Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Will Starmer be Labour leader at the next general election? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited July 25 in General
imageWill Starmer be Labour leader at the next general election? – politicalbetting.com

I’ve generally avoided the market on when Sir Keir Starmer will cease to be Labour leader because the year of the next general election is uncertain thanks to planned repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and talk of Boris Johnson planning to call a 2023 election.

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,220
    edited July 25
    Yes.

    And first.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,860
    Yes he will. The Tories will win because Starmer is dull.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,860
    Off topic - I think Team GB is due a couple of cycles of poor medal performance. I think we'll struggle compared to London and Rio.
  • Yes, easy money to say yes.

    And I think he will likely form a Government.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,441
    I agree with TSE. We nearly always give our leaders one shot (at least) - I can't think of an exception since the 1930s.

    But also agree that tying up money for an odds-on bet for years isn't sensible. This is where a betting exchange works so much better.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,607
    MaxPB said:

    Off topic - I think Team GB is due a couple of cycles of poor medal performance. I think we'll struggle compared to London and Rio.

    Impressive performance to win gold by the unranked Uzbek 19 Yr old
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,229
    On topic - yes, he will be leader.

    The only way that I could see him leaving is if the Labour numbers collapsed to something really bizarre - say 25% -consistently in the polls. And even then....
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,493
    I'll add to the chorus. Yes. The election will be Johnson v Starmer. Neither will be replaced. I've been saying this when it wasn't consensus and I'm still saying it now that it is.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 1,534
    A thread for the the Boris fanbois to slag of Starmer, they must be salivating as I type.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,607

    I agree with TSE. We nearly always give our leaders one shot (at least) - I can't think of an exception since the 1930s.

    But also agree that tying up money for an odds-on bet for years isn't sensible. This is where a betting exchange works so much better.

    Yes, I think he gets a go, but he does need to up his game with some media training. He need a punchier style, for news soundbites and social media.

    Johnson is vulnerable, and it will be a precipitous fall when it comes. Keir needs to put the boot in when he is down.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 1,534
    MaxPB said:

    Off topic - I think Team GB is due a couple of cycles of poor medal performance. I think we'll struggle compared to London and Rio.

    even with all that Lottery money?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,860

    MaxPB said:

    Off topic - I think Team GB is due a couple of cycles of poor medal performance. I think we'll struggle compared to London and Rio.

    even with all that Lottery money?
    Yes. I think the new management which is feelings focussed rather than results focussed is going to end badly until the Paris 2024 post-mortem which will bring back the same ruthless approach that worked from 2008-2016.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,280
    No dissent from me. Only ill health is likely to stop him, John Smith style. He looks pretty healthy to me, certainly a lot healthier than Smith did.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,993
    MaxPB said:

    Off topic - I think Team GB is due a couple of cycles of poor medal performance. I think we'll struggle compared to London and Rio.

    We will definitely be well down on Rio and London, that is a given. Top 6 in the medal tables would still be very good, top 10 a minimum requirement. Id guess 7th.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654
    DavidL said:

    No dissent from me. Only ill health is likely to stop him, John Smith style. He looks pretty healthy to me, certainly a lot healthier than Smith did.

    Its team Starmer that is the problem in terms of succession. There is no standout candidate AFAIC that would be better the current incumbent.

  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,993

    I agree with TSE. We nearly always give our leaders one shot (at least) - I can't think of an exception since the 1930s.

    But also agree that tying up money for an odds-on bet for years isn't sensible. This is where a betting exchange works so much better.

    I wonder if Ladbrokes are offering those odds to get people to ensure clients Ladbrokes account stays active for at least another 2-3 years. A fair price for this bet is probably 1.25 so the odds are more than enough to justify a long term bet when best buy savings accounts are around 1% per year. Shame my max stake would be about £6!
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,860

    MaxPB said:

    Off topic - I think Team GB is due a couple of cycles of poor medal performance. I think we'll struggle compared to London and Rio.

    We will definitely be well down on Rio and London, that is a given. Top 6 in the medal tables would still be very good, top 10 a minimum requirement. Id guess 7th.
    Yeah that's a given, but the reasons for the expected fall are going to need for team GB to go back to the same ruthless focus on our medal factories rather than this new "the athletes have feelings" approach that will just result in funding being wasted on low prospect categories.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,142
    Paging Prof Peston....

    Spain's world number one Rahm has tested positive for the second time in as many months.

    Tokyo Olympics: Bryson DeChambeau and Jon Rahm out of golf after testing positive for Covid-19 - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/57959149

    Although in all seriousness, i presume on Rahm case it is actually it never fully went away. Wasn't there some blokein the UK who kept testing positive for nearly a year?

    Golf has been a shambles of a sport during COVID....the game is literally socially distance outdoor activity.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,142
    edited July 25

    MaxPB said:

    Off topic - I think Team GB is due a couple of cycles of poor medal performance. I think we'll struggle compared to London and Rio.

    We will definitely be well down on Rio and London, that is a given. Top 6 in the medal tables would still be very good, top 10 a minimum requirement. Id guess 7th.
    Prizes (funding) for all unfortunately doesn't work for the Olympics. Small countries time and again show the way you maximize medals is picking winners / winning sports.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,932

    I agree with TSE. We nearly always give our leaders one shot (at least) - I can't think of an exception since the 1930s.

    But also agree that tying up money for an odds-on bet for years isn't sensible. This is where a betting exchange works so much better.

    I wonder if Ladbrokes are offering those odds to get people to ensure clients Ladbrokes account stays active for at least another 2-3 years. A fair price for this bet is probably 1.25 so the odds are more than enough to justify a long term bet when best buy savings accounts are around 1% per year. Shame my max stake would be about £6!
    If you want Ladbrokes credit risk you can buy their 5.125% bonds at 103
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,280

    DavidL said:

    No dissent from me. Only ill health is likely to stop him, John Smith style. He looks pretty healthy to me, certainly a lot healthier than Smith did.

    Its team Starmer that is the problem in terms of succession. There is no standout candidate AFAIC that would be better the current incumbent.

    Certainly not in Parliament. You have to be careful as you get older that your memories do not get tinged with nostalgia but I cannot recall a time when so few politicians of any party had any credibility or standing with the public as they do right now and Labour seem particularly badly affected although the Tories are far from immune. Starmer is as good as it gets in Labour.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,736
    kinabalu said:

    I'll add to the chorus. Yes. The election will be Johnson v Starmer. Neither will be replaced. I've been saying this when it wasn't consensus and I'm still saying it now that it is.

    Starmer yes, but Johnson could fall, or jump for a whole raft of reasons. The number one probably being the following question. Why scratch around in penury for £150,000 a year doing his civic duty, when he could earn that in an hour, talking unprepared b*ll*cks to a grateful audience in the Plaza Hotel?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,142
    edited July 25
    Team GB on the track is especially weak this time around. Its Dina Asher Smith and KJT that are up with the elite and then maybe sprint relays and thats about it.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,860
    edited July 25

    Team GB on the track is especially weak this time around. Its Dina Asher Smith and KJT and then maybe sprint relays and thats about it.

    Yes, the track cycling team doesn't look in great shape either. The rowers will also win fewer medals than Rio as well. Our medal factories are going to underperform.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,058
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Off topic - I think Team GB is due a couple of cycles of poor medal performance. I think we'll struggle compared to London and Rio.

    We will definitely be well down on Rio and London, that is a given. Top 6 in the medal tables would still be very good, top 10 a minimum requirement. Id guess 7th.
    Yeah that's a given, but the reasons for the expected fall are going to need for team GB to go back to the same ruthless focus on our medal factories rather than this new "the athletes have feelings" approach that will just result in funding being wasted on low prospect categories.
    Why the F did we dispense with a genius, medal-minting method, and move to Woke Shit?

    God I despise this country, sometimes. We Want Winners
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,229
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    No dissent from me. Only ill health is likely to stop him, John Smith style. He looks pretty healthy to me, certainly a lot healthier than Smith did.

    Its team Starmer that is the problem in terms of succession. There is no standout candidate AFAIC that would be better the current incumbent.

    Certainly not in Parliament. You have to be careful as you get older that your memories do not get tinged with nostalgia but I cannot recall a time when so few politicians of any party had any credibility or standing with the public as they do right now and Labour seem particularly badly affected although the Tories are far from immune. Starmer is as good as it gets in Labour.
    I think that those thinking of Burnham are mistaken - he wasn't very successful in national politics, but has found success at the regional level.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,607
    MaxPB said:

    Team GB on the track is especially weak this time around. Its Dina Asher Smith and KJT and then maybe sprint relays and thats about it.

    Yes, the track cycling team doesn't look in great shape either. The rowers will also win fewer medals than Rio as well. Our medal factories are going to underperform.
    Are the sailors up to much at present? How about the posh sports like horse dancing?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,142
    edited July 25
    MaxPB said:

    Team GB on the track is especially weak this time around. Its Dina Asher Smith and KJT and then maybe sprint relays and thats about it.

