Does it matter who the England coach is when, with a few noble exceptions, the talent just is not there. Especially in the batting.
I’m sure the talent is there, but one day cricket has corroded the art of defence. So what does the eco do? Invent another form of short cricket... Our county 4 day cricket is not at the same standard as Sheffield Shield in Aussie, partly as there are 18 counties. The two divisions was an attempt to change this, but it didn’t work. I think the ecb is using the hundred as a back door to 8 franchises for the long form of the game. It would benefit the England test team, but the counties will fight to the bitter end. There is a huge amount of history and tradition to lose.
The other question is, would they pick the right 8 or 10 counties? For example, no way should Glamorgan, Middlesex or Kent be in that number on merit, but you can bet they would be as they have the right friends. Meanwhile Somerset, one of the strongest sides in the country, and Gloucestershire, with an international venue, have been deliberately overlooked in the Hundred. Durham, not so long ago one of the best sides in the land and the home of Ben Stokes, have been shafted so often for specious reasons you wonder if their chairman actually killed Tom Harrison's cat.
There is a reason the counties are sceptical of the ECB's plans, and it's simply because the ECB can't be trusted to do what's right for the game instead of what's right for their mates.
Well quite. I think this is the plan, or outline idea, but I’m not in favour. I hoped that two divisions and promotion/relegation would work. I got endlessly fed up with radio 5 not understanding that division 1 was above division 2. How often did they report on second division games ahead of first? They would never report on championship football ahead of the premiership. I think the ecb needs to look at what it wants to achieve. It’s clear the main focus has been world cups (T20 and one day), and fair enough we won one, and lost the other on the toss. But the test team is being done no favours. Back in the day of 17 counties all playing each other home and away (more or less), batsmen got time in the middle. It’s easy to mock Boycott, but by god he’d be first on the sheet right now.
If the ECB want to grab some more power over the domestic game, the most useful thing they could do would be to directly employ all the groundstaff, and take over control of the preparation of the county pitches. There is a bit too much preparation of pitches to suit the competitive interests of the home team, rather than providing a fair surface for a good contest and the skills development of the players.
I am expecting a spike in cases in the vulnerable groups and over 60s soon. They hunkered down with the rise of Omicron prior to Christmas but then obviously and naturally met up with family and friends during the festive period.
Then you probably will see a spike when the school's go back, Omicron can easily 'reinfect' and there are million of kids out there to spread it about.
Some difficult days ahead for sure.
Know someone who came down with rona a couple of months ago while double vaxxed. Since had a booster. Tested positive again a week or so ago, after a bet with his wife that he couldn’t possibly have it again, this time only with a scratchy throat that wouldn’t have interfered with his day were it not for govt mandated isolation requirements.
The only way out of this looks to me to totally let rip in a boosted population, by stopping the continual testing and the self isolation of positive cases and removing all other mandates like masks. Otherwise we’re going to be talking about this forever. And just treat this as another annoying virus that you get every year or so.
Sensible precautions ahead of time should be made, for what is largely a reverse psyops campaign given the low hospital stats caused by omicron. FFP3 masks for the clinically vulnerable that want them, 4th doses for them if they’re past 12 weeks, anti virals and oximeters already sitting in their bathroom cabinets.
It wouldn’t go down well with the scaredy cats (you know who you are). But so what. Time to rip off the plaster.
The basic problem with "rip off the plaster" is this. "a scratchy throat that wouldn’t have interfered with his day" is perfectly capable of making someone seriously ill or dead. Or scores of people ill enough to not be at work. People with critical jobs.
When people have Covid - even if they are lucky enough to only have a scratchy throat - they need to self-isolate to protect *other people*.
I really struggle with how this rather basic consideration seems to pass some of you by.
Why do you think it passes me by? It doesn’t. I just think the trade offs you are expecting from everyone else are unreasonable and counterproductive to ensuring a healthy and prosperous society.
Why aren’t you writing to your MP and marching on parliament to require everyone also home test for influenza, norovirus and the long list of other infectious diseases that kill thousands of old and vulnerable a year? Because you’ve not been subjected to a deliberate psyops campaign about those things to elevate them in your mind to the only thing that matters in life.
Don't Look Up!
Name me one other virus which infects 120k people every day and threatens the ability of business and essential services to provide enough staff to function.
That's precisely @moonshine point. The isolation period is causing more harm than good.
300k new cases a day would do more harm.
Unless you just let it rip, let the unvaccinated take their chance, and have no isolation period.
Not that I advocate that, I agree with you. The risk isn’t so much the disease it’s the people having to isolate and not work. I can’t see how people don’t see it. It’s Already affected some train services and bus services although there is an element of businesses using Covid as an excuse.
It’s going to take until 2024 for people to fully return to their senses I reckon. To stop being scared of the spectre of the invisible bringer of doom. Even now when the hospitalisation data (and transmission stats) are plain to see, some of the weaker minded here are still clinging to the idea that mandates restrictions are desirable and worthwhile. I predict most will look back in the same way they look back on backing Corbyn. “What was I thinking?”.
How about 'Johnson, what was I thinking'? Quite a few of those weaker minded on here.
Not much mention from OGH of the fact the current Tory position of only a 7% deficit under Boris is made significantly worse under a Truss leadership, which would see a 16% Labour lead and even worse defeat than 1997. Making Truss a Tory Kim Campbell. Gove does even worse.
Sunak does a bit better but even he only cuts the Labour lead to 3%, he does not take the lead so Starmer would still end up PM albeit in a hung parliament. Better therefore for the party to focus on avoiding any further restrictions as Boris is doing and getting people boosted rather than focusing too much on personalities
The indications that I'm getting from 2019 Boris fans is that his appeal has gone - completely - and it is very unlikely that it will return. The CP has a big decision to make and the sooner the better I think - would provide a couple of years for a new leader to re-fashion things.
All those months of those of us who knew what he was like being told that he would always be enduring electoral magic, and here we are, just as we always said we would be…..
Nobody is ever "enduring" electoral magic.
Saying that a political career will end doesn't make you wise or insightful.
White Star Line statement 17/4/1912 "It would be naive to overlook the fact that all ships have a finite lifespan..."
Not much mention from OGH of the fact the current Tory position of only a 7% deficit under Boris is made significantly worse under a Truss leadership, which would see a 16% Labour lead and even worse defeat than 1997. Making Truss a Tory Kim Campbell. Gove does even worse.
Sunak does a bit better but even he only cuts the Labour lead to 3%, he does not take the lead so Starmer would still end up PM albeit in a hung parliament. Better therefore for the party to focus on avoiding any further restrictions as Boris is doing and getting people boosted rather than focusing too much on personalities
The indications that I'm getting from 2019 Boris fans is that his appeal has gone - completely - and it is very unlikely that it will return. The CP has a big decision to make and the sooner the better I think - would provide a couple of years for a new leader to re-fashion things.
All those months of those of us who knew what he was like being told that he would always be enduring electoral magic, and here we are, just as we always said we would be…..
Nobody is ever "enduring" electoral magic.
Saying that a political career will end doesn't make you wise or insightful.
All political careers end in failure, as Enoch Powell once said.
Johnson is currently vying with Eden, Chamberlain and Asquith for the most spectacular career ending implosion since householder suffrage was brought in in 1884-85.
Better therefore for the party to focus on avoiding any further restrictions as Boris is doing and getting people boosted rather than focusing too much on personalities
Johnson is not focusing on anything other than self-preservation. He is not in control, he is not making decisions based on evidence or possible outcomes for the NHS.
Johnson is being held hostage by the CRG and ambitious cabinet colleagues. He is Prime Minister in name only. He is a PM with no decision making power.
Good!
We don't have an elected President. If MPs and the Cabinet are against such restrictions then the PM should be listening to them and respecting them.
That's not a bad thing. Especially given the CRG called this right.
Rewilding is a handy cover for unfettered wankerdom, mind, and results in civil servants wanting to re-wet Dartmoor because it is not yet sufficiently wet (anyone who has ever been there will see how funny this is) and remove all grazing stock from it, reverting it to a time which probably never existed since the evolution of mammals, and ensuring it degenerates into impenetrable jungle.
Big fan of unfettered wankerdom
I'm from up north so all I see is the environmental deserts of grouse moors and deer forests (which don't have trees). I think it's different in England where you have cultural elements to consider.
"environmental deserts" is, with respect, unfettered wankerspeak. I thought you said you had climbed all sorts of munros, which tend to be deer forests. Do they look like deserts to you? They don't to me. And here's the RSPB (not a pro-grouse front organisation) saying basically it's really really hard to tell whether grouse moors are a net gain or loss environmentally
"Deer forests don't have trees" and a good thing too. People think in the abstract woods are lovely. In fact they create a true environmental desert at ground level because all the light is stolen by the canopy, they are hopeless at sequestering carbon because they fail to duplicate the afungal environment which used to turn them into coal, when felled they leave a landscape as horrible as the Somme, and the only sound reasons for planting them are to build wooden navies, or for cricket bats.
Climbed all of them, actually
I agree that the sitka plantations to which you refer are probably even worse. I'm talking about natural regeneration. Upper Glen Nevis another example.
Fascinating interview with George Eustice, England’s Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on R4 Today.
Farmers are not happy bunnies regarding, among other things, the free trade deal with Australia.
Can’t see many farmers switching straight to Labour, but could we see widespread protest via:
- abstaining? - voting LibDem in England and Wales? - voting SNP in Scotland?
A lot will depend on how the Tory party responds.
At the moment they have patronising lickspittles like David Duguid telling farmers and fishermen that actually Brexit has been brilliant and actually naysayer voices like Banff and Buchan famers and fishermen are ignoring all the amazing things he and his government are doing. Unsurprisingly this seat will fall to the SNP according to the polls.
If the government keep saying Don't Look Up to businesses and rural communities they are going to get pummelled. They know that we remain completely aligned to the single market and customs union and that it is only the government tying them in knots and threatening their subsidies threatening their way of life. They will vote for parties who will fix this.
Or, the government wakes up. Realises the ERG have led them down the garden path. And take a giant pair of scissors to "european" red tape and claim victory as they free business and farmers and fishermen from pointless red tape done by that failed lying clown who has just been fired.
Subsidises have been cut in half and the criteria for them has completely changed. I don’t have the details as that’s a wormhole I don’t wish to go down and something that it’s easier to deny knowledge about given Mrs Eek’s areas
That sounds like a Brexit positive then. 👍
So not only are we not paying subsidies to French farmers anymore, we've rid ourselves of half the burden of subsidising British ones too. Fantastic!
Most British farms will no longer be economically viable and will stop producing food! Fantastic!
We really need to be producing more food here not less.
Subsidies are a fact of life.
It isn't just subsidies, but rather price stabilisation that matters to farmers. In order to have a viable harvest they need to have some idea of the selling price. Otherwise they are just gambling on the weather, vs the weather in other parts of the world.
Which is true for many other sectors in the economy too. They should operate in the world as it is, not in the world they wish it was. Perhaps the financial sector can aid with futures contracts if its worthwhile and they're prepared to pay for it?
Yes, it does affect other sectors too, but farming is particularly prone to price fluctuations.
New Zealand is a very different place, with possibly the cheapest high quality agricultural land in the world.
If you think people voted Brexit to shut down British farming then you are likely to not like the next election result.
Farmers have plenty of opportunity to sell to Australia and New Zealand too. It seems for some Remainers unless free trade is with the EU, who we have a trade deal with too, it is irrelevant and we should put up tariffs as high as possible.
Some supposed liberals on here this morning would even bring back the Corn Laws it seems
Not much mention from OGH of the fact the current Tory position of only a 7% deficit under Boris is made significantly worse under a Truss leadership, which would see a 16% Labour lead and even worse defeat than 1997. Making Truss a Tory Kim Campbell. Gove does even worse.
Sunak does a bit better but even he only cuts the Labour lead to 3%, he does not take the lead so Starmer would still end up PM albeit in a hung parliament. Better therefore for the party to focus on avoiding any further restrictions as Boris is doing and getting people boosted rather than focusing too much on personalities
How on earth you can be so blind sided by Boris amazes me, especially on the day Conhome puts him way out on his own at the bottom of their cabinet league table at -33.8 with Mark Spencer at -24.1
As I have said before, you need to wake up and smell the coffee
HYUFD has a point. If the tories novichok Johnson now they are stuck with his successor right up to the next GE. Far better to let him take a few more arrows first and change closer to the election.
I concur. The Tories should stick with Johnson. But then I would say that wouldn’t I?
Hypothetical polling is actually probably the most important polling of all in determining whether PMs are kept in place as leader by their parties.
It was polling showing Major and Heseltine beating Kinnock while Thatcher trailed as they promised to drop the poll tax that sealed Maggie's fate in 1990. Similarly it was polling showing Boris beating Corbyn as he promised to get Brexit done while May trailed that sealed her fate in 2019.
By contrast Major survived in 1995 as the polls showed Redwood doing even worse against Blair than him and Portillo and Heseltine doing no better. Brown too survived until the 2010 election as no alternative leader, including David Miliband, led Cameron either.
The more polls show no alternative leader beating Starmer and some like Truss or Gove doing even worse, the safer Boris will be as Tory leader and PM
Ultimately if you keep Peppa, you lose. Once that sinks in then swapping to a better option and giving them time is the obvious play. The idea that we enter 2022 and there are no more scandals, no more self-inflicted disasters and people start feeling warm again about the PM is fantasy island.
Actually all alternative leaders bar Sunak poll worse than Boris and the Tory membership do not want Sunak on the latest ConHome survey
That is not true
He does not lead conhome, but that is not the definitive voice of the membership by some distance
Not much mention from OGH of the fact the current Tory position of only a 7% deficit under Boris is made significantly worse under a Truss leadership, which would see a 16% Labour lead and even worse defeat than 1997. Making Truss a Tory Kim Campbell. Gove does even worse.
Sunak does a bit better but even he only cuts the Labour lead to 3%, he does not take the lead so Starmer would still end up PM albeit in a hung parliament. Better therefore for the party to focus on avoiding any further restrictions as Boris is doing and getting people boosted rather than focusing too much on personalities
How on earth you can be so blind sided by Boris amazes me, especially on the day Conhome puts him way out on his own at the bottom of their cabinet league table at -33.8 with Mark Spencer at -24.1
As I have said before, you need to wake up and smell the coffee
HYUFD has a point. If the tories novichok Johnson now they are stuck with his successor right up to the next GE. Far better to let him take a few more arrows first and change closer to the election.
Maybe, maybe not. The case for early replacement is that incoming arrows are aimed at Boris personally, such as the return of wallpapergate and the ongoing partygate. These personal scandals needlessly contaminate the Conservative Party if Boris is still at Number 10.
Boris is only useful as a human shield against scandals that impact the wider government, and to be fair, there are some of those brewing up, such as contracts for croneys.
Not much mention from OGH of the fact the current Tory position of only a 7% deficit under Boris is made significantly worse under a Truss leadership, which would see a 16% Labour lead and even worse defeat than 1997. Making Truss a Tory Kim Campbell. Gove does even worse.
Sunak does a bit better but even he only cuts the Labour lead to 3%, he does not take the lead so Starmer would still end up PM albeit in a hung parliament. Better therefore for the party to focus on avoiding any further restrictions as Boris is doing and getting people boosted rather than focusing too much on personalities
The indications that I'm getting from 2019 Boris fans is that his appeal has gone - completely - and it is very unlikely that it will return. The CP has a big decision to make and the sooner the better I think - would provide a couple of years for a new leader to re-fashion things.
All those months of those of us who knew what he was like being told that he would always be enduring electoral magic, and here we are, just as we always said we would be…..
Nobody is ever "enduring" electoral magic.
Saying that a political career will end doesn't make you wise or insightful.
White Star Line statement 17/4/1912 "It would be naive to overlook the fact that all ships have a finite lifespan..."
Boris got an eighty seat majority, Brexit done and thanks to vaccines handled Covid better than almost every other country on the planet. His candle burnt brightly but now its burnt out and its time to be replaced.
Does it matter who the England coach is when, with a few noble exceptions, the talent just is not there. Especially in the batting.
I’m sure the talent is there, but one day cricket has corroded the art of defence. So what does the eco do? Invent another form of short cricket... Our county 4 day cricket is not at the same standard as Sheffield Shield in Aussie, partly as there are 18 counties. The two divisions was an attempt to change this, but it didn’t work. I think the ecb is using the hundred as a back door to 8 franchises for the long form of the game. It would benefit the England test team, but the counties will fight to the bitter end. There is a huge amount of history and tradition to lose.
The other question is, would they pick the right 8 or 10 counties? For example, no way should Glamorgan, Middlesex or Kent be in that number on merit, but you can bet they would be as they have the right friends. Meanwhile Somerset, one of the strongest sides in the country, and Gloucestershire, with an international venue, have been deliberately overlooked in the Hundred. Durham, not so long ago one of the best sides in the land and the home of Ben Stokes, have been shafted so often for specious reasons you wonder if their chairman actually killed Tom Harrison's cat.
There is a reason the counties are sceptical of the ECB's plans, and it's simply because the ECB can't be trusted to do what's right for the game instead of what's right for their mates.
Well quite. I think this is the plan, or outline idea, but I’m not in favour. I hoped that two divisions and promotion/relegation would work. I got endlessly fed up with radio 5 not understanding that division 1 was above division 2. How often did they report on second division games ahead of first? They would never report on championship football ahead of the premiership. I think the ecb needs to look at what it wants to achieve. It’s clear the main focus has been world cups (T20 and one day), and fair enough we won one, and lost the other on the toss. But the test team is being done no favours. Back in the day of 17 counties all playing each other home and away (more or less), batsmen got time in the middle. It’s easy to mock Boycott, but by god he’d be first on the sheet right now.
If the ECB want to grab some more power over the domestic game, the most useful thing they could do would be to directly employ all the groundstaff, and take over control of the preparation of the county pitches. There is a bit too much preparation of pitches to suit the competitive interests of the home team, rather than providing a fair surface for a good contest and the skills development of the players.
It seems clear to me that cricket is no longer competitive and should be allowed to fade away, like British agriculture and manufacturing.
My memory of the isolation rules is that there was a fairly prolonged period where one didn’t have to isolate if vaccinated. Is this correct? If so, why and when did it change back?
In any case, we can’t continue with compulsory seven day isolation for much longer. I have friends who under the ten day regimen spent all or some of the term locked inside despite their being perfectly well. Society cannot function under that protocol, so we need to consider other options.
