prices again today
Steven Swinford @Steven_Swinford · 1h Fuel retailers swallowed up the Govt’s 5p cut in fuel duty -intended to help people with cost of living - for their profit margins
Harriet Baldwin, head of Treasury select: ‘That whole £2.4bn cost to the Exchequer has gone straight to the bottom line of the retailers’
Always a decent chance that would happen.
It's a free market- the price isn't "what it costs plus a fair margin", it's "the most the seller thinks they can get away with". Always has been.
And for whatever reason, the normal safety valves (pitch too high and customers go elsewhere) are jammed at the moment. I blame inflation making it hard for us to work out what a reasonable price is.
Yet another reason to not dick about with inflation.
I suspect we are going to see a fair bit about fuel prices again today
Steven Swinford @Steven_Swinford · 1h Fuel retailers swallowed up the Govt’s 5p cut in fuel duty -intended to help people with cost of living - for their profit margins
Harriet Baldwin, head of Treasury select: ‘That whole £2.4bn cost to the Exchequer has gone straight to the bottom line of the retailers’
People old enough to remember when the Tory party actually stood for a few basic philosophical principles might wonder about this.
What is happening is that in a tightly contested free market for fuel the supermarket entrants, and the cheapest, are being told by Conservatives that their prices should be regulated because of the opinion that they are charging Xp a litre more than they should, and that there is something wicked and wrong about making profits - the amount of which should be for the state to decide.
No-one seems to regard this as weird. The BBC headlines it. The Overton window is all over the place.
Supermarket margins are being squeezed so they have less money to subsidise fuel prices with. Which makes smaller filling stations more competitive and secures their future.
If a single petrol station can sell fuel at £1.359 for diesel why can't a supermarket sell it for a similar price.
The accusation is that the supermarkets have pocketed / stolen all the £2.4bn that the 5p cut cost the Government.
Or perhaps they're using it to subsidise lower prices in other parts of their business.
And I'm sure non-drivers would prefer higher petrol prices in exchange for lower food prices.
The bottom line is are supermarkets making excess overall profits ?
As for the alternatives: I don't trust Dorsey, and hence Bluesky.
The CEO Dorsey hired also didn't trust Dorsey, so she insisted on a separate non-profit corporation independent of Twitter and not controlled by him. He still has a seat on the board, but beyond that no power over it as far as I can tell. Graber came from Zerocash, the other board member made Jabber, and the team seem to be the same kind of people, ie they're from the techie, non-hustler end of p2p/crypto.
Dorsey is a techbro. He operates, and thinks, like a techbro.
"He still has a seat on the board, but beyond that no power over it."
That means little - see the way Musk has operated in the past.
And if you want the ultimate reason not to go with Bluesky - Dorsey is backing RFK Jr. Before it has even started, BlueSky has gone over to the dark side.
You've lost me. He doesn't own or control the company. That means a lot. It means that if he wanted it to do some shitty thing involving RFK Jr or whatever, Graber and the team would tell him to piss off.
Or is the thought, he doesn't own it now but he could buy it from the people who do? Because that applies to all companies.
He's on the board, and the ownership situation, as explained, is rather opaque - and does not, as far as I can see, stop Dorsey having a big share?
They say it's owned by Graber and the team, not Dorsey. They could be lying, I guess?
Is Dorsey seen as being part of 'the team' ? As a board member, I'd guess so.
He's a techbro; a friend of Musk and other similar peeps. What makes you think he's suddenly gone all altruistic; particularly given his endorsement of RFK Jr.
I suspect we are going to see a fair bit about fuel prices again today
Steven Swinford @Steven_Swinford · 1h Fuel retailers swallowed up the Govt’s 5p cut in fuel duty -intended to help people with cost of living - for their profit margins
Harriet Baldwin, head of Treasury select: ‘That whole £2.4bn cost to the Exchequer has gone straight to the bottom line of the retailers’
People old enough to remember when the Tory party actually stood for a few basic philosophical principles might wonder about this.
What is happening is that in a tightly contested free market for fuel the supermarket entrants, and the cheapest, are being told by Conservatives that their prices should be regulated because of the opinion that they are charging Xp a litre more than they should, and that there is something wicked and wrong about making profits - the amount of which should be for the state to decide.
No-one seems to regard this as weird. The BBC headlines it. The Overton window is all over the place.
Supermarket margins are being squeezed so they have less money to subsidise fuel prices with. Which makes smaller filling stations more competitive and secures their future.
If a single petrol station can sell fuel at £1.359 for diesel why can't a supermarket sell it for a similar price.
The accusation is that the supermarkets have pocketed / stolen all the £2.4bn that the 5p cut cost the Government.
Or perhaps they're using it to subsidise lower prices in other parts of their business.
And I'm sure non-drivers would prefer higher petrol prices in exchange for lower food prices.
The bottom line is are supermarkets making excess overall profits ?
Seen the prices in Morrisons? Most things are now cheaper in Waitrose / Marks...
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
He threw the ball whilst Bairstow was in his crease !
Only because Bairstow had taken the time to mark his spot to indicate he considered it to be dead ball. The umpires were on the move too.
Balbirnie wasn't in his crease, which is kind of the point of a stumping.
The biggest crime is that Cameron Green got a wicket from it.
I suspect we are going to see a fair bit about fuel prices again today
Steven Swinford @Steven_Swinford · 1h Fuel retailers swallowed up the Govt’s 5p cut in fuel duty -intended to help people with cost of living - for their profit margins
Harriet Baldwin, head of Treasury select: ‘That whole £2.4bn cost to the Exchequer has gone straight to the bottom line of the retailers’
Always a decent chance that would happen.
It's a free market- the price isn't "what it costs plus a fair margin", it's "the most the seller thinks they can get away with". Always has been.
And for whatever reason, the normal safety valves (pitch too high and customers go elsewhere) are jammed at the moment. I blame inflation making it hard for us to work out what a reasonable price is.
Yet another reason to not dick about with inflation.
Closure of independent retailers in many areas? Elimination of competition.
The table in the article is fascinating. But let me make a disquieting suggestion:
The votes that count in the sense of making a difference from last time are those of the switchers from 2019. This includes a fair number of PB contributors, including me.
It seems to me that very few of the switchers are doing so because of policy in any significant area; and there is almost no belief that a Labour government would be able to achieve much especially in the short term.
Nearly all the switching is about matters not in the list. Competence, honesty, moral exhaustion, decency, consistency, integrity, hope.
In a sense the table illustrates the extent to which the UK public (and pollsters?) distrust abstract nouns and theory of any description.
The election won't be won or lost on the issues in this list.
Interesting point, and I think Starmer has grasped it, possibly even unconsciously, as his entire focus is on that rather than more traditional themes. There was a period when Sunak seemed to be a threat in that respect, but I think his confidence in his apparent competence is being worn down by actually tryintg to govern with a fractious party and an unhealthy starting point.
Yes. All the coverage the Tory party is getting is about the useless utterances of MPs who apparently (maybe even genuinely) believe that countries are run and elections won on simplistic aphorisms and legislating away problems not caused by an absence of laws.
Sir K is bit by bit drawing back from both a theoretical socialist agenda (see his now historical 10 pledges)
and also from more recent policies that involve spending money he won't have. Sir K's only recourse at the moment is to under promise and hope he can over deliver. I think this can only be done by promising only abstract nouns, and delivering tiny incremental benefits.
I suspect we are going to see a fair bit about fuel prices again today
Steven Swinford @Steven_Swinford · 1h Fuel retailers swallowed up the Govt’s 5p cut in fuel duty -intended to help people with cost of living - for their profit margins
Harriet Baldwin, head of Treasury select: ‘That whole £2.4bn cost to the Exchequer has gone straight to the bottom line of the retailers’
People old enough to remember when the Tory party actually stood for a few basic philosophical principles might wonder about this.
What is happening is that in a tightly contested free market for fuel the supermarket entrants, and the cheapest, are being told by Conservatives that their prices should be regulated because of the opinion that they are charging Xp a litre more than they should, and that there is something wicked and wrong about making profits - the amount of which should be for the state to decide.
No-one seems to regard this as weird. The BBC headlines it. The Overton window is all over the place.
