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.
This was something Blair understood and was so ruddy good at.
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!
Regrets, I've had a few, but then again too few to mention.
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
The danger of excluding the membership is that one elects a managerial fixer of limited public appeal. Perhaps we should go the other way and choose leaders through regional primaries, the only qualification for which would be stating that one supported the party - some people would lie, but relatively few.
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.
If you want a multi term government, you need to set out where you are going and why. Pain because that's all there is, is a ticket to defeat.
Thatcher won, repeatedly, by saying that while various policies were painful, there was a vision of what she was trying to achieve.
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.
Agree with much of that; it's not just the prisons either; the whole 'crime and justice' sector is a clause to being wrecked as it is possible to be without actually collapsing. Lansley's 'reorganisation' of the NHS has given local government a lot of problems, too.
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.
I note you don't have an answer on the Hundred, or to the abundant evidence from Mr Eagles that Russell stumped players off bowlers you swore he didn't stand up to...
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.
I have always voted labour at general elections. I did say prior to this one I did not feel like voting. I was uninspired by the safety first campaign of Starmer.
I voted labour partly because I found Luke Akehurst quite personable on social media and I really did not like people outside the area telling us how we should vote based on his past association with Pro Israel groups, secondly I did not want a chance of Reform winning the seat (they came second) although I do not regard them with the same level of disdain as others, and also with labour I liked some of what they were proposing on planning, building, getting the economy going again. I am happy to become enthusiastic for them.
I guess if SKS cannot inspire in an election he is unlikely to inspire in every day politics.
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.
If they have to piss off the electorate, then now is the time to do it. Whether or not the policies pay off is a separate matter, which public opinion over the next few months isn't going to tell us much about.
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.
No wonder England had problems if they were fielding in such different time zones.
I have to say that Starmer has misjudged this by painting such a depressing and negative message when the country needs optimism and hope
He is the very antithesis of Blair who had charisma, optimism and flair
Also he is being engulfed in sleeze and cronyism just weeks into office
What the country needs is cold, hard truth. You Tories pissing and moaning about a seven week old Labour government after the last decade your lot put in really makes me smile.
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?
An entire industry exists assessing job equivalency. I think it's snakeoil myself but their expert reports form the basis of the decision in most cases.
I have to say that Starmer has misjudged this by painting such a depressing and negative message when the country needs optimism and hope
He is the very antithesis of Blair who had charisma, optimism and flair
Also he is being engulfed in sleeze and cronyism just weeks into office
What the country needs is cold, hard truth. You Tories pissing and moaning about a seven week old Labour government after the last decade your lot put in really makes me smile.
Not moaning - just saying as it is and if that upsets that's politics
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.
Valet not batman ffs.
And no, as @Sunil_Prasannan so acutely noted with arguably the most famous cricket quote (ie there are no others), it was and is batsman.
wtf does it matter what it's been in "Australia" for a long time now. Australia as a country in its current form doesn't have a long time, historically, in any case.
It's batsman.
Batter is just nonsensical virtue-signalling woke nonsense.
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.
In 2010 the economy was already recovering until George Osborne imposed Plan A (austerity). Remember Ed Balls' (not Balls's) flatline hand gestures?
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.
Tempura is the preferred term in more refined circles
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
The danger of excluding the membership is that one elects a managerial fixer of limited public appeal. Perhaps we should go the other way and choose leaders through regional primaries, the only qualification for which would be stating that one supported the party - some people would lie, but relatively few.
If we had an elected President we would certainly have primaries for the main party leaders as France and the US do. However their primaries produced Trump and Melenchon and Le Pen and nearly Sanders in 2020 so that does not mean they always produce centrist candidates either
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.
I have always voted labour at general elections. I did say prior to this one I did not feel like voting. I was uninspired by the safety first campaign of Starmer.
I voted labour partly because I found Luke Akehurst quite personable on social media and I really did not like people outside the area telling us how we should vote based on his past association with Pro Israel groups, secondly I did not want a chance of Reform winning the seat (they came second) although I do not regard them with the same level of disdain as others, and also with labour I liked some of what they were proposing on planning, building, getting the economy going again. I am happy to become enthusiastic for them.
I guess if SKS cannot inspire in an election he is unlikely to inspire in every day politics.
I agree with you that the opening salvos of this government have been somewhat downbeat! But, it's summer, and no bugger is listening. Is there not some science in scraping the barnacles off the boat, getting all the negative stuff out of the way then going for the visionary stuff when everyone is back in mid-September (and at Conference?).
Not saying that is the plan, but it would make some sort of sense.
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
Haslam 9?
The original grading was haslam then they decided to change to something else with fewer grades
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.
Valet not batman ffs.
And no, as @Sunil_Prasannan so acutely noted with arguably the most famous cricket quote (ie there are no others), it was and is batsman.
wtf does it matter what it's been in "Australia" for a long time now. Australia as a country in its current form doesn't have a long time, historically, in any case.
It's batsman.
Batter is just nonsensical virtue-signalling woke nonsense.
You might not have noticed, but Bradman was Australian.
I amend my previous comment; you're simply confused.
OT - definitely sensible to leave it to MPs when in Government. If Starmer fell under a bus is there any guarantee the Labour membership wouldn't go for a Corbynite particularly if the party was polling badly? Would cause absolute turmoil.
In opposition, quite different. Members should have a vote. There are, obviously, fewer MPs, and the survivors will hold safe seats, which means that the more marginal areas which are necessary for electoral recovery are unrepresented. For instance, at the moment, the Tories don't have a single seat in Wales and just one in NE England. And if the leader doesn't work out they can be dropped without too much harm done in opposition, a case in point being the defenestration of IDS who lacked support among MPs.
