BBCNews 9m9 minutes ago Friday's FT BREXIT EXCLUSIVE: "City abandons hope of full access to EU single market" #tomorrowspaperstoday
tbh, I'm surprised the FT didn't run with black edging.
Anyway, if it's true and that is the City's representative view, May will be able to wipe the sweat from her brow.
So we're going for Switzerland PLUS - i.e. plus extra access for Financial Services?
It's risky, very risky, but if we pull it off it could be the best possible result.
Switzerland is an enviable nation. I'd be totally happy if the UK could be an oversized Switzerland, with more soft power.
Yes, but we won't call it Swiss+ 'cos the Swiss-EU relationship is, in diplo speak, in the shitter.
My recent visit to Ticino - the Italian-speaking corner of Switzerland - spoke eloquently of an extroardinarily lucky country - beautiful, peaceful, friendly, happy. Nice wines. Good food. Splendid railways. Sexy girls and a rock hard currency.
The only problem was the traffic through the (incredibly impressive) road tunnels.
Let us be a bigger Switzerland, Lord. For this we pray.
Why should we pray about anything? Oh yes, I remember, idiots like you plunged us into this nihilistic stupidity. And now you are resorting to prayers so we can miraculously change into Switzerland. If it wasn't so fucking depressing (and hopeless), your post might possibly be funny.
LEAVE 52% REMAIN 48%
Britain will come out of Brexit a vastly impoverished and diminished country. Granted many of those 52% had fuck all to lose so what the heck- for them voting Brexit was like going for double or nothing on a lose lose bet. I'd have done the same.
US women through to 100m relay final after being given a rerun (after Brazil women walked into their lane in the real heats)....and China miss out because of it.
Disappointing to see we have no men or women in the Javelin, an event historically we have done so well in. To the salt mine with em....
Apart from Mo Farah and a few noble exceptions our Athletics "team" are under performing for the money spent. 4 medals so far out of 79 awarded.
I mentioned this yesterday, the two women we have funded for 5000m for many years are both unable to train properly because of long term incurable injuries and have shown virtually no improvement for years. In comparison, if you have a fat arse in the track cycling team and you don't do something about it, you get the heave-ho. But we aren't really at the races in a lot of events. We haven't made finals or basically just making the numbers up. Again comparison to the swimming lot, they had 7 x 4th places in addition to the medals, which shows Team GB are really competitive at a world level in many different disciplines.
Athletics under performed in 2012 and continues to do so in 2016. One factor may just be that they are not funding enough people for the much larger range of events. Anyone know what Athletics gets vs Cyling vs Rowing vs Swimming?
Disappointing to see we have no men or women in the Javelin, an event historically we have done so well in. To the salt mine with em....
Apart from Mo Farah and a few noble exceptions our Athletics "team" are under performing for the money spent. 4 medals so far out of 79 awarded.
I mentioned this yesterday, the two women we have funded for 5000m for many years are both unable to train properly because of long term incurable injuries and have shown virtually no improvement for years. In comparison, if you have a fat arse in the track cycling team and you don't do something about it, you get the heave-ho. But we aren't really at the races in a lot of events. We haven't made finals or basically just making the numbers up. Again comparison to the swimming lot, they had 7 x 4th places in addition to the medals, which shows Team GB are really competitive at a world level in many different disciplines.
Athletics under performed in 2012 and continues to do so in 2016. One factor may just be that they are not funding enough people for the much larger range of events. Anyone know what Athletics gets vs Cyling vs Rowing vs Swimming?
AFAIK, Athletics still gets a shit tonne of cash, also the athletes can earn a lot of money these days.
I guess the crucial question is: would he ever have called the vote if he'd genuinely thought he might lose it? My feeling is No. Which abruptly shunts him into charlatan territory. His democratic impulse was mere expediency.
That is an interesting question. I'm pretty sure that he didn't think he'd lose it at the time the commitment was made, or when it was confirmed after the GE; after all, nearly everyone thought Remain would win easily right until the last moment (and even then many got it wrong, including me). I think the 'expediency' charge is wrong, though; it would have been more a matter of settling the question once and for all: getting democratic consent for his preferred option.
It didn't quite work out like that, though!
Cameron is easy to understand, at least I think he is. Osborne is the more interesting figure. It would be fascinating to know what he thinks.
Disappointing to see we have no men or women in the Javelin, an event historically we have done so well in. To the salt mine with em....
Apart from Mo Farah and a few noble exceptions our Athletics "team" are under performing for the money spent. 4 medals so far out of 79 awarded.
I mentioned this yesterday, the two women we have funded for 5000m for many years are both unable to train properly because of long term incurable injuries and have shown virtually no improvement for years. In comparison, if you have a fat arse in the track cycling team and you don't do something about it, you get the heave-ho. But we aren't really at the races in a lot of events. We haven't made finals or basically just making the numbers up. Again comparison to the swimming lot, they had 7 x 4th places in addition to the medals, which shows Team GB are really competitive at a world level in many different disciplines.
Athletics under performed in 2012 and continues to do so in 2016. One factor may just be that they are not funding enough people for the much larger range of events. Anyone know what Athletics gets vs Cyling vs Rowing vs Swimming?
AFAIK, Athletics still gets a shit tonne of cash, also the athletes can earn a lot of money these days.
Have had a quick look and Athletics got £26.8m funding 86 "elite" athletes over 4 yr period. Cycling got £30.26m funding 110 athletes. Rowing £32.6m funding 112.
Now I fully accept that per athlete, Cycling needs more and Rowing even more compared to Athletics but just 86 people for Athletics funded, considering the much wider range of events that AThletics has and the much large number of potential medals, does look like we would need to invest in >200 elite people for Athletics rather than the fewer than 100 we are doing at present.
I guess the crucial question is: would he ever have called the vote if he'd genuinely thought he might lose it? My feeling is No. Which abruptly shunts him into charlatan territory. His democratic impulse was mere expediency.
That is an interesting question. I'm pretty sure that he didn't think he'd lose it at the time the commitment was made, or when it was confirmed after the GE; after all, nearly everyone thought Remain would win easily right until the last moment (and even then many got it wrong, including me). I think the 'expediency' charge is wrong, though; it would have been more a matter of settling the question once and for all: getting democratic consent for his preferred option.
It didn't quite work out like that, though!
Cameron is easy to understand, at least I think he is. Osborne is the more interesting figure. It would be fascinating to know what he thinks.
I wouldn't say Cameron is unprincipled but he is someone whose principles are very vague. He ended up in the strange position of almost singlehandedly holding up the campaign to stay in the EU when apart from the need, as he saw it, to win the referendum he didn't feel very strongly about the EU one way or the other.
Have had a quick look and Athletics got £26.8m funding 86 "elite" athletes over 4 yr period. Cycling got £30.26m funding 110 athletes. Rowing £32.6m funding 112.
Now I fully accept that per athlete, Cycling needs more and Rowing even more compared to Athletics but just 86 people for Athletics funded, considering the much wider range of events that AThletics has and the much large number of potential medals, does look like we would need to invest in >200 elite people for Athletics rather than the fewer than 100 we are doing at present.
One thing to consider with athletics is it is a "pro" sport, where it is possible now to earn a lot of money compared to track cycling where it was reported Trott only earns about £65k a year.
I actually think there is a wider issue. The barrier to entry to athletics is very low, you don't even need a proper 400m track, so every nation under the sun enters people. But it doesn't seem like we have kept up / advanced in the way in other sports not only have we kept up but have improved in sports where we were traditionally not very good e.g. gymnastics.
One other thing I have noticed, we seem to get a lot of athletes who are very good at junior level and then never progress. We have had 2-3 100m sprinters who were the fastest in the world at 17-18 and never manage to improve. Again, it seems like other sports we are seeing the progression.
He remains the best PM of the last fifty years, bar Maggie. Pity he blew it at the end, but on the other hand, did he really blow it? He offered the choice to the public on a topic which has poisoned UK (and especially Conservative) politics for decades, and the public made their choice. He was on the losing side, and accepted the consequences. It was an honourable defeat, he put his back into arguing his case.
Overall, I don't think that he could easily have fixed it to win. How? It was about immigration and anti-Establishment anger, pure and simple, which trumped economics.
I agree with most of that, I would answer the question simply. Dave should have backed Leave, he should have called the EU's bluff and told them to do one when they fobbed him off with such pitiful terms.