    Yes, the indoor cycling team doesn't look in great shape either. The rowers will also win fewer medals than Rio as well. Our medal factories are going to underperform.
    And the like of athletics, gymnastics, rowing and swimming are going to get even less next cycle, but its ok because we funded sports like basketball....where we have square root of f##k all chance in.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 5,650

    Team GB on the track is especially weak this time around. Its Dina Asher Smith and KJT that are up with the elite and then maybe sprint relays and thats about it.

    My wife gave piano lessons to one of Team GB's gold hopefuls. And amazingly I've become interested in her events which earlier hardly merited a second glance.

  • TazTaz Posts: 2,476
    edited July 25
    Armstrong wasn’t a bad MP but Pat Glass was not great.

    I suspect if the boundaries remain the same this seat will long term trend away from labour. Labour did themselves no favours with candidates selection at the local elections. The two candidates in lanchester were woeful.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,229
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Off topic - I think Team GB is due a couple of cycles of poor medal performance. I think we'll struggle compared to London and Rio.

    We will definitely be well down on Rio and London, that is a given. Top 6 in the medal tables would still be very good, top 10 a minimum requirement. Id guess 7th.
    Yeah that's a given, but the reasons for the expected fall are going to need for team GB to go back to the same ruthless focus on our medal factories rather than this new "the athletes have feelings" approach that will just result in funding being wasted on low prospect categories.
    Yes - the ruthless approach worked. There was, for example, alot of criticism of the use of scientific evaluation to see if people had the body shape/structure to reach the top in their chosen sport. And of asking people to move sports to ones they were more suited for......
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,058

    MaxPB said:

    Team GB on the track is especially weak this time around. Its Dina Asher Smith and KJT and then maybe sprint relays and thats about it.

    Yes, the indoor cycling team doesn't look in great shape either. The rowers will also win fewer medals than Rio as well. Our medal factories are going to underperform.
    And the like of athletics, gymnastics, rowing and swimming are going to get even less next cycle, but its ok because we funded sports like basketball....where we have square root of f##k chance in.
    WHY DID WE DO THIS

    Seriously, why?

    The country enjoyed our incredible Olympics prowess. So.... they change the methods that produced it? FFS!
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 5,650

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Off topic - I think Team GB is due a couple of cycles of poor medal performance. I think we'll struggle compared to London and Rio.

    We will definitely be well down on Rio and London, that is a given. Top 6 in the medal tables would still be very good, top 10 a minimum requirement. Id guess 7th.
    Yeah that's a given, but the reasons for the expected fall are going to need for team GB to go back to the same ruthless focus on our medal factories rather than this new "the athletes have feelings" approach that will just result in funding being wasted on low prospect categories.
    Yes - the ruthless approach worked. There was, for example, alot of criticism of the use of scientific evaluation to see if people had the body shape/structure to reach the top in their chosen sport. And of asking people to move sports to ones they were more suited for......
    Shades of the former DDR there.

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,142
    edited July 25
    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Team GB on the track is especially weak this time around. Its Dina Asher Smith and KJT and then maybe sprint relays and thats about it.

    Yes, the indoor cycling team doesn't look in great shape either. The rowers will also win fewer medals than Rio as well. Our medal factories are going to underperform.
    And the like of athletics, gymnastics, rowing and swimming are going to get even less next cycle, but its ok because we funded sports like basketball....where we have square root of f##k chance in.
    WHY DID WE DO THIS

    Seriously, why?

    The country enjoyed our incredible Olympics prowess. So.... they change the methods that produced it? FFS!
    Too many poshos winning medals.....

    No, i can understand in some respects there is a feedback loop, but there are some sports where the UK has no history in, no widespread interest and so its pretty pointless to fund and in things like athletics, its ultra ultra competitive, whete the whole world does it and there really isn't any point funding somebody who clearly doesn't have the attributes to crack top 10-15 in the world. Its harsh, but it really is pointless funding a somebody in the 5km if they aren't a genetic freak to start with, hard work and some better coaching isn't going to get you past a load of Africans with a genetic advantage and been running to school every day since birth.

    Where the funding really gives UK advantage is skill events and or one with equipment. You can get your edge from a full optimized approach.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,736
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    No dissent from me. Only ill health is likely to stop him, John Smith style. He looks pretty healthy to me, certainly a lot healthier than Smith did.

    Its team Starmer that is the problem in terms of succession. There is no standout candidate AFAIC that would be better the current incumbent.

    Certainly not in Parliament. You have to be careful as you get older that your memories do not get tinged with nostalgia but I cannot recall a time when so few politicians of any party had any credibility or standing with the public as they do right now and Labour seem particularly badly affected although the Tories are far from immune. Starmer is as good as it gets in Labour.
    Now, you've drawn me into a Starmer is crap post.

    There are plenty of able Labour MPs , who are available, Benn, Kinnock, Cooper, Jarvis and plenty of others, plus people outside Parliament. Sadly after Corbyn there are also a raft of former quality Labour Politicians who are also outside the Party. And no I am not referring directly to Corbyn.

    The key problem of why, for good or bad, we are lumbered with Starmer is the vague, but worrying prospect that he could be replaced by a moron like Burgon or RLB.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,058

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Team GB on the track is especially weak this time around. Its Dina Asher Smith and KJT and then maybe sprint relays and thats about it.

    Yes, the indoor cycling team doesn't look in great shape either. The rowers will also win fewer medals than Rio as well. Our medal factories are going to underperform.
    And the like of athletics, gymnastics, rowing and swimming are going to get even less next cycle, but its ok because we funded sports like basketball....where we have square root of f##k chance in.
    WHY DID WE DO THIS

    Seriously, why?

    The country enjoyed our incredible Olympics prowess. So.... they change the methods that produced it? FFS!
    Too many poshos winning medals.....
    Was it really that? Really?

    Fucking morons
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,058
    edited July 25
    If Britain is now Officially Shit at the Olympics again, then I am going to Officially Boycott it, and watch the Hundred instead


    Take that, Olympics. First it was Covid-19, now someone in Camden, UK is refusing to watch you. Truly a cursed Games. HAHAHAHA
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,860
    edited July 25
    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Off topic - I think Team GB is due a couple of cycles of poor medal performance. I think we'll struggle compared to London and Rio.

    We will definitely be well down on Rio and London, that is a given. Top 6 in the medal tables would still be very good, top 10 a minimum requirement. Id guess 7th.
    Yeah that's a given, but the reasons for the expected fall are going to need for team GB to go back to the same ruthless focus on our medal factories rather than this new "the athletes have feelings" approach that will just result in funding being wasted on low prospect categories.
    Why the F did we dispense with a genius, medal-minting method, and move to Woke Shit?

    God I despise this country, sometimes. We Want Winners
    It's completely stupid. We're funding a bunch of low prospect categories with a low overall number of medals where previously the formula would give it no funding due to expected performance and chance of gold being low, while quality of competition is very high. Funding for track cycling, rowing and athletics has all gone down to increase funding for the low prospect categories.

    At the same time Team GB management were accused of using a ruthless approach even within the high prospect categories to weed out poor prospect older sportspeople and replace them with younger talent who were good for two or three cycles. That policy has also changed for this and the next cycle.

    If we finish in the top 10 globally it's going to be a good performance IMO. A really hard dose of reality for the people pushing the agenda of prizes/funding for all but we've already fucked it for 2024. It will be 2028 before we get back into the global top 5.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    No dissent from me. Only ill health is likely to stop him, John Smith style. He looks pretty healthy to me, certainly a lot healthier than Smith did.

    Its team Starmer that is the problem in terms of succession. There is no standout candidate AFAIC that would be better the current incumbent.

    Certainly not in Parliament. You have to be careful as you get older that your memories do not get tinged with nostalgia but I cannot recall a time when so few politicians of any party had any credibility or standing with the public as they do right now and Labour seem particularly badly affected although the Tories are far from immune. Starmer is as good as it gets in Labour.
    I hope you are fully recovered now.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,058
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Off topic - I think Team GB is due a couple of cycles of poor medal performance. I think we'll struggle compared to London and Rio.

    We will definitely be well down on Rio and London, that is a given. Top 6 in the medal tables would still be very good, top 10 a minimum requirement. Id guess 7th.
    Yeah that's a given, but the reasons for the expected fall are going to need for team GB to go back to the same ruthless focus on our medal factories rather than this new "the athletes have feelings" approach that will just result in funding being wasted on low prospect categories.
    Why the F did we dispense with a genius, medal-minting method, and move to Woke Shit?

