Yes, but don't look back in anger if you can't get a ticket.
Glastonbury and Taylor Swift tickets are going to be relatively easy to buy compared to Oasis.
Seriously? I mean for a certain demographic Oasis are great. I saw them in the 90s and still remember the performance of Champagne Supernova and it was amazeballs (I also remember one of them calling out the audience for being posh twats and he wasn't entirely wrong). But that demographic is hardly the mass concert going demographic now, is it? Are those people really going to register, wait in the Ticketmaster queue, then input the code, etc, etc?
Not so sure.
Oasis have become a bit more niche than this board might think. But then just check out the demographic of this board...
All of my kids love Oasis. To be honest they reintroduced me to them after neglecting them for a few years. And anyway, the average age of concert goers has been creeping up for a long time.
If you think of any band of your youth, any one (we can try an experiment on here) then it's almost guaranteed that they are on tour somewhere this year. Everyone from Chris de Burgh to the UK Subs.
And I'm sure your children will be interested in the Oasis concert but it's not Glasto or Taylor Swift territory.
Edit: UK Subs are playing Luton on Friday ffs.
I think Oasis will probably headline Glasto. The tickets for the tour are going to sell out within minutes.
Oasis at Glasto? Perfect. Area munitions would solve very many problems in that case.
Oasis at Reading. Long ago....
The crowd was full of metalheads - Metallica were playing on Sunday night, and many had bought a ticket for the weekend, on the basis that the price wasn't far-off a one day ticket - and you could go in and out of the festival.
Liam started insulting the crowd - he didn't think they were sufficiently worshipping or something. Stuff was flying at the stage. I was expecting a riot.
Then James came on, the lead singer took one look, said "Sorry, but we have to do this" - and launched into Sit Down. Which was on every jukebox in the land - non fans knew it. The crowd went from lynch'in time to relaxed in about 3 seconds....
Great to see that world class news operation the BBC can pivot rapidly from Taylor Swift hourly updates to twice hourly puff pieces on will-they-won’t-they Oasis. This is our BBC, unfortunately.
They live streamed both Reading and Notting Hill so all sides of the woke spectrum are accommodated.
Whether there is the national interest in either/any of those things is however less clear.
They also live streamed the far right festivals in Southport, Middlesbrough, Manchester, Rotherham.
Yes, but don't look back in anger if you can't get a ticket.
Glastonbury and Taylor Swift tickets are going to be relatively easy to buy compared to Oasis.
Seriously? I mean for a certain demographic Oasis are great. I saw them in the 90s and still remember the performance of Champagne Supernova and it was amazeballs (I also remember one of them calling out the audience for being posh twats and he wasn't entirely wrong). But that demographic is hardly the mass concert going demographic now, is it? Are those people really going to register, wait in the Ticketmaster queue, then input the code, etc, etc?
Not so sure.
Oasis have become a bit more niche than this board might think. But then just check out the demographic of this board...
All of my kids love Oasis. To be honest they reintroduced me to them after neglecting them for a few years. And anyway, the average age of concert goers has been creeping up for a long time.
If you think of any band of your youth, any one (we can try an experiment on here) then it's almost guaranteed that they are on tour somewhere this year. Everyone from Chris de Burgh to the UK Subs.
And I'm sure your children will be interested in the Oasis concert but it's not Glasto or Taylor Swift territory.
Edit: UK Subs are playing Luton on Friday ffs.
I think Oasis will probably headline Glasto. The tickets for the tour are going to sell out within minutes.
Plus high profile tours sell out within minutes because the touts buy huge numbers of tickets which appear moments later on Viagogo at several times the face value. Not quite the fans speaking with one voice.
It's a disgraceful practice aided and abetted by Ticketmaster/Livenation but the underlying demand has to be there for the touts to buy and reflog the tickets.
Yes, but don't look back in anger if you can't get a ticket.
Glastonbury and Taylor Swift tickets are going to be relatively easy to buy compared to Oasis.
Seriously? I mean for a certain demographic Oasis are great. I saw them in the 90s and still remember the performance of Champagne Supernova and it was amazeballs (I also remember one of them calling out the audience for being posh twats and he wasn't entirely wrong). But that demographic is hardly the mass concert going demographic now, is it? Are those people really going to register, wait in the Ticketmaster queue, then input the code, etc, etc?
Not so sure.
Oasis have become a bit more niche than this board might think. But then just check out the demographic of this board...
All of my kids love Oasis. To be honest they reintroduced me to them after neglecting them for a few years. And anyway, the average age of concert goers has been creeping up for a long time.
If you think of any band of your youth, any one (we can try an experiment on here) then it's almost guaranteed that they are on tour somewhere this year. Everyone from Chris de Burgh to the UK Subs.
And I'm sure your children will be interested in the Oasis concert but it's not Glasto or Taylor Swift territory.
Edit: UK Subs are playing Luton on Friday ffs.
Got my head kicked in (not for the first or last time) at a UK Subs concert at the Summer St 62 Club c.1979. Luckily Airwear soled Docs are a bit more forgiving than your average boot.
Those were the days. Seeing Suicide being beaten up on the Remote Control tour by some skinheads who jumped up on stage.
The next best average for a batsman is 66.78 from 86 tests.
But there is a reason why that quirk isn't counted.
Can anyone guess who it is and why the lower figure of 57.40 is usually cited instead?
Incidentally, cricket is a very unfair sport to bowlers. Chris Martin is remembered for taking more wickets than he scored runs. He was actually applauded when he scored his hundredth run in tests - in about his 60th match.
Nobody ever remembers that Bradman is the only bowler in Test history to trip over his own feet in his delivery stride and break an ankle.
They mentioned this the other day on Sky.
That's Kumar Sangakkara's batting average when he played solely as a batsman.
Wasn't Alec Stewart the reverse, a far better batsman when he was a Wicket Keeper.
No - 34 as a keeper, 46 as a batsman.
That may be slightly skewed by the fact he tended to keep wicket later in his career when those eye shots weren't quite so easy and his arms were stiffer (in 2001 he was playing while suffering from tennis elbow).
But, weirdly, England would have had more runs if they had kept Russell as keeper and had Stewart opening than by giving Stewart the gloves and trying a succession of other players at the top of the order.
One of many stupid decisions by the England management of the 1990s.
The problem with that idea is that Stewart was a better wicket keeper than the overrated Russell.
Yes, but don't look back in anger if you can't get a ticket.
Glastonbury and Taylor Swift tickets are going to be relatively easy to buy compared to Oasis.
Seriously? I mean for a certain demographic Oasis are great. I saw them in the 90s and still remember the performance of Champagne Supernova and it was amazeballs (I also remember one of them calling out the audience for being posh twats and he wasn't entirely wrong). But that demographic is hardly the mass concert going demographic now, is it? Are those people really going to register, wait in the Ticketmaster queue, then input the code, etc, etc?
Not so sure.
Oasis have become a bit more niche than this board might think. But then just check out the demographic of this board...
All of my kids love Oasis. To be honest they reintroduced me to them after neglecting them for a few years. And anyway, the average age of concert goers has been creeping up for a long time.
If you think of any band of your youth, any one (we can try an experiment on here) then it's almost guaranteed that they are on tour somewhere this year. Everyone from Chris de Burgh to the UK Subs.
And I'm sure your children will be interested in the Oasis concert but it's not Glasto or Taylor Swift territory.
Edit: UK Subs are playing Luton on Friday ffs.
I think Oasis will probably headline Glasto. The tickets for the tour are going to sell out within minutes.
Plus high profile tours sell out within minutes because the touts buy huge numbers of tickets which appear moments later on Viagogo at several times the face value. Not quite the fans speaking with one voice.
It's a disgraceful practice aided and abetted by Ticketmaster/Livenation but the underlying demand has to be there for the touts to buy and reflog the tickets.
There is certainly demand. Not an empty seat at Wembley for Tay Tay. But I do marvel at who pays the hundreds of pounds (at least) for the £90 tickets. It's bonkers.
This is not new. And judges deciding is inevitable. Once there is a statutory right to equal pay then, like all disputes with legal answers, some will end up in court as there is no other destination.
Interesting stuff on new registrations since the Democrat Convention - women registering at significantly higher rates than they did even after the Dobbs decision. Women are +20% Democratic in Michigan for example. Doubtful whether the polling has caught up with this.
Yes, but don't look back in anger if you can't get a ticket.
Glastonbury and Taylor Swift tickets are going to be relatively easy to buy compared to Oasis.
Seriously? I mean for a certain demographic Oasis are great. I saw them in the 90s and still remember the performance of Champagne Supernova and it was amazeballs (I also remember one of them calling out the audience for being posh twats and he wasn't entirely wrong). But that demographic is hardly the mass concert going demographic now, is it? Are those people really going to register, wait in the Ticketmaster queue, then input the code, etc, etc?
Not so sure.
Oasis have become a bit more niche than this board might think. But then just check out the demographic of this board...
All of my kids love Oasis. To be honest they reintroduced me to them after neglecting them for a few years. And anyway, the average age of concert goers has been creeping up for a long time.
If you think of any band of your youth, any one (we can try an experiment on here) then it's almost guaranteed that they are on tour somewhere this year. Everyone from Chris de Burgh to the UK Subs.
And I'm sure your children will be interested in the Oasis concert but it's not Glasto or Taylor Swift territory.
Edit: UK Subs are playing Luton on Friday ffs.
Got my head kicked in (not for the first or last time) at a UK Subs concert at the Summer St 62 Club c.1979. Luckily Airwear soled Docs are a bit more forgiving than your average boot.
Those were the days. Seeing Suicide being beaten up on the Remote Control tour by some skinheads who jumped up on stage.
Ah me.
Bliss it was in that dawn to be alive and covered in gob.
The principle that women should be paid the same as men in equivalent jobs (as opposed to men in the same jobs) was a factor in the 1968 Ford sewing machinists strike in Dagenham, which resulted in the Equal Pay Act 1970
You may have seen the film "Made in Dagenham" that dramatised this.
I'm not quite sure that working in a warehouse and working in a store are as similar as the lady in the BBC article states. It would be interesting for her to work in the warehouse for a while to see.
More importantly: how did the judge measure the equal value of these roles? How do you measure it?
No idea but even though specific job characteristics might vary, instinctively they sound of equal value, being adjacent steps in the supply chain. Often larger retail units have aspects of warehouse and shop combined.
The next best average for a batsman is 66.78 from 86 tests.
But there is a reason why that quirk isn't counted.
Can anyone guess who it is and why the lower figure of 57.40 is usually cited instead?
Incidentally, cricket is a very unfair sport to bowlers. Chris Martin is remembered for taking more wickets than he scored runs. He was actually applauded when he scored his hundredth run in tests - in about his 60th match.
Nobody ever remembers that Bradman is the only bowler in Test history to trip over his own feet in his delivery stride and break an ankle.
They mentioned this the other day on Sky.
That's Kumar Sangakkara's batting average when he played solely as a batsman.
Wasn't Alec Stewart the reverse, a far better batsman when he was a Wicket Keeper.
Nope: Stewart's batting averaged collapsed when he became keeper. He averaged 46.7 in tests before taking on the keeping role, and only 34.9 afterwards.
He was also only a so so keeper, so it was a doubly stupid thing to do.
The next best average for a batsman is 66.78 from 86 tests.
But there is a reason why that quirk isn't counted.
Can anyone guess who it is and why the lower figure of 57.40 is usually cited instead?
Incidentally, cricket is a very unfair sport to bowlers. Chris Martin is remembered for taking more wickets than he scored runs. He was actually applauded when he scored his hundredth run in tests - in about his 60th match.
Nobody ever remembers that Bradman is the only bowler in Test history to trip over his own feet in his delivery stride and break an ankle.
They mentioned this the other day on Sky.
That's Kumar Sangakkara's batting average when he played solely as a batsman.
Wasn't Alec Stewart the reverse, a far better batsman when he was a Wicket Keeper.
No - 34 as a keeper, 46 as a batsman.
That may be slightly skewed by the fact he tended to keep wicket later in his career when those eye shots weren't quite so easy and his arms were stiffer (in 2001 he was playing while suffering from tennis elbow).
But, weirdly, England would have had more runs if they had kept Russell as keeper and had Stewart opening than by giving Stewart the gloves and trying a succession of other players at the top of the order.
One of many stupid decisions by the England management of the 1990s.
The problem with that idea is that Stewart was a better wicket keeper than the overrated Russell.
Stewart was an extremely good wicketkeeper. He was very capable standing back to seamers, and after all, that's what England wanted most in the 1990s since they seldom had a decent spin attack.
He was not better than Russell especially when standing up (which Russell could do to quick bowlers bowling with the old ball). Or for the matter of that Keith Piper or Reggie Williams.
Sacrificing his runs at the top of the order for the sake of a keeper who was not as good as other options at actually keeping was a foolish move. Stewart, as a pure batsman, had a better record than Mark Waugh or Darryl Cullinan. It was comparable to Steve Waugh's. As a keeper? Well, his batting record was comparable to Ian Healy.
It was doubly foolish because Stewart himself did not enjoy keeping, and particularly later in his career expressed his frustration at being asked to keep, rather than just bat, on a regular basis. Why would you take the one England batsman who consistently averaged over 45 as an opener and take 25% of his runs away? Made everything much harder for the middle order.
Given the warehouse and retail roles involve doing fundamentally different work it seems peculiar they're considered very similar.
That said, I hardly ever visit shops except for food. Maybe retailers have forklifts whizzing around these days.
When I worked at ICI in the nineties all non plant jobs had a grade so you could two quite different jobs that had the same grade and so the same pay scale. However fun ensued when they decided to scrap the old way of grading jobs and bring in a new way.
My job grade turned out to be the same as a secretary, when I queried this I was told that seems correct you both spend all day typing. This software engineer decided at that point a change of company was in order
The next best average for a batsman is 66.78 from 86 tests.
But there is a reason why that quirk isn't counted.