Not much mention from OGH of the fact the current Tory position of only a 7% deficit under Boris is made significantly worse under a Truss leadership, which would see a 16% Labour lead and even worse defeat than 1997. Making Truss a Tory Kim Campbell. Gove does even worse.
Sunak does a bit better but even he only cuts the Labour lead to 3%, he does not take the lead so Starmer would still end up PM albeit in a hung parliament. Better therefore for the party to focus on avoiding any further restrictions as Boris is doing and getting people boosted rather than focusing too much on personalities
The indications that I'm getting from 2019 Boris fans is that his appeal has gone - completely - and it is very unlikely that it will return. The CP has a big decision to make and the sooner the better I think - would provide a couple of years for a new leader to re-fashion things.
All those months of those of us who knew what he was like being told that he would always be enduring electoral magic, and here we are, just as we always said we would be…..
Nobody is ever "enduring" electoral magic.
Saying that a political career will end doesn't make you wise or insightful.
All political careers end in failure, as Enoch Powell once said.
Johnson is currently vying with Eden, Chamberlain and Asquith for the most spectacular career ending implosion since householder suffrage was brought in in 1884-85.
All careers end but that does not mean overall they were failures.
Whatever happens to Boris now he will always be the PM who delivered Brexit, one of the biggest postwar changes in UK policy. He also deserves credit for the vaccine rollout and the booster programme on which the UK is also leading the way
Not much mention from OGH of the fact the current Tory position of only a 7% deficit under Boris is made significantly worse under a Truss leadership, which would see a 16% Labour lead and even worse defeat than 1997. Making Truss a Tory Kim Campbell. Gove does even worse.
Sunak does a bit better but even he only cuts the Labour lead to 3%, he does not take the lead so Starmer would still end up PM albeit in a hung parliament. Better therefore for the party to focus on avoiding any further restrictions as Boris is doing and getting people boosted rather than focusing too much on personalities
Relax, Huyfd. Boris isn't going anywhere.
If I were betting on the matter (I'm not), I would be a layer of both Sunak and Truss. I have no idea who it will be but I don't expect a change anytime soon.
The thing is - as I keep pointing out - it is not clear that Truss has the quantity of MP support to put her in the last two. I'm sure Sunak does. Hunt and Gove and Baker (possibly Mordaunt and Javid even) may have a better chance of making the last two than Truss does. Have I got this wrong?
After this polling Sunak v Baker is a possibility if Boris goes
Yes I agree. Baker knows this too.
"Whom the Gods would destroy, they first make mad".
Whether Sunak, Truss, Hunt or (God forbid) Baker, the general outlook is extremely bleak for the Tories. The push polls for any given leader fail to pick up that the voters are very pissed off indeed. The economic outlook is now extremely grim and getting worse. So what with sleaze and Covid failures and Brexit failures and general slimy incompetence, I think we will lose the vocabulary to adequately describe the punishment that the Conservatives are likely to take over the next two years. Then there is the general election...
I've just seen why no one is on here talking about the gallant and heroic English resistance in Melbourne. I don't mind losing the tenner but that was just painful.
On topic (vaguely), political parties face an issue when it comes to an unpopular leader. There's an argument and we saw it with Major, Brown and Clegg that the only way is to allow the electorate to exercise their desire to give you a good kicking and accept that both as part of the democratic process and in the knowledge you can start again with a clean slate.
The leader personalises and carries the sins of the whole party on his/her shoulders but once that is exorcised through the ballot box, the party can start again and in time what happened will cease to matter.
In truth, Major and Brown carried the can for Thatcher and Blair respectively - we will never know how Thatcher would have fared in a 1991 or 1992 election vs Kinnock or Blair in a 2010 election vs Cameron. They might have prevailed - I think there's a strong argument to say they would not.
It might help your historical reputation to retire undefeated (to be fair, WSC only won one election out of three as Conservative leader) but your party's reputation suffers as a result. If we accept all political careers end in failure part of that failure (the closure if you like) is to allow the electorate to pass their final judgement and it doesn't matter how loyally they backed you in the past, if they turn on you now, as a politician, you can have no cause for complaint.
I've seen councillors who worked tirelessly for their constituents for 20 years turned out not because they did a bad job but because either the national picture went against them or people just wanted a change.
Boris Johnson's genius (and I'm happy to call it that) in the run up to the 2019 GE was to portray himself almost as an Opposition leader opposing the May Government (even though he had supported that Government and served as Foreign Secretary). He was a Conservative seemingly opposing a Conservative Government - it's something you see in states with long periods of one party dominance. The sense of change comes from within.
How long Boris hands on depends, more than anything else, on what Princess Nut Nut is telling him to do. I doubt that she is in a hurry to lose the chauffeur-driven cars, high security, Chequers, and above all the opportunity to influence (and largely control) the Prime Minister.
Fascinating interview with George Eustice, England’s Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on R4 Today.
Farmers are not happy bunnies regarding, among other things, the free trade deal with Australia.
Can’t see many farmers switching straight to Labour, but could we see widespread protest via:
- abstaining? - voting LibDem in England and Wales? - voting SNP in Scotland?
A lot will depend on how the Tory party responds.
At the moment they have patronising lickspittles like David Duguid telling farmers and fishermen that actually Brexit has been brilliant and actually naysayer voices like Banff and Buchan famers and fishermen are ignoring all the amazing things he and his government are doing. Unsurprisingly this seat will fall to the SNP according to the polls.
If the government keep saying Don't Look Up to businesses and rural communities they are going to get pummelled. They know that we remain completely aligned to the single market and customs union and that it is only the government tying them in knots and threatening their subsidies threatening their way of life. They will vote for parties who will fix this.
Or, the government wakes up. Realises the ERG have led them down the garden path. And take a giant pair of scissors to "european" red tape and claim victory as they free business and farmers and fishermen from pointless red tape done by that failed lying clown who has just been fired.
Subsidises have been cut in half and the criteria for them has completely changed. I don’t have the details as that’s a wormhole I don’t wish to go down and something that it’s easier to deny knowledge about given Mrs Eek’s areas
That sounds like a Brexit positive then. 👍
So not only are we not paying subsidies to French farmers anymore, we've rid ourselves of half the burden of subsidising British ones too. Fantastic!
Most British farms will no longer be economically viable and will stop producing food! Fantastic!
We really need to be producing more food here not less.
Subsidies are a fact of life.
It isn't just subsidies, but rather price stabilisation that matters to farmers. In order to have a viable harvest they need to have some idea of the selling price. Otherwise they are just gambling on the weather, vs the weather in other parts of the world.
Which is true for many other sectors in the economy too. They should operate in the world as it is, not in the world they wish it was. Perhaps the financial sector can aid with futures contracts if its worthwhile and they're prepared to pay for it?
Yes, it does affect other sectors too, but farming is particularly prone to price fluctuations.
New Zealand is a very different place, with possibly the cheapest high quality agricultural land in the world.
If you think people voted Brexit to shut down British farming then you are likely to not like the next election result.
Farmers have plenty of opportunity to sell to Australia and New Zealand too. It seems for some Remainers unless free trade is with the EU, who we have a trade deal with too, it is irrelevant and we should put up tariffs as high as possible.
Some supposed liberals on here this morning would even bring back the Corn Laws it seems
Aus & NZ pop in aggregate 30m, how much imported food do you think they could physically eat even if they wanted to?
My memory of the isolation rules is that there was a fairly prolonged period where one didn’t have to isolate if vaccinated. Is this correct? If so, why and when did it change back?
In any case, we can’t continue with compulsory seven day isolation for much longer. I have friends who under the ten day regimen spent all or some of the term locked inside despite their being perfectly well. Society cannot function under that protocol, so we need to consider other options.
You didn't have to isolate if you were a double jabbed contact. You had to if you were actually infected.
With Omicron they changed it back if you were a contact of an identified Omicron case, although I'm not sure whether that still holds good.
Hypothetical polling is actually probably the most important polling of all in determining whether PMs are kept in place as leader by their parties.
It was polling showing Major and Heseltine beating Kinnock while Thatcher trailed as they promised to drop the poll tax that sealed Maggie's fate in 1990. Similarly it was polling showing Boris beating Corbyn as he promised to get Brexit done while May trailed that sealed her fate in 2019.
By contrast Major survived in 1995 as the polls showed Redwood doing even worse against Blair than him and Portillo and Heseltine doing no better. Brown too survived until the 2010 election as no alternative leader, including David Miliband, led Cameron either.
The more polls show no alternative leader beating Starmer and some like Truss or Gove doing even worse, the safer Boris will be as Tory leader and PM
Ultimately if you keep Peppa, you lose. Once that sinks in then swapping to a better option and giving them time is the obvious play. The idea that we enter 2022 and there are no more scandals, no more self-inflicted disasters and people start feeling warm again about the PM is fantasy island.
Actually all alternative leaders bar Sunak poll worse than Boris and the Tory membership do not want Sunak on the latest ConHome survey
That is not true
He does not lead conhome, but that is not the definitive voice of the membership by some distance
ConHome surveys predicted correctly Cameron would beat Davis in 2005 and Boris would beat Hunt in 2019
Does it matter who the England coach is when, with a few noble exceptions, the talent just is not there. Especially in the batting.
I’m sure the talent is there, but one day cricket has corroded the art of defence. So what does the eco do? Invent another form of short cricket... Our county 4 day cricket is not at the same standard as Sheffield Shield in Aussie, partly as there are 18 counties. The two divisions was an attempt to change this, but it didn’t work. I think the ecb is using the hundred as a back door to 8 franchises for the long form of the game. It would benefit the England test team, but the counties will fight to the bitter end. There is a huge amount of history and tradition to lose.
The other question is, would they pick the right 8 or 10 counties? For example, no way should Glamorgan, Middlesex or Kent be in that number on merit, but you can bet they would be as they have the right friends. Meanwhile Somerset, one of the strongest sides in the country, and Gloucestershire, with an international venue, have been deliberately overlooked in the Hundred. Durham, not so long ago one of the best sides in the land and the home of Ben Stokes, have been shafted so often for specious reasons you wonder if their chairman actually killed Tom Harrison's cat.
There is a reason the counties are sceptical of the ECB's plans, and it's simply because the ECB can't be trusted to do what's right for the game instead of what's right for their mates.
Well quite. I think this is the plan, or outline idea, but I’m not in favour. I hoped that two divisions and promotion/relegation would work. I got endlessly fed up with radio 5 not understanding that division 1 was above division 2. How often did they report on second division games ahead of first? They would never report on championship football ahead of the premiership. I think the ecb needs to look at what it wants to achieve. It’s clear the main focus has been world cups (T20 and one day), and fair enough we won one, and lost the other on the toss. But the test team is being done no favours. Back in the day of 17 counties all playing each other home and away (more or less), batsmen got time in the middle. It’s easy to mock Boycott, but by god he’d be first on the sheet right now.
If the ECB want to grab some more power over the domestic game, the most useful thing they could do would be to directly employ all the groundstaff, and take over control of the preparation of the county pitches. There is a bit too much preparation of pitches to suit the competitive interests of the home team, rather than providing a fair surface for a good contest and the skills development of the players.
It seems clear to me that cricket is no longer competitive and should be allowed to fade away, like British agriculture and manufacturing.
My memory of the isolation rules is that there was a fairly prolonged period where one didn’t have to isolate if vaccinated. Is this correct? If so, why and when did it change back?
In any case, we can’t continue with compulsory seven day isolation for much longer. I have friends who under the ten day regimen spent all or some of the term locked inside despite their being perfectly well. Society cannot function under that protocol, so we need to consider other options.
Yes, that was correct. It changed back because of Omicron. EDIT: Or maybe this was just for contacts. I forget. Don't really try to keep up with all the changing rules.
Maybe it's worth keeping for the Omicron wave, to slow the spread a bit, so that the peak rate of absenteeism due to symptomatic illness in critical sectors is lower than it otherwise would be, but feels like a marginal decision to me.
Does it matter who the England coach is when, with a few noble exceptions, the talent just is not there. Especially in the batting.
I’m sure the talent is there, but one day cricket has corroded the art of defence. So what does the eco do? Invent another form of short cricket... Our county 4 day cricket is not at the same standard as Sheffield Shield in Aussie, partly as there are 18 counties. The two divisions was an attempt to change this, but it didn’t work. I think the ecb is using the hundred as a back door to 8 franchises for the long form of the game. It would benefit the England test team, but the counties will fight to the bitter end. There is a huge amount of history and tradition to lose.
The other question is, would they pick the right 8 or 10 counties? For example, no way should Glamorgan, Middlesex or Kent be in that number on merit, but you can bet they would be as they have the right friends. Meanwhile Somerset, one of the strongest sides in the country, and Gloucestershire, with an international venue, have been deliberately overlooked in the Hundred. Durham, not so long ago one of the best sides in the land and the home of Ben Stokes, have been shafted so often for specious reasons you wonder if their chairman actually killed Tom Harrison's cat.
There is a reason the counties are sceptical of the ECB's plans, and it's simply because the ECB can't be trusted to do what's right for the game instead of what's right for their mates.
Well quite. I think this is the plan, or outline idea, but I’m not in favour. I hoped that two divisions and promotion/relegation would work. I got endlessly fed up with radio 5 not understanding that division 1 was above division 2. How often did they report on second division games ahead of first? They would never report on championship football ahead of the premiership. I think the ecb needs to look at what it wants to achieve. It’s clear the main focus has been world cups (T20 and one day), and fair enough we won one, and lost the other on the toss. But the test team is being done no favours. Back in the day of 17 counties all playing each other home and away (more or less), batsmen got time in the middle. It’s easy to mock Boycott, but by god he’d be first on the sheet right now.
The 18 county system was able to provide the players that have done well in limited overs cricket. Not sure why it isn't possible for it to do the same for the Test side.
If we are to reduce the number of first-class sides then I hope there is an explicit link to the counties in the tier of cricket below them. I'd think a Wessex team, explicitly linked to counties like Somerset and Hampshire, would be a more sensible approach than the city-based franchises they invented for the decimal competition.
Too much crash-bang-wallop cricket means not enough attention to 'proper' batting. Including defence.
Rewilding is a handy cover for unfettered wankerdom, mind, and results in civil servants wanting to re-wet Dartmoor because it is not yet sufficiently wet (anyone who has ever been there will see how funny this is) and remove all grazing stock from it, reverting it to a time which probably never existed since the evolution of mammals, and ensuring it degenerates into impenetrable jungle.
Big fan of unfettered wankerdom
I'm from up north so all I see is the environmental deserts of grouse moors and deer forests (which don't have trees). I think it's different in England where you have cultural elements to consider.
"environmental deserts" is, with respect, unfettered wankerspeak. I thought you said you had climbed all sorts of munros, which tend to be deer forests. Do they look like deserts to you? They don't to me. And here's the RSPB (not a pro-grouse front organisation) saying basically it's really really hard to tell whether grouse moors are a net gain or loss environmentally
"Deer forests don't have trees" and a good thing too. People think in the abstract woods are lovely. In fact they create a true environmental desert at ground level because all the light is stolen by the canopy, they are hopeless at sequestering carbon because they fail to duplicate the afungal environment which used to turn them into coal, when felled they leave a landscape as horrible as the Somme, and the only sound reasons for planting them are to build wooden navies, or for cricket bats.
Climbed all of them, actually
I agree that the sitka plantations to which you refer are probably even worse. I'm talking about natural regeneration. Upper Glen Nevis another example.
Were not much of Britain's uplands forested at one time before they were cleared by humans? A long time ago, admittedly.
Does it matter who the England coach is when, with a few noble exceptions, the talent just is not there. Especially in the batting.
I’m sure the talent is there, but one day cricket has corroded the art of defence. So what does the eco do? Invent another form of short cricket... Our county 4 day cricket is not at the same standard as Sheffield Shield in Aussie, partly as there are 18 counties. The two divisions was an attempt to change this, but it didn’t work. I think the ecb is using the hundred as a back door to 8 franchises for the long form of the game. It would benefit the England test team, but the counties will fight to the bitter end. There is a huge amount of history and tradition to lose.
The other question is, would they pick the right 8 or 10 counties? For example, no way should Glamorgan, Middlesex or Kent be in that number on merit, but you can bet they would be as they have the right friends. Meanwhile Somerset, one of the strongest sides in the country, and Gloucestershire, with an international venue, have been deliberately overlooked in the Hundred. Durham, not so long ago one of the best sides in the land and the home of Ben Stokes, have been shafted so often for specious reasons you wonder if their chairman actually killed Tom Harrison's cat.
There is a reason the counties are sceptical of the ECB's plans, and it's simply because the ECB can't be trusted to do what's right for the game instead of what's right for their mates.
Well quite. I think this is the plan, or outline idea, but I’m not in favour. I hoped that two divisions and promotion/relegation would work. I got endlessly fed up with radio 5 not understanding that division 1 was above division 2. How often did they report on second division games ahead of first? They would never report on championship football ahead of the premiership. I think the ecb needs to look at what it wants to achieve. It’s clear the main focus has been world cups (T20 and one day), and fair enough we won one, and lost the other on the toss. But the test team is being done no favours. Back in the day of 17 counties all playing each other home and away (more or less), batsmen got time in the middle. It’s easy to mock Boycott, but by god he’d be first on the sheet right now.
The 18 county system was able to provide the players that have done well in limited overs cricket. Not sure why it isn't possible for it to do the same for the Test side.
If we are to reduce the number of first-class sides then I hope there is an explicit link to the counties in the tier of cricket below them. I'd think a Wessex team, explicitly linked to counties like Somerset and Hampshire, would be a more sensible approach than the city-based franchises they invented for the decimal competition.
Too much crash-bang-wallop cricket means not enough attention to 'proper' batting. Including defence.
Yep, as was pointed out by many of us when the big-money T20 tournaments started. The professional emphasis on the shorter forms of the game, has hollowed-out a lot of the skills required of particularly Test Match batting.
Rewilding is a handy cover for unfettered wankerdom, mind, and results in civil servants wanting to re-wet Dartmoor because it is not yet sufficiently wet (anyone who has ever been there will see how funny this is) and remove all grazing stock from it, reverting it to a time which probably never existed since the evolution of mammals, and ensuring it degenerates into impenetrable jungle.
Big fan of unfettered wankerdom
I'm from up north so all I see is the environmental deserts of grouse moors and deer forests (which don't have trees). I think it's different in England where you have cultural elements to consider.