    God I despise this country, sometimes. We Want Winners
    It's completely stupid. We're funding a bunch of low prospect categories with a low overall number of medals where previously the formula would give it no funding due to expected performance and chance of gold being low, while quality of competition is very high. Funding for track cycling, rowing and athletics has all gone down to increase funding for the low prospect categories.

    At the same time Team GB management were accused of using a ruthless approach even within the high prospect categories to weed out poor prospect older sportspeople and replace them with younger talent who were good for two or three cycles. That policy has also changed for this and the next cycle.

    If we finish in the top 10 globally it's going to be a good performance IMO. A really hard dose of reality for the people pushing the agenda of prizes/funding for all but we've already fucked it for 2024. It will be 2028 before we get back into the global top 5.
    Exactly who was responsible for this amazingly shit decision, and why aren't they now drawing the dole?

    It's just such a British thing to do. Take a magical formula, and fuck it all up. The same way we looked at our magnificent heritage of ancient town and city centres in the 1950s, and decided to demolish them all
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,142
    edited July 25
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Team GB on the track is especially weak this time around. Its Dina Asher Smith and KJT and then maybe sprint relays and thats about it.

    Yes, the indoor cycling team doesn't look in great shape either. The rowers will also win fewer medals than Rio as well. Our medal factories are going to underperform.
    And the like of athletics, gymnastics, rowing and swimming are going to get even less next cycle, but its ok because we funded sports like basketball....where we have square root of f##k chance in.
    WHY DID WE DO THIS

    Seriously, why?

    The country enjoyed our incredible Olympics prowess. So.... they change the methods that produced it? FFS!
    Too many poshos winning medals.....
    Was it really that? Really?

    Fucking morons
    Yes and no....read my mote serious answer. Its was about encouraging wider range of sports, concerns over a feedback loop and i think unease that a load of poshos do well in posho sports, which does encourage widespread participation in sport.

    Overall its as absolutely dumb and self defeating....its pointless funding basketball for the Olympics for instance, just because its more diverse, we ain't a hope or funding an athlete on the track in an event they clearly aren't top 10. Especially if it means taking away from things like sailing or rowing, which GB historically excel in.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,220
    Leon said:

    If Britain is now Officially Shit at the Olympics again, then I am going to Officially Boycott it, and watch the Hundred instead


    Take that, Olympics. First it was Covid-19, now someone in Camden, UK is refusing to watch you. Truly a cursed Games. HAHAHAHA

    You should have watched the London bumper cars, I mean Formula E. Lots of action and controversy...
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,860
    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Team GB on the track is especially weak this time around. Its Dina Asher Smith and KJT and then maybe sprint relays and thats about it.

    Yes, the track cycling team doesn't look in great shape either. The rowers will also win fewer medals than Rio as well. Our medal factories are going to underperform.
    Are the sailors up to much at present? How about the posh sports like horse dancing?
    Not much in sailing - big loss of funding, Charlotte Dujardin is still favourite in the horse dancing I think.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    No dissent from me. Only ill health is likely to stop him, John Smith style. He looks pretty healthy to me, certainly a lot healthier than Smith did.

    Its team Starmer that is the problem in terms of succession. There is no standout candidate AFAIC that would be better the current incumbent.

    Certainly not in Parliament. You have to be careful as you get older that your memories do not get tinged with nostalgia but I cannot recall a time when so few politicians of any party had any credibility or standing with the public as they do right now and Labour seem particularly badly affected although the Tories are far from immune. Starmer is as good as it gets in Labour.
    Now, you've drawn me into a Starmer is crap post.

    There are plenty of able Labour MPs , who are available, Benn, Kinnock, Cooper, Jarvis and plenty of others, plus people outside Parliament. Sadly after Corbyn there are also a raft of former quality Labour Politicians who are also outside the Party. And no I am not referring directly to Corbyn.

    The key problem of why, for good or bad, we are lumbered with Starmer is the vague, but worrying prospect that he could be replaced by a moron like Burgon or RLB.
    Or even Angela Rayner.. (tries not to laugh too much)
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,058

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Team GB on the track is especially weak this time around. Its Dina Asher Smith and KJT and then maybe sprint relays and thats about it.

    Yes, the indoor cycling team doesn't look in great shape either. The rowers will also win fewer medals than Rio as well. Our medal factories are going to underperform.
    And the like of athletics, gymnastics, rowing and swimming are going to get even less next cycle, but its ok because we funded sports like basketball....where we have square root of f##k chance in.
    WHY DID WE DO THIS

    Seriously, why?

    The country enjoyed our incredible Olympics prowess. So.... they change the methods that produced it? FFS!
    Too many poshos winning medals.....
    Was it really that? Really?

    Fucking morons
    Yes and no....read my mote serious answer. Its was about encouraging wider range of sports, concerns over a feedback loop and i think unease that a load of poshos do well in posho sports.
    I don't care if we win seventeen golds in mindless braying, rainy point to point, holidaying in north Norfolk in salmon pink shorts, and Porsche door slamming in Clapham

    JUST WIN MEDALS
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,860
    edited July 25
    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Off topic - I think Team GB is due a couple of cycles of poor medal performance. I think we'll struggle compared to London and Rio.

    We will definitely be well down on Rio and London, that is a given. Top 6 in the medal tables would still be very good, top 10 a minimum requirement. Id guess 7th.
    Yeah that's a given, but the reasons for the expected fall are going to need for team GB to go back to the same ruthless focus on our medal factories rather than this new "the athletes have feelings" approach that will just result in funding being wasted on low prospect categories.
    Why the F did we dispense with a genius, medal-minting method, and move to Woke Shit?

    God I despise this country, sometimes. We Want Winners
    It's completely stupid. We're funding a bunch of low prospect categories with a low overall number of medals where previously the formula would give it no funding due to expected performance and chance of gold being low, while quality of competition is very high. Funding for track cycling, rowing and athletics has all gone down to increase funding for the low prospect categories.

    At the same time Team GB management were accused of using a ruthless approach even within the high prospect categories to weed out poor prospect older sportspeople and replace them with younger talent who were good for two or three cycles. That policy has also changed for this and the next cycle.

    If we finish in the top 10 globally it's going to be a good performance IMO. A really hard dose of reality for the people pushing the agenda of prizes/funding for all but we've already fucked it for 2024. It will be 2028 before we get back into the global top 5.
    Exactly who was responsible for this amazingly shit decision, and why aren't they now drawing the dole?

    It's just such a British thing to do. Take a magical formula, and fuck it all up. The same way we looked at our magnificent heritage of ancient town and city centres in the 1950s, and decided to demolish them all
    Yeah I think in the Tokyo post-mortem the same arseholes will say it needs one more cycle to get the "benefits" of the new approach which means 2024 will be a write off too. We will only start to challenge in 2028 and properly in 2032 once the old approach is restored after another finish outside the top 10 in 2024.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,830
    Has anyone noticed how it was almost compulsory to be positive about the 2012 London Olympics, and it's almost compulsory to be negative about this one in Tokyo.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,229
    geoffw said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Off topic - I think Team GB is due a couple of cycles of poor medal performance. I think we'll struggle compared to London and Rio.

    We will definitely be well down on Rio and London, that is a given. Top 6 in the medal tables would still be very good, top 10 a minimum requirement. Id guess 7th.
    Yeah that's a given, but the reasons for the expected fall are going to need for team GB to go back to the same ruthless focus on our medal factories rather than this new "the athletes have feelings" approach that will just result in funding being wasted on low prospect categories.
    Yes - the ruthless approach worked. There was, for example, alot of criticism of the use of scientific evaluation to see if people had the body shape/structure to reach the top in their chosen sport. And of asking people to move sports to ones they were more suited for......
    Shades of the former DDR there.

    No - their stuff was extremely unscientific, in many ways.

    The fact that certain body shapes and muscle distributions are required for success at the top level in various sports is documented. As are the reasons *why* this works.

    UK sport used lottery funding to give top athletes a full "work up" - which, in a number of cases found that they were actually much better suited to another sport. Nearly no-one has tried all the sports - many ended up in their chosen sport by a complete accident.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,932

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    No dissent from me. Only ill health is likely to stop him, John Smith style. He looks pretty healthy to me, certainly a lot healthier than Smith did.

    Its team Starmer that is the problem in terms of succession. There is no standout candidate AFAIC that would be better the current incumbent.

    Certainly not in Parliament. You have to be careful as you get older that your memories do not get tinged with nostalgia but I cannot recall a time when so few politicians of any party had any credibility or standing with the public as they do right now and Labour seem particularly badly affected although the Tories are far from immune. Starmer is as good as it gets in Labour.
    Now, you've drawn me into a Starmer is crap post.

    There are plenty of able Labour MPs , who are available, Benn, Kinnock, Cooper, Jarvis and plenty of others, plus people outside Parliament. Sadly after Corbyn there are also a raft of former quality Labour Politicians who are also outside the Party. And no I am not referring directly to Corbyn.

