Let me start by pointing out that we didn't have a 'boom' let alone a 'dizzy and unstable' one.
What we had a was a debt fueled consumption bubble.
That's something of a distinction without a difference.
You're wrong there's a great deal of difference between a boom and a bubble.
They may have some outward similarities - increasing house prices and rising personal expenditure for example.
But a boom has genuine and strong wealth creation funding it whereas a bubble is funded by stealing the wealth of the future.
Home ownership levels were not falling during the 1980s as they were in the 2000s were they.
So can I just be clear - are you saying that we should or should not have had a PSBR of 8% of GDP prior to the crash?
Because that was actually the point I was making, and we seem to be wandering away from it. Given the economic situation, I would argue we should not have been running a deficit as a nation. That is why it was a 'distinction without a difference.'
I would certainly agree with you on the madness of the 'borrow and bribe' strategy of the past 15 years.
That it started when household borrowing was running at over £100bn per year is all the more reprehensible.
It should be noted though that Cameron and Osborne saw little wrong with the economic strategy before the recession - they just wanted to be the ones doing the borrowing and bribing instead of Labour rather than bringing borrow and bribe to an end.
But my original point was that people would prefer themselves to be the beneficiaries of the government bribes rather than some other group.
Not seen any speculation re where it came from , only that Scottish Government should have proper processes and prevent leaks. Plenty of civil servants would have been privy to it, and many of them will be anti SNP.
I agree that they should leave leaks to us Welsh Malc, although personally I prefer daffodils.
But this does seem closer to the SNP leadership than the civil service. I think it's anti-Salmond not anti-ScotNat.
Good chance ydoethur given our propensity for turnips. Someone with an axe to grind and three will be plenty of them..
PS must dash off to get ready to go to airshow and weather miserable, grey and raining after it being blue sky and sun yesterday.
Mr. Jezziah, then why don't Labour and Corbyn have consistent and significant leads over the Conservatives and May?
In a two way contest, Corbyn comes third, behind 'don't know'.
Miliband, at times, had significant leads over Cameron's Conservatives. Corbyn faces a far more inept leader, with a far more split party, struggling with a far more difficult situation. And he's doing worse than Miliband.
The Tories have Brexit boosting their support, Labour centrists have been tearing the party apart for years, there may have been problems under Miliband but Corbyn's Labour opponents have been conducting open warfare. Yet still he actually did better than Miliband.
Hard to judge on the polls outside the election period. When the rules kick in for TV impartiality that is when Labour can make its case to the public and we are starting much closer than last time.
The Tories are at their most popular since the mid-80s, scoring around 40%. Its mathematically impossible for Labour to be miles ahead if the Tories are this popular. And with society as polarised and divided as it now is I don't see a popular Tory party as the fault of Labour just as I don't see a popular Labour Party as the fault of the Tories.
Of course following this rationale utterly kyboshes the "we would have won had it not been for Labour MPs/Labour head office/Labour General Secretary betraying Corbyn in the election" argument that keeps going around. The Tories added nearly 2m votes nationally vs 2015. Whilst there is no direct correlation between any national vote tallies and seats won, it would be unlikely for the party in power to add that many more votes and NOT expect to win.
Labour did sensationally well getting that result (and a few hundred votes different in a dozen seats would have made it very different...). Claims that He would have won had Stephen Kinnock not wanted to lose are laughable.
Though that begs the question why are the Tories so popular? Its clearly not from their unity.
So is it because 40% of the country thinks they're doing a very good job? Is it because 40% of the country is willing to vote for them just because of Brexit? Or is it because Corbyn is that antithetical to 40% of the country that they're rallying to the Tories to stop him?
Of it's the last one then yes Labour could do better.
Even if it was the last one and the Tories lost 5% from Labour replacing their leader that wouldn't matter if Labour also lost 5%, the calculation isn't just votes the Tories gain from him but also the votes Labour gain from him.
If the Tories lose 5% to Labour, while Labour lose 5% to the Greens then absolutely it makes a difference.
I am opposed to borrowing whoever does it unless it is to pay for things that will show a financial return higher than the interest on the debt. This is because borrowing for any other reason is a massive transfer of wealth from the poor (via taxation) to the rich (via interest payments). Last year, the central government spent more on debt interest than on education (although that's only 50-odd% of total education spending). More on debt interest than defence, or transport. It's madness.
Corbyn's proposal to borrow £300 billion for infrastructure was not without its merits, but the real problem was of course that he would have had to borrow much the same to renationalise utilities (water alone around £90 billion - they said it would be free) and then need to borrow more to run them at the huge loss their plans would have entailed. Now that is not smart economics, or politics, or the way to achieve social justice.
However, in the case of the last eight years it was perhaps not altogether the Conservatives' fault that they had to borrow so much. When a government is running an 8% deficit at the top of a dizzy and unstable boom just before tax revenues implode to pay for current account spending there is going to be a major headache for whoever is in power. That may well be true for the next major recession as well.
And yet Labour are planning essentially the same again. To misquote Talleyrand, they have learned nothing and remembered nothing.
If the borrowing is for infrastructure, then the government (and hence the public in general) gains an asset. If the asset also makes some cash that pays the interest bill, then even better.
When the government's £1.5 trillion debt is next refinanced, as it will have to be, it will almost certainly be at far higher interest rates than we currently pay. The next generation will inherit a time bomb of govenment finances.
It's being refinanced all the time, we're not on a 30 year fix rate for the whole thing. Bond sales happen continuously.
We are currently paying £52bn annually on c.£1.8trn of debt, which is about 3.5%. It wouldn’t take that rate to go up by much, for debt repayment consume 10% of the entire government budget. Don’t also forget £425 bn of printed money Quantitative easing which also needs to be undone. If we don’t get a serious dose if inflation, it’s going to define the public finances for the next two decades. Thanks Gordon.
Let me start by pointing out that we didn't have a 'boom' let alone a 'dizzy and unstable' one.
