Did the convicts just burn both their reviews in ten minutes?
Yup, The Aussies are doing their best to make your bet a loser.
Still 1.17. Not too far away.
You mean England are said to have a 17% chance of recording the highest ever run chase in their history from 108-3?
They've never got within 100 of such a total.
That could still be a bit brave. When commentators quote these "run chase" figures, they abuse statistics to the point that they should be tried for cruel and unusual punishment to mathematics. They select down the stats to exclude games where there was a draw or loss - even if the chasing team got 600+ runs (and thus would easily have won against a target of 354). There's also the fact that as soon as the chasing team has won, they tend to stop batting (eg 351/5 is ignored, even though one would probably guess England would have got the final 3 runs in that sort of scenario) England, chasing, have got past 354 six times before, not never (654/5, 417ao, 411ao, 370ao (twice), 369/6, 363ao) They also got 353ao (which would be a tie), 351/5 (my money would be on England there), 350ao (very exciting conclusion, that would be), 335/5 (probably going to win from there), 332/7 (real nailbiter), 332ao (oh, so close).
That's just England. In fact, looking at Statsguru for the 4th innings, on about 70 occasions, chasing sides have either got to or past 353 runs, or been well and truly on to get there (eg being 30 runs short with 5 wickets in hand).
Excellent. And of course there is the time. Much of the historic dataset of chases were practically impossible within the time remaining.
I never quite get 1st innings declarations at less than say 500. Why not just swing out past a certain point ?
One suspects that buying off-the-peg could be orders of magnitude easier than insisting on a bespoke item when the customer and multiple vendors keep both arguing and changing their minds on what they want. It's an existing treaty which we actually have already joined and followed.
It still requires ratification by not only the 27 other EU countries but also the EFTA countries. Each of those countries has their own agenda and concerns, and several of them might want to use it as a lever. Plus it would require EU parliament approval. It is not something the UK can unilaterally choose to do, even if it were politically possible to go for an option which directly conflicted with the main reason people voted to leave in the first place.
We could join EFTA simply with the agreement of the EFTA Council - Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Iceland - as long as we demonstrate we are willing to accept existing free trade agreements (which are wider ranging than the EUs ones, as I understand it)
It's not that simple. Even if we joined EFTA we wouldn't automatically gain access to any of their existing free trade agreements.
Actually, I think its the opposite - the constitution means that all entrants MUST agree to the terms of all current trade deals. During the campaign, people were pointing out that this might be problematic for the UK.
Surely the counterparties to those trade agreements must have a veto on that? Otherwise they could suddenly find themselves unwillingly entering a trade agreement with a big economy which they hadn't expected when they signed up.
It was always the case, prior to the referendum vote, that those participants had ruled out the UK joining EFTA on account of the huge size of economy disparity.
We should perhaps be clear that the pound is falling because the market is spooked by Corbyn and not because the government is making a cods of Brexit. It is similarly true that strident Brexiteers are seeking to protect their assets from Corbyn not Brexit.
Nice try, but it is the Conservative Government, under the leadership of TMay who is making the Premiership of Corbyn looking more and more likely....
For all those right wing BEEB bashers......all I can say to you about the national value of the BBC is encapsulated in three letters.......TMS.....
Hear, hear. It has been fantastic this morning.
Though, on a point of order there is quite a lot of left wing Beeb bashing as well.
I never thought I'd miss Blowers quite as much as I do. He was irreplaceable. Alison Mitchell is a good ball on ball commentator but she needs time to become an old pro.
Glad we agree on something mind....well we probably also agree that Oxford is a wonderful city too....
Hi tyson. Oxford is a wonderful city. I went there for a couple of days a couple of months ago as guest of an ex student and apart from the almost football sized crowds everywhere it was a very entertaining place
"All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances, And one man in his time plays many parts, His acts being seven ages."
We could join EFTA simply with the agreement of the EFTA Council - Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Iceland - as long as we demonstrate we are willing to accept existing free trade agreements (which are wider ranging than the EUs ones, as I understand it)
Joining the EEA from there requires the agreement of the EEA Council, and one sticking point would be how far it would take for us to come into alignment with the Single Market rules. I tend to think this would not be a big challenge. Unless someone wanted to rewrite the entire EEA Agreement (unnecessarily) it would be a yes or no scenario, rather than a long and involved negotiation process.
To be honest, if we did so, I suspect a lot of the issues that seem to be tied up in the Customs Union over the Irish border (and others) might go away - with regulatory compliance, the problems look a hell of a lot smaller.
Yes, of course you are right that if we went down that route lots of the problems would disappear (but of course we would still have Freedom Of Movement exactly as before). And you are probably right that, if we had decided to go down that route, and squared off the 31 other countries in advance, it might have been a fairly simple negotiation, although one can never be sure until it's actually tried.
However, the Leave campaign didn't campaign to join the EEA. They campaigned on ending freedom of movement, ending payments to the EU, and not being subject to lots of EU regulations. If they had campaigned on joining the EEA, they'd have lost badly, since what would be the point of leaving the EU only to sign straight back into the things people most disliked about it?
Either way, the option is not available now
It doesn't matter what the Leave campaign campaigned on. The attitude of most MPs, especially the Remainers, is simply that "Brexit means Brexit" so they'll settle for the softest of soft departures.
Politically this makes sense for the Tories. If we leave with a soft Brexit, what are the political options for the Hardnuts? - They could try to resuscitate Ukip, but it's hard to imagine it capturing the public imagination in the same way once we've left. Post-Brexit Ukip will be too divided politically to be a coherent force. - A new party? Maybe, but it'll probably be (perceived as) Britain-First-Lite, so unattractive to most. Whereas a Hard Brexit would solidify the recent departure of Remainers from the party, and make a Tory GE victory virtually impossible.
It doesn't matter what the Leave campaign campaigned on. The attitude of most MPs, especially the Remainers, is simply that "Brexit means Brexit" so they'll settle for the softest of soft departures.
Politically this makes sense for the Tories. If we leave with a soft Brexit, what are the political options for the Hardnuts? - They could try to resuscitate Ukip, but it's hard to imagine it capturing the public imagination in the same way once we've left. Post-Brexit Ukip will be too divided politically to be a coherent force. - A new party? Maybe, but it'll probably be (perceived as) Britain-First-Lite, so unattractive to most. Whereas a Hard Brexit would solidify the recent departure of Remainers from the party, and make a Tory GE victory virtually impossible.
Soft Brexit will make the Tories unelectable. Their voter base will never accept the sellout that is currently underway. Many Tories will either vote for UKIP, refuse to vote at all or even I suspect vote for Corbyn out of sheer bloody mindedness with the view that it will force the Tories to find a leader who actually agrees with them. The Tories don't have the electoral margin for error that allows them to disenfranchise their own supporters.
Hard Brexit will boost the Tories because nothing makes a UK politician more popular than telling the EU to get stuffed.
If the 'hardnuts' want to stop soft Brexit, they just have to displace May. Any new leader will be a Leaver. The question is, will they make the move?
@seanjonesqc: Finally, she drew her gaze away from the candle flame. She addressed the cabinet secretary, standing in the shadows. “The German car makers. Have they, even now, come to rescue me?” “No Prime Minister. They have not”
It doesn't matter what the Leave campaign campaigned on. The attitude of most MPs, especially the Remainers, is simply that "Brexit means Brexit" so they'll settle for the softest of soft departures.
Politically this makes sense for the Tories. If we leave with a soft Brexit, what are the political options for the Hardnuts? - They could try to resuscitate Ukip, but it's hard to imagine it capturing the public imagination in the same way once we've left. Post-Brexit Ukip will be too divided politically to be a coherent force. - A new party? Maybe, but it'll probably be (perceived as) Britain-First-Lite, so unattractive to most. Whereas a Hard Brexit would solidify the recent departure of Remainers from the party, and make a Tory GE victory virtually impossible.
