The graph in the header contradicts its concluding phrase, "the momentum, pace Betfair, is with Harris."
Why ?
see edit of that post
pace = latin term usually meaning 'despite' or 'notwithstanding'. Thus the sentence means "the momentum, notwithstanding Betfair, is with Harris."
(Why a working class lad like TSE can't stick to English is beyond me.)
I might be embarrassed here. I've used it for over a decade to mean "as per the arguments of" as per academic citation, and nobody's contradicted me. I shall check to make sure I've got it right.
I'm afraid Benpointer is right. Though if you want to flag it up that you don't agree with someone you can use 'contra': thus I agree with BP contra Viewcode. It does have a more, erm, robust feel, though.
Fuck. This is embarrassing. ☹️
Not really. We all have words we've used for decades, assuming we know what they mean, only to discover...
(I just can't think of one, right at the moment - but that's probably my poor memory.)
Hardly a day goes by without bell weather, enormity and shoe-in getting a mention round here.
The graph in the header contradicts its concluding phrase, "the momentum, pace Betfair, is with Harris."
Why ?
see edit of that post
pace = latin term usually meaning 'despite' or 'notwithstanding'. Thus the sentence means "the momentum, notwithstanding Betfair, is with Harris."
(Why a working class lad like TSE can't stick to English is beyond me.)
I might be embarrassed here. I've used it for over a decade to mean "as per the arguments of" as per academic citation, and nobody's contradicted me. I shall check to make sure I've got it right.
I think you use per for that without the extras, meaning "in accordance with".
Nobody's contradicted you because none of them know.
"wow, I go away for a few weeks and someone needlessly complexifies this page and reverses its actual meaning! Bad."
"ok some of that was a bit excessive"
"I'll consent that the MFD requirement of {{essay}} may be excessive, and I'm on going to WP:DRV over it; however editorialiy speaking, this is NOT a HELP page"
"You mean removing the helpful part of a help page? No thanks. What on earth is your problem anyway, this page does not endorse essays nor contradict that recent essay you wrote."
Hundred viewing figures down by more than a quarter as tournament stagnates
Competition’s clash with the Olympics is mainly blamed for the decline in audience numbers
Television viewing figures for the Hundred dropped by more than a quarter this summer at a time when the England and Wales Cricket Board is hoping to attract investors to buy into the competition.
Figures seen by Telegraph Sport show that average television audiences across both Hundred competitions took a big hit as the sport struggled for viewership up against the Olympics. The women’s competition dropped by 41 per cent on Sky and the men’s tournament 28 per cent compared to 2023.
On the BBC, the men’s Hundred was down 25 per cent but the women’s competition stayed roughly the same, with a reduction of only two per cent.
The figures were improved by a successful last week with audiences for the men’s final on Sunday up by 36 per cent on the BBC with a peak audience of 1.3 million on last year, compared to 869,000 in 2023. Sky figures were slightly better than last year for the final, up by six per cent for the men. The women’s final average audience was however down 10 per cent on Sky and 20 per cent on the BBC. The peak audience figure for the women’s final on both channels was also down.
The competition’s clash with the Olympics is mainly blamed by insiders for the fall but there is also an indication it is stagnating in only its fourth year and needs new investors to inject fresh ideas to give it a lift.
It doesn't need new investors. It needs scrapping.
Quite aside from its banal offering I don't see anything the Hundred offers that T20 didn't do so already.
In this TikTok, smartphone, short attention span world, I always felt the Hundred was just not differentiated enough from Twenty20.
It's time for the ECB to take a truly bold step, and make a competition that is really differentiated.
Ladies and Gentlemen of PB, I present you with:
The One
Just a single ball of cricket. One batsman, one bowler. Maybe even skip the fielders. Whichever batsman hits the ball the furthest wins.
Let's do it, guys.
Someone’s been watching too much of that UFC face-slapping “competition”.
For a slightly more serious answer, how’s about a series of “Cricket Festival” competitions, along the lines of the international Rugby 7s tournament.
Get all the players at the same place for two or thre days over a weekend. A series of short, perhaps only two overs per side, games in a league format, leading to knockout rounds QF, SF and final. Have mens, womens, boys, and girls competitions all on at the same time, perhaps make use of a second field if available. Make it family-friendly, lots of sideshows and get-the-kids-involved stuff, and a ‘family stand’ in the ground with no alcohol. But to the rest of the crowd, it’s basically a party with some cricket going on in the background, the cans of beer sold by the case slowly disappearing as fast as the sunburn appears, and the day finishes with a live band so everyone doesn’t leave at once.
I think two overs is probably a little bit too short, but the general idea is an excellent one. I'd go with five overs, so it's ten overs a game. That's 60 balls, which means a game could take just 45 minutes in total.
Robert F Kennedy Jr is considering dropping out of the presidential race and teaming up with Donald Trump to stop Kamala Harris from winning the election, his running mate has said.
Nicole Shanahan, the independent candidate’s vice presidential running mate, said the pair are considering abandoning their bid for the White House in order to help Trump beat the Democrats.
RFK Jr is drawing about equally from both candidates so I doubt it makes much difference either way
If he drops out and endorses Trump, his Trump votes presumably go back to Trump, but do his Kamala votes go back to Kamala or Trump?
There's no corresponding move towards Trump in the key state markets. Not that I can see anyway and I'm all over them.
I wonder if someone in the MAGA team is manipulating the market to deceive the orange man into thinking he's winning in order to quieten him down. It wouldn't cost much. Or am I wish-casting?
Seriously, I don't understand the market movement. There seems to be no news event or poll data to justify it.
A seasoned punter thinks it is those punters who backed Harris at silly odds trading out.
Could be. That would be a good explanation in both senses.
I still think she is value at 2.0 even though i backed her originally at 46. My average is 3.7 and I'm sticking with her.
I think the "vibe" is critically important, particularly for low information uninterested swing voters who decide the election, and she has it.
Robert F Kennedy Jr is considering dropping out of the presidential race and teaming up with Donald Trump to stop Kamala Harris from winning the election, his running mate has said.
Nicole Shanahan, the independent candidate’s vice presidential running mate, said the pair are considering abandoning their bid for the White House in order to help Trump beat the Democrats.
RFK Jr is drawing about equally from both candidates so I doubt it makes much difference either way
If he drops out and endorses Trump, his Trump votes presumably go back to Trump, but do his Kamala votes go back to Kamala or Trump?
Watched a little of the Obama speeches from last night. He remains a brilliant speaker - his timing is just spot on. For me, he's one of the great speakers though I'd rate Bill Clinton, at his prime, slightly higher.
Michelle is a decent speaker as well and plenty will be wondering if the wrong Obama served two terms in the WH.
I'm really struggling to think of a significant British political speech in the last decade. The UK Party Conferences aren't the same as the Democrat and Republican conventions which are quadrennial events.
The graph in the header contradicts its concluding phrase, "the momentum, pace Betfair, is with Harris."
Why ?
see edit of that post
pace = latin term usually meaning 'despite' or 'notwithstanding'. Thus the sentence means "the momentum, notwithstanding Betfair, is with Harris."
(Why a working class lad like TSE can't stick to English is beyond me.)
I might be embarrassed here. I've used it for over a decade to mean "as per the arguments of" as per academic citation, and nobody's contradicted me. I shall check to make sure I've got it right.