What we had a was a debt fueled consumption bubble.
That's something of a distinction without a difference.
You're wrong there's a great deal of difference between a boom and a bubble.
They may have some outward similarities - increasing house prices and rising personal expenditure for example.
But a boom has genuine and strong wealth creation funding it whereas a bubble is funded by stealing the wealth of the future.
Home ownership levels were not falling during the 1980s as they were in the 2000s were they.
So can I just be clear - are you saying that we should or should not have had a PSBR of 8% of GDP prior to the crash?
Because that was actually the point I was making, and we seem to be wandering away from it. Given the economic situation, I would argue we should not have been running a deficit as a nation. That is why it was a 'distinction without a difference.'
I would certainly agree with you on the madness of the 'borrow and bribe' strategy of the past 15 years.
That it started when household borrowing was running at over £100bn per year is all the more reprehensible.
It should be noted though that Cameron and Osborne saw little wrong with the economic strategy before the recession - they just wanted to be the ones doing the borrowing and bribing instead of Labour rather than bringing borrow and bribe to an end.
But my original point was that people would prefer themselves to be the beneficiaries of the government bribes rather than some other group.
And that's what Corbyn offered to many people.
I don't agree that Cameron and Osborne saw little wrong, their whole theme was "sharing the proceeds of growth". The only reason I believe that Cameron and Osborne pledged to match Labour was not because they thought Labour was doing the right but because they thought they needed to be elected first in order to then change course ultimately.
Same as Brown matched Ken Clarke at first but Brown was not the same as Ken Clarke.
Let me start by pointing out that we didn't have a 'boom' let alone a 'dizzy and unstable' one.
What we had a was a debt fueled consumption bubble.
That's something of a distinction without a difference.
You're wrong there's a great deal of difference between a boom and a bubble.
They may have some outward similarities - increasing house prices and rising personal expenditure for example.
But a boom has genuine and strong wealth creation funding it whereas a bubble is funded by stealing the wealth of the future.
Home ownership levels were not falling during the 1980s as they were in the 2000s were they.
So can I just be clear - are you saying that we should or should not have had a PSBR of 8% of GDP prior to the crash?
Because that was actually the point I was making, and we seem to be wandering away from it. Given the economic situation, I would argue we should not have been running a deficit as a nation. That is why it was a 'distinction without a difference.'
I would certainly agree with you on the madness of the 'borrow and bribe' strategy of the past 15 years.
That it started when household borrowing was running at over £100bn per year is all the more reprehensible.
It should be noted though that Cameron and Osborne saw little wrong with the economic strategy before the recession - they just wanted to be the ones doing the borrowing and bribing instead of Labour rather than bringing borrow and bribe to an end.
But my original point was that people would prefer themselves to be the beneficiaries of the government bribes rather than some other group.
And that's what Corbyn offered to many people.
I see. I think we were at cross purposes. I was talking about the economics, you were talking about the politics (the 'free pony' strategy).
The concern I have is that massive increases in borrowing whoever does it and for whatever reasons are likely to have grim repercussions in the medium term, unless all of it is put to productive use, which Corbyn was officially proposing and unofficially was never going to happen.
I am opposed to borrowing whoever does it unless it is to pay for things that will show a financial return higher than the interest on the debt. This is because borrowing for any other reason is a massive transfer of wealth from the poor (via taxation) to the rich (via interest payments). Last year, the central government spent more on debt interest than on education (although that's only 50-odd% of total education spending). More on debt interest than defence, or transport. It's madness.
Corbyn's proposal to borrow £300 billion for infrastructure was not without its merits, but the real problem was of course that he would have had to borrow much the same to renationalise utilities (water alone around £90 billion - they said it would be free) and then need to borrow more to run them at the huge loss their plans would have entailed. Now that is not smart economics, or politics, or the way to achieve social justice.
However, in the case of the last eight years it was perhaps not altogether the Conservatives' fault that they had to borrow so much. When a government is running an 8% deficit at the top of a dizzy and unstable boom just before tax revenues implode to pay for current account spending there is going to be a major headache for whoever is in power. That may well be true for the next major recession as well.
And yet Labour are planning essentially the same again. To misquote Talleyrand, they have learned nothing and remembered nothing.
If the borrowing is for infrastructure, then the government (and hence the public in general) gains an asset. If the asset also makes some cash that pays the interest bill, then even better.
When the government's £1.5 trillion debt is next refinanced, as it will have to be, it will almost certainly be at far higher interest rates than we currently pay. The next generation will inherit a time bomb of govenment finances.
It's being refinanced all the time, we're not on a 30 year fix rate for the whole thing. Bond sales happen continuously.
We are currently paying £52bn annually on c.£1.8trn of debt, which is about 3.5%. It wouldn’t take that rate to go up by much, for debt repayment consume 10% of the entire government budget. Don’t also forget £425 bn of printed money Quantitative easing which also needs to be undone. If we don’t get a serious dose if inflation, it’s going to define the public finances for the next two decades. Thanks Gordon.
Why does it need to be undone? The pressures for deflation aren't going away and so long as QE doesn't continue it can just remain as having been done.
What we need is an competent captain who is also a reasonable batsman.
Durham - Paul Collingwood Derby - Billy Godleman Essex - Ryan ten Doeschate (Dutch) Glamorgan - Michael Hogan (Aussie) Gloucestershire - Chris Dent Hampshire - James Vince Kent - Sam Billings Lancashire - Liam Livingstone Leicestershire- Paul Horton Middlesex - Dawid Malan Northants - Alex Wakely Notts - Steven Mullaney Somerset - Tom Abell Surrey - Rory Burns Sussex - Ben Brown Worcestershire - Joe Leach, injured, Moeen Ali. Warwickshire - Jeetan Patel (NZ) Yorkshire - Steven Patterson
What we need is an competent captain who is also a reasonable batsman.