Soft Brexit will make the Tories unelectable. Their voter base will never accept the sellout that is currently underway. Many Tories will either vote for UKIP, refuse to vote at all or even I suspect vote for Corbyn out of sheer bloody mindedness with the view that it will force the Tories to find a leader who actually agrees with them. The Tories don't have the electoral margin for error that allows them to disenfranchise their own supporters.
Hard Brexit will boost the Tories because nothing makes a UK politician more popular than telling the EU to get stuffed.
If the 'hardnuts' want to stop soft Brexit, they just have to displace May. Any new leader will be a Leaver. The question is, will they make the move?
Once Brexit is done, I think people will disappear back into their old alignments. Already, we know the last election was fought on very different issues, especially with Labour voters.
@Fergoodness: Urgent Question selected at Holyrood this afternoon from @MairiGougeon - on Scotland retaining regulatory alignment and effectively remaining in the single market.
We could join EFTA simply with the agreement of the EFTA Council - Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Iceland - as long as we demonstrate we are willing to accept existing free trade agreements (which are wider ranging than the EUs ones, as I understand it)
Joining the EEA from there requires the agreement of the EEA Council, and one sticking point would be how far it would take for us to come into alignment with the Single Market rules. I tend to think this would not be a big challenge. Unless someone wanted to rewrite the entire EEA Agreement (unnecessarily) it would be a yes or no scenario, rather than a long and involved negotiation process.
To be honest, if we did so, I suspect a lot of the issues that seem to be tied up in the Customs Union over the Irish border (and others) might go away - with regulatory compliance, the problems look a hell of a lot smaller.
Yes, of course you are right that if we went down that route lots of the problems would disappear (but of course we would still have Freedom Of Movement exactly as before). And you are probably right that, if we had decided to go down that route, and squared off the 31 other countries in advance, it might have been a fairly simple negotiation, although one can never be sure until it's actually tried.
However, the Leave campaign didn't campaign to join the EEA. They campaigned on ending freedom of movement, ending payments to the EU, and not being subject to lots of EU regulations. If they had campaigned on joining the EEA, they'd have lost badly, since what would be the point of leaving the EU only to sign straight back into the things people most disliked about it?
Either way, the option is not available now
It doesn't matter what the Leave campaign campaigned on. The attitude of most MPs, especially the Remainers, is simply that "Brexit means Brexit" so they'll settle for the softest of soft departures.
Politically this makes sense for the Tories. If we leave with a soft Brexit, what are the political options for the Hardnuts? - They could try to resuscitate Ukip, but it's hard to imagine it capturing the public imagination in the same way once we've left. Post-Brexit Ukip will be too divided politically to be a coherent force. - A new party? Maybe, but it'll probably be (perceived as) Britain-First-Lite, so unattractive to most. Whereas a Hard Brexit would solidify the recent departure of Remainers from the party, and make a Tory GE victory virtually impossible.
All that is true. I can't get too concerned about a Tory victory at the next GE, I want what is least bad for Britain to emerge from this mess. The Tories will be back under a Cameroon type leader, they are great survivors.
@bbclaurak: This is the rough version of whats happening today... UK Govt - it will all be fine Dublin - we can't budge DUP - we won't budge EU - the show is now in London Brexiteers - if EU doesn't bury this bit for now May has to walk
@seanjonesqc: Finally, she drew her gaze away from the candle flame. She addressed the cabinet secretary, standing in the shadows. “The German car makers. Have they, even now, come to rescue me?” “No Prime Minister. They have not”
Did the convicts just burn both their reviews in ten minutes?
Yup, The Aussies are doing their best to make your bet a loser.
Still 1.17. Not too far away.
You mean England are said to have a 17% chance of recording the highest ever run chase in their history from 108-3?
They've never got within 100 of such a total.
That could still be a bit brave. When commentators quote these "run chase" figures, they abuse statistics to the point that they should be tried for cruel and unusual punishment to mathematics. They select down the stats to exclude games where there was a draw or loss - even if the chasing team got 600+ runs (and thus would easily have won against a target of 354). There's also the fact that as soon as the chasing team has won, they tend to stop batting (eg 351/5 is ignored, even though one would probably guess England would have got the final 3 runs in that sort of scenario) England, chasing, have got past 354 six times before, not never (654/5, 417ao, 411ao, 370ao (twice), 369/6, 363ao) They also got 353ao (which would be a tie), 351/5 (my money would be on England there), 350ao (very exciting conclusion, that would be), 335/5 (probably going to win from there), 332/7 (real nailbiter), 332ao (oh, so close).
That's just England. In fact, looking at Statsguru for the 4th innings, on about 70 occasions, chasing sides have either got to or past 353 runs, or been well and truly on to get there (eg being 30 runs short with 5 wickets in hand).
Excellent. And of course there is the time. Much of the historic dataset of chases were practically impossible within the time remaining.
I never quite get 1st innings declarations at less than say 500. Why not just swing out past a certain point ?
Depends on conditions. There was a reasonable case for Aus's declaration coming when it did, to take advantage of the new ball under evening conditions and aim to finish the day with England, say, 30/3. There have been extreme cases of teams declaring with less than 100 on the board because the conditions were so bowler-friendly (this was in the days of uncovered wickets) that it was better to get the opposition in than to struggle on. For example:
@adrianmasters84: The First Minister will answer an emergency question in the Assembly this afternoon on the implications for Wales of a bespoke border arrangement for Northern Ireland.
@bbclaurak: This is the rough version of whats happening today... UK Govt - it will all be fine Dublin - we can't budge DUP - we won't budge EU - the show is now in London Brexiteers - if EU doesn't bury this bit for now May has to walk
It doesn't matter what the Leave campaign campaigned on. The attitude of most MPs, especially the Remainers, is simply that "Brexit means Brexit" so they'll settle for the softest of soft departures.
Politically this makes sense for the Tories. If we leave with a soft Brexit, what are the political options for the Hardnuts? - They could try to resuscitate Ukip, but it's hard to imagine it capturing the public imagination in the same way once we've left. Post-Brexit Ukip will be too divided politically to be a coherent force. - A new party? Maybe, but it'll probably be (perceived as) Britain-First-Lite, so unattractive to most. Whereas a Hard Brexit would solidify the recent departure of Remainers from the party, and make a Tory GE victory virtually impossible.
Soft Brexit will make the Tories unelectable. Their voter base will never accept the sellout that is currently underway. Many Tories will either vote for UKIP, refuse to vote at all or even I suspect vote for Corbyn out of sheer bloody mindedness with the view that it will force the Tories to find a leader who actually agrees with them. The Tories don't have the electoral margin for error that allows them to disenfranchise their own supporters.
Hard Brexit will boost the Tories because nothing makes a UK politician more popular than telling the EU to get stuffed.
If the 'hardnuts' want to stop soft Brexit, they just have to displace May. Any new leader will be a Leaver. The question is, will they make the move?
Did the convicts just burn both their reviews in ten minutes?
Yup, The Aussies are doing their best to make your bet a loser.
Still 1.17. Not too far away.
You mean England are said to have a 17% chance of recording the highest ever run chase in their history from 108-3?
They've never got within 100 of such a total.