"environmental deserts" is, with respect, unfettered wankerspeak. I thought you said you had climbed all sorts of munros, which tend to be deer forests. Do they look like deserts to you? They don't to me. And here's the RSPB (not a pro-grouse front organisation) saying basically it's really really hard to tell whether grouse moors are a net gain or loss environmentally
"Deer forests don't have trees" and a good thing too. People think in the abstract woods are lovely. In fact they create a true environmental desert at ground level because all the light is stolen by the canopy, they are hopeless at sequestering carbon because they fail to duplicate the afungal environment which used to turn them into coal, when felled they leave a landscape as horrible as the Somme, and the only sound reasons for planting them are to build wooden navies, or for cricket bats.
Climbed all of them, actually
I agree that the sitka plantations to which you refer are probably even worse. I'm talking about natural regeneration. Upper Glen Nevis another example.
Were not much of Britain's uplands forested at one time before they were cleared by humans? A long time ago, admittedly.
Yes, pretty much trees everywhere, except for the marshlands. However, some places, such as Dartmoor, lost so much soil after the trees were cleared, that I'm not sure the trees would be able to make their way back in the short term.
Fascinating interview with George Eustice, England’s Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on R4 Today.
Farmers are not happy bunnies regarding, among other things, the free trade deal with Australia.
Can’t see many farmers switching straight to Labour, but could we see widespread protest via:
- abstaining? - voting LibDem in England and Wales? - voting SNP in Scotland?
A lot will depend on how the Tory party responds.
At the moment they have patronising lickspittles like David Duguid telling farmers and fishermen that actually Brexit has been brilliant and actually naysayer voices like Banff and Buchan famers and fishermen are ignoring all the amazing things he and his government are doing. Unsurprisingly this seat will fall to the SNP according to the polls.
If the government keep saying Don't Look Up to businesses and rural communities they are going to get pummelled. They know that we remain completely aligned to the single market and customs union and that it is only the government tying them in knots and threatening their subsidies threatening their way of life. They will vote for parties who will fix this.
Or, the government wakes up. Realises the ERG have led them down the garden path. And take a giant pair of scissors to "european" red tape and claim victory as they free business and farmers and fishermen from pointless red tape done by that failed lying clown who has just been fired.
Subsidises have been cut in half and the criteria for them has completely changed. I don’t have the details as that’s a wormhole I don’t wish to go down and something that it’s easier to deny knowledge about given Mrs Eek’s areas
That sounds like a Brexit positive then. 👍
So not only are we not paying subsidies to French farmers anymore, we've rid ourselves of half the burden of subsidising British ones too. Fantastic!
Most British farms will no longer be economically viable and will stop producing food! Fantastic!
We really need to be producing more food here not less.
Subsidies are a fact of life.
It isn't just subsidies, but rather price stabilisation that matters to farmers. In order to have a viable harvest they need to have some idea of the selling price. Otherwise they are just gambling on the weather, vs the weather in other parts of the world.
Which is true for many other sectors in the economy too. They should operate in the world as it is, not in the world they wish it was. Perhaps the financial sector can aid with futures contracts if its worthwhile and they're prepared to pay for it?
Yes, it does affect other sectors too, but farming is particularly prone to price fluctuations.
New Zealand is a very different place, with possibly the cheapest high quality agricultural land in the world.
If you think people voted Brexit to shut down British farming then you are likely to not like the next election result.
Farmers have plenty of opportunity to sell to Australia and New Zealand too. It seems for some Remainers unless free trade is with the EU, who we have a trade deal with too, it is irrelevant and we should put up tariffs as high as possible.
Some supposed liberals on here this morning would even bring back the Corn Laws it seems
Does it matter who the England coach is when, with a few noble exceptions, the talent just is not there. Especially in the batting.
I’m sure the talent is there, but one day cricket has corroded the art of defence. So what does the eco do? Invent another form of short cricket... Our county 4 day cricket is not at the same standard as Sheffield Shield in Aussie, partly as there are 18 counties. The two divisions was an attempt to change this, but it didn’t work. I think the ecb is using the hundred as a back door to 8 franchises for the long form of the game. It would benefit the England test team, but the counties will fight to the bitter end. There is a huge amount of history and tradition to lose.
The other question is, would they pick the right 8 or 10 counties? For example, no way should Glamorgan, Middlesex or Kent be in that number on merit, but you can bet they would be as they have the right friends. Meanwhile Somerset, one of the strongest sides in the country, and Gloucestershire, with an international venue, have been deliberately overlooked in the Hundred. Durham, not so long ago one of the best sides in the land and the home of Ben Stokes, have been shafted so often for specious reasons you wonder if their chairman actually killed Tom Harrison's cat.
There is a reason the counties are sceptical of the ECB's plans, and it's simply because the ECB can't be trusted to do what's right for the game instead of what's right for their mates.
Well quite. I think this is the plan, or outline idea, but I’m not in favour. I hoped that two divisions and promotion/relegation would work. I got endlessly fed up with radio 5 not understanding that division 1 was above division 2. How often did they report on second division games ahead of first? They would never report on championship football ahead of the premiership. I think the ecb needs to look at what it wants to achieve. It’s clear the main focus has been world cups (T20 and one day), and fair enough we won one, and lost the other on the toss. But the test team is being done no favours. Back in the day of 17 counties all playing each other home and away (more or less), batsmen got time in the middle. It’s easy to mock Boycott, but by god he’d be first on the sheet right now.
The 18 county system was able to provide the players that have done well in limited overs cricket. Not sure why it isn't possible for it to do the same for the Test side.
If we are to reduce the number of first-class sides then I hope there is an explicit link to the counties in the tier of cricket below them. I'd think a Wessex team, explicitly linked to counties like Somerset and Hampshire, would be a more sensible approach than the city-based franchises they invented for the decimal competition.
Too much crash-bang-wallop cricket means not enough attention to 'proper' batting. Including defence.
Yep, as was pointed out by many of us when the big-money T20 tournaments started. The professional emphasis on the shorter forms of the game, has hollowed-out a lot of the skills required of particularly Test Match batting.
This series has been a flashback to the nineties and I don't think you can blame the nineties on T20.
Fascinating interview with George Eustice, England’s Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on R4 Today.
Farmers are not happy bunnies regarding, among other things, the free trade deal with Australia.
Can’t see many farmers switching straight to Labour, but could we see widespread protest via:
- abstaining? - voting LibDem in England and Wales? - voting SNP in Scotland?
A lot will depend on how the Tory party responds.
At the moment they have patronising lickspittles like David Duguid telling farmers and fishermen that actually Brexit has been brilliant and actually naysayer voices like Banff and Buchan famers and fishermen are ignoring all the amazing things he and his government are doing. Unsurprisingly this seat will fall to the SNP according to the polls.
If the government keep saying Don't Look Up to businesses and rural communities they are going to get pummelled. They know that we remain completely aligned to the single market and customs union and that it is only the government tying them in knots and threatening their subsidies threatening their way of life. They will vote for parties who will fix this.
Or, the government wakes up. Realises the ERG have led them down the garden path. And take a giant pair of scissors to "european" red tape and claim victory as they free business and farmers and fishermen from pointless red tape done by that failed lying clown who has just been fired.
Subsidises have been cut in half and the criteria for them has completely changed. I don’t have the details as that’s a wormhole I don’t wish to go down and something that it’s easier to deny knowledge about given Mrs Eek’s areas
That sounds like a Brexit positive then. 👍
So not only are we not paying subsidies to French farmers anymore, we've rid ourselves of half the burden of subsidising British ones too. Fantastic!
Most British farms will no longer be economically viable and will stop producing food! Fantastic!
We really need to be producing more food here not less.
Subsidies are a fact of life.
It isn't just subsidies, but rather price stabilisation that matters to farmers. In order to have a viable harvest they need to have some idea of the selling price. Otherwise they are just gambling on the weather, vs the weather in other parts of the world.
Which is true for many other sectors in the economy too. They should operate in the world as it is, not in the world they wish it was. Perhaps the financial sector can aid with futures contracts if its worthwhile and they're prepared to pay for it?
Yes, it does affect other sectors too, but farming is particularly prone to price fluctuations.
New Zealand is a very different place, with possibly the cheapest high quality agricultural land in the world.
If you think people voted Brexit to shut down British farming then you are likely to not like the next election result.
Farmers have plenty of opportunity to sell to Australia and New Zealand too. It seems for some Remainers unless free trade is with the EU, who we have a trade deal with too, it is irrelevant and we should put up tariffs as high as possible.
Some supposed liberals on here this morning would even bring back the Corn Laws it seems
What do you propose farmers sell them. I vaguely remember this conversation before and I think we were down to root veg and even that didn't pan out. There aren't that many people there and they are a long way away. Other than some specialities, which we probably provide anyway, I can't think of anything else.
It's not that they are going to get shafted; small children in Grimsby knew that. It's that they were told they wouldn't be shafted.
They interviewed a Welsh farmer who said he'd have to give up farming because of Brexit. It had taken away his livelihood. He was later asked which way he'd voted in the referendum and he said 'to leave'.
Unfortunately it was an early morning farming program and the obvious question wasn't asked.
Rewilding is a handy cover for unfettered wankerdom, mind, and results in civil servants wanting to re-wet Dartmoor because it is not yet sufficiently wet (anyone who has ever been there will see how funny this is) and remove all grazing stock from it, reverting it to a time which probably never existed since the evolution of mammals, and ensuring it degenerates into impenetrable jungle.
Big fan of unfettered wankerdom
I'm from up north so all I see is the environmental deserts of grouse moors and deer forests (which don't have trees). I think it's different in England where you have cultural elements to consider.
"environmental deserts" is, with respect, unfettered wankerspeak. I thought you said you had climbed all sorts of munros, which tend to be deer forests. Do they look like deserts to you? They don't to me. And here's the RSPB (not a pro-grouse front organisation) saying basically it's really really hard to tell whether grouse moors are a net gain or loss environmentally
"Deer forests don't have trees" and a good thing too. People think in the abstract woods are lovely. In fact they create a true environmental desert at ground level because all the light is stolen by the canopy, they are hopeless at sequestering carbon because they fail to duplicate the afungal environment which used to turn them into coal, when felled they leave a landscape as horrible as the Somme, and the only sound reasons for planting them are to build wooden navies, or for cricket bats.
Climbed all of them, actually
I agree that the sitka plantations to which you refer are probably even worse. I'm talking about natural regeneration. Upper Glen Nevis another example.
Were not much of Britain's uplands forested at one time before they were cleared by humans? A long time ago, admittedly.
Yes, this island was a big rainforest once upon a time before being cleared for agriculture. It's also been deforested multiple times as we went to war.
I heard that there is more forest in the UK at moment than any time since Henry VIII, mainly because of our huge plantations.
Fascinating interview with George Eustice, England’s Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on R4 Today.
Farmers are not happy bunnies regarding, among other things, the free trade deal with Australia.
Can’t see many farmers switching straight to Labour, but could we see widespread protest via:
- abstaining? - voting LibDem in England and Wales? - voting SNP in Scotland?
A lot will depend on how the Tory party responds.
At the moment they have patronising lickspittles like David Duguid telling farmers and fishermen that actually Brexit has been brilliant and actually naysayer voices like Banff and Buchan famers and fishermen are ignoring all the amazing things he and his government are doing. Unsurprisingly this seat will fall to the SNP according to the polls.
If the government keep saying Don't Look Up to businesses and rural communities they are going to get pummelled. They know that we remain completely aligned to the single market and customs union and that it is only the government tying them in knots and threatening their subsidies threatening their way of life. They will vote for parties who will fix this.
Or, the government wakes up. Realises the ERG have led them down the garden path. And take a giant pair of scissors to "european" red tape and claim victory as they free business and farmers and fishermen from pointless red tape done by that failed lying clown who has just been fired.
An interesting piece here, if slightly dated and in a generally emphatically Unionist newspaper btw: does suggest that the SNP might srtruggle to get some votes from the hard Breixters even if the latter abstain (or indeed vote LD, but then the LDs are against Brexit too).
I find your description of the Courier somewhat odd. It seems to me to be very careful to be neutral which is commercial good sense given the predilections of its main circulation areas. They carry lots of SNP columnists and faithfully print rants by the same group of SNP fanatics in their letters column pretty much every day (although, admittedly, that is something a Unionist might be minded to do).
Does it matter who the England coach is when, with a few noble exceptions, the talent just is not there. Especially in the batting.
I’m sure the talent is there, but one day cricket has corroded the art of defence. So what does the eco do? Invent another form of short cricket... Our county 4 day cricket is not at the same standard as Sheffield Shield in Aussie, partly as there are 18 counties. The two divisions was an attempt to change this, but it didn’t work. I think the ecb is using the hundred as a back door to 8 franchises for the long form of the game. It would benefit the England test team, but the counties will fight to the bitter end. There is a huge amount of history and tradition to lose.
The other question is, would they pick the right 8 or 10 counties? For example, no way should Glamorgan, Middlesex or Kent be in that number on merit, but you can bet they would be as they have the right friends. Meanwhile Somerset, one of the strongest sides in the country, and Gloucestershire, with an international venue, have been deliberately overlooked in the Hundred. Durham, not so long ago one of the best sides in the land and the home of Ben Stokes, have been shafted so often for specious reasons you wonder if their chairman actually killed Tom Harrison's cat.
There is a reason the counties are sceptical of the ECB's plans, and it's simply because the ECB can't be trusted to do what's right for the game instead of what's right for their mates.
Well quite. I think this is the plan, or outline idea, but I’m not in favour. I hoped that two divisions and promotion/relegation would work. I got endlessly fed up with radio 5 not understanding that division 1 was above division 2. How often did they report on second division games ahead of first? They would never report on championship football ahead of the premiership. I think the ecb needs to look at what it wants to achieve. It’s clear the main focus has been world cups (T20 and one day), and fair enough we won one, and lost the other on the toss. But the test team is being done no favours. Back in the day of 17 counties all playing each other home and away (more or less), batsmen got time in the middle. It’s easy to mock Boycott, but by god he’d be first on the sheet right now.
The 18 county system was able to provide the players that have done well in limited overs cricket. Not sure why it isn't possible for it to do the same for the Test side.
If we are to reduce the number of first-class sides then I hope there is an explicit link to the counties in the tier of cricket below them. I'd think a Wessex team, explicitly linked to counties like Somerset and Hampshire, would be a more sensible approach than the city-based franchises they invented for the decimal competition.
Too much crash-bang-wallop cricket means not enough attention to 'proper' batting. Including defence.
Yep, as was pointed out by many of us when the big-money T20 tournaments started. The professional emphasis on the shorter forms of the game, has hollowed-out a lot of the skills required of particularly Test Match batting.
Fascinating interview with George Eustice, England’s Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on R4 Today.
Farmers are not happy bunnies regarding, among other things, the free trade deal with Australia.
Can’t see many farmers switching straight to Labour, but could we see widespread protest via:
- abstaining? - voting LibDem in England and Wales? - voting SNP in Scotland?
A lot will depend on how the Tory party responds.
At the moment they have patronising lickspittles like David Duguid telling farmers and fishermen that actually Brexit has been brilliant and actually naysayer voices like Banff and Buchan famers and fishermen are ignoring all the amazing things he and his government are doing. Unsurprisingly this seat will fall to the SNP according to the polls.
If the government keep saying Don't Look Up to businesses and rural communities they are going to get pummelled. They know that we remain completely aligned to the single market and customs union and that it is only the government tying them in knots and threatening their subsidies threatening their way of life. They will vote for parties who will fix this.
Or, the government wakes up. Realises the ERG have led them down the garden path. And take a giant pair of scissors to "european" red tape and claim victory as they free business and farmers and fishermen from pointless red tape done by that failed lying clown who has just been fired.
Subsidises have been cut in half and the criteria for them has completely changed. I don’t have the details as that’s a wormhole I don’t wish to go down and something that it’s easier to deny knowledge about given Mrs Eek’s areas
That sounds like a Brexit positive then. 👍
So not only are we not paying subsidies to French farmers anymore, we've rid ourselves of half the burden of subsidising British ones too. Fantastic!
Most British farms will no longer be economically viable and will stop producing food! Fantastic!
That's far too premature and imo somewhat hysterical.
The devolved Govts are keeping significant elements of the CAP area / production subsidies, and are moving very slowly.
AIUI in England, which is moving more quickly, only one of three schemes has been detailed, and that is money for public goods such as soil retention and hedges, which is a small amount of iirc £30 per hectare. I may be about a week or two behind with the news.
It will be years before we see how things are going to work out. We can't possibly know yet.
Don't forget that the farming lobby are world champion whingers. Witness all the squealing about 30k pigs being 'culled', and how it is all the Govt's fault, which is largely the result of a significant increase in the pig herd of 4% (200k) since last year.
The politics are more interesting - the Govt need to have an improved situation, or a perceived clear path to an improved situation, in place before the next election.
Does it matter who the England coach is when, with a few noble exceptions, the talent just is not there. Especially in the batting.
I’m sure the talent is there, but one day cricket has corroded the art of defence. So what does the eco do? Invent another form of short cricket... Our county 4 day cricket is not at the same standard as Sheffield Shield in Aussie, partly as there are 18 counties. The two divisions was an attempt to change this, but it didn’t work. I think the ecb is using the hundred as a back door to 8 franchises for the long form of the game. It would benefit the England test team, but the counties will fight to the bitter end. There is a huge amount of history and tradition to lose.
The other question is, would they pick the right 8 or 10 counties? For example, no way should Glamorgan, Middlesex or Kent be in that number on merit, but you can bet they would be as they have the right friends. Meanwhile Somerset, one of the strongest sides in the country, and Gloucestershire, with an international venue, have been deliberately overlooked in the Hundred. Durham, not so long ago one of the best sides in the land and the home of Ben Stokes, have been shafted so often for specious reasons you wonder if their chairman actually killed Tom Harrison's cat.
There is a reason the counties are sceptical of the ECB's plans, and it's simply because the ECB can't be trusted to do what's right for the game instead of what's right for their mates.
Well quite. I think this is the plan, or outline idea, but I’m not in favour. I hoped that two divisions and promotion/relegation would work. I got endlessly fed up with radio 5 not understanding that division 1 was above division 2. How often did they report on second division games ahead of first? They would never report on championship football ahead of the premiership. I think the ecb needs to look at what it wants to achieve. It’s clear the main focus has been world cups (T20 and one day), and fair enough we won one, and lost the other on the toss. But the test team is being done no favours. Back in the day of 17 counties all playing each other home and away (more or less), batsmen got time in the middle. It’s easy to mock Boycott, but by god he’d be first on the sheet right now.
The 18 county system was able to provide the players that have done well in limited overs cricket. Not sure why it isn't possible for it to do the same for the Test side.