Can anyone guess who it is and why the lower figure of 57.40 is usually cited instead?
Incidentally, cricket is a very unfair sport to bowlers. Chris Martin is remembered for taking more wickets than he scored runs. He was actually applauded when he scored his hundredth run in tests - in about his 60th match.
Nobody ever remembers that Bradman is the only bowler in Test history to trip over his own feet in his delivery stride and break an ankle.
They mentioned this the other day on Sky.
That's Kumar Sangakkara's batting average when he played solely as a batsman.
Wasn't Alec Stewart the reverse, a far better batsman when he was a Wicket Keeper.
Nope: Stewart's batting averaged collapsed when he became keeper. He averaged 46.7 in tests before taking on the keeping role, and only 34.9 afterwards.
He was also only a so so keeper, so it was a doubly stupid thing to do.
What time is it where you are. Did the mention of concerts and R*d**h**d wake you up like those smelling salts they put under peoples' noses.
The next best average for a batsman is 66.78 from 86 tests.
But there is a reason why that quirk isn't counted.
Can anyone guess who it is and why the lower figure of 57.40 is usually cited instead?
Incidentally, cricket is a very unfair sport to bowlers. Chris Martin is remembered for taking more wickets than he scored runs. He was actually applauded when he scored his hundredth run in tests - in about his 60th match.
Nobody ever remembers that Bradman is the only bowler in Test history to trip over his own feet in his delivery stride and break an ankle.
They mentioned this the other day on Sky.
That's Kumar Sangakkara's batting average when he played solely as a batsman.
Wasn't Alec Stewart the reverse, a far better batsman when he was a Wicket Keeper.
Nope: Stewart's batting averaged collapsed when he became keeper. He averaged 46.7 in tests before taking on the keeping role, and only 34.9 afterwards.
He was also only a so so keeper, so it was a doubly stupid thing to do.
Isn't the Birmingham council fiasco caused by a similar equal pay claim?
Well it is relatively new and surely the Brum thing was caused by the evil Tories not giving councils enough money. That's what was said here many times.
The Brum fiasco was caused by two issues. A massive overspend of 400% on an IT contract and the equal pay claim. The equal pay claim could have been solved for far less but the council didn't do it and continued with some of the practises. For example allowing bin men to go home when they finish their work but paid for the whole shift. Something not extended to other functions. Bin men are predominantly male.
Which related to a traditional militancy among bin men....
Rather, it relates to what is the unit of work. The bin men have a fixed round, and when it's finished, they can't start again at the beginning until time's up. The same with paper boys and girls, if they are still a thing. You did not get a second copy of the Daily Express if they finished the round early when lots of customers were on holiday.
The next best average for a batsman is 66.78 from 86 tests.
But there is a reason why that quirk isn't counted.
Can anyone guess who it is and why the lower figure of 57.40 is usually cited instead?
Incidentally, cricket is a very unfair sport to bowlers. Chris Martin is remembered for taking more wickets than he scored runs. He was actually applauded when he scored his hundredth run in tests - in about his 60th match.
Nobody ever remembers that Bradman is the only bowler in Test history to trip over his own feet in his delivery stride and break an ankle.
They mentioned this the other day on Sky.
That's Kumar Sangakkara's batting average when he played solely as a batsman.
Wasn't Alec Stewart the reverse, a far better batsman when he was a Wicket Keeper.
Nope: Stewart's batting averaged collapsed when he became keeper. He averaged 46.7 in tests before taking on the keeping role, and only 34.9 afterwards.
He was also only a so so keeper, so it was a doubly stupid thing to do.
Yup, ydotheur pointed this out. So a crazy decision. The memory, in this case, cheated.
Yes, but don't look back in anger if you can't get a ticket.
Glastonbury and Taylor Swift tickets are going to be relatively easy to buy compared to Oasis.
I went into London in a train full of SW Swifties. The idea of a train full of Oasis act-alikes is not exactly appealing...
A train full of late Gen X dads ?
Not a million miles from the Southport riot demographic.
I predict a riot, I predict a riot.
Ah, wrong band.
Anyway given the majority of people sentenced, so far, seem to be reliant on the state for part or all of their income I doubt they will be able to afford the tickets.
Interesting stuff on new registrations since the Democrat Convention - women registering at significantly higher rates than they did even after the Dobbs decision. Women are +20% Democratic in Michigan for example. Doubtful whether the polling has caught up with this.
Isn't the Birmingham council fiasco caused by a similar equal pay claim?
Well it is relatively new and surely the Brum thing was caused by the evil Tories not giving councils enough money. That's what was said here many times.
The Brum fiasco was caused by two issues. A massive overspend of 400% on an IT contract and the equal pay claim. The equal pay claim could have been solved for far less but the council didn't do it and continued with some of the practises. For example allowing bin men to go home when they finish their work but paid for the whole shift. Something not extended to other functions. Bin men are predominantly male.
Unless there is some effort to block women from becoming bin men, or men from becoming office staff, it seems difficult to justify these rulings.
My small business employs entirely blokes - not from policy, but because I've never had a woman even apply. It's physically demanding work in heavy engineering so I'm not entirely surprised. Equally, the local sandwich shop seems to employ entirely women - they've had one bloke work there a couple of months in the 10 years or so I've been going in there. Based on this logic, if both enterprises were in joint ownership there's a discrimination claim waiting (I suspect I pay my lads more than the girls get at the sandwich shop), but because they are in separate ownership it's not an issue. Think about that for 30 seconds, and you realise the whole thing is ridiculous.
No. You’d have to prove the jobs were sufficiently similar for a discrimination claim. They do not sound as if they are, so no problem.
Nor are warehouse jobs and shopfloor jobs, but that hasn't stopped a series of ridiculous court decisions!
The next best average for a batsman is 66.78 from 86 tests.
But there is a reason why that quirk isn't counted.
Can anyone guess who it is and why the lower figure of 57.40 is usually cited instead?
Incidentally, cricket is a very unfair sport to bowlers. Chris Martin is remembered for taking more wickets than he scored runs. He was actually applauded when he scored his hundredth run in tests - in about his 60th match.
Nobody ever remembers that Bradman is the only bowler in Test history to trip over his own feet in his delivery stride and break an ankle.
They mentioned this the other day on Sky.
That's Kumar Sangakkara's batting average when he played solely as a batsman.
Wasn't Alec Stewart the reverse, a far better batsman when he was a Wicket Keeper.
No - 34 as a keeper, 46 as a batsman.
That may be slightly skewed by the fact he tended to keep wicket later in his career when those eye shots weren't quite so easy and his arms were stiffer (in 2001 he was playing while suffering from tennis elbow).
But, weirdly, England would have had more runs if they had kept Russell as keeper and had Stewart opening than by giving Stewart the gloves and trying a succession of other players at the top of the order.
One of many stupid decisions by the England management of the 1990s.
The problem with that idea is that Stewart was a better wicket keeper than the overrated Russell.
Stewart was an extremely good wicketkeeper. He was very capable standing back to seamers, and after all, that's what England wanted most in the 1990s since they seldom had a decent spin attack.
He was not better than Russell especially when standing up (which Russell could do to quick bowlers bowling with the old ball). Or for the matter of that Keith Piper or Reggie Williams.
Sacrificing his runs at the top of the order for the sake of a keeper who was not as good as other options at actually keeping was a foolish move. Stewart, as a pure batsman, had a better record than Mark Waugh or Darryl Cullinan. It was comparable to Steve Waugh's. As a keeper? Well, his batting record was comparable to Ian Healy.
It was doubly foolish because Stewart himself did not enjoy keeping, and particularly later in his career expressed his frustration at being asked to keep, rather than just bat, on a regular basis. Why would you take the one England batsman who consistently averaged over 45 as an opener and take 25% of his runs away? Made everything much harder for the middle order.
Jack Russell seemed always to have first slip much too close to him.
And still managed to have edges go between them with each leaving it to the other.
The next best average for a batsman is 66.78 from 86 tests.
But there is a reason why that quirk isn't counted.
Can anyone guess who it is and why the lower figure of 57.40 is usually cited instead?
Incidentally, cricket is a very unfair sport to bowlers. Chris Martin is remembered for taking more wickets than he scored runs. He was actually applauded when he scored his hundredth run in tests - in about his 60th match.
Nobody ever remembers that Bradman is the only bowler in Test history to trip over his own feet in his delivery stride and break an ankle.
They mentioned this the other day on Sky.
That's Kumar Sangakkara's batting average when he played solely as a batsman.
Wasn't Alec Stewart the reverse, a far better batsman when he was a Wicket Keeper.
No - 34 as a keeper, 46 as a batsman.
That may be slightly skewed by the fact he tended to keep wicket later in his career when those eye shots weren't quite so easy and his arms were stiffer (in 2001 he was playing while suffering from tennis elbow).
But, weirdly, England would have had more runs if they had kept Russell as keeper and had Stewart opening than by giving Stewart the gloves and trying a succession of other players at the top of the order.
One of many stupid decisions by the England management of the 1990s.
The problem with that idea is that Stewart was a better wicket keeper than the overrated Russell.
Stewart was an extremely good wicketkeeper. He was very capable standing back to seamers, and after all, that's what England wanted most in the 1990s since they seldom had a decent spin attack.
He was not better than Russell especially when standing up (which Russell could do to quick bowlers bowling with the old ball). Or for the matter of that Keith Piper or Reggie Williams.
Sacrificing his runs at the top of the order for the sake of a keeper who was not as good as other options at actually keeping was a foolish move. Stewart, as a pure batsman, had a better record than Mark Waugh or Darryl Cullinan. It was comparable to Steve Waugh's. As a keeper? Well, his batting record was comparable to Ian Healy.
It was doubly foolish because Stewart himself did not enjoy keeping, and particularly later in his career expressed his frustration at being asked to keep, rather than just bat, on a regular basis. Why would you take the one England batsman who consistently averaged over 45 as an opener and take 25% of his runs away? Made everything much harder for the middle order.
Jack Russell seemed always to have first slip much too close to him.
And still managed to have edges go between them with each leaving it to the other.
I think your memory may be playing you false, because Russell was usually closer to the stumps than the slips.
It's Stewart I remember letting chances like that bisect him and either Atherton or Thorpe depending on who was next to him.
Yes, but don't look back in anger if you can't get a ticket.
Glastonbury and Taylor Swift tickets are going to be relatively easy to buy compared to Oasis.
Seriously? I mean for a certain demographic Oasis are great. I saw them in the 90s and still remember the performance of Champagne Supernova and it was amazeballs (I also remember one of them calling out the audience for being posh twats and he wasn't entirely wrong). But that demographic is hardly the mass concert going demographic now, is it? Are those people really going to register, wait in the Ticketmaster queue, then input the code, etc, etc?
Not so sure.
Oasis have become a bit more niche than this board might think. But then just check out the demographic of this board...
All of my kids love Oasis. To be honest they reintroduced me to them after neglecting them for a few years. And anyway, the average age of concert goers has been creeping up for a long time.
If you think of any band of your youth, any one (we can try an experiment on here) then it's almost guaranteed that they are on tour somewhere this year. Everyone from Chris de Burgh to the UK Subs.
And I'm sure your children will be interested in the Oasis concert but it's not Glasto or Taylor Swift territory.
Edit: UK Subs are playing Luton on Friday ffs.
I think Oasis will probably headline Glasto. The tickets for the tour are going to sell out within minutes.
Oasis at Glasto? Perfect. Area munitions would solve very many problems in that case.
Oasis at Reading. Long ago....
The crowd was full of metalheads - Metallica were playing on Sunday night, and many had bought a ticket for the weekend, on the basis that the price wasn't far-off a one day ticket - and you could go in and out of the festival.
Liam started insulting the crowd - he didn't think they were sufficiently worshipping or something. Stuff was flying at the stage. I was expecting a riot.
Then James came on, the lead singer took one look, said "Sorry, but we have to do this" - and launched into Sit Down. Which was on every jukebox in the land - non fans knew it. The crowd went from lynch'in time to relaxed in about 3 seconds....
For the BBC website a group called Oasis is the most important news item in the world today.
This is deranged.
In other news, Ellie Reeves was awful on R4 Today.
She was not great on GMB either. Whiny nasal monotone and lots of "err's" and "umm's".
Labour need better speakers to present their case.
The fact that they are already defaulting to shifty “err/umm” party line speak when being interviewed is not great for a government less than 2 months old.
Starmer is faced with one massive problem and one massive advantage.
The massive problem is that he, personally, is utterly uninspiring. He simply cannot effectively deliver any positive vision or cases for his policies, and his team are also fairly uninspiring. Rayner seems to hate everyone who is not Labour, and Reeves is relentlessly negative. Labour desperately need a little sprinkling of Blair's hope and sunniness.
The massive advantage is that his opponents are in disarray. The Conservatives have to reorganise after a historic trouncing, and the SNP have their own issues. I see this state as continuing for some years.
There are SO MANY open goals at the moment. Reeves is utterly tin-earred, and Starmer is so flat footed in response to events that he's trailing what sounds like the least inspiring speech in history.
It is so frustrating. Tories would have done better to appoint someone quickly....
Yes. The possibility that being boring and negative and making silly mistakes is all part of a cunning plan for the medium term is looking unlikely. Obviously the government has to speak to single issue morons, but among those who voted for them are grown ups as well. They already know that the Tories were useless and that the problems are real and don't need to be told. But they do need to know the direction of travel, an outline of solutions and the route, and to have confidence that this government does not engage in double think, newspeak and evasion. We voted for change.
Few on PB are fond of Matt Goodwin, but OTOH fewer can give an account of how Labour propose to deal with the problems which he outlines (still problems once rhetoric and hyperbole are removed) here:
Yes, but don't look back in anger if you can't get a ticket.
Glastonbury and Taylor Swift tickets are going to be relatively easy to buy compared to Oasis.
