Can anyone explain Domininc Cumming's logic to me please. He seems to be saying that if there is a VoNC, the government will just call an immediate General Election. But surely under the FTPA that would requrie a two-thirds vote? And if/when a GONU takes control, Boris's power to call a GE would cease?
Boris has no power to call a GE. It can only come about if 2/3 of the Commons vote for it (as they did in 2017) or if a government loses a VONC and an alternative government cannot be put together within 14 days. Both scenarios are pretty unlikely IMO - the opposition parties would demand an A50 extension as the price of voting for an early GE and if the government falls at a VONC an alternative will be put together for a short time at least for the purpose of getting an extension to A50.....
That might, of course, be exactly what Boris wants. Be forced into seeking an extension, then go to the country for a Brexity GE "on the side of Brexit". Facing Corbyn, he would probably win.
Could be a landslide to be honest.
I think Cummings is either maintaining any old horseshit for the purposes of keeping Brussels alert to No Deal, or is assuming that HoC wont actually get its collective act together and organize an alternative government within 14 days.
In the latter case, on which he may well be right, despite all the protestations, then Boris does get to choose the GE date I think.
This is the line in the Act:
"Dissolution need not follow immediately on a triggering event, as section 2(7) allows for the Prime Minister to recommend a suitable polling day to the Crown."
A massive hole in the Act frankly.
And that clause, of course, would necessitate a caretaker PM whom most anti-No Deal MPs trust. Which rather rules out Corbyn.
Has it been established whether the PM gets replaced after a VONC but before an election? The election implies no one else could command a majority.
I think Boris stays on as caretaker PM until such time as Liz appoints his agreed successor or parliament is dissolved. And Boris can't do anything significant during that time.
He would be legally required to recommend a date to HM.
Yes. And maybe his playing silly buggers with the timing would constitute embarrassing the monarch by dragging her into grubby politics. So perhaps he wouldn't even be allowed to do Cummings's wheeze.
Can England still even win??? They've taken their target off the screen which was surely a very bad omen
In theory, yes.
Just as in theory David Warner might be named Greatest Foreign Sportsman by the BBC.
Thanks - it's complicated switching between ODI and test. I know what all the numbers on the screen mean but I don't think I'll ever understand the finer details
Corbyn must, must, must find a way to stop parliament blocking No Deal. It would completely stuff Boris in the ensuing horror show. What could Boris possibly say? It's parliaments fault for letting me do it?
Yes. I've got an article going up on Labour List about how to do it this afternoon.
Party before country...
Insane. I await Nick's article, but on the face of it seems to be arguing that Corbyn should let the country fall into economic chaos in order for him to have more chance of winning an election. That is despicable. No other word for it.
And of course, this is the Seamus Strategy.
What a generation of politicians we have.
Corbyn has consistently said that no deal would be a disaster and must be avoided at all costs. He said it again today. He has been completely unequivocal on this, in contrast to his position on Brexit generally, so the idea that he is secretly planning to precipitate no deal seems unlikely to me.
But no deal is the best outcome for him, in purely political terms, albeit a horror-show for the country and the Union. The question then is, just how much of a selfish, scheming, conniving old shit is Jeremy Corbyn?
Can anyone explain Domininc Cumming's logic to me please. He seems to be saying that if there is a VoNC, the government will just call an immediate General Election. But surely under the FTPA that would requrie a two-thirds vote? And if/when a GONU takes control, Boris's power to call a GE would cease?
Boris has no power to call a GE. It can only come about if 2/3 of the Commons vote for it (as they did in 2017) or if a government loses a VONC and an alternative government cannot be put together within 14 days. Both scenarios are pretty unlikely IMO - the opposition parties would demand an A50 extension as the price of voting for an early GE and if the government falls at a VONC an alternative will be put together for a short time at least for the purpose of getting an extension to A50.....
That might, of course, be exactly what Boris wants. Be forced into seeking an extension, then go to the country for a Brexity GE "on the side of Brexit". Facing Corbyn, he would probably win.
Could be a landslide to be honest.
I think Cummings is either maintaining any old horseshit for the purposes of keeping Brussels alert to No Deal, or is assuming that HoC wont actually get its collective act together and organize an alternative government within 14 days.
In the latter case, on which he may well be right, despite all the protestations, then Boris does get to choose the GE date I think.
This is the line in the Act:
"Dissolution need not follow immediately on a triggering event, as section 2(7) allows for the Prime Minister to recommend a suitable polling day to the Crown."
A massive hole in the Act frankly.
FTPA - what a joke.
Gifted to the nation by one David Cameron, it could be the thing that finally delivers No Deal.
Boris need only schedule the GE date for the day or week after 31st Oct and we are out.
I thought it was Clegg’s idea.
It was definitely Clegg’s piece of work. He wanted a cast-iron legal way to stop DC calling an election before 2015.
There was actually an amendment tabled for the Act to expire in 2015, but it was voted down by the Commons.
Can anyone explain Domininc Cumming's logic to me please. He seems to be saying that if there is a VoNC, the government will just call an immediate General Election. But surely under the FTPA that would requrie a two-thirds vote? And if/when a GONU takes control, Boris's power to call a GE would cease?
Boris has no power to call a GE. It can only come about if 2/3 of the Commons vote for it (as they did in 2017) or if a government loses a VONC and an alternative government cannot be put together within 14 days. Both scenarios are pretty unlikely IMO - the opposition parties would demand an A50 extension as the price of voting for an early GE and if the government falls at a VONC an alternative will be put together for a short time at least for the purpose of getting an extension to A50.....
That might, of course, be exactly what Boris wants. Be forced into seeking an extension, then go to the country for a Brexity GE "on the side of Brexit". Facing Corbyn, he would probably win.
Could be a landslide to be honest.
I think Cummings is either maintaining any old horseshit for the purposes of keeping Brussels alert to No Deal, or is assuming that HoC wont actually get its collective act together and organize an alternative government within 14 days.
In the latter case, on which he may well be right, despite all the protestations, then Boris does get to choose the GE date I think.
This is the line in the Act:
"Dissolution need not follow immediately on a triggering event, as section 2(7) allows for the Prime Minister to recommend a suitable polling day to the Crown."
A massive hole in the Act frankly.
FTPA - what a joke.
Gifted to the nation by one David Cameron, it could be the thing that finally delivers No Deal.
Boris need only schedule the GE date for the day or week after 31st Oct and we are out.
I thought it was Clegg’s idea.
It was definitely Clegg’s piece of work. He wanted a cast-iron legal way to stop DC calling an election before 2015.
There was actually an amendment tabled for the Act to expire in 2015, but it was voted down by the Commons.
It has something of a sunset clause. It needs to be reviewed next year, I think.
Can England still even win??? They've taken their target off the screen which was surely a very bad omen
In theory, yes.
Just as in theory David Warner might be named Greatest Foreign Sportsman by the BBC.
Thanks - it's complicated switching between ODI and test. I know what all the numbers on the screen mean but I don't think I'll ever understand the finer details
I've been watching cricket, on and off, for thirty-five years. And I still don't *quite* understand LBW.
Corbyn must, must, must find a way to stop parliament blocking No Deal. It would completely stuff Boris in the ensuing horror show. What could Boris possibly say? It's parliaments fault for letting me do it?
Yes. I've got an article going up on Labour List about how to do it this afternoon.
Am I reading you correctly? You want Corbyn to stop Parliament stopping No Deal ie you want a No Deal Exit to happen?
Or are you saying that Corbyn can stop Boris taking Britain out on a No Deal basis?
Can anyone explain Domininc Cumming's logic to me please. He seems to be saying that if there is a VoNC, the government will just call an immediate General Election. But surely under the FTPA that would requrie a two-thirds vote? And if/when a GONU takes control, Boris's power to call a GE would cease?
Boris has no power to call a GE. It can only come about if 2/3 of the Commons vote for it (as they did in 2017) or if a government loses a VONC and an alternative government cannot be put together within 14 days. Both scenarios are pretty unlikely IMO - the opposition parties would demand an A50 extension as the price of voting for an early GE and if the government falls at a VONC an alternative will be put together for a short time at least for the purpose of getting an extension to A50.....
That might, of course, be exactly what Boris wants. Be forced into seeking an extension, then go to the country for a Brexity GE "on the side of Brexit". Facing Corbyn, he would probably win.
Could be a landslide to be honest.
I think Cummings is either maintaining any old horseshit for the purposes of keeping Brussels alert to No Deal, or is assuming that HoC wont actually get its collective act together and organize an alternative government within 14 days.
In the latter case, on which he may well be right, despite all the protestations, then Boris does get to choose the GE date I think.