If we are to reduce the number of first-class sides then I hope there is an explicit link to the counties in the tier of cricket below them. I'd think a Wessex team, explicitly linked to counties like Somerset and Hampshire, would be a more sensible approach than the city-based franchises they invented for the decimal competition.
Too much crash-bang-wallop cricket means not enough attention to 'proper' batting. Including defence.
Yep, as was pointed out by many of us when the big-money T20 tournaments started. The professional emphasis on the shorter forms of the game, has hollowed-out a lot of the skills required of particularly Test Match batting.
Until the County Championship can make as much money for the players as the IPL (or even the T20 Blast), this will inevitably be the case.
There were some great games in the County Championship last year. Some great stories. I got to watch lots of it, for free, on the streams from the county grounds. Someone has to work out how to sell the game to more people, and how to make money out of followers like me.
Does it matter who the England coach is when, with a few noble exceptions, the talent just is not there. Especially in the batting.
I’m sure the talent is there, but one day cricket has corroded the art of defence. So what does the eco do? Invent another form of short cricket... Our county 4 day cricket is not at the same standard as Sheffield Shield in Aussie, partly as there are 18 counties. The two divisions was an attempt to change this, but it didn’t work. I think the ecb is using the hundred as a back door to 8 franchises for the long form of the game. It would benefit the England test team, but the counties will fight to the bitter end. There is a huge amount of history and tradition to lose.
The other question is, would they pick the right 8 or 10 counties? For example, no way should Glamorgan, Middlesex or Kent be in that number on merit, but you can bet they would be as they have the right friends. Meanwhile Somerset, one of the strongest sides in the country, and Gloucestershire, with an international venue, have been deliberately overlooked in the Hundred. Durham, not so long ago one of the best sides in the land and the home of Ben Stokes, have been shafted so often for specious reasons you wonder if their chairman actually killed Tom Harrison's cat.
There is a reason the counties are sceptical of the ECB's plans, and it's simply because the ECB can't be trusted to do what's right for the game instead of what's right for their mates.
Well quite. I think this is the plan, or outline idea, but I’m not in favour. I hoped that two divisions and promotion/relegation would work. I got endlessly fed up with radio 5 not understanding that division 1 was above division 2. How often did they report on second division games ahead of first? They would never report on championship football ahead of the premiership. I think the ecb needs to look at what it wants to achieve. It’s clear the main focus has been world cups (T20 and one day), and fair enough we won one, and lost the other on the toss. But the test team is being done no favours. Back in the day of 17 counties all playing each other home and away (more or less), batsmen got time in the middle. It’s easy to mock Boycott, but by god he’d be first on the sheet right now.
The 18 county system was able to provide the players that have done well in limited overs cricket. Not sure why it isn't possible for it to do the same for the Test side.
If we are to reduce the number of first-class sides then I hope there is an explicit link to the counties in the tier of cricket below them. I'd think a Wessex team, explicitly linked to counties like Somerset and Hampshire, would be a more sensible approach than the city-based franchises they invented for the decimal competition.
Too much crash-bang-wallop cricket means not enough attention to 'proper' batting. Including defence.
Yep, as was pointed out by many of us when the big-money T20 tournaments started. The professional emphasis on the shorter forms of the game, has hollowed-out a lot of the skills required of particularly Test Match batting.
This series has been a flashback to the nineties and I don't think you can blame the nineties on T20.
Oh indeed. It’s not helping develop the Test side though, when the players know they can go smash the ball around in India and earn six figures in a month.
Better therefore for the party to focus on avoiding any further restrictions as Boris is doing and getting people boosted rather than focusing too much on personalities
Johnson is not focusing on anything other than self-preservation. He is not in control, he is not making decisions based on evidence or possible outcomes for the NHS.
Johnson is being held hostage by the CRG and ambitious cabinet colleagues. He is Prime Minister in name only. He is a PM with no decision making power.
Good!
We don't have an elected President. If MPs and the Cabinet are against such restrictions then the PM should be listening to them and respecting them.
That's not a bad thing. Especially given the CRG called this right.
You don't know the CRG have called this right yet.
Rewilding is a handy cover for unfettered wankerdom, mind, and results in civil servants wanting to re-wet Dartmoor because it is not yet sufficiently wet (anyone who has ever been there will see how funny this is) and remove all grazing stock from it, reverting it to a time which probably never existed since the evolution of mammals, and ensuring it degenerates into impenetrable jungle.
Big fan of unfettered wankerdom
I'm from up north so all I see is the environmental deserts of grouse moors and deer forests (which don't have trees). I think it's different in England where you have cultural elements to consider.
"environmental deserts" is, with respect, unfettered wankerspeak. I thought you said you had climbed all sorts of munros, which tend to be deer forests. Do they look like deserts to you? They don't to me. And here's the RSPB (not a pro-grouse front organisation) saying basically it's really really hard to tell whether grouse moors are a net gain or loss environmentally
"Deer forests don't have trees" and a good thing too. People think in the abstract woods are lovely. In fact they create a true environmental desert at ground level because all the light is stolen by the canopy, they are hopeless at sequestering carbon because they fail to duplicate the afungal environment which used to turn them into coal, when felled they leave a landscape as horrible as the Somme, and the only sound reasons for planting them are to build wooden navies, or for cricket bats.
Well we certainly don't seem to need any of the latter.
But the timber is used for construction and reduces imports. And the Somme effects are pretty short term. Around here there are crops of Christmas trees that are cut pretty young. Fields are back in production again within a season.
It's not that they are going to get shafted; small children in Grimsby knew that. It's that they were told they wouldn't be shafted.
The UK has left the CFP, exactly as the fishermen of Grimsby voted for
Absolutely. And they were told it would be in their best interests to do so.
Not by the Government of the day they weren't.
Everyone makes their own informed decision, I see no reasons to pander to Luddites.
They were told by the leave campaign. Headed by Nigel Farage.
Maybe they shouldn't vote for Nigel Farage next time then. Kick him out of Parliament by not re-electing him.
There used to be a guy here who said voting for a party led by Farage wasn't voting for Farage (somewhat unconvincingly it has to be said), dunno what happened to him.
Does it matter who the England coach is when, with a few noble exceptions, the talent just is not there. Especially in the batting.
I’m sure the talent is there, but one day cricket has corroded the art of defence. So what does the eco do? Invent another form of short cricket... Our county 4 day cricket is not at the same standard as Sheffield Shield in Aussie, partly as there are 18 counties. The two divisions was an attempt to change this, but it didn’t work. I think the ecb is using the hundred as a back door to 8 franchises for the long form of the game. It would benefit the England test team, but the counties will fight to the bitter end. There is a huge amount of history and tradition to lose.
The other question is, would they pick the right 8 or 10 counties? For example, no way should Glamorgan, Middlesex or Kent be in that number on merit, but you can bet they would be as they have the right friends. Meanwhile Somerset, one of the strongest sides in the country, and Gloucestershire, with an international venue, have been deliberately overlooked in the Hundred. Durham, not so long ago one of the best sides in the land and the home of Ben Stokes, have been shafted so often for specious reasons you wonder if their chairman actually killed Tom Harrison's cat.
There is a reason the counties are sceptical of the ECB's plans, and it's simply because the ECB can't be trusted to do what's right for the game instead of what's right for their mates.
Well quite. I think this is the plan, or outline idea, but I’m not in favour. I hoped that two divisions and promotion/relegation would work. I got endlessly fed up with radio 5 not understanding that division 1 was above division 2. How often did they report on second division games ahead of first? They would never report on championship football ahead of the premiership. I think the ecb needs to look at what it wants to achieve. It’s clear the main focus has been world cups (T20 and one day), and fair enough we won one, and lost the other on the toss. But the test team is being done no favours. Back in the day of 17 counties all playing each other home and away (more or less), batsmen got time in the middle. It’s easy to mock Boycott, but by god he’d be first on the sheet right now.
The 18 county system was able to provide the players that have done well in limited overs cricket. Not sure why it isn't possible for it to do the same for the Test side.
If we are to reduce the number of first-class sides then I hope there is an explicit link to the counties in the tier of cricket below them. I'd think a Wessex team, explicitly linked to counties like Somerset and Hampshire, would be a more sensible approach than the city-based franchises they invented for the decimal competition.
Too much crash-bang-wallop cricket means not enough attention to 'proper' batting. Including defence.
Yep, as was pointed out by many of us when the big-money T20 tournaments started. The professional emphasis on the shorter forms of the game, has hollowed-out a lot of the skills required of particularly Test Match batting.
Don't forget the Hundred ;-)
The tournament that had lower average crowds than the T20 blast and £2.1 million of whose profit (it's not clear if there was any more) was shared among the board members of the ECB not invested in the game?
Does it matter who the England coach is when, with a few noble exceptions, the talent just is not there. Especially in the batting.
I’m sure the talent is there, but one day cricket has corroded the art of defence. So what does the eco do? Invent another form of short cricket... Our county 4 day cricket is not at the same standard as Sheffield Shield in Aussie, partly as there are 18 counties. The two divisions was an attempt to change this, but it didn’t work. I think the ecb is using the hundred as a back door to 8 franchises for the long form of the game. It would benefit the England test team, but the counties will fight to the bitter end. There is a huge amount of history and tradition to lose.
The other question is, would they pick the right 8 or 10 counties? For example, no way should Glamorgan, Middlesex or Kent be in that number on merit, but you can bet they would be as they have the right friends. Meanwhile Somerset, one of the strongest sides in the country, and Gloucestershire, with an international venue, have been deliberately overlooked in the Hundred. Durham, not so long ago one of the best sides in the land and the home of Ben Stokes, have been shafted so often for specious reasons you wonder if their chairman actually killed Tom Harrison's cat.
There is a reason the counties are sceptical of the ECB's plans, and it's simply because the ECB can't be trusted to do what's right for the game instead of what's right for their mates.
Well quite. I think this is the plan, or outline idea, but I’m not in favour. I hoped that two divisions and promotion/relegation would work. I got endlessly fed up with radio 5 not understanding that division 1 was above division 2. How often did they report on second division games ahead of first? They would never report on championship football ahead of the premiership. I think the ecb needs to look at what it wants to achieve. It’s clear the main focus has been world cups (T20 and one day), and fair enough we won one, and lost the other on the toss. But the test team is being done no favours. Back in the day of 17 counties all playing each other home and away (more or less), batsmen got time in the middle. It’s easy to mock Boycott, but by god he’d be first on the sheet right now.
The 18 county system was able to provide the players that have done well in limited overs cricket. Not sure why it isn't possible for it to do the same for the Test side.
If we are to reduce the number of first-class sides then I hope there is an explicit link to the counties in the tier of cricket below them. I'd think a Wessex team, explicitly linked to counties like Somerset and Hampshire, would be a more sensible approach than the city-based franchises they invented for the decimal competition.
Too much crash-bang-wallop cricket means not enough attention to 'proper' batting. Including defence.
Same applies to Australia the fact is we Poms almost always get thrashed by the Aussies in the winter tests. It is just a Christmas tradition
I am expecting a spike in cases in the vulnerable groups and over 60s soon. They hunkered down with the rise of Omicron prior to Christmas but then obviously and naturally met up with family and friends during the festive period.
Then you probably will see a spike when the school's go back, Omicron can easily 'reinfect' and there are million of kids out there to spread it about.
Some difficult days ahead for sure.
Know someone who came down with rona a couple of months ago while double vaxxed. Since had a booster. Tested positive again a week or so ago, after a bet with his wife that he couldn’t possibly have it again, this time only with a scratchy throat that wouldn’t have interfered with his day were it not for govt mandated isolation requirements.
The only way out of this looks to me to totally let rip in a boosted population, by stopping the continual testing and the self isolation of positive cases and removing all other mandates like masks. Otherwise we’re going to be talking about this forever. And just treat this as another annoying virus that you get every year or so.
Sensible precautions ahead of time should be made, for what is largely a reverse psyops campaign given the low hospital stats caused by omicron. FFP3 masks for the clinically vulnerable that want them, 4th doses for them if they’re past 12 weeks, anti virals and oximeters already sitting in their bathroom cabinets.
It wouldn’t go down well with the scaredy cats (you know who you are). But so what. Time to rip off the plaster.
The basic problem with "rip off the plaster" is this. "a scratchy throat that wouldn’t have interfered with his day" is perfectly capable of making someone seriously ill or dead. Or scores of people ill enough to not be at work. People with critical jobs.
When people have Covid - even if they are lucky enough to only have a scratchy throat - they need to self-isolate to protect *other people*.
I really struggle with how this rather basic consideration seems to pass some of you by.
Why do you think it passes me by? It doesn’t. I just think the trade offs you are expecting from everyone else are unreasonable and counterproductive to ensuring a healthy and prosperous society.
Why aren’t you writing to your MP and marching on parliament to require everyone also home test for influenza, norovirus and the long list of other infectious diseases that kill thousands of old and vulnerable a year? Because you’ve not been subjected to a deliberate psyops campaign about those things to elevate them in your mind to the only thing that matters in life.
Don't Look Up!
Name me one other virus which infects 120k people every day and threatens the ability of business and essential services to provide enough staff to function.
That's precisely @moonshine point. The isolation period is causing more harm than good.
300k new cases a day would do more harm.
Presumably not all people are infectious for all the 7 days. Some will have been missed in the early days, some will get better quicker.
So it’s a trade off between economic damage and number of cases.
I’m sure they have modelled although I haven’t seen
Fascinating interview with George Eustice, England’s Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on R4 Today.
Farmers are not happy bunnies regarding, among other things, the free trade deal with Australia.
Can’t see many farmers switching straight to Labour, but could we see widespread protest via:
- abstaining? - voting LibDem in England and Wales? - voting SNP in Scotland?
A lot will depend on how the Tory party responds.
At the moment they have patronising lickspittles like David Duguid telling farmers and fishermen that actually Brexit has been brilliant and actually naysayer voices like Banff and Buchan famers and fishermen are ignoring all the amazing things he and his government are doing. Unsurprisingly this seat will fall to the SNP according to the polls.
If the government keep saying Don't Look Up to businesses and rural communities they are going to get pummelled. They know that we remain completely aligned to the single market and customs union and that it is only the government tying them in knots and threatening their subsidies threatening their way of life. They will vote for parties who will fix this.
Or, the government wakes up. Realises the ERG have led them down the garden path. And take a giant pair of scissors to "european" red tape and claim victory as they free business and farmers and fishermen from pointless red tape done by that failed lying clown who has just been fired.
Subsidises have been cut in half and the criteria for them has completely changed. I don’t have the details as that’s a wormhole I don’t wish to go down and something that it’s easier to deny knowledge about given Mrs Eek’s areas
That sounds like a Brexit positive then. 👍
So not only are we not paying subsidies to French farmers anymore, we've rid ourselves of half the burden of subsidising British ones too. Fantastic!
Most British farms will no longer be economically viable and will stop producing food! Fantastic!
We really need to be producing more food here not less.
Subsidies are a fact of life.
It isn't just subsidies, but rather price stabilisation that matters to farmers. In order to have a viable harvest they need to have some idea of the selling price. Otherwise they are just gambling on the weather, vs the weather in other parts of the world.
Which is true for many other sectors in the economy too. They should operate in the world as it is, not in the world they wish it was. Perhaps the financial sector can aid with futures contracts if its worthwhile and they're prepared to pay for it?
Yes, it does affect other sectors too, but farming is particularly prone to price fluctuations.
New Zealand is a very different place, with possibly the cheapest high quality agricultural land in the world.
If you think people voted Brexit to shut down British farming then you are likely to not like the next election result.
Farmers have plenty of opportunity to sell to Australia and New Zealand too. It seems for some Remainers unless free trade is with the EU, who we have a trade deal with too, it is irrelevant and we should put up tariffs as high as possible.
Some supposed liberals on here this morning would even bring back the Corn Laws it seems
Rewilding is a handy cover for unfettered wankerdom, mind, and results in civil servants wanting to re-wet Dartmoor because it is not yet sufficiently wet (anyone who has ever been there will see how funny this is) and remove all grazing stock from it, reverting it to a time which probably never existed since the evolution of mammals, and ensuring it degenerates into impenetrable jungle.
Big fan of unfettered wankerdom
I'm from up north so all I see is the environmental deserts of grouse moors and deer forests (which don't have trees). I think it's different in England where you have cultural elements to consider.
"environmental deserts" is, with respect, unfettered wankerspeak. I thought you said you had climbed all sorts of munros, which tend to be deer forests. Do they look like deserts to you? They don't to me. And here's the RSPB (not a pro-grouse front organisation) saying basically it's really really hard to tell whether grouse moors are a net gain or loss environmentally
"Deer forests don't have trees" and a good thing too. People think in the abstract woods are lovely. In fact they create a true environmental desert at ground level because all the light is stolen by the canopy, they are hopeless at sequestering carbon because they fail to duplicate the afungal environment which used to turn them into coal, when felled they leave a landscape as horrible as the Somme, and the only sound reasons for planting them are to build wooden navies, or for cricket bats.
Climbed all of them, actually
I agree that the sitka plantations to which you refer are probably even worse. I'm talking about natural regeneration. Upper Glen Nevis another example.
Were not much of Britain's uplands forested at one time before they were cleared by humans? A long time ago, admittedly.
Yes, this island was a big rainforest once upon a time before being cleared for agriculture. It's also been deforested multiple times as we went to war.
I heard that there is more forest in the UK at moment than any time since Henry VIII, mainly because of our huge plantations.
Agreed; there's a heath not far away from here which was ploughed up during WWII but has now reverted to scrub and 'forest'..... well, a small wood. And the birds, small mammals and insects have slowly come back. Takes time though.
Rewilding is a handy cover for unfettered wankerdom, mind, and results in civil servants wanting to re-wet Dartmoor because it is not yet sufficiently wet (anyone who has ever been there will see how funny this is) and remove all grazing stock from it, reverting it to a time which probably never existed since the evolution of mammals, and ensuring it degenerates into impenetrable jungle.
Big fan of unfettered wankerdom
I'm from up north so all I see is the environmental deserts of grouse moors and deer forests (which don't have trees). I think it's different in England where you have cultural elements to consider.
"environmental deserts" is, with respect, unfettered wankerspeak. I thought you said you had climbed all sorts of munros, which tend to be deer forests. Do they look like deserts to you? They don't to me. And here's the RSPB (not a pro-grouse front organisation) saying basically it's really really hard to tell whether grouse moors are a net gain or loss environmentally
"Deer forests don't have trees" and a good thing too. People think in the abstract woods are lovely. In fact they create a true environmental desert at ground level because all the light is stolen by the canopy, they are hopeless at sequestering carbon because they fail to duplicate the afungal environment which used to turn them into coal, when felled they leave a landscape as horrible as the Somme, and the only sound reasons for planting them are to build wooden navies, or for cricket bats.