Seriously? I mean for a certain demographic Oasis are great. I saw them in the 90s and still remember the performance of Champagne Supernova and it was amazeballs (I also remember one of them calling out the audience for being posh twats and he wasn't entirely wrong). But that demographic is hardly the mass concert going demographic now, is it? Are those people really going to register, wait in the Ticketmaster queue, then input the code, etc, etc?
Not so sure.
Oasis have become a bit more niche than this board might think. But then just check out the demographic of this board...
All of my kids love Oasis. To be honest they reintroduced me to them after neglecting them for a few years. And anyway, the average age of concert goers has been creeping up for a long time.
If you think of any band of your youth, any one (we can try an experiment on here) then it's almost guaranteed that they are on tour somewhere this year. Everyone from Chris de Burgh to the UK Subs.
And I'm sure your children will be interested in the Oasis concert but it's not Glasto or Taylor Swift territory.
Edit: UK Subs are playing Luton on Friday ffs.
I think Oasis will probably headline Glasto. The tickets for the tour are going to sell out within minutes.
Plus high profile tours sell out within minutes because the touts buy huge numbers of tickets which appear moments later on Viagogo at several times the face value. Not quite the fans speaking with one voice.
It's a disgraceful practice aided and abetted by Ticketmaster/Livenation but the underlying demand has to be there for the touts to buy and reflog the tickets.
Fun fact: all the ticketing companies have "trading" businesses where they themselves buy up tickets, and then resell them at higher prices.
Great to see that world class news operation the BBC can pivot rapidly from Taylor Swift hourly updates to twice hourly puff pieces on will-they-won’t-they Oasis. This is our BBC, unfortunately.
Only if you absolutely have to watch live broadcast TV. The choice is yours.
Yes, but don't look back in anger if you can't get a ticket.
Glastonbury and Taylor Swift tickets are going to be relatively easy to buy compared to Oasis.
Seriously? I mean for a certain demographic Oasis are great. I saw them in the 90s and still remember the performance of Champagne Supernova and it was amazeballs (I also remember one of them calling out the audience for being posh twats and he wasn't entirely wrong). But that demographic is hardly the mass concert going demographic now, is it? Are those people really going to register, wait in the Ticketmaster queue, then input the code, etc, etc?
Not so sure.
Oasis have become a bit more niche than this board might think. But then just check out the demographic of this board...
All of my kids love Oasis. To be honest they reintroduced me to them after neglecting them for a few years. And anyway, the average age of concert goers has been creeping up for a long time.
If you think of any band of your youth, any one (we can try an experiment on here) then it's almost guaranteed that they are on tour somewhere this year. Everyone from Chris de Burgh to the UK Subs.
And I'm sure your children will be interested in the Oasis concert but it's not Glasto or Taylor Swift territory.
Edit: UK Subs are playing Luton on Friday ffs.
I think Oasis will probably headline Glasto. The tickets for the tour are going to sell out within minutes.
Oasis at Glasto? Perfect. Area munitions would solve very many problems in that case.
Oasis at Reading. Long ago....
The crowd was full of metalheads - Metallica were playing on Sunday night, and many had bought a ticket for the weekend, on the basis that the price wasn't far-off a one day ticket - and you could go in and out of the festival.
Liam started insulting the crowd - he didn't think they were sufficiently worshipping or something. Stuff was flying at the stage. I was expecting a riot.
Then James came on, the lead singer took one look, said "Sorry, but we have to do this" - and launched into Sit Down. Which was on every jukebox in the land - non fans knew it. The crowd went from lynch'in time to relaxed in about 3 seconds....
The next best average for a batsman is 66.78 from 86 tests.
But there is a reason why that quirk isn't counted.
Can anyone guess who it is and why the lower figure of 57.40 is usually cited instead?
Incidentally, cricket is a very unfair sport to bowlers. Chris Martin is remembered for taking more wickets than he scored runs. He was actually applauded when he scored his hundredth run in tests - in about his 60th match.
Nobody ever remembers that Bradman is the only bowler in Test history to trip over his own feet in his delivery stride and break an ankle.
They mentioned this the other day on Sky.
That's Kumar Sangakkara's batting average when he played solely as a batsman.
Wasn't Alec Stewart the reverse, a far better batsman when he was a Wicket Keeper.
Nope: Stewart's batting averaged collapsed when he became keeper. He averaged 46.7 in tests before taking on the keeping role, and only 34.9 afterwards.
He was also only a so so keeper, so it was a doubly stupid thing to do.
The next best average for a batsman is 66.78 from 86 tests.
But there is a reason why that quirk isn't counted.
Can anyone guess who it is and why the lower figure of 57.40 is usually cited instead?
Incidentally, cricket is a very unfair sport to bowlers. Chris Martin is remembered for taking more wickets than he scored runs. He was actually applauded when he scored his hundredth run in tests - in about his 60th match.
Nobody ever remembers that Bradman is the only bowler in Test history to trip over his own feet in his delivery stride and break an ankle.
They mentioned this the other day on Sky.
That's Kumar Sangakkara's batting average when he played solely as a batsman.
Wasn't Alec Stewart the reverse, a far better batsman when he was a Wicket Keeper.
Nope: Stewart's batting averaged collapsed when he became keeper. He averaged 46.7 in tests before taking on the keeping role, and only 34.9 afterwards.
He was also only a so so keeper, so it was a doubly stupid thing to do.
What time is it where you are. Did the mention of concerts and R*d**h**d wake you up like those smelling salts they put under peoples' noses.
Great to see that world class news operation the BBC can pivot rapidly from Taylor Swift hourly updates to twice hourly puff pieces on will-they-won’t-they Oasis. This is our BBC, unfortunately.
Only if you absolutely have to watch live broadcast TV. The choice is yours.
I’m a radio guy, I’d rather perform a self-circumcision than watch morning tv. I’ve no doubt the televisual experience was even more dumbed down.
The principle that women should be paid the same as men in equivalent jobs (as opposed to men in the same jobs) was a factor in the 1968 Ford sewing machinists strike in Dagenham, which resulted in the Equal Pay Act 1970
You may have seen the film "Made in Dagenham" that dramatised this.
I'm not quite sure that working in a warehouse and working in a store are as similar as the lady in the BBC article states. It would be interesting for her to work in the warehouse for a while to see.
More importantly: how did the judge measure the equal value of these roles? How do you measure it?
No idea but even though specific job characteristics might vary, instinctively they sound of equal value, being adjacent steps in the supply chain. Often larger retail units have aspects of warehouse and shop combined.
The reporting of the decision makes pretty clear that Next were relying on the general market for warehouse workers vs retail workers in their defence. Whereas the ruling was based on the actual working conditions of the Next employees.
The criticism of the decision doesn't really address that. "I worked in a warehouse once" certainly doesn't.
For the BBC website a group called Oasis is the most important news item in the world today.
This is deranged.
In other news, Ellie Reeves was awful on R4 Today.
She was not great on GMB either. Whiny nasal monotone and lots of "err's" and "umm's".
Labour need better speakers to present their case.
First, most politicians are bad speakers and interviewees. These are learned skills but most spend their careers actively avoiding opportunities to learn them. Jeremy Corbyn was a good speaker not because he was naturally gifted but because he'd spent decades addressing crowds on street corners. Gordon Brown was rubbish in a studio because he'd dodged interviews for his whole career.
We see this often in American presidential elections which are so long and involve so many rallies that often the candidates are noticeably better come election day.
But Labour also has the self-imposed Brexit problem, which is that if a coherent case is not made before the ballot, no-one, not even on your side, knows what to say afterwards. The Brexiteers settled nothing beforehand, and Labour's Ming vase tactics mean that not even Keir Starmer knows what comes next.
I read an article only last year where Noel Gallagher was saying he would never reform Oasis and he hated his brother. Liam was a c@#t who had threatened Noel's family, was talentless, unreliable, arrogant and he had nothing good to say to him. I guess a couple of hundred million quid can change anyone's mind.
Starmer is faced with one massive problem and one massive advantage.
The massive problem is that he, personally, is utterly uninspiring. He simply cannot effectively deliver any positive vision or cases for his policies, and his team are also fairly uninspiring. Rayner seems to hate everyone who is not Labour, and Reeves is relentlessly negative. Labour desperately need a little sprinkling of Blair's hope and sunniness.
The massive advantage is that his opponents are in disarray. The Conservatives have to reorganise after a historic trouncing, and the SNP have their own issues. I see this state as continuing for some years.
There are SO MANY open goals at the moment. Reeves is utterly tin-earred, and Starmer is so flat footed in response to events that he's trailing what sounds like the least inspiring speech in history.
It is so frustrating. Tories would have done better to appoint someone quickly....
Yes. The possibility that being boring and negative and making silly mistakes is all part of a cunning plan for the medium term is looking unlikely. Obviously the government has to speak to single issue morons, but among those who voted for them are grown ups as well. They already know that the Tories were useless and that the problems are real and don't need to be told. But they do need to know the direction of travel, an outline of solutions and the route, and to have confidence that this government does not engage in double think, newspeak and evasion. We voted for change.
Few on PB are fond of Matt Goodwin, but OTOH fewer can give an account of how Labour propose to deal with the problems which he outlines (still problems once rhetoric and hyperbole are removed) here:
Comparing Keir Starmer with Don Bradman is the most defamatory thread in the pb career of @TSE
There was nothing quirky about Bradman’s test average. He was the greatest batter in the history of the game. A Titan who scored runs at leisure. He averaged his c.100 by scoring at nearly a run a ball, long before Bazball.
Keir Starmer, by contrast, won a landslide because the main Opposition party became unelectable and detestable. He is mediocre. More of a Graham Onions.
For the BBC website a group called Oasis is the most important news item in the world today.
This is deranged.
In other news, Ellie Reeves was awful on R4 Today.
She was not great on GMB either. Whiny nasal monotone and lots of "err's" and "umm's".
Labour need better speakers to present their case.
The fact that they are already defaulting to shifty “err/umm” party line speak when being interviewed is not great for a government less than 2 months old.
I don’t think it’s a case of “they are shifting”. Some Labour politicians have always had that slightly computerish, one word at a time way of speaking which makes them seem terrified of saying the wrong thing. There are others who are much better at speaking and sounding human.
Mid ranking Tory politicians when faced with difficult questions tend to bluster and blather. Labour politicians tend to go computer-like and bureaucratic. More fringey politicians from the further reaches of the right and left act angry and offended.
Now listening to Oasis in 1996 at Maine Road. They were *immense*. But what if the reunion gigs sound more like they did at the end? Hating each other, playing loads of 2000s songs and not caring?
If they came back to basically do the first few albums and non-album tracks then yes. If they’re playing cuts off Don’t Believe the Truth then no.
Comparing Keir Starmer with Don Bradman is the most defamatory thread in the pb career of @TSE
There was nothing quirky about Bradman’s test average. He was the greatest batter in the history of the game. A Titan who scored runs at leisure. He averaged his c.100 by scoring at nearly a run a ball, long before Bazball.
Keir Starmer, by contrast, won a landslide because the main Opposition party became unelectable and detestable. He is mediocre. More of a Graham Onions.
Yes, but don't look back in anger if you can't get a ticket.
Glastonbury and Taylor Swift tickets are going to be relatively easy to buy compared to Oasis.
Seriously? I mean for a certain demographic Oasis are great. I saw them in the 90s and still remember the performance of Champagne Supernova and it was amazeballs (I also remember one of them calling out the audience for being posh twats and he wasn't entirely wrong). But that demographic is hardly the mass concert going demographic now, is it? Are those people really going to register, wait in the Ticketmaster queue, then input the code, etc, etc?
Not so sure.
Oasis have become a bit more niche than this board might think. But then just check out the demographic of this board...
All of my kids love Oasis. To be honest they reintroduced me to them after neglecting them for a few years. And anyway, the average age of concert goers has been creeping up for a long time.
If you think of any band of your youth, any one (we can try an experiment on here) then it's almost guaranteed that they are on tour somewhere this year. Everyone from Chris de Burgh to the UK Subs.
And I'm sure your children will be interested in the Oasis concert but it's not Glasto or Taylor Swift territory.
Edit: UK Subs are playing Luton on Friday ffs.
I think Oasis will probably headline Glasto. The tickets for the tour are going to sell out within minutes.
Plus high profile tours sell out within minutes because the touts buy huge numbers of tickets which appear moments later on Viagogo at several times the face value. Not quite the fans speaking with one voice.
It's a disgraceful practice aided and abetted by Ticketmaster/Livenation but the underlying demand has to be there for the touts to buy and reflog the tickets.
Fun fact: all the ticketing companies have "trading" businesses where they themselves buy up tickets, and then resell them at higher prices.
They’ve also caught artist management reselling tickets that were reserved for the tour, on the secondary sites.
It’s all a scam, set up to give the impression that more than a small fraction of the tickets actually go on public sale at the face value.
I read an article only last year where Noel Gallagher was saying he would never reform Oasis and he hated his brother. Liam was a c@#t who had threatened Noel's family, was talentless, unreliable, arrogant and he had nothing good to say to him. I guess a couple of hundred million quid can change anyone's mind.
Sensible move from Starmer that only MPs should decide the party leader and PM in power. The Tories should do the same and just let members decide the leader in opposition who can be confirmed by the public at a general election.
If and when Starmer goes I think the more Blairite Streeting would be his likely replacement. Labour certainly is unlikely to cut NHS spending to any significant degree either
I read an article only last year where Noel Gallagher was saying he would never reform Oasis and he hated his brother. Liam was a c@#t who had threatened Noel's family, was talentless, unreliable, arrogant and he had nothing good to say to him. I guess a couple of hundred million quid can change anyone's mind.
I read an article only last year where Noel Gallagher was saying he would never reform Oasis and he hated his brother. Liam was a c@#t who had threatened Noel's family, was talentless, unreliable, arrogant and he had nothing good to say to him. I guess a couple of hundred million quid can change anyone's mind.