A sensible reform from Starmer if he can get away with it.
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.
Tempura is the preferred term in more refined circles
Aussie players have many preferred terms, but I've not hear that one before. Most of them seem to be four letters.
I have to say that Starmer has misjudged this by painting such a depressing and negative message when the country needs optimism and hope
He is the very antithesis of Blair who had charisma, optimism and flair
Also he is being engulfed in sleeze and cronyism just weeks into office
Yes, Starmer is a more organised and polite Gordon Brown but without the intellectual heft and oratory
I get the sense Starmer (and also Rachel Reeves) has technocrat leanings, if that is quite the right word for the belief that for every problem there is a right answer. Maybe that aligns him with Dominic Cummings.
Starmer appears to have it all planned out. I've been passing signs like this for the past month, maybe he's had enough already? I know, I know it's not the correct spelling. You know what council sign writers are like.
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
The danger of excluding the membership is that one elects a managerial fixer of limited public appeal. Perhaps we should go the other way and choose leaders through regional primaries, the only qualification for which would be stating that one supported the party - some people would lie, but relatively few.
I think that MPs are better judges of the public appeal of a PM candidate than the membership!
I think it is outrageous that the Tory membership were able to choose the PM. At least Tory MPs are elected and more in touch with the electorate than members.
The only downside from excluding the membership is you might demotivate activists who you need to deliver leaflets. A small risk worth taking.
Choosing a LOTO is different from choosing the PM. It is an internal party matter and I think the membership should have a say.
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.
In 2010 the economy was already recovering until George Osborne imposed Plan A (austerity). Remember Ed Balls' (not Balls's) flatline hand gestures?
Why Ed Balls' (not Balls's)? Just curious. Balls' is wrong, but I've never heard anything authoritative says that it's right.
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.
Valet not batman ffs.
And no, as @Sunil_Prasannan so acutely noted with arguably the most famous cricket quote (ie there are no others), it was and is batsman.
wtf does it matter what it's been in "Australia" for a long time now. Australia as a country in its current form doesn't have a long time, historically, in any case.
It's batsman.
Batter is just nonsensical virtue-signalling woke nonsense.
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.
I have always voted labour at general elections. I did say prior to this one I did not feel like voting. I was uninspired by the safety first campaign of Starmer.
I voted labour partly because I found Luke Akehurst quite personable on social media and I really did not like people outside the area telling us how we should vote based on his past association with Pro Israel groups, secondly I did not want a chance of Reform winning the seat (they came second) although I do not regard them with the same level of disdain as others, and also with labour I liked some of what they were proposing on planning, building, getting the economy going again. I am happy to become enthusiastic for them.
I guess if SKS cannot inspire in an election he is unlikely to inspire in every day politics.
I agree with you that the opening salvos of this government have been somewhat downbeat! But, it's summer, and no bugger is listening. Is there not some science in scraping the barnacles off the boat, getting all the negative stuff out of the way then going for the visionary stuff when everyone is back in mid-September (and at Conference?).
Not saying that is the plan, but it would make some sort of sense.
Yes, absolutely, get the bad news out of the way in the first 18 months or so and focus on re-election after that. I just think it is all too gloomy and I worry that it will undermine returning confidence in the economy.
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
The danger of excluding the membership is that one elects a managerial fixer of limited public appeal. Perhaps we should go the other way and choose leaders through regional primaries, the only qualification for which would be stating that one supported the party - some people would lie, but relatively few.
I think that MPs are better judges of the public appeal of a PM candidate than the membership!
I think it is outrageous that the Tory membership were able to choose the PM. At least Tory MPs are elected and more in touch with the electorate than members.
The only downside from excluding the membership is you might demotivate activists who you need to deliver leaflets. A small risk worth taking.
Choosing a LOTO is different from choosing the PM. It is an internal party matter and I think the membership should have a say.
Another problem members choosing the PM gives rise to is shown by Liz Truss talking about her mandate.
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.
Valet not batman ffs.
And no, as @Sunil_Prasannan so acutely noted with arguably the most famous cricket quote (ie there are no others), it was and is batsman.
wtf does it matter what it's been in "Australia" for a long time now. Australia as a country in its current form doesn't have a long time, historically, in any case.
It's batsman.
Batter is just nonsensical virtue-signalling woke nonsense.
You might not have noticed, but Bradman was Australian.
I amend my previous comment; you're simply confused.
I definitely didn't notice. Not that it matters. The term for the person in the middle with the Gray Nicolls is a batsman. But for goodness sake carry on with "batter". At least with an internet chatroom you can't see people laughing at you.
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.
In 2010 the economy was already recovering until George Osborne imposed Plan A (austerity). Remember Ed Balls' (not Balls's) flatline hand gestures?
Why Ed Balls' (not Balls's)? Just curious. Balls' is wrong, but I've never heard anything authoritative says that it's right.
tbh it was a tongue in cheek riff back to yesterday's pb debate.
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.
Valet not batman ffs.
And no, as @Sunil_Prasannan so acutely noted with arguably the most famous cricket quote (ie there are no others), it was and is batsman.
wtf does it matter what it's been in "Australia" for a long time now. Australia as a country in its current form doesn't have a long time, historically, in any case.
It's batsman.
Batter is just nonsensical virtue-signalling woke nonsense.
How about bowler?
Bowler is indeed the correct term. As is wicket keeper. As is batsman.
I didn't think this would be a point of contention on PB where there are interminable posts about cricket, suggesting people know what they are talking about and which bore people senseless, but here we are.
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.