This is the line in the Act:
"Dissolution need not follow immediately on a triggering event, as section 2(7) allows for the Prime Minister to recommend a suitable polling day to the Crown."
A massive hole in the Act frankly.
FTPA - what a joke.
Gifted to the nation by one David Cameron, it could be the thing that finally delivers No Deal.
Boris need only schedule the GE date for the day or week after 31st Oct and we are out.
I thought it was Clegg’s idea.
It was definitely Clegg’s piece of work. He wanted a cast-iron legal way to stop DC calling an election before 2015.
There was actually an amendment tabled for the Act to expire in 2015, but it was voted down by the Commons.
It has something of a sunset clause. It needs to be reviewed next year, I think.
Process has started. Consultations have begun. If it causes a f**k up this autumn then it could be killed next year.
But, I suspect that reviewing it may open a whole load of other constitutional doors.
Can anyone explain Domininc Cumming's logic to me please. He seems to be saying that if there is a VoNC, the government will just call an immediate General Election. But surely under the FTPA that would requrie a two-thirds vote? And if/when a GONU takes control, Boris's power to call a GE would cease?
Boris has no power to call a GE. It can only come about if 2/3 of the Commons vote for it (as they did in 2017) or if a government loses a VONC and an alternative government cannot be put together within 14 days. Both scenarios are pretty unlikely IMO - the opposition parties would demand an A50 extension as the price of voting for an early GE and if the government falls at a VONC an alternative will be put together for a short time at least for the purpose of getting an extension to A50.....
That might, of course, be exactly what Boris wants. Be forced into seeking an extension, then go to the country for a Brexity GE "on the side of Brexit". Facing Corbyn, he would probably win.
Could be a landslide to be honest.
I think Cummings is either maintaining any old horseshit for the purposes of keeping Brussels alert to No Deal, or is assuming that HoC wont actually get its collective act together and organize an alternative government within 14 days.
In the latter case, on which he may well be right, despite all the protestations, then Boris does get to choose the GE date I think.
This is the line in the Act:
"Dissolution need not follow immediately on a triggering event, as section 2(7) allows for the Prime Minister to recommend a suitable polling day to the Crown."
A massive hole in the Act frankly.
FTPA - what a joke.
Gifted to the nation by one David Cameron, it could be the thing that finally delivers No Deal.
Boris need only schedule the GE date for the day or week after 31st Oct and we are out.
I thought it was Clegg’s idea.
It was definitely Clegg’s piece of work. He wanted a cast-iron legal way to stop DC calling an election before 2015.
There was actually an amendment tabled for the Act to expire in 2015, but it was voted down by the Commons.
I understood that in the 2010 coalition negotiations the fixed term Parliament Act was primarily driven by Chris Huhne
Can England still even win??? They've taken their target off the screen which was surely a very bad omen
In theory, yes.
Just as in theory David Warner might be named Greatest Foreign Sportsman by the BBC.
Thanks - it's complicated switching between ODI and test. I know what all the numbers on the screen mean but I don't think I'll ever understand the finer details
I've been watching cricket, on and off, for thirty-five years. And I still don't *quite* understand LBW.
Well I don’t understand it either. But there again I have never watched cricket in my life - save for when I was in hospital and the TV was permanently tuned to it the whole bloody summer of 1981 - so I am equally as ignorant as you but have saved myself years and years for other very pleasurable activities.
Corbyn must, must, must find a way to stop parliament blocking No Deal. It would completely stuff Boris in the ensuing horror show. What could Boris possibly say? It's parliaments fault for letting me do it?
Yes. I've got an article going up on Labour List about how to do it this afternoon.
Party before country...
Insane. I await Nick's article, but on the face of it seems to be arguing that Corbyn should let the country fall into economic chaos in order for him to have more chance of winning an election. That is despicable. No other word for it.
And of course, this is the Seamus Strategy.
What a generation of politicians we have.
Corbyn has consistently said that no deal would be a disaster and must be avoided at all costs. He said it again today. He has been completely unequivocal on this, in contrast to his position on Brexit generally, so the idea that he is secretly planning to precipitate no deal seems unlikely to me.
But no deal is the best outcome for him, in purely political terms, albeit a horror-show for the country and the Union. The question then is, just how much of a selfish, scheming, conniving old shit is Jeremy Corbyn?
Hmm.
Frankly, it is probably all going over Mr Allotment's head. The conniving schemers are in his back office.
Can England still even win??? They've taken their target off the screen which was surely a very bad omen
In theory, yes.
Just as in theory David Warner might be named Greatest Foreign Sportsman by the BBC.
Thanks - it's complicated switching between ODI and test. I know what all the numbers on the screen mean but I don't think I'll ever understand the finer details
I've been watching cricket, on and off, for thirty-five years. And I still don't *quite* understand LBW.
You can go by the graphics nowadays but there is a complicated rule about the inside/outside the redbox part I think
Yep. This is a straw man by Kirkup to the extent that Deal or No Deal makes no legal difference to the need for approval for any future trade deal.
That's not quite right. Under the Article 50 provisions, there various things which can be agreed by the Council, including a lot of transitional and 'grandfathering' arrangements. Once we've crashed out, those become much more difficult.
In any case, the key point is the urgency. With no transition in place, we'll be desperate. We'd also have lost a great deal of trust and goodwill. Leaving with no deal and then trying to recover at least something from the wreckage really would be the worst possible starting point for negotiating a new relationship, especially since it looks as though we'll have done it purely as an act of political and economic self-harm.
I feel this is somewhat naive.
Firstly you can't lose what you don't have. If we had trust and goodwill in the first place the EU wouldn't be insisting upon the backstop.
Secondly the urgency is more critical now with the ticking clock of the unknown and termination of Article 50. Once we have actually exited with no deal if it happens the urgency is lifted because the clock is gone. A deal will remain desirable as it is now but we won't have a hard deadline approaching anymore.
Corbyn must, must, must find a way to stop parliament blocking No Deal. It would completely stuff Boris in the ensuing horror show. What could Boris possibly say? It's parliaments fault for letting me do it?
Yes. I've got an article going up on Labour List about how to do it this afternoon.
Am I reading you correctly? You want Corbyn to stop Parliament stopping No Deal ie you want a No Deal Exit to happen?
Or are you saying that Corbyn can stop Boris taking Britain out on a No Deal basis?
If the article is as badly written as Nick's comment it will unreadable, anyway.
Alternatively: Nick is so partisan he wants No Deal just to get Corbyn into power. Which is quite Wow.
Yep. This is a straw man by Kirkup to the extent that Deal or No Deal makes no legal difference to the need for approval for any future trade deal.
That's not quite right. Under the Article 50 provisions, there various things which can be agreed by the Council, including a lot of transitional and 'grandfathering' arrangements. Once we've crashed out, those become much more difficult.
In any case, the key point is the urgency. With no transition in place, we'll be desperate. We'd also have lost a great deal of trust and goodwill. Leaving with no deal and then trying to recover at least something from the wreckage really would be the worst possible starting point for negotiating a new relationship, especially since it looks as though we'll have done it purely as an act of political and economic self-harm.
But that is not what Kirkup is arguing in his piece. He is claiming that by leaving with an agreement we would avoid having to have any future FTA agreed by each and every country in the EU. This is factually incorrect. Whether we leave with a deal or without one, any future trade deal must be agreed unanimously by the EU 27.
The EU can agree and ratify a trade deal, if that trade deal lies 100% within the competence of the EU. What is happening with the new trade deals that the EU is agreeing is that sections of them cover terms which are the competence of the nation states.
For example trade in goods is a 100% EU competence. Trade in services is not.
That's 99.9% correct
The EU can agree a services trade deal with another country/customs block, without the permission of member states, so long as it sticks to elimination of tariffs, or (in some sectors sectors like finance) equivalence.
So, a deal which eliminated all tariffs on services between the US and the EU would be fine; one (like TTIP) which harmonised intellectual property laws would not.
As an aside, there are other reasons why it might require ratification from individual countries, even in the area of goods. So, the use of the EFTA Court as an EEA dispute resolution mechanism would have required the consent of all the EU countries, even if the treaty had solely covered goods.
Can England still even win??? They've taken their target off the screen which was surely a very bad omen
In theory, yes.
Just as in theory David Warner might be named Greatest Foreign Sportsman by the BBC.
Thanks - it's complicated switching between ODI and test. I know what all the numbers on the screen mean but I don't think I'll ever understand the finer details
I've been watching cricket, on and off, for thirty-five years. And I still don't *quite* understand LBW.