    The key problem of why, for good or bad, we are lumbered with Starmer is the vague, but worrying prospect that he could be replaced by a moron like Burgon or RLB.
    It’s interesting that most of the names you highlighted (plus burnham) are so long I’m the tooth. Benn is 67. Cooper (and Burnham) were in Brown’s Cabinet. Kinnock and Jarvis are younger but neither have had the opportunity to really demonstrate why they would be good leaders yet.

    (As an aside how come Jarvis can be a mayor and MP but Burnham can’t?)
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 1,272

    MaxPB said:

    Off topic - I think Team GB is due a couple of cycles of poor medal performance. I think we'll struggle compared to London and Rio.

    We will definitely be well down on Rio and London, that is a given. Top 6 in the medal tables would still be very good, top 10 a minimum requirement. Id guess 7th.
    Older viewers will remember 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984 and 1988 when it was always only 5 or 6 golds maximum for Team GB. I know there were fewer events then. We got 1 in 1996!

    Back then even a top 10 finish among countries let alone top 3 or 4 which we have the last 3 times was fantasy.

    We have been spoiled in recent times. As others have said, expect a significant drop down the medal table, probably out of the top 10.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,142

    geoffw said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Off topic - I think Team GB is due a couple of cycles of poor medal performance. I think we'll struggle compared to London and Rio.

    We will definitely be well down on Rio and London, that is a given. Top 6 in the medal tables would still be very good, top 10 a minimum requirement. Id guess 7th.
    Yeah that's a given, but the reasons for the expected fall are going to need for team GB to go back to the same ruthless focus on our medal factories rather than this new "the athletes have feelings" approach that will just result in funding being wasted on low prospect categories.
    Yes - the ruthless approach worked. There was, for example, alot of criticism of the use of scientific evaluation to see if people had the body shape/structure to reach the top in their chosen sport. And of asking people to move sports to ones they were more suited for......
    Shades of the former DDR there.

    No - their stuff was extremely unscientific, in many ways.

    The fact that certain body shapes and muscle distributions are required for success at the top level in various sports is documented. As are the reasons *why* this works.

    UK sport used lottery funding to give top athletes a full "work up" - which, in a number of cases found that they were actually much better suited to another sport. Nearly no-one has tried all the sports - many ended up in their chosen sport by a complete accident.
    South Korea famously said right we want to win things at Winter Olympics...our general population aint got a hope in loads of events, speed skating, now thats something that a smaller lighter nimble individual has an advantage....and they pumped mega bucks into their program for that....rather than wasting it on something like cross country skiing or biathlon.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,932

    geoffw said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Off topic - I think Team GB is due a couple of cycles of poor medal performance. I think we'll struggle compared to London and Rio.

    We will definitely be well down on Rio and London, that is a given. Top 6 in the medal tables would still be very good, top 10 a minimum requirement. Id guess 7th.
    Yeah that's a given, but the reasons for the expected fall are going to need for team GB to go back to the same ruthless focus on our medal factories rather than this new "the athletes have feelings" approach that will just result in funding being wasted on low prospect categories.
    Yes - the ruthless approach worked. There was, for example, alot of criticism of the use of scientific evaluation to see if people had the body shape/structure to reach the top in their chosen sport. And of asking people to move sports to ones they were more suited for......
    Shades of the former DDR there.

    No - their stuff was extremely unscientific, in many ways.

    The fact that certain body shapes and muscle distributions are required for success at the top level in various sports is documented. As are the reasons *why* this works.

    UK sport used lottery funding to give top athletes a full "work up" - which, in a number of cases found that they were actually much better suited to another sport. Nearly no-one has tried all the sports - many ended up in their chosen sport by a complete accident.
    South Korea famously said right we want to win things at Winter Olympics...our general population aint got a hope in loads of events, speed skating, now thats something that a smaller lighter nimble individual has an advantage....and they pumped mega bucks into their program for that....rather than wasting it on something like cross country skiing or biathlon.
    Don’t they do well at pointy sticks as well?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,607

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Team GB on the track is especially weak this time around. Its Dina Asher Smith and KJT and then maybe sprint relays and thats about it.

    Yes, the indoor cycling team doesn't look in great shape either. The rowers will also win fewer medals than Rio as well. Our medal factories are going to underperform.
    And the like of athletics, gymnastics, rowing and swimming are going to get even less next cycle, but its ok because we funded sports like basketball....where we have square root of f##k chance in.
    WHY DID WE DO THIS

    Seriously, why?

    The country enjoyed our incredible Olympics prowess. So.... they change the methods that produced it? FFS!
    Too many poshos winning medals.....
    Was it really that? Really?

    Fucking morons
    Yes and no....read my mote serious answer. Its was about encouraging wider range of sports, concerns over a feedback loop and i think unease that a load of poshos do well in posho sports, which does encourage widespread participation in sport.

    Overall its as absolutely dumb and self defeating....its pointless funding basketball for the Olympics for instance, just because its more diverse, we ain't a hope or funding an athlete on the track in an event they clearly aren't top 10. Especially if it means taking away from things like sailing or rowing, which GB historically excel in.
    More to do with the systematic bullying, wasn't it?

    https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/cycling/british-cycling-independent-review-bullying-jess-varnish-shane-sutton-a7789211.html

    In any case, isn't it better to leave the analysis until after the games?. Let's see how we do first. It always surprises me how negative towards the teams supposed British/English patriots are.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,315
    I expect Starmer to stand but am not sure if Boris will be his opponent

    Indeed I am more certain about Starmer than Boris


    AND on what really matters and is terribly sad

    Man, woman and boy die in Loch Lomond incident

    Recent drownings in this hot weather has been a disaster with so many avoidable deaths
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 1,272
    On topic 😊

    Yes Starmer will probably be LAB leader at the GE. He is probably the best they have got.

    LAB to gain some seats maybe get up to 230. More if their position improves in Scotland.

    New leader after GE. No idea who that will be.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,830
    Maybe the German Greens won't be in second place for much longer, given recent trends.

    "@EuropeElects
    Germany, INSA poll:

    CDU/CSU-EPP: 27% (-2)
    GRÜNE-G/EFA: 18%
    SPD-S&D: 17% (+0.5)
    FDP-RE: 13% (+1)
    AfD-ID: 11% (-0.5)
    LINKE-LEFT: 7% (+1)

    +/- vs. 16-19 Jul

    Fieldwork: 19-23 July 2021
    Sample size: 1,316 "

    https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1419072422251307013
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,493

    Paging Prof Peston....

    Spain's world number one Rahm has tested positive for the second time in as many months.

    Tokyo Olympics: Bryson DeChambeau and Jon Rahm out of golf after testing positive for Covid-19 - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/57959149

    Although in all seriousness, i presume on Rahm case it is actually it never fully went away. Wasn't there some blokein the UK who kept testing positive for nearly a year?

    Golf has been a shambles of a sport during COVID....the game is literally socially distance outdoor activity.

    It did go away. He rested up, tested negative, and came back 2 weeks later to win the US Open.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,834

    MaxPB said:

    Off topic - I think Team GB is due a couple of cycles of poor medal performance. I think we'll struggle compared to London and Rio.

    We will definitely be well down on Rio and London, that is a given. Top 6 in the medal tables would still be very good, top 10 a minimum requirement. Id guess 7th.
    Older viewers will remember 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984 and 1988 when it was always only 5 or 6 golds maximum for Team GB. I know there were fewer events then. We got 1 in 1996!

    Back then even a top 10 finish among countries let alone top 3 or 4 which we have the last 3 times was fantasy.

    We have been spoiled in recent times. As others have said, expect a significant drop down the medal table, probably out of the top 10.
    Pretty poor for this to happen on the Tories' watch. I mean what are they for exactly?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,142
    edited July 25
    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Team GB on the track is especially weak this time around. Its Dina Asher Smith and KJT and then maybe sprint relays and thats about it.

    Yes, the indoor cycling team doesn't look in great shape either. The rowers will also win fewer medals than Rio as well. Our medal factories are going to underperform.
    And the like of athletics, gymnastics, rowing and swimming are going to get even less next cycle, but its ok because we funded sports like basketball....where we have square root of f##k chance in.
    WHY DID WE DO THIS

    Seriously, why?

    The country enjoyed our incredible Olympics prowess. So.... they change the methods that produced it? FFS!
    Too many poshos winning medals.....
    Was it really that? Really?

    Fucking morons
    Yes and no....read my mote serious answer. Its was about encouraging wider range of sports, concerns over a feedback loop and i think unease that a load of poshos do well in posho sports, which does encourage widespread participation in sport.