In 2010 the economy was already recovering until George Osborne imposed Plan A (austerity). Remember Ed Balls' (not Balls's) flatline hand gestures?
Why Ed Balls' (not Balls's)? Just curious. Balls' is wrong, but I've never heard anything authoritative says that it's right.
There's no particular rule. It's what you think sounds right, and then spell it as you say it.
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
The danger of excluding the membership is that one elects a managerial fixer of limited public appeal. Perhaps we should go the other way and choose leaders through regional primaries, the only qualification for which would be stating that one supported the party - some people would lie, but relatively few.
I think that MPs are better judges of the public appeal of a PM candidate than the membership!
I think it is outrageous that the Tory membership were able to choose the PM. At least Tory MPs are elected and more in touch with the electorate than members.
The only downside from excluding the membership is you might demotivate activists who you need to deliver leaflets. A small risk worth taking.
Choosing a LOTO is different from choosing the PM. It is an internal party matter and I think the membership should have a say.
Yes MPs are fantastic judges of public appeal, who can forget the famous Foot landslide of 1983, the Hague triumph of 2001, the huge Brown victory in 2010 or the massive endorsement from the voters for May in 2017 and Rishi in 2024 after MPs alone elected them to be their party's leader!!
I do agree with you though in power MPs alone should have the final say on the PM as the PM needs a majority of their support to pass laws and budgets
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.
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.
In 2010 the economy was already recovering until George Osborne imposed Plan A (austerity). Remember Ed Balls' (not Balls's) flatline hand gestures?
Surely both statements are true; the economy was recovering in 2010 but it was still in a bad state. Trouble was, Osborne's (and Laws/Alexander's) solution wasn't the best. In particular, as I've argued, cutting Sure Start and the like, and, as Mr Stodge has pointed out, loading more, although unfunded, onto local government created more problems. If the politics had allowed, and they didn't, a LibDem/Lab Coalition might have been better. Has to be conceded though that Brown and his Government had run out of energy.
Is Keir going to use the £22bn 'black hole' as an excuse not to stick with the pledge not to increase income tax or NI??
He can half fill the black hole by removing the higher rate tax deduction for pension contributions. That would save around £10bn. It should be done anyway. High earners don't need an incentive to save for their pension and it certainly shouldn't be a higher incentive than for standard rate earners.
This will be a central part of the Reeves package and doesn't break any manifesto commitments.
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.
Valet not batman ffs.
And no, as @Sunil_Prasannan so acutely noted with arguably the most famous cricket quote (ie there are no others), it was and is batsman.
wtf does it matter what it's been in "Australia" for a long time now. Australia as a country in its current form doesn't have a long time, historically, in any case.
It's batsman.
Batter is just nonsensical virtue-signalling woke nonsense.
You might not have noticed, but Bradman was Australian.
I amend my previous comment; you're simply confused.
I definitely didn't notice. Not that it matters. The term for the person in the middle with the Gray Nicolls is a batsman. But for goodness sake carry on with "batter". At least with an internet chatroom you can't see people laughing at you.
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.
Valet not batman ffs.
And no, as @Sunil_Prasannan so acutely noted with arguably the most famous cricket quote (ie there are no others), it was and is batsman.
wtf does it matter what it's been in "Australia" for a long time now. Australia as a country in its current form doesn't have a long time, historically, in any case.
It's batsman.
Batter is just nonsensical virtue-signalling woke nonsense.
You might not have noticed, but Bradman was Australian.
I amend my previous comment; you're simply confused.
I definitely didn't notice. Not that it matters. The term for the person in the middle with the Gray Nicolls is a batsman. But for goodness sake carry on with "batter". At least with an internet chatroom you can't see people laughing at you.
Check your copy of the Laws of Cricket.
Valet, FFS...
a) no
b) soldiers have batmen, officers have orderlies or valets or indeed soldier servants at one point.
Reeve isn't stupid. The budget will surely have some tax grabs from the well off - pension tax relief on higher earners for example and goodies for everyone else - increase the basic tax threshold for example.
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.
In 2010 the economy was already recovering until George Osborne imposed Plan A (austerity). Remember Ed Balls' (not Balls's) flatline hand gestures?
Why Ed Balls' (not Balls's)? Just curious. Balls' is wrong, but I've never heard anything authoritative says that it's right.
There's no particular rule. It's what you think sounds right, and then spell it as you say it.
I'd say there is a particular rule: a few trivial exceptions aside, to make the possessive of the singular noun you write the singular noun and then put 's at the end.
Is Keir going to use the £22bn 'black hole' as an excuse not to stick with the pledge not to increase income tax or NI??
He can half fill the black hole by removing the higher rate tax deduction for pension contributions. That would save around £10bn. It should be done anyway. High earners don't need an incentive to save for their pension and it certainly shouldn't be a higher incentive than for standard rate earners.
This will be a central part of the Reeves package and doesn't break any manifesto commitments.
Dropping higher rate income tax relief on pension contributions has been talked about forever. I’ll believe it when it actually happens.
(It comes with the unintended consequence of making the four-days-a-week option more popular, to avoid the various cliff edges, which is likely not in the Treasury model)
Not only does it show him a long way from the slips(!) but it shows him catching Geoff Marsh while standing up to Ian Botham. In fact, Russell seems to have initially appealed for a stumping.
I remember in his later years he was once standing up to James Averis, who was pretty quick (certainly north of 80mph) and he stumped Peter Martin. Magnificent piece of work: he took the ball, and then waited just two seconds until Martin had overbalanced and dragged his foot from the crease. *Then* he stumped him.
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.
Valet not batman ffs.