I think you use per for that without the extras, meaning "in accordance with".
Nobody's contradicted you because none of them know.
Per is legalese not academese: An Englishman's home is his castle: Scratchy vs Itchy 1948 Court of Appeal per Denning LJ. In academese I think you just cite the paper if you agree with it. Nice things are nicer than nasty ones (Popper 1956).
I think it actually originated in the Georgian navy. Captains had to write a report after every action. You would name any prizes you took in the margin, and the convention (to save time) was to write 'as per margin' in the main body of the report.
I know a pompous chap who signs letters Yours etc. The joke being this is just a convention when printing a letter in a book, to save space, and the original letter will have ended I beg to remain sir your most humble and obedient servant
I used to work at a place where a customer always signed emails "Yours aye". Never seen it before or since and still don't understand it...
Robert F Kennedy Jr is considering dropping out of the presidential race and teaming up with Donald Trump to stop Kamala Harris from winning the election, his running mate has said.
Nicole Shanahan, the independent candidate’s vice presidential running mate, said the pair are considering abandoning their bid for the White House in order to help Trump beat the Democrats.
The cunning plan of having a lunatic with the name of a Democratic hero splitting the vote for Biden, then Harris, has worked so well that they are finding that he is taking more votes from Trump than Harris. Who would have thought that an anti vaccine nut might appeal to some of Trump's crowd?
His funder, other than his running mate, is also Trump's biggest backer. They can pull the plug whenever they want.
I wonder whether Trump is trying to humiliate Vance so that Vance resigns his position. It's difficult for Trump to simply fire him. RFJr could then replace him.
The graph in the header contradicts its concluding phrase, "the momentum, pace Betfair, is with Harris."
Why ?
see edit of that post
pace = latin term usually meaning 'despite' or 'notwithstanding'. Thus the sentence means "the momentum, notwithstanding Betfair, is with Harris."
(Why a working class lad like TSE can't stick to English is beyond me.)
I might be embarrassed here. I've used it for over a decade to mean "as per the arguments of" as per academic citation, and nobody's contradicted me. I shall check to make sure I've got it right.
I'm afraid Benpointer is right. Though if you want to flag it up that you don't agree with someone you can use 'contra': thus I agree with BP contra Viewcode. It does have a more, erm, robust feel, though.
Fuck. This is embarrassing. ☹️
Not really. We all have words we've used for decades, assuming we know what they mean, only to discover...
(I just can't think of one, right at the moment - but that's probably my poor memory.)
Hardly a day goes by without bell weather, enormity and shoe-in getting a mention round here.
The graph in the header contradicts its concluding phrase, "the momentum, pace Betfair, is with Harris."
Why ?
see edit of that post
pace = latin term usually meaning 'despite' or 'notwithstanding'. Thus the sentence means "the momentum, notwithstanding Betfair, is with Harris."
(Why a working class lad like TSE can't stick to English is beyond me.)
I might be embarrassed here. I've used it for over a decade to mean "as per the arguments of" as per academic citation, and nobody's contradicted me. I shall check to make sure I've got it right.
I think you use per for that without the extras, meaning "in accordance with".
Nobody's contradicted you because none of them know.
Per is legalese not academese: An Englishman's home is his castle: Scratchy vs Itchy 1948 Court of Appeal per Denning LJ. In academese I think you just cite the paper if you agree with it. Nice things are nicer than nasty ones (Popper 1956).
I think it actually originated in the Georgian navy. Captains had to write a report after every action. You would name any prizes you took in the margin, and the convention (to save time) was to write 'as per margin' in the main body of the report.
I know a pompous chap who signs letters Yours etc. The joke being this is just a convention when printing a letter in a book, to save space, and the original letter will have ended I beg to remain sir your most humble and obedient servant
I used to work at a place where a customer always signed emails "Yours aye". Never seen it before or since and still don't understand it...
There's no corresponding move towards Trump in the key state markets. Not that I can see anyway and I'm all over them.
I wonder if someone in the MAGA team is manipulating the market to deceive the orange man into thinking he's winning in order to quieten him down. It wouldn't cost much. Or am I wish-casting?
Seriously, I don't understand the market movement. There seems to be no news event or poll data to justify it.
A seasoned punter thinks it is those punters who backed Harris at silly odds trading out.
Could be. That would be a good explanation in both senses.
I still think she is value at 2.0 even though i backed her originally at 46. My average is 3.7 and I'm sticking with her.
I think the "vibe" is critically important, particularly for low information uninterested swing voters who decide the election, and she has it.
I'm on Harris at various prices from 50 down to 5.
I am utterly red on Trump and so if he wins I will be poorer and also very depressed.
The graph in the header contradicts its concluding phrase, "the momentum, pace Betfair, is with Harris."
Why ?
see edit of that post
pace = latin term usually meaning 'despite' or 'notwithstanding'. Thus the sentence means "the momentum, notwithstanding Betfair, is with Harris."
(Why a working class lad like TSE can't stick to English is beyond me.)
I might be embarrassed here. I've used it for over a decade to mean "as per the arguments of" as per academic citation, and nobody's contradicted me. I shall check to make sure I've got it right.
I'm afraid Benpointer is right. Though if you want to flag it up that you don't agree with someone you can use 'contra': thus I agree with BP contra Viewcode. It does have a more, erm, robust feel, though.
Fuck. This is embarrassing. ☹️
Not really. We all have words we've used for decades, assuming we know what they mean, only to discover...
(I just can't think of one, right at the moment - but that's probably my poor memory.)
Hardly a day goes by without bell weather, enormity and shoe-in getting a mention round here.
And decimate.
We all need to tow the line when it comes to correct usage, and reign in our solecisms.
Watched a little of the Obama speeches from last night. He remains a brilliant speaker - his timing is just spot on. For me, he's one of the great speakers though I'd rate Bill Clinton, at his prime, slightly higher.
Michelle is a decent speaker as well and plenty will be wondering if the wrong Obama served two terms in the WH.
I'm really struggling to think of a significant British political speech in the last decade. The UK Party Conferences aren't the same as the Democrat and Republican conventions which are quadrennial events.
How can you ignore Johnsons "Peppa Pig" speech?
It's where the decline in Conservative fortunes became manifest. After that it was all downhill.
Robert F Kennedy Jr is considering dropping out of the presidential race and teaming up with Donald Trump to stop Kamala Harris from winning the election, his running mate has said.
Nicole Shanahan, the independent candidate’s vice presidential running mate, said the pair are considering abandoning their bid for the White House in order to help Trump beat the Democrats.
The cunning plan of having a lunatic with the name of a Democratic hero splitting the vote for Biden, then Harris, has worked so well that they are finding that he is taking more votes from Trump than Harris. Who would have thought that an anti vaccine nut might appeal to some of Trump's crowd?
His funder, other than his running mate, is also Trump's biggest backer. They can pull the plug whenever they want.
I wonder whether Trump is trying to humiliate Vance so that Vance resigns his position. It's difficult for Trump to simply fire him. RFJr could then replace him.
I think that worm brain is a little too mad even for Trump. He will also probably settle for a cabinet position. He no longer has enough to offer.
There's no corresponding move towards Trump in the key state markets. Not that I can see anyway and I'm all over them.