Durham - Paul Collingwood Derby - Billy Godleman Essex - Ryan ten Doeschate (Dutch) Glamorgan - Michael Hogan (Aussie) Gloucestershire - Chris Dent Hampshire - James Vince Kent - Sam Billings Lancashire - Liam Livingstone Leicestershire- Paul Horton Middlesex - Dawid Malan Northants - Alex Wakely Notts - Steven Mullaney Somerset - Tom Abell Surrey - Rory Burns Sussex - Ben Brown Worcestershire - Joe Leach, injured, Moeen Ali. Warwickshire - Jeetan Patel (NZ) Yorkshire - Steven Patterson
Wakely or Colly, then.
Presumably the latter has officially retired from test cricket?
Lewis Hamilton is 4.2 to qualify on pole at Monza. In P3 he was only .08” slower than Vettel, and rumour has it that the new Mercedes engine has a “Party Plus” mode for Q3 that we never saw at a wet Spa last weekend.
It will probably be a good value loser, but I’m on for small stakes.
What we need is an competent captain who is also a reasonable batsman.
Durham - Paul Collingwood Derby - Billy Godleman Essex - Ryan ten Doeschate (Dutch) Glamorgan - Michael Hogan (Aussie) Gloucestershire - Chris Dent Hampshire - James Vince Kent - Sam Billings Lancashire - Liam Livingstone Leicestershire- Paul Horton Middlesex - Dawid Malan Northants - Alex Wakely Notts - Steven Mullaney Somerset - Tom Abell Surrey - Rory Burns Sussex - Ben Brown Worcestershire - Joe Leach, injured, Moeen Ali. Warwickshire - Jeetan Patel (NZ) Yorkshire - Steven Patterson
Wakely or Colly, then.
Presumably the latter has officially retired from test cricket?
Yes.
I would have said though that Abell and Burns are better bets than Wakely, who can't buy a run and whose side were hovering near the bottom of Division 2 until yesterday.
Radio Yerevan Jokes occupy a niche in Russian culture roughly analogous to knock knock jokes in British culture.
I know, a regular Q&A feature on Radio Yerevan but it wasn't remotely amusing apparently.
It would be interesting to have a perspective from Scotland on this.
From my admittedly partial information, it seems as though Nicola Sturgeon has behaved correctly.
Assuming that you're replying to a different post, the general non partisan view in Scotland would probably also be that NS has behaved correctly. The SNP members' view would also tend to be that she's behaved correctly, but that Salmond also has the right to challenge the process that got him to where he is.
Talk of an SNP civil war (now officialy downgraded to 'turmoil' by BBC Scotland) is...er...somewhat hysterical, and can be filed under the wish being the father of the thought.
It’s difficult to see what else NS could have done, as First Minister she has to be impartial, but more importantly to be seen to be impartial given her close relationship to Salmond.
Salmond of course has the right to challenge his accusers, his mistake was to do so overtly and publically, crowdsourcing for a legal challenge to the process *looks* to outsiders like a powerful man trying to use process to shut down the investigation, rather than allowing the allegations to be tested in court. He should have gone down the Sturgeon route of saying nothing.
Not if you are from Scotland and understand how the unionists have tried to stitch him up by leaking this. Difficult for Sturgeon but it was wrong that some unionist working for government gave it to the papers.
There are still Unionists in senior positions in the Scottish government? Who and where?
Civil service is full of them and Mundell has thousands working for Westminster in Edinburgh
But this leak appears to have come from Sturgeon's private office, or the executive. The only other source might be the police.
Not seen any speculation re where it came from , only that Scottish Government should have proper processes and prevent leaks. Plenty of civil servants would have been privy to it, and many of them will be anti SNP.
It's the biggest domestic story in Scotland in years. It was ALWAYS going to leak.
Salmond should just thank his lucky stars Cliff he doesn't have a BBC helicopter hovering over his house....
How come he is having to crowdfund this, what happened to all the money he has earned over the years including of course most recently from Vlad.
He is crowdfunding because he is playing politics not seeking justice.
From his RT income alone, he could afford it - so there is no other reason for putting the begging bowl out other than to grandstand and gain attention.
How come he is having to crowdfund this, what happened to all the money he has earned over the years including of course most recently from Vlad.
He is crowdfunding because he is playing politics not seeking justice.
From his RT income alone, he could afford it - so there is no other reason for putting the begging bowl out other than to grandstand and gain attention.
But you don't win court cases that way.
Which begs the question, who are the idiots giving him money.
How come he is having to crowdfund this, what happened to all the money he has earned over the years including of course most recently from Vlad.
He is crowdfunding because he is playing politics not seeking justice.
From his RT income alone, he could afford it - so there is no other reason for putting the begging bowl out other than to grandstand and gain attention.
But you don't win court cases that way.
Which begs the question, who are the idiots giving him money.
How come he is having to crowdfund this, what happened to all the money he has earned over the years including of course most recently from Vlad.
He is crowdfunding because he is playing politics not seeking justice.
From his RT income alone, he could afford it - so there is no other reason for putting the begging bowl out other than to grandstand and gain attention.
But you don't win court cases that way.
Which begs the question, who are the idiots giving him money.
Those showing solidarity against the southern establishment....
Greetings from Riga.lovely art nouveau here. Thanks to @old_labour for linking to that daily mail article. All my files are at home but if you go through all the companies at 29 Harley street, then you will see is links to the Finchley road network.
How come he is having to crowdfund this, what happened to all the money he has earned over the years including of course most recently from Vlad.
He is crowdfunding because he is playing politics not seeking justice.
From his RT income alone, he could afford it - so there is no other reason for putting the begging bowl out other than to grandstand and gain attention.
But you don't win court cases that way.
Which begs the question, who are the idiots giving him money.
Corbyn & his gang of thugs know this is their only chance of creating their own Cuba without the sunshine in the UK.
They've spent their lives in the cold being laughed at by all but a tiny minority and yet somehow they find themselves in control of the Labour party with a chance of power.
None of the old mob are going to go anywhere until after 2022.