"Today I returned from Brussels and I was unable to achieve a meaningful and lasting reform to our relationship with the EU, it is with a very heavy heart and much regret that I recommend to the British people that we vote to Leave the EU. I remain open to continued discussion with the EU commission and other leaders within the EU, but as of now I cannot ask the British people to vote to Remain in a political union which dismisses the needs of the British people so quickly and easily."
Or something along those lines. Set the date for end 2017, watch the EU come back to the table with a better offer once the polls showed a huge lead for Leave. If not, then at least the machinery of government would have been behind Leave and we'd have been in a much better position with less uncertainty once the votes were cast.
Disappointing to see we have no men or women in the Javelin, an event historically we have done so well in. To the salt mine with em....
Apart from Mo Farah and a few noble exceptions our Athletics "team" are under performing for the money spent. 4 medals so far out of 79 awarded.
But we aren't really at the races in a lot of events.
And yet Gold medals wise we have a better spread than the US (dominated by swimming, athletics and gymnastics) and China (dominated by Weightlifting, Diving and Ping Pong) even with being dominated by Cycling and Rowing.
Yes. Thisi is true. We have had an amazing Olympics which would gratify 99% of nations on God's Green Earth. We will surely come 3rd in medals and might even nick 2nd, a fantastic result for a small if punchy island nation.
But we mustn't stop here. More, more. And that means examining areas where we fucked up: Track and Field.
If we did increase our athletics medals to >10% from the current 4%, we would keep China in 2nd, something we may just scrape into.
He remains the best PM of the last fifty years, bar Maggie. Pity he blew it at the end, but on the other hand, did he really blow it? He offered the choice to the public on a topic which has poisoned UK (and especially Conservative) politics for decades, and the public made their choice. He was on the losing side, and accepted the consequences. It was an honourable defeat, he put his back into arguing his case.
Overall, I don't think that he could easily have fixed it to win. How? It was about immigration and anti-Establishment anger, pure and simple, which trumped economics.
I agree with most of that, I would answer the question simply. Dave should have backed Leave, he should have called the EU's bluff and told them to do one when they fobbed him off with such pitiful terms.
"Today I returned from Brussels and I was unable to achieve a meaningful and lasting reform to our relationship with the EU, it is with a very heavy heart and much regret that I recommend to the British people that we vote to Leave the EU. I remain open to continued discussion with the EU commission and other leaders within the EU, but as of now I cannot ask the British people to vote to Remain in a political union which dismisses the needs of the British people so quickly and easily."
Or something along those lines. Set the date for end 2017, watch the EU come back to the table with a better offer once the polls showed a huge lead for Leave. If not, then at least the machinery of government would have been behind Leave and we'd have been in a much better position with less uncertainty once the votes were cast.
He would have become a rival to Maggie in reputation. But since he decided to hand over to Osborne, I think he went with what Osborne thought would be the best way forward.
One other thing, I am glad we stopped this nonsense of funding basketball to pay for the insurance of NBA basketballers to turn up once in a blue moon to play for Team GB.
There was no "team" and limited opportunity to learn from the best, it was more like paying for a ringer to turn up for the important matches.
Again they were saying yesterday that the hockey girls have been together for 4 years.
There are so many athletics events that 86 athletes is fewer per specialism compared to, say, cycling. That suggests there isn't as much competition and it would be easier to get in the team without much of a fight. The dilemma is that, if we were to properly fund athletics to get the same success, it would take money away from the lower hanging fruit.
I guess the crucial question is: would he ever have called the vote if he'd genuinely thought he might lose it? My feeling is No. Which abruptly shunts him into charlatan territory. His democratic impulse was mere expediency.
That is an interesting question. I'm pretty sure that he didn't think he'd lose it at the time the commitment was made, or when it was confirmed after the GE; after all, nearly everyone thought Remain would win easily right until the last moment (and even then many got it wrong, including me). I think the 'expediency' charge is wrong, though; it would have been more a matter of settling the question once and for all: getting democratic consent for his preferred option.
It didn't quite work out like that, though!
Cameron is easy to understand, at least I think he is. Osborne is the more interesting figure. It would be fascinating to know what he thinks.
Cameron's arrogance and inflated self-esteem served the nation well. I'll always have a soft spot for the posh second rater.
I wouldn't say Cameron is unprincipled but he is someone whose principles are very vague. He ended up in the strange position of almost singlehandedly holding up the campaign to stay in the EU when apart from the need, as he saw it, to win the referendum he didn't feel very strongly about the EU one way or the other.
No, I don't see it like that. He's a pragmatist, who honestly believed - almost exactly as I do - that for all its faults, which he laid out so clearly in his Bloomberg speech, it was better on balance to Remain. So, whilst he didn't feel very strongly about the EU as an abstract proposition or a political grand scheme, he did feel strongly that Remain was on balance in the UK's interest. Nothing wrong with that, it's completely absurd to think that you have to be obsessively one-sided on a complex question to be 'principled'.
It's true that it was unfortunate (and counter-productive) that he ended up being the principal Remain advocate. But who else was there? Labour were missing in action, Stuart Rose was a disaster, Mandelson would hardly have helped. I don't think he had any choice but to go for it to the best of his abilities - and he certainly put a hell of a lot of effort into it.
He remains the best PM of the last fifty years, bar Maggie. Pity he blew it at the end, but on the other hand, did he really blow it? He offered the choice to the public on a topic which has poisoned UK (and especially Conservative) politics for decades, and the public made their choice. He was on the losing side, and accepted the consequences. It was an honourable defeat, he put his back into arguing his case.
Overall, I don't think that he could easily have fixed it to win. How? It was about immigration and anti-Establishment anger, pure and simple, which trumped economics.
I agree with most of that, I would answer the question simply. Dave should have backed Leave, he should have called the EU's bluff and told them to do one when they fobbed him off with such pitiful terms.
"Today I returned from Brussels and I was unable to achieve a meaningful and lasting reform to our relationship with the EU, it is with a very heavy heart and much regret that I recommend to the British people that we vote to Leave the EU. I remain open to continued discussion with the EU commission and other leaders within the EU, but as of now I cannot ask the British people to vote to Remain in a political union which dismisses the needs of the British people so quickly and easily."
Or something along those lines. Set the date for end 2017, watch the EU come back to the table with a better offer once the polls showed a huge lead for Leave. If not, then at least the machinery of government would have been behind Leave and we'd have been in a much better position with less uncertainty once the votes were cast.
Very good point. Imagine if he'd done that: the reforms he might have won!
For this alone - i.e. the failure to do any of this - he must be regarded as mediocre, as best.
The thing is, if the polling had been any good and Dave's main pollster wasn't Cooper then he might have seen the Leave vote coming and tried this gambit. It would, at that point, been a shot to nothing. When it mattered, Dave didn't have the balls, which is a shame.
He remains the best PM of the last fifty years, bar Maggie. Pity he blew it at the end, but on the other hand, did he really blow it? He offered the choice to the public on a topic which has poisoned UK (and especially Conservative) politics for decades, and the public made their choice. He was on the losing side, and accepted the consequences. It was an honourable defeat, he put his back into arguing his case.
Overall, I don't think that he could easily have fixed it to win. How? It was about immigration and anti-Establishment anger, pure and simple, which trumped economics.
I agree with most of that, I would answer the question simply. Dave should have backed Leave, he should have called the EU's bluff and told them to do one when they fobbed him off with such pitiful terms.
"Today I returned from Brussels and I was unable to achieve a meaningful and lasting reform to our relationship with the EU, it is with a very heavy heart and much regret that I recommend to the British people that we vote to Leave the EU. I remain open to continued discussion with the EU commission and other leaders within the EU, but as of now I cannot ask the British people to vote to Remain in a political union which dismisses the needs of the British people so quickly and easily."
Or something along those lines. Set the date for end 2017, watch the EU come back to the table with a better offer once the polls showed a huge lead for Leave. If not, then at least the machinery of government would have been behind Leave and we'd have been in a much better position with less uncertainty once the votes were cast.
Very good point. Imagine if he'd done that: the reforms he might have won!
For this alone - i.e. the failure to do any of this - he must be regarded as mediocre, as best.