And no, as @Sunil_Prasannan so acutely noted with arguably the most famous cricket quote (ie there are no others), it was and is batsman.
wtf does it matter what it's been in "Australia" for a long time now. Australia as a country in its current form doesn't have a long time, historically, in any case.
It's batsman.
Batter is just nonsensical virtue-signalling woke nonsense.
You might not have noticed, but Bradman was Australian.
I amend my previous comment; you're simply confused.
I definitely didn't notice. Not that it matters. The term for the person in the middle with the Gray Nicolls is a batsman. But for goodness sake carry on with "batter". At least with an internet chatroom you can't see people laughing at you.
Check your copy of the Laws of Cricket.
Valet, FFS...
'Batter' allows for women's cricket. Surely no-one is going to argue for 'batswoman'?
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.
Isn't that just siblings?
So many love and hate each other at the same time.
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.
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.
Valet not batman ffs.
And no, as @Sunil_Prasannan so acutely noted with arguably the most famous cricket quote (ie there are no others), it was and is batsman.
wtf does it matter what it's been in "Australia" for a long time now. Australia as a country in its current form doesn't have a long time, historically, in any case.
It's batsman.
Batter is just nonsensical virtue-signalling woke nonsense.
You might not have noticed, but Bradman was Australian.
I amend my previous comment; you're simply confused.
I definitely didn't notice. Not that it matters. The term for the person in the middle with the Gray Nicolls is a batsman. But for goodness sake carry on with "batter". At least with an internet chatroom you can't see people laughing at you.
Check your copy of the Laws of Cricket.
Valet, FFS...
'Batter' allows for women's cricket. Surely no-one is going to argue for 'batswoman'?
Reeve isn't stupid. The budget will surely have some tax grabs from the well off - pension tax relief on higher earners for example and goodies for everyone else - increase the basic tax threshold for example.
She should raise personal allowance marginally to ensure people on a basic state pension and a bit of interest from savings don't need to pay income tax. The increase in personal allowance should be restricted to pensioners and would part offset the removal of the winter fuel allowance.
I have to say that Starmer has misjudged this by painting such a depressing and negative message when the country needs optimism and hope
He is the very antithesis of Blair who had charisma, optimism and flair
Also he is being engulfed in sleeze and cronyism just weeks into office
But we are up S*** Street, despite the PB faithful assuring us the Conservatives bequeathed a golden legacy. Whether Starmer turns that around using appropriate measures remains to be seen. If he does, he gets a second term, if he doesn't we could well see PM Farage. I am personally not entirely convinced the Winter Fuel remedy is the right one.
As to sleaze and cronyism, I am not sure of the details of the Lord Ali story. I understand it surrounds a party in No. 10, which of course is not a good precedent. But please, for those of you who were quite comfortable with the clown and the clown show that oversaw the son of a KGB officer's elevation to the House of Lords and as for a Foreign Secretary who shook off his minders in order to attend a party held by the self-same KGB Officer, where do we start? When you PB faithful have come to terms that all this corruption wasn't getting the big calls right, you will be entitled to call Lord Ali's No 10 pass sleaze and cronyism.
Reeve isn't stupid. The budget will surely have some tax grabs from the well off - pension tax relief on higher earners for example and goodies for everyone else - increase the basic tax threshold for example.
She should raise personal allowance marginally to ensure people on a basic state pension and a bit of interest from savings don't need to pay income tax. The increase in personal allowance should be restricted to pensioners and would part offset the removal of the winter fuel allowance.
Why should the increase in PA be restricted to pensioners? They get enough goodies as it is. How did we enter a world where ageism in the tax system and benefit system is acceptable? See also lower minimum wage for 18 year olds.
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.
With Labour's negotiating skills if the Trade Union pay settlements are anything to go by they are likely to give the EU every concession they're asking for in access to the UK market whilst getting precisely nothing in return.
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.
Reeve isn't stupid. The budget will surely have some tax grabs from the well off - pension tax relief on higher earners for example and goodies for everyone else - increase the basic tax threshold for example.
She should raise personal allowance marginally to ensure people on a basic state pension and a bit of interest from savings don't need to pay income tax. The increase in personal allowance should be restricted to pensioners and would part offset the removal of the winter fuel allowance.
I've advise anyone with a pension or an isa to put away everything they can into it during September and October, as soon as they can.
I have to say that Starmer has misjudged this by painting such a depressing and negative message when the country needs optimism and hope
He is the very antithesis of Blair who had charisma, optimism and flair
Also he is being engulfed in sleeze and cronyism just weeks into office
But we are up S*** Street, despite the PB faithful assuring us the Conservatives bequeathed a golden legacy. Whether Starmer turns that around using appropriate measures remains to be seen. If he does, he gets a second term, if he doesn't we could well see PM Farage. I am personally not entirely convinced the Winter Fuel remedy is the right one.
As to sleaze and cronyism, I am not sure of the details of the Lord Ali story. I understand it surrounds a party in No. 10, which of course is not a good precedent. But please, for those of you who were quite comfortable with the clown and the clown show that oversaw the son of a KGB officer's elevation to the House of Lords and as for a Foreign Secretary who shook off his minders in order to attend a party held by the self-same KGB Officer, where do we start. When you PB faithful have come to terms that all this corruption wasn't getting the big calls right, you will be entitled to call Lord Ali's No 10 pass sleaze and cronyism.
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.
Tempura is the preferred term in more refined circles
Aussie players have many preferred terms, but I've not hear that one before. Most of them seem to be four letters.
Aussies and refined circles are mutually exclusive terms.
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.
Isn't that just siblings?
So many love and hate each other at the same time.
Bros were the same.