Apart from anything else, they must love all the trappings they get funded by Short money. They must dream & lust after ministerial salaries, cars, houses etc.
You mean Corbynism isn't going to make the sun shine as well?
A steelier captain would have told Jennings not to waste that review.
Jennnings will likely still get the Oval though, as there is no blindingly obvious replacement... and it would raise the issue of Cook. Drop them both, IMO.
I hadn’t realised just how self indulgent we are: “England's batsmen have reviewed 12 decisions during this series. None of them have been overturned....” Makes Broad look like a master of the system.
I know hammed has really struggled over the past couple of seasons. Is it that he has a weakness that has been exposed or something else? Because his short go in the test side he looked really good.
I know hammed has really struggled over the past couple of seasons. Is it that he has a weakness that has been exposed or something else? Because his short go in the test side he looked really good.
Finger injury seems to have caused his technique to implode. I don't think he's scored a century since he played a Test.
For the Oval, especially if we win this match, surely it's time for Burns and Denly to have a go. They can hardly be worse.
I know hammed has really struggled over the past couple of seasons. Is it that he has a weakness that has been exposed or something else? Because his short go in the test side he looked really good.
Very young, and needs time. Don’t know if it’s anything fundamental as much as lost confidence - and it’s not as though the current CC schedule gives anyone much of a chance to play themselves back in. Send him off to Australia for a season ?
I thought him nailed on as a Cook replacement, and would love to see him rediscover form.
Eh? Field has been the MP for decades. Was he parachuted in by New Labour? Er, no.
That crack was probably aimed not at Field himself but at Stephen Twigg or Angela Eagle who were both parachuted in to Liverpool seats. Possibly others too since Lansman says Merseyside.
Here's the problem - it hasn't got any political integrity underpinning it. Power for powers sake.
"Franks considered creating an anti-Brexit party but changed his mind after polling indicated greater demand for a party closer in outlook to UKIP than Anna Soubry and Chuka Umunna. Insiders cited figures like Cummings' willingness to interact with United for Change as evidence they were not looking to be the party of Remain."
A steelier captain would have told Jennings not to waste that review.
Jennnings will likely still get the Oval though, as there is no blindingly obvious replacement... and it would raise the issue of Cook. Drop them both, IMO.
I hadn’t realised just how self indulgent we are: “England's batsmen have reviewed 12 decisions during this series. None of them have been overturned....” Makes Broad look like a master of the system.
Is it self indulgent? Realistically the batsmen get 2 reviews per 80 overs in a test and there is no penalty for a review turned down other than losing it. Given many wickets can't be reviewed (catches for instance) and there's only 10 wickets maximum possibly less per 80 overs it almost makes sense to review every LBW.
A steelier captain would have told Jennings not to waste that review.
Jennnings will likely still get the Oval though, as there is no blindingly obvious replacement... and it would raise the issue of Cook. Drop them both, IMO.
I hadn’t realised just how self indulgent we are: “England's batsmen have reviewed 12 decisions during this series. None of them have been overturned....” Makes Broad look like a master of the system.
Is it self indulgent? Realistically the batsmen get 2 reviews per 80 overs in a test and there is no penalty for a review turned down other than losing it. Given many wickets can't be reviewed (catches for instance) and there's only 10 wickets maximum possibly less per 80 overs it almost makes sense to review every LBW.
Reviews are no longer reset at the new ball.
So yes. The idea of reviews is to correct a howler, e.g. an LBW where the batsman hit it or a catch off the thigh pad, not to feed the insecurities of cricketers who can't accept they've been beaten.
Shane Watson was a truly awful offender, but England are trying to outdo him.
Sanders won New Hampshire in 2016 and lost Iowa by less than 1%, if he wins both those states in 2020 he will almost certainly be Democratic nominee regardless of what happens in South Carolina which Hillary won by well above her national total in the last Democratic presidential primaries
Eh? Field has been the MP for decades. Was he parachuted in by New Labour? Er, no.
That crack was probably aimed not at Field himself but at Stephen Twigg or Angela Eagle who were both parachuted in to Liverpool seats. Possibly others too since Lansman says Merseyside.
What we need is an competent captain who is also a reasonable batsman.
We need two decent openers. The captaincy is of far less importance.
It looks like having the captaincy is affecting Root's batting.
Plus he's not very good at it.
He averages 45 as captain against 55 in the ranks. Even that flatters him as it includes a series against the Windies where he averaged 60. He has only scored 2 centuries as captain, both in his first four matches. In his last 13 matches he averages under 40 and hasn't scored a single century.
Let me start by pointing out that we didn't have a 'boom' let alone a 'dizzy and unstable' one.
What we had a was a debt fueled consumption bubble.
That's something of a distinction without a difference.
You're wrong there's a great deal of difference between a boom and a bubble.
They may have some outward similarities - increasing house prices and rising personal expenditure for example.
But a boom has genuine and strong wealth creation funding it whereas a bubble is funded by stealing the wealth of the future.
Home ownership levels were not falling during the 1980s as they were in the 2000s were they.
So can I just be clear - are you saying that we should or should not have had a PSBR of 8% of GDP prior to the crash?
Because that was actually the point I was making, and we seem to be wandering away from it. Given the economic situation, I would argue we should not have been running a deficit as a nation. That is why it was a 'distinction without a difference.'
I would certainly agree with you on the madness of the 'borrow and bribe' strategy of the past 15 years.
That it started when household borrowing was running at over £100bn per year is all the more reprehensible.
It should be noted though that Cameron and Osborne saw little wrong with the economic strategy before the recession - they just wanted to be the ones doing the borrowing and bribing instead of Labour rather than bringing borrow and bribe to an end.
But my original point was that people would prefer themselves to be the beneficiaries of the government bribes rather than some other group.
And that's what Corbyn offered to many people.
I don't agree that Cameron and Osborne saw little wrong, their whole theme was "sharing the proceeds of growth". The only reason I believe that Cameron and Osborne pledged to match Labour was not because they thought Labour was doing the right but because they thought they needed to be elected first in order to then change course ultimately.