Supermarket margins are being squeezed so they have less money to subsidise fuel prices with. Which makes smaller filling stations more competitive and secures their future.
If a single petrol station can sell fuel at £1.359 for diesel why can't a supermarket sell it for a similar price.
The accusation is that the supermarkets have pocketed / stolen all the £2.4bn that the 5p cut cost the Government.
The electronic real time data requirement upload is a good thing, as are the papers making a noise about it all. One thing, we all have a duty to seek and find and fuel at the lowest possible price - inflation will never come down if everyone just accepts higher prices. To this regard the papers creating a bit of furore should change collective behaviour.
I suspect we are going to see a fair bit about fuel prices again today
Steven Swinford @Steven_Swinford · 1h Fuel retailers swallowed up the Govt’s 5p cut in fuel duty -intended to help people with cost of living - for their profit margins
Harriet Baldwin, head of Treasury select: ‘That whole £2.4bn cost to the Exchequer has gone straight to the bottom line of the retailers’
Always a decent chance that would happen.
It's a free market- the price isn't "what it costs plus a fair margin", it's "the most the seller thinks they can get away with". Always has been.
And for whatever reason, the normal safety valves (pitch too high and customers go elsewhere) are jammed at the moment. I blame inflation making it hard for us to work out what a reasonable price is.
Yet another reason to not dick about with inflation.
I blame deflation in fuel prices. It’s really easy to hide increased margins if input prices are falling, you don’t have to do anything!
The table in the article is fascinating. But let me make a disquieting suggestion:
The votes that count in the sense of making a difference from last time are those of the switchers from 2019. This includes a fair number of PB contributors, including me.
It seems to me that very few of the switchers are doing so because of policy in any significant area; and there is almost no belief that a Labour government would be able to achieve much especially in the short term.
Nearly all the switching is about matters not in the list. Competence, honesty, moral exhaustion, decency, consistency, integrity, hope.
In a sense the table illustrates the extent to which the UK public (and pollsters?) distrust abstract nouns and theory of any description.
The election won't be won or lost on the issues in this list.
Interesting point, and I think Starmer has grasped it, possibly even unconsciously, as his entire focus is on that rather than more traditional themes. There was a period when Sunak seemed to be a threat in that respect, but I think his confidence in his apparent competence is being worn down by actually tryintg to govern with a fractious party and an unhealthy starting point.
The one big exception to the rule there, I think, is healthcare. Extremely salient and where there is a clear story Labour can and should tell. All they need do is point to those waiting list and NHS satisfaction charts from the last 3 administrations. And it's something that affects the elderly who dominate the political system. It's also perhaps the most painfully obvious failed promise of the Brexit campaign, of course.
On immigration by contrast I think a lot of (again, generally older) people worry about it but none of them honestly believes any government will do better than the other.
I suspect we are going to see a fair bit about fuel prices again today
Steven Swinford @Steven_Swinford · 1h Fuel retailers swallowed up the Govt’s 5p cut in fuel duty -intended to help people with cost of living - for their profit margins
Harriet Baldwin, head of Treasury select: ‘That whole £2.4bn cost to the Exchequer has gone straight to the bottom line of the retailers’
Always a decent chance that would happen.
It's a free market- the price isn't "what it costs plus a fair margin", it's "the most the seller thinks they can get away with". Always has been.
And for whatever reason, the normal safety valves (pitch too high and customers go elsewhere) are jammed at the moment. I blame inflation making it hard for us to work out what a reasonable price is.
Yet another reason to not dick about with inflation.
I blame deflation in fuel prices. It’s really easy to hide increased margins if input prices are falling, you don’t have to do anything!
Just like Dan Neidle has been banging on about regarding targeted VAT cuts: they rarely if ever benefit the consumer in the end. The benefit is passed up the supply chain instead.
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
He threw the ball whilst Bairstow was in his crease !
Only because Bairstow had taken the time to mark his spot to indicate he considered it to be dead ball. The umpires were on the move too.
Balbirnie wasn't in his crease, which is kind of the point of a stumping.
The biggest crime is that Cameron Green got a wicket from it.
The Keeper throws the ball instantly, it never settled, which means it was never dead. The batsman can't consider the ball dead while it's still moving.
Note the government response (the usual boilerplate) doesn't address most of his critiques at all.
The Economy and Healthcare are the two most important issues to both sets of voters.
Of course, 'The Economy,' is also a bit vague. A friend of mine's son has just secured a 5 yr fixed rate having been on a 2 yr that expired.
The result? He now has to pay double the amount each month on his mortgage: literally up from £700 to £1400 pcm.
The Conservatives are beating windward with the mainsail ripped to shreds, a faulty rudder, and a holed hull.
So that is £700 a month of spending which is now lost to the economy. Instead of having a disposable income to spend on products and services, the money gets burned on the inflation fire. Which means less money circulating, more jobs go, more companies go, we spiral downwards into a bigger economic pit.
This is the Tory tax. They have broken the economy and people are having to pay ever larger penalties.
That £700 is not lost to the economy. It is propping up company profits and being (finally) paid to savers.
Arguably not particularly useful redistribution, but not lost.
edit wrong context,
And sorry but it's £700 lost to local shops / businesses as the son will be cutting all expenditure to the bone... Multiple that a few times and the local shops will be closing down...
Exactly. Our economy depends on the circulation of money. The velocity of that circulation. Cash paid in wages being spent on things which pays other wages. Capitalism.
These company profits that @Foxy mentions - unless it is cash spent on things in the UK, it *is* lost. An awful lot of money is being and has for a while been hoovered up by these big businesses and disappearing elsewhere. These aren't British investors benefitting, getting lots of cash to invest in UK business and lots of UK dividends. Its being taken by spivs. Which is how we end up with the likes of Thames Water, who massively overcharge consumers, massively under-invest and somehow manage to massively load the company up with dept.
All our money, taken by these spivs. Not circulating. Not providing jobs. The Tory problem is that they are a party owned by spivs, in thrall to these grifters, handing our money over to their mates increasingly in exchange for nothing.
And underneath that is the problem that since 1998 the UK has been selling off its assets in order to fund a trade deficit.
So business profits flow overseas, rents flow overseas, interest payments on government bonds flow overseas.
And still the focus in the UK is how to increase wealth consumption with wealth creation regarded as a minority aspect.
I suspect we are going to see a fair bit about fuel prices again today
Steven Swinford @Steven_Swinford · 1h Fuel retailers swallowed up the Govt’s 5p cut in fuel duty -intended to help people with cost of living - for their profit margins
Harriet Baldwin, head of Treasury select: ‘That whole £2.4bn cost to the Exchequer has gone straight to the bottom line of the retailers’
Always a decent chance that would happen.
It's a free market- the price isn't "what it costs plus a fair margin", it's "the most the seller thinks they can get away with". Always has been.
And for whatever reason, the normal safety valves (pitch too high and customers go elsewhere) are jammed at the moment. I blame inflation making it hard for us to work out what a reasonable price is.
Yet another reason to not dick about with inflation.
I blame deflation in fuel prices. It’s really easy to hide increased margins if input prices are falling, you don’t have to do anything!
The only honest fuel retailer (If you can get hold of a card) is Costco. £35/yr to save ~10p/litre.
I suspect we are going to see a fair bit about fuel prices again today
Steven Swinford @Steven_Swinford · 1h Fuel retailers swallowed up the Govt’s 5p cut in fuel duty -intended to help people with cost of living - for their profit margins
Harriet Baldwin, head of Treasury select: ‘That whole £2.4bn cost to the Exchequer has gone straight to the bottom line of the retailers’
People old enough to remember when the Tory party actually stood for a few basic philosophical principles might wonder about this.
What is happening is that in a tightly contested free market for fuel the supermarket entrants, and the cheapest, are being told by Conservatives that their prices should be regulated because of the opinion that they are charging Xp a litre more than they should, and that there is something wicked and wrong about making profits - the amount of which should be for the state to decide.
No-one seems to regard this as weird. The BBC headlines it. The Overton window is all over the place.
That is toy conservatism. Nobody ever denied that cartels and gouging and predatory pricing are things the free market needs protection against
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
Old Smithy was always commendably clear eyed about human motivation, none of that sentimental heroising guff anout wealth creators. I wonder what he’d think of the institute named after him?