Ray & Dave Davies The Everly Brothers Mike & Bernie Winters
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
Batsman is the correct word. And fieldsman in Australia.
I have to say that Starmer has misjudged this by painting such a depressing and negative message when the country needs optimism and hope
He is the very antithesis of Blair who had charisma, optimism and flair
Also he is being engulfed in sleeze and cronyism just weeks into office
But we are up S*** Street, despite the PB faithful assuring us the Conservatives bequeathed a golden legacy. Whether Starmer turns that around using appropriate measures remains to be seen. If he does, he gets a second term, if he doesn't we could well see PM Farage. I am personally not entirely convinced the Winter Fuel remedy is the right one.
As to sleaze and cronyism, I am not sure of the details of the Lord Ali story. I understand it surrounds a party in No. 10, which of course is not a good precedent. But please, for those of you who were quite comfortable with the clown and the clown show that oversaw the son of a KGB officer's elevation to the House of Lords and as for a Foreign Secretary who shook off his minders in order to attend a party held by the self-same KGB Officer, where do we start? When you PB faithful have come to terms that all this corruption wasn't getting the big calls right, you will be entitled to call Lord Ali's No 10 pass sleaze and cronyism.
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.
Tempura is the preferred term in more refined circles
Aussie players have many preferred terms, but I've not hear that one before. Most of them seem to be four letters.
Aussies and refined circles are mutually exclusive terms.
I do love the anecdote about Douglas Jardine.
An Aussie player called him a fucking bastard.
He went to the dressing room to demand an apology.
Vic Richardson opened the door, and having heard the story, turned round and said, 'OK, which of you bastards called this fucking bastard a fucking bastard?'
Reeve isn't stupid. The budget will surely have some tax grabs from the well off - pension tax relief on higher earners for example and goodies for everyone else - increase the basic tax threshold for example.
She should raise personal allowance marginally to ensure people on a basic state pension and a bit of interest from savings don't need to pay income tax. The increase in personal allowance should be restricted to pensioners and would part offset the removal of the winter fuel allowance.
I've advise anyone with a pension or an isa to put away everything they can into it during September and October, as soon as they can.
You think they'd really do "from midnight tonight" not "from April" on stuff this big?
I have to say that Starmer has misjudged this by painting such a depressing and negative message when the country needs optimism and hope
He is the very antithesis of Blair who had charisma, optimism and flair
Also he is being engulfed in sleeze and cronyism just weeks into office
But we are up S*** Street, despite the PB faithful assuring us the Conservatives bequeathed a golden legacy. Whether Starmer turns that around using appropriate measures remains to be seen. If he does, he gets a second term, if he doesn't we could well see PM Farage. I am personally not entirely convinced the Winter Fuel remedy is the right one.
As to sleaze and cronyism, I am not sure of the details of the Lord Ali story. I understand it surrounds a party in No. 10, which of course is not a good precedent. But please, for those of you who were quite comfortable with the clown and the clown show that oversaw the son of a KGB officer's elevation to the House of Lords and as for a Foreign Secretary who shook off his minders in order to attend a party held by the self-same KGB Officer, where do we start. When you PB faithful have come to terms that all this corruption wasn't getting the big calls right, you will be entitled to call Lord Ali's No 10 pass sleaze and cronyism.
It is of course possible to condemn both.
That was my point, but those condemning the latter have to first concede the former and Johnson wasn't the Messiah, just a very naughty boy.
My other implicit point is they aren't equitable examples.
Reeve isn't stupid. The budget will surely have some tax grabs from the well off - pension tax relief on higher earners for example and goodies for everyone else - increase the basic tax threshold for example.
She should raise personal allowance marginally to ensure people on a basic state pension and a bit of interest from savings don't need to pay income tax. The increase in personal allowance should be restricted to pensioners and would part offset the removal of the winter fuel allowance.
I've advise anyone with a pension or an isa to put away everything they can into it during September and October, as soon as they can.
You think they'd really do "from midnight tonight" not "from April" on stuff this big?
Yes because they’ve already set a precedent with the VAT on school fees announcement.
I have to say that Starmer has misjudged this by painting such a depressing and negative message when the country needs optimism and hope
He is the very antithesis of Blair who had charisma, optimism and flair
Also he is being engulfed in sleeze and cronyism just weeks into office
Yes, Starmer is a more organised and polite Gordon Brown but without the intellectual heft and oratory
His speech is more about steadying the Labour faithful after a shaky start than addressing the nation.
Notably not a word on small boats, migration, refugees, returning illegal migrants, population rise, social care, debt, continued borrowing, the millions preferring not to work and a few other things.
I have to say that Starmer has misjudged this by painting such a depressing and negative message when the country needs optimism and hope
He is the very antithesis of Blair who had charisma, optimism and flair
Also he is being engulfed in sleeze and cronyism just weeks into office
But we are up S*** Street, despite the PB faithful assuring us the Conservatives bequeathed a golden legacy. Whether Starmer turns that around using appropriate measures remains to be seen. If he does, he gets a second term, if he doesn't we could well see PM Farage. I am personally not entirely convinced the Winter Fuel remedy is the right one.
As to sleaze and cronyism, I am not sure of the details of the Lord Ali story. I understand it surrounds a party in No. 10, which of course is not a good precedent. But please, for those of you who were quite comfortable with the clown and the clown show that oversaw the son of a KGB officer's elevation to the House of Lords and as for a Foreign Secretary who shook off his minders in order to attend a party held by the self-same KGB Officer, where do we start? When you PB faithful have come to terms that all this corruption wasn't getting the big calls right, you will be entitled to call Lord Ali's No 10 pass sleaze and cronyism.