Same as Brown matched Ken Clarke at first but Brown was not the same as Ken Clarke.
The problem with the plan to 'share the proceeds of growth' is that is assumed there would be growth with proceeds to share.
Cameron and Osborne should have been demolishing Brown's economic strategy and its dependence upon household borrowing instead of thinking of what they wanted to spend money on.
Eh? Field has been the MP for decades. Was he parachuted in by New Labour? Er, no.
That crack was probably aimed not at Field himself but at Stephen Twigg or Angela Eagle who were both parachuted in to Liverpool seats. Possibly others too since Lansman says Merseyside.
If I were a Scouse LibDem activist, I'd google every Labour MP's name together with the word "parachute". I'm not but I do recall there was a lot of fuss from that part of the world in the New Labour years.
A steelier captain would have told Jennings not to waste that review.
Jennnings will likely still get the Oval though, as there is no blindingly obvious replacement... and it would raise the issue of Cook. Drop them both, IMO.
I hadn’t realised just how self indulgent we are: “England's batsmen have reviewed 12 decisions during this series. None of them have been overturned....” Makes Broad look like a master of the system.
Is it self indulgent? Realistically the batsmen get 2 reviews per 80 overs in a test and there is no penalty for a review turned down other than losing it. Given many wickets can't be reviewed (catches for instance) and there's only 10 wickets maximum possibly less per 80 overs it almost makes sense to review every LBW.
Reviews are no longer reset at the new ball.
So yes. The idea of reviews is to correct a howler, e.g. an LBW where the batsman hit it or a catch off the thigh pad, not to feed the insecurities of cricketers who can't accept they've been beaten.
Shane Watson was a truly awful offender, but England are trying to outdo him.
Even if the reviews are no longer reset it still is worth doing a review even on an outside chance it will be reversed. It doesn't matter if that's not the idea.
It reminds me of Shane Warne who appealed in the 90s vociferously for anything that hit the pads even if it was never going to be out.
A review unused at the end of the innings does you no favours.
What we need is an competent captain who is also a reasonable batsman.
We need two decent openers. The captaincy is of far less importance.
It looks like having the captaincy is affecting Root's batting.
Plus he's not very good at it.
While true, those are second order concerns. With a couple of decent openers occupying the crease and scoring runs, literally everything else becomes easier.
Let me start by pointing out that we didn't have a 'boom' let alone a 'dizzy and unstable' one.
What we had a was a debt fueled consumption bubble.
That's something of a distinction without a difference.
You're wrong there's a great deal of difference between a boom and a bubble.
They may have some outward similarities - increasing house prices and rising personal expenditure for example.
But a boom has genuine and strong wealth creation funding it whereas a bubble is funded by stealing the wealth of the future.
Home ownership levels were not falling during the 1980s as they were in the 2000s were they.
So can I just be clear - are you saying that we should or should not have had a PSBR of 8% of GDP prior to the crash?
Because that was actually the point I was making, and we seem to be wandering away from it. Given the economic situation, I would argue we should not have been running a deficit as a nation. That is why it was a 'distinction without a difference.'
I would certainly agree with you on the madness of the 'borrow and bribe' strategy of the past 15 years.
That it started when household borrowing was running at over £100bn per year is all the more reprehensible.
It should be noted though that Cameron and Osborne saw little wrong with the economic strategy before the recession - they just wanted to be the ones doing the borrowing and bribing instead of Labour rather than bringing borrow and bribe to an end.
But my original point was that people would prefer themselves to be the beneficiaries of the government bribes rather than some other group.
And that's what Corbyn offered to many people.
Same as Brown matched Ken Clarke at first but Brown was not the same as Ken Clarke.
The problem with the plan to 'share the proceeds of growth' is that is assumed there would be growth with proceeds to share.
Cameron and Osborne should have been demolishing Brown's economic strategy and its dependence upon household borrowing instead of thinking of what they wanted to spend money on.
Perhaps, but they were dealing with the mess left by inept leadership of the opposition under Hague, IDS and Howard and a succession of shadow chancellors who cried wolf about the wrong issues.
If Clarke had been leading the opposition in the 97-2001 the Tories could have kept their credibility on the economy.
What we need is an competent captain who is also a reasonable batsman.
We need two decent openers. The captaincy is of far less importance.
It looks like having the captaincy is affecting Root's batting.
Plus he's not very good at it.
While true, those are second order concerns. With a couple of decent openers occupying the crease and scoring runs, literally everything else becomes easier.
Save for Strauss most England captains (of recent ilk) form goes south
What we need is an competent captain who is also a reasonable batsman.
We need two decent openers. The captaincy is of far less importance.
It looks like having the captaincy is affecting Root's batting.
Plus he's not very good at it.
While true, those are second order concerns. With a couple of decent openers occupying the crease and scoring runs, literally everything else becomes easier.
But where are those decent openers ?
A new batsman captain could improve Root's batting plus the captaincy plus would give the opportunity to see what the new player could do.
Kicking off with a "My tweets aren't anti-semitic they were taken out of context" interview with the person who organised it and now hee haw people turning up for its launch.
What we need is an competent captain who is also a reasonable batsman.
We need two decent openers. The captaincy is of far less importance.
It looks like having the captaincy is affecting Root's batting.
Plus he's not very good at it.
While true, those are second order concerns. With a couple of decent openers occupying the crease and scoring runs, literally everything else becomes easier.
Save for Strauss most England captains (of recent ilk) form goes south
Strauss' form was pretty far south by the end. Who could forget his awful decision to leave straight ones in every innings of his final series?
But it is true the only England captain in the last forty years to perform notably better with the bat while captain was Gooch.
I also think Cook just needs a rest. He's played every Test for twelve years, he's captained in a large number of them, and I can imagine it's become a hopeless grind for him. Give him the winter off and see if he bounces back.
