Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Firefox – no comment!
Grass – I thought Deep Sensation was probably the most naturally gifted, but had a slightly iffy tendency to not put the full effort in (I thought he used to dog it when he got to the front).
Viking Flagship every time. Probably not as naturally gifted as his peers (Martha’s Son, Deep Sensation, Travado et al), but had the heart of a lion and outbattled them consistently. The Melling Chase in 95 (I think) was one of the best finishes ever.
I was privileged enough to ride out for the Duke in my teenage years, and although I never rode Flagship, I did sit on him once – a very proud moment.
In Adrian Maguire’s book he says that if he could come back as any creature, he would come back as Viking Flagship.
A true legend.
I suppose you could split this into two:
A horse’s "engine" is one factor (i.e a blend of speed and stamina necessary to win a race over a particular distance.
Jumping ability is a separate matter, chasing and hurdling requiring different skills (a really good hurdler, e.g. Istabraq, will barely jump at all, just tucking their legs away underneath them to clear the obstacle without losing any speed).
Jumping ability affects race outcomes in two ways really – a good jumper will be less likely to fall/unseat, but perhaps more importantly they will use less energy and speed getting from one side of an obstacle to the other, thereby saving more energy for the finish.
Kauto and Denman both have fantastic engines and jumping ability (though Kauto’s tendency to jump the last badly is a constant mystery…)
Neither Bos – I live in Bristol, but haven’t always done so. Unfortunately for family reasons I support a northern team who play in black and white and sack their manager on a regular basis….
I follow City though, as my boss is the Chairman.
Maybe they were put off by Darjina’s relative failure as a 4-yo. (Not that I’m suggesting for a minute that Darjina is in the same league as Zarkava).
Very sad to see these horses continually retired before they are even physically mature, and one of the reasons that I prefer National Hunt racing.
Absolutely right – a beautiful city and a beautiful language. We did get stitched up at the course by a friendly tote operator who told us that "pleased to meet you" in Czech was something like "smernic nackopracza", which actually means "you smell like a pig".
We got quite a few funny looks before somebody told us 8 hours later….
I was there when Decent Fellow won two years ago.
An absolutely awesome experience, I’d recommend that any jumps fan who hasn’t been already makes the trip – coupled with a few days’ sightseeing and boozing in Prague it’s a fantastic holiday.
I think you would be covered by the FSCS (£50k) in this instance.
I work for an investment broker – all our client money is ring-fenced for the event of our insolvency, and held with the 5 major UK clearing banks. In the event of the default of one of these banks, each investor is covered by the FSCS.
Your cash with Betfair would be lumped together with any other RBS deposits though, so if cash in Betfair plus other RBS deposits was more than £50k you wouldn’t be covered for the full amount.
Agreed.
Contraband is gone at the game, and should be retired to the hunting field, or just a field. It’s sad to see a formerly smart performer being hawked round every unrealistic big race to serve his owner’s ends (which remain a total mystery to me).
Fergus Wilson is an unmitigated disgrace, and the authorities should find some way of stopping him.
It’s only a matter of time before one of his horses is killed attempting a ludicrous race, or brings down/hampers a leading contender in the Gold Cup or similar.
Interesting points from Grass and Dave. I certainly agree with the social poverty argument posed by Grass.
A couple of points for Dave – "In time we would have more robust economy which wasn’t reliant on one particular industry" – this isn’t the case: the model of free trade formulated by Adam Smith and later David Ricardo said that countries should specialise in what they are relatively more efficient at producing, and then trade to everyone’s benefit. So we have specialised in financial services (because we are better at it than, say, India), and they specialise in textiles, for argument’s sake. They then purchase financial services from us, we buy textiles from them, and we are both better off than if we tried to do both ourselves.
"Anyone who knows anything about economics knows that indirect taxes hurt the poor the hardest". Not quite. It is not whether a tax is direct or indirect which matters, but whether it is progressive, neutral or regressive. Income tax as it stands is progressive (i.e. the better-off pay proportionately more of their income), and yes, the poll tax was regressive (the opposite). Your comment that a proper free-market economist would never have introduced the poll tax is largely untrue – they would try to tax as little as possible, and where they have to tax they would simply try to minimise the impact on markets.
Obviously I agree re the welfare state being too big. The transitional unemployment created by Thatcher was simply necessary in shifting resources from industries we were no longer good at to those we were.
I don’t underestimate the pain and suffering this transition caused to many, but it was a necessary evil from an economic perspective.
Once again, totally agree with Paul.
We constantly see stats that x% of children are living in poverty, designed to shock us into accepting an ever-larger, more bureaucratic welfare state.
However, we are no longer talking about Dickensian, workhouse style poverty – the line seems now to be drawn at whether or not you can afford to add Sky Sports to your subscription, or afford the latest trainers.
I am expecting a barrage of abuse for this, but real poverty has been all but eradicated in this country, imo.
I live in Bristol, I’m not from Bristol.
I was born in Glasgow, have lived all over the country, my mother is and father was from the north.
My point is made purely on economic grounds, not through any north/south prejudice, nor any class prejudice.
You’re entitled to your opinion, and I shall raise a glass with you when the time comes, albeit for different reasons.
I was going to respond to Grimes’ unsubstantiated ramblings and irrelevant article quotations, but I see that Paul has done it for me.
Thanks Paul.
Grimes, just because somebody else has written it in an article, or on some left-wing forum, doesn’t make it true, or entitle you to use it in an debate.
PS. There is no need to get personal. This place is supposed to be somewhere we can debate issues without resorting to insults when somebody doesn’t agree with you. This is a free society, and unlike some of the places who use your system of government, you can’t just chop off the heads of people who have different opinions from your own.
Why don’t you just go and live in the Soviet Union Grimes?
Oh, because it doesn’t exist. Communism doesn’t work, and neither does pure, unfettered capitalism. A mixed economy is the inevitable consequence, where market are allowed to efficiently allocate resources in a way which communist planning can never hope to, whilst small scale government intervention corrects any incidence of market failure.
Where we disagree is the degree of intervention necessary.
Thatcher saved this country from economic failure after a dreadful decade in the 70s, and stopped the unions from crippling us all.
Greatest PM we’ve ever had.
That would be the one David
Still think it was an awesome ride. Would have been a steering job had he had any steering, but to get him home without reins was a super effort.
Dave,
I understand that free market ecomonics (and particularly the switch from Keynsianist policies to monetarism, or put simply using monetary policy as the primary method of controlling the economy instead of fiscal policy), was a key part of Thatcherism. It’s what made it so successful.
It is a big leap from saying that to saying that the current economic crisis, which is all down to the repackaging of irresponsibly created mortgage debt as mortgage backed securities (whose risk level was no longer easy to assess), can in any way be blamed on Thatcher.
I just don’t see how it can. Ineffective regulation of the financial sector is to blame, imo.