I disagree with this. The EU is a multilateral arrangement. It is whatever the collective decide it to be. The choice really is to be part of it or not to be part of it. Cameron walked into a trap with his promise of negotiations. The colleagues he was hoping to appease with that promise set him up to fail. Competent politicians would know how to avoid boxing themselves in. Theresa May certainly wouldn't have done something like that. But Cameron is careless, arrogant and lazy.
There are so many athletics events that 86 athletes is fewer per specialism compared to, say, cycling. That suggests there isn't as much competition and it would be easier to get in the team without much of a fight. The dilemma is that, if we were to properly fund athletics to get the same success, it would take money away from the lower hanging fruit.
It doesn't seem they have been as ruthless with the money as in some other sports eg. my example of funding a 5000m athlete for 6 years when they are permanently buggered.
Also, I wonder does the likes of Mo Farah still get lottery funding, does he need it? In Athletics if you make it, you earn a lot of money these days, so would it be better to spend that money on funding the up and comers?
The pure track cyclists don't earn a lot in comparison and also many have the outlet of going "pro" on the road i.e. we haven't funded Cavendish to get his medal, given he has a massive contract with his road team.
Have had a quick look and Athletics got £26.8m funding 86 "elite" athletes over 4 yr period. Cycling got £30.26m funding 110 athletes. Rowing £32.6m funding 112.
Now I fully accept that per athlete, Cycling needs more and Rowing even more compared to Athletics but just 86 people for Athletics funded, considering the much wider range of events that AThletics has and the much large number of potential medals, does look like we would need to invest in >200 elite people for Athletics rather than the fewer than 100 we are doing at present.
....One other thing I have noticed, we seem to get a lot of athletes who are very good at junior level and then never progress. We have had 2-3 100m sprinters who were the fastest in the world at 17-18 and never manage to improve. Again, it seems like other sports we are seeing the progression. BUT...86 athletes funded does seem too few.
Yes the transition of the juniors is clearly where we are dropping off. But looking at the figures from the funding ... Circa 20 events x 2 (male & female) = 40 events. If we have 5 seniors for each to provide competition and cover injuries etc = 200. Then add on 5 for each in the junior/developing level underneath and that is another 200. So we probably actually need to fund 400 which is 5 times the number currently covered.
I guess the crucial question is: would he ever have called the vote if he'd genuinely thought he might lose it? My feeling is No. Which abruptly shunts him into charlatan territory. His democratic impulse was mere expediency.
That is an interesting question. I'm pretty sure that he didn't think he'd lose it at the time the commitment was made, or when it was confirmed after the GE; after all, nearly everyone thought Remain would win easily right until the last moment (and even then many got it wrong, including me). I think the 'expediency' charge is wrong, though; it would have been more a matter of settling the question once and for all: getting democratic consent for his preferred option.
It didn't quite work out like that, though!
Cameron is easy to understand, at least I think he is. Osborne is the more interesting figure. It would be fascinating to know what he thinks.
Cameron's arrogance and inflated self-esteem served the nation well. I'll always have a soft spot for the posh second rater.
Yep. That's Cameron. I'd say. A posh second rater. His education and breeding led him to over-estimate his own abilities, which turned out to be actually quite limited. He nearly lost the fucking Scottish vote, FFS, and then lost the EU vote.
At one point he was even staring at defeat on AV until he finally authorised some cash to Matthew Elliott etc.
I wouldn't say Cameron is unprincipled but he is someone whose principles are very vague. He ended up in the strange position of almost singlehandedly holding up the campaign to stay in the EU when apart from the need, as he saw it, to win the referendum he didn't feel very strongly about the EU one way or the other.
No, I don't see it like that. He's a pragmatist, who honestly believed - almost exactly as I do - that for all its faults, which he laid out so clearly in his Bloomberg speech, it was better on balance to Remain. So, whilst he didn't feel very strongly about the EU as an abstract proposition or a political grand scheme, he did feel strongly that Remain was on balance in the UK's interest. Nothing wrong with that, it's completely absurd to think that you have to be obsessively one-sided on a complex question to be 'principled'.
It's true that it was unfortunate (and counter-productive) that he ended up being the principal Remain advocate. But who else was there? Labour were missing in action, Stuart Rose was a disaster, Mandelson would hardly have helped. I don't think he had any choice but to go for it to the best of his abilities - and he certainly put a hell of a lot of effort into it.
I disagree with this. The EU is a multilateral arrangement. It is whatever the collective decide it to be. The choice really is to be part of it or not to be part of it. Cameron walked into a trap with his promise of negotiations. The colleagues he was hoping to appease with that promise set him up to fail. Competent politicians would know how to avoid boxing themselves in. Theresa May certainly wouldn't have done something like that. But Cameron is careless, arrogant and lazy.
It's flexible enough that nations have opted out of open borders, the single currency and justice measures. A partial opt out of free movement of people or some form of benefits and welfare limitations would not have been difficult to achieve within the current structures. Especially given that the UK is already semi-detached. The issue is that they knew Dave would never walk away and therefore they would never need to offer it. If, as I think is likely, we make Brexit a success, especially over the next 5-7 years the EU is going to struggle to justify its existence. All because Dave didn't have the balls to walk away from a shit deal.
There are clearly opportunities (as well as risks) for the City post-Brexit.
For a start, the City can kiss goodbye to that anti-banker's bonus directive. Suddenly London can compete with NYC and Hong Kong again
I certainly hope so, both on your general point and on the specific one of bankers' bonuses. If the government is looking for a way to retain employment in the City, it's a no-brainer and it also is justified in terms of financial stability.
There will be a hell of a political cost on bonuses, though.
Theresa May has enormous political capital (as we can see from the polls). She needs to learn from Cameron's terrible political errors and spend it now when she is able.
So: approve Heathrow
Approve HS2
Cut corporate tax
Reform all the EU laws on financial services, like the bonus directive (when this becomes possible)
Call an election. Sod it. Do it.
Incidentally, I wonder what your opinion of Cameron is now, AS A POLITICIAN. It seems to me Cameron is one of the worst of recent prime ministers, in terms of promise compared with delivery. He promised so much, he won that amazing majority, and then he blew it all on a nation-changing referendum he could easily have fixed such that he'd certanly win. But he lost.
This is surely political cackhandedness of the first water, and by itself relegates Cameron to some Nth division. But you might differ.
Corporate taxation does not need to be cut. Cutting small business red tape would be a much more powerful real and symbolic realignment of our economy.
There are so many athletics events that 86 athletes is fewer per specialism compared to, say, cycling. That suggests there isn't as much competition and it would be easier to get in the team without much of a fight. The dilemma is that, if we were to properly fund athletics to get the same success, it would take money away from the lower hanging fruit.
It doesn't seem they have been as ruthless with the money as in some other sports eg. my example of funding a 5000m athlete for 6 years when they are permanently buggered.
Also, I wonder does the likes of Mo Farah still get lottery funding, does he need it? In Athletics if you make it, you earn a lot of money these days, so would it be better to spend that money on funding the up and comers?
I don't know how they do it but that would make sense, though I can see how funding can stop people like Farah chasing races all over and being knackered for the big competitions. In the end I think it's more cost effective to put athletics in the second tier, not only is it too diverse it also doesn't have the equipment to be innovative with, such as cycling or rowing. It also appears as though athletics is easier to game via doping, as seen by the number who are found out.
There are clearly opportunities (as well as risks) for the City post-Brexit.
For a start, the City can kiss goodbye to that anti-banker's bonus directive. Suddenly London can compete with NYC and Hong Kong again
I certainly hope so, both on your general point and on the specific one of bankers' bonuses. If the government is looking for a way to retain employment in the City, it's a no-brainer and it also is justified in terms of financial stability.
There will be a hell of a political cost on bonuses, though.
Theresa May has enormous political capital (as we can see from the polls). She needs to learn from Cameron's terrible political errors and spend it now when she is able.
So: approve Heathrow
Approve HS2
Cut corporate tax
Reform all the EU laws on financial services, like the bonus directive (when this becomes possible)
Call an election. Sod it. Do it.
Incidentally, I wonder what your opinion of Cameron is now, AS A POLITICIAN. It seems to me Cameron is one of the worst of recent prime ministers, in terms of promise compared with delivery. He promised so much, he won that amazing majority, and then he blew it all on a nation-changing referendum he could easily have fixed such that he'd certanly win. But he lost.
This is surely political cackhandedness of the first water, and by itself relegates Cameron to some Nth division. But you might differ.
