Latest news with #Chancellor
West Australian
5 hours ago
- Sport
- West Australian
'Superpower' shift as Wallaroos absorb double blow
Emily Chancellor doesn't claim to have the ball-running "superpower" of the back-rower and captain she's replacing. But the new Wallaroos skipper and No.6 hopes to bring one of her own in a side she reckons has switched to selfless, big-picture thinking ahead of the World Cup. With Siokapesi Palu (foot) recovering from surgery, veteran ruck menace Chancellor will lead Australia for the first time, against Wales at Brisbane's Ballymore on Saturday. Converted rugby sevens star Charlotte Caslick (ankle) was also injured in the side's last outing in New Zealand, where she wore the No.13. Both are hopeful of returning during the World Cup in late August. With just two Tests - they meet Wales again in Sydney next weekend - before their Cup opener against Samoa on August 23, coach Jo Yapp has also made unforced changes to her front row, second row and backline. But with Georgina Friedrichs an obvious replacement in the centres and Chancellor teaming with Ashley Marsters in the back row, there is no panic. "Yes, I'm playing No.6 but that's not my superpower, that's hers," Chancellor told AAP of Palu's ball-carrying prowess. "It's going to rely on us to share that load. "But you bring G-Fred back in ... she has one of the best workrates in the team, so we have that superpower back and we've suddenly got two players who can get over the ball in myself and Ash. "There's no-one brought in that you wonder if they can step up." Chancellor, 33 and vice-captain this year, is a ready-made leader after winning Test player of the year in her rookie 2018 season, enjoying stints in the UK and Japan and then missing the 2024 season with an anterior cruciate ligament tear. "I played against many of these (Welsh) girls," Chancellor said of her Premiership Women's Rugby stint with Harlequins. "And injury teaches you a lot about yourself; it makes you reflect and you can get to that point where you ask, 'Why am I doing this?'. "And that never crossed my mind. I've come back into this squad with a lot more perspective and it increases your team-first mentality." She's noticed that mindset elsewhere too as the women's program benefits from extra investment that includes the support of designated high performance manager Jaime Fernandez. "She's pushing our case to Rugby Australia and we've now got some girls who are full-time," Chancellor said. "Who have made the decision we're earning just about enough, never enough, but enough to survive and fully commit to this game." Sevens stars Sharni Williams and Shannon Parry were the only squad members operating on a full-time capacity for the Wallaroos in their 2021 Cup campaign. "The mental strength, willingness to dig deep and, to be honest, response to selections, shows a massive growth," Chancellor said of the differences since then. "It shows it's not just about you getting picked or not, or wanting to play a certain position. "It's understanding the role in a big squad. It's not personal." In seven World Cups Australia have a sole third-placed finish and otherwise finished no higher than fifth. Canada and New Zealand, who the Wallaroos challenged for 40 minutes before losing 37-12 a fortnight ago, remain the clear women's powerhouse sides. But the Wallaroos lead Wales 7-1 in head-to-head battles and are among the next rung of challengers. "The scoreboard matters and winning's important for the emotions," Chancellor said of the significance of Saturday's result. "But we're on the edge of a new way of playing and you regress to go forward again. We've been dabbling on the tipping point of playing nice, exciting, fast rugby." WALLAROOS SQUAD TO FACE WALES: Lydia Kavoa, Katalina Amosa, Bridie O'Gorman, Kaitlan Leaney, Annabelle Codey, Emily Chancellor (capt), Ashley Marsters, Tabua Tuinakauvadra, Layne Morgan, Tia Hinds, Desiree Miller, Trilleen Pomare, Georgina Friedrichs, Waiaria Ellis, Caitlyn Halse. Bench: Tania Naden, Bree-Anna Browne, Eva Karpani, Ashley Fernandez, Piper Duck, Samantha Wood, Cecilia Smith, Lori Cramer.