Even at the time, it was said the Police hated each other but had the commercial sense to put their differences aside. But yes, the reason so many bands have started touring again is the simple equation that large stadia multiplied by high ticket prices bring in sackfuls of cash.
Yes, but don't look back in anger if you can't get a ticket.
Glastonbury and Taylor Swift tickets are going to be relatively easy to buy compared to Oasis.
Seriously? I mean for a certain demographic Oasis are great. I saw them in the 90s and still remember the performance of Champagne Supernova and it was amazeballs (I also remember one of them calling out the audience for being posh twats and he wasn't entirely wrong). But that demographic is hardly the mass concert going demographic now, is it? Are those people really going to register, wait in the Ticketmaster queue, then input the code, etc, etc?
Not so sure.
Oasis have become a bit more niche than this board might think. But then just check out the demographic of this board...
All of my kids love Oasis. To be honest they reintroduced me to them after neglecting them for a few years. And anyway, the average age of concert goers has been creeping up for a long time.
If you think of any band of your youth, any one (we can try an experiment on here) then it's almost guaranteed that they are on tour somewhere this year. Everyone from Chris de Burgh to the UK Subs.
And I'm sure your children will be interested in the Oasis concert but it's not Glasto or Taylor Swift territory.
Edit: UK Subs are playing Luton on Friday ffs.
I think Oasis will probably headline Glasto. The tickets for the tour are going to sell out within minutes.
Oasis at Glasto? Perfect. Area munitions would solve very many problems in that case.
Oasis at Reading. Long ago....
The crowd was full of metalheads - Metallica were playing on Sunday night, and many had bought a ticket for the weekend, on the basis that the price wasn't far-off a one day ticket - and you could go in and out of the festival.
Liam started insulting the crowd - he didn't think they were sufficiently worshipping or something. Stuff was flying at the stage. I was expecting a riot.
Then James came on, the lead singer took one look, said "Sorry, but we have to do this" - and launched into Sit Down. Which was on every jukebox in the land - non fans knew it. The crowd went from lynch'in time to relaxed in about 3 seconds....
I read an article only last year where Noel Gallagher was saying he would never reform Oasis and he hated his brother. Liam was a c@#t who had threatened Noel's family, was talentless, unreliable, arrogant and he had nothing good to say to him. I guess a couple of hundred million quid can change anyone's mind.
Even at the time, it was said the Police hated each other but had the commercial sense to put their differences aside. But yes, the reason so many bands have started touring again is the simple equation that large stadia multiplied by high ticket prices bring in sackfuls of cash.
If I was placing a bet in this market it would be on Bridget.
If I was placing a bet on this market, it would simply be to lay all the options.
One genuinely odd thing about that list is that David Lammy isn't on it.
Even before Lammy become FS there was discussion about who it should actually be instead. I don't think he is in the frame for leader.
Bridget has much going for her. Proper northern, Catholic, charm, can speak in meaningful sentences when she wants, perhaps a less posh Harriet Harman. Possible value.
Now listening to Oasis in 1996 at Maine Road. They were *immense*. But what if the reunion gigs sound more like they did at the end? Hating each other, playing loads of 2000s songs and not caring?
If they came back to basically do the first few albums and non-album tracks then yes. If they’re playing cuts off Don’t Believe the Truth then no.
It might end up a bit like the Van Halen reunions over the last decade or so. Highly anticipated, but ultimately fractious and disappointing. I actually think they're slick enough to carry it off and bank the millions. I think they need the money.
The next best average for a batsman is 66.78 from 86 tests.
But there is a reason why that quirk isn't counted.
Can anyone guess who it is and why the lower figure of 57.40 is usually cited instead?
Incidentally, cricket is a very unfair sport to bowlers. Chris Martin is remembered for taking more wickets than he scored runs. He was actually applauded when he scored his hundredth run in tests - in about his 60th match.
Nobody ever remembers that Bradman is the only bowler in Test history to trip over his own feet in his delivery stride and break an ankle.
They mentioned this the other day on Sky.
That's Kumar Sangakkara's batting average when he played solely as a batsman.
Wasn't Alec Stewart the reverse, a far better batsman when he was a Wicket Keeper.
No - 34 as a keeper, 46 as a batsman.
That may be slightly skewed by the fact he tended to keep wicket later in his career when those eye shots weren't quite so easy and his arms were stiffer (in 2001 he was playing while suffering from tennis elbow).
But, weirdly, England would have had more runs if they had kept Russell as keeper and had Stewart opening than by giving Stewart the gloves and trying a succession of other players at the top of the order.
One of many stupid decisions by the England management of the 1990s.
The problem with that idea is that Stewart was a better wicket keeper than the overrated Russell.
Stewart was an extremely good wicketkeeper. He was very capable standing back to seamers, and after all, that's what England wanted most in the 1990s since they seldom had a decent spin attack.
He was not better than Russell especially when standing up (which Russell could do to quick bowlers bowling with the old ball). Or for the matter of that Keith Piper or Reggie Williams.
Sacrificing his runs at the top of the order for the sake of a keeper who was not as good as other options at actually keeping was a foolish move. Stewart, as a pure batsman, had a better record than Mark Waugh or Darryl Cullinan. It was comparable to Steve Waugh's. As a keeper? Well, his batting record was comparable to Ian Healy.
It was doubly foolish because Stewart himself did not enjoy keeping, and particularly later in his career expressed his frustration at being asked to keep, rather than just bat, on a regular basis. Why would you take the one England batsman who consistently averaged over 45 as an opener and take 25% of his runs away? Made everything much harder for the middle order.
Jack Russell seemed always to have first slip much too close to him.
And still managed to have edges go between them with each leaving it to the other.
I think your memory may be playing you false, because Russell was usually closer to the stumps than the slips.
It's Stewart I remember letting chances like that bisect him and either Atherton or Thorpe depending on who was next to him.
Your memory really has gone if you think Jack Russell stood up to England's array of fast-medium bowlers.
As an example England vs Australia, Headingly 1989, with a bowling attack of DeFreitas, Foster, Newport, Pringle Jack Russell stands back for two whole days:
I read an article only last year where Noel Gallagher was saying he would never reform Oasis and he hated his brother. Liam was a c@#t who had threatened Noel's family, was talentless, unreliable, arrogant and he had nothing good to say to him. I guess a couple of hundred million quid can change anyone's mind.
Was that before his ex-wife took him to the cleaners in divorce court?
80,000 people paying an average of £150 for a ticket, that’s £12m a show in revenue. Yes they’ll spend a couple of million on production and security, but will probably still clear £8-9m at the end of the night.
I read an article only last year where Noel Gallagher was saying he would never reform Oasis and he hated his brother. Liam was a c@#t who had threatened Noel's family, was talentless, unreliable, arrogant and he had nothing good to say to him. I guess a couple of hundred million quid can change anyone's mind.
Even at the time, it was said the Police hated each other but had the commercial sense to put their differences aside. But yes, the reason so many bands have started touring again is the simple equation that large stadia multiplied by high ticket prices bring in sackfuls of cash.
The Police today say they like each other, just as long as they don't have to be in a band together.
The next best average for a batsman is 66.78 from 86 tests.
But there is a reason why that quirk isn't counted.
Can anyone guess who it is and why the lower figure of 57.40 is usually cited instead?
Incidentally, cricket is a very unfair sport to bowlers. Chris Martin is remembered for taking more wickets than he scored runs. He was actually applauded when he scored his hundredth run in tests - in about his 60th match.
Nobody ever remembers that Bradman is the only bowler in Test history to trip over his own feet in his delivery stride and break an ankle.
They mentioned this the other day on Sky.
That's Kumar Sangakkara's batting average when he played solely as a batsman.
Wasn't Alec Stewart the reverse, a far better batsman when he was a Wicket Keeper.
Nope: Stewart's batting averaged collapsed when he became keeper. He averaged 46.7 in tests before taking on the keeping role, and only 34.9 afterwards.
He was also only a so so keeper, so it was a doubly stupid thing to do.
I read an article only last year where Noel Gallagher was saying he would never reform Oasis and he hated his brother. Liam was a c@#t who had threatened Noel's family, was talentless, unreliable, arrogant and he had nothing good to say to him. I guess a couple of hundred million quid can change anyone's mind.
Was that before his ex-wife took him to the cleaners in divorce court?
80,000 people paying an average of £150 for a ticket, that’s £12m a show in revenue. Yes they’ll spend a couple of million on production and security, but will probably still clear £8-9m at the end of the night.
Don’t forget the merch.
Selling a Fruit of the Loom t shirt that cost £3 for £60 because it has Oasis on the front is the real money spinner.
If I was placing a bet in this market it would be on Bridget.
If I was placing a bet on this market, it would simply be to lay all the options.
One genuinely odd thing about that list is that David Lammy isn't on it.
Even before Lammy become FS there was discussion about who it should actually be instead. I don't think he is in the frame for leader.
Bridget has much going for her. Proper northern, Catholic, charm, can speak in meaningful sentences when she wants, perhaps a less posh Harriet Harman. Possible value.
Reeves and Streeting are likely to become less popular over time given their roles in government. I've no idea why anyone imagines Burnham might suddenly find himself in with a chance, and Khan (although much longer odds) is unlikely too.
I think Lammy has probably realised that he isn't up to the job of being PM, and seems quite happy in his current role.
So Phillipson does seem the most likely possibility, but I think we're a very long way off any change.
Re: header. Entirely agree that when in power it's far better for new leaders to be chosen just by MPs.
Having a parties membership propel a nutter into number 10 is to be avoided in the future.
Why only when they're in power?
Much better to avoid the likes of Corbyn, Duncan Smith and probably Jenrick altogether by squeezing the members (or affiliated organisations) out entirely.
They're hardly representative of the country and they usually show the sense and judgment of a drunk badger.
If we wanted to really democratise choosing Prime Minsters, primaries would be the way to go. But I would not expect them to have high turnout and they would be expensive and complicated to organise.
Edit - admittedly, on the two occasions when the membership of a party chose a PM they did make a very wrong choice with very much more immediately disastrous consequences. But that's not an excuse for saying leaders of the opposition are not important too.
The only party leaders who the public gave general election majorities to this century, Blair, Cameron, Johnson and Starmer were also voted for by party members to be their leader. Corbyn in 2017 got 40%, more than the 33% Starmer got last month
For the BBC website a group called Oasis is the most important news item in the world today.
This is deranged.
In other news, Ellie Reeves was awful on R4 Today.
She was not great on GMB either. Whiny nasal monotone and lots of "err's" and "umm's".
Labour need better speakers to present their case.
First, most politicians are bad speakers and interviewees. These are learned skills but most spend their careers actively avoiding opportunities to learn them. Jeremy Corbyn was a good speaker not because he was naturally gifted but because he'd spent decades addressing crowds on street corners. Gordon Brown was rubbish in a studio because he'd dodged interviews for his whole career.
We see this often in American presidential elections which are so long and involve so many rallies that often the candidates are noticeably better come election day.
But Labour also has the self-imposed Brexit problem, which is that if a coherent case is not made before the ballot, no-one, not even on your side, knows what to say afterwards. The Brexiteers settled nothing beforehand, and Labour's Ming vase tactics mean that not even Keir Starmer knows what comes next.
Good points. But politics watchers who voted Labour knew perfectly well what Labour had to do to be sure of winning an election, and the Ming vase and all that. But it is a reasonable expectation that the new government are also prepared and on the front foot for the post-election reality. Single issue mistakes and unconfident stumbling are no substitute for direction of travel and clear outlines of long term solutions. The next few months will be important, as by Christmas they will no longer be able to rest on the anti-Tory case.
If I was placing a bet in this market it would be on Bridget.
If I was placing a bet on this market, it would simply be to lay all the options.
One genuinely odd thing about that list is that David Lammy isn't on it.
Even before Lammy become FS there was discussion about who it should actually be instead. I don't think he is in the frame for leader.
Bridget has much going for her. Proper northern, Catholic, charm, can speak in meaningful sentences when she wants, perhaps a less posh Harriet Harman. Possible value.
Forget it. Not happening.
If she's still at education in twelve months she'll have demonstrated extraordinary survival skills. But it's already painfully clear she isn't going to be able to navigate the coming crisis.
Just to take one example, she's promised 6,500 extra teachers and asked the DfE to come up with a strategy for it.
Twelve months from now due to the epochal bungling of the DfE our teacher shortage is going to be much worse. They cut recruitment targets by 10% this year to try and reduce the double embarrassment of missing their targets by half last year and the effect of their botched reorganisation and they still missed almost all their targets - just 61% of the figure in secondary and 83% in primary.
So far, she has shown no idea of what to do about this. To be fair, I don't blame her for that. It is a rather intractable problem. But to start with perhaps she could ask why there are so many problems in teacher training, and preferably ask an outside agency. Not doing so means she's going to struggle to sort things.
Sexually frustrated dolphin blamed for 18 attacks on swimmers
A lonely dolphin acting out of sexual frustration is believed to be the culprit behind a spate of attacks on swimmers in Japan this summer.
Since July this year, 18 people have been hurt in dolphin attacks near the seaside town of Mihama, with some requiring dozens of stitches.
Posters warning beachgoers of the menace feature an open-mouthed dolphin baring razor-like teeth. It says that the mammals “are known to be dangerous to humans” and to get out of the water if they are seen nearby.
If I was placing a bet in this market it would be on Bridget.
If I was placing a bet on this market, it would simply be to lay all the options.
One genuinely odd thing about that list is that David Lammy isn't on it.
Even before Lammy become FS there was discussion about who it should actually be instead. I don't think he is in the frame for leader.
Bridget has much going for her. Proper northern, Catholic, charm, can speak in meaningful sentences when she wants, perhaps a less posh Harriet Harman. Possible value.
Reeves and Streeting are likely to become less popular over time given their roles in government. I've no idea why anyone imagines Burnham might suddenly find himself in with a chance, and Khan (although much longer odds) is unlikely too.
I think Lammy has probably realised that he isn't up to the job of being PM, and seems quite happy in his current role.