    Overall its as absolutely dumb and self defeating....its pointless funding basketball for the Olympics for instance, just because its more diverse, we ain't a hope or funding an athlete on the track in an event they clearly aren't top 10. Especially if it means taking away from things like sailing or rowing, which GB historically excel in.
    More to do with the systematic bullying, wasn't it?

    https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/cycling/british-cycling-independent-review-bullying-jess-varnish-shane-sutton-a7789211.html

    In any case, isn't it better to leave the analysis until after the games?. Let's see how we do first. It always surprises me how negative towards the teams supposed British/English patriots are.
    No the bullying stuff is cycling is irrelevant to the fact funding for a wide range of sports Team GB excel in has been cut its a stated aim to change the funding to diversify it.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,058
    Apocalyptic thundercracks here in Camden

    I see Fearsome Portents
  • eekeek Posts: 15,852
    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    No dissent from me. Only ill health is likely to stop him, John Smith style. He looks pretty healthy to me, certainly a lot healthier than Smith did.

    Its team Starmer that is the problem in terms of succession. There is no standout candidate AFAIC that would be better the current incumbent.

    Certainly not in Parliament. You have to be careful as you get older that your memories do not get tinged with nostalgia but I cannot recall a time when so few politicians of any party had any credibility or standing with the public as they do right now and Labour seem particularly badly affected although the Tories are far from immune. Starmer is as good as it gets in Labour.
    Now, you've drawn me into a Starmer is crap post.

    There are plenty of able Labour MPs , who are available, Benn, Kinnock, Cooper, Jarvis and plenty of others, plus people outside Parliament. Sadly after Corbyn there are also a raft of former quality Labour Politicians who are also outside the Party. And no I am not referring directly to Corbyn.

    The key problem of why, for good or bad, we are lumbered with Starmer is the vague, but worrying prospect that he could be replaced by a moron like Burgon or RLB.
    It’s interesting that most of the names you highlighted (plus burnham) are so long I’m the tooth. Benn is 67. Cooper (and Burnham) were in Brown’s Cabinet. Kinnock and Jarvis are younger but neither have had the opportunity to really demonstrate why they would be good leaders yet.

    (As an aside how come Jarvis can be a mayor and MP but Burnham can’t?)
    You can't be an MP if you are the effective head of the local police force - which was why the Batley byelection was required when Tracy Brabin become the Mayor of West Yorkshire.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,220
    Leon said:

    Apocalyptic thundercracks here in Camden

    I see Fearsome Portents

    You might know about this, but I love watching the following in thunderstorms.

    https://www.lightningmaps.org/#m=oss;t=3;s=0;o=0;b=;
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Leon said:

    Apocalyptic thundercracks here in Camden

    I see Fearsome Portents

    Just been on a boat trip off Mersea - quite cloudy but no rain and now the sun is coming out - happy days
  • eekeek Posts: 15,852
    edited July 25

    I expect Starmer to stand but am not sure if Boris will be his opponent

    Indeed I am more certain about Starmer than Boris


    AND on what really matters and is terribly sad

    Man, woman and boy die in Loch Lomond incident

    Recent drownings in this hot weather has been a disaster with so many avoidable deaths

    It's also worth pointing out that everything most people know about drowning comes from TV so is 100% wrong so leads to deaths that could have been avoided.

    https://slate.com/technology/2013/06/rescuing-drowning-children-how-to-know-when-someone-is-in-trouble-in-the-water.html
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,860

    MaxPB said:

    Off topic - I think Team GB is due a couple of cycles of poor medal performance. I think we'll struggle compared to London and Rio.

    We will definitely be well down on Rio and London, that is a given. Top 6 in the medal tables would still be very good, top 10 a minimum requirement. Id guess 7th.
    Older viewers will remember 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984 and 1988 when it was always only 5 or 6 golds maximum for Team GB. I know there were fewer events then. We got 1 in 1996!

    Back then even a top 10 finish among countries let alone top 3 or 4 which we have the last 3 times was fantasy.

    We have been spoiled in recent times. As others have said, expect a significant drop down the medal table, probably out of the top 10.
    Yea 1996 is what changed the game for Team GB. That failure forced a lot of changes and a new focus on winning in categories with lots of chances and rather than relying on individual brilliance in a single event give them multiple shots at the top prize. So funding poured into rowing, sailing, track cycling, athletics and a few other sports and the talent factory was created which resulted in our 2000-2016 mega medal hauls. Sadly the forces of woke have derailed this and burned down part of the factory and decided not to bother rebuilding it so Team GB is going to be back to where we were in ca. 2000 and 2004 rather than our real upswing in 2008 and peaks of 2012 and 2016.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,142
    edited July 25
    kinabalu said:

    Paging Prof Peston....

    Spain's world number one Rahm has tested positive for the second time in as many months.

    Tokyo Olympics: Bryson DeChambeau and Jon Rahm out of golf after testing positive for Covid-19 - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/57959149

    Although in all seriousness, i presume on Rahm case it is actually it never fully went away. Wasn't there some blokein the UK who kept testing positive for nearly a year?

    Golf has been a shambles of a sport during COVID....the game is literally socially distance outdoor activity.

    It did go away. He rested up, tested negative, and came back 2 weeks later to win the US Open.
    No, its been seen before, people test negative once and then positive again. Its down to way PCR test work, you can be right on the border line and it hasn't fully cleared.

    Famously the british couple off the crusie ship had this problem. The Japanese wouldn't let them out until 3 running negative tests and they kept doing negative, positive, negative ..for several weeks.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,830
    Leon said:

    Apocalyptic thundercracks here in Camden

    I see Fearsome Portents

    Which area of London has been your favourite to live in? Unless it's Camden.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,256
    Andy_JS said:

    Has anyone noticed how it was almost compulsory to be positive about the 2012 London Olympics, and it's almost compulsory to be negative about this one in Tokyo.

    I don't have any sense that people are being compelled to take a view, except by looking at the same facts and inevitably being drawn to the same conclusions.

    Objectively, the event this year is much diminished for a GB audience by the absence of spectators, due to the pandemic, random withdrawals of competitors, due to the pandemic, the reduction in BBC coverage, due to broadcasting deals, the likely failure of TeamGB to be as successful, and the timezone in which the event is taking place.

    Whereas, if you're disposed to be an enthusiast about events of this sort, then it's an immediate massive plus to have it occurring in your nation's capital city.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,932
    eek said:

    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    No dissent from me. Only ill health is likely to stop him, John Smith style. He looks pretty healthy to me, certainly a lot healthier than Smith did.

    Its team Starmer that is the problem in terms of succession. There is no standout candidate AFAIC that would be better the current incumbent.

    Certainly not in Parliament. You have to be careful as you get older that your memories do not get tinged with nostalgia but I cannot recall a time when so few politicians of any party had any credibility or standing with the public as they do right now and Labour seem particularly badly affected although the Tories are far from immune. Starmer is as good as it gets in Labour.
    Now, you've drawn me into a Starmer is crap post.

    There are plenty of able Labour MPs , who are available, Benn, Kinnock, Cooper, Jarvis and plenty of others, plus people outside Parliament. Sadly after Corbyn there are also a raft of former quality Labour Politicians who are also outside the Party. And no I am not referring directly to Corbyn.

    The key problem of why, for good or bad, we are lumbered with Starmer is the vague, but worrying prospect that he could be replaced by a moron like Burgon or RLB.
    It’s interesting that most of the names you highlighted (plus burnham) are so long I’m the tooth. Benn is 67. Cooper (and Burnham) were in Brown’s Cabinet. Kinnock and Jarvis are younger but neither have had the opportunity to really demonstrate why they would be good leaders yet.

    (As an aside how come Jarvis can be a mayor and MP but Burnham can’t?)
    You can't be an MP if you are the effective head of the local police force - which was why the Batley byelection was required when Tracy Brabin become the Mayor of West Yorkshire.
    So mayor of South Yorkshire is less important than mayor of West Yorkshire?
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 1,272
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Off topic - I think Team GB is due a couple of cycles of poor medal performance. I think we'll struggle compared to London and Rio.

    We will definitely be well down on Rio and London, that is a given. Top 6 in the medal tables would still be very good, top 10 a minimum requirement. Id guess 7th.
    Older viewers will remember 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984 and 1988 when it was always only 5 or 6 golds maximum for Team GB. I know there were fewer events then. We got 1 in 1996!

    Back then even a top 10 finish among countries let alone top 3 or 4 which we have the last 3 times was fantasy.

    We have been spoiled in recent times. As others have said, expect a significant drop down the medal table, probably out of the top 10.
    Yea 1996 is what changed the game for Team GB. That failure forced a lot of changes and a new focus on winning in categories with lots of chances and rather than relying on individual brilliance in a single event give them multiple shots at the top prize. So funding poured into rowing, sailing, track cycling, athletics and a few other sports and the talent factory was created which resulted in our 2000-2016 mega medal hauls. Sadly the forces of woke have derailed this and burned down part of the factory and decided not to bother rebuilding it so Team GB is going to be back to where we were in ca. 2000 and 2004 rather than our real upswing in 2008 and peaks of 2012 and 2016.
    Absolutely correct. Our ambition will be limited to making the bottom of the Top 10 nations at absolute best
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,256
    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    No dissent from me. Only ill health is likely to stop him, John Smith style. He looks pretty healthy to me, certainly a lot healthier than Smith did.