Perth Now
5 hours ago
- Sport
- Perth Now
'Superpower' shift as Wallaroos absorb double blow
Emily Chancellor doesn't claim to have the ball-running "superpower" of the back-rower and captain she's replacing. But the new Wallaroos skipper and No.6 hopes to bring one of her own in a side she reckons has switched to selfless, big-picture thinking ahead of the World Cup. With Siokapesi Palu (foot) recovering from surgery, veteran ruck menace Chancellor will lead Australia for the first time, against Wales at Brisbane's Ballymore on Saturday. Converted rugby sevens star Charlotte Caslick (ankle) was also injured in the side's last outing in New Zealand, where she wore the No.13. Both are hopeful of returning during the World Cup in late August. With just two Tests - they meet Wales again in Sydney next weekend - before their Cup opener against Samoa on August 23, coach Jo Yapp has also made unforced changes to her front row, second row and backline. But with Georgina Friedrichs an obvious replacement in the centres and Chancellor teaming with Ashley Marsters in the back row, there is no panic. "Yes, I'm playing No.6 but that's not my superpower, that's hers," Chancellor told AAP of Palu's ball-carrying prowess. "It's going to rely on us to share that load. "But you bring G-Fred back in ... she has one of the best workrates in the team, so we have that superpower back and we've suddenly got two players who can get over the ball in myself and Ash. "There's no-one brought in that you wonder if they can step up." Chancellor, 33 and vice-captain this year, is a ready-made leader after winning Test player of the year in her rookie 2018 season, enjoying stints in the UK and Japan and then missing the 2024 season with an anterior cruciate ligament tear. "I played against many of these (Welsh) girls," Chancellor said of her Premiership Women's Rugby stint with Harlequins. "And injury teaches you a lot about yourself; it makes you reflect and you can get to that point where you ask, 'Why am I doing this?'. "And that never crossed my mind. I've come back into this squad with a lot more perspective and it increases your team-first mentality." She's noticed that mindset elsewhere too as the women's program benefits from extra investment that includes the support of designated high performance manager Jaime Fernandez. "She's pushing our case to Rugby Australia and we've now got some girls who are full-time," Chancellor said. "Who have made the decision we're earning just about enough, never enough, but enough to survive and fully commit to this game." Sevens stars Sharni Williams and Shannon Parry were the only squad members operating on a full-time capacity for the Wallaroos in their 2021 Cup campaign. "The mental strength, willingness to dig deep and, to be honest, response to selections, shows a massive growth," Chancellor said of the differences since then. "It shows it's not just about you getting picked or not, or wanting to play a certain position. "It's understanding the role in a big squad. It's not personal." In seven World Cups Australia have a sole third-placed finish and otherwise finished no higher than fifth. Canada and New Zealand, who the Wallaroos challenged for 40 minutes before losing 37-12 a fortnight ago, remain the clear women's powerhouse sides. But the Wallaroos lead Wales 7-1 in head-to-head battles and are among the next rung of challengers. "The scoreboard matters and winning's important for the emotions," Chancellor said of the significance of Saturday's result. "But we're on the edge of a new way of playing and you regress to go forward again. We've been dabbling on the tipping point of playing nice, exciting, fast rugby." WALLAROOS SQUAD TO FACE WALES: Lydia Kavoa, Katalina Amosa, Bridie O'Gorman, Kaitlan Leaney, Annabelle Codey, Emily Chancellor (capt), Ashley Marsters, Tabua Tuinakauvadra, Layne Morgan, Tia Hinds, Desiree Miller, Trilleen Pomare, Georgina Friedrichs, Waiaria Ellis, Caitlyn Halse. Bench: Tania Naden, Bree-Anna Browne, Eva Karpani, Ashley Fernandez, Piper Duck, Samantha Wood, Cecilia Smith, Lori Cramer.
Times
17 hours ago
- Business
- Times
Why would I want a wealth tax, Rachel Reeves, when I want to be rich?
The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has refused to rule out the prospect of a 'wealth tax', which, as I understand it, would affect those with more than £10 million in assets. That's loopy, to my mind. Or, to put it another way, if having more than £10 million is so spectacularly evil, why do I want £10 million (and rising) more than anything else on earth? It looks splendid. Indeed, as I would shout from my yacht, or house with circular drive: 'This is splendid! Highly recommend!' Obviously I wouldn't go on about no longer having to park on the straight drive otherwise known as 'the street'. I wouldn't wish to rub people's faces in it. I'm not a monster. And I've had many happy years parking on 'the street' where my car has either been nicked or gone over. • Rachel Reeves refuses to rule out wealth tax despite fresh warnings The last time it was gone over the perpetrator took a pair of Wellington boots but left a crack pipe behind on the back seat, so I think that made us even-stevens. But the bottom line is that those socialist types who argue that accruing vast wealth is somehow wrong are missing one important fact: I would really love it. 'I really love this!' I would also shout. 'Park wherever!' I may host a ball. I may host a party in Venice and annoy everyone who lives there. Why not? I'm rich. Although, essentially, I would stay the same. I would keep humble. My friends today, some of whom go way back, would stay my friends, until I dumped them. One would have to be choosy. My yacht, Princess Bora, won't be able to accommodate all and sundry. You can't have anyone and everyone turning up expecting to park on your circular drive. They're circular, circular drives, but not endless. And I would have to make space for Orlando Bloom and Tom Cruise and the Kardashians, who seem to turn up wherever any rich person is to be found, even though they don't go far back and barely know them. 