So Phillipson does seem the most likely possibility, but I think we're a very long way off any change.
I think we're so far off change that none of today's Cabinet are likely.
The next best average for a batsman is 66.78 from 86 tests.
But there is a reason why that quirk isn't counted.
Can anyone guess who it is and why the lower figure of 57.40 is usually cited instead?
Incidentally, cricket is a very unfair sport to bowlers. Chris Martin is remembered for taking more wickets than he scored runs. He was actually applauded when he scored his hundredth run in tests - in about his 60th match.
Nobody ever remembers that Bradman is the only bowler in Test history to trip over his own feet in his delivery stride and break an ankle.
They mentioned this the other day on Sky.
That's Kumar Sangakkara's batting average when he played solely as a batsman.
Wasn't Alec Stewart the reverse, a far better batsman when he was a Wicket Keeper.
No - 34 as a keeper, 46 as a batsman.
That may be slightly skewed by the fact he tended to keep wicket later in his career when those eye shots weren't quite so easy and his arms were stiffer (in 2001 he was playing while suffering from tennis elbow).
But, weirdly, England would have had more runs if they had kept Russell as keeper and had Stewart opening than by giving Stewart the gloves and trying a succession of other players at the top of the order.
One of many stupid decisions by the England management of the 1990s.
The problem with that idea is that Stewart was a better wicket keeper than the overrated Russell.
Stewart was an extremely good wicketkeeper. He was very capable standing back to seamers, and after all, that's what England wanted most in the 1990s since they seldom had a decent spin attack.
He was not better than Russell especially when standing up (which Russell could do to quick bowlers bowling with the old ball). Or for the matter of that Keith Piper or Reggie Williams.
Sacrificing his runs at the top of the order for the sake of a keeper who was not as good as other options at actually keeping was a foolish move. Stewart, as a pure batsman, had a better record than Mark Waugh or Darryl Cullinan. It was comparable to Steve Waugh's. As a keeper? Well, his batting record was comparable to Ian Healy.
It was doubly foolish because Stewart himself did not enjoy keeping, and particularly later in his career expressed his frustration at being asked to keep, rather than just bat, on a regular basis. Why would you take the one England batsman who consistently averaged over 45 as an opener and take 25% of his runs away? Made everything much harder for the middle order.
Jack Russell seemed always to have first slip much too close to him.
And still managed to have edges go between them with each leaving it to the other.
I think your memory may be playing you false, because Russell was usually closer to the stumps than the slips.
It's Stewart I remember letting chances like that bisect him and either Atherton or Thorpe depending on who was next to him.
Your memory really has gone if you think Jack Russell stood up to England's array of fast-medium bowlers.
As an example England vs Australia, Headingly 1989, with a bowling attack of DeFreitas, Foster, Newport, Pringle Jack Russell stands back for two whole days:
Leaving aside the fact your footage is not 'two whole days' they show, again, that Russell was closer to the stumps than the slips. Stewart would have been next to the slips.
We'll write this down to an irrational dislike. I take it you like the Hundred?
If I was placing a bet in this market it would be on Bridget.
If I was placing a bet on this market, it would simply be to lay all the options.
One genuinely odd thing about that list is that David Lammy isn't on it.
Even before Lammy become FS there was discussion about who it should actually be instead. I don't think he is in the frame for leader.
Bridget has much going for her. Proper northern, Catholic, charm, can speak in meaningful sentences when she wants, perhaps a less posh Harriet Harman. Possible value.
Reeves and Streeting are likely to become less popular over time given their roles in government. I've no idea why anyone imagines Burnham might suddenly find himself in with a chance, and Khan (although much longer odds) is unlikely too.
I think Lammy has probably realised that he isn't up to the job of being PM, and seems quite happy in his current role.
So Phillipson does seem the most likely possibility, but I think we're a very long way off any change.
I think we're so far off change that none of today's Cabinet are likely.
Yeah - mostly with you.
A couple of factors though which could cause change; - government finances (this looks pretty grim) - the left (they never go quietly into the night)
I suspect that the government will avoid these perils, but who knows. The above, combined with Tory weakness, are also why I'm not laying Farage as next PM at the seemingly ludicrous 11.5s available. (Well that and if it's a good bet you just tie money up for years)
The next best average for a batsman is 66.78 from 86 tests.
But there is a reason why that quirk isn't counted.
Can anyone guess who it is and why the lower figure of 57.40 is usually cited instead?
Incidentally, cricket is a very unfair sport to bowlers. Chris Martin is remembered for taking more wickets than he scored runs. He was actually applauded when he scored his hundredth run in tests - in about his 60th match.
Nobody ever remembers that Bradman is the only bowler in Test history to trip over his own feet in his delivery stride and break an ankle.
They mentioned this the other day on Sky.
That's Kumar Sangakkara's batting average when he played solely as a batsman.
Wasn't Alec Stewart the reverse, a far better batsman when he was a Wicket Keeper.
No - 34 as a keeper, 46 as a batsman.
That may be slightly skewed by the fact he tended to keep wicket later in his career when those eye shots weren't quite so easy and his arms were stiffer (in 2001 he was playing while suffering from tennis elbow).
But, weirdly, England would have had more runs if they had kept Russell as keeper and had Stewart opening than by giving Stewart the gloves and trying a succession of other players at the top of the order.
One of many stupid decisions by the England management of the 1990s.
The problem with that idea is that Stewart was a better wicket keeper than the overrated Russell.
Stewart was an extremely good wicketkeeper. He was very capable standing back to seamers, and after all, that's what England wanted most in the 1990s since they seldom had a decent spin attack.
He was not better than Russell especially when standing up (which Russell could do to quick bowlers bowling with the old ball). Or for the matter of that Keith Piper or Reggie Williams.
Sacrificing his runs at the top of the order for the sake of a keeper who was not as good as other options at actually keeping was a foolish move. Stewart, as a pure batsman, had a better record than Mark Waugh or Darryl Cullinan. It was comparable to Steve Waugh's. As a keeper? Well, his batting record was comparable to Ian Healy.
It was doubly foolish because Stewart himself did not enjoy keeping, and particularly later in his career expressed his frustration at being asked to keep, rather than just bat, on a regular basis. Why would you take the one England batsman who consistently averaged over 45 as an opener and take 25% of his runs away? Made everything much harder for the middle order.
Jack Russell seemed always to have first slip much too close to him.
And still managed to have edges go between them with each leaving it to the other.
I think your memory may be playing you false, because Russell was usually closer to the stumps than the slips.
It's Stewart I remember letting chances like that bisect him and either Atherton or Thorpe depending on who was next to him.
Your memory really has gone if you think Jack Russell stood up to England's array of fast-medium bowlers.
As an example England vs Australia, Headingly 1989, with a bowling attack of DeFreitas, Foster, Newport, Pringle Jack Russell stands back for two whole days:
Leaving aside the fact your footage is not 'two whole days' they show, again, that Russell was closer to the stumps than the slips. Stewart would have been next to the slips.
We'll write this down to an irrational dislike. I take it you like the Hundred?
Here’s Jack Russell standing up to Gladstone Small and stumping Dean Jones the Aussies in the 1990/91 Ashes.
The principle that women should be paid the same as men in equivalent jobs (as opposed to men in the same jobs) was a factor in the 1968 Ford sewing machinists strike in Dagenham, which resulted in the Equal Pay Act 1970
You may have seen the film "Made in Dagenham" that dramatised this.
I'm not quite sure that working in a warehouse and working in a store are as similar as the lady in the BBC article states. It would be interesting for her to work in the warehouse for a while to see.
More importantly: how did the judge measure the equal value of these roles? How do you measure it?
No idea but even though specific job characteristics might vary, instinctively they sound of equal value, being adjacent steps in the supply chain. Often larger retail units have aspects of warehouse and shop combined.
IIRC a key thing in the Birmingham judgement was a common job level/classification. "Level 5 employees" or some such.
Given the warehouse and retail roles involve doing fundamentally different work it seems peculiar they're considered very similar.
That said, I hardly ever visit shops except for food. Maybe retailers have forklifts whizzing around these days.
When I worked at ICI in the nineties all non plant jobs had a grade so you could two quite different jobs that had the same grade and so the same pay scale. However fun ensued when they decided to scrap the old way of grading jobs and bring in a new way.
My job grade turned out to be the same as a secretary, when I queried this I was told that seems correct you both spend all day typing. This software engineer decided at that point a change of company was in order
Yes, but don't look back in anger if you can't get a ticket.
Glastonbury and Taylor Swift tickets are going to be relatively easy to buy compared to Oasis.
Seriously? I mean for a certain demographic Oasis are great. I saw them in the 90s and still remember the performance of Champagne Supernova and it was amazeballs (I also remember one of them calling out the audience for being posh twats and he wasn't entirely wrong). But that demographic is hardly the mass concert going demographic now, is it? Are those people really going to register, wait in the Ticketmaster queue, then input the code, etc, etc?
Not so sure.
Oasis have become a bit more niche than this board might think. But then just check out the demographic of this board...
All of my kids love Oasis. To be honest they reintroduced me to them after neglecting them for a few years. And anyway, the average age of concert goers has been creeping up for a long time.
If you think of any band of your youth, any one (we can try an experiment on here) then it's almost guaranteed that they are on tour somewhere this year. Everyone from Chris de Burgh to the UK Subs.
And I'm sure your children will be interested in the Oasis concert but it's not Glasto or Taylor Swift territory.
Edit: UK Subs are playing Luton on Friday ffs.
I think Oasis will probably headline Glasto. The tickets for the tour are going to sell out within minutes.
Oasis at Glasto? Perfect. Area munitions would solve very many problems in that case.
Sensible move from Starmer that only MPs should decide the party leader and PM in power. The Tories should do the same and just let members decide the leader in opposition who can be confirmed by the public at a general election.
If and when Starmer goes I think the more Blairite Streeting would be his likely replacement. Labour certainly is unlikely to cut NHS spending to any significant degree either
In truth, it's up to Conservative MPs if there is a membership ballot. The process can go down to the last two ans one can withdraw meaning the other is elected unopposed - it's as simple as that.
I do agree it's inherently destabilising to have a protracted leadership election for any party in Government - 7 days is plenty to choose a new leader.
For the BBC website a group called Oasis is the most important news item in the world today.
This is deranged.
In other news, Ellie Reeves was awful on R4 Today.
She was not great on GMB either. Whiny nasal monotone and lots of "err's" and "umm's".
Labour need better speakers to present their case.
First, most politicians are bad speakers and interviewees. These are learned skills but most spend their careers actively avoiding opportunities to learn them. Jeremy Corbyn was a good speaker not because he was naturally gifted but because he'd spent decades addressing crowds on street corners. Gordon Brown was rubbish in a studio because he'd dodged interviews for his whole career.
We see this often in American presidential elections which are so long and involve so many rallies that often the candidates are noticeably better come election day.
But Labour also has the self-imposed Brexit problem, which is that if a coherent case is not made before the ballot, no-one, not even on your side, knows what to say afterwards. The Brexiteers settled nothing beforehand, and Labour's Ming vase tactics mean that not even Keir Starmer knows what comes next.
Good points. But politics watchers who voted Labour knew perfectly well what Labour had to do to be sure of winning an election, and the Ming vase and all that. But it is a reasonable expectation that the new government are also prepared and on the front foot for the post-election reality. Single issue mistakes and unconfident stumbling are no substitute for direction of travel and clear outlines of long term solutions. The next few months will be important, as by Christmas they will no longer be able to rest on the anti-Tory case.
I voted labour. I am not impressed so far but I still don't regret it.
Just whining how crap things are is not going to exactly inspire economic confidence when we really do need it. It is early days at the mlment.
I also think Labour have dropped the ball on the Youth Mobility Scheme, they should snap the EU's hands off for it.
Yes, but don't look back in anger if you can't get a ticket.
Glastonbury and Taylor Swift tickets are going to be relatively easy to buy compared to Oasis.
Seriously? I mean for a certain demographic Oasis are great. I saw them in the 90s and still remember the performance of Champagne Supernova and it was amazeballs (I also remember one of them calling out the audience for being posh twats and he wasn't entirely wrong). But that demographic is hardly the mass concert going demographic now, is it? Are those people really going to register, wait in the Ticketmaster queue, then input the code, etc, etc?
Not so sure.
Oasis have become a bit more niche than this board might think. But then just check out the demographic of this board...
All of my kids love Oasis. To be honest they reintroduced me to them after neglecting them for a few years. And anyway, the average age of concert goers has been creeping up for a long time.
If you think of any band of your youth, any one (we can try an experiment on here) then it's almost guaranteed that they are on tour somewhere this year. Everyone from Chris de Burgh to the UK Subs.
And I'm sure your children will be interested in the Oasis concert but it's not Glasto or Taylor Swift territory.
Edit: UK Subs are playing Luton on Friday ffs.
I think Oasis will probably headline Glasto. The tickets for the tour are going to sell out within minutes.
Oasis at Glasto? Perfect. Area munitions would solve very many problems in that case.
Especially for the local eels and frogs.
I went to Reading, again, a few years back to see Metallica play. Again :-)
I despise the festival organising companies. But, the rubbish situation was definitely down to the people at the festival. There were bins every few yards, being regularly emptied. There was even festival employees, moving around through the crowd, handing out rubbish bags to people. Yet dropping plastic cups etc on the ground was standard.
To reuse the land for farming would take scrapping and sieving the topsoil - there was a layer of shredded plastic ground in.
For the BBC website a group called Oasis is the most important news item in the world today.
This is deranged.
In other news, Ellie Reeves was awful on R4 Today.
She was not great on GMB either. Whiny nasal monotone and lots of "err's" and "umm's".
Labour need better speakers to present their case.
First, most politicians are bad speakers and interviewees. These are learned skills but most spend their careers actively avoiding opportunities to learn them. Jeremy Corbyn was a good speaker not because he was naturally gifted but because he'd spent decades addressing crowds on street corners. Gordon Brown was rubbish in a studio because he'd dodged interviews for his whole career.