Let me start by pointing out that we didn't have a 'boom' let alone a 'dizzy and unstable' one.
What we had a was a debt fueled consumption bubble.
That's something of a distinction without a difference.
You're wrong there's a great deal of difference between a boom and a bubble.
They may have some outward similarities - increasing house prices and rising personal expenditure for example.
But a boom has genuine and strong wealth creation funding it whereas a bubble is funded by stealing the wealth of the future.
Home ownership levels were not falling during the 1980s as they were in the 2000s were they.
So can I just be clear - are you saying that we should or erence.'
I would certainly agree with you on the madness of the 'borrow and bribe' strategy of the past 15 years.
That it started when household borrowing was running at over £100bn per year is all the more reprehensible.
It should be noted though that Cameron and Osborne saw little wrong with the economic strategy before the recession - they just wanted to be the ones doing the borrowing and bribing instead of Labour rather than bringing borrow and bribe to an end.
But my original point was that people would prefer themselves to be the beneficiaries of the government bribes rather than some other group.
And that's what Corbyn offered to many people.
Same as Brown matched Ken Clarke at first but Brown was not the same as Ken Clarke.
The problem with the plan to 'share the proceeds of growth' is that is assumed there would be growth with proceeds to share.
Cameron and Osborne should have been demolishing Brown's economic strategy and its dependence upon household borrowing instead of thinking of what they wanted to spend money on.
Perhaps, but they were dealing with the mess left by inept leadership of the opposition under Hague, IDS and Howard and a succession of shadow chancellors who cried wolf about the wrong issues.
If Clarke had been leading the opposition in the 97-2001 the Tories could have kept their credibility on the economy.
Clarke would have lost the 2001 general election against Blair and he would not have won the 2005 general election either although he had an outside chance of getting a hung parliament
What we need is an competent captain who is also a reasonable batsman.
We need two decent openers. The captaincy is of far less importance.
It looks like having the captaincy is affecting Root's batting.
Plus he's not very good at it.
He averages 45 as captain against 55 in the ranks. Even that flatters him as it includes a series against the Windies where he averaged 60. He has only scored 2 centuries as captain, both in his first four matches. In his last 13 matches he averages under 40 and hasn't scored a single century.
And his captaincy is a bit rubbish as well.
What's Root's average in ODIs ie when he doesn't have the captaincy ?
I remember him scoring a couple of centuries this summer.
What we need is an competent captain who is also a reasonable batsman.
We need two decent openers. The captaincy is of far less importance.
It looks like having the captaincy is affecting Root's batting.
Plus he's not very good at it.
While true, those are second order concerns. With a couple of decent openers occupying the crease and scoring runs, literally everything else becomes easier.
But where are those decent openers ?
A new batsman captain could improve Root's batting plus the captaincy plus would give the opportunity to see what the new player could do.
Burns has to have a go. Denly deserves a chance as well.
One cricketer who won't be mentioned but who should be moving onto the radar is Miles Hammond. I saw him bat at Cheltenham against Archer, Jordan and Briggs - arguably the best county attack outside Surrey or Essex - and he scored a very fine century showing exemplary patience and discipline. He is though still very young and he did flash at a couple from the support bowlers (notably Wiese). His achievement was put in perspective by the fact that when he was out Archer blew away the last seven wickets for 11 runs.
What we need is an competent captain who is also a reasonable batsman.
We need two decent openers. The captaincy is of far less importance.
It looks like having the captaincy is affecting Root's batting.
Plus he's not very good at it.
While true, those are second order concerns. With a couple of decent openers occupying the crease and scoring runs, literally everything else becomes easier.
But where are those decent openers ?
A new batsman captain could improve Root's batting plus the captaincy plus would give the opportunity to see what the new player could do.
Burns has to have a go. Denly deserves a chance as well.
One cricketer who won't be mentioned but who should be moving onto the radar is Miles Hammond. I saw him bat at Cheltenham against Archer, Jordan and Briggs - arguably the best county attack outside Surrey or Essex - and he scored a very fine century showing exemplary patience and discipline. He is though still very young and he did flash at a couple from the support bowlers (notably Wiese). His achievement was put in perspective by the fact that when he was out Archer blew away the last seven wickets for 11 runs.
I wonder how quick archer could be if he really gave it his all, cos he seems to manage 90+ with a short run up and often bowling for accuracy in T20 / ODI cricket.
What we need is an competent captain who is also a reasonable batsman.
We need two decent openers. The captaincy is of far less importance.
It looks like having the captaincy is affecting Root's batting.
Plus he's not very good at it.
He averages 45 as captain against 55 in the ranks. Even that flatters him as it includes a series against the Windies where he averaged 60. He has only scored 2 centuries as captain, both in his first four matches. In his last 13 matches he averages under 40 and hasn't scored a single century.
And his captaincy is a bit rubbish as well.
What's Root's average in ODIs ie when he doesn't have the captaincy ?
I remember him scoring a couple of centuries this summer.
51, but in the last year - so while he's struggled in Tests - it's 63 with four centuries in 32 innings.
Some allowance surely has to be made for changes in life expectancy over the decades. Chamberlain and Churchill became PM at 68 and 65 respectively. Attlee and Macmillan were both 62.The present day age equivalent of Chamberlain & Churchill would be close to 80 . Attlee & Macmillan would be in their mid-70s.
Eh? Field has been the MP for decades. Was he parachuted in by New Labour? Er, no.
That crack was probably aimed not at Field himself but at Stephen Twigg or Angela Eagle who were both parachuted in to Liverpool seats. Possibly others too since Lansman says Merseyside.
If I were a Scouse LibDem activist, I'd google every Labour MP's name together with the word "parachute". I'm not but I do recall there was a lot of fuss from that part of the world in the New Labour years.
8 year old article noting that there was a fuss, and that the Labour Maj had decreased over time to about 8k over the Lib Dems.
Since when Luciana Berger has taken it back up to 29k and the Lib Dems have vanished. Lib Dems probably not winning here any time soon. Don't hold your breath...
