Make Cricket Cool Again: Some ideas for reinvigorating cricket (add your ideas as well, we need as many as possible) #cricket #MCCA

Cricket is the greatest sport known to Man and anyone who doesn’t believe that is a coxcomb. It is an integral part of English life and reversing its decline is of vital importance to anyone who has ever apologised when someone else bumped into them.

Cricket is losing out in the race to attract crowds. County games are sparsely attended, only England matches can be guaranteed to fill out grounds.

What can be done to put cricket at the top of the English sporting pile and make it more popular than premiership football?

TV broadcasting has to be on terrestrial television. Once it goes behind a paywall it is only seen by kids whose parents watch it. Kids don’t want to play something they can’t watch.

Get rid of gimmicks like the Hundred. People know when they are being sold an artificial product. Take away the hype and something so manufactured will die. Stop wasting money on it.

Return to only those born in a county can play for the county.

Play county cricket during the summer months rather than at the extremities of the season.

Subsidise cricket lessons for local kids.

Stop the critical theory inspired attacks on the sport. Cricket should not be a playground for political expression or social engineering.

Link with local football clubs to cross-pollinate support.

England winning is not the be-all and end-all. England players play for their counties. Building a strong county game is more important. It will naturally build a wider, stronger base than we have now.

Stop playing so much white ball cricket. It is like a football team playing five-a-side.

Get influencers onboard. Get all of tiktok reporting from county matches.

Get the message out that cricket is cool.

Make the length of games a strength. The ebb and flow of a four day game is far superior to the wham-bam of a 90 minutes football match.

More clubs not less.

Football is not profitable. It is run by billionaires. Cricket just has to attract billionaire owners…

Champions league style competition between champions of England, Australia, etc.

Encourage cricket in state schools with links to their local club.

Stop focusing on England. In football people love their clubs. Get clubs more involved in local communities.

Stop the dumbing down. If anything complicate up.

Keep the traditions. There can be no argument that people who hit the ball in men’s cricket are men, so call them their traditional name, batsmen. There’s no point in alienating the audience we already have.

Relegation and promotion for all teams.

Promote cricket in the USA. After all the first international was between America and Canada.

Promote cricket in China. This may have the added benefit of preventing world war three.

Reduce ticket prices for late gates at all grounds so kids can go after school.

Play one timeless test every year.

Take a leaf out of the F1 book and make every game a party.

Finally, why not a cricket license fee, modelled on the BBC license fee and paid by everyone in the country whether they watch cricket or not…

It will be politically difficult to make cricket cool again as the leftist agenda is very much to destroy anything that they see as representing England, tradition and Empire. And cricket ticks all three of these boxes. Nevertheless, we must strive to repopularise the game. It is no exaggeration to say that the more people who play cricket the less crime, war and unhappiness there probably is in the world.

What are your ideas to popularise cricket? Please add them below. We need as many ideas as possible.


Questions about the UK government’s Ukrainian-in-the-spare-room policy: Is the pipeline – that Brexit cut off – of poor workers for the hyper-capitalists and voters for the leftists being reopened?

The UK government is encouraging British citizens to volunteer to have Ukrainians living with them in their house. They – or, of course, the tax payer – are even going to pay them £350 a month to house them.

This seems bizarre, not just because this sort of policy has never been mooted to help solve the homeless crisis amongst people who already live here. It seems especially bizarre so soon after everyone has been told not to mix with anyone else, not even their granny, owing to covid. It seems even more bizarre when much of the population has been – or even still is – avoiding the unvaccinated.

The whole policy may be purely altruistic. However two years of covid lies, advisor rule-breaking affairs and government partying make it hard to take anything the government does at face value. It is possible that the policy is merely as it sounds – Ukrainians stay here whilst they cannot stay at home, then they go back, grateful to have been given a place to stay.

Let us hope that is the case. But it’s possible to see how this could be meant in other ways. Ways that benefit both the hyper-capitalists and the leftists.