I wonder if someone in the MAGA team is manipulating the market to deceive the orange man into thinking he's winning in order to quieten him down. It wouldn't cost much. Or am I wish-casting?
Seriously, I don't understand the market movement. There seems to be no news event or poll data to justify it.
A seasoned punter thinks it is those punters who backed Harris at silly odds trading out.
Could be. That would be a good explanation in both senses.
I still think she is value at 2.0 even though i backed her originally at 46. My average is 3.7 and I'm sticking with her.
I think the "vibe" is critically important, particularly for low information uninterested swing voters who decide the election, and she has it.
I think that's right. (Had I put £1k on at 46, rather than a couple of quid, I'd think differently, probably.)
As it is, slightly longer than evens, with what we know now compared to what we knew then, still represents pretty good value, IMO.
Robert F Kennedy Jr is considering dropping out of the presidential race and teaming up with Donald Trump to stop Kamala Harris from winning the election, his running mate has said.
Nicole Shanahan, the independent candidate’s vice presidential running mate, said the pair are considering abandoning their bid for the White House in order to help Trump beat the Democrats.
RFK Jr is drawing about equally from both candidates so I doubt it makes much difference either way
If he drops out and endorses Trump, his Trump votes presumably go back to Trump, but do his Kamala votes go back to Kamala or Trump?
Watched a little of the Obama speeches from last night. He remains a brilliant speaker - his timing is just spot on. For me, he's one of the great speakers though I'd rate Bill Clinton, at his prime, slightly higher.
Michelle is a decent speaker as well and plenty will be wondering if the wrong Obama served two terms in the WH.
I'm really struggling to think of a significant British political speech in the last decade. The UK Party Conferences aren't the same as the Democrat and Republican conventions which are quadrennial events.
We seem to have lost the art of great political speech making in the UK. I suspect part of the reason for this is because social media has made things more bite-size so repeating the same thing sixteen times (stop the boats, get Brexit done, my father was a toolmaker et al) is in vogue. The US is not immune from this change (Kamala Harris has made the same speech more or less since winning the nomination. “We’re not going back” is her sloganeering. The US is a little bit behind the curve though because its politics still has a rally culture whereas ours really doesn’t, so speech making still retains an element of importance.
I do wonder if in time it might make a comeback though. We are missing from our politics serious conviction politicians (from whom the great speeches often stem), and I wonder if after an era of politicians who don’t say much, the person or people who inherit the mantle might actually do well from saying a bit more.
Robert F Kennedy Jr is considering dropping out of the presidential race and teaming up with Donald Trump to stop Kamala Harris from winning the election, his running mate has said.
Nicole Shanahan, the independent candidate’s vice presidential running mate, said the pair are considering abandoning their bid for the White House in order to help Trump beat the Democrats.
RFK Jr is drawing about equally from both candidates so I doubt it makes much difference either way
If he drops out and endorses Trump, his Trump votes presumably go back to Trump, but do his Kamala votes go back to Kamala or Trump?
Hundred viewing figures down by more than a quarter as tournament stagnates
Competition’s clash with the Olympics is mainly blamed for the decline in audience numbers
Television viewing figures for the Hundred dropped by more than a quarter this summer at a time when the England and Wales Cricket Board is hoping to attract investors to buy into the competition.
Figures seen by Telegraph Sport show that average television audiences across both Hundred competitions took a big hit as the sport struggled for viewership up against the Olympics. The women’s competition dropped by 41 per cent on Sky and the men’s tournament 28 per cent compared to 2023.
On the BBC, the men’s Hundred was down 25 per cent but the women’s competition stayed roughly the same, with a reduction of only two per cent.
The figures were improved by a successful last week with audiences for the men’s final on Sunday up by 36 per cent on the BBC with a peak audience of 1.3 million on last year, compared to 869,000 in 2023. Sky figures were slightly better than last year for the final, up by six per cent for the men. The women’s final average audience was however down 10 per cent on Sky and 20 per cent on the BBC. The peak audience figure for the women’s final on both channels was also down.
The competition’s clash with the Olympics is mainly blamed by insiders for the fall but there is also an indication it is stagnating in only its fourth year and needs new investors to inject fresh ideas to give it a lift.
It doesn't need new investors. It needs scrapping.
Quite aside from its banal offering I don't see anything the Hundred offers that T20 didn't do so already.
In this TikTok, smartphone, short attention span world, I always felt the Hundred was just not differentiated enough from Twenty20.
It's time for the ECB to take a truly bold step, and make a competition that is really differentiated.
Ladies and Gentlemen of PB, I present you with:
The One
Just a single ball of cricket. One batsman, one bowler. Maybe even skip the fielders. Whichever batsman hits the ball the furthest wins.
Let's do it, guys.
Someone’s been watching too much of that UFC face-slapping “competition”.
For a slightly more serious answer, how’s about a series of “Cricket Festival” competitions, along the lines of the international Rugby 7s tournament.
Get all the players at the same place for two or thre days over a weekend. A series of short, perhaps only two overs per side, games in a league format, leading to knockout rounds QF, SF and final. Have mens, womens, boys, and girls competitions all on at the same time, perhaps make use of a second field if available. Make it family-friendly, lots of sideshows and get-the-kids-involved stuff, and a ‘family stand’ in the ground with no alcohol. But to the rest of the crowd, it’s basically a party with some cricket going on in the background, the cans of beer sold by the case slowly disappearing as fast as the sunburn appears, and the day finishes with a live band so everyone doesn’t leave at once.
I think two overs is probably a little bit too short, but the general idea is an excellent one. I'd go with five overs, so it's ten overs a game. That's 60 balls, which means a game could take just 45 minutes in total.
I thought this happened already. They had one in Chesterfield this year around the time there was a County Match at the out ground in Queens Park. There was also something called "vibrant Vitality Blast action", whatever that is - it sounds a bit Leonine.
The graph in the header contradicts its concluding phrase, "the momentum, pace Betfair, is with Harris."
Why ?
see edit of that post
pace = latin term usually meaning 'despite' or 'notwithstanding'. Thus the sentence means "the momentum, notwithstanding Betfair, is with Harris."
(Why a working class lad like TSE can't stick to English is beyond me.)
I might be embarrassed here. I've used it for over a decade to mean "as per the arguments of" as per academic citation, and nobody's contradicted me. I shall check to make sure I've got it right.
I'm afraid Benpointer is right. Though if you want to flag it up that you don't agree with someone you can use 'contra': thus I agree with BP contra Viewcode. It does have a more, erm, robust feel, though.
Fuck. This is embarrassing. ☹️
Not really. We all have words we've used for decades, assuming we know what they mean, only to discover...
(I just can't think of one, right at the moment - but that's probably my poor memory.)
Hardly a day goes by without bell weather, enormity and shoe-in getting a mention round here.
And decimate.
We all need to tow the line when it comes to correct usage, and reign in our solecisms.
Watched a little of the Obama speeches from last night. He remains a brilliant speaker - his timing is just spot on. For me, he's one of the great speakers though I'd rate Bill Clinton, at his prime, slightly higher.
Michelle is a decent speaker as well and plenty will be wondering if the wrong Obama served two terms in the WH.
I'm really struggling to think of a significant British political speech in the last decade. The UK Party Conferences aren't the same as the Democrat and Republican conventions which are quadrennial events.