I would certainly agree with you on the madness of the 'borrow and bribe' strategy of the past 15 years.
That it started when household borrowing was running at over £100bn per year is all the more reprehensible.
It should be noted though that Cameron and Osborne saw little wrong with the economic strategy before the recession - they just wanted to be the ones doing the borrowing and bribing instead of Labour rather than bringing borrow and bribe to an end.
But my original point was that people would prefer themselves to be the beneficiaries of the government bribes rather than some other group.
And that's what Corbyn offered to many people.
Same as Brown matched Ken Clarke at first but Brown was not the same as Ken Clarke.
The problem with the plan to 'share the proceeds of growth' is that is assumed there would be growth with proceeds to share.
Cameron and Osborne should have been demolishing Brown's economic strategy and its dependence upon household borrowing instead of thinking of what they wanted to spend money on.
Perhaps, but they were dealing with the mess left by inept leadership of the opposition under Hague, IDS and Howard and a succession of shadow chancellors who cried wolf about the wrong issues.
If Clarke had been leading the opposition in the 97-2001 the Tories could have kept their credibility on the economy.
Really ? How would he have done that ? By criticising Brown for following his own spending plans ?
It was only after 2001 that Brown went seriously astray and only after home ownership levels started falling while household borrowing soared that the evidence was clear that disaster was inevitable.
And Clarke would have ripped the Conservatives apart with his support for joining the Euro.
What we need is an competent captain who is also a reasonable batsman.
We need two decent openers. The captaincy is of far less importance.
It looks like having the captaincy is affecting Root's batting.
Plus he's not very good at it.
While true, those are second order concerns. With a couple of decent openers occupying the crease and scoring runs, literally everything else becomes easier.
But where are those decent openers ?
A new batsman captain could improve Root's batting plus the captaincy plus would give the opportunity to see what the new player could do.
Burns has to have a go. Denly deserves a chance as well.
One cricketer who won't be mentioned but who should be moving onto the radar is Miles Hammond. I saw him bat at Cheltenham against Archer, Jordan and Briggs - arguably the best county attack outside Surrey or Essex - and he scored a very fine century showing exemplary patience and discipline. He is though still very young and he did flash at a couple from the support bowlers (notably Wiese). His achievement was put in perspective by the fact that when he was out Archer blew away the last seven wickets for 11 runs.
I wonder how quick archer could be if he really gave it his all, cos he seems to manage 90+ with a short run up and often bowling for accuracy in T20 / ODI cricket.
He is a very fine bowler. And a very capable batsman as well of course.
The one thing I would say is I thought at Cheltenham he was a bit prone to bowling short. When he pitched it up he was absolutely lethal.
Perhaps however he has made the calculation that it's better to bowl a little within himself much of the time to prolong his career, bearing in mind he is still quite young.
Some allowance surely has to be made for changes in life expectancy over the decades. Chamberlain and Churchill became PM at 68 and 65 respectively. Attlee and Macmillan were both 62.The present day age equivalent of Chamberlain & Churchill would be close to 80 . Attlee & Macmillan would be in their mid-70s.
And of them all only Attlee had less than six years' experience of actual work in government to draw on.
Edit - by 'government' I meant 'cabinet' (because Attlee had three years as a junior minister as well). Apologies.
What we need is an competent captain who is also a reasonable batsman.
We need two decent openers. The captaincy is of far less importance.
It looks like having the captaincy is affecting Root's batting.
Plus he's not very good at it.
While true, those are second order concerns. With a couple of decent openers occupying the crease and scoring runs, literally everything else becomes easier.
But where are those decent openers ?
A new batsman captain could improve Root's batting plus the captaincy plus would give the opportunity to see what the new player could do.
Burns has to have a go. Denly deserves a chance as well.
One cricketer who won't be mentioned but who should be moving onto the radar is Miles Hammond. I saw him bat at Cheltenham against Archer, Jordan and Briggs - arguably the best county attack outside Surrey or Essex - and he scored a very fine century showing exemplary patience and discipline. He is though still very young and he did flash at a couple from the support bowlers (notably Wiese). His achievement was put in perspective by the fact that when he was out Archer blew away the last seven wickets for 11 runs.
I wonder how quick archer could be if he really gave it his all, cos he seems to manage 90+ with a short run up and often bowling for accuracy in T20 / ODI cricket.
He is a very fine bowler. And a very capable batsman as well of course.
The one thing I would say is I thought at Cheltenham he was a bit prone to bowling short. When he pitched it up he was absolutely lethal.
Perhaps however he has made the calculation that it's better to bowl a little within himself much of the time to prolong his career, bearing in mind he is still quite young.
Another 4 years before he can play for England...losing some of his best years not playing international cricket.
Comments
That it started when household borrowing was running at over £100bn per year is all the more reprehensible.
It should be noted though that Cameron and Osborne saw little wrong with the economic strategy before the recession - they just wanted to be the ones doing the borrowing and bribing instead of Labour rather than bringing borrow and bribe to an end.
But my original point was that people would prefer themselves to be the beneficiaries of the government bribes rather than some other group.
And that's what Corbyn offered to many people.
PS must dash off to get ready to go to airshow and weather miserable, grey and raining after it being blue sky and sun yesterday.
printed moneyQuantitative easing which also needs to be undone. If we don’t get a serious dose if inflation, it’s going to define the public finances for the next two decades. Thanks Gordon.What we need is an competent captain who is also a reasonable batsman.
Same as Brown matched Ken Clarke at first but Brown was not the same as Ken Clarke.
The concern I have is that massive increases in borrowing whoever does it and for whatever reasons are likely to have grim repercussions in the medium term, unless all of it is put to productive use, which Corbyn was officially proposing and unofficially was never going to happen.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-45367861
How come he is having to crowdfund this, what happened to all the money he has earned over the years including of course most recently from Vlad.