That could still be a bit brave. When commentators quote these "run chase" figures, they abuse statistics to the point that they should be tried for cruel and unusual punishment to mathematics. They select down the stats to exclude games where there was a draw or loss - even if the chasing team got 600+ runs (and thus would easily have won against a target of 354). There's also the fact that as soon as the chasing team has won, they tend to stop batting (eg 351/5 is ignored, even though one would probably guess England would have got the final 3 runs in that sort of scenario) England, chasing, have got past 354 six times before, not never (654/5, 417ao, 411ao, 370ao (twice), 369/6, 363ao) They also got 353ao (which would be a tie), 351/5 (my money would be on England there), 350ao (very exciting conclusion, that would be), 335/5 (probably going to win from there), 332/7 (real nailbiter), 332ao (oh, so close).
That's just England. In fact, looking at Statsguru for the 4th innings, on about 70 occasions, chasing sides have either got to or past 353 runs, or been well and truly on to get there (eg being 30 runs short with 5 wickets in hand).
It doesn't matter what the Leave campaign campaigned on. The attitude of most MPs, especially the Remainers, is simply that "Brexit means Brexit" so they'll settle for the softest of soft departures.
Politically this makes sense for the Tories. If we leave with a soft Brexit, what are the political options for the Hardnuts? - They could try to resuscitate Ukip, but it's hard to imagine it capturing the public imagination in the same way once we've left. Post-Brexit Ukip will be too divided politically to be a coherent force. - A new party? Maybe, but it'll probably be (perceived as) Britain-First-Lite, so unattractive to most. Whereas a Hard Brexit would solidify the recent departure of Remainers from the party, and make a Tory GE victory virtually impossible.
Soft Brexit will make the Tories unelectable. Their voter base will never accept the sellout that is currently underway. Many Tories will either vote for UKIP, refuse to vote at all or even I suspect vote for Corbyn out of sheer bloody mindedness with the view that it will force the Tories to find a leader who actually agrees with them. The Tories don't have the electoral margin for error that allows them to disenfranchise their own supporters.
Hard Brexit will boost the Tories because nothing makes a UK politician more popular than telling the EU to get stuffed.
If the 'hardnuts' want to stop soft Brexit, they just have to displace May. Any new leader will be a Leaver. The question is, will they make the move?
Once Brexit is done, I think people will disappear back into their old alignments. Already, we know the last election was fought on very different issues, especially with Labour voters.
Brexit is not going to be 'done' for years. The last election was an anomaly because both parties claimed to have the same policy. But remember that the referendum was granted in the first place because Cameron realised that his own supporters would not vote for him if he refused to allow the vote and he couldn't get elected without them. These same people, plus a lot more, will abandon the Tories now. Voting is not compulsory.
According to most on PB, May should be getting a huge boost in the polls because she is doing what they said and doing anything to get an agreement with the EU.
In fact, I expect that after this shabby deal is done, her approval ratings and Tory poll ratings will crash. Let's see.
Trump's personal banking information handed over to Robert Mueller
Donald Trump’s personal banking information has formally been turned over to Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor who is investigating whether the president’s campaign conspired with the Kremlin during the 2016 presidential election.
Bloomberg reported early on Tuesday that Deutsche Bank, the German bank that serves as Trump’s biggest lender, had been forced to submit documents about its client relationship with the president after Mueller issued the bank with a subpoena for information.
It doesn't matter what the Leave campaign campaigned on. The attitude of most MPs, especially the Remainers, is simply that "Brexit means Brexit" so they'll settle for the softest of soft departures.
Politically this makes sense for the Tories. If we leave with a soft Brexit, what are the political options for the Hardnuts? - They could try to resuscitate Ukip, but it's hard to imagine it capturing the public imagination in the same way once we've left. Post-Brexit Ukip will be too divided politically to be a coherent force. - A new party? Maybe, but it'll probably be (perceived as) Britain-First-Lite, so unattractive to most. Whereas a Hard Brexit would solidify the recent departure of Remainers from the party, and make a Tory GE victory virtually impossible.
Soft Brexit will make the Tories unelectable. Their voter base will never accept the sellout that is currently underway. Many Tories will either vote for UKIP, refuse to vote at all or even I suspect vote for Corbyn out of sheer bloody mindedness with the view that it will force the Tories to find a leader who actually agrees with them. The Tories don't have the electoral margin for error that allows them to disenfranchise their own supporters.
Hard Brexit will boost the Tories because nothing makes a UK politician more popular than telling the EU to get stuffed.
If the 'hardnuts' want to stop soft Brexit, they just have to displace May. Any new leader will be a Leaver. The question is, will they make the move?
Leadsom. Leadsom. Leadsom.
I think she is most likely to resign but obviously does not have the credibility to challenge May.
It doesn't matter what the Leave campaign campaigned on. The attitude of most MPs, especially the Remainers, is simply that "Brexit means Brexit" so they'll settle for the softest of soft departures.
Politically this makes sense for the Tories. If we leave with a soft Brexit, what are the political options for the Hardnuts? - They could try to resuscitate Ukip, but it's hard to imagine it capturing the public imagination in the same way once we've left. Post-Brexit Ukip will be too divided politically to be a coherent force. - A new party? Maybe, but it'll probably be (perceived as) Britain-First-Lite, so unattractive to most. Whereas a Hard Brexit would solidify the recent departure of Remainers from the party, and make a Tory GE victory virtually impossible.
Soft Brexit will make the Tories unelectable. Their voter base will never accept the sellout that is currently underway. Many Tories will either vote for UKIP, refuse to vote at all or even I suspect vote for Corbyn out of sheer bloody mindedness with the view that it will force the Tories to find a leader who actually agrees with them. The Tories don't have the electoral margin for error that allows them to disenfranchise their own supporters.
Hard Brexit will boost the Tories because nothing makes a UK politician more popular than telling the EU to get stuffed.
If the 'hardnuts' want to stop soft Brexit, they just have to displace May. Any new leader will be a Leaver. The question is, will they make the move?
Once Brexit is done, I think people will disappear back into their old alignments. Already, we know the last election was fought on very different issues, especially with Labour voters.
Brexit is not going to be 'done' for years. The last election was an anomaly because both parties claimed to have the same policy. But remember that the referendum was granted in the first place because Cameron realised that his own supporters would not vote for him if he refused to allow the vote and he couldn't get elected without them. These same people, plus a lot more, will abandon the Tories now. Voting is not compulsory.
According to most on PB, May should be getting a huge boost in the polls because she is doing what they said and doing anything to get an agreement with the EU.
In fact, I expect that after this shabby deal is done, her approval ratings and Tory poll ratings will crash. Let's see.
While Corbyn sits opposite, and is seen as a credible threat, May is almost irrelevant. No conservative will vote, or sit on their hands, thinking that their garden will be confiscated or taxed to blanching by Comrade Corbyn. Now if the leader changes and Momentum gets dismantled, then its a different game.
But if Corbyn gained seats from the SNP in Scotland, that would not make any difference to the anti Tory arithmetic in the Commons. To take power Corbyn needs to win Tory marginals in England, and this is something he finds hard to do -which is why on 40% of the vote, he only won a similar number of seats to Gordon Brown in 2010 who got 29%.
A bit unfair. You can say it was George and Dave's bigger decision to hold and lose the referendum which May has to now deal with.
It was a boil that needed lancing. The British people had not had the opportunity to voice their opinion over the EU for 40 years and a large minority of voters were effectively disenfranchised over the EU.
Plus, of course, without the promise Dave would likely have lost the referendum.
But, as GO points out today, echoing what many of us have been saying on here, the ballot paper only said "Leave the EU". It didn't say anything about what flavour of out we should have. We should take the Leavers at their word when they said and say: "it's up to the Government". Instead the Government has decided to find the most extreme Euroloon and follow what they want.
@bbclaurak: This is the rough version of whats happening today... UK Govt - it will all be fine Dublin - we can't budge DUP - we won't budge EU - the show is now in London Brexiteers - if EU doesn't bury this bit for now May has to walk
It's intriguing how unconscious bias shows us.