Surely Penny Sword-Carrier's address to Conference assembled counts amongst the mighty? She pointed and everything.
Ukraine war latest: Moscow comes under huge drone attack
Moscow has come under one of the largest attacks by Ukrainian drones yet, with Russia saying it destroyed 45 Ukrainian drones overnight. It comes as Kyiv's forces continue to push into Russia's western Kursk region.
Lewis Goodall @lewis_goodall Reflections on DNC on end of day 2
-Dems' change of tone on Trump noticeable. They're still invoking the dark forces he may yet unleash but doing it generally with a lighter touch. They're leaning into idea of mocking him as much as fearing him. -Very strong message discipline on the economy, especially from all the key speakers on class. Consistent emphasis on Harris' ordinary background, contrasting with wealth and privilege of Trump. More populist notes than in the past. -The two themes of this convention, save for Trump himself, are those class/economic issues and abortion. Everything else, even previous big ticket Dem issues like climate change v much in the background. -With Biden issue behind them, Dems continue to seem extremely ordered/disciplined. Crowd energy off the scale.
Disapppinting borrowing numbers for July this morning and it now seems inevitable the sub editors will be throwing "Halloween Horror" all over the Chancellor's Autumn BUdget at the end of October.
With energy prices also starting to turn up again, it's not going to be pleasant but we all knew deep down this kind of reckoning would have to happen somewhere down the line. We went through a painful economic readjustment in the early 10s and it may be the mid 2020s will be a similar period.
I presume Reeves will be looking to get the public finances back under some measure of control and unlike Osborne and Alexander in 2011, I suspect there will be as much if not more emphasis on raising revenue from taxation than from cutting public spending.
We probably can't go from £87.2 billion of borrowing to zero in one year or possibly even one Parliament though it would be useful to see a sense of direction of travel. No one is saying we shouldn't borrow - borrowing for long term capital expenditure is perfectly reasonable - but we need to get that borrowing down to sensible levels and get the debt interest payments (£7 billion last month) down if we can.
There's no corresponding move towards Trump in the key state markets. Not that I can see anyway and I'm all over them.
I wonder if someone in the MAGA team is manipulating the market to deceive the orange man into thinking he's winning in order to quieten him down. It wouldn't cost much. Or am I wish-casting?
Seriously, I don't understand the market movement. There seems to be no news event or poll data to justify it.
A seasoned punter thinks it is those punters who backed Harris at silly odds trading out.
Could be. That would be a good explanation in both senses.
I still think she is value at 2.0 even though i backed her originally at 46. My average is 3.7 and I'm sticking with her.
I think the "vibe" is critically important, particularly for low information uninterested swing voters who decide the election, and she has it.
I'm on Harris at various prices from 50 down to 5.
I am utterly red on Trump and so if he wins I will be poorer and also very depressed.
Is the -ve Trump red number larger or smaller than the Harris green number though ?
Superb Convention speech by Michelle Obama. She would have been a great President, but having lived 8 years in the White House with all that entails, you can understand why she has no interest.
The ability to give a good speech is not connected to ability in elective politics.
I think it was Obama who said "Why is x still a problem? I gave a speech on that months ago."
Watched a little of the Obama speeches from last night. He remains a brilliant speaker - his timing is just spot on. For me, he's one of the great speakers though I'd rate Bill Clinton, at his prime, slightly higher.
Michelle is a decent speaker as well and plenty will be wondering if the wrong Obama served two terms in the WH.
I'm really struggling to think of a significant British political speech in the last decade. The UK Party Conferences aren't the same as the Democrat and Republican conventions which are quadrennial events.
We seem to have lost the art of great political speech making in the UK. I suspect part of the reason for this is because social media has made things more bite-size so repeating the same thing sixteen times (stop the boats, get Brexit done, my father was a toolmaker et al) is in vogue. The US is not immune from this change (Kamala Harris has made the same speech more or less since winning the nomination. “We’re not going back” is her sloganeering. The US is a little bit behind the curve though because its politics still has a rally culture whereas ours really doesn’t, so speech making still retains an element of importance.
I do wonder if in time it might make a comeback though. We are missing from our politics serious conviction politicians (from whom the great speeches often stem), and I wonder if after an era of politicians who don’t say much, the person or people who inherit the mantle might actually do well from saying a bit more.
The NatCon and PopCon lectures are on YouTube. Although they can be annoying, particularly the ones that are petulant, not well thought out, or the speaker is a bad person or an idiot, sometimes they can be good. I remember being surprised by JRM's lecture, and David Starkey is usually fun.
Disapppinting borrowing numbers for July this morning and it now seems inevitable the sub editors will be throwing "Halloween Horror" all over the Chancellor's Autumn BUdget at the end of October.
With energy prices also starting to turn up again, it's not going to be pleasant but we all knew deep down this kind of reckoning would have to happen somewhere down the line. We went through a painful economic readjustment in the early 10s and it may be the mid 2020s will be a similar period.
I presume Reeves will be looking to get the public finances back under some measure of control and unlike Osborne and Alexander in 2011, I suspect there will be as much if not more emphasis on raising revenue from taxation than from cutting public spending.
We probably can't go from £87.2 billion of borrowing to zero in one year or possibly even one Parliament though it would be useful to see a sense of direction of travel. No one is saying we shouldn't borrow - borrowing for long term capital expenditure is perfectly reasonable - but we need to get that borrowing down to sensible levels and get the debt interest payments (£7 billion last month) down if we can.
Cheer up. The UK has the highest growth in the G7 atm - this is one of SKS objectives ( though achieved courtesy of the last lot )
What a shame he has handed the good news to Recession Reeves and her growth killer minions.
CBS News @CBSNews · 6h Michelle Obama on Donald Trump: "Who's going to tell him that the job he's currently seeking might just be one of those 'Black jobs'?"
CBS News @CBSNews · 6h Michelle Obama on Donald Trump: "Who's going to tell him that the job he's currently seeking might just be one of those 'Black jobs'?"
CBS News @CBSNews · 6h Michelle Obama on Donald Trump: "Who's going to tell him that the job he's currently seeking might just be one of those 'Black jobs'?"
Disapppinting borrowing numbers for July this morning and it now seems inevitable the sub editors will be throwing "Halloween Horror" all over the Chancellor's Autumn BUdget at the end of October.
With energy prices also starting to turn up again, it's not going to be pleasant but we all knew deep down this kind of reckoning would have to happen somewhere down the line. We went through a painful economic readjustment in the early 10s and it may be the mid 2020s will be a similar period.
I presume Reeves will be looking to get the public finances back under some measure of control and unlike Osborne and Alexander in 2011, I suspect there will be as much if not more emphasis on raising revenue from taxation than from cutting public spending.
We probably can't go from £87.2 billion of borrowing to zero in one year or possibly even one Parliament though it would be useful to see a sense of direction of travel. No one is saying we shouldn't borrow - borrowing for long term capital expenditure is perfectly reasonable - but we need to get that borrowing down to sensible levels and get the debt interest payments (£7 billion last month) down if we can.
Cheer up. The UK has the highest growth in the G7 atm - this is one of SKS objectives ( though achieved courtesy of the last lot )
What a shame he has handed the good news to Recession Reeves and her growth killer minions.