Climbed all of them, actually
I agree that the sitka plantations to which you refer are probably even worse. I'm talking about natural regeneration. Upper Glen Nevis another example.
Were not much of Britain's uplands forested at one time before they were cleared by humans? A long time ago, admittedly.
Yes, pretty much trees everywhere, except for the marshlands. However, some places, such as Dartmoor, lost so much soil after the trees were cleared, that I'm not sure the trees would be able to make their way back in the short term.
I don't think that is right. Plenty of soil on Dartmoor except the tops of the tors and 1000s of acres of forestry round Postbridge. The Highlands otoh seem to have a tree line above which nothing grows but the odd rowan.
Fascinating interview with George Eustice, England’s Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on R4 Today.
Farmers are not happy bunnies regarding, among other things, the free trade deal with Australia.
Can’t see many farmers switching straight to Labour, but could we see widespread protest via:
- abstaining? - voting LibDem in England and Wales? - voting SNP in Scotland?
A lot will depend on how the Tory party responds.
At the moment they have patronising lickspittles like David Duguid telling farmers and fishermen that actually Brexit has been brilliant and actually naysayer voices like Banff and Buchan famers and fishermen are ignoring all the amazing things he and his government are doing. Unsurprisingly this seat will fall to the SNP according to the polls.
If the government keep saying Don't Look Up to businesses and rural communities they are going to get pummelled. They know that we remain completely aligned to the single market and customs union and that it is only the government tying them in knots and threatening their subsidies threatening their way of life. They will vote for parties who will fix this.
Or, the government wakes up. Realises the ERG have led them down the garden path. And take a giant pair of scissors to "european" red tape and claim victory as they free business and farmers and fishermen from pointless red tape done by that failed lying clown who has just been fired.
Subsidises have been cut in half and the criteria for them has completely changed. I don’t have the details as that’s a wormhole I don’t wish to go down and something that it’s easier to deny knowledge about given Mrs Eek’s areas
That sounds like a Brexit positive then. 👍
So not only are we not paying subsidies to French farmers anymore, we've rid ourselves of half the burden of subsidising British ones too. Fantastic!
Most British farms will no longer be economically viable and will stop producing food! Fantastic!
We really need to be producing more food here not less.
Subsidies are a fact of life.
It isn't just subsidies, but rather price stabilisation that matters to farmers. In order to have a viable harvest they need to have some idea of the selling price. Otherwise they are just gambling on the weather, vs the weather in other parts of the world.
Which is true for many other sectors in the economy too. They should operate in the world as it is, not in the world they wish it was. Perhaps the financial sector can aid with futures contracts if its worthwhile and they're prepared to pay for it?
Yes, it does affect other sectors too, but farming is particularly prone to price fluctuations.
New Zealand is a very different place, with possibly the cheapest high quality agricultural land in the world.
If you think people voted Brexit to shut down British farming then you are likely to not like the next election result.
Farmers have plenty of opportunity to sell to Australia and New Zealand too. It seems for some Remainers unless free trade is with the EU, who we have a trade deal with too, it is irrelevant and we should put up tariffs as high as possible.
Some supposed liberals on here this morning would even bring back the Corn Laws it seems
Does it matter who the England coach is when, with a few noble exceptions, the talent just is not there. Especially in the batting.
I’m sure the talent is there, but one day cricket has corroded the art of defence. So what does the eco do? Invent another form of short cricket... Our county 4 day cricket is not at the same standard as Sheffield Shield in Aussie, partly as there are 18 counties. The two divisions was an attempt to change this, but it didn’t work. I think the ecb is using the hundred as a back door to 8 franchises for the long form of the game. It would benefit the England test team, but the counties will fight to the bitter end. There is a huge amount of history and tradition to lose.
The other question is, would they pick the right 8 or 10 counties? For example, no way should Glamorgan, Middlesex or Kent be in that number on merit, but you can bet they would be as they have the right friends. Meanwhile Somerset, one of the strongest sides in the country, and Gloucestershire, with an international venue, have been deliberately overlooked in the Hundred. Durham, not so long ago one of the best sides in the land and the home of Ben Stokes, have been shafted so often for specious reasons you wonder if their chairman actually killed Tom Harrison's cat.
There is a reason the counties are sceptical of the ECB's plans, and it's simply because the ECB can't be trusted to do what's right for the game instead of what's right for their mates.
Well quite. I think this is the plan, or outline idea, but I’m not in favour. I hoped that two divisions and promotion/relegation would work. I got endlessly fed up with radio 5 not understanding that division 1 was above division 2. How often did they report on second division games ahead of first? They would never report on championship football ahead of the premiership. I think the ecb needs to look at what it wants to achieve. It’s clear the main focus has been world cups (T20 and one day), and fair enough we won one, and lost the other on the toss. But the test team is being done no favours. Back in the day of 17 counties all playing each other home and away (more or less), batsmen got time in the middle. It’s easy to mock Boycott, but by god he’d be first on the sheet right now.
The 18 county system was able to provide the players that have done well in limited overs cricket. Not sure why it isn't possible for it to do the same for the Test side.
If we are to reduce the number of first-class sides then I hope there is an explicit link to the counties in the tier of cricket below them. I'd think a Wessex team, explicitly linked to counties like Somerset and Hampshire, would be a more sensible approach than the city-based franchises they invented for the decimal competition.
Too much crash-bang-wallop cricket means not enough attention to 'proper' batting. Including defence.
Yep, as was pointed out by many of us when the big-money T20 tournaments started. The professional emphasis on the shorter forms of the game, has hollowed-out a lot of the skills required of particularly Test Match batting.
Don't forget the Hundred ;-)
The tournament that had lower average crowds than the T20 blast and £2.1 million of whose profit (it's not clear if there was any more) was shared among the board members of the ECB not invested in the game?
Did it really? I didn't know that. I was under the impression the attendance was higher, BUT a huge amount of it had been padded by free give aways to existing members of clubs and to kids.
Fascinating interview with George Eustice, England’s Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on R4 Today.
Farmers are not happy bunnies regarding, among other things, the free trade deal with Australia.
Can’t see many farmers switching straight to Labour, but could we see widespread protest via:
- abstaining? - voting LibDem in England and Wales? - voting SNP in Scotland?
A lot will depend on how the Tory party responds.
At the moment they have patronising lickspittles like David Duguid telling farmers and fishermen that actually Brexit has been brilliant and actually naysayer voices like Banff and Buchan famers and fishermen are ignoring all the amazing things he and his government are doing. Unsurprisingly this seat will fall to the SNP according to the polls.
If the government keep saying Don't Look Up to businesses and rural communities they are going to get pummelled. They know that we remain completely aligned to the single market and customs union and that it is only the government tying them in knots and threatening their subsidies threatening their way of life. They will vote for parties who will fix this.
Or, the government wakes up. Realises the ERG have led them down the garden path. And take a giant pair of scissors to "european" red tape and claim victory as they free business and farmers and fishermen from pointless red tape done by that failed lying clown who has just been fired.
Subsidises have been cut in half and the criteria for them has completely changed. I don’t have the details as that’s a wormhole I don’t wish to go down and something that it’s easier to deny knowledge about given Mrs Eek’s areas
That sounds like a Brexit positive then. 👍
So not only are we not paying subsidies to French farmers anymore, we've rid ourselves of half the burden of subsidising British ones too. Fantastic!
Most British farms will no longer be economically viable and will stop producing food! Fantastic!
We really need to be producing more food here not less.
Subsidies are a fact of life.
It isn't just subsidies, but rather price stabilisation that matters to farmers. In order to have a viable harvest they need to have some idea of the selling price. Otherwise they are just gambling on the weather, vs the weather in other parts of the world.
Fascinating interview with George Eustice, England’s Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on R4 Today.
Farmers are not happy bunnies regarding, among other things, the free trade deal with Australia.
Can’t see many farmers switching straight to Labour, but could we see widespread protest via:
- abstaining? - voting LibDem in England and Wales? - voting SNP in Scotland?
A lot will depend on how the Tory party responds.
At the moment they have patronising lickspittles like David Duguid telling farmers and fishermen that actually Brexit has been brilliant and actually naysayer voices like Banff and Buchan famers and fishermen are ignoring all the amazing things he and his government are doing. Unsurprisingly this seat will fall to the SNP according to the polls.
If the government keep saying Don't Look Up to businesses and rural communities they are going to get pummelled. They know that we remain completely aligned to the single market and customs union and that it is only the government tying them in knots and threatening their subsidies threatening their way of life. They will vote for parties who will fix this.
Or, the government wakes up. Realises the ERG have led them down the garden path. And take a giant pair of scissors to "european" red tape and claim victory as they free business and farmers and fishermen from pointless red tape done by that failed lying clown who has just been fired.
Subsidises have been cut in half and the criteria for them has completely changed. I don’t have the details as that’s a wormhole I don’t wish to go down and something that it’s easier to deny knowledge about given Mrs Eek’s areas
That sounds like a Brexit positive then. 👍
So not only are we not paying subsidies to French farmers anymore, we've rid ourselves of half the burden of subsidising British ones too. Fantastic!
Most British farms will no longer be economically viable and will stop producing food! Fantastic!
I'm sure Kiwi headbangers like yourself would have said the same thing decades ago when they scrapped subsidies.
If you have confidence in our British agricultural sector they should be able to be competitive without subsidies or tariffs. In which case, that's great.
If they're not and you hold our agricultural sector in contempt and think they can't survive on their own basis then why are we trying to keep them afloat? Move on and accept reality, and let the land be used for more productive purposes.
If less productive farmers go out of business and get replaced by more productive ones, then we have more food security, less subsidies and are more competitive economically. Win/win/win in that scenario.
Or, re-wild our pastoral land while supporting arable farming with the re-directed subsidies. Hits a few objective - calorie security, environmental gains, reduced meat consumption etc
Not completely sure it works that way; grain is a problem (bread wheats tend to be imported). And in an earlier era of free trade (within the Empire), the farms abandoned grain and went for cattle and milk instead. Caused huge problems changing over in 1939 with the coming of war. And some upland is only good for sheep (which produce wool too). But some impact on intensive stockrearing seems likely. Yet why close it down in the UK for the benefit of intensive stockrearers in other countries?
Not saying you are wrong - just that it's a huge problem.
Tend to agree - there will be four different support regimes, and the space to adjust them as the status changes.
Over a period of years I'm expecting more UK based production, especially in horticulture, but we will see.
Fascinating interview with George Eustice, England’s Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on R4 Today.
Farmers are not happy bunnies regarding, among other things, the free trade deal with Australia.
Can’t see many farmers switching straight to Labour, but could we see widespread protest via:
- abstaining? - voting LibDem in England and Wales? - voting SNP in Scotland?
A lot will depend on how the Tory party responds.
At the moment they have patronising lickspittles like David Duguid telling farmers and fishermen that actually Brexit has been brilliant and actually naysayer voices like Banff and Buchan famers and fishermen are ignoring all the amazing things he and his government are doing. Unsurprisingly this seat will fall to the SNP according to the polls.
If the government keep saying Don't Look Up to businesses and rural communities they are going to get pummelled. They know that we remain completely aligned to the single market and customs union and that it is only the government tying them in knots and threatening their subsidies threatening their way of life. They will vote for parties who will fix this.
Or, the government wakes up. Realises the ERG have led them down the garden path. And take a giant pair of scissors to "european" red tape and claim victory as they free business and farmers and fishermen from pointless red tape done by that failed lying clown who has just been fired.
Subsidises have been cut in half and the criteria for them has completely changed. I don’t have the details as that’s a wormhole I don’t wish to go down and something that it’s easier to deny knowledge about given Mrs Eek’s areas
That sounds like a Brexit positive then. 👍
So not only are we not paying subsidies to French farmers anymore, we've rid ourselves of half the burden of subsidising British ones too. Fantastic!
Most British farms will no longer be economically viable and will stop producing food! Fantastic!
We really need to be producing more food here not less.
Subsidies are a fact of life.
It isn't just subsidies, but rather price stabilisation that matters to farmers. In order to have a viable harvest they need to have some idea of the selling price. Otherwise they are just gambling on the weather, vs the weather in other parts of the world.
Which is true for many other sectors in the economy too. They should operate in the world as it is, not in the world they wish it was. Perhaps the financial sector can aid with futures contracts if its worthwhile and they're prepared to pay for it?
Yes, it does affect other sectors too, but farming is particularly prone to price fluctuations.
New Zealand is a very different place, with possibly the cheapest high quality agricultural land in the world.
If you think people voted Brexit to shut down British farming then you are likely to not like the next election result.
Farmers have plenty of opportunity to sell to Australia and New Zealand too. It seems for some Remainers unless free trade is with the EU, who we have a trade deal with too, it is irrelevant and we should put up tariffs as high as possible.
Some supposed liberals on here this morning would even bring back the Corn Laws it seems
What do you propose farmers sell them. I vaguely remember this conversation before and I think we were down to root veg and even that didn't pan out. There aren't that many people there and they are a long way away. Other than some specialities, which we probably provide anyway, I can't think of anything else.
We could send them Marmite, but a. it's a bit marmite and b. Vegemite.
Fascinating interview with George Eustice, England’s Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on R4 Today.
Farmers are not happy bunnies regarding, among other things, the free trade deal with Australia.
Can’t see many farmers switching straight to Labour, but could we see widespread protest via:
- abstaining? - voting LibDem in England and Wales? - voting SNP in Scotland?
A lot will depend on how the Tory party responds.
At the moment they have patronising lickspittles like David Duguid telling farmers and fishermen that actually Brexit has been brilliant and actually naysayer voices like Banff and Buchan famers and fishermen are ignoring all the amazing things he and his government are doing. Unsurprisingly this seat will fall to the SNP according to the polls.
If the government keep saying Don't Look Up to businesses and rural communities they are going to get pummelled. They know that we remain completely aligned to the single market and customs union and that it is only the government tying them in knots and threatening their subsidies threatening their way of life. They will vote for parties who will fix this.
Or, the government wakes up. Realises the ERG have led them down the garden path. And take a giant pair of scissors to "european" red tape and claim victory as they free business and farmers and fishermen from pointless red tape done by that failed lying clown who has just been fired.
Subsidises have been cut in half and the criteria for them has completely changed. I don’t have the details as that’s a wormhole I don’t wish to go down and something that it’s easier to deny knowledge about given Mrs Eek’s areas
That sounds like a Brexit positive then. 👍
So not only are we not paying subsidies to French farmers anymore, we've rid ourselves of half the burden of subsidising British ones too. Fantastic!
Most British farms will no longer be economically viable and will stop producing food! Fantastic!
We really need to be producing more food here not less.
Subsidies are a fact of life.
It isn't just subsidies, but rather price stabilisation that matters to farmers. In order to have a viable harvest they need to have some idea of the selling price. Otherwise they are just gambling on the weather, vs the weather in other parts of the world.
Which is true for many other sectors in the economy too. They should operate in the world as it is, not in the world they wish it was. Perhaps the financial sector can aid with futures contracts if its worthwhile and they're prepared to pay for it?
Yes, it does affect other sectors too, but farming is particularly prone to price fluctuations.
New Zealand is a very different place, with possibly the cheapest high quality agricultural land in the world.
If you think people voted Brexit to shut down British farming then you are likely to not like the next election result.
Farmers have plenty of opportunity to sell to Australia and New Zealand too. It seems for some Remainers unless free trade is with the EU, who we have a trade deal with too, it is irrelevant and we should put up tariffs as high as possible.
Some supposed liberals on here this morning would even bring back the Corn Laws it seems
Does it matter who the England coach is when, with a few noble exceptions, the talent just is not there. Especially in the batting.
I’m sure the talent is there, but one day cricket has corroded the art of defence. So what does the eco do? Invent another form of short cricket... Our county 4 day cricket is not at the same standard as Sheffield Shield in Aussie, partly as there are 18 counties. The two divisions was an attempt to change this, but it didn’t work. I think the ecb is using the hundred as a back door to 8 franchises for the long form of the game. It would benefit the England test team, but the counties will fight to the bitter end. There is a huge amount of history and tradition to lose.
The other question is, would they pick the right 8 or 10 counties? For example, no way should Glamorgan, Middlesex or Kent be in that number on merit, but you can bet they would be as they have the right friends. Meanwhile Somerset, one of the strongest sides in the country, and Gloucestershire, with an international venue, have been deliberately overlooked in the Hundred. Durham, not so long ago one of the best sides in the land and the home of Ben Stokes, have been shafted so often for specious reasons you wonder if their chairman actually killed Tom Harrison's cat.
There is a reason the counties are sceptical of the ECB's plans, and it's simply because the ECB can't be trusted to do what's right for the game instead of what's right for their mates.
Well quite. I think this is the plan, or outline idea, but I’m not in favour. I hoped that two divisions and promotion/relegation would work. I got endlessly fed up with radio 5 not understanding that division 1 was above division 2. How often did they report on second division games ahead of first? They would never report on championship football ahead of the premiership. I think the ecb needs to look at what it wants to achieve. It’s clear the main focus has been world cups (T20 and one day), and fair enough we won one, and lost the other on the toss. But the test team is being done no favours. Back in the day of 17 counties all playing each other home and away (more or less), batsmen got time in the middle. It’s easy to mock Boycott, but by god he’d be first on the sheet right now.
The 18 county system was able to provide the players that have done well in limited overs cricket. Not sure why it isn't possible for it to do the same for the Test side.
If we are to reduce the number of first-class sides then I hope there is an explicit link to the counties in the tier of cricket below them. I'd think a Wessex team, explicitly linked to counties like Somerset and Hampshire, would be a more sensible approach than the city-based franchises they invented for the decimal competition.
Too much crash-bang-wallop cricket means not enough attention to 'proper' batting. Including defence.
Yep, as was pointed out by many of us when the big-money T20 tournaments started. The professional emphasis on the shorter forms of the game, has hollowed-out a lot of the skills required of particularly Test Match batting.
Don't forget the Hundred ;-)
The tournament that had lower average crowds than the T20 blast and £2.1 million of whose profit (it's not clear if there was any more) was shared among the board members of the ECB not invested in the game?
Did it really? I didn't know that. I was under the impression the attendance was higher, BUT a huge amount of it had been padded by free give aways to existing members of clubs and to kids.