Dublin "can't" budget - they have compromised all they can
The DUP "won't" budge because they are intransigent
@bbclaurak: This is the rough version of whats happening today... UK Govt - it will all be fine Dublin - we can't budge DUP - we won't budge EU - the show is now in London Brexiteers - if EU doesn't bury this bit for now May has to walk
It's intriguing how unconscious bias shows us.
Dublin "can't" budget - they have compromised all they can
The DUP "won't" budge because they are intransigent
I never quite get 1st innings declarations at less than say 500. Why not just swing out past a certain point ?
You normally see some proper aggressiveness immediately pre-declaration, but I agree it's isn't optimised. The declaration point is frequently determined by time remaining on the second day (give their openers 12 overs or so in the evening).
Declaring by numbers is often really stupid, especially when you expect to have to bat again anyway.
Letting individuals get scores can be really tricky. You almost have to declare before 75 otherwise you're "committed" to the guy's 100. By which point his partner may be on 75 himself...
A bit unfair. You can say it was George and Dave's bigger decision to hold and lose the referendum which May has to now deal with.
If only Theresa May had put a shift in during the referendum campaign
If only Corbyn had...
Why should he? He doesn't believe in the EU and never has. Why his cultist Remainer supporters can't see this one of the seven mysteries of the modern world frankly.
Gosh if only the Remoaners had had their way, and there had been no referendum. It was quite unreasonable to ask the British people whether they wanted to be an independent country with control over their own laws and borders. After all what business was it of theirs.....
Did the convicts just burn both their reviews in ten minutes?
Yup, The Aussies are doing their best to make your bet a loser.
Still 1.17. Not too far away.
You mean England are said to have a 17% chance of recording the highest ever run chase in their history from 108-3?
They've never got within 100 of such a total.
That could still be a bit brave. When commentators quote these "run chase" figures, they abuse statistics to the point that they should be tried for cruel and unusual punishment to mathematics. They select down the stats to exclude games where there was a draw or loss - even if the chasing team got 600+ runs (and thus would easily have won against a target of 354). There's also the fact that as soon as the chasing team has won, they tend to stop batting (eg 351/5 is ignored, even though one would probably guess England would have got the final 3 runs in that sort of scenario) England, chasing, have got past 354 six times before, not never (654/5, 417ao, 411ao, 370ao (twice), 369/6, 363ao) They also got 353ao (which would be a tie), 351/5 (my money would be on England there), 350ao (very exciting conclusion, that would be), 335/5 (probably going to win from there), 332/7 (real nailbiter), 332ao (oh, so close).
That's just England. In fact, looking at Statsguru for the 4th innings, on about 70 occasions, chasing sides have either got to or past 353 runs, or been well and truly on to get there (eg being 30 runs short with 5 wickets in hand).
Thank you. I have been saying this for ages.
As an aside, I do think that the whole mentality about what's possible in a run-chase would be different had it not rained on the 12th day (including rest days), in that 1938/9 timeless test in S Africa.
Absolutely. This all came out for me back in the 2009 Ashes, when we were batting in the third innings and the commentators were saying something like "Oh, no-one's ever chased down over 200 to win at Lords in the final innings", and at about lunchtime, when we were about 300 and something ahead, Vaughan or someone like that was being asked "So how many do we need to set them?"
He answered "We've already got more than enough". Strauss, however, was more cautious and set them a target over 500.
When Australia were 313/5 in their chase, I think Vaughan would have looked a bit too optimistic. They ended up being skittled for 406. To this day, commentators will still reel off the stat that no-one's ever chased down 200+ to win at Lords in a Test...
I never quite get 1st innings declarations at less than say 500. Why not just swing out past a certain point ?
You normally see some proper aggressiveness immediately pre-declaration, but I agree it's isn't optimised. The declaration point is frequently determined by time remaining on the second day (give their openers 12 overs or so in the evening).
Declaring by numbers is often really stupid, especially when you expect to have to bat again anyway.
Letting individuals get scores can be really tricky. You almost have to declare before 75 otherwise you're "committed" to the guy's 100. By which point his partner may be on 75 himself...
I've always admired Mike Atherton declaring when Graeme Hick was 98 not out.
A bit unfair. You can say it was George and Dave's bigger decision to hold and lose the referendum which May has to now deal with.
If only Theresa May had put a shift in during the referendum campaign
If only Corbyn had...
Then we'd be in suspended animation. Cameron might still be PM but his credibility would have been shot as the EU pushed on with various initiatives that had supposedly been ruled out. meanwhile, Farage would still be leading UKIP after a mid- to high-forties vote share for Leave, with UKIP now regularly polling in the low 20s. Labour rebels still mull over how to shift a Corbyn that hadn't been re-energised by a general election, while Tory plotters try to manouevre a Leaver into post to see off both UKIP and Osborne.
A bit unfair. You can say it was George and Dave's bigger decision to hold and lose the referendum which May has to now deal with.
It was a boil that needed lancing. The British people had not had the opportunity to voice their opinion over the EU for 40 years and a large minority of voters were effectively disenfranchised over the EU.
Plus, of course, without the promise Dave would likely have lost the referendum.
But, as GO points out today, echoing what many of us have been saying on here, the ballot paper only said "Leave the EU". It didn't say anything about what flavour of out we should have. We should take the Leavers at their word when they said and say: "it's up to the Government". Instead the Government has decided to find the most extreme Euroloon and follow what they want.
I'd never presume to speak for anyone else who voted Leave, but this is certainly my view. Once I'd cast my vote, I assumed the government would negotiate a new relationship with the EU; the nature of which was entirely out my hands.
A bit unfair. You can say it was George and Dave's bigger decision to hold and lose the referendum which May has to now deal with.
If only Theresa May had put a shift in during the referendum campaign
If only Corbyn had...
Why should he? He doesn't believe in the EU and never has. Why his cultist Remainer supporters can't see this one of the seven mysteries of the modern world frankly.
Corbyn as Labour leader was a dream come true for Brexiteers during the referendum campaign, but a nightmare during the delivery of Brexit because he's happy to let them dig themselves into a hole all the way to China.
A bit unfair. You can say it was George and Dave's bigger decision to hold and lose the referendum which May has to now deal with.
It was a boil that needed lancing. The British people had not had the opportunity to voice their opinion over the EU for 40 years and a large minority of voters were effectively disenfranchised over the EU.
Plus, of course, without the promise Dave would likely have lost the referendum.
But, as GO points out today, echoing what many of us have been saying on here, the ballot paper only said "Leave the EU". It didn't say anything about what flavour of out we should have. We should take the Leavers at their word when they said and say: "it's up to the Government". Instead the Government has decided to find the most extreme Euroloon and follow what they want.
I'd never presume to speak for anyone else who voted Leave, but this is certainly my view. Once I'd cast my vote, I assumed the government would negotiate a new relationship with the EU; the nature of which was entirely out my hands.
A bit unfair. You can say it was George and Dave's bigger decision to hold and lose the referendum which May has to now deal with.
It was a boil that needed lancing. The British people had not had the opportunity to voice their opinion over the EU for 40 years and a large minority of voters were effectively disenfranchised over the EU.
Plus, of course, without the promise Dave would likely have lost the referendum.
But, as GO points out today, echoing what many of us have been saying on here, the ballot paper only said "Leave the EU". It didn't say anything about what flavour of out we should have. We should take the Leavers at their word when they said and say: "it's up to the Government". Instead the Government has decided to find the most extreme Euroloon and follow what they want.
If the Government had decided to follow the most extreme Euroloon it would have gone straight to WTO terms, not paid the EU a penny, put razor wire on the Irish border and kicked out every EU citizen still residing in the UK
I never quite get 1st innings declarations at less than say 500. Why not just swing out past a certain point ?