We see this often in American presidential elections which are so long and involve so many rallies that often the candidates are noticeably better come election day.
But Labour also has the self-imposed Brexit problem, which is that if a coherent case is not made before the ballot, no-one, not even on your side, knows what to say afterwards. The Brexiteers settled nothing beforehand, and Labour's Ming vase tactics mean that not even Keir Starmer knows what comes next.
Good points. But politics watchers who voted Labour knew perfectly well what Labour had to do to be sure of winning an election, and the Ming vase and all that. But it is a reasonable expectation that the new government are also prepared and on the front foot for the post-election reality. Single issue mistakes and unconfident stumbling are no substitute for direction of travel and clear outlines of long term solutions. The next few months will be important, as by Christmas they will no longer be able to rest on the anti-Tory case.
I think it’s very possible that a lot of the electorate will have a “I voted for a Labour government but I wasn’t expecting this kind of Labour government” moment in the coming months. Whether that will matter in 4/5 years time will depend very much on what happens in the next couple of years or so. If optimism starts to return then Labour have a good chance. They are not, however, setting the stage very well for a perky national optimism by constantly telling us how awful everything is going to be.
Sexually frustrated dolphin blamed for 18 attacks on swimmers
A lonely dolphin acting out of sexual frustration is believed to be the culprit behind a spate of attacks on swimmers in Japan this summer.
Since July this year, 18 people have been hurt in dolphin attacks near the seaside town of Mihama, with some requiring dozens of stitches.
Posters warning beachgoers of the menace feature an open-mouthed dolphin baring razor-like teeth. It says that the mammals “are known to be dangerous to humans” and to get out of the water if they are seen nearby.
The next best average for a batsman is 66.78 from 86 tests.
But there is a reason why that quirk isn't counted.
Can anyone guess who it is and why the lower figure of 57.40 is usually cited instead?
Incidentally, cricket is a very unfair sport to bowlers. Chris Martin is remembered for taking more wickets than he scored runs. He was actually applauded when he scored his hundredth run in tests - in about his 60th match.
Nobody ever remembers that Bradman is the only bowler in Test history to trip over his own feet in his delivery stride and break an ankle.
They mentioned this the other day on Sky.
That's Kumar Sangakkara's batting average when he played solely as a batsman.
Wasn't Alec Stewart the reverse, a far better batsman when he was a Wicket Keeper.
No - 34 as a keeper, 46 as a batsman.
That may be slightly skewed by the fact he tended to keep wicket later in his career when those eye shots weren't quite so easy and his arms were stiffer (in 2001 he was playing while suffering from tennis elbow).
But, weirdly, England would have had more runs if they had kept Russell as keeper and had Stewart opening than by giving Stewart the gloves and trying a succession of other players at the top of the order.
One of many stupid decisions by the England management of the 1990s.
The problem with that idea is that Stewart was a better wicket keeper than the overrated Russell.
Stewart was an extremely good wicketkeeper. He was very capable standing back to seamers, and after all, that's what England wanted most in the 1990s since they seldom had a decent spin attack.
He was not better than Russell especially when standing up (which Russell could do to quick bowlers bowling with the old ball). Or for the matter of that Keith Piper or Reggie Williams.
Sacrificing his runs at the top of the order for the sake of a keeper who was not as good as other options at actually keeping was a foolish move. Stewart, as a pure batsman, had a better record than Mark Waugh or Darryl Cullinan. It was comparable to Steve Waugh's. As a keeper? Well, his batting record was comparable to Ian Healy.
It was doubly foolish because Stewart himself did not enjoy keeping, and particularly later in his career expressed his frustration at being asked to keep, rather than just bat, on a regular basis. Why would you take the one England batsman who consistently averaged over 45 as an opener and take 25% of his runs away? Made everything much harder for the middle order.
Jack Russell seemed always to have first slip much too close to him.
And still managed to have edges go between them with each leaving it to the other.
I think your memory may be playing you false, because Russell was usually closer to the stumps than the slips.
It's Stewart I remember letting chances like that bisect him and either Atherton or Thorpe depending on who was next to him.
Your memory really has gone if you think Jack Russell stood up to England's array of fast-medium bowlers.
As an example England vs Australia, Headingly 1989, with a bowling attack of DeFreitas, Foster, Newport, Pringle Jack Russell stands back for two whole days:
Leaving aside the fact your footage is not 'two whole days' they show, again, that Russell was closer to the stumps than the slips. Stewart would have been next to the slips.
We'll write this down to an irrational dislike. I take it you like the Hundred?
Here’s Jack Russell standing up to Gladstone Small and stumping Dean Jones the Aussies in the 1990/91 Ashes.
I cannot find the footage on YouTube but here’s evidence that Russell stood up when Gooch was bowling when he stumped Wasim Akram in the first innings.
The next best average for a batsman is 66.78 from 86 tests.
But there is a reason why that quirk isn't counted.
Can anyone guess who it is and why the lower figure of 57.40 is usually cited instead?
Incidentally, cricket is a very unfair sport to bowlers. Chris Martin is remembered for taking more wickets than he scored runs. He was actually applauded when he scored his hundredth run in tests - in about his 60th match.
Nobody ever remembers that Bradman is the only bowler in Test history to trip over his own feet in his delivery stride and break an ankle.
They mentioned this the other day on Sky.
That's Kumar Sangakkara's batting average when he played solely as a batsman.
Wasn't Alec Stewart the reverse, a far better batsman when he was a Wicket Keeper.
No - 34 as a keeper, 46 as a batsman.
That may be slightly skewed by the fact he tended to keep wicket later in his career when those eye shots weren't quite so easy and his arms were stiffer (in 2001 he was playing while suffering from tennis elbow).
But, weirdly, England would have had more runs if they had kept Russell as keeper and had Stewart opening than by giving Stewart the gloves and trying a succession of other players at the top of the order.
One of many stupid decisions by the England management of the 1990s.
The problem with that idea is that Stewart was a better wicket keeper than the overrated Russell.
Stewart was an extremely good wicketkeeper. He was very capable standing back to seamers, and after all, that's what England wanted most in the 1990s since they seldom had a decent spin attack.
He was not better than Russell especially when standing up (which Russell could do to quick bowlers bowling with the old ball). Or for the matter of that Keith Piper or Reggie Williams.
Sacrificing his runs at the top of the order for the sake of a keeper who was not as good as other options at actually keeping was a foolish move. Stewart, as a pure batsman, had a better record than Mark Waugh or Darryl Cullinan. It was comparable to Steve Waugh's. As a keeper? Well, his batting record was comparable to Ian Healy.
It was doubly foolish because Stewart himself did not enjoy keeping, and particularly later in his career expressed his frustration at being asked to keep, rather than just bat, on a regular basis. Why would you take the one England batsman who consistently averaged over 45 as an opener and take 25% of his runs away? Made everything much harder for the middle order.
Jack Russell seemed always to have first slip much too close to him.
And still managed to have edges go between them with each leaving it to the other.
I think your memory may be playing you false, because Russell was usually closer to the stumps than the slips.
It's Stewart I remember letting chances like that bisect him and either Atherton or Thorpe depending on who was next to him.
Your memory really has gone if you think Jack Russell stood up to England's array of fast-medium bowlers.
As an example England vs Australia, Headingly 1989, with a bowling attack of DeFreitas, Foster, Newport, Pringle Jack Russell stands back for two whole days:
Leaving aside the fact your footage is not 'two whole days' they show, again, that Russell was closer to the stumps than the slips. Stewart would have been next to the slips.
We'll write this down to an irrational dislike. I take it you like the Hundred?
Perhaps you should be working for Donald Trump as he also sees what he wants as opposed to what is actually visible.
Jack Russell is clearly standing about two years from first slip and about fifteen yards behind the stumps.
Might I recommend you watch a cricket match from square leg - it would help you understand how the standard TV position foreshortens the distance behind the stumps.
For the BBC website a group called Oasis is the most important news item in the world today.
This is deranged.
In other news, Ellie Reeves was awful on R4 Today.
She was not great on GMB either. Whiny nasal monotone and lots of "err's" and "umm's".
Labour need better speakers to present their case.
First, most politicians are bad speakers and interviewees. These are learned skills but most spend their careers actively avoiding opportunities to learn them. Jeremy Corbyn was a good speaker not because he was naturally gifted but because he'd spent decades addressing crowds on street corners. Gordon Brown was rubbish in a studio because he'd dodged interviews for his whole career.
We see this often in American presidential elections which are so long and involve so many rallies that often the candidates are noticeably better come election day.
But Labour also has the self-imposed Brexit problem, which is that if a coherent case is not made before the ballot, no-one, not even on your side, knows what to say afterwards. The Brexiteers settled nothing beforehand, and Labour's Ming vase tactics mean that not even Keir Starmer knows what comes next.
Good points. But politics watchers who voted Labour knew perfectly well what Labour had to do to be sure of winning an election, and the Ming vase and all that. But it is a reasonable expectation that the new government are also prepared and on the front foot for the post-election reality. Single issue mistakes and unconfident stumbling are no substitute for direction of travel and clear outlines of long term solutions. The next few months will be important, as by Christmas they will no longer be able to rest on the anti-Tory case.
I voted labour. I am not impressed so far but I still don't regret it.
Just whining how crap things are is not going to exactly inspire economic confidence when we really do need it. It is early days at the mlment.
I also think Labour have dropped the ball on the Youth Mobility Scheme, they should snap the EU's hands off for it.
Agree. Labour are hugely misunderestimating the place of public discourse in inspiring and setting the direction of travel. There are periods when you need Grade A hopey changey journey together with clear destination stuff in addition to top quality governance competence and safe pairs of hands in the slips. Like now.
Eg schools. No doubt we need x plus y new teachers yesterday. But right now the exisiting teachers - which is a big number - need to know the government is willing them on to greatness and comprehends their situation and is right behind them and all that.
Sexually frustrated dolphin blamed for 18 attacks on swimmers
A lonely dolphin acting out of sexual frustration is believed to be the culprit behind a spate of attacks on swimmers in Japan this summer.
Since July this year, 18 people have been hurt in dolphin attacks near the seaside town of Mihama, with some requiring dozens of stitches.
Posters warning beachgoers of the menace feature an open-mouthed dolphin baring razor-like teeth. It says that the mammals “are known to be dangerous to humans” and to get out of the water if they are seen nearby.
Comparing Keir Starmer with Don Bradman is the most defamatory thread in the pb career of @TSE
There was nothing quirky about Bradman’s test average. He was the greatest batter in the history of the game. A Titan who scored runs at leisure. He averaged his c.100 by scoring at nearly a run a ball, long before Bazball.
Keir Starmer, by contrast, won a landslide because the main Opposition party became unelectable and detestable. He is mediocre. More of a Graham Onions.
Have a nice day
xx
batsman
Bowlsman? Wicketkeepsman?
I mean don't get me wrong it's all boring as fuck but batsmen is the right name for the sad character who stands for hours (if he's lucky) in the middle of the sports pitch trying to hit the ball.
For the BBC website a group called Oasis is the most important news item in the world today.
This is deranged.
In other news, Ellie Reeves was awful on R4 Today.
She was not great on GMB either. Whiny nasal monotone and lots of "err's" and "umm's".
Labour need better speakers to present their case.
First, most politicians are bad speakers and interviewees. These are learned skills but most spend their careers actively avoiding opportunities to learn them. Jeremy Corbyn was a good speaker not because he was naturally gifted but because he'd spent decades addressing crowds on street corners. Gordon Brown was rubbish in a studio because he'd dodged interviews for his whole career.
We see this often in American presidential elections which are so long and involve so many rallies that often the candidates are noticeably better come election day.
But Labour also has the self-imposed Brexit problem, which is that if a coherent case is not made before the ballot, no-one, not even on your side, knows what to say afterwards. The Brexiteers settled nothing beforehand, and Labour's Ming vase tactics mean that not even Keir Starmer knows what comes next.
Good points. But politics watchers who voted Labour knew perfectly well what Labour had to do to be sure of winning an election, and the Ming vase and all that. But it is a reasonable expectation that the new government are also prepared and on the front foot for the post-election reality. Single issue mistakes and unconfident stumbling are no substitute for direction of travel and clear outlines of long term solutions. The next few months will be important, as by Christmas they will no longer be able to rest on the anti-Tory case.
I voted labour. I am not impressed so far but I still don't regret it.
Just whining how crap things are is not going to exactly inspire economic confidence when we really do need it. It is early days at the mlment.
I also think Labour have dropped the ball on the Youth Mobility Scheme, they should snap the EU's hands off for it.
Agree. Labour are hugely misunderestimating the place of public discourse in inspiring and setting the direction of travel. There are periods when you need Grade A hopey changey journey together with clear destination stuff in addition to top quality governance competence and safe pairs of hands in the slips. Like now.
Getting loads of young people to do cheap manual work is cracking for the economy, especially when it is time limited and they go home as they get more expensive ie older and pregnant. It also gives a bit of freedom to kids who feel like theyve missed something, even if historically they never really took it up in large numbers.
If I was placing a bet in this market it would be on Bridget.
If I was placing a bet on this market, it would simply be to lay all the options.
One genuinely odd thing about that list is that David Lammy isn't on it.
Even before Lammy become FS there was discussion about who it should actually be instead. I don't think he is in the frame for leader.
Bridget has much going for her. Proper northern, Catholic, charm, can speak in meaningful sentences when she wants, perhaps a less posh Harriet Harman. Possible value.
Reeves and Streeting are likely to become less popular over time given their roles in government. I've no idea why anyone imagines Burnham might suddenly find himself in with a chance, and Khan (although much longer odds) is unlikely too.
I think Lammy has probably realised that he isn't up to the job of being PM, and seems quite happy in his current role.
So Phillipson does seem the most likely possibility, but I think we're a very long way off any change.
I think we're so far off change that none of today's Cabinet are likely.