Generally speaking, the crowds at the main grounds were slightly smaller - e.g. Trent Rockets got 12,000 as against 12,300 for Nottinghamshire's blast games in 2019.
However, there were only half the number of grounds in use...made worse by the number of matches that were double headers where previously the Kia Series for women was at a different ground again.
So yes, attendance was quite well down overall. That's even before we ponder how many actually paid as against having free tickets.
Equally, (1) it was in the middle of a pandemic so it's not altogether surprising, and (2) it was the TV rights they were trying to make a profit on.
Fascinating interview with George Eustice, England’s Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on R4 Today.
Farmers are not happy bunnies regarding, among other things, the free trade deal with Australia.
Can’t see many farmers switching straight to Labour, but could we see widespread protest via:
- abstaining? - voting LibDem in England and Wales? - voting SNP in Scotland?
A lot will depend on how the Tory party responds.
At the moment they have patronising lickspittles like David Duguid telling farmers and fishermen that actually Brexit has been brilliant and actually naysayer voices like Banff and Buchan famers and fishermen are ignoring all the amazing things he and his government are doing. Unsurprisingly this seat will fall to the SNP according to the polls.
If the government keep saying Don't Look Up to businesses and rural communities they are going to get pummelled. They know that we remain completely aligned to the single market and customs union and that it is only the government tying them in knots and threatening their subsidies threatening their way of life. They will vote for parties who will fix this.
Or, the government wakes up. Realises the ERG have led them down the garden path. And take a giant pair of scissors to "european" red tape and claim victory as they free business and farmers and fishermen from pointless red tape done by that failed lying clown who has just been fired.
Subsidises have been cut in half and the criteria for them has completely changed. I don’t have the details as that’s a wormhole I don’t wish to go down and something that it’s easier to deny knowledge about given Mrs Eek’s areas
That sounds like a Brexit positive then. 👍
So not only are we not paying subsidies to French farmers anymore, we've rid ourselves of half the burden of subsidising British ones too. Fantastic!
Most British farms will no longer be economically viable and will stop producing food! Fantastic!
We really need to be producing more food here not less.
Subsidies are a fact of life.
It isn't just subsidies, but rather price stabilisation that matters to farmers. In order to have a viable harvest they need to have some idea of the selling price. Otherwise they are just gambling on the weather, vs the weather in other parts of the world.
Why should price stabilisation not happen?
It does. Very few farmers sell on the open market. They either have long term contracts with supermarkets or they sell their crop on the futures markets which are available for almost all products. This may mean that they miss the premium price in times of shortage but it takes a lot of risk out of producing crops that are basically available once a year.
Where farmers will get twitchy is the open market rate because if that is trending down the supermarkets will squeeze them even tighter in the next contract but, like those with fixed gas tariffs, the effect is not normally immediate.
Fascinating interview with George Eustice, England’s Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on R4 Today.
Farmers are not happy bunnies regarding, among other things, the free trade deal with Australia.
Can’t see many farmers switching straight to Labour, but could we see widespread protest via:
- abstaining? - voting LibDem in England and Wales? - voting SNP in Scotland?
A lot will depend on how the Tory party responds.
At the moment they have patronising lickspittles like David Duguid telling farmers and fishermen that actually Brexit has been brilliant and actually naysayer voices like Banff and Buchan famers and fishermen are ignoring all the amazing things he and his government are doing. Unsurprisingly this seat will fall to the SNP according to the polls.
If the government keep saying Don't Look Up to businesses and rural communities they are going to get pummelled. They know that we remain completely aligned to the single market and customs union and that it is only the government tying them in knots and threatening their subsidies threatening their way of life. They will vote for parties who will fix this.
Or, the government wakes up. Realises the ERG have led them down the garden path. And take a giant pair of scissors to "european" red tape and claim victory as they free business and farmers and fishermen from pointless red tape done by that failed lying clown who has just been fired.
Subsidises have been cut in half and the criteria for them has completely changed. I don’t have the details as that’s a wormhole I don’t wish to go down and something that it’s easier to deny knowledge about given Mrs Eek’s areas
That sounds like a Brexit positive then. 👍
So not only are we not paying subsidies to French farmers anymore, we've rid ourselves of half the burden of subsidising British ones too. Fantastic!
Most British farms will no longer be economically viable and will stop producing food! Fantastic!
We really need to be producing more food here not less.
Subsidies are a fact of life.
It isn't just subsidies, but rather price stabilisation that matters to farmers. In order to have a viable harvest they need to have some idea of the selling price. Otherwise they are just gambling on the weather, vs the weather in other parts of the world.
Which is true for many other sectors in the economy too. They should operate in the world as it is, not in the world they wish it was. Perhaps the financial sector can aid with futures contracts if its worthwhile and they're prepared to pay for it?
Yes, it does affect other sectors too, but farming is particularly prone to price fluctuations.
New Zealand is a very different place, with possibly the cheapest high quality agricultural land in the world.
If you think people voted Brexit to shut down British farming then you are likely to not like the next election result.
Farmers have plenty of opportunity to sell to Australia and New Zealand too. It seems for some Remainers unless free trade is with the EU, who we have a trade deal with too, it is irrelevant and we should put up tariffs as high as possible.
Some supposed liberals on here this morning would even bring back the Corn Laws it seems
Does it matter who the England coach is when, with a few noble exceptions, the talent just is not there. Especially in the batting.
I’m sure the talent is there, but one day cricket has corroded the art of defence. So what does the eco do? Invent another form of short cricket... Our county 4 day cricket is not at the same standard as Sheffield Shield in Aussie, partly as there are 18 counties. The two divisions was an attempt to change this, but it didn’t work. I think the ecb is using the hundred as a back door to 8 franchises for the long form of the game. It would benefit the England test team, but the counties will fight to the bitter end. There is a huge amount of history and tradition to lose.
The other question is, would they pick the right 8 or 10 counties? For example, no way should Glamorgan, Middlesex or Kent be in that number on merit, but you can bet they would be as they have the right friends. Meanwhile Somerset, one of the strongest sides in the country, and Gloucestershire, with an international venue, have been deliberately overlooked in the Hundred. Durham, not so long ago one of the best sides in the land and the home of Ben Stokes, have been shafted so often for specious reasons you wonder if their chairman actually killed Tom Harrison's cat.
There is a reason the counties are sceptical of the ECB's plans, and it's simply because the ECB can't be trusted to do what's right for the game instead of what's right for their mates.
Well quite. I think this is the plan, or outline idea, but I’m not in favour. I hoped that two divisions and promotion/relegation would work. I got endlessly fed up with radio 5 not understanding that division 1 was above division 2. How often did they report on second division games ahead of first? They would never report on championship football ahead of the premiership. I think the ecb needs to look at what it wants to achieve. It’s clear the main focus has been world cups (T20 and one day), and fair enough we won one, and lost the other on the toss. But the test team is being done no favours. Back in the day of 17 counties all playing each other home and away (more or less), batsmen got time in the middle. It’s easy to mock Boycott, but by god he’d be first on the sheet right now.
The 18 county system was able to provide the players that have done well in limited overs cricket. Not sure why it isn't possible for it to do the same for the Test side.
If we are to reduce the number of first-class sides then I hope there is an explicit link to the counties in the tier of cricket below them. I'd think a Wessex team, explicitly linked to counties like Somerset and Hampshire, would be a more sensible approach than the city-based franchises they invented for the decimal competition.
Too much crash-bang-wallop cricket means not enough attention to 'proper' batting. Including defence.
Yep, as was pointed out by many of us when the big-money T20 tournaments started. The professional emphasis on the shorter forms of the game, has hollowed-out a lot of the skills required of particularly Test Match batting.
Don't forget the Hundred ;-)
The tournament that had lower average crowds than the T20 blast and £2.1 million of whose profit (it's not clear if there was any more) was shared among the board members of the ECB not invested in the game?
Did it really? I didn't know that. I was under the impression the attendance was higher, BUT a huge amount of it had been padded by free give aways to existing members of clubs and to kids.
Generally speaking, the crowds at the main grounds were slightly smaller - e.g. Trent Rockets got 12,000 as against 12,300 for Nottinghamshire's blast games in 2019.
However, there were only half the number of grounds in use...made worse by the number of matches that were double headers where previously the Kia Series for women was at a different ground again.
So yes, attendance was quite well down overall. That!s even before we ponder how many actually paid as against having free tickets.
Equally, (1) it was in the middle of a pandemic so it's not altogether surprising, and (2) it was the TV rights they were trying to make a profit on.
Actually to (1).... This was when restrictions had been lifted and people were taking every opportunity to make use of their freedoms, so I would say the opposite. We haven't been able to go to any live sport for months, lets go to the cricket as its a nice summer evening.
Rewilding is a handy cover for unfettered wankerdom, mind, and results in civil servants wanting to re-wet Dartmoor because it is not yet sufficiently wet (anyone who has ever been there will see how funny this is) and remove all grazing stock from it, reverting it to a time which probably never existed since the evolution of mammals, and ensuring it degenerates into impenetrable jungle.
Big fan of unfettered wankerdom
I'm from up north so all I see is the environmental deserts of grouse moors and deer forests (which don't have trees). I think it's different in England where you have cultural elements to consider.
"environmental deserts" is, with respect, unfettered wankerspeak. I thought you said you had climbed all sorts of munros, which tend to be deer forests. Do they look like deserts to you? They don't to me. And here's the RSPB (not a pro-grouse front organisation) saying basically it's really really hard to tell whether grouse moors are a net gain or loss environmentally
"Deer forests don't have trees" and a good thing too. People think in the abstract woods are lovely. In fact they create a true environmental desert at ground level because all the light is stolen by the canopy, they are hopeless at sequestering carbon because they fail to duplicate the afungal environment which used to turn them into coal, when felled they leave a landscape as horrible as the Somme, and the only sound reasons for planting them are to build wooden navies, or for cricket bats.
Climbed all of them, actually
I agree that the sitka plantations to which you refer are probably even worse. I'm talking about natural regeneration. Upper Glen Nevis another example.
Were not much of Britain's uplands forested at one time before they were cleared by humans? A long time ago, admittedly.
Yes, this island was a big rainforest once upon a time before being cleared for agriculture. It's also been deforested multiple times as we went to war.
I heard that there is more forest in the UK at moment than any time since Henry VIII, mainly because of our huge plantations.
Agreed; there's a heath not far away from here which was ploughed up during WWII but has now reverted to scrub and 'forest'..... well, a small wood. And the birds, small mammals and insects have slowly come back. Takes time though.
And there's another misconception, that if you want a wood you plant trees. Actually you just fence off a piece of land and leave it for 10 years and there's your wood, without all the stakes and treeguards and stuff
Fascinating interview with George Eustice, England’s Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on R4 Today.
Farmers are not happy bunnies regarding, among other things, the free trade deal with Australia.
Can’t see many farmers switching straight to Labour, but could we see widespread protest via:
- abstaining? - voting LibDem in England and Wales? - voting SNP in Scotland?
A lot will depend on how the Tory party responds.
At the moment they have patronising lickspittles like David Duguid telling farmers and fishermen that actually Brexit has been brilliant and actually naysayer voices like Banff and Buchan famers and fishermen are ignoring all the amazing things he and his government are doing. Unsurprisingly this seat will fall to the SNP according to the polls.
If the government keep saying Don't Look Up to businesses and rural communities they are going to get pummelled. They know that we remain completely aligned to the single market and customs union and that it is only the government tying them in knots and threatening their subsidies threatening their way of life. They will vote for parties who will fix this.
Or, the government wakes up. Realises the ERG have led them down the garden path. And take a giant pair of scissors to "european" red tape and claim victory as they free business and farmers and fishermen from pointless red tape done by that failed lying clown who has just been fired.
An interesting piece here, if slightly dated and in a generally emphatically Unionist newspaper btw: does suggest that the SNP might srtruggle to get some votes from the hard Breixters even if the latter abstain (or indeed vote LD, but then the LDs are against Brexit too).
I find your description of the Courier somewhat odd. It seems to me to be very careful to be neutral which is commercial good sense given the predilections of its main circulation areas. They carry lots of SNP columnists and faithfully print rants by the same group of SNP fanatics in their letters column pretty much every day (although, admittedly, that is something a Unionist might be minded to do).
Oh good, it's changed from what I recall of my limited experience of it. We could do with more papers like that - particularly if the Herald and Scotsman returned to that. The article I referenced did seem pretty eclectic hence my mild surprise.
Does it matter who the England coach is when, with a few noble exceptions, the talent just is not there. Especially in the batting.
I’m sure the talent is there, but one day cricket has corroded the art of defence. So what does the eco do? Invent another form of short cricket... Our county 4 day cricket is not at the same standard as Sheffield Shield in Aussie, partly as there are 18 counties. The two divisions was an attempt to change this, but it didn’t work. I think the ecb is using the hundred as a back door to 8 franchises for the long form of the game. It would benefit the England test team, but the counties will fight to the bitter end. There is a huge amount of history and tradition to lose.
The other question is, would they pick the right 8 or 10 counties? For example, no way should Glamorgan, Middlesex or Kent be in that number on merit, but you can bet they would be as they have the right friends. Meanwhile Somerset, one of the strongest sides in the country, and Gloucestershire, with an international venue, have been deliberately overlooked in the Hundred. Durham, not so long ago one of the best sides in the land and the home of Ben Stokes, have been shafted so often for specious reasons you wonder if their chairman actually killed Tom Harrison's cat.
There is a reason the counties are sceptical of the ECB's plans, and it's simply because the ECB can't be trusted to do what's right for the game instead of what's right for their mates.
Well quite. I think this is the plan, or outline idea, but I’m not in favour. I hoped that two divisions and promotion/relegation would work. I got endlessly fed up with radio 5 not understanding that division 1 was above division 2. How often did they report on second division games ahead of first? They would never report on championship football ahead of the premiership. I think the ecb needs to look at what it wants to achieve. It’s clear the main focus has been world cups (T20 and one day), and fair enough we won one, and lost the other on the toss. But the test team is being done no favours. Back in the day of 17 counties all playing each other home and away (more or less), batsmen got time in the middle. It’s easy to mock Boycott, but by god he’d be first on the sheet right now.
The 18 county system was able to provide the players that have done well in limited overs cricket. Not sure why it isn't possible for it to do the same for the Test side.
If we are to reduce the number of first-class sides then I hope there is an explicit link to the counties in the tier of cricket below them. I'd think a Wessex team, explicitly linked to counties like Somerset and Hampshire, would be a more sensible approach than the city-based franchises they invented for the decimal competition.
Too much crash-bang-wallop cricket means not enough attention to 'proper' batting. Including defence.
Yep, as was pointed out by many of us when the big-money T20 tournaments started. The professional emphasis on the shorter forms of the game, has hollowed-out a lot of the skills required of particularly Test Match batting.
Don't forget the Hundred ;-)
The tournament that had lower average crowds than the T20 blast and £2.1 million of whose profit (it's not clear if there was any more) was shared among the board members of the ECB not invested in the game?
Did it really? I didn't know that. I was under the impression the attendance was higher, BUT a huge amount of it had been padded by free give aways to existing members of clubs and to kids.
Generally speaking, the crowds at the main grounds were slightly smaller - e.g. Trent Rockets got 12,000 as against 12,300 for Nottinghamshire's blast games in 2019.
However, there were only half the number of grounds in use...made worse by the number of matches that were double headers where previously the Kia Series for women was at a different ground again.
So yes, attendance was quite well down overall. That!s even before we ponder how many actually paid as against having free tickets.
Equally, (1) it was in the middle of a pandemic so it's not altogether surprising, and (2) it was the TV rights they were trying to make a profit on.
Actually to (1).... This was when restrictions had been lifted and people were taking every opportunity to make use of their freedoms, so I would say the opposite. We haven't been able to go to any live sport for months, lets go to the cricket as its a nice summer evening.
In my admittedly purely anecdotal experience, there were still people nervous about large sporting events, even if they shouldn't have been.
Put it this way, I will be interested to see if the crowds match those of the Blast when it gets to next summer, and especially the summer after.
Better therefore for the party to focus on avoiding any further restrictions as Boris is doing and getting people boosted rather than focusing too much on personalities
Johnson is not focusing on anything other than self-preservation. He is not in control, he is not making decisions based on evidence or possible outcomes for the NHS.
Johnson is being held hostage by the CRG and ambitious cabinet colleagues. He is Prime Minister in name only. He is a PM with no decision making power.
Good!
We don't have an elected President. If MPs and the Cabinet are against such restrictions then the PM should be listening to them and respecting them.
That's not a bad thing. Especially given the CRG called this right.
You don't know the CRG have called this right yet.
Just keep saying "It's like the flu" until, finally, with mass protection in place from vaccination and prior infection, plus a virus mutation away from the lungs, it IS like the flu!
Rewilding is a handy cover for unfettered wankerdom, mind, and results in civil servants wanting to re-wet Dartmoor because it is not yet sufficiently wet (anyone who has ever been there will see how funny this is) and remove all grazing stock from it, reverting it to a time which probably never existed since the evolution of mammals, and ensuring it degenerates into impenetrable jungle.
Big fan of unfettered wankerdom
I'm from up north so all I see is the environmental deserts of grouse moors and deer forests (which don't have trees). I think it's different in England where you have cultural elements to consider.
"environmental deserts" is, with respect, unfettered wankerspeak. I thought you said you had climbed all sorts of munros, which tend to be deer forests. Do they look like deserts to you? They don't to me. And here's the RSPB (not a pro-grouse front organisation) saying basically it's really really hard to tell whether grouse moors are a net gain or loss environmentally
"Deer forests don't have trees" and a good thing too. People think in the abstract woods are lovely. In fact they create a true environmental desert at ground level because all the light is stolen by the canopy, they are hopeless at sequestering carbon because they fail to duplicate the afungal environment which used to turn them into coal, when felled they leave a landscape as horrible as the Somme, and the only sound reasons for planting them are to build wooden navies, or for cricket bats.
Climbed all of them, actually
I agree that the sitka plantations to which you refer are probably even worse. I'm talking about natural regeneration. Upper Glen Nevis another example.
Were not much of Britain's uplands forested at one time before they were cleared by humans? A long time ago, admittedly.
Yes, this island was a big rainforest once upon a time before being cleared for agriculture. It's also been deforested multiple times as we went to war.
I heard that there is more forest in the UK at moment than any time since Henry VIII, mainly because of our huge plantations.
Agreed; there's a heath not far away from here which was ploughed up during WWII but has now reverted to scrub and 'forest'..... well, a small wood. And the birds, small mammals and insects have slowly come back. Takes time though.