You can go by the graphics nowadays but there is a complicated rule about the inside/outside the redbox part I think
Yes. That's the rule I never quite grasp. And I have had it explained to me, several times, by total leather-on-willowheads. Trouble is, they have all explained it slightly differently.
Can anyone explain Domininc Cumming's logic to me please. He seems to be saying that if there is a VoNC, the government will just call an immediate General Election. But surely under the FTPA that would requrie a two-thirds vote? And if/when a GONU takes control, Boris's power to call a GE would cease?
Boris has no power to call a GE. It can only come about if 2/3 of the Commons vote for it (as they did in 2017) or if a government loses a VONC and an alternative government cannot be put together within 14 days. Both scenarios are pretty unlikely IMO - the opposition parties would demand an A50 extension as the price of voting for an early GE and if the government falls at a VONC an alternative will be put together for a short time at least for the purpose of getting an extension to A50.....
That might, of course, be exactly what Boris wants. Be forced into seeking an extension, then go to the country for a Brexity GE "on the side of Brexit". Facing Corbyn, he would probably win.
Could be a landslide to be honest.
I think Cummings is either maintaining any old horseshit for the purposes of keeping Brussels alert to No Deal, or is assuming that HoC wont actually get its collective act together and organize an alternative government within 14 days.
In the latter case, on which he may well be right, despite all the protestations, then Boris does get to choose the GE date I think.
This is the line in the Act:
"Dissolution need not follow immediately on a triggering event, as section 2(7) allows for the Prime Minister to recommend a suitable polling day to the Crown."
A massive hole in the Act frankly.
FTPA - what a joke.
Gifted to the nation by one David Cameron, it could be the thing that finally delivers No Deal.
Boris need only schedule the GE date for the day or week after 31st Oct and we are out.
I thought it was Clegg’s idea.
It was definitely Clegg’s piece of work. He wanted a cast-iron legal way to stop DC calling an election before 2015.
There was actually an amendment tabled for the Act to expire in 2015, but it was voted down by the Commons.
I understood that in the 2010 coalition negotiations the fixed term Parliament Act was primarily driven by Chris Huhne
Can England still even win??? They've taken their target off the screen which was surely a very bad omen
In theory, yes.
Just as in theory David Warner might be named Greatest Foreign Sportsman by the BBC.
Thanks - it's complicated switching between ODI and test. I know what all the numbers on the screen mean but I don't think I'll ever understand the finer details
I've been watching cricket, on and off, for thirty-five years. And I still don't *quite* understand LBW.
You can go by the graphics nowadays but there is a complicated rule about the inside/outside the redbox part I think
Yes. That's the rule I never quite grasp. And I have had it explained to me, several times, by total leather-on-willowheads. Trouble is, they have all explained it slightly differently.
It's like the offside rule in football maybe - have you ever tried to explain it to someone of the female persuasion - they just don't seem to get it (or are very good, play naïve, bluffers)
Yep. This is a straw man by Kirkup to the extent that Deal or No Deal makes no legal difference to the need for approval for any future trade deal.
That's not quite right. Under the Article 50 provisions, there various things which can be agreed by the Council, including a lot of transitional and 'grandfathering' arrangements. Once we've crashed out, those become much more difficult.
In any case, the key point is the urgency. With no transition in place, we'll be desperate. We'd also have lost a great deal of trust and goodwill. Leaving with no deal and then trying to recover at least something from the wreckage really would be the worst possible starting point for negotiating a new relationship, especially since it looks as though we'll have done it purely as an act of political and economic self-harm.
I feel this is somewhat naive.
Firstly you can't lose what you don't have. If we had trust and goodwill in the first place the EU wouldn't be insisting upon the backstop.
Secondly the urgency is more critical now with the ticking clock of the unknown and termination of Article 50. Once we have actually exited with no deal if it happens the urgency is lifted because the clock is gone. A deal will remain desirable as it is now but we won't have a hard deadline approaching anymore.
That made me laugh out loud. Yeah, I'm sure there will be no urgency with lorries queuing up for tens of miles at Dover, farmers going bust, tax revenues collapsing, UK companies not able to process data which relates to EU citizens, flights dependent entirely on the goodwill of the EU, banks not sure how long the temporary recognition which the EU has put in place will last, car manufacturers in full panic mode, no trade deals possible with the rest of the world because no-one will know where we stand in relation to the EU, and Ireland in turmoil. No urgency at all, we can take as long as we like.
Can anyone explain Domininc Cumming's logic to me please. He seems to be saying that if there is a VoNC, the government will just call an immediate General Election. But surely under the FTPA that would requrie a two-thirds vote? And if/when a GONU takes control, Boris's power to call a GE would cease?
Boris has no power to call a GE. It can only come about if 2/3 of the Commons vote for it (as they did in 2017) or if a government loses a VONC and an alternative government cannot be put together within 14 days. Both scenarios are pretty unlikely IMO - the opposition parties would demand an A50 extension as the price of voting for an early GE and if the government falls at a VONC an alternative will be put together for a short time at least for the purpose of getting an extension to A50.....
That might, of course, be exactly what Boris wants. Be forced into seeking an extension, then go to the country for a Brexity GE "on the side of Brexit". Facing Corbyn, he would probably win.
Could be a landslide to be honest.
I think Cummings is either maintaining any old horseshit for the purposes of keeping Brussels alert to No Deal, or is assuming that HoC wont actually get its collective act together and organize an alternative government within 14 days.
In the latter case, on which he may well be right, despite all the protestations, then Boris does get to choose the GE date I think.
This is the line in the Act:
"Dissolution need not follow immediately on a triggering event, as section 2(7) allows for the Prime Minister to recommend a suitable polling day to the Crown."
A massive hole in the Act frankly.
And that clause, of course, would necessitate a caretaker PM whom most anti-No Deal MPs trust. Which rather rules out Corbyn.
Has it been established whether the PM gets replaced after a VONC but before an election? The election implies no one else could command a majority.
I think Boris stays on as caretaker PM until such time as Liz appoints his agreed successor or parliament is dissolved. And Boris can't do anything significant during that time.
He would be legally required to recommend a date to HM.
Corbyn must, must, must find a way to stop parliament blocking No Deal. It would completely stuff Boris in the ensuing horror show. What could Boris possibly say? It's parliaments fault for letting me do it?
Yes. I've got an article going up on Labour List about how to do it this afternoon.
Appalling news.
Then again, Labour list is the only party website that has stopped anyone commenting on stuff that is posted there, and seeing Nick’s article will at least be a relief from reading the rubbish their 20-something year old staffers put up each day.
This looks like deliberate incompetence. It's cruel and unjust. When will there be consequences for these failures, or is this the sort of xenophobic country Britain now is?
Can England still even win??? They've taken their target off the screen which was surely a very bad omen
In theory, yes.
Just as in theory David Warner might be named Greatest Foreign Sportsman by the BBC.
Thanks - it's complicated switching between ODI and test. I know what all the numbers on the screen mean but I don't think I'll ever understand the finer details
I've been watching cricket, on and off, for thirty-five years. And I still don't *quite* understand LBW.
You can go by the graphics nowadays but there is a complicated rule about the inside/outside the redbox part I think
Yes. That's the rule I never quite grasp. And I have had it explained to me, several times, by total leather-on-willowheads. Trouble is, they have all explained it slightly differently.
The ball has to be going on to hit the stumps.
It has to hit pad only or pad first.
If the batsman is playing a shot, it has to hit them in line from wicket to wicket. If they are not, it can hit them 'outside the line' of off stump, as long as it is then going on to hit the stumps.
It cannot pitch (hit the ground) outside the leg stump.
I don't think there is a formal rule about where the batsman is standing, but obviously, the further they are from the stumps, the more margin for error on where it will hit.
Can England still even win??? They've taken their target off the screen which was surely a very bad omen
In theory, yes.
Just as in theory David Warner might be named Greatest Foreign Sportsman by the BBC.
Thanks - it's complicated switching between ODI and test. I know what all the numbers on the screen mean but I don't think I'll ever understand the finer details
I've been watching cricket, on and off, for thirty-five years. And I still don't *quite* understand LBW.
You can go by the graphics nowadays but there is a complicated rule about the inside/outside the redbox part I think
Yes. That's the rule I never quite grasp. And I have had it explained to me, several times, by total leather-on-willowheads. Trouble is, they have all explained it slightly differently.
It's like the offside rule in football maybe - have you ever tried to explain it to someone of the female persuasion - they just don't seem to get it (or are very good, play naïve, bluffers)
Offside in football is a monument of clarity compared to LBW in cricket. It's surely one BIG reason football is globally dominant - it is very simple and easy to grasp.
LBW, by contrast, help.