Corporate taxation does not need to be cut. Cutting small business red tape would be a much more powerful real and symbolic realignment of our economy.
15% corporation tax and reducing health and safety red tape would be my picks. I'd also repeal the BRRD and the bankers bonus directive.
Whatever happens, it really wasn't healthy that we were governed by a small group of faintly inept chinless dorks from one single Oxford Drinking Society who themselves mainly came from one single elitist school.
In fact it was repellent. UGH. After Brexit, let us bid goodbye to the chortling posh gits, forever. They aren't even good at the job.
Not goodbye yet, one of them is Foreign Secretary.
There are so many athletics events that 86 athletes is fewer per specialism compared to, say, cycling. That suggests there isn't as much competition and it would be easier to get in the team without much of a fight. The dilemma is that, if we were to properly fund athletics to get the same success, it would take money away from the lower hanging fruit.
It doesn't seem they have been as ruthless with the money as in some other sports eg. my example of funding a 5000m athlete for 6 years when they are permanently buggered.
Also, I wonder does the likes of Mo Farah still get lottery funding, does he need it? In Athletics if you make it, you earn a lot of money these days, so would it be better to spend that money on funding the up and comers?
I don't know how they do it but that would make sense, though I can see how funding can stop people like Farah chasing races all over and being knackered for the big competitions. In the end I think it's more cost effective to put athletics in the second tier, not only is it too diverse it also doesn't have the equipment to be innovative with, such as cycling or rowing. It also appears as though athletics is easier to game via doping, as seen by the number who are found out.
I agree very difficult in pure running events, but you would think there should be "marginal" gains from more technical events like Javelin. Tiny improvements in your technique can have huge impacts on how far it will fly.
Triple jump is another. Tiny improvements are multiplied through the various parts of the sequence.
Disappointing to see we have no men or women in the Javelin, an event historically we have done so well in. To the salt mine with em....
Apart from Mo Farah and a few noble exceptions our Athletics "team" are under performing for the money spent. 4 medals so far out of 79 awarded.
I mentioned this yesterday, the two women we have funded for 5000m for many years are both unable to train properly because of long term incurable injuries and have shown virtually no improvement for years. In comparison, if you have a fat arse in the track cycling team and you don't do something about it, you get the heave-ho. But we aren't really at the races in a lot of events. We haven't made finals or basically just making the numbers up. Again comparison to the swimming lot, they had 7 x 4th places in addition to the medals, which shows Team GB are really competitive at a world level in many different disciplines.
Athletics under performed in 2012 and continues to do so in 2016. One factor may just be that they are not funding enough people for the much larger range of events. Anyone know what Athletics gets vs Cyling vs Rowing vs Swimming?
AFAIK, Athletics still gets a shit tonne of cash, also the athletes can earn a lot of money these days.
Have had a quick look and Athletics got £26.8m funding 86 "elite" athletes over 4 yr period. Cycling got £30.26m funding 110 athletes. Rowing £32.6m funding 112.
Now I fully accept that per athlete, Cycling needs more and Rowing even more compared to Athletics but just 86 people for Athletics funded, considering the much wider range of events that AThletics has and the much large number of potential medals, does look like we would need to invest in >200 elite people for Athletics rather than the fewer than 100 we are doing at present.
Do those figures include "salaries" to athletes?
£30m for 100 athletes = £300k per athlete over 4 years = £75k per athlete per year.
But presumably the athletes don't get £75k per year - ie the money covers their salaries plus coaches and training facilities etc?
If so, what salary does each athete get? Presumably it varies depending upon performance?
There are so many athletics events that 86 athletes is fewer per specialism compared to, say, cycling. That suggests there isn't as much competition and it would be easier to get in the team without much of a fight. The dilemma is that, if we were to properly fund athletics to get the same success, it would take money away from the lower hanging fruit.
It doesn't seem they have been as ruthless with the money as in some other sports eg. my example of funding a 5000m athlete for 6 years when they are permanently buggered.
Also, I wonder does the likes of Mo Farah still get lottery funding, does he need it? In Athletics if you make it, you earn a lot of money these days, so would it be better to spend that money on funding the up and comers?
I don't know how they do it but that would make sense, though I can see how funding can stop people like Farah chasing races all over and being knackered for the big competitions. In the end I think it's more cost effective to put athletics in the second tier, not only is it too diverse it also doesn't have the equipment to be innovative with, such as cycling or rowing. It also appears as though athletics is easier to game via doping, as seen by the number who are found out.
I agree very difficult in pure running events, but you would think there should be "marginal" gains from more technical events like Javelin. Tiny improvements in your technique can have huge impacts on how far it will fly.
Surely the issue is that anyone who is any good at running will be scouted by a Premier League club and be taught how to kick a ball and tackle? The talent pool for sprinting has a huge overlap with football. It's probably why no European country has decent sprinters, the kids would rather be the next Ashley Cole than the next Mark Lewis-Francis.
There are so many athletics events that 86 athletes is fewer per specialism compared to, say, cycling. That suggests there isn't as much competition and it would be easier to get in the team without much of a fight. The dilemma is that, if we were to properly fund athletics to get the same success, it would take money away from the lower hanging fruit.
It doesn't seem they have been as ruthless with the money as in some other sports eg. my example of funding a 5000m athlete for 6 years when they are permanently buggered.
Also, I wonder does the likes of Mo Farah still get lottery funding, does he need it? In Athletics if you make it, you earn a lot of money these days, so would it be better to spend that money on funding the up and comers?
I don't know how they do it but that would make sense, though I can see how funding can stop people like Farah chasing races all over and being knackered for the big competitions. In the end I think it's more cost effective to put athletics in the second tier, not only is it too diverse it also doesn't have the equipment to be innovative with, such as cycling or rowing. It also appears as though athletics is easier to game via doping, as seen by the number who are found out.
I agree very difficult in pure running events, but you would think there should be "marginal" gains from more technical events like Javelin. Tiny improvements in your technique can have huge impacts on how far it will fly.
Surely the issue is that anyone who is any good at running will be scouted by a Premier League club and be taught how to kick a ball and tackle? The talent pool for sprinting has a huge overlap with football. It's probably why no European country has decent sprinters, the kids would rather be the next Ashley Cole than the next Mark Lewis-Francis.
Perhaps. Gemili only came to athletics after his football career stalled. Isn't just football either, as we saw in Rugby 7's, full of "speedsters". The USA have a guy in the Rugby who I think ranked 4th in the US for 100m at one point.
I also noticed that like the lass in the cycling, she had transitioned away from athletics to track cycling, and I believe one of the rowers is the same.
I guess the crucial question is: would he ever have called the vote if he'd genuinely thought he might lose it? My feeling is No. Which abruptly shunts him into charlatan territory. His democratic impulse was mere expediency.
That is an interesting question. I'm pretty sure that he didn't think he'd lose it at the time the commitment was made, or when it was confirmed after the GE; after all, nearly everyone thought Remain would win easily right until the last moment (and even then many got it wrong, including me). I think the 'expediency' charge is wrong, though; it would have been more a matter of settling the question once and for all: getting democratic consent for his preferred option.
I think it's difficult to defend the proposition that Cameron called the referendum out of a desire to consult the people: if that was true then when a referendum was debated in Parliament in the first years of the Coalition, Cameron would have urged for instead of against. It's a pity that he is being retrospectively garlanded with a plebisitical bent, rather than a need to manage his party.
As for technique: he was forced into a referendum against his will, allowed the Eurosceptics in his party to choose the electorate[1] (even when he didn't have to![1]) and refuse him Conservative Party funding, didn't realise the importance of immigration to the electorate, allowed REMAIN to continue focussing on the economy even when it was obvious it wasn't the Schwerpunkt, refused to run attack ads on Boris even when LEAVE showed no such compunction, and when he had lost he turned to his aides and said "Why should I do the hard shit?".
C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la politique...
[1] In the 70's the referendum electorate was chosen to maximise the "Yes" vote: the Forces were strongly for and they were specifically included. In 2015/6 the electorate was chosen to minimise the "Yes" vote: the non-Commonwealth EU residents in UK were disencluded and UK residents overseas were partially disencluded - the latter unnecessarily, incidentally.
There are so many athletics events that 86 athletes is fewer per specialism compared to, say, cycling. That suggests there isn't as much competition and it would be easier to get in the team without much of a fight. The dilemma is that, if we were to properly fund athletics to get the same success, it would take money away from the lower hanging fruit.