You normally see some proper aggressiveness immediately pre-declaration, but I agree it's isn't optimised. The declaration point is frequently determined by time remaining on the second day (give their openers 12 overs or so in the evening).
Declaring by numbers is often really stupid, especially when you expect to have to bat again anyway.
Letting individuals get scores can be really tricky. You almost have to declare before 75 otherwise you're "committed" to the guy's 100. By which point his partner may be on 75 himself...
I've always admired Mike Atherton declaring when Graeme Hick was 98 not out.
Hick (98* off 166 balls) was being a bit of a dick about it at the end. But, given the juncture of his career, I think Atherton (who made 67 off 166 balls) should probably have let him have another over.
But if Corbyn gained seats from the SNP in Scotland, that would not make any difference to the anti Tory arithmetic in the Commons. To take power Corbyn needs to win Tory marginals in England, and this is something he finds hard to do -which is why on 40% of the vote, he only won a similar number of seats to Gordon Brown in 2010 who got 29%.
Abdolutely right. Even if Corbyn did win 7 SNP seats he would still need to win 57 Tory seats for an overall majority
But if Corbyn gained seats from the SNP in Scotland, that would not make any difference to the anti Tory arithmetic in the Commons. To take power Corbyn needs to win Tory marginals in England, and this is something he finds hard to do -which is why on 40% of the vote, he only won a similar number of seats to Gordon Brown in 2010 who got 29%.
Abdolutely right. Even if Corbyn did win 7 SNP seats he would still need to win 57 Tory seats for an overall majority
Corbyn doesn't even need to win the most seats to be PM though.
Absolutely. This all came out for me back in the 2009 Ashes, when we were batting in the third innings and the commentators were saying something like "Oh, no-one's ever chased down over 200 to win at Lords in the final innings", and at about lunchtime, when we were about 300 and something ahead, Vaughan or someone like that was being asked "So how many do we need to set them?"
He answered "We've already got more than enough". Strauss, however, was more cautious and set them a target over 500.
When Australia were 313/5 in their chase, I think Vaughan would have looked a bit too optimistic. They ended up being skittled for 406. To this day, commentators will still reel off the stat that no-one's ever chased down 200+ to win at Lords in a Test...
Vaughan is in the same category as Swann - great to watch during their career* but frequently disappointing behind the mic.
*ODIs excepted in Vaughan's case - he was a master of the match-losing 40 (65).
A bit unfair. You can say it was George and Dave's bigger decision to hold and lose the referendum which May has to now deal with.
It was a boil that needed lancing. The British people had not had the opportunity to voice their opinion over the EU for 40 years and a large minority of voters were effectively disenfranchised over the EU.
Plus, of course, without the promise Dave would likely have lost the referendum.
But, as GO points out today, echoing what many of us have been saying on here, the ballot paper only said "Leave the EU". It didn't say anything about what flavour of out we should have. We should take the Leavers at their word when they said and say: "it's up to the Government". Instead the Government has decided to find the most extreme Euroloon and follow what they want.
If the Government had decided to follow the most extreme Euroloon it would have gone straight to WTO terms, not paid the EU a penny, put razor wire on the Irish border and kicked out every EU citizen still residing in the UK
I did of course mean that Dave would likely have lost the GE.
As to your point, as ever it is not based on reality; like many of the Land of Hope and Glory Leaver Brexitoloon fantasies which believe the government can behave in a simply impossible manner. Whereas in actual fact, the government must deal with life as it is today, not as it might have been 100 years ago or how they wished it were.
We could join EFTA simply with the agreement of the EFTA Council - Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Iceland - as long as we demonstrate we are willing to accept existing free trade agreements (which are wider ranging than the EUs ones, as I understand it)
Joining the EEA from there requires the agreement of the EEA Council, and one sticking point would be how far it would take for us to come into alignment with the Single Market rules. I tend to think this would not be a big challenge. Unless someone wanted to rewrite the entire EEA Agreement (unnecessarily) it would be a yes or no scenario, rather than a long and involved negotiation process.
To be honest, if we did so, I suspect a lot of the issues that seem to be tied up in the Customs Union over the Irish border (and others) might go away - with regulatory compliance, the problems look a hell of a lot smaller.
Yes, of course you are right that if we went down that route lots of the problems would disappear (but of course we would still have Freedom Of Movement exactly as before). And you are probably right that, if we had decided to go down that route, and squared off the 31 other countries in advance, it might have been a fairly simple negotiation, although one can never be sure until it's actually tried.
However, the Leave campaign didn't campaign to join the EEA. They campaigned on ending freedom of movement, ending payments to the EU, and not being subject to lots of EU regulations. If they had campaigned on joining the EEA, they'd have lost badly, since what would be the point of leaving the EU only to sign straight back into the things people most disliked about it?
Either way, the option is not available now
It could easily be pointed out that leaving the EU for the EEA decreases net payments noticeably, slashes the number of regulations with which we'd have to adhere, and permits for an emergency brake on FoM in certain circumstances (and we still don't come near to using the restrictions on FoM that we had/have as members of the EU).
It could also be pointed out that the result was only narrowly to leave the EU, so an outcome where we only narrowly leave the EU would be spot on the will of the people.
And, as I say, we could make it subject to confirmatory referendum just to make absolutely sure the will of the people is taken into account.
If we could stay in the EEA and impose controls on migration from Eastern Europe for 7 years similar to the transition controls Blair failed to impose in 2004 but which the UK was entitled to that would be the ideal solution. However no sign of it yet from the EU
Did the convicts just burn both their reviews in ten minutes?
Yup, The Aussies are doing their best to make your bet a loser.
Still 1.17. Not too far away.
You mean England are said to have a 17% chance of recording the highest ever run chase in their history from 108-3?
They've never got within 100 of such a total.
That could still be a bit brave. When commentators quote these "run chase" figures, they abuse statistics to the point that they should be tried for cruel and unusual punishment to mathematics. They select down the stats to exclude games where there was a draw or loss - even if the chasing team got 600+ runs (and thus would easily have won against a target of 354)....
That's just England. In fact, looking at Statsguru for the 4th innings, on about 70 occasions, chasing sides have either got to or past 353 runs, or been well and truly on to get there (eg being 30 runs short with 5 wickets in hand).
Thank you. I have been saying this for ages.
As an aside, I do think that the whole mentality about what's possible in a run-chase would be different had it not rained on the 12th day (including rest days), in that 1938/9 timeless test in S Africa.
Absolutely. This all came out for me back in the 2009 Ashes, when we were batting in the third innings and the commentators were saying something like "Oh, no-one's ever chased down over 200 to win at Lords in the final innings", and at about lunchtime, when we were about 300 and something ahead, Vaughan or someone like that was being asked "So how many do we need to set them?"
He answered "We've already got more than enough". Strauss, however, was more cautious and set them a target over 500.
When Australia were 313/5 in their chase, I think Vaughan would have looked a bit too optimistic. They ended up being skittled for 406. To this day, commentators will still reel off the stat that no-one's ever chased down 200+ to win at Lords in a Test...
If we survive the first hour tomorrow without a wicket, then we ought to be odds on.
Absolutely. This all came out for me back in the 2009 Ashes, when we were batting in the third innings and the commentators were saying something like "Oh, no-one's ever chased down over 200 to win at Lords in the final innings", and at about lunchtime, when we were about 300 and something ahead, Vaughan or someone like that was being asked "So how many do we need to set them?"
He answered "We've already got more than enough". Strauss, however, was more cautious and set them a target over 500.