In fact I just went to Wiki in an attempt to finally grasp it, once and for all, and it was going very well, until I reached this bit
"Similarly, a batter who has attempted to hit the ball with his/her bat cannot be lbw if the ball strikes him/her outside the line of off stump.[8] However, some shots in cricket, such as the switch hit or reverse sweep, involve the batter switching between a right- and left-handed stance; this affects the location of the off and leg side, which are determined by the stance. The law explicitly states that the off side is determined by the batter's position when the bowler commences his/her run-up..."
I've just got back from the hospital had a small operation. I'm told that I should not drive, use heavy machinery or sign legal documents. I am, however posting on PB
Hope all is well Mike and you are back to full fitness soon.
Yep. This is a straw man by Kirkup to the extent that Deal or No Deal makes no legal difference to the need for approval for any future trade deal.
That's not quite right. Under the Article 50 provisions, there various things which can be agreed by the Council, including a lot of transitional and 'grandfathering' arrangements. Once we've crashed out, those become much more difficult.
In any case, the key point is the urgency. With no transition in place, we'll be desperate. We'd also have lost a great deal of trust and goodwill. Leaving with no deal and then trying to recover at least something from the wreckage really would be the worst possible starting point for negotiating a new relationship, especially since it looks as though we'll have done it purely as an act of political and economic self-harm.
I feel this is somewhat naive.
Firstly you can't lose what you don't have. If we had trust and goodwill in the first place the EU wouldn't be insisting upon the backstop.
Secondly the urgency is more critical now with the ticking clock of the unknown and termination of Article 50. Once we have actually exited with no deal if it happens the urgency is lifted because the clock is gone. A deal will remain desirable as it is now but we won't have a hard deadline approaching anymore.
That made me laugh out loud. Yeah, I'm sure there will be no urgency with lorries queuing up for tens of miles at Dover, farmers going bust, tax revenues collapsing, UK companies not able to process data which relates to EU citizens, flights dependent entirely on the goodwill of the EU, banks not sure how long the temporary recognition which the EU has put in place will last, car manufacturers in full panic mode, no trade deals possible with the rest of the world because no-one will know where we stand in relation to the EU, and Ireland in turmoil. No urgency at all, we can take as long as we like.
good to see preparations are having an impact, last time you posted it was world war three and the killer asteroid.
I've been watching cricket, on and off, for thirty-five years. And I still don't *quite* understand LBW.
First up, can't be a no ball - also there can't be any bat on the ball before it hits the pads, any edge onto the pads means it isn't out. Then the pitch strike position, when it hits the pitch it must be in line with the stumps or outside of off stump - if the ball pitches outside leg it is not out. Impact with the legs must be within the stumps, unless no shot is offered in which case impact can be outside off. And the ball must be going on to hit the stumps of course.
The fielding positions are something I've never quite got my head round - why are point, cover and mid-wicket so called ? Mid wicket is nowhere near the middle of the wickets !
Can England still even win??? They've taken their target off the screen which was surely a very bad omen
In theory, yes.
Just as in theory David Warner might be named Greatest Foreign Sportsman by the BBC.
Thanks - it's complicated switching between ODI and test. I know what all the numbers on the screen mean but I don't think I'll ever understand the finer details
I've been watching cricket, on and off, for thirty-five years. And I still don't *quite* understand LBW.
You can go by the graphics nowadays but there is a complicated rule about the inside/outside the redbox part I think
Yes. That's the rule I never quite grasp. And I have had it explained to me, several times, by total leather-on-willowheads. Trouble is, they have all explained it slightly differently.
It's like the offside rule in football maybe - have you ever tried to explain it to someone of the female persuasion - they just don't seem to get it (or are very good, play naïve, bluffers)
You’re in a shoe shop, second in the queue for the till. Behind the shop assistant on the till is a pair of shoes which you have seen and which you must have.
The female shopper in front of you has seen them also and is eyeing them with desire. Both of you have forgotten your purses.
It would be totally rude to push in front of the first woman if you had no money to pay for the shoes.
The shop assistant remains at the till waiting.
Your friend is trying on another pair of shoes at the back of the shop and sees your dilemma.
She prepares to throw her purse to you.
If she does so, you can catch the purse, then walk round the other shopper and buy the shoes.
At a pinch she could throw the purse ahead of the other shopper and, *whilst it is in flight* you could nip around the other shopper, catch the purse and buy the shoes.
Always remembering that until the purse had *actually been thrown* it would be plain wrong to be forward of the other shopper.
Yep. This is a straw man by Kirkup to the extent that Deal or No Deal makes no legal difference to the need for approval for any future trade deal.
That's not quite right. Under the Article 50 provisions, there various things which can be agreed by the Council, including a lot of transitional and 'grandfathering' arrangements. Once we've crashed out, those become much more difficult.
In any case, the key point is the urgency. With no transition in place, we'll be desperate. We'd also have lost a great deal of trust and goodwill. Leaving with no deal and then trying to recover at least something from the wreckage really would be the worst possible starting point for negotiating a new relationship, especially since it looks as though we'll have done it purely as an act of political and economic self-harm.
I feel this is somewhat naive.
Firstly you can't lose what you don't have. If we had trust and goodwill in the first place the EU wouldn't be insisting upon the backstop.
Secondly the urgency is more critical now with the ticking clock of the unknown and termination of Article 50. Once we have actually exited with no deal if it happens the urgency is lifted because the clock is gone. A deal will remain desirable as it is now but we won't have a hard deadline approaching anymore.
That made me laugh out loud. Yeah, I'm sure there will be no urgency with lorries queuing up for tens of miles at Dover, farmers going bust, tax revenues collapsing, UK companies not able to process data which relates to EU citizens, flights dependent entirely on the goodwill of the EU, banks not sure how long the temporary recognition which the EU has put in place will last, car manufacturers in full panic mode, no trade deals possible with the rest of the world because no-one will know where we stand in relation to the EU, and Ireland in turmoil. No urgency at all, we can take as long as we like.
good to see preparations are having an impact, last time you posted it was world war three and the killer asteroid.
Things are looking up !
Not at all, that's pretty much what I, and everyone else who is informed, have been saying all along.
Insane. I await Nick's article, but on the face of it seems to be arguing that Corbyn should let the country fall into economic chaos in order for him to have more chance of winning an election. That is despicable. No other word for it.
That's clearly been Corbyn's policy for ages now. Keep Brexit on track, but block any deal so the exit is a crash.
Yep. This is a straw man by Kirkup to the extent that Deal or No Deal makes no legal difference to the need for approval for any future trade deal.
That's not quite right. Under the Article 50 provisions, there various things which can be agreed by the Council, including a lot of transitional and 'grandfathering' arrangements. Once we've crashed out, those become much more difficult.
In any case, the key point is the urgency. With no transition in place, we'll be desperate. We'd also have lost a great deal of trust and goodwill. Leaving with no deal and then trying to recover at least something from the wreckage really would be the worst possible starting point for negotiating a new relationship, especially since it looks as though we'll have done it purely as an act of political and economic self-harm.
But that is not what Kirkup is arguing in his piece. He is claiming that by leaving with an agreement we would avoid having to have any future FTA agreed by each and every country in the EU. This is factually incorrect. Whether we leave with a deal or without one, any future trade deal must be agreed unanimously by the EU 27.
The EU can agree and ratify a trade deal, if that trade deal lies 100% within the competence of the EU. What is happening with the new trade deals that the EU is agreeing is that sections of them cover terms which are the competence of the nation states.
For example trade in goods is a 100% EU competence. Trade in services is not.
Yes it is 100% EU competence but it is also one of those areas that has to be agreed by each member state by unanimity rather than QMV. So whilst the EU can negotiate a trade deal it cannot come into force until it is agreed by each state under its own constitutional arrangements.
You are confusing EU competence with the system by which the individual EU states agree to ratify that competence.
Can England still even win??? They've taken their target off the screen which was surely a very bad omen
In theory, yes.
Just as in theory David Warner might be named Greatest Foreign Sportsman by the BBC.
Thanks - it's complicated switching between ODI and test. I know what all the numbers on the screen mean but I don't think I'll ever understand the finer details
I've been watching cricket, on and off, for thirty-five years. And I still don't *quite* understand LBW.
You can go by the graphics nowadays but there is a complicated rule about the inside/outside the redbox part I think
Yes. That's the rule I never quite grasp. And I have had it explained to me, several times, by total leather-on-willowheads. Trouble is, they have all explained it slightly differently.
It's like the offside rule in football maybe - have you ever tried to explain it to someone of the female persuasion - they just don't seem to get it (or are very good, play naïve, bluffers)
Offside in football is a monument of clarity compared to LBW in cricket. It's surely one BIG reason football is globally dominant - it is very simple and easy to grasp.