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
It doesn't matter if Bairstow believed the ball was dead if it wasn't actually dead and it wasn't.
1. The properly constituted Acoba process said that Gov’t hadn’t provided any evidence of a breach of impartiality, even when asked
2. By contrast, HMG ‘investigation’ finds only a ‘prima facie’ case…
…in other words, nothing is proved;
3. There is no publicly available account of the standing of this ‘investigation’, of what its processes were, or how the conclusions were reached (in marked contrast to ACOBA). No evidence of any kind is adduced to support its findings
4. Successive Govts have a long-standing convention of not commenting on personnel matters.
That now becomes harder to sustain in future cases thanks to this precedent.
And for what benefit to either the Gov’t or the wider public interest ?
I suspect we are going to see a fair bit about fuel prices again today
Steven Swinford @Steven_Swinford · 1h Fuel retailers swallowed up the Govt’s 5p cut in fuel duty -intended to help people with cost of living - for their profit margins
Harriet Baldwin, head of Treasury select: ‘That whole £2.4bn cost to the Exchequer has gone straight to the bottom line of the retailers’
People old enough to remember when the Tory party actually stood for a few basic philosophical principles might wonder about this.
What is happening is that in a tightly contested free market for fuel the supermarket entrants, and the cheapest, are being told by Conservatives that their prices should be regulated because of the opinion that they are charging Xp a litre more than they should, and that there is something wicked and wrong about making profits - the amount of which should be for the state to decide.
No-one seems to regard this as weird. The BBC headlines it. The Overton window is all over the place.
That is toy conservatism. Nobody ever denied that cartels and gouging and predatory pricing are things the free market needs protection against
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
That doesn't quite cover the point. In a free market 'price' is what you can get. Private individuals who vainly believe that 'price' should be fixed by some abstract principle of fairness suddenly ignore this the moment they try to sell their house. Competition deals with conspiracy except in special circumstances. Is there any evidence of this in this case?
Gosh, almost half of Tory voters have Immigration in their top 3 concerns. This is their new identity-driven base, I guess, forged by Brexit and Boris Johnson.
Note the government response (the usual boilerplate) doesn't address most of his critiques at all.
The Economy and Healthcare are the two most important issues to both sets of voters.
Of course, 'The Economy,' is also a bit vague. A friend of mine's son has just secured a 5 yr fixed rate having been on a 2 yr that expired.
The result? He now has to pay double the amount each month on his mortgage: literally up from £700 to £1400 pcm.
The Conservatives are beating windward with the mainsail ripped to shreds, a faulty rudder, and a holed hull.
So that is £700 a month of spending which is now lost to the economy. Instead of having a disposable income to spend on products and services, the money gets burned on the inflation fire. Which means less money circulating, more jobs go, more companies go, we spiral downwards into a bigger economic pit.
This is the Tory tax. They have broken the economy and people are having to pay ever larger penalties.
That £700 is not lost to the economy. It is propping up company profits and being (finally) paid to savers.
Arguably not particularly useful redistribution, but not lost.
edit wrong context,
And sorry but it's £700 lost to local shops / businesses as the son will be cutting all expenditure to the bone... Multiple that a few times and the local shops will be closing down...
Exactly. Our economy depends on the circulation of money. The velocity of that circulation. Cash paid in wages being spent on things which pays other wages. Capitalism.
These company profits that @Foxy mentions - unless it is cash spent on things in the UK, it *is* lost. An awful lot of money is being and has for a while been hoovered up by these big businesses and disappearing elsewhere. These aren't British investors benefitting, getting lots of cash to invest in UK business and lots of UK dividends. Its being taken by spivs. Which is how we end up with the likes of Thames Water, who massively overcharge consumers, massively under-invest and somehow manage to massively load the company up with dept.
All our money, taken by these spivs. Not circulating. Not providing jobs. The Tory problem is that they are a party owned by spivs, in thrall to these grifters, handing our money over to their mates increasingly in exchange for nothing.
And underneath that is the problem that since 1998 the UK has been selling off its assets in order to fund a trade deficit.
So business profits flow overseas, rents flow overseas, interest payments on government bonds flow overseas.
And still the focus in the UK is how to increase wealth consumption with wealth creation regarded as a minority aspect.
Balance of payments is a weird one. It used to lead the news, but for the last 30 years it’s barely mentioned.
The starting point is that we need to stop importing so much, especially cheap Chinese tat.
At the other end of the scale, back in the 1980s, the newly-privatised British Airways would get regular calls from No.11 to the chairman’s office, demanding revisions to the delivery timetable for the new 747 aircraft - because at a couple of hundred million quid each, deferring one by a few days would make the balance of payments figures better for the government!
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
It doesn't matter if Bairstow believed the ball was dead if it wasn't actually dead and it wasn't.
In this case there is no such thing as the ball being 'actually dead'. It is only 'the opinion of the umpire' at the time which determines it. The umpire should have decided it was dead, on the simple basis that the batter had left his crease after marking it but without any attempt at a run.
Just when I start thinking I might be able to vote Labour next time, they come up with insanity like this.
Hell no.
All investments can go down as well as up, and every BTL parasite that can't afford their mortgage is a house freed up for someone to buy to live in, instead of trying to sweat an income from an indentured tenant.
All that does is slow down price increases for buying property, as the BTL landlords sell.
At the same time, the rental market supply contracts.
The actual solution to the property crisis is 8 million more properties.
You're not going to have me disagree that the solution is more properties in the long term, but fewer parasites seeking to have other's pay their mortgage for them is a good thing in the short term too.
That's not to say there should be no private rentals, but in a functioning market economy rentals should be cheaper than mortgages, and are in much of the world. If someone can afford to pay a landlord's mortgage, they can afford to pay their own, and for them to be paying someone else's instead is a market failure that needs addressing.
People or firms who invest their own money, not their tenant's money, into a property to let is entirely reasonable, but should be getting a return less than a mortgage.
I find it disturbing that you refer to human beings as “parasites”.
It used to be called “othering”
The word has a meaning. A parasite is one that gets its nutrition from the efforts of others.
BTL landlords who don't pay their own mortgage with their own income from their own wages, but instead pay it out of their tenants wages instead, are quite literally engaged in parasitical behaviour.
It's a market failure that people who can afford to pay a mortgage repayment are paying their landlords mortgage instead of their own. A market failure brought about by the regulations on the housing market.
For many cities and countries around the world rent is a cheaper option for people who can't afford a mortgage.
I suspect we are going to see a fair bit about fuel prices again today
Steven Swinford @Steven_Swinford · 1h Fuel retailers swallowed up the Govt’s 5p cut in fuel duty -intended to help people with cost of living - for their profit margins
Harriet Baldwin, head of Treasury select: ‘That whole £2.4bn cost to the Exchequer has gone straight to the bottom line of the retailers’
People old enough to remember when the Tory party actually stood for a few basic philosophical principles might wonder about this.
What is happening is that in a tightly contested free market for fuel the supermarket entrants, and the cheapest, are being told by Conservatives that their prices should be regulated because of the opinion that they are charging Xp a litre more than they should, and that there is something wicked and wrong about making profits - the amount of which should be for the state to decide.
No-one seems to regard this as weird. The BBC headlines it. The Overton window is all over the place.
Supermarket margins are being squeezed so they have less money to subsidise fuel prices with. Which makes smaller filling stations more competitive and secures their future.
If a single petrol station can sell fuel at £1.359 for diesel why can't a supermarket sell it for a similar price.
The accusation is that the supermarkets have pocketed / stolen all the £2.4bn that the 5p cut cost the Government.
Or perhaps they're using it to subsidise lower prices in other parts of their business.
And I'm sure non-drivers would prefer higher petrol prices in exchange for lower food prices.
The bottom line is are supermarkets making excess overall profits ?
Seen the prices in Morrisons? Most things are now cheaper in Waitrose / Marks...
Morrisons is certainly an odd one with erratic prices.
A couple of weeks ago it was selling beer cheaply.
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
It doesn't matter if Bairstow believed the ball was dead if it wasn't actually dead and it wasn't.