Farage couldn't become PM without Tory support, certainly if we moved to PR or AV and probably if we kept FPTP too
Reeve isn't stupid. The budget will surely have some tax grabs from the well off - pension tax relief on higher earners for example and goodies for everyone else - increase the basic tax threshold for example.
She should raise personal allowance marginally to ensure people on a basic state pension and a bit of interest from savings don't need to pay income tax. The increase in personal allowance should be restricted to pensioners and would part offset the removal of the winter fuel allowance.
Pensioners include the richest people in the country. We cannot sensibly indemnify them from sharing the tax burden.
Reeve isn't stupid. The budget will surely have some tax grabs from the well off - pension tax relief on higher earners for example and goodies for everyone else - increase the basic tax threshold for example.
She should raise personal allowance marginally to ensure people on a basic state pension and a bit of interest from savings don't need to pay income tax. The increase in personal allowance should be restricted to pensioners and would part offset the removal of the winter fuel allowance.
I've advise anyone with a pension or an isa to put away everything they can into it during September and October, as soon as they can.
You think they'd really do "from midnight tonight" not "from April" on stuff this big?
Yes because they’ve already set a precedent with the VAT on school fees announcement.
Well, I don't pay higher rate tax. But I'll get the £4000 into my LISA (speaking of things which might be ripe for abolishment).
I have to say that Starmer has misjudged this by painting such a depressing and negative message when the country needs optimism and hope
He is the very antithesis of Blair who had charisma, optimism and flair
Also he is being engulfed in sleeze and cronyism just weeks into office
But we are up S*** Street, despite the PB faithful assuring us the Conservatives bequeathed a golden legacy. Whether Starmer turns that around using appropriate measures remains to be seen. If he does, he gets a second term, if he doesn't we could well see PM Farage. I am personally not entirely convinced the Winter Fuel remedy is the right one.
As to sleaze and cronyism, I am not sure of the details of the Lord Ali story. I understand it surrounds a party in No. 10, which of course is not a good precedent. But please, for those of you who were quite comfortable with the clown and the clown show that oversaw the son of a KGB officer's elevation to the House of Lords and as for a Foreign Secretary who shook off his minders in order to attend a party held by the self-same KGB Officer, where do we start? When you PB faithful have come to terms that all this corruption wasn't getting the big calls right, you will be entitled to call Lord Ali's No 10 pass sleaze and cronyism.
Farage couldn't become PM without Tory support, certainly if we moved to PR or AV and probably if we kept FPTP too
If Labour collapse and the Conservatives remain as despised as they currently are, don't be so sure.
If we're looking at that list, Reeves is a lay. So is Phillipson for the same reason. In fact, Phillipson may well be first out of the cabinet given the complete disaster that's unfolding in education and her complete lack of grasp of the issues that are about to engulf her. None of them are her fault, but her actions are going to make things much worse rather than better.
If Starmer is forced out early, surely the value is Cooper? She's the most experienced member of the Cabinet and she's the highest profile role after the Treasury. Given her age I would have thought if Starmer stays for five years or more she probably won't be a candidate.
fact she is totally and utterly useless does not help her case
Reeve isn't stupid. The budget will surely have some tax grabs from the well off - pension tax relief on higher earners for example and goodies for everyone else - increase the basic tax threshold for example.
She should raise personal allowance marginally to ensure people on a basic state pension and a bit of interest from savings don't need to pay income tax. The increase in personal allowance should be restricted to pensioners and would part offset the removal of the winter fuel allowance.
The 40% higher tax threshold should be reduced for pensioners to compensate.
If we're looking at that list, Reeves is a lay. So is Phillipson for the same reason. In fact, Phillipson may well be first out of the cabinet given the complete disaster that's unfolding in education and her complete lack of grasp of the issues that are about to engulf her. None of them are her fault, but her actions are going to make things much worse rather than better.
If Starmer is forced out early, surely the value is Cooper? She's the most experienced member of the Cabinet and she's the highest profile role after the Treasury. Given her age I would have thought if Starmer stays for five years or more she probably won't be a candidate.
fact she is totally and utterly useless does not help her case
Malc, you think that of all politicians.* So it isn't a deal breaker.
If we're looking at that list, Reeves is a lay. So is Phillipson for the same reason. In fact, Phillipson may well be first out of the cabinet given the complete disaster that's unfolding in education and her complete lack of grasp of the issues that are about to engulf her. None of them are her fault, but her actions are going to make things much worse rather than better.
If Starmer is forced out early, surely the value is Cooper? She's the most experienced member of the Cabinet and she's the highest profile role after the Treasury. Given her age I would have thought if Starmer stays for five years or more she probably won't be a candidate.
fact she is totally and utterly useless does not help her case
Come on Malcolm, if we are going to start ruling people out on that basis....
Reeve isn't stupid. The budget will surely have some tax grabs from the well off - pension tax relief on higher earners for example and goodies for everyone else - increase the basic tax threshold for example.
She should raise personal allowance marginally to ensure people on a basic state pension and a bit of interest from savings don't need to pay income tax. The increase in personal allowance should be restricted to pensioners and would part offset the removal of the winter fuel allowance.
I've advise anyone with a pension or an isa to put away everything they can into it during September and October, as soon as they can.
You think they'd really do "from midnight tonight" not "from April" on stuff this big?
Yes because they’ve already set a precedent with the VAT on school fees announcement.
Well, I don't pay higher rate tax. But I'll get the £4000 into my LISA (speaking of things which might be ripe for abolishment).
Giving everyone six months to stuff pensions and ISAs before they get severely restricted, is something that could cause all sorts of weird behaviours and unintended consequences for the Treasury.