It doesn't seem they have been as ruthless with the money as in some other sports eg. my example of funding a 5000m athlete for 6 years when they are permanently buggered.
Also, I wonder does the likes of Mo Farah still get lottery funding, does he need it? In Athletics if you make it, you earn a lot of money these days, so would it be better to spend that money on funding the up and comers?
I don't know how they do it but that would make sense, though I can see how funding can stop people like Farah chasing races all over and being knackered for the big competitions. In the end I think it's more cost effective to put athletics in the second tier, not only is it too diverse it also doesn't have the equipment to be innovative with, such as cycling or rowing. It also appears as though athletics is easier to game via doping, as seen by the number who are found out.
I agree very difficult in pure running events, but you would think there should be "marginal" gains from more technical events like Javelin. Tiny improvements in your technique can have huge impacts on how far it will fly.
Triple jump is another. Tiny improvements are multiplied through the various parts of the sequence.
Part of the issue is that those would be eminently emulable marginal gains. People can see what you do, after all.
If the French think you have made your bicycles have rounder wheels, but don't know how you got that edge, then the investment is going to pay off for longer.
Disappointing to see we have no men or women in the Javelin, an event historically we have done so well in. To the salt mine with em....
Apart from Mo Farah and a few noble exceptions our Athletics "team" are under performing for the money spent. 4 medals so far out of 79 awarded.
I mentioned this yesterday, the two women we have funded for 5000m for many years are both unable to train properly because of long term incurable injuries and have shown virtually no improvement for years. In comparison, if you have a fat arse in the track cycling team and you don't do something about it, you get the heave-ho. But we aren't really at the races in a lot of events. We haven't made finals or basically just making the numbers up. Again comparison to the swimming lot, they had 7 x 4th places in addition to the medals, which shows Team GB are really competitive at a world level in many different disciplines.
Athletics under performed in 2012 and continues to do so in 2016. One factor may just be that they are not funding enough people for the much larger range of events. Anyone know what Athletics gets vs Cyling vs Rowing vs Swimming?
AFAIK, Athletics still gets a shit tonne of cash, also the athletes can earn a lot of money these days.
Have had a quick look and Athletics got £26.8m funding 86 "elite" athletes over 4 yr period. Cycling got £30.26m funding 110 athletes. Rowing £32.6m funding 112.
Now I fully accept that per athlete, Cycling needs more and Rowing even more compared to Athletics but just 86 people for Athletics funded, considering the much wider range of events that AThletics has and the much large number of potential medals, does look like we would need to invest in >200 elite people for Athletics rather than the fewer than 100 we are doing at present.
Do those figures include "salaries" to athletes?
£30m for 100 athletes = £300k per athlete over 4 years = £75k per athlete per year.
But presumably the athletes don't get £75k per year - ie the money covers their salaries plus coaches and training facilities etc?
If so, what salary does each athete get? Presumably it varies depending upon performance?
Those figures includes all govt & lottery funding. Out of that come coaches and travel etc etc. Hence the salaries athletes are on will be half that nearer I suggest £35k.
I think it's difficult to defend the proposition that Cameron called the referendum out of a desire to consult the people: if that was true then when a referendum was debated in Parliament in the first years of the Coalition, Cameron would have urged for instead of against. It's a pity that he is being retrospectively garlanded with a plebisitical bent, rather than a need to manage his party.
Sure, managing the party was part of it, and an important part. Nothing wrong with that. And it wasn't just the party - there was a widespread feeling that it was right to give voters another say after four decades.
Also, I disagree on your point about the timing. As I said at and before the time, the danger was that an early referendum, before any renegotiation, would have produced a Remain result which would have cemented in the ever-closer union of the Lisbon Treaty. At least that's the way it seemed at the time.
There are so many athletics events that 86 athletes is fewer per specialism compared to, say, cycling. That suggests there isn't as much competition and it would be easier to get in the team without much of a fight. The dilemma is that, if we were to properly fund athletics to get the same success, it would take money away from the lower hanging fruit.
It doesn't seem they have been as ruthless with the money as in some other sports eg. my example of funding a 5000m athlete for 6 years when they are permanently buggered.
Also, I wonder does the likes of Mo Farah still get lottery funding, does he need it? In Athletics if you make it, you earn a lot of money these days, so would it be better to spend that money on funding the up and comers?
I don't know how they do it but that would make sense, though I can see how funding can stop people like Farah chasing races all over and being knackered for the big competitions. In the end I think it's more cost effective to put athletics in the second tier, not only is it too diverse it also doesn't have the equipment to be innovative with, such as cycling or rowing. It also appears as though athletics is easier to game via doping, as seen by the number who are found out.
I agree very difficult in pure running events, but you would think there should be "marginal" gains from more technical events like Javelin. Tiny improvements in your technique can have huge impacts on how far it will fly.
Surely the issue is that anyone who is any good at running will be scouted by a Premier League club and be taught how to kick a ball and tackle? The talent pool for sprinting has a huge overlap with football. It's probably why no European country has decent sprinters, the kids would rather be the next Ashley Cole than the next Mark Lewis-Francis.
There are so many athletics events that 86 athletes is fewer per specialism compared to, say, cycling. That suggests there isn't as much competition and it would be easier to get in the team without much of a fight. The dilemma is that, if we were to properly fund athletics to get the same success, it would take money away from the lower hanging fruit.
It doesn't seem they have been as ruthless with the money as in some other sports eg. my example of funding a 5000m athlete for 6 years when they are permanently buggered.
Also, I wonder does the likes of Mo Farah still get lottery funding, does he need it? In Athletics if you make it, you earn a lot of money these days, so would it be better to spend that money on funding the up and comers?
I don't know how they do it but that would make sense, though I can see how funding can stop people like Farah chasing races all over and being knackered for the big competitions. In the end I think it's more cost effective to put athletics in the second tier, not only is it too diverse it also doesn't have the equipment to be innovative with, such as cycling or rowing. It also appears as though athletics is easier to game via doping, as seen by the number who are found out.
I agree very difficult in pure running events, but you would think there should be "marginal" gains from more technical events like Javelin. Tiny improvements in your technique can have huge impacts on how far it will fly.
Triple jump is another. Tiny improvements are multiplied through the various parts of the sequence.
Part of the issue is that those would be eminently emulable marginal gains. People can see what you do, after all.
If the French think you have made your bicycles have rounder wheels, but don't know how you got that edge, then the investment is going to pay off for longer.
However, thats a bit like saying we should all hit golf balls the same. We all have Hogan's book, we can watch super slow mo of Woods etc.
The difference between the best ball strikers is technically repeatable motions and they get that via massive amount of smart practice. I would suggest the marginal gains could come from gaining and repeating the "perfect" technique.
It seems to me that is what the likes of the diving is all about. I am going to guess that the rowing as well as fitness, in those team rowing events marginal gains are being made by perfecting stroke technique and timing.
Incidentally, before I go to bed, I take that it that there is a rather fine Freudian slip in the thread header?
The PB/Polling Matters team also discusses a recent YouGov poll showing Margaret Thatcher as Britain’s most popular Prime Minister since she took office
Those figures includes all govt & lottery funding. Out of that come coaches and travel etc etc. Hence the salaries athletes are on will be half that nearer I suggest £35k.
In addition to significant prize money available, many world level athletics though do have sponsorship money coming in. Even back in the day when athletics was supposedly amateur, household athletes were "earning" good money via endorsements.
I just looked up Adam Gemili holding company and he is getting in £250k+ a year total separate from his funding etc.
Part of the issue is that those would be eminently emulable marginal gains. People can see what you do, after all.
If the French think you have made your bicycles have rounder wheels, but don't know how you got that edge, then the investment is going to pay off for longer.
However, thats a bit like saying we should all hit golf balls the same. We all have Hogan's book, we can watch super slow mo of Woods etc.
The difference between the best ball strikers is technically repeatable motions and they get that via massive amount of smart practice. I would suggest the marginal gains could come from gaining and repeating the "perfect" technique.
It seems to me that is what the likes of the diving is all about. I am going to guess that the rowing as well as fitness, in those team rowing events marginal gains are being made by perfecting stroke technique and timing.
That's a fair point. Superior coaching/training techniques ought to have a fairly low level of "leakage" to the opposition. I was thinking more along the lines of how the Fosbury Flop was a nifty secret weapon in 1968, not so much in 1972...