No one is arguing about whether it was out or not. It's whether it's fair dinkum to do that to an opponent.
I suspect we are going to see a fair bit about fuel prices again today
Steven Swinford @Steven_Swinford · 1h Fuel retailers swallowed up the Govt’s 5p cut in fuel duty -intended to help people with cost of living - for their profit margins
Harriet Baldwin, head of Treasury select: ‘That whole £2.4bn cost to the Exchequer has gone straight to the bottom line of the retailers’
People old enough to remember when the Tory party actually stood for a few basic philosophical principles might wonder about this.
What is happening is that in a tightly contested free market for fuel the supermarket entrants, and the cheapest, are being told by Conservatives that their prices should be regulated because of the opinion that they are charging Xp a litre more than they should, and that there is something wicked and wrong about making profits - the amount of which should be for the state to decide.
No-one seems to regard this as weird. The BBC headlines it. The Overton window is all over the place.
Supermarket margins are being squeezed so they have less money to subsidise fuel prices with. Which makes smaller filling stations more competitive and secures their future.
If a single petrol station can sell fuel at £1.359 for diesel why can't a supermarket sell it for a similar price.
The accusation is that the supermarkets have pocketed / stolen all the £2.4bn that the 5p cut cost the Government.
The electronic real time data requirement upload is a good thing, as are the papers making a noise about it all. One thing, we all have a duty to seek and find and fuel at the lowest possible price - inflation will never come down if everyone just accepts higher prices. To this regard the papers creating a bit of furore should change collective behaviour.
Will that data requirement make much difference?
I don't normally find petrolprices.com (fake email address required) significantly out of date.
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
It doesn't matter if Bairstow believed the ball was dead if it wasn't actually dead and it wasn't.
In this case there is no such thing as the ball being 'actually dead'. It is only 'the opinion of the umpire' at the time which determines it. The umpire should have decided it was dead, on the simple basis that the batter had left his crease after marking it but without any attempt at a run.
The umpire decides but not arbitrarily or solely on the grounds of what the batter does. The umpire makes the decision based on both teams stopping any action.
I suspect we are going to see a fair bit about fuel prices again today
Steven Swinford @Steven_Swinford · 1h Fuel retailers swallowed up the Govt’s 5p cut in fuel duty -intended to help people with cost of living - for their profit margins
Harriet Baldwin, head of Treasury select: ‘That whole £2.4bn cost to the Exchequer has gone straight to the bottom line of the retailers’
People old enough to remember when the Tory party actually stood for a few basic philosophical principles might wonder about this.
What is happening is that in a tightly contested free market for fuel the supermarket entrants, and the cheapest, are being told by Conservatives that their prices should be regulated because of the opinion that they are charging Xp a litre more than they should, and that there is something wicked and wrong about making profits - the amount of which should be for the state to decide.
No-one seems to regard this as weird. The BBC headlines it. The Overton window is all over the place.
That is toy conservatism. Nobody ever denied that cartels and gouging and predatory pricing are things the free market needs protection against
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
That doesn't quite cover the point. In a free market 'price' is what you can get. Private individuals who vainly believe that 'price' should be fixed by some abstract principle of fairness suddenly ignore this the moment they try to sell their house. Competition deals with conspiracy except in special circumstances. Is there any evidence of this in this case?
The CMA's requirement for retailers to upload realtime price data (Which is going to be literally going to be less than a megabyte a day) is a good one. {Location Fuel type1 Fuel price1 Fuel type 2 Fuel price 2 }
Something like that - then
Integration into google maps [1] (Not sure about Apple, knowing the average Apple user they probably all fill up on the motorway anyway)
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
It doesn't matter if Bairstow believed the ball was dead if it wasn't actually dead and it wasn't.
No one is arguing about whether it was out or not. It's whether it's fair dinkum to do that to an opponent.
If it is, then all's fair.
He threw the ball instantly, that makes it fair in my eyes. It was all one action.
It would have been sporting to withdraw the appeal since it was clear that Bairstow made a mistake, but since when has that happened in professional cricket?
Had the Keeper held onto the ball then only thrown it after Bairstow wandered down the crease that'd be different but it didn't happen like that.
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
It doesn't matter if Bairstow believed the ball was dead if it wasn't actually dead and it wasn't.
In this case there is no such thing as the ball being 'actually dead'. It is only 'the opinion of the umpire' at the time which determines it. The umpire should have decided it was dead, on the simple basis that the batter had left his crease after marking it but without any attempt at a run.
But the ball wasn't dead at that point as it had already been thrown.
Gosh, almost half of Tory voters have Immigration in their top 3 concerns. This is their new identity-driven base, I guess, forged by Brexit and Boris Johnson.
A lot of public opinion is what the news is telling us. And immigration - particularly asylum seekers rather than legal immigration - gets a huge amount of coverage disproportionate to its effect on most people's lives. At the other end of the spectrum education gets virtually none despite being absolutely crucial to the long term wellbeing of the country and economy.
Transport (rail strikes, ULEZ, fuel prices etc) probably gets about the right amount of coverage for its importance, as do Ukraine and Brexit.
Just when I start thinking I might be able to vote Labour next time, they come up with insanity like this.
Hell no.
All investments can go down as well as up, and every BTL parasite that can't afford their mortgage is a house freed up for someone to buy to live in, instead of trying to sweat an income from an indentured tenant.
All that does is slow down price increases for buying property, as the BTL landlords sell.
At the same time, the rental market supply contracts.
The actual solution to the property crisis is 8 million more properties.
You're not going to have me disagree that the solution is more properties in the long term, but fewer parasites seeking to have other's pay their mortgage for them is a good thing in the short term too.
That's not to say there should be no private rentals, but in a functioning market economy rentals should be cheaper than mortgages, and are in much of the world. If someone can afford to pay a landlord's mortgage, they can afford to pay their own, and for them to be paying someone else's instead is a market failure that needs addressing.
People or firms who invest their own money, not their tenant's money, into a property to let is entirely reasonable, but should be getting a return less than a mortgage.
I find it disturbing that you refer to human beings as “parasites”.
It used to be called “othering”
The word has a meaning. A parasite is one that gets its nutrition from the efforts of others.
BTL landlords who don't pay their own mortgage with their own income from their own wages, but instead pay it out of their tenants wages instead, are quite literally engaged in parasitical behaviour.
It's a market failure that people who can afford to pay a mortgage repayment are paying their landlords mortgage instead of their own. A market failure brought about by the regulations on the housing market.
For many cities and countries around the world rent is a cheaper option for people who can't afford a mortgage.
It's no different to a pension or share portfolio which pays you an income out of other people's labour.
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
It doesn't matter if Bairstow believed the ball was dead if it wasn't actually dead and it wasn't.
In this case there is no such thing as the ball being 'actually dead'. It is only 'the opinion of the umpire' at the time which determines it. The umpire should have decided it was dead, on the simple basis that the batter had left his crease after marking it but without any attempt at a run.
The umpire decides but not arbitrarily or solely on the grounds of what the batter does. The umpire makes the decision based on both teams stopping any action.
20.1.2 The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batters at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
It doesn't matter if Bairstow believed the ball was dead if it wasn't actually dead and it wasn't.
In this case there is no such thing as the ball being 'actually dead'. It is only 'the opinion of the umpire' at the time which determines it. The umpire should have decided it was dead, on the simple basis that the batter had left his crease after marking it but without any attempt at a run.
That's not the law and never has been. The law is the ball is dead when both fielders and batsman have stopped but that never happened since the fielder threw it as soon as he caught it.
The batsman can't and never has been able to just unilaterally declare the ball dead to avoid a stumping.
I suspect we are going to see a fair bit about fuel prices again today
Steven Swinford @Steven_Swinford · 1h Fuel retailers swallowed up the Govt’s 5p cut in fuel duty -intended to help people with cost of living - for their profit margins
Harriet Baldwin, head of Treasury select: ‘That whole £2.4bn cost to the Exchequer has gone straight to the bottom line of the retailers’
People old enough to remember when the Tory party actually stood for a few basic philosophical principles might wonder about this.