    Its team Starmer that is the problem in terms of succession. There is no standout candidate AFAIC that would be better the current incumbent.

    Certainly not in Parliament. You have to be careful as you get older that your memories do not get tinged with nostalgia but I cannot recall a time when so few politicians of any party had any credibility or standing with the public as they do right now and Labour seem particularly badly affected although the Tories are far from immune. Starmer is as good as it gets in Labour.
    Now, you've drawn me into a Starmer is crap post.

    There are plenty of able Labour MPs , who are available, Benn, Kinnock, Cooper, Jarvis and plenty of others, plus people outside Parliament. Sadly after Corbyn there are also a raft of former quality Labour Politicians who are also outside the Party. And no I am not referring directly to Corbyn.

    The key problem of why, for good or bad, we are lumbered with Starmer is the vague, but worrying prospect that he could be replaced by a moron like Burgon or RLB.
    It’s interesting that most of the names you highlighted (plus burnham) are so long I’m the tooth. Benn is 67. Cooper (and Burnham) were in Brown’s Cabinet. Kinnock and Jarvis are younger but neither have had the opportunity to really demonstrate why they would be good leaders yet.

    (As an aside how come Jarvis can be a mayor and MP but Burnham can’t?)
    I think it's because Burnahm's gig is combined with being Police and Crime Commissioner for GMP, which is not the case for Jarvis.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,058
    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    Apocalyptic thundercracks here in Camden

    I see Fearsome Portents

    Which area of London has been your favourite to live in? Unless it's Camden.
    In order

    Marylebone
    Fitzrovia
    Camden
    Bloomsbury
    Primrose Hill
    Wapping
    Brixton Prison
    Wormwood Scrubs
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,860

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Off topic - I think Team GB is due a couple of cycles of poor medal performance. I think we'll struggle compared to London and Rio.

    We will definitely be well down on Rio and London, that is a given. Top 6 in the medal tables would still be very good, top 10 a minimum requirement. Id guess 7th.
    Older viewers will remember 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984 and 1988 when it was always only 5 or 6 golds maximum for Team GB. I know there were fewer events then. We got 1 in 1996!

    Back then even a top 10 finish among countries let alone top 3 or 4 which we have the last 3 times was fantasy.

    We have been spoiled in recent times. As others have said, expect a significant drop down the medal table, probably out of the top 10.
    Yea 1996 is what changed the game for Team GB. That failure forced a lot of changes and a new focus on winning in categories with lots of chances and rather than relying on individual brilliance in a single event give them multiple shots at the top prize. So funding poured into rowing, sailing, track cycling, athletics and a few other sports and the talent factory was created which resulted in our 2000-2016 mega medal hauls. Sadly the forces of woke have derailed this and burned down part of the factory and decided not to bother rebuilding it so Team GB is going to be back to where we were in ca. 2000 and 2004 rather than our real upswing in 2008 and peaks of 2012 and 2016.
    Absolutely correct. Our ambition will be limited to making the bottom of the Top 10 nations at absolute best
    It just means that this process is brought back after another failure in 2024 so we start again in 2028. The next two cycles will be tough though.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,058
    edited July 25

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Off topic - I think Team GB is due a couple of cycles of poor medal performance. I think we'll struggle compared to London and Rio.

    We will definitely be well down on Rio and London, that is a given. Top 6 in the medal tables would still be very good, top 10 a minimum requirement. Id guess 7th.
    Older viewers will remember 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984 and 1988 when it was always only 5 or 6 golds maximum for Team GB. I know there were fewer events then. We got 1 in 1996!

    Back then even a top 10 finish among countries let alone top 3 or 4 which we have the last 3 times was fantasy.

    We have been spoiled in recent times. As others have said, expect a significant drop down the medal table, probably out of the top 10.
    Yea 1996 is what changed the game for Team GB. That failure forced a lot of changes and a new focus on winning in categories with lots of chances and rather than relying on individual brilliance in a single event give them multiple shots at the top prize. So funding poured into rowing, sailing, track cycling, athletics and a few other sports and the talent factory was created which resulted in our 2000-2016 mega medal hauls. Sadly the forces of woke have derailed this and burned down part of the factory and decided not to bother rebuilding it so Team GB is going to be back to where we were in ca. 2000 and 2004 rather than our real upswing in 2008 and peaks of 2012 and 2016.
    Absolutely correct. Our ambition will be limited to making the bottom of the Top 10 nations at absolute best
    Wokeness Poisons EVERYTHING

    Still, all these pitiful losers are Taking The Knee, so that's fine. There's nothing so affirming for people from tough minority backgrounds as coming last, and doing it while you are on your knees
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,607

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    No dissent from me. Only ill health is likely to stop him, John Smith style. He looks pretty healthy to me, certainly a lot healthier than Smith did.

    Its team Starmer that is the problem in terms of succession. There is no standout candidate AFAIC that would be better the current incumbent.

    Certainly not in Parliament. You have to be careful as you get older that your memories do not get tinged with nostalgia but I cannot recall a time when so few politicians of any party had any credibility or standing with the public as they do right now and Labour seem particularly badly affected although the Tories are far from immune. Starmer is as good as it gets in Labour.
    Now, you've drawn me into a Starmer is crap post.

    There are plenty of able Labour MPs , who are available, Benn, Kinnock, Cooper, Jarvis and plenty of others, plus people outside Parliament. Sadly after Corbyn there are also a raft of former quality Labour Politicians who are also outside the Party. And no I am not referring directly to Corbyn.

    The key problem of why, for good or bad, we are lumbered with Starmer is the vague, but worrying prospect that he could be replaced by a moron like Burgon or RLB.
    I think that there are few bright young things on the Labour benches is a feature of the massive defeat under Corbyn. It means that there are fewer new faces, and only those in the safest seats remain, therefore old timers or people like the useless Webbe in Leicester West, parachuted in under Corbyn following the purges.

    I think the next Leader will be Nandy or Rayner, or someone else elected after 2010.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,932
    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    Apocalyptic thundercracks here in Camden

    I see Fearsome Portents

    Which area of London has been your favourite to live in? Unless it's Camden.
    In order

    Marylebone
    Fitzrovia
    Camden
    Bloomsbury
    Primrose Hill
    Wapping
    Brixton Prison
    Wormwood Scrubs
    Why was Brixton better than wormwood scrubs?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,860
    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    Apocalyptic thundercracks here in Camden

    I see Fearsome Portents

    Which area of London has been your favourite to live in? Unless it's Camden.
    In order

    Marylebone
    Fitzrovia
    Camden
    Bloomsbury
    Primrose Hill
    Wapping
    Brixton Prison
    Wormwood Scrubs
    Fitzrovia is a great place to live. My first place is probably St John's Wood. Was there for about a year. Second place is Hampstead, I really miss it. Not that Fortis Green is bad, it isn't and I do like it here, I've just lost the village feel of Hampstead and now I definitely feel like I'm in suburbia.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,256
    edited July 25
    Leon said:

    Apocalyptic thundercracks here in Camden

    I see Fearsome Portents

    An Amber weather warning for thunderstorms over parts of London was issued about 38 minutes before your post.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,142
    edited July 25
    I think it is worth pointing out that mid 2000s, the UK were blessed with a load of once in a generation freaks / talent who all came along at the same time. Yes the funding and coaching will enhanced that, but across a number of sports the UK had the best there has ever been from Jonathan Edwards to Ben Ainslie, and in others individuals who were just significant stand out better than the rest.

    I heard Tindall make an interesting point about England rugby world cup win. They asked him if he was nervous, given the final, biggest game of his life and he said, but we had beat them in the last 4 times we had played them and hardly lost with our first team on the field in years. There was nothing to be nervous about, we expected to win, because we were significantly better than everybody else and we had shown in game after game. It wasn't arrogance, it was just we had proved this was the case.

    At the moment, there is Peaty in the swimming who is just miles better than the competition, but in many sports the UK just doesn't have the stand out freak and so the tiny margins can mean these things go either way e.g. in the PJ kicking, the lad got Silver but with 10s to go he was in the lead. Dina Asher Smith could win the 100m, but could easily come 5-6th.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,493

    kinabalu said:

    I'll add to the chorus. Yes. The election will be Johnson v Starmer. Neither will be replaced. I've been saying this when it wasn't consensus and I'm still saying it now that it is.