I thought you'd be "enjoying" the morning's news on public borrowing. I suppose arguing spending £7 billion on debt interest payments for the borrowing of the "last lot" rather made the difference won't cut any ice.
CBS News @CBSNews · 6h Michelle Obama on Donald Trump: "Who's going to tell him that the job he's currently seeking might just be one of those 'Black jobs'?"
Watched a little of the Obama speeches from last night. He remains a brilliant speaker - his timing is just spot on. For me, he's one of the great speakers though I'd rate Bill Clinton, at his prime, slightly higher.
Michelle is a decent speaker as well and plenty will be wondering if the wrong Obama served two terms in the WH.
I'm really struggling to think of a significant British political speech in the last decade. The UK Party Conferences aren't the same as the Democrat and Republican conventions which are quadrennial events.
We seem to have lost the art of great political speech making in the UK. I suspect part of the reason for this is because social media has made things more bite-size so repeating the same thing sixteen times (stop the boats, get Brexit done, my father was a toolmaker et al) is in vogue. The US is not immune from this change (Kamala Harris has made the same speech more or less since winning the nomination. “We’re not going back” is her sloganeering. The US is a little bit behind the curve though because its politics still has a rally culture whereas ours really doesn’t, so speech making still retains an element of importance.
I do wonder if in time it might make a comeback though. We are missing from our politics serious conviction politicians (from whom the great speeches often stem), and I wonder if after an era of politicians who don’t say much, the person or people who inherit the mantle might actually do well from saying a bit more.
The NatCon and PopCon lectures are on YouTube. Although they can be annoying, particularly the ones that are petulant, not well thought out, or the speaker is a bad person or an idiot, sometimes they can be good. I remember being surprised by JRM's lecture, and David Starkey is usually fun.
Most of them (the ones I have listened to) see to be quite short - 10 or 15 minutes.
There's a whiff of corruption around Kennedy, isn't there, both personal and political.
I think youll find that goes back several generations and nobody on the Dem side was that worried.
It is bizarre to me that my parents generation of Democrats venerates the Kennedys. He was a very poor president, a poor human being but being good looking can apparently overcome everything.
Watched a little of the Obama speeches from last night. He remains a brilliant speaker - his timing is just spot on. For me, he's one of the great speakers though I'd rate Bill Clinton, at his prime, slightly higher.
Michelle is a decent speaker as well and plenty will be wondering if the wrong Obama served two terms in the WH.
I'm really struggling to think of a significant British political speech in the last decade. The UK Party Conferences aren't the same as the Democrat and Republican conventions which are quadrennial events.
We seem to have lost the art of great political speech making in the UK. I suspect part of the reason for this is because social media has made things more bite-size so repeating the same thing sixteen times (stop the boats, get Brexit done, my father was a toolmaker et al) is in vogue. The US is not immune from this change (Kamala Harris has made the same speech more or less since winning the nomination. “We’re not going back” is her sloganeering. The US is a little bit behind the curve though because its politics still has a rally culture whereas ours really doesn’t, so speech making still retains an element of importance.
I do wonder if in time it might make a comeback though. We are missing from our politics serious conviction politicians (from whom the great speeches often stem), and I wonder if after an era of politicians who don’t say much, the person or people who inherit the mantle might actually do well from saying a bit more.
While Trump's convictions are not currently serious, if the election interference cases come to trial, then he could soon be a politician with serious convictions.
There's no corresponding move towards Trump in the key state markets. Not that I can see anyway and I'm all over them.
I wonder if someone in the MAGA team is manipulating the market to deceive the orange man into thinking he's winning in order to quieten him down. It wouldn't cost much. Or am I wish-casting?
Seriously, I don't understand the market movement. There seems to be no news event or poll data to justify it.
Latest batch of polls look a little better for Trump? Electoral-vote gives him an edge in PA
Watched a little of the Obama speeches from last night. He remains a brilliant speaker - his timing is just spot on. For me, he's one of the great speakers though I'd rate Bill Clinton, at his prime, slightly higher.
Michelle is a decent speaker as well and plenty will be wondering if the wrong Obama served two terms in the WH.
I'm really struggling to think of a significant British political speech in the last decade. The UK Party Conferences aren't the same as the Democrat and Republican conventions which are quadrennial events.
How can you ignore Johnsons "Peppa Pig" speech?
It's where the decline in Conservative fortunes became manifest. After that it was all downhill.
Peppa Pig was the defining piece of soaring oratory from Alexander Johnson. A modern wonder of public address unsurpassed before or since.
Hundred viewing figures down by more than a quarter as tournament stagnates
Competition’s clash with the Olympics is mainly blamed for the decline in audience numbers
Television viewing figures for the Hundred dropped by more than a quarter this summer at a time when the England and Wales Cricket Board is hoping to attract investors to buy into the competition.
Figures seen by Telegraph Sport show that average television audiences across both Hundred competitions took a big hit as the sport struggled for viewership up against the Olympics. The women’s competition dropped by 41 per cent on Sky and the men’s tournament 28 per cent compared to 2023.
On the BBC, the men’s Hundred was down 25 per cent but the women’s competition stayed roughly the same, with a reduction of only two per cent.
The figures were improved by a successful last week with audiences for the men’s final on Sunday up by 36 per cent on the BBC with a peak audience of 1.3 million on last year, compared to 869,000 in 2023. Sky figures were slightly better than last year for the final, up by six per cent for the men. The women’s final average audience was however down 10 per cent on Sky and 20 per cent on the BBC. The peak audience figure for the women’s final on both channels was also down.
The competition’s clash with the Olympics is mainly blamed by insiders for the fall but there is also an indication it is stagnating in only its fourth year and needs new investors to inject fresh ideas to give it a lift.
It doesn't need new investors. It needs scrapping.
Quite aside from its banal offering I don't see anything the Hundred offers that T20 didn't do so already.
In this TikTok, smartphone, short attention span world, I always felt the Hundred was just not differentiated enough from Twenty20.
It's time for the ECB to take a truly bold step, and make a competition that is really differentiated.
Ladies and Gentlemen of PB, I present you with:
The One
Just a single ball of cricket. One batsman, one bowler. Maybe even skip the fielders. Whichever batsman hits the ball the furthest wins.
Let's do it, guys.
Someone’s been watching too much of that UFC face-slapping “competition”.
For a slightly more serious answer, how’s about a series of “Cricket Festival” competitions, along the lines of the international Rugby 7s tournament.
Get all the players at the same place for two or thre days over a weekend. A series of short, perhaps only two overs per side, games in a league format, leading to knockout rounds QF, SF and final. Have mens, womens, boys, and girls competitions all on at the same time, perhaps make use of a second field if available. Make it family-friendly, lots of sideshows and get-the-kids-involved stuff, and a ‘family stand’ in the ground with no alcohol. But to the rest of the crowd, it’s basically a party with some cricket going on in the background, the cans of beer sold by the case slowly disappearing as fast as the sunburn appears, and the day finishes with a live band so everyone doesn’t leave at once.
I think two overs is probably a little bit too short, but the general idea is an excellent one. I'd go with five overs, so it's ten overs a game. That's 60 balls, which means a game could take just 45 minutes in total.