I think it's difficult to defend the proposition that Cameron called the referendum out of a desire to consult the people: if that was true then when a referendum was debated in Parliament in the first years of the Coalition, Cameron would have urged for instead of against. It's a pity that he is being retrospectively garlanded with a plebisitical bent, rather than a need to manage his party.
Sure, managing the party was part of it, and an important part. Nothing wrong with that. And it wasn't just the party - there was a widespread feeling that it was right to give voters another say after four decades.
I'm not sure the word "widespread" is appropriate. Many people and MP's were vocal in their support of such, but strong feelings of some is not the same as feelings of many: "deep" is not "wide".
There are clearly opportunities (as well as risks) for the City post-Brexit.
For a start, the City can kiss goodbye to that anti-banker's bonus directive. Suddenly London can compete with NYC and Hong Kong again
I certainly hope so, both on your general point and on the specific one of bankers' bonuses. If the government is looking for a way to retain employment in the City, it's a no-brainer and it also is justified in terms of financial stability.
There will be a hell of a political cost on bonuses, though.
Theresa May has enormous political capital (as we can see from the polls). She needs to learn from Cameron's terrible political errors and spend it now when she is able.
So: approve Heathrow
Approve HS2
Cut corporate tax
Reform all the EU laws on financial services, like the bonus directive (when this becomes possible)
Call an election. Sod it. Do it.
Incidentally, I wonder what your opinion of Cameron is now, AS A POLITICIAN. It seems to me Cameron is one of the worst of recent prime ministers, in terms of promise compared with delivery. He promised so much, he won that amazing majority, and then he blew it all on a nation-changing referendum he could easily have fixed such that he'd certanly win. But he lost.
This is surely political cackhandedness of the first water, and by itself relegates Cameron to some Nth division. But you might differ.
Corporate taxation does not need to be cut. Cutting small business red tape would be a much more powerful real and symbolic realignment of our economy.
15% corporation tax and reducing health and safety red tape would be my picks. I'd also repeal the BRRD and the bankers bonus directive.
Not sure about H&S. For example has no real impact in the majority of small businesses. Employment considerations do so much more. Abolish the mandatory workplace pension for micro entities. 25k employer NI allowance. Increase SBR exemption. Get rid of digital tax suggestions for any company under 5m turnover.
Bankers bonus directive is one of those issues that waits until we leave the EU - too much political backlash to do beforehand.
Defend a NATO ally if Russia invaded it Would have trident nuclear submarines but without the nukes Wouldn't use drones Wouldn't deploy the SAS unless parliament had a say on it Doesn't agree with the shoot to kill policy Would hand over the Falklands to Argentina
Anything else I've missed? What next British troops have to use blank rounds, the enemy won't know we can just scare them off with the noise?
It's a good thing the guy and his politics is unelectable, he's quite frankly dangerous.
Defend a NATO ally if Russia invaded it Would have trident nuclear submarines but without the nukes Wouldn't use drones Wouldn't deploy the SAS unless parliament had a say on it Doesn't agree with the shoot to kill policy Would hand over the Falklands to Argentina
Anything else I've missed? What next British troops have to use blank rounds, the enemy won't know we can just scare them off with the noise?
It's a good thing the guy and his politics is unelectable, he's quite frankly dangerous.
Though he would not talk to ISIS unlike Owen Smith
I guess the crucial question is: would he ever have called the vote if he'd genuinely thought he might lose it? My feeling is No. Which abruptly shunts him into charlatan territory. His democratic impulse was mere expediency.
That is an interesting question. I'm pretty sure that he didn't think he'd lose it at the time the commitment was made, or when it was confirmed after the GE; after all, nearly everyone thought Remain would win easily right until the last moment (and even then many got it wrong, including me). I think the 'expediency' charge is wrong, though; it would have been more a matter of settling the question once and for all: getting democratic consent for his preferred option.
It didn't quite work out like that, though!
Cameron is easy to understand, at least I think he is. Osborne is the more interesting figure. It would be fascinating to know what he thinks.
Cameron's arrogance and inflated self-esteem served the nation well. I'll always have a soft spot for the posh second rater.
Yep. That's Cameron. I'd say. A posh second rater. His education and breeding led him to over-estimate his own abilities, which turned out to be actually quite limited. He nearly lost the fucking Scottish vote, FFS, and then lost the EU vote.
He's a second rater. He is and was second rate. He's in the lower but just about respectable division.
I'm glad he's gone, with all his fatuous Bullingdon pals. I do not miss him. Bye.
Cameron started off as Harold Macmillan and ended up as Eden. Personally I rate him below Thatcher and Blair, ahead of Brown and Major (though history is judging Major more kindly than when he left, our Olympics success owes much to him). I expect May to outlast Cameron in No 10 given Labour's current state
Defend a NATO ally if Russia invaded it Would have trident nuclear submarines but without the nukes Wouldn't use drones Wouldn't deploy the SAS unless parliament had a say on it Doesn't agree with the shoot to kill policy Would hand over the Falklands to Argentina
Anything else I've missed? What next British troops have to use blank rounds, the enemy won't know we can just scare them off with the noise?
It's a good thing the guy and his politics is unelectable, he's quite frankly dangerous.
Though he would not talk to ISIS unlike Owen Smith
Didn't Corbyn previously say he would talk to ISIS? I think at the time it was overshadowed by him saying he'd negotiate over handing the Falklands to Argentina.
Cleared of rape-but still treated as guilty. This story is disturbing in so many ways, we are now finding people guilty untill proven innocent and not even giving them proper repesentation.
BBCNews 9m9 minutes ago Friday's FT BREXIT EXCLUSIVE: "City abandons hope of full access to EU single market" #tomorrowspaperstoday
tbh, I'm surprised the FT didn't run with black edging.
Anyway, if it's true and that is the City's representative view, May will be able to wipe the sweat from her brow.
So we're going for Switzerland PLUS - i.e. plus extra access for Financial Services?
It's risky, very risky, but if we pull it off it could be the best possible result.
Switzerland is an enviable nation. I'd be totally happy if the UK could be an oversized Switzerland, with more soft power.
Yes, but we won't call it Swiss+ 'cos the Swiss-EU relationship is, in diplo speak, in the shitter.
My recent visit to Ticino - the Italian-speaking corner of Switzerland - spoke eloquently of an extroardinarily lucky country - beautiful, peaceful, friendly, happy. Nice wines. Good food. Splendid railways. Sexy girls and a rock hard currency.
The only problem was the traffic through the (incredibly impressive) road tunnels.
Let us be a bigger Switzerland, Lord. For this we pray.
Why should we pray about anything? Oh yes, I remember, idiots like you plunged us into this nihilistic stupidity. And now you are resorting to prayers so we can miraculously change into Switzerland. If it wasn't so fucking depressing (and hopeless), your post might possibly be funny.
LEAVE 52% REMAIN 48%
Britain will come out of Brexit a vastly impoverished and diminished country. Granted many of those 52% had fuck all to lose so what the heck- for them voting Brexit was like going for double or nothing on a lose lose bet. I'd have done the same.
LOL - You hope Tyson.
We did the right thing - the more time goes by the more certain of this I am.
Just seen on the Telegrapgh website that some eejit in the EU has created a table lumping all the EU counties together showing the they have won most golds and top the table! Why don't we do the same and create a Commonwealth table? The British Empire still rules the waves
Just seen on the Telegrapgh website that some eejit in the EU has created a table lumping all the EU counties together showing the they have won most golds and top the table! Why don't we do the same and create a Commonwealth table? The British Empire still rules the waves
Surprised Putin's Russia doesn't do thing...the way he is going lots of the former USSR countries are only "former" temporarily.
Just looking, if things went amazing there are even more than 5 good Gold Medal chances.
2 x Boxing 1-2 x Kicking in PJs 1 x Individual Spirit Kayak Mr Mobot Womens Hockey (outside shot) Womens Triathlon (outside shot) Tom Daley
At the moment
U.K. 22 21. 13 China 20. 16. 22
Could we really get silver in the medals table positions on top of all of this? What a great result for Team GB and all their collective efforts that would be. (Even the ones in posh sports)
However, thats a bit like saying we should all hit golf balls the same. We all have Hogan's book, we can watch super slow mo of Woods etc.