What is happening is that in a tightly contested free market for fuel the supermarket entrants, and the cheapest, are being told by Conservatives that their prices should be regulated because of the opinion that they are charging Xp a litre more than they should, and that there is something wicked and wrong about making profits - the amount of which should be for the state to decide.
No-one seems to regard this as weird. The BBC headlines it. The Overton window is all over the place.
Supermarket margins are being squeezed so they have less money to subsidise fuel prices with. Which makes smaller filling stations more competitive and secures their future.
If a single petrol station can sell fuel at £1.359 for diesel why can't a supermarket sell it for a similar price.
The accusation is that the supermarkets have pocketed / stolen all the £2.4bn that the 5p cut cost the Government.
Or perhaps they're using it to subsidise lower prices in other parts of their business.
And I'm sure non-drivers would prefer higher petrol prices in exchange for lower food prices.
The bottom line is are supermarkets making excess overall profits ?
Seen the prices in Morrisons? Most things are now cheaper in Waitrose / Marks...
Morrisons is certainly an odd one with erratic prices.
A couple of weeks ago it was selling beer cheaply.
Morrisons has an absolute mountain of debt to service doesn't it ? One of the issues with UK supermarkets is that the ultimate ownership has been hived off to a whole bunch of characters who are a fair bit sharper & greedy in their business practices than previous ones.
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
It doesn't matter if Bairstow believed the ball was dead if it wasn't actually dead and it wasn't.
In this case there is no such thing as the ball being 'actually dead'. It is only 'the opinion of the umpire' at the time which determines it. The umpire should have decided it was dead, on the simple basis that the batter had left his crease after marking it but without any attempt at a run.
The umpire decides but not arbitrarily or solely on the grounds of what the batter does. The umpire makes the decision based on both teams stopping any action.
If the batsman has indicated they are not going to take a run, has completed any attempt to hit the ball whilst standing in their crease and is in full control of their limbs, what legitimate action can take place?
Note the government response (the usual boilerplate) doesn't address most of his critiques at all.
The Economy and Healthcare are the two most important issues to both sets of voters.
Of course, 'The Economy,' is also a bit vague. A friend of mine's son has just secured a 5 yr fixed rate having been on a 2 yr that expired.
The result? He now has to pay double the amount each month on his mortgage: literally up from £700 to £1400 pcm.
The Conservatives are beating windward with the mainsail ripped to shreds, a faulty rudder, and a holed hull.
So that is £700 a month of spending which is now lost to the economy. Instead of having a disposable income to spend on products and services, the money gets burned on the inflation fire. Which means less money circulating, more jobs go, more companies go, we spiral downwards into a bigger economic pit.
This is the Tory tax. They have broken the economy and people are having to pay ever larger penalties.
That £700 is not lost to the economy. It is propping up company profits and being (finally) paid to savers.
Arguably not particularly useful redistribution, but not lost.
edit wrong context,
And sorry but it's £700 lost to local shops / businesses as the son will be cutting all expenditure to the bone... Multiple that a few times and the local shops will be closing down...
Exactly. Our economy depends on the circulation of money. The velocity of that circulation. Cash paid in wages being spent on things which pays other wages. Capitalism.
These company profits that @Foxy mentions - unless it is cash spent on things in the UK, it *is* lost. An awful lot of money is being and has for a while been hoovered up by these big businesses and disappearing elsewhere. These aren't British investors benefitting, getting lots of cash to invest in UK business and lots of UK dividends. Its being taken by spivs. Which is how we end up with the likes of Thames Water, who massively overcharge consumers, massively under-invest and somehow manage to massively load the company up with dept.
All our money, taken by these spivs. Not circulating. Not providing jobs. The Tory problem is that they are a party owned by spivs, in thrall to these grifters, handing our money over to their mates increasingly in exchange for nothing.
And underneath that is the problem that since 1998 the UK has been selling off its assets in order to fund a trade deficit.
So business profits flow overseas, rents flow overseas, interest payments on government bonds flow overseas.
And still the focus in the UK is how to increase wealth consumption with wealth creation regarded as a minority aspect.
Balance of payments is a weird one. It used to lead the news, but for the last 30 years it’s barely mentioned.
The starting point is that we need to stop importing so much, especially cheap Chinese tat.
At the other end of the scale, back in the 1980s, the newly-privatised British Airways would get regular calls from No.11 to the chairman’s office, demanding revisions to the delivery timetable for the new 747 aircraft - because at a couple of hundred million quid each, deferring one by a few days would make the balance of payments figures better for the government!
If true, the origin may be the oft-repeated urban legend that the 1970(?) election loss was caused by two 747s being purchased that year. I think it's mentioned in YM/YPM, either the series or the book.
I suspect we are going to see a fair bit about fuel prices again today
Steven Swinford @Steven_Swinford · 1h Fuel retailers swallowed up the Govt’s 5p cut in fuel duty -intended to help people with cost of living - for their profit margins
Harriet Baldwin, head of Treasury select: ‘That whole £2.4bn cost to the Exchequer has gone straight to the bottom line of the retailers’
People old enough to remember when the Tory party actually stood for a few basic philosophical principles might wonder about this.
What is happening is that in a tightly contested free market for fuel the supermarket entrants, and the cheapest, are being told by Conservatives that their prices should be regulated because of the opinion that they are charging Xp a litre more than they should, and that there is something wicked and wrong about making profits - the amount of which should be for the state to decide.
No-one seems to regard this as weird. The BBC headlines it. The Overton window is all over the place.
Supermarket margins are being squeezed so they have less money to subsidise fuel prices with. Which makes smaller filling stations more competitive and secures their future.
If a single petrol station can sell fuel at £1.359 for diesel why can't a supermarket sell it for a similar price.
The accusation is that the supermarkets have pocketed / stolen all the £2.4bn that the 5p cut cost the Government.
The electronic real time data requirement upload is a good thing, as are the papers making a noise about it all. One thing, we all have a duty to seek and find and fuel at the lowest possible price - inflation will never come down if everyone just accepts higher prices. To this regard the papers creating a bit of furore should change collective behaviour.
Will that data requirement make much difference?
I don't normally find petrolprices.com (fake email address required) significantly out of date.
Integration into Google Maps is the biggy I think. And that's only possible with real time data.
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
It doesn't matter if Bairstow believed the ball was dead if it wasn't actually dead and it wasn't.
In this case there is no such thing as the ball being 'actually dead'. It is only 'the opinion of the umpire' at the time which determines it. The umpire should have decided it was dead, on the simple basis that the batter had left his crease after marking it but without any attempt at a run.
The umpire decides but not arbitrarily or solely on the grounds of what the batter does. The umpire makes the decision based on both teams stopping any action.
If the batsman has indicated they are not going to take a run, has completed any attempt to hit the ball and is in control of their limbs, what legitimate action can take place?
A stumping if they're out of their crease.
Which is what happened.
The ball is dead when the ball is settled and neither fielders nor batters are acting. That never happened.
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
It doesn't matter if Bairstow believed the ball was dead if it wasn't actually dead and it wasn't.
In this case there is no such thing as the ball being 'actually dead'. It is only 'the opinion of the umpire' at the time which determines it. The umpire should have decided it was dead, on the simple basis that the batter had left his crease after marking it but without any attempt at a run.
The umpire decides but not arbitrarily or solely on the grounds of what the batter does. The umpire makes the decision based on both teams stopping any action.
If the batsman has indicated they are not going to take a run, has completed any attempt to hit the ball whilst standing in their crease and is in full control of their limbs, what legitimate action can take place?
The batsman can watch the ball settle in the keeper's gloves
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
It doesn't matter if Bairstow believed the ball was dead if it wasn't actually dead and it wasn't.
In this case there is no such thing as the ball being 'actually dead'. It is only 'the opinion of the umpire' at the time which determines it. The umpire should have decided it was dead, on the simple basis that the batter had left his crease after marking it but without any attempt at a run.
The umpire decides but not arbitrarily or solely on the grounds of what the batter does. The umpire makes the decision based on both teams stopping any action.
If the batsman has indicated they are not going to take a run, has completed any attempt to hit the ball whilst standing in their crease and is in full control of their limbs, what legitimate action can take place?
The fielder could shy at the stumps. If it missed and went to the boundary most batters would be claiming the runs.....