LBW, by contrast, help.
In fact I just went to Wiki in an attempt to finally grasp it, once and for all, and it was going very well, until I reached this bit
"Similarly, a batter who has attempted to hit the ball with his/her bat cannot be lbw if the ball strikes him/her outside the line of off stump.[8] However, some shots in cricket, such as the switch hit or reverse sweep, involve the batter switching between a right- and left-handed stance; this affects the location of the off and leg side, which are determined by the stance. The law explicitly states that the off side is determined by the batter's position when the bowler commences his/her run-up..."
And then I just gave up again, to be frank
Yeah, I started watching in Ashes 05, and I figured that was one of the rules I was never going to get and concentrated on the other ones.
Perhaps we come across as proper Cricket dimwits to some affectionados
Mr. Sandpit, why did MPs vote down the sunset clause? Seems utterly stupid.
That’s a bloody good question, as what we have now is totally unsuited to the situation!
Under the ‘old’ system Mrs May would have made the vote on the deal a confidence vote, and either it would have passed or we would have had an immediate election (with several Tory MPs kicked out for voting against).
Yep. This is a straw man by Kirkup to the extent that Deal or No Deal makes no legal difference to the need for approval for any future trade deal.
That's not quite right. Under the Article 50 provisions, there various things which can be agreed by the Council, including a lot of transitional and 'grandfathering' arrangements. Once we've crashed out, those become much more difficult.
In any case, the key point is the urgency. With no transition in place, we'll be desperate. We'd also have lost a great deal of trust and goodwill. Leaving with no deal and then trying to recover at least something from the wreckage really would be the worst possible starting point for negotiating a new relationship, especially since it looks as though we'll have done it purely as an act of political and economic self-harm.
I feel this is somewhat naive.
Firstly you can't lose what you don't have. If we had trust and goodwill in the first place the EU wouldn't be insisting upon the backstop.
Secondly the urgency is more critical now with the ticking clock of the unknown and termination of Article 50. Once we have actually exited with no deal if it happens the urgency is lifted because the clock is gone. A deal will remain desirable as it is now but we won't have a hard deadline approaching anymore.
That made me laugh out loud. Yeah, I'm sure there will be no urgency with lorries queuing up for tens of miles at Dover, farmers going bust, tax revenues collapsing, UK companies not able to process data which relates to EU citizens, flights dependent entirely on the goodwill of the EU, banks not sure how long the temporary recognition which the EU has put in place will last, car manufacturers in full panic mode, no trade deals possible with the rest of the world because no-one will know where we stand in relation to the EU, and Ireland in turmoil. No urgency at all, we can take as long as we like.
good to see preparations are having an impact, last time you posted it was world war three and the killer asteroid.
Things are looking up !
Not at all, that's pretty much what I, and everyone else who is informed, have been saying all along.
these "informed" people werent they also the ones who said the economy would be somewhat smaller than Burkino Fasos by now ?
Can England still even win??? They've taken their target off the screen which was surely a very bad omen
In theory, yes.
Just as in theory David Warner might be named Greatest Foreign Sportsman by the BBC.
Thanks - it's complicated switching between ODI and test. I know what all the numbers on the screen mean but I don't think I'll ever understand the finer details
I've been watching cricket, on and off, for thirty-five years. And I still don't *quite* understand LBW.
You can go by the graphics nowadays but there is a complicated rule about the inside/outside the redbox part I think
Yes. That's the rule I never quite grasp. And I have had it explained to me, several times, by total leather-on-willowheads. Trouble is, they have all explained it slightly differently.
It's like the offside rule in football maybe - have you ever tried to explain it to someone of the female persuasion - they just don't seem to get it (or are very good, play naïve, bluffers)
Offside in football is a monument of clarity compared to LBW in cricket. It's surely one BIG reason football is globally dominant - it is very simple and easy to grasp.
LBW, by contrast, help.
In fact I just went to Wiki in an attempt to finally grasp it, once and for all, and it was going very well, until I reached this bit
"Similarly, a batter who has attempted to hit the ball with his/her bat cannot be lbw if the ball strikes him/her outside the line of off stump.[8] However, some shots in cricket, such as the switch hit or reverse sweep, involve the batter switching between a right- and left-handed stance; this affects the location of the off and leg side, which are determined by the stance. The law explicitly states that the off side is determined by the batter's position when the bowler commences his/her run-up..."
And then I just gave up again, to be frank
That paragraph is just a very long-winded way of saying it makes no difference to the LBW ruling what shot the batsman is playing.
Can England still even win??? They've taken their target off the screen which was surely a very bad omen
In theory, yes.
Just as in theory David Warner might be named Greatest Foreign Sportsman by the BBC.
Thanks - it's complicated switching between ODI and test. I know what all the numbers on the screen mean but I don't think I'll ever understand the finer details
I've been watching cricket, on and off, for thirty-five years. And I still don't *quite* understand LBW.
You can go by the graphics nowadays but there is a complicated rule about the inside/outside the redbox part I think
Can England still even win??? They've taken their target off the screen which was surely a very bad omen
In theory, yes.
Just as in theory David Warner might be named Greatest Foreign Sportsman by the BBC.
Thanks - it's complicated switching between ODI and test. I know what all the numbers on the screen mean but I don't think I'll ever understand the finer details
I've been watching cricket, on and off, for thirty-five years. And I still don't *quite* understand LBW.
You can go by the graphics nowadays but there is a complicated rule about the inside/outside the redbox part I think
Yes. That's the rule I never quite grasp. And I have had it explained to me, several times, by total leather-on-willowheads. Trouble is, they have all explained it slightly differently.
It's like the offside rule in football maybe - have you ever tried to explain it to someone of the female persuasion - they just don't seem to get it (or are very good, play naïve, bluffers)
Offside in o be frank
Yeah, I started watching in Ashes 05, and I figured that was one of the rules I was never going to get and concentrated on the other ones.
Perhaps we come across as proper Cricket dimwits to some affectionados
You don't have to understand ALL the rules to enjoy a sport.
I'm a huge rugby fan but the offside rules are a total and complicated mess, and often not comprehended by professional players, and national coaches. See this notorious England v Italy game as proof.
Can England still even win??? They've taken their target off the screen which was surely a very bad omen
In theory, yes.
Just as in theory David Warner might be named Greatest Foreign Sportsman by the BBC.
Thanks - it's complicated switching between ODI and test. I know what all the numbers on the screen mean but I don't think I'll ever understand the finer details
I've been watching cricket, on and off, for thirty-five years. And I still don't *quite* understand LBW.
You can go by the graphics nowadays but there is a complicated rule about the inside/outside the redbox part I think
Yes. That's the rule I never quite grasp. And I have had it explained to me, several times, by total leather-on-willowheads. Trouble is, they have all explained it slightly differently.
It's like the offside rule in football maybe - have you ever tried to explain it to someone of the female persuasion - they just don't seem to get it (or are very good, play naïve, bluffers)
Offside in o be frank
Yeah, I started watching in Ashes 05, and I figured that was one of the rules I was never going to get and concentrated on the other ones.
Perhaps we come across as proper Cricket dimwits to some affectionados
You don't have to understand ALL the rules to enjoy a sport.
I'm a huge rugby fan but the offside rules are a total and complicated mess, and often not comprehended by professional players, and national coaches. See this notorious England v Italy game as proof.
Watching Rugby is frustrating since the moment it gets interesting the game has to stop and the players shuffle about getting into some formation or other.
At least cricket doesn’t suffer from the same problem, never troubling itself to get interesting in the first place.
Talking of LBW, here's something that's always puzzled me. If the batsman deflects the ball onto his stumps he's out bowled, no question. But if he deflects the ball onto his pad and it would have hit the stumps it won't be out LBW. Where's the moral difference?
Can England still even win??? They've taken their target off the screen which was surely a very bad omen
In theory, yes.
Just as in theory David Warner might be named Greatest Foreign Sportsman by the BBC.
Thanks - it's complicated switching between ODI and test. I know what all the numbers on the screen mean but I don't think I'll ever understand the finer details
I've been watching cricket, on and off, for thirty-five years. And I still don't *quite* understand LBW.
You can go by the graphics nowadays but there is a complicated rule about the inside/outside the redbox part I think
Yes. That's the rule I never quite grasp. And I have had it explained to me, several times, by total leather-on-willowheads. Trouble is, they have all explained it slightly differently.
It's like the offside rule in football maybe - have you ever tried to explain it to someone of the female persuasion - they just don't seem to get it (or are very good, play naïve, bluffers)
Offside in o be frank
Yeah, I started watching in Ashes 05, and I figured that was one of the rules I was never going to get and concentrated on the other ones.