Yeah - mostly with you.
A couple of factors though which could cause change; - government finances (this looks pretty grim) - the left (they never go quietly into the night)
I suspect that the government will avoid these perils, but who knows. The above, combined with Tory weakness, are also why I'm not laying Farage as next PM at the seemingly ludicrous 11.5s available. (Well that and if it's a good bet you just tie money up for years)
Thanks. On finances though, for how long can the Government "get away' with laying the blame on the Tories for the past 14 years? My recollection is that Brown's government didn't exactly leave a financial bed of roses. In fact the public finances have been in a mess since about 2005. The issue with the Coalition was that they cut where they shouldn't have, especially Sure Start and tuition fees and didn't raise taxes where they could have, on, for example, unearned income. Raising VAT was also counter-productive. If that puts me on the Left, so be it.
For the BBC website a group called Oasis is the most important news item in the world today.
This is deranged.
In other news, Ellie Reeves was awful on R4 Today.
She was not great on GMB either. Whiny nasal monotone and lots of "err's" and "umm's".
Labour need better speakers to present their case.
First, most politicians are bad speakers and interviewees. These are learned skills but most spend their careers actively avoiding opportunities to learn them. Jeremy Corbyn was a good speaker not because he was naturally gifted but because he'd spent decades addressing crowds on street corners. Gordon Brown was rubbish in a studio because he'd dodged interviews for his whole career.
We see this often in American presidential elections which are so long and involve so many rallies that often the candidates are noticeably better come election day.
But Labour also has the self-imposed Brexit problem, which is that if a coherent case is not made before the ballot, no-one, not even on your side, knows what to say afterwards. The Brexiteers settled nothing beforehand, and Labour's Ming vase tactics mean that not even Keir Starmer knows what comes next.
Good points. But politics watchers who voted Labour knew perfectly well what Labour had to do to be sure of winning an election, and the Ming vase and all that. But it is a reasonable expectation that the new government are also prepared and on the front foot for the post-election reality. Single issue mistakes and unconfident stumbling are no substitute for direction of travel and clear outlines of long term solutions. The next few months will be important, as by Christmas they will no longer be able to rest on the anti-Tory case.
I voted labour. I am not impressed so far but I still don't regret it.
Just whining how crap things are is not going to exactly inspire economic confidence when we really do need it. It is early days at the mlment.
I also think Labour have dropped the ball on the Youth Mobility Scheme, they should snap the EU's hands off for it.
Agree. Labour are hugely misunderestimating the place of public discourse in inspiring and setting the direction of travel. There are periods when you need Grade A hopey changey journey together with clear destination stuff in addition to top quality governance competence and safe pairs of hands in the slips. Like now.
Yes - you need a positive vision. Pain, but for a goal, is politically sellable. It's all going to be shit for the foreseeable, on the other hand....
For the BBC website a group called Oasis is the most important news item in the world today.
This is deranged.
In other news, Ellie Reeves was awful on R4 Today.
She was not great on GMB either. Whiny nasal monotone and lots of "err's" and "umm's".
Labour need better speakers to present their case.
First, most politicians are bad speakers and interviewees. These are learned skills but most spend their careers actively avoiding opportunities to learn them. Jeremy Corbyn was a good speaker not because he was naturally gifted but because he'd spent decades addressing crowds on street corners. Gordon Brown was rubbish in a studio because he'd dodged interviews for his whole career.
We see this often in American presidential elections which are so long and involve so many rallies that often the candidates are noticeably better come election day.
But Labour also has the self-imposed Brexit problem, which is that if a coherent case is not made before the ballot, no-one, not even on your side, knows what to say afterwards. The Brexiteers settled nothing beforehand, and Labour's Ming vase tactics mean that not even Keir Starmer knows what comes next.
Good points. But politics watchers who voted Labour knew perfectly well what Labour had to do to be sure of winning an election, and the Ming vase and all that. But it is a reasonable expectation that the new government are also prepared and on the front foot for the post-election reality. Single issue mistakes and unconfident stumbling are no substitute for direction of travel and clear outlines of long term solutions. The next few months will be important, as by Christmas they will no longer be able to rest on the anti-Tory case.
I voted labour. I am not impressed so far but I still don't regret it.
Just whining how crap things are is not going to exactly inspire economic confidence when we really do need it. It is early days at the mlment.
I also think Labour have dropped the ball on the Youth Mobility Scheme, they should snap the EU's hands off for it.
That's quite a low threshold, seven to eight weeks in and the best you can say is you are not impressed but dont regret. A tricky cold hard winter will really test any government and its support. But your support seems at best lukewarm.
Comparing Keir Starmer with Don Bradman is the most defamatory thread in the pb career of @TSE
There was nothing quirky about Bradman’s test average. He was the greatest batter in the history of the game. A Titan who scored runs at leisure. He averaged his c.100 by scoring at nearly a run a ball, long before Bazball.
Keir Starmer, by contrast, won a landslide because the main Opposition party became unelectable and detestable. He is mediocre. More of a Graham Onions.
For the BBC website a group called Oasis is the most important news item in the world today.
This is deranged.
In other news, Ellie Reeves was awful on R4 Today.
She was not great on GMB either. Whiny nasal monotone and lots of "err's" and "umm's".
Labour need better speakers to present their case.
First, most politicians are bad speakers and interviewees. These are learned skills but most spend their careers actively avoiding opportunities to learn them. Jeremy Corbyn was a good speaker not because he was naturally gifted but because he'd spent decades addressing crowds on street corners. Gordon Brown was rubbish in a studio because he'd dodged interviews for his whole career.
We see this often in American presidential elections which are so long and involve so many rallies that often the candidates are noticeably better come election day.
But Labour also has the self-imposed Brexit problem, which is that if a coherent case is not made before the ballot, no-one, not even on your side, knows what to say afterwards. The Brexiteers settled nothing beforehand, and Labour's Ming vase tactics mean that not even Keir Starmer knows what comes next.
Good points. But politics watchers who voted Labour knew perfectly well what Labour had to do to be sure of winning an election, and the Ming vase and all that. But it is a reasonable expectation that the new government are also prepared and on the front foot for the post-election reality. Single issue mistakes and unconfident stumbling are no substitute for direction of travel and clear outlines of long term solutions. The next few months will be important, as by Christmas they will no longer be able to rest on the anti-Tory case.
I voted labour. I am not impressed so far but I still don't regret it.
Just whining how crap things are is not going to exactly inspire economic confidence when we really do need it. It is early days at the mlment.
I also think Labour have dropped the ball on the Youth Mobility Scheme, they should snap the EU's hands off for it.
That's quite a low threshold, seven to eight weeks in and the best you can say is you are not impressed but dont regret. A tricky cold hard winter will really test any government and its support. But your support seems at best lukewarm.
Lukewarm is all some OAP's just above the Pension Credit level are going to be, I suspect.
For the BBC website a group called Oasis is the most important news item in the world today.
This is deranged.
In other news, Ellie Reeves was awful on R4 Today.
She was not great on GMB either. Whiny nasal monotone and lots of "err's" and "umm's".
Labour need better speakers to present their case.
First, most politicians are bad speakers and interviewees. These are learned skills but most spend their careers actively avoiding opportunities to learn them. Jeremy Corbyn was a good speaker not because he was naturally gifted but because he'd spent decades addressing crowds on street corners. Gordon Brown was rubbish in a studio because he'd dodged interviews for his whole career.
We see this often in American presidential elections which are so long and involve so many rallies that often the candidates are noticeably better come election day.
But Labour also has the self-imposed Brexit problem, which is that if a coherent case is not made before the ballot, no-one, not even on your side, knows what to say afterwards. The Brexiteers settled nothing beforehand, and Labour's Ming vase tactics mean that not even Keir Starmer knows what comes next.
Good points. But politics watchers who voted Labour knew perfectly well what Labour had to do to be sure of winning an election, and the Ming vase and all that. But it is a reasonable expectation that the new government are also prepared and on the front foot for the post-election reality. Single issue mistakes and unconfident stumbling are no substitute for direction of travel and clear outlines of long term solutions. The next few months will be important, as by Christmas they will no longer be able to rest on the anti-Tory case.
I voted labour. I am not impressed so far but I still don't regret it.
Just whining how crap things are is not going to exactly inspire economic confidence when we really do need it. It is early days at the mlment.
I also think Labour have dropped the ball on the Youth Mobility Scheme, they should snap the EU's hands off for it.
If I was placing a bet in this market it would be on Bridget.
Why? Genuine question.
I believe she is a talented politician, who has had a steady rise to a senior cabinet position. Next stop, a great office of state, then prime position for the leadership.
Her odds are attractive for what is likely to be a long term punt.
Plus of course she was born in Gateshead, so I am biased in her favour.
If I was placing a bet in this market it would be on Bridget.
If I was placing a bet on this market, it would simply be to lay all the options.
One genuinely odd thing about that list is that David Lammy isn't on it.
Even before Lammy become FS there was discussion about who it should actually be instead. I don't think he is in the frame for leader.
Bridget has much going for her. Proper northern, Catholic, charm, can speak in meaningful sentences when she wants, perhaps a less posh Harriet Harman. Possible value.
Forget it. Not happening.
If she's still at education in twelve months she'll have demonstrated extraordinary survival skills. But it's already painfully clear she isn't going to be able to navigate the coming crisis.
Just to take one example, she's promised 6,500 extra teachers and asked the DfE to come up with a strategy for it.
Twelve months from now due to the epochal bungling of the DfE our teacher shortage is going to be much worse. They cut recruitment targets by 10% this year to try and reduce the double embarrassment of missing their targets by half last year and the effect of their botched reorganisation and they still missed almost all their targets - just 61% of the figure in secondary and 83% in primary.
So far, she has shown no idea of what to do about this. To be fair, I don't blame her for that. It is a rather intractable problem. But to start with perhaps she could ask why there are so many problems in teacher training, and preferably ask an outside agency. Not doing so means she's going to struggle to sort things.
The problem would be the outside report would be from KPMG.
From talking to a former civil servant friend (high flyer in the cabinet office), there was a general assumption in the system that a Labour Government and a Return To Sensible Government meant that ministers would stop fighting to get their departments to do things that went against systemic policy.
But Labour wanted to do things.
It will be interesting to see where they actually move forward (housing, say) and where they collapse back into the status quo, plus some speeches and some briefings about The Blob.
For the BBC website a group called Oasis is the most important news item in the world today.
This is deranged.
In other news, Ellie Reeves was awful on R4 Today.
She was not great on GMB either. Whiny nasal monotone and lots of "err's" and "umm's".
Labour need better speakers to present their case.
First, most politicians are bad speakers and interviewees. These are learned skills but most spend their careers actively avoiding opportunities to learn them. Jeremy Corbyn was a good speaker not because he was naturally gifted but because he'd spent decades addressing crowds on street corners. Gordon Brown was rubbish in a studio because he'd dodged interviews for his whole career.
We see this often in American presidential elections which are so long and involve so many rallies that often the candidates are noticeably better come election day.
But Labour also has the self-imposed Brexit problem, which is that if a coherent case is not made before the ballot, no-one, not even on your side, knows what to say afterwards. The Brexiteers settled nothing beforehand, and Labour's Ming vase tactics mean that not even Keir Starmer knows what comes next.
Good points. But politics watchers who voted Labour knew perfectly well what Labour had to do to be sure of winning an election, and the Ming vase and all that. But it is a reasonable expectation that the new government are also prepared and on the front foot for the post-election reality. Single issue mistakes and unconfident stumbling are no substitute for direction of travel and clear outlines of long term solutions. The next few months will be important, as by Christmas they will no longer be able to rest on the anti-Tory case.
I voted labour. I am not impressed so far but I still don't regret it.
Just whining how crap things are is not going to exactly inspire economic confidence when we really do need it. It is early days at the mlment.
I also think Labour have dropped the ball on the Youth Mobility Scheme, they should snap the EU's hands off for it.
I didn't vote Labour
I don't regret that either!
Mrs C and I did; we were trying to get Priti Patel out. Rather oddly some Tories were complaining that the Labour candidate was 'An Asian women from outside the area', as opposed to Patel who lives in what was once Kent.
Comparing Keir Starmer with Don Bradman is the most defamatory thread in the pb career of @TSE
There was nothing quirky about Bradman’s test average. He was the greatest batter in the history of the game. A Titan who scored runs at leisure. He averaged his c.100 by scoring at nearly a run a ball, long before Bazball.
Keir Starmer, by contrast, won a landslide because the main Opposition party became unelectable and detestable. He is mediocre. More of a Graham Onions.
Have a nice day
xx
batsman
Bowlsman? Wicketkeepsman?
Topping probably has it confused with an army batman.
After all, I'm sure he knows that 'batter' has been the preferred term in Australia for a long time now.
If I was placing a bet in this market it would be on Bridget.
If I was placing a bet on this market, it would simply be to lay all the options.
One genuinely odd thing about that list is that David Lammy isn't on it.
Even before Lammy become FS there was discussion about who it should actually be instead. I don't think he is in the frame for leader.
Bridget has much going for her. Proper northern, Catholic, charm, can speak in meaningful sentences when she wants, perhaps a less posh Harriet Harman. Possible value.
Reeves and Streeting are likely to become less popular over time given their roles in government. I've no idea why anyone imagines Burnham might suddenly find himself in with a chance, and Khan (although much longer odds) is unlikely too.
I think Lammy has probably realised that he isn't up to the job of being PM, and seems quite happy in his current role.
So Phillipson does seem the most likely possibility, but I think we're a very long way off any change.
I think we're so far off change that none of today's Cabinet are likely.
Yeah - mostly with you.