At school, we played six-a-side. One wicketkeeper and the other 5 bowling one over each. IIRC (it was the 70s) the batting team also provided a couple of fielders (rotating as wickets fell), and you got the wrath of the teacher if you weren't "honest" when fielding against your own team.
The graph in the header contradicts its concluding phrase, "the momentum, pace Betfair, is with Harris."
Why ?
see edit of that post
pace = latin term usually meaning 'despite' or 'notwithstanding'. Thus the sentence means "the momentum, notwithstanding Betfair, is with Harris."
(Why a working class lad like TSE can't stick to English is beyond me.)
I might be embarrassed here. I've used it for over a decade to mean "as per the arguments of" as per academic citation, and nobody's contradicted me. I shall check to make sure I've got it right.
I think you use per for that without the extras, meaning "in accordance with".
Nobody's contradicted you because none of them know.
Per is legalese not academese: An Englishman's home is his castle: Scratchy vs Itchy 1948 Court of Appeal per Denning LJ. In academese I think you just cite the paper if you agree with it. Nice things are nicer than nasty ones (Popper 1956).
I think it actually originated in the Georgian navy. Captains had to write a report after every action. You would name any prizes you took in the margin, and the convention (to save time) was to write 'as per margin' in the main body of the report.
I know a pompous chap who signs letters Yours etc. The joke being this is just a convention when printing a letter in a book, to save space, and the original letter will have ended I beg to remain sir your most humble and obedient servant
I used to work at a place where a customer always signed emails "Yours aye". Never seen it before or since and still don't understand it...
There's no corresponding move towards Trump in the key state markets. Not that I can see anyway and I'm all over them.
I wonder if someone in the MAGA team is manipulating the market to deceive the orange man into thinking he's winning in order to quieten him down. It wouldn't cost much. Or am I wish-casting?
Seriously, I don't understand the market movement. There seems to be no news event or poll data to justify it.
Latest batch of polls look a little better for Trump? Electoral-vote gives him an edge in PA
538 as DavidL mentioned below has Harris 1.3% ahead in Pennsylvania on average. Harris is also 2.8% ahead in Michigan, 3.2% ahead in Wisconsin and 0.7% ahead in Arizona.
Trump is ahead 0.2% in North Carolina and 1.2% in Georgia, with Nevada tied
Robert F Kennedy Jr is considering dropping out of the presidential race and teaming up with Donald Trump to stop Kamala Harris from winning the election, his running mate has said.
Nicole Shanahan, the independent candidate’s vice presidential running mate, said the pair are considering abandoning their bid for the White House in order to help Trump beat the Democrats.
RFK Jr is drawing about equally from both candidates so I doubt it makes much difference either way
If he drops out and endorses Trump, his Trump votes presumably go back to Trump, but do his Kamala votes go back to Kamala or Trump?
There's a whiff of corruption around Kennedy, isn't there, both personal and political.
I think youll find that goes back several generations and nobody on the Dem side was that worried.
It is bizarre to me that my parents generation of Democrats venerates the Kennedys. He was a very poor president, a poor human being but being good looking can apparently overcome everything.
I've been listening to a few documentaries on Usonian gangsters over the last week or so.
I did not realise that it was Richard Nixon who gave a Presidential Pardon to James Hoffa, the corrupt leader of the Teamsters who led them into bed with the Mafia, to get released from a long prison sentence. Hoffa allowed the pension fund to be used to provide $100m or more to be used to fund Mafia controlled casinos in Las Vegas.
Presidential Pardons are one more aspect of the US system which need to be very heavily reformed.
There are 3 local by-elections tomorrow. We have a Con defence in Northumberland, a Lib Dem defence in Three Rivers, and an Ind defence in West Lothian.
Watched a little of the Obama speeches from last night. He remains a brilliant speaker - his timing is just spot on. For me, he's one of the great speakers though I'd rate Bill Clinton, at his prime, slightly higher.
Michelle is a decent speaker as well and plenty will be wondering if the wrong Obama served two terms in the WH.
I'm really struggling to think of a significant British political speech in the last decade. The UK Party Conferences aren't the same as the Democrat and Republican conventions which are quadrennial events.
Bill Clinton speaking tonight.
Cameron had a big speech at the 2005 Tory conference, Johnson and Corbyn made big speeches. Though by convention former PMs don't speak at their party conferences unlike former Presidents so as not to overshadow their successors as leader, albeit Thatcher did speak at a Tory rally in 2001 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuvi_TxC4XY
There's a whiff of corruption around Kennedy, isn't there, both personal and political.
I think youll find that goes back several generations and nobody on the Dem side was that worried.
It is bizarre to me that my parents generation of Democrats venerates the Kennedys. He was a very poor president, a poor human being but being good looking can apparently overcome everything.
I think it's a little more complicated than that. IMO, the thing about both JFK and RFK, which isn't all that common in leaders, is that they learned from their political mistakes - RFK most dramatically. Both might have been remarkable presidents had they not been killed. We'll never know, of course.
UUP leadership update: candidates have until 30 August to collect the required nominations (35 signatures from 9 constituency associations)
Robbie Butler MLA, the current deputy leader, has ruled himself out. There's talk of 3 possible candidates, including two previous leaders: Mike Nesbitt MLA, current NI Minister of Health and leader 2012-7; Robin Swann MP and leader 2017-9; and John Stewart MLA, Chief Whip.
Watched a little of the Obama speeches from last night. He remains a brilliant speaker - his timing is just spot on. For me, he's one of the great speakers though I'd rate Bill Clinton, at his prime, slightly higher.
Michelle is a decent speaker as well and plenty will be wondering if the wrong Obama served two terms in the WH.
I'm really struggling to think of a significant British political speech in the last decade. The UK Party Conferences aren't the same as the Democrat and Republican conventions which are quadrennial events.
Bill Clinton speaking tonight.
Cameron had a big speech at the 2005 Tory conference, Johnson and Corbyn made big speeches. Though by convention former PMs don't speak at their party conferences unlike former Presidents so as not to overshadow their successors as leader, albeit Thatcher did speak at a Tory rally in 2001 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuvi_TxC4XY
Bill Clinton was a very good speaker indeed, at least back in the ‘90s. He’s a bit older and slower now, but still probably more impressive than anyone else at the DNC this week.
Watched a little of the Obama speeches from last night. He remains a brilliant speaker - his timing is just spot on. For me, he's one of the great speakers though I'd rate Bill Clinton, at his prime, slightly higher.
Michelle is a decent speaker as well and plenty will be wondering if the wrong Obama served two terms in the WH.
I'm really struggling to think of a significant British political speech in the last decade. The UK Party Conferences aren't the same as the Democrat and Republican conventions which are quadrennial events.
Bill Clinton speaking tonight.
Cameron had a big speech at the 2005 Tory conference, Johnson and Corbyn made big speeches. Though by convention former PMs don't speak at their party conferences unlike former Presidents so as not to overshadow their successors as leader, albeit Thatcher did speak at a Tory rally in 2001 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuvi_TxC4XY
Bill Clinton was a very good speaker indeed, at least back in the ‘90s. He’s a bit older and slower now, but still good.
Fun fact - Bill Clinton is two months younger than Donald Trump.
There's a whiff of corruption around Kennedy, isn't there, both personal and political.
I think youll find that goes back several generations and nobody on the Dem side was that worried.