Perhaps we come across as proper Cricket dimwits to some affectionados
You don't have to understand ALL the rules to enjoy a sport.
I'm a huge rugby fan but the offside rules are a total and complicated mess, and often not comprehended by professional players, and national coaches. See this notorious England v Italy game as proof.
So many of the rules of rugby union appear to start with the assumption that the game is being played by gentlemen, and the participants wouldn’t be so unsporting as to be, for example, offside or pull down a scrum. They should have started again from scratch when the game turned professional, it’s probably too late to do it now.
Talking of LBW, here's something that's always puzzled me. If the batsman deflects the ball onto his stumps he's out bowled, no question. But if he deflects the ball onto his pad and it would have hit the stumps it won't be out LBW. Where's the moral difference?
Because he hit it. If he hit it, he wasn't intentionally cheating by using his pad, which was the original point of the LBW law. You're meant to use the bat not the pad.
Corbyn must, must, must find a way to stop parliament blocking No Deal. It would completely stuff Boris in the ensuing horror show. What could Boris possibly say? It's parliaments fault for letting me do it?
Yes. I've got an article going up on Labour List about how to do it this afternoon.
Party before country...
Insane. I await Nick's article, but on the face of it seems to be arguing that Corbyn should let the country fall into economic chaos in order for him to have more chance of winning an election. That is despicable. No other word for it.
And of course, this is the Seamus Strategy.
What a generation of politicians we have.
Corbyn has consistently said that no deal would be a disaster and must be avoided at all costs. He said it again today. He has been completely unequivocal on this, in contrast to his position on Brexit generally, so the idea that he is secretly planning to precipitate no deal seems unlikely to me.
Yeah, this is bordering on conspiracy theory given how consistent Corbyn has been with both his statements and whipping record. It's possible that an otherwise seemingly guileless group of politicians is perpetrating this elaborate dangerous scheme, but I think it requires more evidence than whatever hostile third hand account of Milne has lodged itself in rb's memory.
1. Ball hits batsman on pad. 2. Bowler (and fielders) appeal. 3a. Umpire gives it out - then it is LBW 3b. Umpire gives it not out - then it isn't LBW
4a) Batsman consults on whether to refer 4b) Batsman may choose to walk off 4c) Shane Watson just refers and looks like a total loser when given out anyway.
Yeah, this is bordering on conspiracy theory given how consistent Corbyn has been with both his statements and whipping record. It's possible that an otherwise seemingly guileless group of politicians is perpetrating this elaborate dangerous scheme, but I think it requires more evidence than whatever hostile third hand account of Milne has lodged itself in rb's memory.
The evidence is that he whipped his MPs to vote against the Withdrawal Agreement by itself, which as you know is the only withdrawal agreement possible, and would not preclude any future relationship such as the cosy Labour version of the political declaration. That's pretty incontrovertible evidence.
While we’re on obscure sporting rules, I always liked the apocryphal explanation of Tour de France mountain categories.
4th category: a 1930s Citroen could get up it in 4th gear
3rd category: a 1930s Citroen could get up it in 3rd gear
2nd category: a 1930s Citroen could get up it in 2nd gear
1st category: a 1930s Citroen could get up it in 1st gear
Hors Categorie: we tried to drive a 1930s Citroen up it but had to abandon
But categorisation isn't based on gradient alone, so I don't think that works. The Citroen would fail to make it on plenty of short, sharp climbs in the Pennines but be happy on a long slog in the Alps.
Yeah, this is bordering on conspiracy theory given how consistent Corbyn has been with both his statements and whipping record. It's possible that an otherwise seemingly guileless group of politicians is perpetrating this elaborate dangerous scheme, but I think it requires more evidence than whatever hostile third hand account of Milne has lodged itself in rb's memory.
The evidence is that he whipped his MPs to vote against the Withdrawal Agreement by itself, which as you know is the only withdrawal agreement possible, and would not preclude any future relationship such as the cosy Labour version of the political declaration. That's pretty incontrovertible evidence.
On the other hand, Corbyn has now come out and unequivocally said he will ask for a VONC in early September (as it is the only chance to prevent No Deal).
That's fairly hard to walk back from. Let us see what he does.
Can England still even win??? They've taken their target off the screen which was surely a very bad omen
In theory, yes.
Just as in theory David Warner might be named Greatest Foreign Sportsman by the BBC.
Thanks - it's complicated switching between ODI and test. I know what all the numbers on the screen mean but I don't think I'll ever understand the finer details
I've been watching cricket, on and off, for thirty-five years. And I still don't *quite* understand LBW.
You can go by the graphics nowadays but there is a complicated rule about the inside/outside the redbox part I think
This graphic caption for B is misleading. The ball can pitch outside off and the batsman be given out whether or not he has played a shot, it is impact with the pads outside off that involves shot determination
Can England still even win??? They've taken their target off the screen which was surely a very bad omen
In theory, yes.
Just as in theory David Warner might be named Greatest Foreign Sportsman by the BBC.
Thanks - it's complicated switching between ODI and test. I know what all the numbers on the screen mean but I don't think I'll ever understand the finer details
I've been watching cricket, on and off, for thirty-five years. And I still don't *quite* understand LBW.
You can go by the graphics nowadays but there is a complicated rule about the inside/outside the redbox part I think
Yes. That's the rule I never quite grasp. And I have had it explained to me, several times, by total leather-on-willowheads. Trouble is, they have all explained it slightly differently.
It's like the offside rule in football maybe - have you ever tried to explain it to someone of the female persuasion - they just don't seem to get it (or are very good, play naïve, bluffers)
Offside in o be frank
Yeah, I started watching in Ashes 05, and I figured that was one of the rules I was never going to get and concentrated on the other ones.
Perhaps we come across as proper Cricket dimwits to some affectionados
You don't have to understand ALL the rules to enjoy a sport.
I'm a huge rugby fan but the offside rules are a total and complicated mess, and often not comprehended by professional players, and national coaches. See this notorious England v Italy game as proof.
So many of the rules of rugby union appear to start with the assumption that the game is being played by gentlemen, and the participants wouldn’t be so unsporting as to be, for example, offside or pull down a scrum. They should have started again from scratch when the game turned professional, it’s probably too late to do it now.
They did start again. It's called Rugby League. A world away fro the kick & clap / 5 reset scrum nonsense played by the posh lads.
Can England still even win??? They've taken their target off the screen which was surely a very bad omen
In theory, yes.
Just as in theory David Warner might be named Greatest Foreign Sportsman by the BBC.
Thanks - it's complicated switching between ODI and test. I know what all the numbers on the screen mean but I don't think I'll ever understand the finer details
I've been watching cricket, on and off, for thirty-five years. And I still don't *quite* understand LBW.
You can go by the graphics nowadays but there is a complicated rule about the inside/outside the redbox part I think
This graphic caption for B is misleading. The ball can pitch outside off and the batsman be given out whether or not he has played a shot, it is impact with the pads outside off that involves shot determination
Watching Rugby is frustrating since the moment it gets interesting the game has to stop and the players shuffle about getting into some formation or other.
Rugby League is worst for that. Union at least has the potential for continuous open play.
Talking of LBW, here's something that's always puzzled me. If the batsman deflects the ball onto his stumps he's out bowled, no question. But if he deflects the ball onto his pad and it would have hit the stumps it won't be out LBW. Where's the moral difference?
Because he hit it. If he hit it, he wasn't intentionally cheating by using his pad, which was the original point of the LBW law. You're meant to use the bat not the pad.
Besides which, in most cases it would be impossible for the umpire to have any idea of the trajectory of the ball off the bat, making any putative off-bat LBW judgment impossible.
Can England still even win??? They've taken their target off the screen which was surely a very bad omen
In theory, yes.
Just as in theory David Warner might be named Greatest Foreign Sportsman by the BBC.
Thanks - it's complicated switching between ODI and test. I know what all the numbers on the screen mean but I don't think I'll ever understand the finer details
I've been watching cricket, on and off, for thirty-five years. And I still don't *quite* understand LBW.
You can go by the graphics nowadays but there is a complicated rule about the inside/outside the redbox part I think
Yes. That's the rule I never quite grasp. And I have had it explained to me, several times, by total leather-on-willowheads. Trouble is, they have all explained it slightly differently.
It's like the offside rule in football maybe - have you ever tried to explain it to someone of the female persuasion - they just don't seem to get it (or are very good, play naïve, bluffers)
Offside in o be frank
Yeah, I started watching in Ashes 05, and I figured that was one of the rules I was never going to get and concentrated on the other ones.