    Starmer yes, but Johnson could fall, or jump for a whole raft of reasons. The number one probably being the following question. Why scratch around in penury for £150,000 a year doing his civic duty, when he could earn that in an hour, talking unprepared b*ll*cks to a grateful audience in the Plaza Hotel?
    I just think being PM will remain for him the ultimate wheeze and he'll carry on till the bitter end as those with power almost invariably do. But if I'm wrong, that's great. Maybe some betting losses but otherwise his early exit would be most welcome chez me.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,058
    edited July 25
    Charles said:

    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    Apocalyptic thundercracks here in Camden

    I see Fearsome Portents

    Which area of London has been your favourite to live in? Unless it's Camden.
    In order

    Marylebone
    Fitzrovia
    Camden
    Bloomsbury
    Primrose Hill
    Wapping
    Brixton Prison
    Wormwood Scrubs
    Why was Brixton better than wormwood scrubs?
    More freedom, within the context of prison. Wormwood Scrubs was "23 hour bang up" - literally in your cell 23 hours a day. Basically torture

    Also the screws overlooked dope smoking in Brixton. Which was kinda humane. They'd walk into your smoke-filled cell, tut, then just walk out again

    Booze, however, suffered zero tolerance. Because violence

    This was long before the days of evil skunk, however
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    No dissent from me. Only ill health is likely to stop him, John Smith style. He looks pretty healthy to me, certainly a lot healthier than Smith did.

    Its team Starmer that is the problem in terms of succession. There is no standout candidate AFAIC that would be better the current incumbent.

    Certainly not in Parliament. You have to be careful as you get older that your memories do not get tinged with nostalgia but I cannot recall a time when so few politicians of any party had any credibility or standing with the public as they do right now and Labour seem particularly badly affected although the Tories are far from immune. Starmer is as good as it gets in Labour.
    Now, you've drawn me into a Starmer is crap post.

    There are plenty of able Labour MPs , who are available, Benn, Kinnock, Cooper, Jarvis and plenty of others, plus people outside Parliament. Sadly after Corbyn there are also a raft of former quality Labour Politicians who are also outside the Party. And no I am not referring directly to Corbyn.

    The key problem of why, for good or bad, we are lumbered with Starmer is the vague, but worrying prospect that he could be replaced by a moron like Burgon or RLB.
    I think that there are few bright young things on the Labour benches is a feature of the massive defeat under Corbyn. It means that there are fewer new faces, and only those in the safest seats remain, therefore old timers or people like the useless Webbe in Leicester West, parachuted in under Corbyn following the purges.

    I think the next Leader will be Nandy or Rayner, or someone else elected after 2010.
    Let it be Rayner..please.. she is the thickest MP since Abbott
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,058
    Jesus. This thunder is LOUD

    The kind of thunder that feels like the sky is cracking open
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 7,199
    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Team GB on the track is especially weak this time around. Its Dina Asher Smith and KJT and then maybe sprint relays and thats about it.

    Yes, the indoor cycling team doesn't look in great shape either. The rowers will also win fewer medals than Rio as well. Our medal factories are going to underperform.
    And the like of athletics, gymnastics, rowing and swimming are going to get even less next cycle, but its ok because we funded sports like basketball....where we have square root of f##k chance in.
    WHY DID WE DO THIS

    Seriously, why?

    The country enjoyed our incredible Olympics prowess. So.... they change the methods that produced it? FFS!
    Too many poshos winning medals.....
    Was it really that? Really?

    Fucking morons
    Yes and no....read my mote serious answer. Its was about encouraging wider range of sports, concerns over a feedback loop and i think unease that a load of poshos do well in posho sports, which does encourage widespread participation in sport.

    Overall its as absolutely dumb and self defeating....its pointless funding basketball for the Olympics for instance, just because its more diverse, we ain't a hope or funding an athlete on the track in an event they clearly aren't top 10. Especially if it means taking away from things like sailing or rowing, which GB historically excel in.
    More to do with the systematic bullying, wasn't it?

    https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/cycling/british-cycling-independent-review-bullying-jess-varnish-shane-sutton-a7789211.html

    In any case, isn't it better to leave the analysis until after the games?. Let's see how we do first. It always surprises me how negative towards the teams supposed British/English patriots are.
    Yes, I remember plenty of wailing early on in 2012 when GB hadn't won fifteen gold medals in the first 24 hours.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,058
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    Apocalyptic thundercracks here in Camden

    I see Fearsome Portents

    Which area of London has been your favourite to live in? Unless it's Camden.
    In order

    Marylebone
    Fitzrovia
    Camden
    Bloomsbury
    Primrose Hill
    Wapping
    Brixton Prison
    Wormwood Scrubs
    Fitzrovia is a great place to live. My first place is probably St John's Wood. Was there for about a year. Second place is Hampstead, I really miss it. Not that Fortis Green is bad, it isn't and I do like it here, I've just lost the village feel of Hampstead and now I definitely feel like I'm in suburbia.
    I know Fortis Green well. The Clissold is a rather decent pub. And nearby Muswell Hill is a jolly pleasant place to be. Good schools, as well - my older daughter is at Fortismere

    But yes it does feel more suburban. The lack of a Tube station is crucial. Hampstead is not much nearer the centre but it has the Tube AND the village feel, and the sense you can still walk down into Town. And of course the Heath is magnificent
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,743
    Charles said:

    I agree with TSE. We nearly always give our leaders one shot (at least) - I can't think of an exception since the 1930s.

    But also agree that tying up money for an odds-on bet for years isn't sensible. This is where a betting exchange works so much better.

    I wonder if Ladbrokes are offering those odds to get people to ensure clients Ladbrokes account stays active for at least another 2-3 years. A fair price for this bet is probably 1.25 so the odds are more than enough to justify a long term bet when best buy savings accounts are around 1% per year. Shame my max stake would be about £6!
    If you want Ladbrokes credit risk you can buy their 5.125% bonds at 103
    Ladbrokes' political shrewdie and PB friend Shadsy has jumped ship so it might be worth keeping an eye on Ladbrokes' markets for signs of a new approach, and perhaps even a few ricks.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,852
    edited July 25
    Charles said:

    eek said:

    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    No dissent from me. Only ill health is likely to stop him, John Smith style. He looks pretty healthy to me, certainly a lot healthier than Smith did.

    Its team Starmer that is the problem in terms of succession. There is no standout candidate AFAIC that would be better the current incumbent.

    Certainly not in Parliament. You have to be careful as you get older that your memories do not get tinged with nostalgia but I cannot recall a time when so few politicians of any party had any credibility or standing with the public as they do right now and Labour seem particularly badly affected although the Tories are far from immune. Starmer is as good as it gets in Labour.
    Now, you've drawn me into a Starmer is crap post.

    There are plenty of able Labour MPs , who are available, Benn, Kinnock, Cooper, Jarvis and plenty of others, plus people outside Parliament. Sadly after Corbyn there are also a raft of former quality Labour Politicians who are also outside the Party. And no I am not referring directly to Corbyn.

    The key problem of why, for good or bad, we are lumbered with Starmer is the vague, but worrying prospect that he could be replaced by a moron like Burgon or RLB.
    It’s interesting that most of the names you highlighted (plus burnham) are so long I’m the tooth. Benn is 67. Cooper (and Burnham) were in Brown’s Cabinet. Kinnock and Jarvis are younger but neither have had the opportunity to really demonstrate why they would be good leaders yet.

    (As an aside how come Jarvis can be a mayor and MP but Burnham can’t?)
    You can't be an MP if you are the effective head of the local police force - which was why the Batley byelection was required when Tracy Brabin become the Mayor of West Yorkshire.
    So mayor of South Yorkshire is less important than mayor of West Yorkshire?
    The Mayor of South Yorkshire isn't responsible for the police of South Yorkshire why that is I don't know.

    The Tees Valley mayor also doesn't have responsibility for the police but that's because Darlington isn't the responsibility of Cleveland Police (thankfully)... South Yorkshire's mayor probably has a similar reason.
  • Dan Jarvis would be an excellent Labour leader.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,607

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    No dissent from me. Only ill health is likely to stop him, John Smith style. He looks pretty healthy to me, certainly a lot healthier than Smith did.

    Its team Starmer that is the problem in terms of succession. There is no standout candidate AFAIC that would be better the current incumbent.

    Certainly not in Parliament. You have to be careful as you get older that your memories do not get tinged with nostalgia but I cannot recall a time when so few politicians of any party had any credibility or standing with the public as they do right now and Labour seem particularly badly affected although the Tories are far from immune. Starmer is as good as it gets in Labour.
    Now, you've drawn me into a Starmer is crap post.

    There are plenty of able Labour MPs , who are available, Benn, Kinnock, Cooper, Jarvis and plenty of others, plus people outside Parliament. Sadly after Corbyn there are also a raft of former quality Labour Politicians who are also outside the Party. And no I am not referring directly to Corbyn.