For the hyper-capitalists: It is convenient is it not, that the country is about to be flooded with Ukrainians used to low wages. Just when the open tap of East European workers has been turned off, suddenly a free for all of new low wage workers arrives.

For the leftists: Now that the Eastern EU cannot be used to build leftist voting blocs in the UK, it is convenient to be able to import a huge number of low income, left-wing voters. For does anyone believe that when the time limit is up the Left will not say ‘look at these people who have put down roots in the UK, their children are at school here, they must be allowed to stay’. And there is very little doubt that many will stay.

Is the pipeline that Brexit cut off of poor workers for the hyper-capitalists and voters for the leftists being reopened?

Is this deliberate? Or is the whole policy purely altruistic?

The breakneck push for Net Zero is an impoverishing attack on Western lifestyle and values: Net Zero will ruin people’s lives

In what insane world is it a government’s job to make things worse and more expensive for its people?

Net Zero will ruin people’s lives. This is so clear that it must be a deliberate aim, at least for some of those pushing this absurd anti-human policy. For others it may just be acceptable collateral damage. Either way, centuries of increasing living standards in the West are being ended by dogmatic and ridiculous policies that whilst enriching minute parts of society, will enfeeble many more.

The whole idea of Net Zero for an individual country making any world-wide difference, particularly for a small country like Britain, is laughable. Even if you accept wholeheartedly the need to cut global emissions – and that is not the settled opinion that is claimed – the suggestion that by cutting emissions in our tiny area of Northern Europe we will somehow improve conditions globally is madness. Our emissions are circa 1% of those emitted around the globe. Even if we cut our emissions to nothing we would make no discernible difference.

‘We’re all in this together, every little counts’ activists say, but that argument is nonsense as we’re most definitely not all in this together. China and India are huge emitters and are taking no interest in cutting their emissions. Forcing Britons to lower their energy usage and stop travelling will make no noticeable difference, except for forcing many into fuel poverty and cold homes whilst stopping us travelling to visit friends and family because it is too expensive.

How can any of this be sensible?

Where Net Zero is coming from is also appalling to see. You might expect these sort of mad policies to emanate from a woke leftist party that loves to virtue signal, but it is the Tory party that is currently pushing these policies. Not to say that Labour won’t be just as keen when they get into power, but if we cannot rely on Conservatives to push back on obvious stupidity then there is a real problem in our democracy.

These policies were never voted for by the public. Yes they were hidden in the bowels of the last manifesto, but that was an election fought over Brexit. There was no expectation that the government would take some minor point from their manifesto and make it a main plank of their ongoing policies. Britain has one Green MP, so why is the Tory party implementing Green policies? We should not even be talking about any of these ultra-green policies until the electorate shows they want them by voting for rather more Green MPs.

Net Zero is going to push out cheap and reliable energy and modes of transport and replace them with less reliable, much more expensive versions. In what insane world is it a government’s job to make things worse and more expensive for its people? We left behind governing of the people for the elite when we took the world out of feudalism. The industrial revolution was a great thing that has lifted people out of poverty around the globe. Now we seem to be reneging on the governing of the people for the people that we have been practising and returning to an elite-knows-best system where those who benefit from these policies push them through to the detriment of everyone else.

For let’s not ignore the fact that these new policies will affect the rich very differently to the poor. MPs even get their second home heating bills paid on expenses whilst many people already struggling cannot heat their first and only property. Yet government policies are deliberately inflating prices.

With the refusal to make us energy secure and an over-reliance on renewables we are heading towards energy blackouts as happens in South Africa. Our governments have been so negligent that we will no longer be able to rely on flicking a switch and getting power, as has been the norm for decades. This should have been the ongoing norm had governments not been seduced into destroying normality for a gold star from their mates in the global elite.

Some politicians will know what is coming and regard it as an unfortunate side effect of the transition to their much touted greener world. But poverty should never be seen in this way. If their policies are causing poverty and hardship then they are the wrong policies.

But other politicians will know exactly what is coming. They will be cheering it on, knowing that this deliberately inflicted poverty will help bring about the huge changes that they want to see in the world.