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
It doesn't matter if Bairstow believed the ball was dead if it wasn't actually dead and it wasn't.
In this case there is no such thing as the ball being 'actually dead'. It is only 'the opinion of the umpire' at the time which determines it. The umpire should have decided it was dead, on the simple basis that the batter had left his crease after marking it but without any attempt at a run.
The umpire decides but not arbitrarily or solely on the grounds of what the batter does. The umpire makes the decision based on both teams stopping any action.
If the batsman has indicated they are not going to take a run, has completed any attempt to hit the ball whilst standing in their crease and is in full control of their limbs, what legitimate action can take place?
The batsman can watch the ball settle in the keeper's gloves
You don't need to watch. You can hear the thud perfectly well.
Gosh, almost half of Tory voters have Immigration in their top 3 concerns. This is their new identity-driven base, I guess, forged by Brexit and Boris Johnson.
Perhaps more relevantly is how would those 75% of Labour voters concerned about the NHS handle continuous strikes by doctors throughout a Labour government.
Just when I start thinking I might be able to vote Labour next time, they come up with insanity like this.
Hell no.
All investments can go down as well as up, and every BTL parasite that can't afford their mortgage is a house freed up for someone to buy to live in, instead of trying to sweat an income from an indentured tenant.
All that does is slow down price increases for buying property, as the BTL landlords sell.
At the same time, the rental market supply contracts.
The actual solution to the property crisis is 8 million more properties.
You're not going to have me disagree that the solution is more properties in the long term, but fewer parasites seeking to have other's pay their mortgage for them is a good thing in the short term too.
That's not to say there should be no private rentals, but in a functioning market economy rentals should be cheaper than mortgages, and are in much of the world. If someone can afford to pay a landlord's mortgage, they can afford to pay their own, and for them to be paying someone else's instead is a market failure that needs addressing.
People or firms who invest their own money, not their tenant's money, into a property to let is entirely reasonable, but should be getting a return less than a mortgage.
I find it disturbing that you refer to human beings as “parasites”.
It used to be called “othering”
The word has a meaning. A parasite is one that gets its nutrition from the efforts of others.
BTL landlords who don't pay their own mortgage with their own income from their own wages, but instead pay it out of their tenants wages instead, are quite literally engaged in parasitical behaviour.
It's a market failure that people who can afford to pay a mortgage repayment are paying their landlords mortgage instead of their own. A market failure brought about by the regulations on the housing market.
For many cities and countries around the world rent is a cheaper option for people who can't afford a mortgage.
Quite literally engaged in symbiotic behaviour actually.
If the Tories promised to rejoin the EEA and free movement Farage would return to lead RefUK and the Tories would fall to 3rd behind them and Labour, maybe even 4th behind the LDs.
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
It doesn't matter if Bairstow believed the ball was dead if it wasn't actually dead and it wasn't.
In this case there is no such thing as the ball being 'actually dead'. It is only 'the opinion of the umpire' at the time which determines it. The umpire should have decided it was dead, on the simple basis that the batter had left his crease after marking it but without any attempt at a run.
The umpire decides but not arbitrarily or solely on the grounds of what the batter does. The umpire makes the decision based on both teams stopping any action.
If the batsman has indicated they are not going to take a run, has completed any attempt to hit the ball whilst standing in their crease and is in full control of their limbs, what legitimate action can take place?
The batsman can watch the ball settle in the keeper's gloves
You don't need to watch. You can hear the thud perfectly well.
If Bairstow had watched he'd have seen the Keeper throw the ball before he'd left the crease and wouldn't have been stumped ...
PBers, please note close-to-final comment on previous thread by Peck, new poster but long lurker.
Thanks for the reference. I hope Peck carries on commenting. His post is interesting, novel and testable by the effluxion of time. There are at least 47 different ways of opposing the suggestion and the photo looks like the PM has wandered into a BNP rally and is hoping to escape without being noticed. In every respect a perfect contribution. Welcome.
One suggestion: does it really matter to the Tories whether a Scottish constituency is a SNP or Labour seat? The latter is if anything more likely to cooperate with the Tory Party as shown very well by recent history and various deals at local government level.
Edit: so removing Scotland means a permanent addition to the Tory numbers, either way.
The Conservatives propped up the SNP minority government of Salmond at Holyrood from 2007-2011 but the Tories have never propped up a UK Labour government at Westminster or Scottish Labour government at Holyrood
Confusing radically different systems there.
2007-2011 was on specific bargaining on specific issues to pass the budgets, like the Scottish Greens or LDs (before the recent semi-coalition of the [edit] SGs with SNP, though). Quite normal in proportionally elected parliaments with minority governments. The only anomaly was that Slab generally refused to take part at all even to the extent of voting against its own proposals on occasion where the SNP had recognised their merit and incorporated them into the bill.
Edit: an example was when the SCUP got - or claimed credit for - an increase in police numbers at the same time as the Tory government in London was reducing police numbers in English (and possibly Welsh - I forget) forces.
Yet it shows the Tories and SNP occasionally can work together.
If Kate Forbes ever won the SNP leadership, the SNP and Scottish Conservatives would frequently work together at Holyrood and indeed Westminster as Forbes is ideologically closer to the Conservatives than Labour, the main difference with the Tories she is not a Unionist
On topic: quite interested to see Education as the net 4th issue, and 4th for both blue and red.
I feel like this is an area of particular vulnerability for the Tories - you don't have to look to far to see that Govism has failed and in fact caused quite lot of damage. As well as a workforce crisis, a worrying number of schools are falling apart.
It was interesting to finally see some (sadly rather flaccid) policy ideas from Labour last week.
Gosh, almost half of Tory voters have Immigration in their top 3 concerns. This is their new identity-driven base, I guess, forged by Brexit and Boris Johnson.
A lot of public opinion is what the news is telling us. And immigration - particularly asylum seekers rather than legal immigration - gets a huge amount of coverage disproportionate to its effect on most people's lives. At the other end of the spectrum education gets virtually none despite being absolutely crucial to the long term wellbeing of the country and economy.
Transport (rail strikes, ULEZ, fuel prices etc) probably gets about the right amount of coverage for its importance, as do Ukraine and Brexit.
Yes, it'd be interesting to know how much 'Boats' is boosting that number.
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
It doesn't matter if Bairstow believed the ball was dead if it wasn't actually dead and it wasn't.
No one is arguing about whether it was out or not. It's whether it's fair dinkum to do that to an opponent.
If it is, then all's fair.
But what are these nefarious things which will suddenly become 'all fair' ?
Not walking when you've edged a catch ? Appealing for something you don't think is out ?
Is this another irregular verb:
I follow the spirit of cricket You follow the laws He cheats
Wonder if those Labour voters with Health as a concern realise Lab is in the pocket of private health donors, has radical NHS reform on its agenda and for the first time in my lifetime the NHS is not safe with either Party
Report on Sky that interest rates are to rise to 6% adding more to mortgage holders misery and the rates are likely to remain high for a considerable period of time
This crisis is looking very like 1991 to 2021 where negative equity prevailed, increased repossessions, and falling house prices
This is a deadly cocktail for the conservatives but in a wider context not good for any government but at least Starmer should receive a honeymoon for a whiie
They are going to hit 7 quite possibly 7.5%
Inflation isn't going down and the only available tool is a hammer against industrial jelly...
Rates won’t hit 7.5%. Look at wholesale price numbers to see where consumer prices will be heading.
I think the headline inflation rate will start to fall pretty soon, as the peak fuel prices from this time last year drop out of the numbers. There’s also a fair amount of sticky inflation around, so I think that while getting to 5% will be relatively easy, getting right back to 2% will be more difficult, and the pressure on central banks will remain for at least another year.
The single biggest factor is still the Russians being in Ukraine. The quicker we can kick them all back to Russia, the quicker the economy recovers.
I agree I think we will get back to around 5% ish inflation by year end. But getting it to 2 or 3%, which is a sustainable rate long term, will take several more years so no significant falls in interest rates until 2026.
Gosh, almost half of Tory voters have Immigration in their top 3 concerns. This is their new identity-driven base, I guess, forged by Brexit and Boris Johnson.