When Australia were 313/5 in their chase, I think Vaughan would have looked a bit too optimistic. They ended up being skittled for 406. To this day, commentators will still reel off the stat that no-one's ever chased down 200+ to win at Lords in a Test...
Am fairly certain at least two sides have chased more than 200+ at Lord's to win a test match.
I was there for one of them, v New Zealand 2004.
The other of course was Gower's famous declaration in 1984 when he set the Windies 340 odd to win in a day.
A bit unfair. You can say it was George and Dave's bigger decision to hold and lose the referendum which May has to now deal with.
It was a boil that needed lancing. The British people had not had the opportunity to voice their opinion over the EU for 40 years and a large minority of voters were effectively disenfranchised over the EU.
Plus, of course, without the promise Dave would likely have lost the referendum.
But, as GO points out today, echoing what many of us have been saying on here, the ballot paper only said "Leave the EU". It didn't say anything about what flavour of out we should have. We should take the Leavers at their word when they said and say: "it's up to the Government". Instead the Government has decided to find the most extreme Euroloon and follow what they want.
If the Government had decided to follow the most extreme Euroloon it would have gone straight to WTO terms, not paid the EU a penny, put razor wire on the Irish border and kicked out every EU citizen still residing in the UK
I did of course mean that Dave would likely have lost the GE.
As to your point, as ever it is not based on reality; like many of the Land of Hope and Glory Leaver Brexitoloon fantasies which believe the government can behave in a simply impossible manner. Whereas in actual fact, the government must deal with life as it is today, not as it might have been 100 years ago or how they wished it were.
And yes, I know you voted Remain.
Yes and it is precisely because the government is dealing with reality it is not following the agenda of the hardest of Brexiteers
But if Corbyn gained seats from the SNP in Scotland, that would not make any difference to the anti Tory arithmetic in the Commons. To take power Corbyn needs to win Tory marginals in England, and this is something he finds hard to do -which is why on 40% of the vote, he only won a similar number of seats to Gordon Brown in 2010 who got 29%.
He only won a similar number of seats to Gordon Brown got 41 seats in Scotland, and because the Tories are on 42%
But if Corbyn gained seats from the SNP in Scotland, that would not make any difference to the anti Tory arithmetic in the Commons. To take power Corbyn needs to win Tory marginals in England, and this is something he finds hard to do -which is why on 40% of the vote, he only won a similar number of seats to Gordon Brown in 2010 who got 29%.
Abdolutely right. Even if Corbyn did win 7 SNP seats he would still need to win 57 Tory seats for an overall majority
Corbyn doesn't even need to win the most seats to be PM though.
No but that makes him dependent on the SNP for confidence and supply and maybe even the LDs too if the Tories win most seats
If we could stay in the EEA and impose controls on migration from Eastern Europe for 7 years similar to the transition controls Blair failed to impose in 2004 but which the UK was entitled to that would be the ideal solution. However no sign of it yet from the EU
Transition controls can't be resurrected after transition is complete. In any case, migration from the A8 countries has already normalised.
A bit unfair. You can say it was George and Dave's bigger decision to hold and lose the referendum which May has to now deal with.
If only Theresa May had put a shift in during the referendum campaign
If only Corbyn had...
He did, but, the media were obsessed with Cameron and the Leavers, and the infighting of the Tories. At the time, the Tories and the media, plus most of all in the political bubble had written Corbyn off, a continuing misconception that led May into the a disastrous GE..
If we could stay in the EEA and impose controls on migration from Eastern Europe for 7 years similar to the transition controls Blair failed to impose in 2004 but which the UK was entitled to that would be the ideal solution. However no sign of it yet from the EU
Transition controls can't be resurrected after transition is complete. In any case, migration from the A8 countries has already normalised.
Why not? If the EU was being flexible it would enable the UK to impose some controls similar to the transition controls Germany, for example, imposed on Eastern European migration from 2004 to 2011 but Blair and Brown did not.
There are still thousands of Eastern Europeans coming to the UK every year
A bit unfair. You can say it was George and Dave's bigger decision to hold and lose the referendum which May has to now deal with.
If only Theresa May had put a shift in during the referendum campaign
If only Corbyn had...
He did, but, the media were obsessed with Cameron and the Leavers, and the infighting of the Tories. At the time, the Tories and the media, plus most of all in the political bubble had written Corbyn off, a continuing misconception that led May into the a disastrous GE..
It certainly wasn't what Vice caught on camera when they followed Jezza about....he couldn't have not tried anymore if his life depended on it.
May will go. But there won't be an early election because that means Tory (and SNP) MPs voting for their own redundancy. Only question now is can the Tories find someone who can glue the respective factions together long enough to take the leadership?
At the moment I don't think any of the proposed names are likely to make it. This feels like the plot of House of Cards where miraculously all of the leading contenders do something stupid and destroy their chances. And like in HoC we have a Chief Whip on manuevers (albeit no longer Chief Whip...)
They can't leave her in place any longer. The incompetence is too high and the stench of death overpowering. But replace her with whom?
But if Corbyn gained seats from the SNP in Scotland, that would not make any difference to the anti Tory arithmetic in the Commons. To take power Corbyn needs to win Tory marginals in England, and this is something he finds hard to do -which is why on 40% of the vote, he only won a similar number of seats to Gordon Brown in 2010 who got 29%.
He actually did win quite a few Tory marginals in England last June!
Absolutely. This all came out for me back in the 2009 Ashes, when we were batting in the third innings and the commentators were saying something like "Oh, no-one's ever chased down over 200 to win at Lords in the final innings", and at about lunchtime, when we were about 300 and something ahead, Vaughan or someone like that was being asked "So how many do we need to set them?"
He answered "We've already got more than enough". Strauss, however, was more cautious and set them a target over 500.
When Australia were 313/5 in their chase, I think Vaughan would have looked a bit too optimistic. They ended up being skittled for 406. To this day, commentators will still reel off the stat that no-one's ever chased down 200+ to win at Lords in a Test...
Vaughan is in the same category as Swann - great to watch during their career* but frequently disappointing behind the mic.
*ODIs excepted in Vaughan's case - he was a master of the match-losing 40 (65).
Cricket commentary / analysis isn't great all round at the moment. Sky have massively raised the bar in the analysis of the footy via the likes of Gary Neville (aided by all the technology behind the scenes for player tracking etc) and in other sports like golf.
Despite the massive amount of data via ball tracking, the quality of the analysis isn't up there. TMS is perfectly entertaining radio show but isn't analysis. BT Sport is providing to be vanilla, they tell you what is going on and nothing more.
Sky Sports team needs a refresh, as again Botham, Holding etc were all amazing players but the modern game has passed them by.
When Sunset + Vine / CH4 first got the rights to the cricket they provided a step change in the coverage of cricket analysis via Hawkeye, hotspot, snikko. It has since stagnated somewhat.
Cricket commentary / analysis isn't great all round at the moment. Sky have massively raised the bar in the analysis of the footy via the likes of Gary Neville and in other sports like golf.
Despite the massive amount of data via ball tracking, the quality of the analysis isn't up there. TMS is perfectly entertaining radio show but isn't analysis. BT Sport is providing to be vanilla, they tell you what is going on and nothing more.
Sky Sports team needs a refresh, as again Botham, Holding etc were all amazing players but the modern game has passed them by.
Cricket commentary / analysis isn't great all round at the moment. Sky have massively raised the bar in the analysis of the footy via the likes of Gary Neville and in other sports like golf.
Despite the massive amount of data via ball tracking, the quality of the analysis isn't up there. TMS is perfectly entertaining radio show but isn't analysis. BT Sport is providing to be vanilla, they tell you what is going on and nothing more.
Sky Sports team needs a refresh, as again Botham, Holding etc were all amazing players but the modern game has passed them by.