It is bizarre to me that my parents generation of Democrats venerates the Kennedys. He was a very poor president, a poor human being but being good looking can apparently overcome everything.
Cuban Missile Crisis he did well, Bay of Pigs less so. He also cut taxes and grew the economy and began to move towards more civil rights for African Americans though LBJ did most of the work and created Medicare and Medicaid. JFK also avoided full on involvement in the Vietnam War which clouded LBJ's legacy and Bobby Kennedy in 1968 of course campaigned to end the war in Vietnam and for a negotiated settlement
Disapppinting borrowing numbers for July this morning and it now seems inevitable the sub editors will be throwing "Halloween Horror" all over the Chancellor's Autumn BUdget at the end of October.
With energy prices also starting to turn up again, it's not going to be pleasant but we all knew deep down this kind of reckoning would have to happen somewhere down the line. We went through a painful economic readjustment in the early 10s and it may be the mid 2020s will be a similar period.
I presume Reeves will be looking to get the public finances back under some measure of control and unlike Osborne and Alexander in 2011, I suspect there will be as much if not more emphasis on raising revenue from taxation than from cutting public spending.
We probably can't go from £87.2 billion of borrowing to zero in one year or possibly even one Parliament though it would be useful to see a sense of direction of travel. No one is saying we shouldn't borrow - borrowing for long term capital expenditure is perfectly reasonable - but we need to get that borrowing down to sensible levels and get the debt interest payments (£7 billion last month) down if we can.
Debt interest will only come down if we start to run a surplus and reduce debt. We are a very long way from that. As it is much of the debt that was borrowed at ultra low interest rates will have to be rolled over and borrowed at much higher rates over the next few years. The amount spent on debt interest is only going one way: up.
We now have a universal workaround for LNER fares. For travel London <> all stations Newcastle-Edinburgh inclusive, DO NOT book to/from London: 1. Book to/from Finsbury Park 2. In the search results, click 'Filters' then 'Route options'. Under 'Go via ' enter Kings Cross.
Watched a little of the Obama speeches from last night. He remains a brilliant speaker - his timing is just spot on. For me, he's one of the great speakers though I'd rate Bill Clinton, at his prime, slightly higher.
Michelle is a decent speaker as well and plenty will be wondering if the wrong Obama served two terms in the WH.
I'm really struggling to think of a significant British political speech in the last decade. The UK Party Conferences aren't the same as the Democrat and Republican conventions which are quadrennial events.
Bill Clinton speaking tonight.
Cameron had a big speech at the 2005 Tory conference, Johnson and Corbyn made big speeches. Though by convention former PMs don't speak at their party conferences unlike former Presidents so as not to overshadow their successors as leader, albeit Thatcher did speak at a Tory rally in 2001 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuvi_TxC4XY
Bill Clinton was a very good speaker indeed, at least back in the ‘90s. He’s a bit older and slower now, but still good.
Fun fact - Bill Clinton is two months younger than Donald Trump.
Yes. Trump, GW Bush, and Clinton, were all born within two months of each other in the summer of 1946.
Superb Convention speech by Michelle Obama. She would have been a great President, but having lived 8 years in the White House with all that entails, you can understand why she has no interest.
The ability to give a good speech is not connected to ability in elective politics.
I think it was Obama who said "Why is x still a problem? I gave a speech on that months ago."
Obama gave great speeches and wrote very well. But his actual administration was incredibly ineffective.
There's a whiff of corruption around Kennedy, isn't there, both personal and political.
I think youll find that goes back several generations and nobody on the Dem side was that worried.
It is bizarre to me that my parents generation of Democrats venerates the Kennedys. He was a very poor president, a poor human being but being good looking can apparently overcome everything.
I think it's a little more complicated than that. IMO, the thing about both JFK and RFK, which isn't all that common in leaders, is that they learned from their political mistakes - RFK most dramatically. Both might have been remarkable presidents had they not been killed. We'll never know, of course.
I recently read American Caesars by Nigel Hamilton, essentially an essay collection assessing the pros and cons of the run of US presidents from FDR to 'W'. It ranked JFK quite highly but not near the top.
Watched a little of the Obama speeches from last night. He remains a brilliant speaker - his timing is just spot on. For me, he's one of the great speakers though I'd rate Bill Clinton, at his prime, slightly higher.
Michelle is a decent speaker as well and plenty will be wondering if the wrong Obama served two terms in the WH.
I'm really struggling to think of a significant British political speech in the last decade. The UK Party Conferences aren't the same as the Democrat and Republican conventions which are quadrennial events.
Bill Clinton speaking tonight.
Cameron had a big speech at the 2005 Tory conference, Johnson and Corbyn made big speeches. Though by convention former PMs don't speak at their party conferences unlike former Presidents so as not to overshadow their successors as leader, albeit Thatcher did speak at a Tory rally in 2001 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuvi_TxC4XY
Corbyn spoke at the 2005 Conservative Conference???
There's a whiff of corruption around Kennedy, isn't there, both personal and political.
I think youll find that goes back several generations and nobody on the Dem side was that worried.
It is bizarre to me that my parents generation of Democrats venerates the Kennedys. He was a very poor president, a poor human being but being good looking can apparently overcome everything.
Cuban Missile Crisis he did well, Bay of Pigs less so. He also cut taxes and grew the economy and began to move towards more civil rights for African Americans though LBJ did most of the work and created Medicare and Medicaid. JFK also avoided full on involvement in the Vietnam War which clouded LBJ's legacy and Bobby Kennedy in 1968 of course campaigned to end the war in Vietnam and for a negotiated settlement
He gave LBJ a bit of a hospital pass on Vietnam though.
Superb Convention speech by Michelle Obama. She would have been a great President, but having lived 8 years in the White House with all that entails, you can understand why she has no interest.
The ability to give a good speech is not connected to ability in elective politics.
I think it was Obama who said "Why is x still a problem? I gave a speech on that months ago."
Obama gave great speeches and wrote very well. But his actual administration was incredibly ineffective.
Biden (who Obama didn’t use effectively) had a long, long history of building the legislative coalitions that are needed to get laws through the American system.
Which is what he did in his presidency - despite massive obstructionism by Republican leadership.
Which will get hit by Human Rights judgements about distance between prisoners and families, IIRC.
And Nimyism would be off the charts in rural areas and market towns at the prospect of new prisons near them. Better modernise the existing prisons and add a few more in remote areas like Dartmoor or the Yorkshire moors
Disapppinting borrowing numbers for July this morning and it now seems inevitable the sub editors will be throwing "Halloween Horror" all over the Chancellor's Autumn BUdget at the end of October.
With energy prices also starting to turn up again, it's not going to be pleasant but we all knew deep down this kind of reckoning would have to happen somewhere down the line. We went through a painful economic readjustment in the early 10s and it may be the mid 2020s will be a similar period.
I presume Reeves will be looking to get the public finances back under some measure of control and unlike Osborne and Alexander in 2011, I suspect there will be as much if not more emphasis on raising revenue from taxation than from cutting public spending.
We probably can't go from £87.2 billion of borrowing to zero in one year or possibly even one Parliament though it would be useful to see a sense of direction of travel. No one is saying we shouldn't borrow - borrowing for long term capital expenditure is perfectly reasonable - but we need to get that borrowing down to sensible levels and get the debt interest payments (£7 billion last month) down if we can.