Perhaps we come across as proper Cricket dimwits to some affectionados
You don't have to understand ALL the rules to enjoy a sport.
I'm a huge rugby fan but the offside rules are a total and complicated mess, and often not comprehended by professional players, and national coaches. See this notorious England v Italy game as proof.
Talking of LBW, here's something that's always puzzled me. If the batsman deflects the ball onto his stumps he's out bowled, no question. But if he deflects the ball onto his pad and it would have hit the stumps it won't be out LBW. Where's the moral difference?
I think that's partly the practical difficulty in judging the direction the ball is travelling in over the small distance between bat and pad. Simpler to say not out in all circumstances than ask the Umpire to attempt to adjudicate. Hence also why a bowled dismissal must cause the bails to fall and merely hitting the stumps is not enough.
I see Matt Hancock has repeated the Dominic Cummings line, but given it a fresh twist.
Cummings, we will recall, stated that in the event of a successful VONC, Johnson will simply call a General Election for after Oct 31st.
It was soon pointed out to him that this wasn't quite how the FTPA works
So, Hancock, about whom I have little good to say, has said that if Johnson loses a VONC he will simply stay on.
What they don't seem to get, or perhaps they do but they're increasingly desperate, is that if the House of Commons successfully votes no confidence in the Government they CAN then vote confidence in another Government:
"If this motion is carried, there is a 14 calendar-day period in which a Government may be confirmed in office by a resolution in the form:
“That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
Under Standing Orders, a debate on a motion arising from an Act is limited to 90 minutes. However, it is likely that a longer debate would be provided on a motion of no confidence.
The confusion only arises if the House of Commons is not ready to place confidence in a successor. If, on the other hand, they are on the ball, prepared, and have all their cards lined up the Queen will call for whomever clearly would have the confidence of the House.
With 4 weeks until Parliament returns the one clear lesson from this is that the opponents of No Deal must be ready and decisively in play with a caretaker successor in mind. No ifs. No buts. No dithering. If they snooze, they'll lose.
Yeah, this is bordering on conspiracy theory given how consistent Corbyn has been with both his statements and whipping record. It's possible that an otherwise seemingly guileless group of politicians is perpetrating this elaborate dangerous scheme, but I think it requires more evidence than whatever hostile third hand account of Milne has lodged itself in rb's memory.
The evidence is that he whipped his MPs to vote against the Withdrawal Agreement by itself, which as you know is the only withdrawal agreement possible, and would not preclude any future relationship such as the cosy Labour version of the political declaration. That's pretty incontrovertible evidence.
On the other hand, Corbyn has now come out and unequivocally said he will ask for a VONC in early September (as it is the only chance to prevent No Deal).
That's fairly hard to walk back from. Let us see what he does.
He wants to be PM, and above all to stuff the Tories. I don't think he much cares how. A route whereby Boris gets no-confidenced and Corbyn can portray himself as the statesman acting to stabilise the country* would be pretty good for him - he does need above all to avoid getting the blame for a crash-out from his own supporters. The numbers are unclear, but he might even be able to do that with abstentions from the soon-to-be-ex Tory MPs who would no doubt balk at actively supporting him
Alternatively, I believe some other route, not involving a VONC, may well be found, and would be politically easier.
* Edit: Re-reading that, I've just realised how absolutely gob-smacking it is that one can write such a sentence.
Yeah, this is bordering on conspiracy theory given how consistent Corbyn has been with both his statements and whipping record. It's possible that an otherwise seemingly guileless group of politicians is perpetrating this elaborate dangerous scheme, but I think it requires more evidence than whatever hostile third hand account of Milne has lodged itself in rb's memory.
The evidence is that he whipped his MPs to vote against the Withdrawal Agreement by itself, which as you know is the only withdrawal agreement possible, and would not preclude any future relationship such as the cosy Labour version of the political declaration. That's pretty incontrovertible evidence.
On the other hand, Corbyn has now come out and unequivocally said he will ask for a VONC in early September (as it is the only chance to prevent No Deal).
That's fairly hard to walk back from. Let us see what he does.
He wants to be PM, and above all to stuff the Tories. I don't think he much cares how. A route whereby Boris gets no-confidenced and Corbyn can portray himself as the statesman acting to stabilise the country would be pretty good for him - he does need above all to avoid getting the blame for a crash-out from his own supporters. The numbers are unclear, but he might even be able to do that with abstentions from the soon-to-be-ex Tory MPs who would no doubt balk at actively supporting him
Alternatively, I believe some other route, not involving a VONC, may well be found, and would be politically easier.
Don't forget to tell the nation, and, especially, all our MPs, about this "politically easier" solution, as they seem to be having trouble finding it.
I see Matt Hancock has repeated the Dominic Cummings line, but given it a fresh twist.
Cummings, we will recall, stated that in the event of a successful VONC, Johnson will simply call a General Election for after Oct 31st.
It was soon pointed out to him that this wasn't quite how the FTPA works
So, Hancock, about whom I have little good to say, has said that if Johnson loses a VONC he will simply stay on.
What they don't seem to get, or perhaps they do but they're increasingly desperate, is that if the House of Commons successfully votes no confidence in the Government they CAN then vote confidence in another Government:
"If this motion is carried, there is a 14 calendar-day period in which a Government may be confirmed in office by a resolution in the form:
“That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
Under Standing Orders, a debate on a motion arising from an Act is limited to 90 minutes. However, it is likely that a longer debate would be provided on a motion of no confidence.
The confusion only arises if the House of Commons is not ready to place confidence in a successor. If, on the other hand, they are on the ball, prepared, and have all their cards lined up the Queen will call for whomever clearly would have the confidence of the House.
With 4 weeks until Parliament returns the one clear lesson from this is that the opponents of No Deal must be ready and decisively in play with a caretaker successor in mind. No ifs. No buts. No dithering. If they snooze, they'll lose.
The object of Cummings isn’t to solve the Rubix Cube, but to prod and goad their opponents such that, when the time arrives, they are ready and have a plan to force the election that Bozo is relying upon to try and escape from the world’s deepest hole.
Watching Rugby is frustrating since the moment it gets interesting the game has to stop and the players shuffle about getting into some formation or other.
Rugby League is worst for that. Union at least has the potential for continuous open play.
That's like saying tennis has the potential for serve & volley.
It is in League that players offload as they are tackled to keep play moving; in Union they jut go to ground - then we get 10 'phases' of a prop falling over back into the ruck before someone knocks on, we get a scrum (which has to be reset 6 times and takes 5 minutes), and then the fly half hefts the ball into the stands prompting applause from the rest of the backs (who never get a touch). Then a lineout - with the ridiculous spectacle of players being suspended in mid air (try jumping properly) - followed by the other fly half hefting the ball back into the stand, more clapping, and off we go again...
Yeah, this is bordering on conspiracy theory given how consistent Corbyn has been with both his statements and whipping record. It's possible that an otherwise seemingly guileless group of politicians is perpetrating this elaborate dangerous scheme, but I think it requires more evidence than whatever hostile third hand account of Milne has lodged itself in rb's memory.
The evidence is that he whipped his MPs to vote against the Withdrawal Agreement by itself, which as you know is the only withdrawal agreement possible, and would not preclude any future relationship such as the cosy Labour version of the political declaration. That's pretty incontrovertible evidence.
On the other hand, Corbyn has now come out and unequivocally said he will ask for a VONC in early September (as it is the only chance to prevent No Deal).
That's fairly hard to walk back from. Let us see what he does.
He wants to be PM, and above all to stuff the Tories. I don't think he much cares how. A route whereby Boris gets no-confidenced and Corbyn can portray himself as the statesman acting to stabilise the country would be pretty good for him - he does need above all to avoid getting the blame for a crash-out from his own supporters. The numbers are unclear, but he might even be able to do that with abstentions from the soon-to-be-ex Tory MPs who would no doubt balk at actively supporting him
Alternatively, I believe some other route, not involving a VONC, may well be found, and would be politically easier.
Don't forget to tell the nation, and, especially, all our MPs, about this "politically easier" solution, as they seem to be having trouble finding it.
Yes, I might have to. It isn't complicated, they just need to change Standing Orders and pass an Act of Parliament, which they've already shown they can do, with the help of a cooperative Speaker.
Everything triggers Malcolm, but then, hey, he is a nationalist, and nationalists the world over like to get triggered by anyone who isn't recognised in their small minds as part of their tribe
Do you think the current constitutional arrangements of the UK are optimal? If not, why do you preclude the idea that a better version might be based on cooperation between sovereign states, à la the EU? Why smear people who favour such a model?
It's only sub-optimal because there's not a Federal States of Britain yet. The sooner the better.
