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.
Attlee had been in Macdonald's 1929 - 31 Government as well as the Wartime Coalition.
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...
LB's majority is immaterial because it is Frank Field's Birkenhead looking for a new candidate but if Labour is reopening a row about parachuted-in candidates, it would be naive not to expect it to be exploited. Our list so far stands at Twigg, A Eagle and Berger.
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.
Yes, as indeed he did do. Clarke said at the time that he would have relaxed his own spending constraints in that parliament because of the strong performance of the economy. Brown stuck rigidly to the plan because he needed to build up some political capital. If the criticism of him had been measured to start with, the Tories would have been in a better position to attack him when he deserved it.
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.
He will also win the court case and also earn more money.
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.
UKIP would have surged in 2001 if Clarke led the Tories too and Blair would still likely have got a majority close to 100
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.
Not quite sure that follows. Just because we are living longer, it does not mean that we aren't still growing old. Yes, health care and medicine in general has improved over that time, but we are still human and that means we grow older and things change. Evolution doesn't work fast enough to have that much of an impact given the changes over the past 100 years.
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
I remember Strauss for being run out by Nasser Hussain 18 runs short of being the 3rd batsman ever to score 2 centuries on test debut. And at Lords.
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.
He will also win the court case and also earn more money.
I am glad that you are privy to all the details of the case and can make a proper assessment of all the evidence and arguments.
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.
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.
Attlee had been in Macdonald's 1929 - 31 Government as well as the Wartime Coalition.
Yes, as a junior minister. You will notice I had corrected the original post.
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
I remember Strauss for being run out by Nasser Hussain 18 runs short of being the 3rd batsman ever to score 2 centuries on test debut. And at Lords.
Strauss did however benefit when Hussain instantly retired from all cricket as a result...
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.
UKIP would have surged in 2001 if Clarke led the Tories too and Blair would still likely have got a majority close to 100
If that were the result, it would have left the Tories in a much better strategic position than they were in after 2001 following Hague's disastrous anti-Euro campaign.
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.
UKIP would have surged in 2001 if Clarke led the Tories too and Blair would still likely have got a majority close to 100
If that were the result, it would have left the Tories in a much better strategic position than they were in after 2001 following Hague's disastrous anti-Euro campaign.
Not much better really and it was Hague's anti Euro campaign which helped force Blair to ensure we would not join the Euro without a referendum if we met Brown's tests which he never called as he knew he would lose it heavily
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.
Not quite sure that follows. Just because we are living longer, it does not mean that we aren't still growing old. Yes, health care and medicine in general has improved over that time, but we are still human and that means we grow older and things change. Evolution doesn't work fast enough to have that much of an impact given the changes over the past 100 years.
Most people today appear to be far more alert and active in their 70s than was the case in the 1950s & 1960s..I was struck by how very old Attlee appeared on the 1964 Election programme - yet he was only 81. Heseltine, Lawson and Hattersley are now of a similar age and act much younger - as did Healey , Howe , Heath and Foot before them.
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.
UKIP would have surged in 2001 if Clarke led the Tories too and Blair would still likely have got a majority close to 100
If that were the result, it would have left the Tories in a much better strategic position than they were in after 2001 following Hague's disastrous anti-Euro campaign.
Not much better really and it was Hague's anti Euro campaign which helped force Blair along with Brown's tests to ensure we would not join the Euro without a referendum which he never called as he knew he would lose it heavily
Absolute nonsense. Blair was committed to not joining the Euro without a referendum before 97.
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 -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.
UKIP would have surged in 2001 if Clarke led the Tories too and Blair would still likely have got a majority close to 100
If that were the result, it would have left the Tories in a much better strategic position than they were in after 2001 following Hague's disastrous anti-Euro campaign.
Not much better really and it was Hague's anti Euro campaign which helped force Blair along with Brown's tests to ensure we would not join the Euro without a referendum which he never called as he knew he would lose it heavily
Absolute nonsense. Blair was committed to not joining the Euro without a referendum before 97.
No the referendum commitment only came from 1997 to 2001, it was Brown's economic tests that came before 1997
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 -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.
UKIP would have surged in 2001 if Clarke led the Tories too and Blair would still likely have got a majority close to 100
If that were the result, it would have left the Tories in a much better strategic position than they were in after 2001 following Hague's disastrous anti-Euro campaign.
Not much better really and it was Hague's anti Euro campaign which helped force Blair along with Brown's tests to ensure we would not join the Euro without a referendum which he never called as he knew he would lose it heavily
Absolute nonsense. Blair was committed to not joining the Euro without a referendum before 97.