A couple of factors though which could cause change; - government finances (this looks pretty grim) - the left (they never go quietly into the night)
I suspect that the government will avoid these perils, but who knows. The above, combined with Tory weakness, are also why I'm not laying Farage as next PM at the seemingly ludicrous 11.5s available. (Well that and if it's a good bet you just tie money up for years)
Thanks. On finances though, for how long can the Government "get away' with laying the blame on the Tories for the past 14 years? My recollection is that Brown's government didn't exactly leave a financial bed of roses. In fact the public finances have been in a mess since about 2005. The issue with the Coalition was that they cut where they shouldn't have, especially Sure Start and tuition fees and didn't raise taxes where they could have, on, for example, unearned income. Raising VAT was also counter-productive. If that puts me on the Left, so be it.
To be fair, the Conservatives in Government were still talking about the Winter of Discontent well into the mid-90s as a reason for not voting for Blair. I think there's a good bit of mileage in blaming the previous Conservative-led Governments - the prison system crisis can be laid entirely at the Conservative door for example.
I don't disagree with much of your analysis of the Coalition - in order to get to No.10, Cameron had to make some promises on not cutting the NHS or Education which were as deleterious as the LD commitment on tuition fees.
The public finances were in a bad state in 2010 - no one is arguing that - but Osborne and Alexander should have raised taxes more than they did and made shallower but broader cuts to public spending. The origins of the current crisis in local Government finance can be found here - in sheer headcount, the local Government sector has shrunk by a third since 2012 yet it has taken on increasing burdens such as public health and the growing demands on care for vulnerable adults and children.
To be fair, progress was made on reducing the deficit (the likes of Braverman trumpet that at every opportunity) but the way it was done was counter productive.
For the BBC website a group called Oasis is the most important news item in the world today.
This is deranged.
In other news, Ellie Reeves was awful on R4 Today.
She was not great on GMB either. Whiny nasal monotone and lots of "err's" and "umm's".
Labour need better speakers to present their case.
First, most politicians are bad speakers and interviewees. These are learned skills but most spend their careers actively avoiding opportunities to learn them. Jeremy Corbyn was a good speaker not because he was naturally gifted but because he'd spent decades addressing crowds on street corners. Gordon Brown was rubbish in a studio because he'd dodged interviews for his whole career.
We see this often in American presidential elections which are so long and involve so many rallies that often the candidates are noticeably better come election day.
But Labour also has the self-imposed Brexit problem, which is that if a coherent case is not made before the ballot, no-one, not even on your side, knows what to say afterwards. The Brexiteers settled nothing beforehand, and Labour's Ming vase tactics mean that not even Keir Starmer knows what comes next.
Good points. But politics watchers who voted Labour knew perfectly well what Labour had to do to be sure of winning an election, and the Ming vase and all that. But it is a reasonable expectation that the new government are also prepared and on the front foot for the post-election reality. Single issue mistakes and unconfident stumbling are no substitute for direction of travel and clear outlines of long term solutions. The next few months will be important, as by Christmas they will no longer be able to rest on the anti-Tory case.
I voted labour. I am not impressed so far but I still don't regret it.
Just whining how crap things are is not going to exactly inspire economic confidence when we really do need it. It is early days at the mlment.
I also think Labour have dropped the ball on the Youth Mobility Scheme, they should snap the EU's hands off for it.
Agree. Labour are hugely misunderestimating the place of public discourse in inspiring and setting the direction of travel. There are periods when you need Grade A hopey changey journey together with clear destination stuff in addition to top quality governance competence and safe pairs of hands in the slips. Like now.
Yes - you need a positive vision. Pain, but for a goal, is politically sellable. It's all going to be shit for the foreseeable, on the other hand....
They are going to be judged in 4 years time. What the polls show in the next year is pretty irrelevant. I hope we go back to governments doing unpopular stuff in the first year, dipping in popularity mid term before a recovery. It is still a bit too cyclical for proper long term investment but it is far better than a government too scared to ever do unpopular stuff as it is hard to sell politically.
Comparing Keir Starmer with Don Bradman is the most defamatory thread in the pb career of @TSE
There was nothing quirky about Bradman’s test average. He was the greatest batter in the history of the game. A Titan who scored runs at leisure. He averaged his c.100 by scoring at nearly a run a ball, long before Bazball.
Keir Starmer, by contrast, won a landslide because the main Opposition party became unelectable and detestable. He is mediocre. More of a Graham Onions.
Comments
The crowd was full of metalheads - Metallica were playing on Sunday night, and many had bought a ticket for the weekend, on the basis that the price wasn't far-off a one day ticket - and you could go in and out of the festival.
Liam started insulting the crowd - he didn't think they were sufficiently worshipping or something. Stuff was flying at the stage. I was expecting a riot.
Then James came on, the lead singer took one look, said "Sorry, but we have to do this" - and launched into Sit Down. Which was on every jukebox in the land - non fans knew it. The crowd went from lynch'in time to relaxed in about 3 seconds....
That said, I hardly ever visit shops except for food. Maybe retailers have forklifts whizzing around these days.
Ah me.
Details from 7m 45 secs in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZntqChINjec
This is deranged.
In other news, Ellie Reeves was awful on R4 Today.
He was also only a so so keeper, so it was a doubly stupid thing to do.
He was not better than Russell especially when standing up (which Russell could do to quick bowlers bowling with the old ball). Or for the matter of that Keith Piper or Reggie Williams.
Sacrificing his runs at the top of the order for the sake of a keeper who was not as good as other options at actually keeping was a foolish move. Stewart, as a pure batsman, had a better record than Mark Waugh or Darryl Cullinan. It was comparable to Steve Waugh's. As a keeper? Well, his batting record was comparable to Ian Healy.
It was doubly foolish because Stewart himself did not enjoy keeping, and particularly later in his career expressed his frustration at being asked to keep, rather than just bat, on a regular basis. Why would you take the one England batsman who consistently averaged over 45 as an opener and take 25% of his runs away? Made everything much harder for the middle order.
My job grade turned out to be the same as a secretary, when I queried this I was told that seems correct you both spend all day typing. This software engineer decided at that point a change of company was in order
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/new-zealand-tour-of-england-1999-62074/england-vs-new-zealand-3rd-test-63843/full-scorecard
Someone on TMS said, "only England would play as many wicket keepers as spinners and seamers."
Labour need better speakers to present their case.
Ah, wrong band.
Anyway given the majority of people sentenced, so far, seem to be reliant on the state for part or all of their income I doubt they will be able to afford the tickets.
And still managed to have edges go between them with each leaving it to the other.
It's Stewart I remember letting chances like that bisect him and either Atherton or Thorpe depending on who was next to him.
I've never forgiven him.
Few on PB are fond of Matt Goodwin, but OTOH fewer can give an account of how Labour propose to deal with the problems which he outlines (still problems once rhetoric and hyperbole are removed) here:
https://www.mattgoodwin.org/p/somebody-needs-to-be-honest-with?utm_campaign=email-half-post&r=1mnpci&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Stewart at 3 instead of Hick isn't even the most egregious....
Whereas the ruling was based on the actual working conditions of the Next employees.
The criticism of the decision doesn't really address that.
"I worked in a warehouse once" certainly doesn't.
We see this often in American presidential elections which are so long and involve so many rallies that often the candidates are noticeably better come election day.
But Labour also has the self-imposed Brexit problem, which is that if a coherent case is not made before the ballot, no-one, not even on your side, knows what to say afterwards. The Brexiteers settled nothing beforehand, and Labour's Ming vase tactics mean that not even Keir Starmer knows what comes next.
I guess a couple of hundred million quid can change anyone's mind.
Mid ranking Tory politicians when faced with difficult questions tend to bluster and blather. Labour politicians tend to go computer-like and bureaucratic. More fringey politicians from the further reaches of the right and left act angry and offended.
If they came back to basically do the first few albums and non-album tracks then yes. If they’re playing cuts off Don’t Believe the Truth then no.
It’s all a scam, set up to give the impression that more than a small fraction of the tickets actually go on public sale at the face value.
If and when Starmer goes I think the more Blairite Streeting would be his likely replacement. Labour certainly is unlikely to cut NHS spending to any significant degree either
Bridget has much going for her. Proper northern, Catholic, charm, can speak in meaningful sentences when she wants, perhaps a less posh Harriet Harman. Possible value.
I actually think they're slick enough to carry it off and bank the millions. I think they need the money.
As an example England vs Australia, Headingly 1989, with a bowling attack of DeFreitas, Foster, Newport, Pringle Jack Russell stands back for two whole days:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK6IQxYhZmw&list=PLdz_rC7tjXMsmcxlFd3T1NpxRHrJypdS0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BXIjX9JqKI&list=PLdz_rC7tjXMsmcxlFd3T1NpxRHrJypdS0&index=2
He even stands back to Gooch's slow medium:
https://youtu.be/9BXIjX9JqKI?list=PLdz_rC7tjXMsmcxlFd3T1NpxRHrJypdS0&t=1261
80,000 people paying an average of £150 for a ticket, that’s £12m a show in revenue. Yes they’ll spend a couple of million on production and security, but will probably still clear £8-9m at the end of the night.
And 'good morning' everyone.
Selling a Fruit of the Loom t shirt that cost £3 for £60 because it has Oasis on the front is the real money spinner.
I think Lammy has probably realised that he isn't up to the job of being PM, and seems quite happy in his current role.
So Phillipson does seem the most likely possibility, but I think we're a very long way off any change.
If she's still at education in twelve months she'll have demonstrated extraordinary survival skills. But it's already painfully clear she isn't going to be able to navigate the coming crisis.
Just to take one example, she's promised 6,500 extra teachers and asked the DfE to come up with a strategy for it.
Twelve months from now due to the epochal bungling of the DfE our teacher shortage is going to be much worse. They cut recruitment targets by 10% this year to try and reduce the double embarrassment of missing their targets by half last year and the effect of their botched reorganisation and they still missed almost all their targets - just 61% of the figure in secondary and 83% in primary.
https://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/teacher-labour-market-in-england-annual-report-2024/
So far, she has shown no idea of what to do about this. To be fair, I don't blame her for that. It is a rather intractable problem. But to start with perhaps she could ask why there are so many problems in teacher training, and preferably ask an outside agency. Not doing so means she's going to struggle to sort things.
Sexually frustrated dolphin blamed for 18 attacks on swimmers
A lonely dolphin acting out of sexual frustration is believed to be the culprit behind a spate of attacks on swimmers in Japan this summer.
Since July this year, 18 people have been hurt in dolphin attacks near the seaside town of Mihama, with some requiring dozens of stitches.
Posters warning beachgoers of the menace feature an open-mouthed dolphin baring razor-like teeth. It says that the mammals “are known to be dangerous to humans” and to get out of the water if they are seen nearby.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/sexually-frustrated-dolphin-blamed-18-134443294.html
We'll write this down to an irrational dislike. I take it you like the Hundred?
A couple of factors though which could cause change;
- government finances (this looks pretty grim)
- the left (they never go quietly into the night)
I suspect that the government will avoid these perils, but who knows. The above, combined with Tory weakness, are also why I'm not laying Farage as next PM at the seemingly ludicrous 11.5s available. (Well that and if it's a good bet you just tie money up for years)
https://youtu.be/tvjyPFYSs9Q?si=3rSgWwrudFgJDm-K
I do agree it's inherently destabilising to have a protracted leadership election for any party in Government - 7 days is plenty to choose a new leader.
Just whining how crap things are is not going to exactly inspire economic confidence when we really do need it. It is early days at the mlment.
I also think Labour have dropped the ball on the Youth Mobility Scheme, they should snap the EU's hands off for it.
I despise the festival organising companies. But, the rubbish situation was definitely down to the people at the festival. There were bins every few yards, being regularly emptied. There was even festival employees, moving around through the crowd, handing out rubbish bags to people. Yet dropping plastic cups etc on the ground was standard.
To reuse the land for farming would take scrapping and sieving the topsoil - there was a layer of shredded plastic ground in.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/pakistan-tour-of-england-1992-61462/england-vs-pakistan-3rd-test-63577/full-scorecard
Jack Russell is clearly standing about two years from first slip and about fifteen yards behind the stumps.
Might I recommend you watch a cricket match from square leg - it would help you understand how the standard TV position foreshortens the distance behind the stumps.
Eg schools. No doubt we need x plus y new teachers yesterday. But right now the exisiting teachers - which is a big number - need to know the government is willing them on to greatness and comprehends their situation and is right behind them and all that.
On finances though, for how long can the Government "get away' with laying the blame on the Tories for the past 14 years? My recollection is that Brown's government didn't exactly leave a financial bed of roses. In fact the public finances have been in a mess since about 2005. The issue with the Coalition was that they cut where they shouldn't have, especially Sure Start and tuition fees and didn't raise taxes where they could have, on, for example, unearned income. Raising VAT was also counter-productive.
If that puts me on the Left, so be it.
A tricky cold hard winter will really test any government and its support. But your support seems at best lukewarm.
I don't regret that either!
Her odds are attractive for what is likely to be a long term punt.
Plus of course she was born in Gateshead, so I am biased in her favour.
From talking to a former civil servant friend (high flyer in the cabinet office), there was a general assumption in the system that a Labour Government and a Return To Sensible Government meant that ministers would stop fighting to get their departments to do things that went against systemic policy.
But Labour wanted to do things.
It will be interesting to see where they actually move forward (housing, say) and where they collapse back into the status quo, plus some speeches and some briefings about The Blob.
After all, I'm sure he knows that 'batter' has been the preferred term in Australia for a long time now.
I don't disagree with much of your analysis of the Coalition - in order to get to No.10, Cameron had to make some promises on not cutting the NHS or Education which were as deleterious as the LD commitment on tuition fees.
The public finances were in a bad state in 2010 - no one is arguing that - but Osborne and Alexander should have raised taxes more than they did and made shallower but broader cuts to public spending. The origins of the current crisis in local Government finance can be found here - in sheer headcount, the local Government sector has shrunk by a third since 2012 yet it has taken on increasing burdens such as public health and the growing demands on care for vulnerable adults and children.
To be fair, progress was made on reducing the deficit (the likes of Braverman trumpet that at every opportunity) but the way it was done was counter productive.