A lot of public opinion is what the news is telling us. And immigration - particularly asylum seekers rather than legal immigration - gets a huge amount of coverage disproportionate to its effect on most people's lives. At the other end of the spectrum education gets virtually none despite being absolutely crucial to the long term wellbeing of the country and economy.
Transport (rail strikes, ULEZ, fuel prices etc) probably gets about the right amount of coverage for its importance, as do Ukraine and Brexit.
Fitness is the most underrated issue imo. Health, happiness and productivity can all be improved significantly and relatively cheaply through it. A lot of the other areas are expensive and much more difficult.
O/T fascinating charts. The most interesting items are not the ones where they diverge, which are as expected, but those where they are almost identical, and reasonably salient. Therein lie the swing votes.
Economy (of course) Taxation Law and order
James Carville is still right, more than three decades later:
I imagine a lot of changes of government around the world in the coming years, because the past few years havn’t been good, and the ire of the people usually goes to the incumbents.
And so it should. The actual global agenda IS to make people worse off. It's dressed in green clothes, but it's still clearly set out and openly discussed.
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
It doesn't matter if Bairstow believed the ball was dead if it wasn't actually dead and it wasn't.
No one is arguing about whether it was out or not. It's whether it's fair dinkum to do that to an opponent.
If it is, then all's fair.
But what are these nefarious things which will suddenly become 'all fair' ?
Not walking when you've edged a catch ? Appealing for something you don't think is out ?
Is this another irregular verb:
I follow the spirit of cricket You follow the laws He cheats
I’m sure the famously polite crowd at Headingly on Thursday, will let the cheating convicts our gracious opponents know exactly what they think about the situation.
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
It doesn't matter if Bairstow believed the ball was dead if it wasn't actually dead and it wasn't.
No one is arguing about whether it was out or not. It's whether it's fair dinkum to do that to an opponent.
If it is, then all's fair.
But what are these nefarious things which will suddenly become 'all fair' ?
Not walking when you've edged a catch ? Appealing for something you don't think is out ?
Is this another irregular verb:
I follow the spirit of cricket You follow the laws He cheats
Bairstow will be tempted to chuck the ball at the stumps after every ball in the next test. It will become tedious, but very much within the laws of the game.
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
It doesn't matter if Bairstow believed the ball was dead if it wasn't actually dead and it wasn't.
No one is arguing about whether it was out or not. It's whether it's fair dinkum to do that to an opponent.
If it is, then all's fair.
But what are these nefarious things which will suddenly become 'all fair' ?
Not walking when you've edged a catch ? Appealing for something you don't think is out ?
Is this another irregular verb:
I follow the spirit of cricket You follow the laws He cheats
Bairstow will be tempted to chuck the ball at the stumps after every ball in the next test. It will become tedious, but very much within the laws of the game.
Will Broad give a mankad warning or just hop straight to it. Is Pope right for the next test. If he isn't we could get Foakes in. If you want to start a sharp game with the gloves he's a better bet than Bairstow
O/T fascinating charts. The most interesting items are not the ones where they diverge, which are as expected, but those where they are almost identical, and reasonably salient. Therein lie the swing votes.
Economy (of course) Taxation Law and order
James Carville is still right, more than three decades later:
I imagine a lot of changes of government around the world in the coming years, because the past few years havn’t been good, and the ire of the people usually goes to the incumbents.
The risk of using that campaign slogan is that it will be used against you in 2028/9...
Long-time lurker here. I was wondering today how English Tories might attempt to facilitate their preferred option out of the top two available in Scotland, which is to say an SNP bounce rather than a Labour landslide. And then I saw this photo... Never saw the Union Jack wrapped like that before. Must have taken some effort to make it look like the flag of St George with a little bit of decoration around the edge. Then another option for English Tories popped into mind: let Scotland go hang, and either push for English independence or else take such a big dump on Scotland that support for independence there rises to over 50% AND manifests as such in BritGE2024 somehow - meaning not necessarily with an SNP bounce but more likely with growing support among ScotLab voters and members. Just leak a phone call where Sunak makes a kilt or sporran joke or summat. Then bring in Penny and maybe someone who's posh and doesn't sound like JRM and they can say together that yes they bloody well are English and do think that England has its own interests... Aka selling Scotland down the river... And the Tories would never do that. Right?
It only takes about a minute of looking on google to see that all the leaders had the same set-up for their press conferences and the flags were all arranged with the centre point pulled outwards. Example here below of Canada, but also found immediately the same with South Korea and Ukraine.
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
It doesn't matter if Bairstow believed the ball was dead if it wasn't actually dead and it wasn't.
No one is arguing about whether it was out or not. It's whether it's fair dinkum to do that to an opponent.
If it is, then all's fair.
But what are these nefarious things which will suddenly become 'all fair' ?
Not walking when you've edged a catch ? Appealing for something you don't think is out ?
Is this another irregular verb:
I follow the spirit of cricket You follow the laws He cheats
Bairstow will be tempted to chuck the ball at the stumps after every ball in the next test. It will become tedious, but very much within the laws of the game.
Will Broad give a mankad warning or just hop straight to it.
At least with a mankad the batsman is actually trying to gain an advantage. But maybe we should wait to see what happens this week before we judge the English response.
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
It doesn't matter if Bairstow believed the ball was dead if it wasn't actually dead and it wasn't.
In this case there is no such thing as the ball being 'actually dead'. It is only 'the opinion of the umpire' at the time which determines it. The umpire should have decided it was dead, on the simple basis that the batter had left his crease after marking it but without any attempt at a run.
The umpire decides but not arbitrarily or solely on the grounds of what the batter does. The umpire makes the decision based on both teams stopping any action.
If the batsman has indicated they are not going to take a run, has completed any attempt to hit the ball whilst standing in their crease and is in full control of their limbs, what legitimate action can take place?
I think the fact Carey threw the ball while Bairstow was in his crease (anticipating his 'wander' from previous balls) is key. This adds a level of skill and guile to the lack of ethics and takes it just out of 'scandal' territory. I still don't like it but on reflection my bloods are back down.
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
It doesn't matter if Bairstow believed the ball was dead if it wasn't actually dead and it wasn't.
In this case there is no such thing as the ball being 'actually dead'. It is only 'the opinion of the umpire' at the time which determines it. The umpire should have decided it was dead, on the simple basis that the batter had left his crease after marking it but without any attempt at a run.
The umpire decides but not arbitrarily or solely on the grounds of what the batter does. The umpire makes the decision based on both teams stopping any action.
If the batsman has indicated they are not going to take a run, has completed any attempt to hit the ball whilst standing in their crease and is in full control of their limbs, what legitimate action can take place?
The batsman can watch the ball settle in the keeper's gloves
You don't need to watch. You can hear the thud perfectly well.
If Bairstow had watched he'd have seen the Keeper throw the ball before he'd left the crease and wouldn't have been stumped ...
That's the puzzle, that he was judged out stumped. That's just complete nonsense.
I could have understood (if still deprecated) a verdict of run out.
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
It doesn't matter if Bairstow believed the ball was dead if it wasn't actually dead and it wasn't.
In this case there is no such thing as the ball being 'actually dead'. It is only 'the opinion of the umpire' at the time which determines it. The umpire should have decided it was dead, on the simple basis that the batter had left his crease after marking it but without any attempt at a run.
The umpire decides but not arbitrarily or solely on the grounds of what the batter does. The umpire makes the decision based on both teams stopping any action.
If the batsman has indicated they are not going to take a run, has completed any attempt to hit the ball and is in control of their limbs, what legitimate action can take place?
A stumping if they're out of their crease.
Which is what happened.
The ball is dead when the ball is settled and neither fielders nor batters are acting. That never happened.
Completed = returned to the crease in control. Which Bairstow did.
If he'd held a pose out of the crease admiring his leave then obviously that is out stumped all day long.
This was definitely worse than a Mankad, which requires the opposition to be seeking an advantage.
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
It doesn't matter if Bairstow believed the ball was dead if it wasn't actually dead and it wasn't.
No one is arguing about whether it was out or not. It's whether it's fair dinkum to do that to an opponent.
If it is, then all's fair.
But what are these nefarious things which will suddenly become 'all fair' ?
Not walking when you've edged a catch ? Appealing for something you don't think is out ?