For ultimately these green policies are not about greening the planet. How could they be when the UK’s contribution to emissions is so tiny? Behind the call for Net Zero lies a callous, anti-human power grab. These policies actively hurt people now whilst promising a chimerical success sometime in the future – a success that can’t be measured but will always cost more money and require more sacrifice.

The only thing these policies manage is to transfer power and freedom from individuals to the central decision makers. Other people will decide how far we can travel, how many flights we can take, how much we can heat our houses. It’s a society where individual freedom is replaced by diktats from above and people live within strict boundaries, punished if they try and deviate from the State’s decisions. It’s not the West that we developed and defended. Net Zero is a bizarre mix of elements some, like the social control it relies on, more reminiscent of communism than the free West. A technocratic elite that believes it knows best, and has access to the money to enrich themselves will tell us what to do, whilst not doing it themselves – witness the delegates giving Planes are Bad messages at climate conferences that they used planes to get to.

The big problem is that Net Zero makes perfect sense to those in power, as it consolidates their power and allows them to make huge transfers of public money to private companies. Few people leave politics poorer than they entered it. Even if they have impoverished their country in the process

Permission to laugh, Comrade? In defence of James Carr

The world has always been divided into those who understand that maybe they don’t know best, and those who are certain that they do.

It is a divide that plays out terribly for society, as it is Those Who Are Certain (the TWAC) that grab power and try to inflict their certainties on everyone else. Freedom lovers aren’t attracted to power because – apart from rolling back the policies of the TWAC – their only use for it would be to say, ‘Yeah, I’m not going to do anything’.

Currently the TWAC are in power almost everywhere. They are emboldened and trying to enforce their joyless world of constant self-censorship and apology on everyone else. Their latest target is the comedian James Carr.

James made a joke that they didn’t like and now they are trying to cancel him. You expect this from the leftist offence police who try to use exaggerated hurts and accusations of phobias to destroy their enemies. It is disappointing to see similar calls for cancellation coming from Number 10 and the health Secretary, both nominal Tories.

No matter what the joke police are saying, it doesn’t matter what the joke was. It doesn’t matter that Carr is renowned for making tasteless jokes. All that matters is that he is being attacked for telling a joke. This basic fact is enough to know that the attack on him is misguided.

We have to push back against societal capture by professional complainers. It doesn’t matter how offensive the joke was, in a free society we have to live with that which offends us.

A joke is the verbalisation of a thought. We cannot allow thought to disappear because it might offend someone. We cannot allow thought to disappear because it has offended someone. The TWAC are certain that offence is a terrible thing. They are terrified of causing it. It is certainly unpleasant to be offended. But they ignore the fact that offence, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Carr had recently joked about people with different views to him about Covid. In that case his views coincided with those of the TWAC, so they took no offence. But why should their eye be the one that judges what is offensive? By definition none of us like being offended. But we cannot allow a society to develop that polices offence. Because what is offensive is always a political decision.

It is similar to another current attempt at cancellation. In the US Joe Rogan is being targeted by the American TWACs. They are suddenly appalled at recordings of his that have been around for years. But if they have not been offended before then the offence they feel is surely manufactured.

The TWAC are shouting for James Carr and Joe Rogan to be cancelled. There has even been a call by a politician for Carr’s audience to be prosecuted. This leads us back to a Lord Chamberlain approach where the government can control what we are allowed to find funny.

In that case, if someone laughs at the wrong thing, well, off with his head. Or maybe, in these enlightened times, just destroy his life and income instead.

We must stand up to this attempt to impose laugh tyranny. Because often, those who are certain they know best know nothing of the sort

Is ‘levelling up’ actually ‘equity’? And isn’t equity a form of communism? Why are the Tories flirting with it?

There’s a reason why Chamonix has more skiers than the Riviera. Using public funds to build an artificial ski slope in Nice whilst giving grants for ski hire companies and subsidising visits might buy votes but ultimately it is still a taxpayer-funded illusion.