And there's another misconception, that if you want a wood you plant trees. Actually you just fence off a piece of land and leave it for 10 years and there's your wood, without all the stakes and treeguards and stuff
The trendy thing now is to plant lots of smaller samplings much more densely, without the stakes and treeguards, and with a greater diversity of species than with normal tree-planting. It gets you a forest more quickly than waiting for natural regeneration, but without some of the problems associated with normal ways of planting trees.
Does it matter who the England coach is when, with a few noble exceptions, the talent just is not there. Especially in the batting.
I’m sure the talent is there, but one day cricket has corroded the art of defence. So what does the eco do? Invent another form of short cricket... Our county 4 day cricket is not at the same standard as Sheffield Shield in Aussie, partly as there are 18 counties. The two divisions was an attempt to change this, but it didn’t work. I think the ecb is using the hundred as a back door to 8 franchises for the long form of the game. It would benefit the England test team, but the counties will fight to the bitter end. There is a huge amount of history and tradition to lose.
The other question is, would they pick the right 8 or 10 counties? For example, no way should Glamorgan, Middlesex or Kent be in that number on merit, but you can bet they would be as they have the right friends. Meanwhile Somerset, one of the strongest sides in the country, and Gloucestershire, with an international venue, have been deliberately overlooked in the Hundred. Durham, not so long ago one of the best sides in the land and the home of Ben Stokes, have been shafted so often for specious reasons you wonder if their chairman actually killed Tom Harrison's cat.
There is a reason the counties are sceptical of the ECB's plans, and it's simply because the ECB can't be trusted to do what's right for the game instead of what's right for their mates.
Well quite. I think this is the plan, or outline idea, but I’m not in favour. I hoped that two divisions and promotion/relegation would work. I got endlessly fed up with radio 5 not understanding that division 1 was above division 2. How often did they report on second division games ahead of first? They would never report on championship football ahead of the premiership. I think the ecb needs to look at what it wants to achieve. It’s clear the main focus has been world cups (T20 and one day), and fair enough we won one, and lost the other on the toss. But the test team is being done no favours. Back in the day of 17 counties all playing each other home and away (more or less), batsmen got time in the middle. It’s easy to mock Boycott, but by god he’d be first on the sheet right now.
The 18 county system was able to provide the players that have done well in limited overs cricket. Not sure why it isn't possible for it to do the same for the Test side.
If we are to reduce the number of first-class sides then I hope there is an explicit link to the counties in the tier of cricket below them. I'd think a Wessex team, explicitly linked to counties like Somerset and Hampshire, would be a more sensible approach than the city-based franchises they invented for the decimal competition.
Too much crash-bang-wallop cricket means not enough attention to 'proper' batting. Including defence.
Yep, as was pointed out by many of us when the big-money T20 tournaments started. The professional emphasis on the shorter forms of the game, has hollowed-out a lot of the skills required of particularly Test Match batting.
Don't forget the Hundred ;-)
The tournament that had lower average crowds than the T20 blast and £2.1 million of whose profit (it's not clear if there was any more) was shared among the board members of the ECB not invested in the game?
Did it really? I didn't know that. I was under the impression the attendance was higher, BUT a huge amount of it had been padded by free give aways to existing members of clubs and to kids.
Generally speaking, the crowds at the main grounds were slightly smaller - e.g. Trent Rockets got 12,000 as against 12,300 for Nottinghamshire's blast games in 2019.
However, there were only half the number of grounds in use...made worse by the number of matches that were double headers where previously the Kia Series for women was at a different ground again.
So yes, attendance was quite well down overall. That!s even before we ponder how many actually paid as against having free tickets.
Equally, (1) it was in the middle of a pandemic so it's not altogether surprising, and (2) it was the TV rights they were trying to make a profit on.
Actually to (1).... This was when restrictions had been lifted and people were taking every opportunity to make use of their freedoms, so I would say the opposite. We haven't been able to go to any live sport for months, lets go to the cricket as its a nice summer evening.
Where the 100 was a spectacular success was for women's cricket. It gave them more profile, more money and more TV time than they have ever had. It is probably the most successful women's tournament in the world for them.
For the men it really did not seem worth producing yet another format that was so similar to T20 with some frankly odd rule changes (not allowing the batsmen to cross, for example). But its early days and it might well bring more money into the game. Its not likely to assist with the shockingly poor performance of our test team though.
On cricket, it's no surprise that we are struggling in test matches. The long form of the game in domestic cricket is now utterly desultory, consisting of 10 matches per county played in April, May and September. Nothing, or virtually nothing, in June, July and August, which are given over to fun cricket. I resigned my county membership over this, when it became clear that there was no "proper" 4-day cricket to attend in the summer.
The players just aren't there. They aren't there because county cricket isn't providing them.
It isn't providing them because it isn't fit for purpose, and hasn't been for a hundred years.
A reorganisation into ten regional teams would make professionals fight for contracts, up the standard of the competition and make the games mean something.
Right now, whole swathes of the country are completely unrepresented by this most bankrupt of bankrupt competitions and all too few have any interest whatever.
Who do you follow at county level if you live in Cornwall, Devon, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire or Lincolnshire?
Does it matter who the England coach is when, with a few noble exceptions, the talent just is not there. Especially in the batting.
I’m sure the talent is there, but one day cricket has corroded the art of defence. So what does the eco do? Invent another form of short cricket... Our county 4 day cricket is not at the same standard as Sheffield Shield in Aussie, partly as there are 18 counties. The two divisions was an attempt to change this, but it didn’t work. I think the ecb is using the hundred as a back door to 8 franchises for the long form of the game. It would benefit the England test team, but the counties will fight to the bitter end. There is a huge amount of history and tradition to lose.
The other question is, would they pick the right 8 or 10 counties? For example, no way should Glamorgan, Middlesex or Kent be in that number on merit, but you can bet they would be as they have the right friends. Meanwhile Somerset, one of the strongest sides in the country, and Gloucestershire, with an international venue, have been deliberately overlooked in the Hundred. Durham, not so long ago one of the best sides in the land and the home of Ben Stokes, have been shafted so often for specious reasons you wonder if their chairman actually killed Tom Harrison's cat.
There is a reason the counties are sceptical of the ECB's plans, and it's simply because the ECB can't be trusted to do what's right for the game instead of what's right for their mates.
Well quite. I think this is the plan, or outline idea, but I’m not in favour. I hoped that two divisions and promotion/relegation would work. I got endlessly fed up with radio 5 not understanding that division 1 was above division 2. How often did they report on second division games ahead of first? They would never report on championship football ahead of the premiership. I think the ecb needs to look at what it wants to achieve. It’s clear the main focus has been world cups (T20 and one day), and fair enough we won one, and lost the other on the toss. But the test team is being done no favours. Back in the day of 17 counties all playing each other home and away (more or less), batsmen got time in the middle. It’s easy to mock Boycott, but by god he’d be first on the sheet right now.
The 18 county system was able to provide the players that have done well in limited overs cricket. Not sure why it isn't possible for it to do the same for the Test side.
If we are to reduce the number of first-class sides then I hope there is an explicit link to the counties in the tier of cricket below them. I'd think a Wessex team, explicitly linked to counties like Somerset and Hampshire, would be a more sensible approach than the city-based franchises they invented for the decimal competition.
Too much crash-bang-wallop cricket means not enough attention to 'proper' batting. Including defence.
Yep, as was pointed out by many of us when the big-money T20 tournaments started. The professional emphasis on the shorter forms of the game, has hollowed-out a lot of the skills required of particularly Test Match batting.
Don't forget the Hundred ;-)
The tournament that had lower average crowds than the T20 blast and £2.1 million of whose profit (it's not clear if there was any more) was shared among the board members of the ECB not invested in the game?
Did it really? I didn't know that. I was under the impression the attendance was higher, BUT a huge amount of it had been padded by free give aways to existing members of clubs and to kids.
Generally speaking, the crowds at the main grounds were slightly smaller - e.g. Trent Rockets got 12,000 as against 12,300 for Nottinghamshire's blast games in 2019.
However, there were only half the number of grounds in use...made worse by the number of matches that were double headers where previously the Kia Series for women was at a different ground again.
So yes, attendance was quite well down overall. That!s even before we ponder how many actually paid as against having free tickets.
Equally, (1) it was in the middle of a pandemic so it's not altogether surprising, and (2) it was the TV rights they were trying to make a profit on.
Actually to (1).... This was when restrictions had been lifted and people were taking every opportunity to make use of their freedoms, so I would say the opposite. We haven't been able to go to any live sport for months, lets go to the cricket as its a nice summer evening.
In my admittedly purely anecdotal experience, there were still people nervous about large sporting events, even if they shouldn't have been.
Put it this way, I will be interested to see if the crowds match those of the Blast when it gets to next summer, and especially the summer after.
I don't see how both the T20 Blast and Hundred survive. IMO, there is room for one, but not both. And it is clear the ECB want it to be the Hundred.
Does it matter who the England coach is when, with a few noble exceptions, the talent just is not there. Especially in the batting.
I’m sure the talent is there, but one day cricket has corroded the art of defence. So what does the eco do? Invent another form of short cricket... Our county 4 day cricket is not at the same standard as Sheffield Shield in Aussie, partly as there are 18 counties. The two divisions was an attempt to change this, but it didn’t work. I think the ecb is using the hundred as a back door to 8 franchises for the long form of the game. It would benefit the England test team, but the counties will fight to the bitter end. There is a huge amount of history and tradition to lose.
The other question is, would they pick the right 8 or 10 counties? For example, no way should Glamorgan, Middlesex or Kent be in that number on merit, but you can bet they would be as they have the right friends. Meanwhile Somerset, one of the strongest sides in the country, and Gloucestershire, with an international venue, have been deliberately overlooked in the Hundred. Durham, not so long ago one of the best sides in the land and the home of Ben Stokes, have been shafted so often for specious reasons you wonder if their chairman actually killed Tom Harrison's cat.
There is a reason the counties are sceptical of the ECB's plans, and it's simply because the ECB can't be trusted to do what's right for the game instead of what's right for their mates.
Well quite. I think this is the plan, or outline idea, but I’m not in favour. I hoped that two divisions and promotion/relegation would work. I got endlessly fed up with radio 5 not understanding that division 1 was above division 2. How often did they report on second division games ahead of first? They would never report on championship football ahead of the premiership. I think the ecb needs to look at what it wants to achieve. It’s clear the main focus has been world cups (T20 and one day), and fair enough we won one, and lost the other on the toss. But the test team is being done no favours. Back in the day of 17 counties all playing each other home and away (more or less), batsmen got time in the middle. It’s easy to mock Boycott, but by god he’d be first on the sheet right now.
The 18 county system was able to provide the players that have done well in limited overs cricket. Not sure why it isn't possible for it to do the same for the Test side.
If we are to reduce the number of first-class sides then I hope there is an explicit link to the counties in the tier of cricket below them. I'd think a Wessex team, explicitly linked to counties like Somerset and Hampshire, would be a more sensible approach than the city-based franchises they invented for the decimal competition.
On cricket, it's no surprise that we are struggling in test matches. The long form of the game in domestic cricket is now utterly desultory, consisting of 10 matches per county played in April, May and September. Nothing, or virtually nothing, in June, July and August, which are given over to fun cricket. I resigned my county membership over this, when it became clear that there was no "proper" 4-day cricket to attend in the summer.
Well, it did this year, but next year it's back to 14.
Fascinating interview with George Eustice, England’s Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on R4 Today.
Farmers are not happy bunnies regarding, among other things, the free trade deal with Australia.
Can’t see many farmers switching straight to Labour, but could we see widespread protest via:
- abstaining? - voting LibDem in England and Wales? - voting SNP in Scotland?
A lot will depend on how the Tory party responds.
At the moment they have patronising lickspittles like David Duguid telling farmers and fishermen that actually Brexit has been brilliant and actually naysayer voices like Banff and Buchan famers and fishermen are ignoring all the amazing things he and his government are doing. Unsurprisingly this seat will fall to the SNP according to the polls.
If the government keep saying Don't Look Up to businesses and rural communities they are going to get pummelled. They know that we remain completely aligned to the single market and customs union and that it is only the government tying them in knots and threatening their subsidies threatening their way of life. They will vote for parties who will fix this.
Or, the government wakes up. Realises the ERG have led them down the garden path. And take a giant pair of scissors to "european" red tape and claim victory as they free business and farmers and fishermen from pointless red tape done by that failed lying clown who has just been fired.
Subsidises have been cut in half and the criteria for them has completely changed. I don’t have the details as that’s a wormhole I don’t wish to go down and something that it’s easier to deny knowledge about given Mrs Eek’s areas
That sounds like a Brexit positive then. 👍
So not only are we not paying subsidies to French farmers anymore, we've rid ourselves of half the burden of subsidising British ones too. Fantastic!
Most British farms will no longer be economically viable and will stop producing food! Fantastic!
I'm sure Kiwi headbangers like yourself would have said the same thing decades ago when they scrapped subsidies.
If you have confidence in our British agricultural sector they should be able to be competitive without subsidies or tariffs. In which case, that's great.
If they're not and you hold our agricultural sector in contempt and think they can't survive on their own basis then why are we trying to keep them afloat? Move on and accept reality, and let the land be used for more productive purposes.
If less productive farmers go out of business and get replaced by more productive ones, then we have more food security, less subsidies and are more competitive economically. Win/win/win in that scenario.
Or, re-wild our pastoral land while supporting arable farming with the re-directed subsidies. Hits a few objective - calorie security, environmental gains, reduced meat consumption etc
Not completely sure it works that way; grain is a problem (bread wheats tend to be imported). And in an earlier era of free trade (within the Empire), the farms abandoned grain and went for cattle and milk instead. Caused huge problems changing over in 1939 with the coming of war. And some upland is only good for sheep (which produce wool too). But some impact on intensive stockrearing seems likely. Yet why close it down in the UK for the benefit of intensive stockrearers in other countries?
Not saying you are wrong - just that it's a huge problem.
Tend to agree - there will be four different support regimes, and the space to adjust them as the status changes.
Over a period of years I'm expecting more UK based production, especially in horticulture, but we will see.
When I was a student I came across - I think - Adrian Bell's accounts of farming between the wars (on checking, I find he also initiated the Times crossword, and was father of Martin Bell MP). It was either Bell, or a contemporary, who memorably described the impact of Empire free trade and the way in which the farmers changed over to completely different farming at considerable expense, and many went bust. It was not a happy time for them.
Does it matter who the England coach is when, with a few noble exceptions, the talent just is not there. Especially in the batting.
I’m sure the talent is there, but one day cricket has corroded the art of defence. So what does the eco do? Invent another form of short cricket... Our county 4 day cricket is not at the same standard as Sheffield Shield in Aussie, partly as there are 18 counties. The two divisions was an attempt to change this, but it didn’t work. I think the ecb is using the hundred as a back door to 8 franchises for the long form of the game. It would benefit the England test team, but the counties will fight to the bitter end. There is a huge amount of history and tradition to lose.
The other question is, would they pick the right 8 or 10 counties? For example, no way should Glamorgan, Middlesex or Kent be in that number on merit, but you can bet they would be as they have the right friends. Meanwhile Somerset, one of the strongest sides in the country, and Gloucestershire, with an international venue, have been deliberately overlooked in the Hundred. Durham, not so long ago one of the best sides in the land and the home of Ben Stokes, have been shafted so often for specious reasons you wonder if their chairman actually killed Tom Harrison's cat.
There is a reason the counties are sceptical of the ECB's plans, and it's simply because the ECB can't be trusted to do what's right for the game instead of what's right for their mates.
Well quite. I think this is the plan, or outline idea, but I’m not in favour. I hoped that two divisions and promotion/relegation would work. I got endlessly fed up with radio 5 not understanding that division 1 was above division 2. How often did they report on second division games ahead of first? They would never report on championship football ahead of the premiership. I think the ecb needs to look at what it wants to achieve. It’s clear the main focus has been world cups (T20 and one day), and fair enough we won one, and lost the other on the toss. But the test team is being done no favours. Back in the day of 17 counties all playing each other home and away (more or less), batsmen got time in the middle. It’s easy to mock Boycott, but by god he’d be first on the sheet right now.
The 18 county system was able to provide the players that have done well in limited overs cricket. Not sure why it isn't possible for it to do the same for the Test side.
If we are to reduce the number of first-class sides then I hope there is an explicit link to the counties in the tier of cricket below them. I'd think a Wessex team, explicitly linked to counties like Somerset and Hampshire, would be a more sensible approach than the city-based franchises they invented for the decimal competition.
Too much crash-bang-wallop cricket means not enough attention to 'proper' batting. Including defence.
Yep, as was pointed out by many of us when the big-money T20 tournaments started. The professional emphasis on the shorter forms of the game, has hollowed-out a lot of the skills required of particularly Test Match batting.
Don't forget the Hundred ;-)
The tournament that had lower average crowds than the T20 blast and £2.1 million of whose profit (it's not clear if there was any more) was shared among the board members of the ECB not invested in the game?
Did it really? I didn't know that. I was under the impression the attendance was higher, BUT a huge amount of it had been padded by free give aways to existing members of clubs and to kids.
Generally speaking, the crowds at the main grounds were slightly smaller - e.g. Trent Rockets got 12,000 as against 12,300 for Nottinghamshire's blast games in 2019.
However, there were only half the number of grounds in use...made worse by the number of matches that were double headers where previously the Kia Series for women was at a different ground again.
So yes, attendance was quite well down overall. That!s even before we ponder how many actually paid as against having free tickets.
Equally, (1) it was in the middle of a pandemic so it's not altogether surprising, and (2) it was the TV rights they were trying to make a profit on.
Actually to (1).... This was when restrictions had been lifted and people were taking every opportunity to make use of their freedoms, so I would say the opposite. We haven't been able to go to any live sport for months, lets go to the cricket as its a nice summer evening.
In my admittedly purely anecdotal experience, there were still people nervous about large sporting events, even if they shouldn't have been.
Put it this way, I will be interested to see if the crowds match those of the Blast when it gets to next summer, and especially the summer after.
I don't see how both the T20 Blast and Hundred survive. IMO, there is room for one, but not both. And it is clear the ECB want it to be the Hundred.
The one day cup is the one that will go. Because it has smaller crowds and so is less profitable.
This will not help our 50 over team but ODIs are a format living on borrowed time anyway in the T20 age.
It's not that they are going to get shafted; small children in Grimsby knew that. It's that they were told they wouldn't be shafted.