Derby - Billy Godleman
Essex - Ryan ten Doeschate (Dutch)
Glamorgan - Michael Hogan (Aussie)
Gloucestershire - Chris Dent
Hampshire - James Vince
Kent - Sam Billings
Lancashire - Liam Livingstone
Leicestershire- Paul Horton
Middlesex - Dawid Malan
Northants - Alex Wakely
Notts - Steven Mullaney
Somerset - Tom Abell
Surrey - Rory Burns
Sussex - Ben Brown
Worcestershire - Joe Leach, injured, Moeen Ali.
Warwickshire - Jeetan Patel (NZ)
Yorkshire - Steven Patterson
Presumably the latter has officially retired from test cricket?
Lewis Hamilton is 4.2 to qualify on pole at Monza. In P3 he was only .08” slower than Vettel, and rumour has it that the new Mercedes engine has a “Party Plus” mode for Q3 that we never saw at a wet Spa last weekend.
It will probably be a good value loser, but I’m on for small stakes.
I would have said though that Abell and Burns are better bets than Wakely, who can't buy a run and whose side were hovering near the bottom of Division 2 until yesterday.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2018/09/italy-pre-qualifying-2018.html
Salmond should just thank
his lucky starsCliff he doesn't have a BBC helicopter hovering over his house....Never has a politician fallen further in my eyes over a year than Salmond has done.
I'll get my coat...
From his RT income alone, he could afford it - so there is no other reason for putting the begging bowl out other than to grandstand and gain attention.
But you don't win court cases that way.
Saudi Arabia is planning to dig a canal that would turn its Gulf rival Qatar into an island.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6120275/Saudi-Arabia-hints-plan-turn-Qatar-island.html
https://twitter.com/BrookesTimes/status/1035841358873980929?s=20
I assume Beckett said 'Don't nominate people you don't want leading the party'?
https://twitter.com/toryfibs/status/1035830533832552449?s=21
Eh? Field has been the MP for decades. Was he parachuted in by New Labour? Er, no.
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1035856659275571200
http://uk.businessinsider.com/inside-simon-franks-united-for-change-new-party-2018-8
https://twitter.com/AndrewBowieMP/status/1035435789423968257
Jennnings will likely still get the Oval though, as there is no blindingly obvious replacement... and it would raise the issue of Cook. Drop them both, IMO.
I hadn’t realised just how self indulgent we are:
“England's batsmen have reviewed 12 decisions during this series. None of them have been overturned....”
Makes Broad look like a master of the system.
For the Oval, especially if we win this match, surely it's time for Burns and Denly to have a go. They can hardly be worse.
Don’t know if it’s anything fundamental as much as lost confidence - and it’s not as though the current CC schedule gives anyone much of a chance to play themselves back in. Send him off to Australia for a season ?
I thought him nailed on as a Cook replacement, and would love to see him rediscover form.
"Franks considered creating an anti-Brexit party but changed his mind after polling indicated greater demand for a party closer in outlook to UKIP than Anna Soubry and Chuka Umunna. Insiders cited figures like Cummings' willingness to interact with United for Change as evidence they were not looking to be the party of Remain."
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/01/south-carolina-democratic-nominee-elections-806104
So yes. The idea of reviews is to correct a howler, e.g. an LBW where the batsman hit it or a catch off the thigh pad, not to feed the insecurities of cricketers who can't accept they've been beaten.
Shane Watson was a truly awful offender, but England are trying to outdo him.
Plus he's not very good at it.
Cameron and Osborne should have been demolishing Brown's economic strategy and its dependence upon household borrowing instead of thinking of what they wanted to spend money on.
One falls down at the slightest puff of wind, and the other is made of cardboard.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/crash-landing-for-labour-candidate-parachuted-into-liverpool-1951962.html
If I were a Scouse LibDem activist, I'd google every Labour MP's name together with the word "parachute". I'm not but I do recall there was a lot of fuss from that part of the world in the New Labour years.
It reminds me of Shane Warne who appealed in the 90s vociferously for anything that hit the pads even if it was never going to be out.
A review unused at the end of the innings does you no favours.
That logic only works for batsmen not bowlers.
If Clarke had been leading the opposition in the 97-2001 the Tories could have kept their credibility on the economy.
A new batsman captain could improve Root's batting plus the captaincy plus would give the opportunity to see what the new player could do.
Kicking off with a "My tweets aren't anti-semitic they were taken out of context" interview with the person who organised it and now hee haw people turning up for its launch.
But it is true the only England captain in the last forty years to perform notably better with the bat while captain was Gooch.
I also think Cook just needs a rest. He's played every Test for twelve years, he's captained in a large number of them, and I can imagine it's become a hopeless grind for him. Give him the winter off and see if he bounces back.
What's Root's average in ODIs ie when he doesn't have the captaincy ?
I remember him scoring a couple of centuries this summer.
One cricketer who won't be mentioned but who should be moving onto the radar is Miles Hammond. I saw him bat at Cheltenham against Archer, Jordan and Briggs - arguably the best county attack outside Surrey or Essex - and he scored a very fine century showing exemplary patience and discipline. He is though still very young and he did flash at a couple from the support bowlers (notably Wiese). His achievement was put in perspective by the fact that when he was out Archer blew away the last seven wickets for 11 runs.
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/303669.html?class=2;template=results;type=batting
Since when Luciana Berger has taken it back up to 29k and the Lib Dems have vanished. Lib Dems probably not winning here any time soon. Don't hold your breath...
It was only after 2001 that Brown went seriously astray and only after home ownership levels started falling while household borrowing soared that the evidence was clear that disaster was inevitable.
And Clarke would have ripped the Conservatives apart with his support for joining the Euro.
The one thing I would say is I thought at Cheltenham he was a bit prone to bowling short. When he pitched it up he was absolutely lethal.
Perhaps however he has made the calculation that it's better to bowl a little within himself much of the time to prolong his career, bearing in mind he is still quite young.
Edit - by 'government' I meant 'cabinet' (because Attlee had three years as a junior minister as well). Apologies.