‘Levelling up’ is supposedly going to save the Johnson government. It’s a list of 12 pledges that will be achieved by 2030, including things like R&D outside the South East will increase by 40% and the gap in Healthy Life Expectancy will have narrowed. It is being sold as a way to make the regions of Britain more equitable and the country less envious of London.

But isn’t it really just a way of centrally planning the economy? Setting quotas and outcome requirements is not the democratic, Tory, free market way of doing things. Why is the Conservative party pushing these socialist policies?

In theory, as always with ways of spending other people’s money, this initiative can be spun to sound great. What’s not to like about wealth being shared outside the South East? Why shouldn’t other areas benefit more from wealth creation?

The trouble is that in practice making everyone more equal works by making everyone have less. Sure equality of outcome is achieved, but it is an equality of misery.

Look at a recent example in the US. Teachers wanted to improve equity – the equality of outcome – in mathematics. It sounds great, but the solution was to stop teaching advanced classes to gifted students. Equality of outcome was achieved, but at the price of those who could have achieved more being stymied. No one received a better education. When you read the Levelling up pledge that the Healthy Life Expectancy gap between areas will have narrowed, this is the way it will most easily be achieved.

Insisting that equity is important and that output quotas must be achieved around the country is the stuff of Soviet Five Year Plans. It means that quotas for x, y and z will be achieved, not because x, y and z are needed but because government money is available for achieving x, y and z.

Levelling up sounds like a great slogan. But it contains within its DNA something antithetical to the Western democratic approach to a free life unencumbered by excessive government regulation.

Why are the Tories involved in this socialist thinking? Presumably they are borrowing from the leftist playbook, He who pays the voter gets the vote. Socialism is of infinite attraction to the envious, but its public money hose waters a field of votes that leftist parties have always tried to harvest. It is sad to see a Conservative party attempting the same trick.

In defence of cricket clubs – do they exist to excel at cricket or to run social experiments?

Any opinions that go against current orthodoxy are unwanted and liable to be met with abuse. Nevertheless it is important to consider whether the push for cricket clubs to find players that are not just ‘the best’ but represent certain demographics will have side-effects. We must also consider whether these side-effects are actually what is being sought by those pushing these ideas.

It has been a basic assumption since Gloucestershire played Yorkshire in 1890 that county cricket clubs exist to win cricket matches. It seems the most basic of factual statements that sports teams try above all else to win matches and competitions. It has indeed been the case until recently that selectors in any sport chose their teams based on their players’ ability.

This approach is being rejected at the moment in cricket. Clubs are starting to take diversity into account when choosing teams. The chairman of Middlesex has recently been quoted as saying,

I speak on behalf of the entire Club in saying that our desire is to see a first eleven walking out to play for the Club which is truly reflective of the broadly diverse county that Middlesex is today and that we will do all within our power to make that happen.

This approach means that the focus is no longer just excellence but also diversity. It seems clear that if you have two targets rather than one, it is harder to hit both. People may say that the aim of a cricket club should be to reflect the local demographics, that a focus on diversity is a good and proper aim. If so it must be accepted that seeking excellence is being laid aside, particularly when clubs are called to quickly find new players in demographics that don’t play cricket.

The push for kids who don’t play cricket ignores the fact that most kids prefer football. In an ideal world the names of cricket players would be on everyone’s lips and kids would shout ‘jumpers for wickets’ before having a quick game of cricket between lessons. But in the real world football is what they follow. Everywhere you look, football players are revered and featured in the papers. Kids with no family history of footballing pick it up in the playground. In comparison, even among cricket lovers, there is no doubt that cricket is a niche sport. There is not a weekly Match of the Day showing highlights. Cricket is time-consuming, has complex laws and needs expensive kit that’s heavy to lug around. Players aren’t revered and aren’t all millionaires. All the action takes place in the middle of a field with a small ball that’s frankly hard to see. Kids and adults alike often have to say ‘What happened?’ Umpiring is difficult, too much can depend on a finger raised in mistake. In football a bad decision might put you one-nil down, but there is time to regroup and come back. In cricket if the umpire gives you out erroneously there is no comeback. The afternoon is ruined.