The difference between the best ball strikers is technically repeatable motions and they get that via massive amount of smart practice. I would suggest the marginal gains could come from gaining and repeating the "perfect" technique.
It seems to me that is what the likes of the diving is all about. I am going to guess that the rowing as well as fitness, in those team rowing events marginal gains are being made by perfecting stroke technique and timing.
The Youtube javelin thrower (and reigning world champion) Julius Yego of Kenya is a case in point. Unable to afford a coach, he refined his technique by watching Youtube videos.
Running is very tactical, especially as distances get longer. I'd imagine there is scope for analysis to discover the best tactics in various scenarios: whether or when to chase the pace or sit back in the pack, for instance. Runners also seem prone to injury so perhaps funded access to specialist clinics, or even better running shoes, might be in order.
Swimming is the next frontier. The United States won half its gold medals in the pool: 16 golds. Actually that's also about a 50 per cent success rate as the rest of the world scored 19.
One advantage the Americans have is that swimming is a competitive sport at schools level, so talent can be identified early. But swimming looks like a soft target, though not necessarily a cheap one if we need to build more pools. Perhaps the new chancellor could fund it as a Keynesian stimulus.
Swimming is the next frontier. The United States won half its gold medals in the pool: 16 golds. Actually that's also about a 50 per cent success rate as the rest of the world scored 19.
One advantage the Americans have is that swimming is a competitive sport at schools level, so talent can be identified early. But swimming looks like a soft target, though not necessarily a cheap one if we need to build more pools. Perhaps the new chancellor could fund it as a Keynesian stimulus.
The USA had the Phelps/Ledecky overlap this games too, which helped out with 9 golds. Phelps is lost in the mens next time round, though Ledecky will make the long distance women's a USA gold fest till 2028 or so.
I'm astonished UKIP held the two seats on Thanet Council. One of the outgoing councillors was exposed as a bigamist, who claimed to be the country's most decorated war veteran, when he had never served in the army. The other councillor (his partner) is being prosecuted for assault and dangerous driving (she's blind). They're both being prosecuted for shoplifting garden gnomes.
Or, put another way, EU27 won't be able to trade in and with Britain within the single market without allowing the leaving member to restrict freedom of movement to its territory, which EU27 considers too high a price to pay. In short the woad-painted cry of "foreigners out" trumps everything. How well Britain is doing!
That's probably not right. I can't see any even vaguely plausible scenario in which there isn't a tariff-free market in manufactured goods between the UK and the EU, unless the politicians screw up really badly (always possible, of course). The controversy won't be about that, it will be about trade in services - which matters a lot for us, and not much to them.
There are clearly opportunities (as well as risks) for the City post-Brexit.
For a start, the City can kiss goodbye to that anti-banker's bonus directive. Suddenly London can compete with NYC and Hong Kong again
It's scary stuff, but there is good and bad mixed together, and we are meant to be a nation that thrives on free-wheeling capitalism.
I'm astonished UKIP held the two seats on Thanet Council. One of the outgoing councillors was exposed as a bigamist, who claimed to be the country's most decorated war veteran, when he had never served in the army. The other councillor (his partner) is being prosecuted for assault and dangerous driving (she's blind). They're both being prosecuted for shoplifting garden gnomes.
Do they single handedly destroy the received wisdom that UKIP always lose seats at by-elections?
I'm astonished UKIP held the two seats on Thanet Council. One of the outgoing councillors was exposed as a bigamist, who claimed to be the country's most decorated war veteran, when he had never served in the army. The other councillor (his partner) is being prosecuted for assault and dangerous driving (she's blind). They're both being prosecuted for shoplifting garden gnomes.
Or, put another way, EU27 won't be able to trade in and with Britain within the single market without allowing the leaving member to restrict freedom of movement to its territory, which EU27 considers too high a price to pay. In short the woad-painted cry of "foreigners out" trumps everything. How well Britain is doing!
That's probably not right. I can't see any even vaguely plausible scenario in which there isn't a tariff-free market in manufactured goods between the UK and the EU, unless the politicians screw up really badly (always possible, of course). The controversy won't be about that, it will be about trade in services - which matters a lot for us, and not much to them.
There are clearly opportunities (as well as risks) for the City post-Brexit.
For a start, the City can kiss goodbye to that anti-banker's bonus directive. Suddenly London can compete with NYC and Hong Kong again
It's scary stuff, but there is good and bad mixed together, and we are meant to be a nation that thrives on free-wheeling capitalism.
I'm astonished UKIP held the two seats on Thanet Council. One of the outgoing councillors was exposed as a bigamist, who claimed to be the country's most decorated war veteran, when he had never served in the army. The other councillor (his partner) is being prosecuted for assault and dangerous driving (she's blind). They're both being prosecuted for shoplifting garden gnomes.
Do they single handedly destroy the received wisdom that UKIP always lose seats at by-elections?
I'm astonished UKIP held the two seats on Thanet Council. One of the outgoing councillors was exposed as a bigamist, who claimed to be the country's most decorated war veteran, when he had never served in the army. The other councillor (his partner) is being prosecuted for assault and dangerous driving (she's blind). They're both being prosecuted for shoplifting garden gnomes.
Do they single handedly destroy the received wisdom that UKIP always lose seats at by-elections?
Glad to see Jade Jones retained her Olympic title. Still suspect the Chinese will pass us in the end, but it's still a very good Games.
Just a week until F1 returns.
Very pleased Jade Jones has retained her title.
If China do overtake TeamGB it won't be by much. There are only three days of competition left.
I would be pleased if we do retain 2nd position in the table, but also have some sympathy for the Chinese athletes who I suspect will get an almighty (and unfair) earbashing when they get back home from their masters, on top of the horsewhipping they've had since the age of three.
Glad to see Jade Jones retained her Olympic title. Still suspect the Chinese will pass us in the end, but it's still a very good Games.
Just a week until F1 returns.
Very pleased Jade Jones has retained her title.
If China do overtake TeamGB it won't be by much. There are only three days of competition left.
I would be pleased if we do retain 2nd position in the table, but also have some sympathy for the Chinese athletes who I suspect will get an almighty (and unfair) earbashing when they get back home from their masters, on top of the horsewhipping they've had since the age of three.
The impact of banning all those bent Russians has certainly made a difference too.
Corbyn - I will win over Tories, by pledging to pull out of NATO:
Jeremy Corbyn has insisted he can reach out beyond his core supporters as his leadership rival said Labour was not on a "trajectory to win power". At a hustings event, he said his policies would win over "some people that have been tempted to vote Tory". He also would not commit the UK to providing military help to a Nato ally, should it be invaded by Russia.
Corbyn - I will win over Tories, by pledging to pull out of NATO:
Jeremy Corbyn has insisted he can reach out beyond his core supporters as his leadership rival said Labour was not on a "trajectory to win power". At a hustings event, he said his policies would win over "some people that have been tempted to vote Tory". He also would not commit the UK to providing military help to a Nato ally, should it be invaded by Russia.
It's the utter lack of selfawareness that baffles me. is it possible that he really is this thick or is it all part of a giant master plan conceived in whatever they call CCO these days?
Mr. Royale, that's true. I always feel sympathy when watching the North Korean athletes too. Can't imagine their training regimes, and lives generally, are other than brutal.
Corbyn - I will win over Tories, by pledging to pull out of NATO:
Jeremy Corbyn has insisted he can reach out beyond his core supporters as his leadership rival said Labour was not on a "trajectory to win power". At a hustings event, he said his policies would win over "some people that have been tempted to vote Tory". He also would not commit the UK to providing military help to a Nato ally, should it be invaded by Russia.
Yes, it really is all going swimmingly. Corbyn has now aligned Labour foreign policy over NATO with Trump. Quite incredible.
Whilst we are in NATO, Corbyn can't just decide he doesn't fancy article 5.
Somebody should wake him up from 1974 and tell him that his beloved Russians are no longer Communists and there are no more soviets.
Comments
It didn't quite work out like that, though!
Cameron is easy to understand, at least I think he is. Osborne is the more interesting figure. It would be fascinating to know what he thinks.
Cycling got £30.26m funding 110 athletes. Rowing £32.6m funding 112.
Now I fully accept that per athlete, Cycling needs more and Rowing even more compared to Athletics but just 86 people for Athletics funded, considering the much wider range of events that AThletics has and the much large number of potential medals, does look like we would need to invest in >200 elite people for Athletics rather than the fewer than 100 we are doing at present.