You think Westminster will let any powers out of its grasp in the next million years, super optimistic
Westmisnter could give Scotland the power to run the whole UK and Sturgeon would shit herself if she had to use them
better to whine from the nsidelines
bloody lawyer
Alan, one thing is for sure , she could not do worse job than the current set of lying muppets.
Just on league, I'm not an especial follower but have heard a Canadian team (from Toronto, I think) might join the Super League. With them and the Catalan Dragons, it amuses me that such a surreal geographical mix could all play together.
I've made the mistake of looking on Labour List. Every time I visit the site I read something else which makes me despair over the bollocks going on within the party. Fecking entryist loons.
Comments
Hmm.
There was actually an amendment tabled for the Act to expire in 2015, but it was voted down by the Commons.
Or are you saying that Corbyn can stop Boris taking Britain out on a No Deal basis?
The second shoe drops. Boris gone by mid-October? Corbyn, Starmer or Clark as PM by Halloween. Extension and new vote?
Or has Cummings gamed this brilliantly and they are falling into his trap?
Anyway, something has moved. The denouement approaches. This really does feel like the beginning of the Final Act.
But, I suspect that reviewing it may open a whole load of other constitutional doors.
Firstly you can't lose what you don't have. If we had trust and goodwill in the first place the EU wouldn't be insisting upon the backstop.
Secondly the urgency is more critical now with the ticking clock of the unknown and termination of Article 50. Once we have actually exited with no deal if it happens the urgency is lifted because the clock is gone. A deal will remain desirable as it is now but we won't have a hard deadline approaching anymore.
Alternatively: Nick is so partisan he wants No Deal just to get Corbyn into power. Which is quite Wow.
We don't know which it is, yet.
The EU can agree a services trade deal with another country/customs block, without the permission of member states, so long as it sticks to elimination of tariffs, or (in some sectors sectors like finance) equivalence.
So, a deal which eliminated all tariffs on services between the US and the EU would be fine; one (like TTIP) which harmonised intellectual property laws would not.
As an aside, there are other reasons why it might require ratification from individual countries, even in the area of goods. So, the use of the EFTA Court as an EEA dispute resolution mechanism would have required the consent of all the EU countries, even if the treaty had solely covered goods.
Then again, Labour list is the only party website that has stopped anyone commenting on stuff that is posted there, and seeing Nick’s article will at least be a relief from reading the rubbish their 20-something year old staffers put up each day.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/aug/05/surge-in-eu-citizens-unfairly-refused-access-to-universal-credit
It has to hit pad only or pad first.
If the batsman is playing a shot, it has to hit them in line from wicket to wicket. If they are not, it can hit them 'outside the line' of off stump, as long as it is then going on to hit the stumps.
It cannot pitch (hit the ground) outside the leg stump.
I don't think there is a formal rule about where the batsman is standing, but obviously, the further they are from the stumps, the more margin for error on where it will hit.
LBW, by contrast, help.
In fact I just went to Wiki in an attempt to finally grasp it, once and for all, and it was going very well, until I reached this bit
"Similarly, a batter who has attempted to hit the ball with his/her bat cannot be lbw if the ball strikes him/her outside the line of off stump.[8] However, some shots in cricket, such as the switch hit or reverse sweep, involve the batter switching between a right- and left-handed stance; this affects the location of the off and leg side, which are determined by the stance. The law explicitly states that the off side is determined by the batter's position when the bowler commences his/her run-up..."
And then I just gave up again, to be frank
Things are looking up !
Then the pitch strike position, when it hits the pitch it must be in line with the stumps or outside of off stump - if the ball pitches outside leg it is not out.
Impact with the legs must be within the stumps, unless no shot is offered in which case impact can be outside off.
And the ball must be going on to hit the stumps of course.
The fielding positions are something I've never quite got my head round - why are point, cover and mid-wicket so called ? Mid wicket is nowhere near the middle of the wickets !
The female shopper in front of you has seen them also and is eyeing them with desire. Both of you have forgotten your purses.
It would be totally rude to push in front of the first woman if you had no money to pay for the shoes.
The shop assistant remains at the till waiting.
Your friend is trying on another pair of shoes at the back of the shop and sees your dilemma.
She prepares to throw her purse to you.
If she does so, you can catch the purse, then walk round the other shopper and buy the shoes.
At a pinch she could throw the purse ahead of the other shopper and, *whilst it is in flight* you could nip around the other shopper, catch the purse and buy the shoes.
Always remembering that until the purse had *actually been thrown* it would be plain wrong to be forward of the other shopper.
https://www.paulmaden.com/remains/offside-rule-explained-for-women/
You are confusing EU competence with the system by which the individual EU states agree to ratify that competence.
Perhaps we come across as proper Cricket dimwits to some affectionados
Under the ‘old’ system Mrs May would have made the vote on the deal a confidence vote, and either it would have passed or we would have had an immediate election (with several Tory MPs kicked out for voting against).
4th category: a 1930s Citroen could get up it in 4th gear
3rd category: a 1930s Citroen could get up it in 3rd gear
2nd category: a 1930s Citroen could get up it in 2nd gear
1st category: a 1930s Citroen could get up it in 1st gear
Hors Categorie: we tried to drive a 1930s Citroen up it but had to abandon
I'm a huge rugby fan but the offside rules are a total and complicated mess, and often not comprehended by professional players, and national coaches. See this notorious England v Italy game as proof.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2017/02/26/italy-flummox-england-almost-catch-eddie-jones-off-guard-story/
At least cricket doesn’t suffer from the same problem, never troubling itself to get interesting in the first place.
1. Ball hits batsman on pad.
2. Bowler (and fielders) appeal.
3a. Umpire gives it out - then it is LBW
3b. Umpire gives it not out - then it isn't LBW
He can still be out caught of course.
4b) Batsman may choose to walk off
4c) Shane Watson just refers and looks like a total loser when given out anyway.
Who's on point ?
That's fairly hard to walk back from. Let us see what he does.
The ball can pitch outside off and the batsman be given out whether or not he has played a shot, it is impact with the pads outside off that involves shot determination
https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws/leg-before-wicket rule36.1.2 and rules 36.1.4
This is what happened last time I asked. Total cricket experts gave conflicting answers, and I just gave up.
Great in theory, terrible in practice.
Just a lot of endless running about with no variation.
Cummings, we will recall, stated that in the event of a successful VONC, Johnson will simply call a General Election for after Oct 31st.
It was soon pointed out to him that this wasn't quite how the FTPA works
So, Hancock, about whom I have little good to say, has said that if Johnson loses a VONC he will simply stay on.
What they don't seem to get, or perhaps they do but they're increasingly desperate, is that if the House of Commons successfully votes no confidence in the Government they CAN then vote confidence in another Government:
"If this motion is carried, there is a 14 calendar-day period in which a Government may be confirmed in office by a resolution in the form:
“That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
Under Standing Orders, a debate on a motion arising from an Act is limited to 90 minutes. However, it is likely that a longer debate would be provided on a motion of no confidence.
The confusion only arises if the House of Commons is not ready to place confidence in a successor. If, on the other hand, they are on the ball, prepared, and have all their cards lined up the Queen will call for whomever clearly would have the confidence of the House.
With 4 weeks until Parliament returns the one clear lesson from this is that the opponents of No Deal must be ready and decisively in play with a caretaker successor in mind. No ifs. No buts. No dithering. If they snooze, they'll lose.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/parliament-and-elections/elections-elections/no-confidence-motions-and-early-general-elections/
Alternatively, I believe some other route, not involving a VONC, may well be found, and would be politically easier.
* Edit: Re-reading that, I've just realised how absolutely gob-smacking it is that one can write such a sentence.
1 run forward, get tackled by three people. Wriggle around on floor.
2 repeat four times
3 kick to opposition
4 repeat steps 1-3
Not Out
It is in League that players offload as they are tackled to keep play moving; in Union they jut go to ground - then we get 10 'phases' of a prop falling over back into the ruck before someone knocks on, we get a scrum (which has to be reset 6 times and takes 5 minutes), and then the fly half hefts the ball into the stands prompting applause from the rest of the backs (who never get a touch). Then a lineout - with the ridiculous spectacle of players being suspended in mid air (try jumping properly) - followed by the other fly half hefting the ball back into the stand, more clapping, and off we go again...
Play continues daily until either:
- one side gets bored with all the pointless running up and down;
- it starts to rain;
Whereupon the game is a draw.
http://www.democraticaudit.com/2019/08/05/is-it-too-late-to-stop-a-no-deal-brexit/
Executive summary: 'Maybe.'
But it doesn't count as it isn't a sport