No the referendum commitment only came from 1997 to 2001, it was Brown's economic tests that came before 1997
It was not Brown's but all Balls as Heseltine said.
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.
Around 30% of that interest gets repaid through the APF.
Not much better really and it was Hague's anti Euro campaign which helped force Blair along with Brown's tests to ensure we would not join the Euro without a referendum which he never called as he knew he would lose it heavily
Absolute nonsense. Blair was committed to not joining the Euro without a referendum before 97.
No the referendum commitment only came from 1997 to 2001, it was Brown's economic tests that came before 1997
Wrong, there was a referendum commitment in the 97 manifesto.
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 -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 Conservatives apart with his support for joining the Euro.
UKIP would have surged in 2001 if Clarke led the Tories too and Blair would still likely have got a majority close to 100
If that were the result, it would have left the Tories in a much better strategic position than they were in after 2001 following Hague's disastrous anti-Euro campaign.
Not much better really and it was Hague's anti Euro campaign which helped force Blair along with Brown's tests to ensure we would not join the Euro without a referendum which he never called as he knew he would lose it heavily
Absolute nonsense. Blair was committed to not joining the Euro without a referendum before 97.
No the referendum commitment only came from 1997 to 2001, it was Brown's economic tests that came before 1997
It was not Brown's but all Balls as Heseltine said.
Both Brown and Balls commendably helped keep the UK out of the Euro and restrained Blair and Mandelson from really pushing it
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.
There really aren’t any obvious ones - England’s problems go rather deeper than selection. There simply aren’t enough youngsters being trained in the necessary skills. Which is fine if you enjoy one day cricket more than the long form variety...
They used to do this as a matter of course in the pre-Blair days.
A friend of mine’s Dad was the chairman of the inland revenue at the time. He told me that they vetoed Branson at least twice.
Branson was knighted by Blair.
It is good that it is being brought back. For someone to be given an honour by society they need to both have made an outstanding contribution but also to have paid their dues in the way that any normal person does
Not much better really and it was Hague's anti Euro campaign which helped force Blair along with Brown's tests to ensure we would not join the Euro without a referendum which he never called as he knew he would lose it heavily
Absolute nonsense. Blair was committed to not joining the Euro without a referendum before 97.
No the referendum commitment only came from 1997 to 2001, it was Brown's economic tests that came before 1997
Wrong, there was a referendum commitment in the 97 manifesto.
There was a referendum commitment in the 2005 manifesto too. What happened to that one?
Not much better really and it was Hague's anti Euro campaign which helped force Blair along with Brown's tests to ensure we would not join the Euro without a referendum which he never called as he knew he would lose it heavily
Absolute nonsense. Blair was committed to not joining the Euro without a referendum before 97.
No the referendum commitment only came from 1997 to 2001, it was Brown's economic tests that came before 1997
Wrong, there was a referendum commitment in the 97 manifesto.
There was a referendum commitment in the 2005 manifesto too. What happened to that one?
Whatever your view of whether the Lisbon Treaty was really the same as the European Constitution, I think you'd agree that the same trick couldn't be pulled off over the single currency.
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.
Yes, as indeed he did do. Clarke said at the time that he would have relaxed his own spending constraints in that parliament because of the strong performance of the economy. Brown stuck rigidly to the plan because he needed to build up some political capital. If the criticism of him had been measured to start with, the Tories would have been in a better position to attack him when he deserved it.
So you're saying that the Conservatives should have criticised Brown for not spending enough in 1997-2001 and then criticised Brown for spending too much in 2001-2005.
And if they'd tried that Brown and the media would have laughed.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2018/apr/27/ecb-england-jofra-archer-sussex
But he can while not playing Tests make a fortune in the IPL, so for him personally it's not the worst of deals.
Which is fine if you enjoy one day cricket more than the long form variety...
Good afternoon, everyone.
A friend of mine’s Dad was the chairman of the inland revenue at the time. He told me that they vetoed Branson at least twice.
Branson was knighted by Blair.
It is good that it is being brought back. For someone to be given an honour by society they need to both have made an outstanding contribution but also to have paid their dues in the way that any normal person does
‘You don't see many Englishmen where I live’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6117659/Voice-cricket-Henry-Blofeld-reveals-swapping-horribly-violent-London-Spain.html
NEW THREAD
Allan Border he ain't.
And if they'd tried that Brown and the media would have laughed.