Wash your mouth out.
I could listen to Michael Holding all day long
He doesn't provide any analysis / insight into what it is like to play the modern game. It is fine having one or two great players who can tell a good tale, but Sky Sports now is packed full of people who are massively removed from the technical aspects of the modern game.
Where as the footy, Neville and Carragher did it at the highest level for years on end until very recently and via England job / taking coaches badges know all about modern coaching and tactical analysis.
Same with Butch Harmon doing Sky's majors coverage in the golf. He coaches the best handful of players in the world, so what he says is the current standard of coaching at the elite level.
Absolutely. This all came out for me back in the 2009 Ashes, when we were batting in the third innings and the commentators were saying something like "Oh, no-one's ever chased down over 200 to win at Lords in the final innings", and at about lunchtime, when we were about 300 and something ahead, Vaughan or someone like that was being asked "So how many do we need to set them?"
He answered "We've already got more than enough". Strauss, however, was more cautious and set them a target over 500.
When Australia were 313/5 in their chase, I think Vaughan would have looked a bit too optimistic. They ended up being skittled for 406. To this day, commentators will still reel off the stat that no-one's ever chased down 200+ to win at Lords in a Test...
Am fairly certain at least two sides have chased more than 200+ at Lord's to win a test match.
I was there for one of them, v New Zealand 2004.
The other of course was Gower's famous declaration in 1984 when he set the Windies 340 odd to win in a day.
Windies won by 9 wickets.
Looking at Statsguru, and being certain "200" was in there at some point, it's likely they said something like "Only three sides have ever successfully chased more than 200 to win at Lords, and only one side has ever chased more than 300. No-one has ever chased more than 344 to win here, and we're already 340 ahead".
They then showed the list of highest successful run-chases, and I was screaming at the TV "The Windies would have successfully chased down a far higher score than 344 if they'd only lost one wicket for 344!"
They always ignore higher scores in losses and draws, and getting the target with loads of wickets left (indicating they'd be odds-on to get significantly higher targets)
May will go. But there won't be an early election because that means Tory (and SNP) MPs voting for their own redundancy. Only question now is can the Tories find someone who can glue the respective factions together long enough to take the leadership?
At the moment I don't think any of the proposed names are likely to make it. This feels like the plot of House of Cards where miraculously all of the leading contenders do something stupid and destroy their chances. And like in HoC we have a Chief Whip on manuevers (albeit no longer Chief Whip...)
They can't leave her in place any longer. The incompetence is too high and the stench of death overpowering. But replace her with whom?
Remember that the final choice will be made by the Tory membership - not much more than 100k people (the exact figure seems not to have been made public since 2013, when it was said to be 149k) - a small group of mostly white, male leavers over 50 years old and living outside major cities. They will choose whichever leaver the MPs put on the final shortlist. Competence and electability will not come into it.
Did the convicts just burn both their reviews in ten minutes?
Yup, The Aussies are doing their best to make your bet a loser.
Still 1.17. Not too far away.
You mean England are said to have a 17% chance of recording the highest ever run chase in their history from 108-3?
They've never got within 100 of such a total.
That could still be a bit brave. When commentators quote these "run chase" figures, they abuse statistics to the point that they should be tried for cruel and unusual punishment to mathematics. They select down the stats to exclude games where there was a draw or loss - even if the chasing team got 600+ runs (and thus would easily have won against a target of 354)....
That's just England. In fact, looking at Statsguru for the 4th innings, on about 70 occasions, chasing sides have either got to or past 353 runs, or been well and truly on to get there (eg being 30 runs short with 5 wickets in hand).
Thank you. I have been saying this for ages.
As an aside, I do think that the whole mentality about what's possible in a run-chase would be different had it not rained on the 12th day (including rest days), in that 1938/9 timeless test in S Africa.
Absolutely. This all came out for me back in the 2009 Ashes, when we were batting in the third innings and the commentators were saying something like "Oh, no-one's ever chased down over 200 to win at Lords in the final innings", and at about lunchtime, when we were about 300 and something ahead, Vaughan or someone like that was being asked "So how many do we need to set them?"
He answered "We've already got more than enough". Strauss, however, was more cautious and set them a target over 500.
When Australia were 313/5 in their chase, I think Vaughan would have looked a bit too optimistic. They ended up being skittled for 406. To this day, commentators will still reel off the stat that no-one's ever chased down 200+ to win at Lords in a Test...
If we survive the first hour tomorrow without a wicket, then we ought to be odds on.
I wouldn't go that far. Looking at the historical numbers, I'd have given us a 20-25% chance at the start (purely on the statsguru numbers and without adjusting for batsmen, bowlers, or conditions). Now, I'd give us 15-20% or so. If we do survive the first hour tomorrow without a wicket, we'd be back up towards 25% or so, I'd guess. If we get to lunch without losing more than one wicket (a massive honking "if") it'd be pick one and flip the coin.
@bbclaurak: This is the rough version of whats happening today... UK Govt - it will all be fine Dublin - we can't budge DUP - we won't budge EU - the show is now in London Brexiteers - if EU doesn't bury this bit for now May has to walk
It's intriguing how unconscious bias shows us.
Dublin "can't" budget - they have compromised all they can
The DUP "won't" budge because they are intransigent
And the EU is the model of flexibility?
I wasn't making a Brexit point, just the difference in nuance between can't and won't
Gosh if only the Remoaners had had their way, and there had been no referendum. It was quite unreasonable to ask the British people whether they wanted to be an independent country with control over their own laws and borders. After all what business was it of theirs.....
Well, the traditional process is that if the voters want something, they elect a government that wants to do that thing.
The advantage of this is that the government they elect can put together a plan with as much detail as the voters demand, and they then implement it and take responsibility for the outcome.
Occasionally a government will ask, "we want to do this thing, but is it OK with you?", but it's quite unusual to ask, "We think this is a stupid idea, but do you want to do it anyway?". This pattern doesn't work well because since they thought it was a stupid idea, they can't be relied on to have a plan that the people who think it's a good idea support, and since the people responsible think the whole thing is dumb, there's no way for the voters to know with any precision what they'd actually end up doing if they were lumbered with the responsibility to do it.
I think we're seeing the practical problems with this now: People who voted "leave" have all kinds of different reasonable expectations about what they're going to get, and the PM is trying to do something that she doesn't think makes any sense. It's quite plausible that the voters wouldn't have voted for it if they'd known whatever it is they'll actually get, but there was no way for them to know that because the people who told them it was a good idea didn't have to propose a single, consistent plan that they'd then take responsibility for implementing.
So yes, asking the people what they want is fine, but that's what elections are for.
But if Corbyn gained seats from the SNP in Scotland, that would not make any difference to the anti Tory arithmetic in the Commons. To take power Corbyn needs to win Tory marginals in England, and this is something he finds hard to do -which is why on 40% of the vote, he only won a similar number of seats to Gordon Brown in 2010 who got 29%.
He actually did win quite a few Tory marginals in England last June!
And he lost most of those required to bring his tally of seats larger than Gordon Brown's in 2010
Remember that the final choice will be made by the Tory membership - not much more than 100k people (the exact figure seems not to have been made public since 2013, when it was said to be 149k) - a small group of mostly white, male leavers over 50 years old and living outside major cities. They will choose whichever leaver the MPs put on the final shortlist. Competence and electability will not come into it.
Nonsense. As a specimen of the demographic you describe, and knowing lots of other specimens (and quite a few party members who don't fit it), I can assure you that electability (together with perceived competence to actually govern) will trump everything else. Dogmatic purity on Leave is actually fairly unimportant.