    The key problem of why, for good or bad, we are lumbered with Starmer is the vague, but worrying prospect that he could be replaced by a moron like Burgon or RLB.
    I think that there are few bright young things on the Labour benches is a feature of the massive defeat under Corbyn. It means that there are fewer new faces, and only those in the safest seats remain, therefore old timers or people like the useless Webbe in Leicester West, parachuted in under Corbyn following the purges.

    I think the next Leader will be Nandy or Rayner, or someone else elected after 2010.
    Let it be Rayner..please.. she is the thickest MP since Abbott
    I don't think either Rayner or Abbott are thick. Abbott's problem is that her intellect has declined markedly over the years, probably through her health issues.

    I think that Starmer will be in post at the GE, and will probably gain a modest number of seats, but probably not enough to form a government.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 9,366
    Leon said:

    Jesus. This thunder is LOUD

    The kind of thunder that feels like the sky is cracking open

    Intense rain here in East London passed through in the last half hour.

    Extraordinary for a storm of that ferocity to travel from north-east to south-west - the normal passage is south to north for a storm coming off France or the south coast.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,566
    FPT

    It's a bit sad that I explain an idea that might be positive towards Scottish Independence, and the self-proclaimed Scottish 'experts' on here ignore it and just choose to go on their usual arguments against their enemies.

    If they think it was a stupid idea, fair enough. Ditto in the unlikely event they thought it was a brilliant, positive idea. Instead there is the PB equivalent of tumbleweeds blowing down the glen. But I'd hope they'd at least address the idea ...

    For my part I've been busy with DIY so have only just had a late lunch (black pudding and fried egg roll and home made tomato soup with French beans) and now seen this and looked up the idea. Don't want you to feel neglected, but it is simply too much of a conditional event, a detail on the main issue. Indeed, an idea for the future, nice as it is. To express support or criticism of it is like discussing what nibbles to have at the book launch before you've handed in the TS to the publisher - or indeed like Mr Johnson calculating on an outburst of love for the Tories from the NIrish when his bridge(s) are completed - and would instantly and rightly invite ridicule and a monstering from the PB Unionists. (One might almost suspect you of being mischievous were one unkind. But I'm too nice to do that.)

    But just to prove I read the proposal, I have a purely practical point to make. It wouldn't necessarily work as stated: many modern papers and inks aren't permanent on that sort of timescale: you'd need to tell people to use acid-free paper and pigment inks and that would be an instant turnoff for many, who wouldn't know what you were on about never mind what to get hold of.



  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 3,683
    Well my ranking of London places I have lived in are

    Isle of Dogs
    Bow
    Edgware Road (Paddington area)
    Acton
    Muswell Hill
    Ealing
    Highgate

    Basically in my twenties the scruffier the better I enjoyed it!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,607
    The horse dancing is strangely beautiful, but I have no idea what it is all about.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 15,223
    edited July 25
    My personal view is that Starmer will do a lot better than people think, by virtue of the fact he isn't Jeremy Corbyn - and because he's quietly putting into place a lot of people and processes that will lead to good outcomes.

    260 seats is the worst I think he will do, which if true probably isn't enough to be PM but will mean his successor will be able to form a government with a much smaller swing. I think if he's lucky and the Lib Dems have a good night, 270+ would probably be enough to form a government and push through PR (which is frankly what I want at this point).

    I also believe his one unique selling point is his appeal to Lib Dem voters, which is something few Labour leaders have done recently. We've seen now on two occasions, tactical voting.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,860
    edited July 25
    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    Apocalyptic thundercracks here in Camden

    I see Fearsome Portents

    Which area of London has been your favourite to live in? Unless it's Camden.
    In order

    Marylebone
    Fitzrovia
    Camden
    Bloomsbury
    Primrose Hill
    Wapping
    Brixton Prison
    Wormwood Scrubs
    Fitzrovia is a great place to live. My first place is probably St John's Wood. Was there for about a year. Second place is Hampstead, I really miss it. Not that Fortis Green is bad, it isn't and I do like it here, I've just lost the village feel of Hampstead and now I definitely feel like I'm in suburbia.
    I know Fortis Green well. The Clissold is a rather decent pub. And nearby Muswell Hill is a jolly pleasant place to be. Good schools, as well - my older daughter is at Fortismere

    But yes it does feel more suburban. The lack of a Tube station is crucial. Hampstead is not much nearer the centre but it has the Tube AND the village feel, and the sense you can still walk down into Town. And of course the Heath is magnificent
    Happily we've bought right next to East Finchley station, it's about a 5 min walk but we're a pretty long way from Muswell Hill for that. We decided that it would be better to be near a tube than Muswell Hill, and tbh, I'm not a huge fan of it anyway. The Jewish feel of East Finchley is great as well, loads of nice little delis and cafés that have been there for decades and survived whatever has been thrown at them.

    The issue with Hampstead for us was having to double what we spent in Fortis Green to get a similarly sized place. It was a consideration and we could afford to do it but ultimately we decided it wasn't worth the extra and it's probably somewhere we can revisit 10 years from now if we really wanted to.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,256
    edited July 25
    stodge said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus. This thunder is LOUD

    The kind of thunder that feels like the sky is cracking open

    Intense rain here in East London passed through in the last half hour.

    Extraordinary for a storm of that ferocity to travel from north-east to south-west - the normal passage is south to north for a storm coming off France or the south coast.
    That is more normal, yes, but this is hardly an exceptional situation, where we have a weak low moving east along the channel, into Northern France and Flanders, and so London is under the influence of the circulation moving around eastward across the north of the low. Provides a bit of upper atmosphere forcing into a humid atmosphere with plenty of convectively available potential energy - and bang!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,210
    Since 1935, the only Labour leader to be removed prior to fighting a General Election has been John Smith, and that wasn’t exactly by the Labour Party’s choice. Foot and Corbyn both had very near squeaks of it, but both survived.

    I cannot believe Starmer will be removed involuntarily. Leaving aside the lack of an obvious challenger, Labour is just so bad at regicide it’s actually embarrassing.

    Ill health or a scandal might be different, but he looks pretty fit and while his time as DPP was hardly an unqualified success after Jennifer Arcuri it’s hard to see what would bring any politician down.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,493
    edited July 25

    kinabalu said:

    Paging Prof Peston....

    Spain's world number one Rahm has tested positive for the second time in as many months.

    Tokyo Olympics: Bryson DeChambeau and Jon Rahm out of golf after testing positive for Covid-19 - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/57959149

    Although in all seriousness, i presume on Rahm case it is actually it never fully went away. Wasn't there some blokein the UK who kept testing positive for nearly a year?

    Golf has been a shambles of a sport during COVID....the game is literally socially distance outdoor activity.

    It did go away. He rested up, tested negative, and came back 2 weeks later to win the US Open.
    No, its been seen before, people test negative once and then positive again. Its down to way PCR test work, you can be right on the border line and it hasn't fully cleared.

    Famously the british couple off the crusie ship had this problem. The Japanese wouldn't let them out until 3 running negative tests and they kept doing negative, positive, negative ..for several weeks.
    Ok. Well I suppose he could have still had some virus in his system when he returned for the US Open. He only won by 4 shots.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,229

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Team GB on the track is especially weak this time around. Its Dina Asher Smith and KJT and then maybe sprint relays and thats about it.

    Yes, the indoor cycling team doesn't look in great shape either. The rowers will also win fewer medals than Rio as well. Our medal factories are going to underperform.
    And the like of athletics, gymnastics, rowing and swimming are going to get even less next cycle, but its ok because we funded sports like basketball....where we have square root of f##k chance in.
    WHY DID WE DO THIS

    Seriously, why?

    The country enjoyed our incredible Olympics prowess. So.... they change the methods that produced it? FFS!
    Too many poshos winning medals.....
    Was it really that? Really?

    Fucking morons
    Yes and no....read my mote serious answer. Its was about encouraging wider range of sports, concerns over a feedback loop and i think unease that a load of poshos do well in posho sports, which does encourage widespread participation in sport.

    Overall its as absolutely dumb and self defeating....its pointless funding basketball for the Olympics for instance, just because its more diverse, we ain't a hope or funding an athlete on the track in an event they clearly aren't top 10. Especially if it means taking away from things like sailing or rowing, which GB historically excel in.
    More to do with the systematic bullying, wasn't it?

    https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/cycling/british-cycling-independent-review-bullying-jess-varnish-shane-sutton-a7789211.html

    In any case, isn't it better to leave the analysis until after the games?. Let's see how we do first. It always surprises me how negative towards the teams supposed British/English patriots are.
    No the bullying stuff is cycling is irrelevant to the fact funding for a wide range of sports Team GB excel in has been cut its a stated aim to change the funding to diversify it.
    My recent favourite was a sportsman who, when it was suggested that he try rowing. found that he excelled at it.

    Then was basically shoved back to his original sport..... And not by the rowing coaches.
This discussion has been closed.