All of which suggests that there are many reasons why a kid who likes football is not going to be seduced by cricket. To succeed you really need a parent who’s obsessed and listens to TMS.

This push to find cricket players amongst non-cricketing demographics ignores the fact that – hard though it is to admit – cricket isn’t more fun than other sports. Of course many of us think that with its five day matches and five match series it is a richer game, but most children who play football aren’t going to suddenly pick up a bat and think ‘at last I have found the sport I was born to play’.

The occasional one may, and clubs should put on coaching and training for all-comers. Cricket can be expensive to play and that can rule out many kids who could be encouraged to play by schemes to help poorer kids of all backgrounds. But though some will like the madness of cricket, many will think it is over-complicated, leads not to riches, adulation and evening games against Barcelona, and prefer one of the many other sports available to them.

Having set up a pathway open to all, clubs should not obsess over the demographics of the kids on their courses or the players in their teams. Teach anyone who comes and take the best onto the next level, regardless of background. To focus on representing the local demographics is to not focus on producing a winning team.

Some may say that the push for diversity is worth it and is a better aim than purely winning. Clubs will come to their own decisions, but it must be recognised that it fundamentally changes the raison d’être of the club.

Clubs have to decide, are they in the business of winning cricket matches or are they running social enterprises. Is getting their hands on the trophy the most important thing, or are the colour of the hands on the trophy most important. Because contrary to the diversity above all else narrative, they cannot focus on both. The reallocation of resources and loss of focus will reduce the level of cricket achieved. A worse team will attract less fans, worse players, will be less successful and will make less money. This push for diversity ASAP, which is couched as the only true desirable outcome could be the catalyst for cricket’s demise.

What do you think? Please leave a comment below?

Johnson’s partying demonstrates that the government’s Covid information can’t be trusted. The very people telling us it was too dangerous to meet up were in fact happy to meet up.

This suggests that the fear they were instilling in people around the country was not something they felt themselves.

These were the people at the top of government, with easy access to the actual data about covid. They were not relying on what the government said, but were instead the people deciding what the government said.

They were pushing a message of fear, yet if they were truly frightened they would have rushed home after having to spend the day at Number Ten. Instead they drank wine and munched crisps together. These are not the actions of people frightened they may catch a virus that may kill them.

Any trust in the government to tell the truth has disintegrated. We are left bereft of guidance, unable to trust governmental advice.

Wokery has lost England the #Ashes: the Hundred experiment must end and county #cricket must be prioritised

The England Cricket Board cannot complain about the recent enormous loss of the Ashes when its own policies have led to this situation.

The England cricket team relies on good quality players emerging from the county game. The ECB has deliberately made this less likely by pushing the four day game to the periphery. Games are played early and late in the season when the weather is likely to intervene. Players don’t develop because the games are cancelled.

The prime part of the season, when county cricketers should be enjoying good wickets and developing their skills is given over to the Hundred, a format of the game that was never needed and should not exist. It allows no Test match skills to develop but rewards a whack-and-run technique. It appears to be pushed not as a means to develop high class cricketing skills, but to widen the cricketing audience. This would be achieved naturally, if the England team was an exciting team to watch, a team that gave Australia a good game and brought the Ashes home.

Once an organisation takes its eye off its main aim it declines. This is happening at the ECB. They have decided to prioritise getting a wider audience and not improving the test team. It was a conscious decision. Losing the Ashes is a direct result.

The impression is that the ECB do not care about the Ashes anymore. The way the four day county cricket game has been treated compared with the Hundred suggests they are not prioritising test cricket.

For our test team to improve, county cricket must be taken seriously. It must be prioritised above the Hundred.

Leftists worried about stereotyping all suicide bombers as bad eggs

‘We must never allow bigotry to win.’

A plea not to immediately assume that all suicide bombers are bad eggs has been issued by the Leftist Association of Leftism and Associated Means for Destroying Society (The LALAMDS).