I have to say that Starmer has misjudged this by painting such a depressing and negative message when the country needs optimism and hope
He is the very antithesis of Blair who had charisma, optimism and flair
Also he is being engulfed in sleeze and cronyism just weeks into office
But we are up S*** Street, despite the PB faithful assuring us the Conservatives bequeathed a golden legacy. Whether Starmer turns that around using appropriate measures remains to be seen. If he does, he gets a second term, if he doesn't we could well see PM Farage. I am personally not entirely convinced the Winter Fuel remedy is the right one.
As to sleaze and cronyism, I am not sure of the details of the Lord Ali story. I understand it surrounds a party in No. 10, which of course is not a good precedent. But please, for those of you who were quite comfortable with the clown and the clown show that oversaw the son of a KGB officer's elevation to the House of Lords and as for a Foreign Secretary who shook off his minders in order to attend a party held by the self-same KGB Officer, where do we start? When you PB faithful have come to terms that all this corruption wasn't getting the big calls right, you will be entitled to call Lord Ali's No 10 pass sleaze and cronyism.
Farage couldn't become PM without Tory support, certainly if we moved to PR or AV and probably if we kept FPTP too
If Labour collapse and the Conservatives remain as despised as they currently are, don't be so sure.
Reform would need to get to 35-40%+ most likely for a majority as tactical voting would be largely against them whereas it was for Starmer who managed one with just 33%.
Even in the 2019 UK EU Parliament elections Farage's Brexit party only got 30.5% and that was despite the Tories having collapsed to just 8.8%
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.
Tempura is the preferred term in more refined circles
Aussie players have many preferred terms, but I've not hear that one before. Most of them seem to be four letters.
Aussies and refined circles are mutually exclusive terms.
I do love the anecdote about Douglas Jardine.
An Aussie player called him a fucking bastard.
He went to the dressing room to demand an apology.
Vic Richardson opened the door, and having heard the story, turned round and said, 'OK, which of you bastards called this fucking bastard a fucking bastard?'
Not quite.
During the third Test at Adelaide, Jardine went to the Australian dressing-room to demand an apology because one of the Australian players had called Harold Larwood “a bastard”. He was met by Vic Richardson. “OK,” he said, turning round to his team-mates, “which of you bastards called Larwood a bastard instead of this bastard?”
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.
Valet not batman ffs.
And no, as @Sunil_Prasannan so acutely noted with arguably the most famous cricket quote (ie there are no others), it was and is batsman.
wtf does it matter what it's been in "Australia" for a long time now. Australia as a country in its current form doesn't have a long time, historically, in any case.
It's batsman.
Batter is just nonsensical virtue-signalling woke nonsense.
You might not have noticed, but Bradman was Australian.
I amend my previous comment; you're simply confused.
I definitely didn't notice. Not that it matters. The term for the person in the middle with the Gray Nicolls is a batsman. But for goodness sake carry on with "batter". At least with an internet chatroom you can't see people laughing at you.
Check your copy of the Laws of Cricket.
Valet, FFS...
'Batter' allows for women's cricket. Surely no-one is going to argue for 'batswoman'?
It's the official nomenclature in the current Laws of Cricket. Topping's determination to play language policeman, for a sport he disdains, is distinctly odd.
Reeve isn't stupid. The budget will surely have some tax grabs from the well off - pension tax relief on higher earners for example and goodies for everyone else - increase the basic tax threshold for example.
She should raise personal allowance marginally to ensure people on a basic state pension and a bit of interest from savings don't need to pay income tax. The increase in personal allowance should be restricted to pensioners and would part offset the removal of the winter fuel allowance.
I've advise anyone with a pension or an isa to put away everything they can into it during September and October, as soon as they can.
You think they'd really do "from midnight tonight" not "from April" on stuff this big?
Yes because they’ve already set a precedent with the VAT on school fees announcement.
Well, I don't pay higher rate tax. But I'll get the £4000 into my LISA (speaking of things which might be ripe for abolishment).
Giving everyone six months to stuff pensions and ISAs before they get severely restricted, is something that could cause all sorts of weird behaviours and unintended consequences for the Treasury.
Yes, we certainly need more saving and less consumption but you can have too much of a good thing if you get it all at once. Sales of new cars, houses and holidays collapse.
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....
That sounds very unlikely to me. Surely Oasis would be headlining.
Reeve isn't stupid. The budget will surely have some tax grabs from the well off - pension tax relief on higher earners for example and goodies for everyone else - increase the basic tax threshold for example.
She should raise personal allowance marginally to ensure people on a basic state pension and a bit of interest from savings don't need to pay income tax. The increase in personal allowance should be restricted to pensioners and would part offset the removal of the winter fuel allowance.
I've advise anyone with a pension or an isa to put away everything they can into it during September and October, as soon as they can.
You think they'd really do "from midnight tonight" not "from April" on stuff this big?
Yes because they’ve already set a precedent with the VAT on school fees announcement.
Well, I don't pay higher rate tax. But I'll get the £4000 into my LISA (speaking of things which might be ripe for abolishment).
Giving everyone six months to stuff pensions and ISAs before they get severely restricted, is something that could cause all sorts of weird behaviours and unintended consequences for the Treasury.
Yes, we certainly need more saving and less consumption but you can have too much of a good thing if you get it all at once. Sales of new cars, houses and holidays collapse.
Plus a lot of personal loans taken out on false premises, probably.
Comments
I have to say that Starmer has misjudged this by painting such a depressing and negative message when the country needs optimism and hope
He is the very antithesis of Blair who had charisma, optimism and flair
Also he is being engulfed in sleeze and cronyism just weeks into office
Thatcher won, repeatedly, by saying that while various policies were painful, there was a vision of what she was trying to achieve.