Google is hiring thousands of new moderators after facing widespread backlash for allowing child abuse videos and other violent and offensive content to flourish on YouTube.
Google, which owns YouTube, announced on Monday that next year it would expand its total workforce to more than 10,000 people responsible for reviewing content that could violate its policies.
That sounds like a horrible job. Sitting viewing newly uploaded videos that the AI has picked out as offending. Soul crushing work.
Yes, one can only do that sort of thing for an hour a day. At best you spend your day watching porn, at worst you’re watching ISIS execution videos and snuff movies.
Comments
"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages."
As We Like It
Politically this makes sense for the Tories. If we leave with a soft Brexit, what are the political options for the Hardnuts?
- They could try to resuscitate Ukip, but it's hard to imagine it capturing the public imagination in the same way once we've left. Post-Brexit Ukip will be too divided politically to be a coherent force.
- A new party? Maybe, but it'll probably be (perceived as) Britain-First-Lite, so unattractive to most.
Whereas a Hard Brexit would solidify the recent departure of Remainers from the party, and make a Tory GE victory virtually impossible.
Hard Brexit will boost the Tories because nothing makes a UK politician more popular than telling the EU to get stuffed.
If the 'hardnuts' want to stop soft Brexit, they just have to displace May. Any new leader will be a Leaver. The question is, will they make the move?
“No Prime Minister. They have not”
If May thought she was buying DUP agreement to a united Ireland with a mere £1bn she was wrong.
I can't get too concerned about a Tory victory at the next GE, I want what is least bad for Britain to emerge from this mess. The Tories will be back under a Cameroon type leader, they are great survivors.
UK Govt - it will all be fine
Dublin - we can't budge
DUP - we won't budge
EU - the show is now in London
Brexiteers - if EU doesn't bury this bit for now May has to walk
http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/17476/scorecard/62713/Australia-vs-England-1st-Test-the-ashes/
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/dec/05/ireland-reaches-deal-with-apple-to-collect-13bn-in-back-taxes
Leadsom. Leadsom. Leadsom.
https://twitter.com/George_Osborne/status/938010969300750337
According to most on PB, May should be getting a huge boost in the polls because she is doing what they said and doing anything to get an agreement with the EU.
In fact, I expect that after this shabby deal is done, her approval ratings and Tory poll ratings will crash. Let's see.
Donald Trump’s personal banking information has formally been turned over to Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor who is investigating whether the president’s campaign conspired with the Kremlin during the 2016 presidential election.
Bloomberg reported early on Tuesday that Deutsche Bank, the German bank that serves as Trump’s biggest lender, had been forced to submit documents about its client relationship with the president after Mueller issued the bank with a subpoena for information.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/05/donald-trump-bank-records-handed-over-robert-mueller
Plus, of course, without the promise Dave would likely have lost the referendum.
But, as GO points out today, echoing what many of us have been saying on here, the ballot paper only said "Leave the EU". It didn't say anything about what flavour of out we should have. We should take the Leavers at their word when they said and say: "it's up to the Government". Instead the Government has decided to find the most extreme Euroloon and follow what they want.
Dublin "can't" budget - they have compromised all they can
The DUP "won't" budge because they are intransigent
Declaring by numbers is often really stupid, especially when you expect to have to bat again anyway.
Letting individuals get scores can be really tricky. You almost have to declare before 75 otherwise you're "committed" to the guy's 100. By which point his partner may be on 75 himself...
This all came out for me back in the 2009 Ashes, when we were batting in the third innings and the commentators were saying something like "Oh, no-one's ever chased down over 200 to win at Lords in the final innings", and at about lunchtime, when we were about 300 and something ahead, Vaughan or someone like that was being asked "So how many do we need to set them?"
He answered "We've already got more than enough". Strauss, however, was more cautious and set them a target over 500.
When Australia were 313/5 in their chase, I think Vaughan would have looked a bit too optimistic. They ended up being skittled for 406. To this day, commentators will still reel off the stat that no-one's ever chased down 200+ to win at Lords in a Test...
Sky's reporting of the migration figures described a fall (to still over 200,000 net migration) as 'worsening'.
*ODIs excepted in Vaughan's case - he was a master of the match-losing 40 (65).
As to your point, as ever it is not based on reality; like many of the Land of Hope and Glory Leaver Brexitoloon fantasies which believe the government can behave in a simply impossible manner. Whereas in actual fact, the government must deal with life as it is today, not as it might have been 100 years ago or how they wished it were.
And yes, I know you voted Remain.
I was there for one of them, v New Zealand 2004.
The other of course was Gower's famous declaration in 1984 when he set the Windies 340 odd to win in a day.
Windies won by 9 wickets.
So - how are they going to square this with DUP and no border. We keep coming back to the same problem.
There are still thousands of Eastern Europeans coming to the UK every year
At the moment I don't think any of the proposed names are likely to make it. This feels like the plot of House of Cards where miraculously all of the leading contenders do something stupid and destroy their chances. And like in HoC we have a Chief Whip on manuevers (albeit no longer Chief Whip...)
They can't leave her in place any longer. The incompetence is too high and the stench of death overpowering. But replace her with whom?
Despite the massive amount of data via ball tracking, the quality of the analysis isn't up there. TMS is perfectly entertaining radio show but isn't analysis. BT Sport is providing to be vanilla, they tell you what is going on and nothing more.
Sky Sports team needs a refresh, as again Botham, Holding etc were all amazing players but the modern game has passed them by.
When Sunset + Vine / CH4 first got the rights to the cricket they provided a step change in the coverage of cricket analysis via Hawkeye, hotspot, snikko. It has since stagnated somewhat.
I could listen to Michael Holding all day long
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-42222488
Where as the footy, Neville and Carragher did it at the highest level for years on end until very recently and via England job / taking coaches badges know all about modern coaching and tactical analysis.
Same with Butch Harmon doing Sky's majors coverage in the golf. He coaches the best handful of players in the world, so what he says is the current standard of coaching at the elite level.
They then showed the list of highest successful run-chases, and I was screaming at the TV "The Windies would have successfully chased down a far higher score than 344 if they'd only lost one wicket for 344!"
They always ignore higher scores in losses and draws, and getting the target with loads of wickets left (indicating they'd be odds-on to get significantly higher targets)
https://order-order.com/2017/12/05/andrew-murray-let-galloway-back-labour/
Looking at the historical numbers, I'd have given us a 20-25% chance at the start (purely on the statsguru numbers and without adjusting for batsmen, bowlers, or conditions). Now, I'd give us 15-20% or so.
If we do survive the first hour tomorrow without a wicket, we'd be back up towards 25% or so, I'd guess.
If we get to lunch without losing more than one wicket (a massive honking "if") it'd be pick one and flip the coin.
The advantage of this is that the government they elect can put together a plan with as much detail as the voters demand, and they then implement it and take responsibility for the outcome.
Occasionally a government will ask, "we want to do this thing, but is it OK with you?", but it's quite unusual to ask, "We think this is a stupid idea, but do you want to do it anyway?". This pattern doesn't work well because since they thought it was a stupid idea, they can't be relied on to have a plan that the people who think it's a good idea support, and since the people responsible think the whole thing is dumb, there's no way for the voters to know with any precision what they'd actually end up doing if they were lumbered with the responsibility to do it.
I think we're seeing the practical problems with this now: People who voted "leave" have all kinds of different reasonable expectations about what they're going to get, and the PM is trying to do something that she doesn't think makes any sense. It's quite plausible that the voters wouldn't have voted for it if they'd known whatever it is they'll actually get, but there was no way for them to know that because the people who told them it was a good idea didn't have to propose a single, consistent plan that they'd then take responsibility for implementing.
So yes, asking the people what they want is fine, but that's what elections are for.