The UK has left the CFP, exactly as the fishermen of Grimsby voted for
Absolutely. And they were told it would be in their best interests to do so.
UK fishermen have always wanted that as it means they get more of their catch.
For goodness sake fishermen in Grimsby and the Southwest voted UKIP for years before the EU referendum they got what they voted for
I have about as much sympathy for Brexit voting fishermen as fishermen have for fish.
Can anyone point to someone who has benefited from BREXIT? It would seem to the layman that if you walk away from a market of 400,000,000 people and replace it with one of 30,000,000 which is inaccessible there is a prima facie case for saying you have lost out!
It's not that they are going to get shafted; small children in Grimsby knew that. It's that they were told they wouldn't be shafted.
The UK has left the CFP, exactly as the fishermen of Grimsby voted for
Absolutely. And they were told it would be in their best interests to do so.
Not by the Government of the day they weren't.
Everyone makes their own informed decision, I see no reasons to pander to Luddites.
They were told by the leave campaign. Headed by Nigel Farage.
Maybe they shouldn't vote for Nigel Farage next time then. Kick him out of Parliament by not re-electing him.
There used to be a guy here who said voting for a party led by Farage wasn't voting for Farage (somewhat unconvincingly it has to be said), dunno what happened to him.
As a result of that person's vote is Farage in Parliament? Does Farage hold any elected post in the UK Government or any Parliament at all? 🤔
If the answer is no, then I think that guy was entirely correct. A vote to elect to Parliament, and a vote to eject from Parliament, are two entirely different votes.
Rewilding is a handy cover for unfettered wankerdom, mind, and results in civil servants wanting to re-wet Dartmoor because it is not yet sufficiently wet (anyone who has ever been there will see how funny this is) and remove all grazing stock from it, reverting it to a time which probably never existed since the evolution of mammals, and ensuring it degenerates into impenetrable jungle.
Big fan of unfettered wankerdom
I'm from up north so all I see is the environmental deserts of grouse moors and deer forests (which don't have trees). I think it's different in England where you have cultural elements to consider.
"environmental deserts" is, with respect, unfettered wankerspeak. I thought you said you had climbed all sorts of munros, which tend to be deer forests. Do they look like deserts to you? They don't to me. And here's the RSPB (not a pro-grouse front organisation) saying basically it's really really hard to tell whether grouse moors are a net gain or loss environmentally
"Deer forests don't have trees" and a good thing too. People think in the abstract woods are lovely. In fact they create a true environmental desert at ground level because all the light is stolen by the canopy, they are hopeless at sequestering carbon because they fail to duplicate the afungal environment which used to turn them into coal, when felled they leave a landscape as horrible as the Somme, and the only sound reasons for planting them are to build wooden navies, or for cricket bats.
Climbed all of them, actually
I agree that the sitka plantations to which you refer are probably even worse. I'm talking about natural regeneration. Upper Glen Nevis another example.
Were not much of Britain's uplands forested at one time before they were cleared by humans? A long time ago, admittedly.
Yes, this island was a big rainforest once upon a time before being cleared for agriculture. It's also been deforested multiple times as we went to war.
I heard that there is more forest in the UK at moment than any time since Henry VIII, mainly because of our huge plantations.
Agreed; there's a heath not far away from here which was ploughed up during WWII but has now reverted to scrub and 'forest'..... well, a small wood. And the birds, small mammals and insects have slowly come back. Takes time though.
And there's another misconception, that if you want a wood you plant trees. Actually you just fence off a piece of land and leave it for 10 years and there's your wood, without all the stakes and treeguards and stuff
The trendy thing now is to plant lots of smaller samplings much more densely, without the stakes and treeguards, and with a greater diversity of species than with normal tree-planting. It gets you a forest more quickly than waiting for natural regeneration, but without some of the problems associated with normal ways of planting trees.
Rewilding is a handy cover for unfettered wankerdom, mind, and results in civil servants wanting to re-wet Dartmoor because it is not yet sufficiently wet (anyone who has ever been there will see how funny this is) and remove all grazing stock from it, reverting it to a time which probably never existed since the evolution of mammals, and ensuring it degenerates into impenetrable jungle.
Big fan of unfettered wankerdom
I'm from up north so all I see is the environmental deserts of grouse moors and deer forests (which don't have trees). I think it's different in England where you have cultural elements to consider.
"environmental deserts" is, with respect, unfettered wankerspeak. I thought you said you had climbed all sorts of munros, which tend to be deer forests. Do they look like deserts to you? They don't to me. And here's the RSPB (not a pro-grouse front organisation) saying basically it's really really hard to tell whether grouse moors are a net gain or loss environmentally
"Deer forests don't have trees" and a good thing too. People think in the abstract woods are lovely. In fact they create a true environmental desert at ground level because all the light is stolen by the canopy, they are hopeless at sequestering carbon because they fail to duplicate the afungal environment which used to turn them into coal, when felled they leave a landscape as horrible as the Somme, and the only sound reasons for planting them are to build wooden navies, or for cricket bats.
Climbed all of them, actually
I agree that the sitka plantations to which you refer are probably even worse. I'm talking about natural regeneration. Upper Glen Nevis another example.
Were not much of Britain's uplands forested at one time before they were cleared by humans? A long time ago, admittedly.
Yes, pretty much trees everywhere, except for the marshlands. However, some places, such as Dartmoor, lost so much soil after the trees were cleared, that I'm not sure the trees would be able to make their way back in the short term.
I don't think that is right. Plenty of soil on Dartmoor except the tops of the tors and 1000s of acres of forestry round Postbridge. The Highlands otoh seem to have a tree line above which nothing grows but the odd rowan.
PB pedantry: trees do grow - just they are a bit short. About ankle height. Dwarf willow etc.
The big problem is if you listen to the likes of Livingstone talk about batting for T20, its totally different game. And i don't just mean a mindset of wallop it versus defend. I mean he has totally changed everything about how he bats in order to facilitate the massive hitting. Stance, backlift, feet movement. It just isn't the same game, he is trying to launch balls in the air more like a baseball player (or a golfer) by generating bat speed. Everything is geared around that, not how can I ensure that i don't get out for the next 2 hours against a variety of bowling with a swinging / seaming red ball.
And why wouldn't you, you can earn a £1 million a year getting very good at it.
And you see this with especially Bairstow in test cricket, his whole game now isn't built for it.
Not much mention from OGH of the fact the current Tory position of only a 7% deficit under Boris is made significantly worse under a Truss leadership, which would see a 16% Labour lead and even worse defeat than 1997. Making Truss a Tory Kim Campbell. Gove does even worse.
Sunak does a bit better but even he only cuts the Labour lead to 3%, he does not take the lead so Starmer would still end up PM albeit in a hung parliament. Better therefore for the party to focus on avoiding any further restrictions as Boris is doing and getting people boosted rather than focusing too much on personalities
How on earth you can be so blind sided by Boris amazes me, especially on the day Conhome puts him way out on his own at the bottom of their cabinet league table at -33.8 with Mark Spencer at -24.1
As I have said before, you need to wake up and smell the coffee
HYUFD has a point. If the tories novichok Johnson now they are stuck with his successor right up to the next GE. Far better to let him take a few more arrows first and change closer to the election.
A new leader is likely to call an election relatively soon, I think. And carrying on with the lame porker for too long is also damaging to Tory prospects.
Not much mention from OGH of the fact the current Tory position of only a 7% deficit under Boris is made significantly worse under a Truss leadership, which would see a 16% Labour lead and even worse defeat than 1997. Making Truss a Tory Kim Campbell. Gove does even worse.
Sunak does a bit better but even he only cuts the Labour lead to 3%, he does not take the lead so Starmer would still end up PM albeit in a hung parliament. Better therefore for the party to focus on avoiding any further restrictions as Boris is doing and getting people boosted rather than focusing too much on personalities
The indications that I'm getting from 2019 Boris fans is that his appeal has gone - completely - and it is very unlikely that it will return. The CP has a big decision to make and the sooner the better I think - would provide a couple of years for a new leader to re-fashion things.
All those months of those of us who knew what he was like being told that he would always be enduring electoral magic, and here we are, just as we always said we would be…..
Nobody is ever "enduring" electoral magic.
Saying that a political career will end doesn't make you wise or insightful.
Spot on - the site is full of very wise folk predicting with various degrees of certainty that the w/e will come and the being all smug when it happens - only to be saddos again the following Monday..
Fascinating interview with George Eustice, England’s Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on R4 Today.
Farmers are not happy bunnies regarding, among other things, the free trade deal with Australia.
Can’t see many farmers switching straight to Labour, but could we see widespread protest via:
- abstaining? - voting LibDem in England and Wales? - voting SNP in Scotland?
A lot will depend on how the Tory party responds.
At the moment they have patronising lickspittles like David Duguid telling farmers and fishermen that actually Brexit has been brilliant and actually naysayer voices like Banff and Buchan famers and fishermen are ignoring all the amazing things he and his government are doing. Unsurprisingly this seat will fall to the SNP according to the polls.
If the government keep saying Don't Look Up to businesses and rural communities they are going to get pummelled. They know that we remain completely aligned to the single market and customs union and that it is only the government tying them in knots and threatening their subsidies threatening their way of life. They will vote for parties who will fix this.
Or, the government wakes up. Realises the ERG have led them down the garden path. And take a giant pair of scissors to "european" red tape and claim victory as they free business and farmers and fishermen from pointless red tape done by that failed lying clown who has just been fired.
An interesting piece here, if slightly dated and in a generally emphatically Unionist newspaper btw: does suggest that the SNP might srtruggle to get some votes from the hard Breixters even if the latter abstain (or indeed vote LD, but then the LDs are against Brexit too).
I find your description of the Courier somewhat odd. It seems to me to be very careful to be neutral which is commercial good sense given the predilections of its main circulation areas. They carry lots of SNP columnists and faithfully print rants by the same group of SNP fanatics in their letters column pretty much every day (although, admittedly, that is something a Unionist might be minded to do).
Oh good, it's changed from what I recall of my limited experience of it. We could do with more papers like that - particularly if the Herald and Scotsman returned to that. The article I referenced did seem pretty eclectic hence my mild surprise.
I don't think that there is much hope for the Scotsman. It is really a rag that seems increasingly focused on Morningside. The Herald is not great either. To describe the National as a comic would be to insult the output of DC Thomson's.
Journalism in Scotland is not in a good place. With so much "free" content online how do they compete or monetise their product? I think that the BBC are doing a lot of damage with their local pages.
Comments
Admittedly, not quite like this.
Be careful what you wish for.
We don't have an elected President. If MPs and the Cabinet are against such restrictions then the PM should be listening to them and respecting them.
That's not a bad thing. Especially given the CRG called this right.
I agree that the sitka plantations to which you refer are probably even worse. I'm talking about natural regeneration. Upper Glen Nevis another example.
Some supposed liberals on here this morning would even bring back the Corn Laws it seems
'Fishing boats must carry higher quota of UK crew'
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fishing-boats-must-carry-higher-quota-of-uk-crew-jsdf3w2mv
I stand by my 230,000 figure for max specimen cases in 2021.
He does not lead conhome, but that is not the definitive voice of the membership by some distance
Boris is only useful as a human shield against scandals that impact the wider government, and to be fair, there are some of those brewing up, such as contracts for croneys.
Boris got an eighty seat majority, Brexit done and thanks to vaccines handled Covid better than almost every other country on the planet. His candle burnt brightly but now its burnt out and its time to be replaced.
In any case, we can’t continue with compulsory seven day isolation for much longer. I have friends who under the ten day regimen spent all or some of the term locked inside despite their being perfectly well. Society cannot function under that protocol, so we need to consider other options.
It's not that they are going to get shafted; small children in Grimsby knew that. It's that they were told they wouldn't be shafted.
Whatever happens to Boris now he will always be the PM who delivered Brexit, one of the biggest postwar changes in UK policy. He also deserves credit for the vaccine rollout and the booster programme on which the UK is also leading the way
Whether Sunak, Truss, Hunt or (God forbid) Baker, the general outlook is extremely bleak for the Tories. The push polls for any given leader fail to pick up that the voters are very pissed off indeed. The economic outlook is now extremely grim and getting worse. So what with sleaze and Covid failures and Brexit failures and general slimy incompetence, I think we will lose the vocabulary to adequately describe the punishment that the Conservatives are likely to take over the next two years. Then there is the general election...
I've just seen why no one is on here talking about the gallant and heroic English resistance in Melbourne. I don't mind losing the tenner but that was just painful.
On topic (vaguely), political parties face an issue when it comes to an unpopular leader. There's an argument and we saw it with Major, Brown and Clegg that the only way is to allow the electorate to exercise their desire to give you a good kicking and accept that both as part of the democratic process and in the knowledge you can start again with a clean slate.
The leader personalises and carries the sins of the whole party on his/her shoulders but once that is exorcised through the ballot box, the party can start again and in time what happened will cease to matter.
In truth, Major and Brown carried the can for Thatcher and Blair respectively - we will never know how Thatcher would have fared in a 1991 or 1992 election vs Kinnock or Blair in a 2010 election vs Cameron. They might have prevailed - I think there's a strong argument to say they would not.
It might help your historical reputation to retire undefeated (to be fair, WSC only won one election out of three as Conservative leader) but your party's reputation suffers as a result. If we accept all political careers end in failure part of that failure (the closure if you like) is to allow the electorate to pass their final judgement and it doesn't matter how loyally they backed you in the past, if they turn on you now, as a politician, you can have no cause for complaint.
I've seen councillors who worked tirelessly for their constituents for 20 years turned out not because they did a bad job but because either the national picture went against them or people just wanted a change.
Boris Johnson's genius (and I'm happy to call it that) in the run up to the 2019 GE was to portray himself almost as an Opposition leader opposing the May Government (even though he had supported that Government and served as Foreign Secretary). He was a Conservative seemingly opposing a Conservative Government - it's something you see in states with long periods of one party dominance. The sense of change comes from within.
I doubt that she is in a hurry to lose the chauffeur-driven cars, high security, Chequers, and above all the opportunity to influence (and largely control) the Prime Minister.
With Omicron they changed it back if you were a contact of an identified Omicron case, although I'm not sure whether that still holds good.
Maybe it's worth keeping for the Omicron wave, to slow the spread a bit, so that the peak rate of absenteeism due to symptomatic illness in critical sectors is lower than it otherwise would be, but feels like a marginal decision to me.
Everyone makes their own informed decision, I see no reasons to pander to Luddites.
“And now we’ve also lost Norway since the trade deal, as duty for wholesale is 273%. Then we tried Canada but what the government didn’t tell us is that duty of 244% is applied on any consignment over $20 [£15].”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/dec/27/brexit-the-biggest-disaster-that-any-government-has-ever-negotiated
Unfortunately it was an early morning farming program and the obvious question wasn't asked.
I heard that there is more forest in the UK at moment than any time since Henry VIII, mainly because of our huge plantations.
The devolved Govts are keeping significant elements of the CAP area / production subsidies, and are moving very slowly.
AIUI in England, which is moving more quickly, only one of three schemes has been detailed, and that is money for public goods such as soil retention and hedges, which is a small amount of iirc £30 per hectare. I may be about a week or two behind with the news.
It will be years before we see how things are going to work out. We can't possibly know yet.
Don't forget that the farming lobby are world champion whingers. Witness all the squealing about 30k pigs being 'culled', and how it is all the Govt's fault, which is largely the result of a significant increase in the pig herd of 4% (200k) since last year.
https://ahdb.org.uk/news/uk-pig-population-was-higher-in-june
The politics are more interesting - the Govt need to have an improved situation, or a perceived clear path to an improved situation, in place before the next election.
There were some great games in the County Championship last year. Some great stories. I got to watch lots of it, for free, on the streams from the county grounds. Someone has to work out how to sell the game to more people, and how to make money out of followers like me.
But the timber is used for construction and reduces imports. And the Somme effects are pretty short term. Around here there are crops of Christmas trees that are cut pretty young. Fields are back in production again within a season.
https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1475772992114368515
So it’s a trade off between economic damage and number of cases.
I’m sure they have modelled although I haven’t seen
For goodness sake fishermen in Grimsby and the Southwest voted UKIP for years before the EU referendum they got what they voted for
And the birds, small mammals and insects have slowly come back. Takes time though.
Unlucky...
Over a period of years I'm expecting more UK based production, especially in horticulture, but we will see.
However, there were only half the number of grounds in use...made worse by the number of matches that were double headers where previously the Kia Series for women was at a different ground again.
So yes, attendance was quite well down overall. That's even before we ponder how many actually paid as against having free tickets.
Equally, (1) it was in the middle of a pandemic so it's not altogether surprising, and (2) it was the TV rights they were trying to make a profit on.
Where farmers will get twitchy is the open market rate because if that is trending down the supermarkets will squeeze them even tighter in the next contract but, like those with fixed gas tariffs, the effect is not normally immediate.
Otherwise, you end up like the Dudley Moore character in "Bedazzled".
Put it this way, I will be interested to see if the crowds match those of the Blast when it gets to next summer, and especially the summer after.
The deep deep wisdom of the CRG.
See, for example, https://earthwatch.org.uk/get-involved/tiny-forest
For the men it really did not seem worth producing yet another format that was so similar to T20 with some frankly odd rule changes (not allowing the batsmen to cross, for example). But its early days and it might well bring more money into the game. Its not likely to assist with the shockingly poor performance of our test team though.
It isn't providing them because it isn't fit for purpose, and hasn't been for a hundred years.
A reorganisation into ten regional teams would make professionals fight for contracts, up the standard of the competition and make the games mean something.
Right now, whole swathes of the country are completely unrepresented by this most bankrupt of bankrupt competitions and all too few have any interest whatever.
Who do you follow at county level if you live in Cornwall, Devon, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire or Lincolnshire?
If theyw ant a list of about 10 .... ?
Not that that's much better, I'll admit.
This will not help our 50 over team but ODIs are a format living on borrowed time anyway in the T20 age.
The AZ-AZ-Pfizer combo is working its magic.
If the answer is no, then I think that guy was entirely correct. A vote to elect to Parliament, and a vote to eject from Parliament, are two entirely different votes.
Hence Norway and Iceland are in the EEA but not the EU
And why wouldn't you, you can earn a £1 million a year getting very good at it.
And you see this with especially Bairstow in test cricket, his whole game now isn't built for it.
And carrying on with the lame porker for too long is also damaging to Tory prospects.
Journalism in Scotland is not in a good place. With so much "free" content online how do they compete or monetise their product? I think that the BBC are doing a lot of damage with their local pages.