Lansley's 'reorganisation' of the NHS has given local government a lot of problems, too.
I voted labour partly because I found Luke Akehurst quite personable on social media and I really did not like people outside the area telling us how we should vote based on his past association with Pro Israel groups, secondly I did not want a chance of Reform winning the seat (they came second) although I do not regard them with the same level of disdain as others, and also with labour I liked some of what they were proposing on planning, building, getting the economy going again. I am happy to become enthusiastic for them.
I guess if SKS cannot inspire in an election he is unlikely to inspire in every day politics.
Whether or not the policies pay off is a separate matter, which public opinion over the next few months isn't going to tell us much about.
What a stunning part of the UK you live in.
Visiting Portmeirion was an absolute highlight.
The traffic was okay apart from in Kirkby Stephen, I was stuck there an hour.
Thanks also to the others who offered some useful pointers on the journey.
It took seven and a half hours to get there and six hours to get back.
You Tories pissing and moaning about a seven week old Labour government after the last decade your lot put in really makes me smile.
"Tea or coffee Sir Keir ?
Ooh thats a tough one, if it wasnt for the failure of Tories hot beverage policy etc etc"
And no, as @Sunil_Prasannan so acutely noted with arguably the most famous cricket quote (ie there are no others), it was and is batsman.
wtf does it matter what it's been in "Australia" for a long time now. Australia as a country in its current form doesn't have a long time, historically, in any case.
It's batsman.
Batter is just nonsensical virtue-signalling woke nonsense.
The answer's a hot chocolate.
Not saying that is the plan, but it would make some sort of sense.
I amend my previous comment; you're simply confused.
In opposition, quite different. Members should have a vote. There are, obviously, fewer MPs, and the survivors will hold safe seats, which means that the more marginal areas which are necessary for electoral recovery are unrepresented. For instance, at the moment, the Tories don't have a single seat in Wales and just one in NE England. And if the leader doesn't work out they can be dropped without too much harm done in opposition, a case in point being the defenestration of IDS who lacked support among MPs.
A sensible reform from Starmer if he can get away with it.
I know, I know it's not the correct spelling. You know what council sign writers are like.
I think it is outrageous that the Tory membership were able to choose the PM. At least Tory MPs are elected and more in touch with the electorate than members.
The only downside from excluding the membership is you might demotivate activists who you need to deliver leaflets. A small risk worth taking.
Choosing a LOTO is different from choosing the PM. It is an internal party matter and I think the membership should have a say.
I didn't think this would be a point of contention on PB where there are interminable posts about cricket, suggesting people know what they are talking about and which bore people senseless, but here we are.
It's what you think sounds right, and then spell it as you say it.
I do agree with you though in power MPs alone should have the final say on the PM as the PM needs a majority of their support to pass laws and budgets
Trouble was, Osborne's (and Laws/Alexander's) solution wasn't the best. In particular, as I've argued, cutting Sure Start and the like, and, as Mr Stodge has pointed out, loading more, although unfunded, onto local government created more problems.
If the politics had allowed, and they didn't, a LibDem/Lab Coalition might have been better. Has to be conceded though that Brown and his Government had run out of energy.
This will be a central part of the Reeves package and doesn't break any manifesto commitments.
Valet, FFS...
b) soldiers have batmen, officers have orderlies or valets or indeed soldier servants at one point.
(It comes with the unintended consequence of making the four-days-a-week option more popular, to avoid the various cliff edges, which is likely not in the Treasury model)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quJ7Sn2I17o
Not only does it show him a long way from the slips(!) but it shows him catching Geoff Marsh while standing up to Ian Botham. In fact, Russell seems to have initially appealed for a stumping.
I remember in his later years he was once standing up to James Averis, who was pretty quick (certainly north of 80mph) and he stumped Peter Martin. Magnificent piece of work: he took the ball, and then waited just two seconds until Martin had overbalanced and dragged his foot from the crease. *Then* he stumped him.
Stewart was good - but not that good.
So many love and hate each other at the same time.
Bros were the same.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdxGuujx-C4
As to sleaze and cronyism, I am not sure of the details of the Lord Ali story. I understand it surrounds a party in No. 10, which of course is not a good precedent. But please, for those of you who were quite comfortable with the clown and the clown show that oversaw the son of a KGB officer's elevation to the House of Lords and as for a Foreign Secretary who shook off his minders in order to attend a party held by the self-same KGB Officer, where do we start? When you PB faithful have come to terms that all this corruption wasn't getting the big calls right, you will be entitled to call Lord Ali's No 10 pass sleaze and cronyism.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8er93k051xo
The Everly Brothers
Mike & Bernie Winters
An Aussie player called him a fucking bastard.
He went to the dressing room to demand an apology.
Vic Richardson opened the door, and having heard the story, turned round and said, 'OK, which of you bastards called this fucking bastard a fucking bastard?'
My other implicit point is they aren't equitable examples.
Oh I see what you mean.
*Often with good reason.
Even in the 2019 UK EU Parliament elections Farage's Brexit party only got 30.5% and that was despite the Tories having collapsed to just 8.8%
During the third Test at Adelaide, Jardine went to the Australian dressing-room to demand an apology because one of the Australian players had called Harold Larwood “a bastard”. He was met by Vic Richardson. “OK,” he said, turning round to his team-mates, “which of you bastards called Larwood a bastard instead of this bastard?”
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/nov/20/the-long-history-of-ashes-sledging
Topping's determination to play language policeman, for a sport he disdains, is distinctly odd.