Debt interest will only come down if we start to run a surplus and reduce debt. We are a very long way from that. As it is much of the debt that was borrowed at ultra low interest rates will have to be rolled over and borrowed at much higher rates over the next few years. The amount spent on debt interest is only going one way: up.
Depends on how you are measuring it. As a percentage of GDP, you could simply outgrow it and all sorted. Easy. /s
Comments
- "wow, I go away for a few weeks and someone needlessly complexifies this page and reverses its actual meaning! Bad."
- "ok some of that was a bit excessive"
- "I'll consent that the MFD requirement of {{essay}} may be excessive, and I'm on going to WP:DRV over it; however editorialiy speaking, this is NOT a HELP page"
- "You mean removing the helpful part of a help page? No thanks. What on earth is your problem anyway, this page does not endorse essays nor contradict that recent essay you wrote."
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:What_does_"per"_mean?&action=history&dir=prev&limit=500Reform UK gets its first 3 councillors in Wales, following the defection of three independents (2 formerly Labour, 1 formerly Conservative).
https://x.com/BBCNews/status/1826171823572099415
I still think she is value at 2.0 even though i backed her originally at 46.
My average is 3.7 and I'm sticking with her.
I think the "vibe" is critically important, particularly for low information uninterested swing voters who decide the election, and she has it.
https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/49697-is-robert-f-kennedy-jr-drawing-more-support-from-biden-or-trump-poll
Watched a little of the Obama speeches from last night. He remains a brilliant speaker - his timing is just spot on. For me, he's one of the great speakers though I'd rate Bill Clinton, at his prime, slightly higher.
Michelle is a decent speaker as well and plenty will be wondering if the wrong Obama served two terms in the WH.
I'm really struggling to think of a significant British political speech in the last decade. The UK Party Conferences aren't the same as the Democrat and Republican conventions which are quadrennial events.
I am utterly red on Trump and so if he wins I will be poorer and also very depressed.
It's where the decline in Conservative fortunes became manifest. After that it was all downhill.
(Had I put £1k on at 46, rather than a couple of quid, I'd think differently, probably.)
As it is, slightly longer than evens, with what we know now compared to what we knew then, still represents pretty good value, IMO.
I do wonder if in time it might make a comeback though. We are missing from our politics serious conviction politicians (from whom the great speeches often stem), and I wonder if after an era of politicians who don’t say much, the person or people who inherit the mantle might actually do well from saying a bit more.
And Scarborough etc.
BBC News - Snail farm in city office sparks tax avoidance probe
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9904dz73pyo
Moscow has come under one of the largest attacks by Ukrainian drones yet, with Russia saying it destroyed 45 Ukrainian drones overnight. It comes as Kyiv's forces continue to push into Russia's western Kursk region.
@lewis_goodall
Reflections on DNC on end of day 2
-Dems' change of tone on Trump noticeable. They're still invoking the dark forces he may yet unleash but doing it generally with a lighter touch. They're leaning into idea of mocking him as much as fearing him.
-Very strong message discipline on the economy, especially from all the key speakers on class. Consistent emphasis on Harris' ordinary background, contrasting with wealth and privilege of Trump. More populist notes than in the past.
-The two themes of this convention, save for Trump himself, are those class/economic issues and abortion. Everything else, even previous big ticket Dem issues like climate change v much in the background.
-With Biden issue behind them, Dems continue to seem extremely ordered/disciplined. Crowd energy off the scale.
https://x.com/lewis_goodall/status/1826102757020835930
With energy prices also starting to turn up again, it's not going to be pleasant but we all knew deep down this kind of reckoning would have to happen somewhere down the line. We went through a painful economic readjustment in the early 10s and it may be the mid 2020s will be a similar period.
I presume Reeves will be looking to get the public finances back under some measure of control and unlike Osborne and Alexander in 2011, I suspect there will be as much if not more emphasis on raising revenue from taxation than from cutting public spending.
We probably can't go from £87.2 billion of borrowing to zero in one year or possibly even one Parliament though it would be useful to see a sense of direction of travel. No one is saying we shouldn't borrow - borrowing for long term capital expenditure is perfectly reasonable - but we need to get that borrowing down to sensible levels and get the debt interest payments (£7 billion last month) down if we can.
I think it was Obama who said "Why is x still a problem? I gave a speech on that months ago."
What a shame he has handed the good news to Recession Reeves and her growth killer minions.
CBS News
@CBSNews
·
6h
Michelle Obama on Donald Trump: "Who's going to tell him that the job he's currently seeking might just be one of those 'Black jobs'?"
https://x.com/CBSNews/status/1826094589419118865
Always a good sign to be using an opponent's strength against them.
There's big money in bullshit conspiracy theories.
His election run has probably paid for itself - not just in contributions, but moving him up the totem pole of anti-vax cultists.
1 in 3 people fantasise about group sex whereas 3 in 1 is group sex.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/20/robert-jenrick-took-ozempic-didnt-enjoy-it-weight-loss/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC5cHjcgt5g
It’s got 3m views on 10 hours. Youtube views not Twitter views.
Von also interviewed Bernie Sanders last week, that’s pretty impressive to get those two guests in quick succession.
C’mon, up yer game.
Trump is ahead 0.2% in North Carolina and 1.2% in Georgia, with Nevada tied
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/pennsylvania/
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/michigan/
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/wisconsin/
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/georgia/
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/north-carolina/
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/nevada/
I did not realise that it was Richard Nixon who gave a Presidential Pardon to James Hoffa, the corrupt leader of the Teamsters who led them into bed with the Mafia, to get released from a long prison sentence. Hoffa allowed the pension fund to be used to provide $100m or more to be used to fund Mafia controlled casinos in Las Vegas.
Presidential Pardons are one more aspect of the US system which need to be very heavily reformed.
Cameron had a big speech at the 2005 Tory conference, Johnson and Corbyn made big speeches. Though by convention former PMs don't speak at their party conferences unlike former Presidents so as not to overshadow their successors as leader, albeit Thatcher did speak at a Tory rally in 2001
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuvi_TxC4XY
IMO, the thing about both JFK and RFK, which isn't all that common in leaders, is that they learned from their political mistakes - RFK most dramatically. Both might have been remarkable presidents had they not been killed.
We'll never know, of course.
Robbie Butler MLA, the current deputy leader, has ruled himself out. There's talk of 3 possible candidates, including two previous leaders: Mike Nesbitt MLA, current NI Minister of Health and leader 2012-7; Robin Swann MP and leader 2017-9; and John Stewart MLA, Chief Whip.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/20/solution-to-prison-crisis-staring-us-in-the-face/
https://x.com/seatsixtyone/status/1826185781020406056
We now have a universal workaround for LNER fares.
For travel London <> all stations Newcastle-Edinburgh inclusive, DO NOT book to/from London:
1. Book to/from Finsbury Park
2. In the search results, click 'Filters' then 'Route options'. Under 'Go via ' enter Kings Cross.
(Not sure of current state of play, mind.)
https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/stock-market
Which is what he did in his presidency - despite massive obstructionism by Republican leadership.
https://x.com/icc/status/1826099777181765991
Women’s T20 World Cup has been moved by the ICC. Was originally scheduled to be held in Bangladesh but will now take place in the UAE.