I actually think there is a wider issue. The barrier to entry to athletics is very low, you don't even need a proper 400m track, so every nation under the sun enters people. But it doesn't seem like we have kept up / advanced in the way in other sports not only have we kept up but have improved in sports where we were traditionally not very good e.g. gymnastics.
One other thing I have noticed, we seem to get a lot of athletes who are very good at junior level and then never progress. We have had 2-3 100m sprinters who were the fastest in the world at 17-18 and never manage to improve. Again, it seems like other sports we are seeing the progression.
BUT...86 athletes funded does seem too few.
"Today I returned from Brussels and I was unable to achieve a meaningful and lasting reform to our relationship with the EU, it is with a very heavy heart and much regret that I recommend to the British people that we vote to Leave the EU. I remain open to continued discussion with the EU commission and other leaders within the EU, but as of now I cannot ask the British people to vote to Remain in a political union which dismisses the needs of the British people so quickly and easily."
Or something along those lines. Set the date for end 2017, watch the EU come back to the table with a better offer once the polls showed a huge lead for Leave. If not, then at least the machinery of government would have been behind Leave and we'd have been in a much better position with less uncertainty once the votes were cast.
@britainelects
Catterick (Richmondshire) result:
CON: 41.8% (+1.3)
LDEM: 37.2% (+37.2)
IND: 20.5% (+20.5)
GRN: 0.5% (-15.4)
No Lab candidate (again).
There was no "team" and limited opportunity to learn from the best, it was more like paying for a ringer to turn up for the important matches.
Again they were saying yesterday that the hockey girls have been together for 4 years.
It's true that it was unfortunate (and counter-productive) that he ended up being the principal Remain advocate. But who else was there? Labour were missing in action, Stuart Rose was a disaster, Mandelson would hardly have helped. I don't think he had any choice but to go for it to the best of his abilities - and he certainly put a hell of a lot of effort into it.
Also, I wonder does the likes of Mo Farah still get lottery funding, does he need it? In Athletics if you make it, you earn a lot of money these days, so would it be better to spend that money on funding the up and comers?
The pure track cyclists don't earn a lot in comparison and also many have the outlet of going "pro" on the road i.e. we haven't funded Cavendish to get his medal, given he has a massive contract with his road team.
Circa 20 events x 2 (male & female) = 40 events. If we have 5 seniors for each to provide competition and cover injuries etc = 200. Then add on 5 for each in the junior/developing level underneath and that is another 200. So we probably actually need to fund 400 which is 5 times the number currently covered.
Triple jump is another. Tiny improvements are multiplied through the various parts of the sequence.
£30m for 100 athletes = £300k per athlete over 4 years = £75k per athlete per year.
But presumably the athletes don't get £75k per year - ie the money covers their salaries plus coaches and training facilities etc?
If so, what salary does each athete get? Presumably it varies depending upon performance?
Britain Elects
@britainelects
Tooting (Wandsworth) result:
LAB: 58.5% (+13.7)
CON: 25.7% (-2.7)
LDEM: 10.6% (+4.2)
GRN: 4.6% (-6.5)
SDP: 0.6% (+0.6)
I also noticed that like the lass in the cycling, she had transitioned away from athletics to track cycling, and I believe one of the rowers is the same.
As for technique: he was forced into a referendum against his will, allowed the Eurosceptics in his party to choose the electorate[1] (even when he didn't have to![1]) and refuse him Conservative Party funding, didn't realise the importance of immigration to the electorate, allowed REMAIN to continue focussing on the economy even when it was obvious it wasn't the Schwerpunkt, refused to run attack ads on Boris even when LEAVE showed no such compunction, and when he had lost he turned to his aides and said "Why should I do the hard shit?".
C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la politique...
[1] In the 70's the referendum electorate was chosen to maximise the "Yes" vote: the Forces were strongly for and they were specifically included. In 2015/6 the electorate was chosen to minimise the "Yes" vote: the non-Commonwealth EU residents in UK were disencluded and UK residents overseas were partially disencluded - the latter unnecessarily, incidentally.
If the French think you have made your bicycles have rounder wheels, but don't know how you got that edge, then the investment is going to pay off for longer.
Hence the salaries athletes are on will be half that nearer I suggest £35k.
Also, I disagree on your point about the timing. As I said at and before the time, the danger was that an early referendum, before any renegotiation, would have produced a Remain result which would have cemented in the ever-closer union of the Lisbon Treaty. At least that's the way it seemed at the time.
The difference between the best ball strikers is technically repeatable motions and they get that via massive amount of smart practice. I would suggest the marginal gains could come from gaining and repeating the "perfect" technique.
It seems to me that is what the likes of the diving is all about. I am going to guess that the rowing as well as fitness, in those team rowing events marginal gains are being made by perfecting stroke technique and timing.
The PB/Polling Matters team also discusses a recent YouGov poll showing Margaret Thatcher as Britain’s most popular Prime Minister since she took office
I just looked up Adam Gemili holding company and he is getting in £250k+ a year total separate from his funding etc.
Bankers bonus directive is one of those issues that waits until we leave the EU - too much political backlash to do beforehand.
Defend a NATO ally if Russia invaded it
Would have trident nuclear submarines but without the nukes
Wouldn't use drones
Wouldn't deploy the SAS unless parliament had a say on it
Doesn't agree with the shoot to kill policy
Would hand over the Falklands to Argentina
Anything else I've missed? What next British troops have to use blank rounds, the enemy won't know we can just scare them off with the noise?
It's a good thing the guy and his politics is unelectable, he's quite frankly dangerous.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-37118850
We did the right thing - the more time goes by the more certain of this I am.
Unfortunate 4th for Adam Gemili, great effort.
Wow...that photo is too close to call.
2 x Boxing
1-2 x Kicking in PJs
1 x Individual Spirit Kayak
Mr Mobot
Womens Hockey
(outside shot) Womens Triathlon
(outside shot) Tom Daley
U.K. 22 21. 13
China 20. 16. 22
Could we really get silver in the medals table positions on top of all of this? What a great result for Team GB and all their collective efforts that would be. (Even the ones in posh sports)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/37127398
Well in the PJ kicky fighting I think this sort of action should earn at least some sort of penalty or even overall disqualification.
Congratulations to Jade Jones in retaining her London taekwondo title - 14/19, not bad at all.
Running is very tactical, especially as distances get longer. I'd imagine there is scope for analysis to discover the best tactics in various scenarios: whether or when to chase the pace or sit back in the pack, for instance. Runners also seem prone to injury so perhaps funded access to specialist clinics, or even better running shoes, might be in order.
One advantage the Americans have is that swimming is a competitive sport at schools level, so talent can be identified early. But swimming looks like a soft target, though not necessarily a cheap one if we need to build more pools. Perhaps the new chancellor could fund it as a Keynesian stimulus.
Phelps is lost in the mens next time round, though Ledecky will make the long distance women's a USA gold fest till 2028 or so.
Alluding to Brexit, Bell declared: “The English were better at independence than the Scottish.”
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/08/when-it-comes-brexit-nicola-sturgeon-has-overplayed-her-hand
Adding to the gaiety of public service
Glad to see Jade Jones retained her Olympic title. Still suspect the Chinese will pass us in the end, but it's still a very good Games.
Just a week until F1 returns.
"shoplifting garden gnomes." ?
Is this a wind-up?
If China do overtake TeamGB it won't be by much. There are only three days of competition left.
I would be pleased if we do retain 2nd position in the table, but also have some sympathy for the Chinese athletes who I suspect will get an almighty (and unfair) earbashing when they get back home from their masters, on top of the horsewhipping they've had since the age of three.
I trust your slumbers were undisturbed by visions of new Olympic sports?
Jeremy Corbyn has insisted he can reach out beyond his core supporters as his leadership rival said Labour was not on a "trajectory to win power".
At a hustings event, he said his policies would win over "some people that have been tempted to vote Tory".
He also would not commit the UK to providing military help to a Nato ally, should it be invaded by Russia.
Whilst we are in NATO, Corbyn can't just decide he doesn't fancy article 5.
Somebody should wake him up from 1974 and tell him that his beloved Russians are no longer Communists and there are no more soviets.
I was hoping for Ladies pairs shackled synchronized massage from the 10m high board. Might have happened, might not .... can't bloody remember.
One can but dream ....