‘Bigotry is rampant in the UK, which as everyone knows is the world’s most racist country,’ said spokesman Gav Kilber, ‘And this is raising its ugly head again with people being derogatory and in some cases downright rude about suicide bombers. Some of my closest friends have been suicide bombers and as a nation we need to educate the racist bigots who automatically assume that because someone is a suicide bombers they are somehow a bad person. We need…continued on Page 24

Destroy, dismantle, deconstruct: How woke attacks using accusations of racism aim to dismantle society and rebuild it in the woke image

The woke want to destroy Western civilisation and replace it with an ‘anti-racist’ utopia. (Spoiler: utopias of any sort don’t exist). Their battlegrounds are our institutions, companies, sports teams and traditions. They have been winning, with institution after institution falling to woke ideologues.

Infiltrating our institutions, mainly through HR departments was their stroke of genius. They could place their people in position and then, once there were enough of them, wait for – or create – a precipitating event.

Often this is an accusation of racism. They have found racism to be a very good weapon. An accusation of racism, amplified by the media is often the starting point of a woke attack. Notice an accusation is enough. For years innocent until proven guilty was a natural assumption, but now just an accusation is enough to unleash the frenzy.

For the woke the actual facts of any matter do not matter. They are out to destroy. They don’t want to know the truth about what was said by x to y or what happened to z. No, once they have infiltrated an organisation they are on the look out for a precipitating event to use as grist for their destructive mill.

This is why the woke must be kept out of organisations, because once they are inside they will deliberately look for ways to dismantle them from within. You will have seen the effect of their ‘work’ in the change in emphasis of institutions like the police and National Trust. With the woke aboard, the original aims of the institution are less important than making sure that the new ideology is spread everywhere. And this ideology hates the West and England.

Once the precipitating event has been found the woke can start working towards their revolution. They have no regard for any institution or its traditions, they see them as emblems of that which they hate. By shouting about racism the woke are able to get people sacked, ruin careers and destroy their host organisations.

Knowing that if something is found ‘racist’ a green light is given for wholesale change, they love to extrapolate from a few alleged occurances that entire organisations, or even entire countries are racist. An example is the attack after the 2020 football European Cup final. A huge number of tweets were sent, a very small number were racist. That was enough for the woke to accuse England of being a racist country.

There can be no placating these woke attackers, because they are after only destruction and putting their own people in charge of what remains. Nothing you give them is enough. They will keep going with their revolution, demanding an organisation’s attention moves from what it it was set up to do, to their agenda – leading to bloated organisations that focus on ideology rather than their original areas of expertise.

The power grab has worked when the organisation has got rid of the old guard, the people who knew how to do what the organisation was supposed to be doing. These people must be cancelled, often achieved with a social media show trial, so that the woke can tighten control. Then they can spend the institution’s money on their pet projects.

Of course the money dries up because the fundamental point of the business has been ignored. The institution is destroyed and the woke move on.

They are not trying to build anything, they are just tearing down what exists. They are not anti-racist, they are using race in the way that old Marxists used class, to divide society. Look at the way that the woke themselves can say things with no comeback that if uttered by one of their ideological enemies would be the start of a cancellation.

The whole woke methodology is wrapped up in words that make it sound wonderful. How can anything anti-racist be bad? Oh that it was honestly anti-racist. What it is though, behind the fine words, is an unforgiving power grab, using accusations of racism to shut down debate and frighten people into giving them their own way.

Once the institutions are destroyed they believe that there will be no more of what they call ‘oppression’, and no more discrimination. They’ll be proved right, not because there was oppression and discrimination, but because once the institution is destroyed there is nothing left. It’s like destroying a house to get rid of a mouse that you think is in it. Once the house is gone, there is indeed no mouse, but that’s because there’s now no house. And maybe there wasn’t a mouse in the first place. We’ll never know that though, because the woke assume the mouse to be there, and anyone who questions it is ‘part of the problem’.

Eventually the institution is gone and the woke can celebrate the destruction of an oppressive enemy. Everyone is now equal. But, of course that’s because there’s nothing left. Everyone has nothing. Except of course the woke who have benefited greatly from the destruction.