Is this another irregular verb:
I follow the spirit of cricket You follow the laws He cheats
Bairstow will be tempted to chuck the ball at the stumps after every ball in the next test. It will become tedious, but very much within the laws of the game.
Surely an England player would never induge in such (checks overwrought bloviating of last couple of days) unsporting behaviour that verges on cheating and is not within the spirit of cricket? I believe yer actual England captain has piously said he would not want to win a test match that way.
Comments
Inflation isn't going down and the only available tool is a hammer against industrial jelly...
Rates won't come down to any significant extent before 2025/2026.
CON may still stay behind in the polls.
Not long to the GE now.
And yep I use them but they really only cover £5000 or so and I have a lot more savings than that scattered round (this money is twin A's rent that will go back to her to add to her deposit / or pay for house improvements) when she buys.
Won't be in the next year / 2 years though if interest rates are going above 7% for that is going to create real problems....
Economy (of course)
Taxation
Law and order
And you have no way of knowing that it was "exactly the same". Precise circumstances are needed to draw conclusions.
Then September 21st
November 2nd
December 14
Rates will be 6% minimum by December....
Maybe the Bank will come out with a 1% 'holiday season special' increase then?
More likely 0.5% with another 0.5% Sept
Another way of looking at it is that it’s £700 going into savings and investment, rather than imports of consumer goods.
https://politicaldictionary.com/words/its-the-economy-stupid/
Ronald Reagan is still right as well, more than four decades later:
https://www.azquotes.com/quote/529287
I imagine a lot of changes of government around the world in the coming years, because the past few years havn’t been good, and the ire of the people usually goes to the incumbents.
An English Parliament or restoration of EVEL would be helpful though as at the moment if the Tories won a majority in England yet Labour won a UK wide majority then Labour MPs could still decide English domestic policy
https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/cricket/11710581/quick-thinking-foakes-stumps-balbirnie
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
The accusation is that the supermarkets have pocketed / stolen all the £2.4bn that the 5p cut cost the Government.
2007-2011 was on specific bargaining on specific issues to pass the budgets, like the Scottish Greens or LDs (before the recent semi-coalition of the [edit] SGs with SNP, though). Quite normal in proportionally elected parliaments with minority governments. The only anomaly was that Slab generally refused to take part at all even to the extent of voting against its own proposals on occasion where the SNP had recognised their merit and incorporated them into the bill.
Edit: an example was when the SCUP got - or claimed credit for - an increase in police numbers at the same time as the Tory government in London was reducing police numbers in English (and possibly Welsh - I forget) forces.
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
The single biggest factor is still the Russians being in Ukraine. The quicker we can kick them all back to Russia, the quicker the economy recovers.
It's a free market- the price isn't "what it costs plus a fair margin", it's "the most the seller thinks they can get away with". Always has been.
And for whatever reason, the normal safety valves (pitch too high and customers go elsewhere) are jammed at the moment. I blame inflation making it hard for us to work out what a reasonable price is.
Yet another reason to not dick about with inflation.
And I'm sure non-drivers would prefer higher petrol prices in exchange for lower food prices.
The bottom line is are supermarkets making excess overall profits ?
He's a techbro; a friend of Musk and other similar peeps. What makes you think he's suddenly gone all altruistic; particularly given his endorsement of RFK Jr.
Balbirnie wasn't in his crease, which is kind of the point of a stumping.
The biggest crime is that Cameron Green got a wicket from it.
countries are run and elections won on simplistic aphorisms and legislating away problems not caused by an absence of laws.
Sir K is bit by bit drawing back from both a theoretical socialist agenda (see his now historical 10 pledges)
https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/
and also from more recent policies that involve spending money he won't have. Sir K's only recourse at the moment is to under promise and hope he can over deliver. I think this can only be done by promising only abstract nouns, and delivering tiny incremental benefits.
On immigration by contrast I think a lot of (again, generally older) people worry about it but none of them honestly believes any government will do better than the other.
Chairman of the Defence Select Committee said both Labour and the Conservatives need to be brave enough to say what many MPs privately think
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/admit-brexit-mistake-rejoin-single-market-senior-tory-tobias-ellwood-2450612
Bairstow screwed up.
So business profits flow overseas, rents flow overseas, interest payments on government bonds flow overseas.
And still the focus in the UK is how to increase wealth consumption with wealth creation regarded as a minority aspect.
https://twitter.com/ciaranmartinoxf/status/1675824555560955904
V silly statement from HMG on the Sue Gray issue.
4 problems with it:
1. The properly constituted Acoba process said that Gov’t hadn’t provided any evidence of a breach of impartiality, even when asked
2. By contrast, HMG ‘investigation’ finds only a ‘prima facie’ case…
…in other words, nothing is proved;
3. There is no publicly available account of the standing of this ‘investigation’, of what its processes were, or how the conclusions were reached (in marked contrast to ACOBA). No evidence of any kind is adduced to support its findings
4. Successive Govts have a long-standing convention of not commenting on personnel matters.
That now becomes harder to sustain in future cases thanks to this precedent.
And for what benefit to either the Gov’t or the wider public interest ?
The starting point is that we need to stop importing so much, especially cheap Chinese tat.
At the other end of the scale, back in the 1980s, the newly-privatised British Airways would get regular calls from No.11 to the chairman’s office, demanding revisions to the delivery timetable for the new 747 aircraft - because at a couple of hundred million quid each, deferring one by a few days would make the balance of payments figures better for the government!
BTL landlords who don't pay their own mortgage with their own income from their own wages, but instead pay it out of their tenants wages instead, are quite literally engaged in parasitical behaviour.
It's a market failure that people who can afford to pay a mortgage repayment are paying their landlords mortgage instead of their own. A market failure brought about by the regulations on the housing market.
For many cities and countries around the world rent is a cheaper option for people who can't afford a mortgage.
A couple of weeks ago it was selling beer cheaply.
If it is, then all's fair.
I don't normally find petrolprices.com (fake email address required) significantly out of date.
{Location
Fuel type1 Fuel price1
Fuel type 2 Fuel price 2
}
Something like that - then
Integration into google maps [1] (Not sure about Apple, knowing the average Apple user they probably all fill up on the motorway anyway)
1 https://www.standard.co.uk/tech/google-maps-live-petrol-prices-fuel-ruling-b1091818.html
Then it's up to us really to take advantage.
Mind you I should be careful what I wish for as the Costco queues might get even worse than they already are !
It would have been sporting to withdraw the appeal since it was clear that Bairstow made a mistake, but since when has that happened in professional cricket?
Had the Keeper held onto the ball then only thrown it after Bairstow wandered down the crease that'd be different but it didn't happen like that.
Transport (rail strikes, ULEZ, fuel prices etc) probably gets about the right amount of coverage for its importance, as do Ukraine and Brexit.
https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/dead-ball
The batsman can't and never has been able to just unilaterally declare the ball dead to avoid a stumping.
Which is what happened.
The ball is dead when the ball is settled and neither fielders nor batters are acting. That never happened.
Only a Labour led government could rejoin the EEA
If Kate Forbes ever won the SNP leadership, the SNP and Scottish Conservatives would frequently work together at Holyrood and indeed Westminster as Forbes is ideologically closer to the Conservatives than Labour, the main difference with the Tories she is not a Unionist
I feel like this is an area of particular vulnerability for the Tories - you don't have to look to far to see that Govism has failed and in fact caused quite lot of damage. As well as a workforce crisis, a worrying number of schools are falling apart.
It was interesting to finally see some (sadly rather flaccid) policy ideas from Labour last week.
Not walking when you've edged a catch ? Appealing for something you don't think is out ?
Is this another irregular verb:
I follow the spirit of cricket
You follow the laws
He cheats
Wonder if those Labour voters with Health as a concern realise Lab is in the pocket of private health donors, has radical NHS reform on its agenda and for the first time in my lifetime the NHS is not safe with either Party
Pesky G7 giving the bird to the Scots.
That's just complete nonsense.
I could have understood (if still deprecated) a verdict of run out.
If he'd held a pose out of the crease admiring his leave then obviously that is out stumped all day long.
This was definitely worse than a Mankad, which requires the opposition to be seeking an advantage.