'Orlando, Tom, Kim, park wherever!' It'll be epic. It will be terrific. Katy Perry, she'll be along, just you wait and see. I may even purchase a private island, bus other millionaires and billionaires out there, and fill it with sexual playthings. Why not? I'm rich. As for my family? Honestly, I don't know if they'd be up to it. It pains me to say it but it's true. We've not had a single 'rift' to date so are they even capable of a rift? I sometimes want to shake them while saying: 'What does one have to do to get a rift up and running around here?' Imagine how embarrassing it'll be mingling with the Beckhams, say, without a single rift to your name. I'd probably even decline David and Victoria's invitations because I wouldn't wish to turn up with no rift to give them. The shame that none of my kids has had the good sense to marry someone I don't like. So my family are an issue. I don't even know if they have it in them to tear each other's throats out over a will when I'm gone. How sad, to leave behind a family with nothing to tear each other'sthroats out for. Just an old car with an inherited crack pipe on the back seat. I can't bear the thought of it. Meanwhile, I may buy X and shout abuse day and night. Why not? I'm rich. People will want to hear the horrible things I have to say. This is why I don't have any truck with anyone who says wealth should be more evenly spread, because what they are not factoring in is how brilliant it would be if I had a decent chunk of it. And, having come from nothing, I do truly believe I'd stay grounded. I certainly wouldn't call upon my staff in the middle of the night unless it was an emergency and I felt like a small bowl of ice cream or a tickle. I would still come into the office once in a blue moon or possibly never. And it goes without saying I will inevitably pop up in that box at Wimbledon while those who can less afford it have to buy their tickets. Why not? I'm rich. Highly recommend. As it is my birthday next week I thought I'd release a video like the one released for Prince George's 12th birthday. He's a cutie, that little fella, but I am a cutie too, let's not forget. I think it's even why, the other day, a young woman offered me her seat on the bus. • Photo and video released for Prince George's 12th birthday This level of cuteness can't be left to stand, she was probably thinking. That video is lovely and mine will, I hope, be lovely too. I've yet to approach my siblings about walking across a sunny field in Norfolk hand-in-hand but I can't see why they'd demur. True, my brother, when we were little, would not hold any of his sisters' hands. Or, if he was forced to, would pull his jumper sleeve down so he wouldn't 'catch something'. I don't know how I'm going to talk him into a friendship bracelet. He'll just have to go with it. 'We need to look happy and natural,' I will tell him, while pulling up his jumper sleeve. I think he'll be into leaning on a rustic gate, though. My sister and I will, probably, be wearing very sweet cardigans that will instantly sell out. I do love the royal birthday video. It's an adorable way to give back to the public and, as you know, I'm all about giving back. I would give back the crack pipe if I knew whence it came. And we are all as cute as Prince Louis, that's for sure. It's the missing teeth.
Daily Mail
a day ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
Opinion: Britain is at the mercy of bond markets
It took the British government more than three centuries to rack up debts of £1trillion. That milestone was reached in 2010, in the wake of the financial crisis. It took just ten more years for our debts to hit £2trillion. They now stand just shy of £2.9trillion – and will hit £3trillion either this fiscal year or next. So that's another trillion racked up in less than a decade. Yes, there's the impact of inflation . And the triple-whammy of the financial crisis, the Covid-19 pandemic and the energy shock after the invasion of Ukraine , all of which pushed the debt higher as the government borrowed to support households and businesses. But as the Office for Budget Responsibility warned in a recent report highlighting the parlous state of the nation's finances, successive governments have failed to take the action required to bring the debt back under control in the wake of those crises. And the government's annual borrowing bill has hovered around 5 per cent of GDP a year since the pandemic – levels only previously seen during recession or war. This is a major headache for Rachel Reeves ahead of the Budget this autumn. And that spells yet more pain for households and businesses – because however the Chancellor spins it, another round of tax rises are coming. They will be big. And they will be painful. This is because, far from being a 'beacon of stability' in an uncertain world, as Downing Street would have us believe, Britain is at the mercy of the bond markets. One only has to look back at the Liz Truss debacle to know that twitchy bond markets matter. And twitchy they are. To such an extent that UK gilt yields – a key measure of how much it costs the British government to borrow – are the highest in the G7. In fact, the UK has the third-highest borrowing costs of any advanced economy after New Zealand and Iceland. This is because international investors look at Britain – with its soaring debts and lack of political will to do anything about it – and do not like what they see. So they charge the UK government more to lend it money than almost every other similar economy in the world. To understand what that means one only has to look at the today's figures from the Office for National Statistics that show the UK paid £16.4billion of interest on the national debt in June alone. This was £8.4billion more than in the same month last year and the second highest June on record, amounting to nearly £550million a day and more than £22million an hour. So we are now in a situation where we are forecast to spend £111billion this year servicing the national debt – and just £62.2billion on defence. With the economy slowing, fears are mounting that the fiscal situation is getting worse not better. The scene is set for another punishing Budget this autumn.
Telegraph
2 days ago
- Business
- Telegraph
Angela Rayner has got one thing right. Britain needs a tourism tax
I never imagined saying this but I agree with Angela. The Deputy Prime Minister wants cities to have more autonomy to run themselves as they do on the continent, where they thrive largely free of national government diktat. When their economic performance is rated against their European counterparts, English cities fall well short. In a league table measured by GDP per head and headed by Munich, only London and Manchester (just) make the top 40 from England. German cities have by some distance out-performed British cities since 2007. Key factors in their success have been supportive state governments and high levels of autonomy. In France, the 14 'communautés urbaines'' mainly perform better, with Lyons, Toulouse, Nice and Marseille all in the top 40. They exercise substantial delegated powers over waste, water, public transport, roads, economic development and the environment. Spanish and Italian cities do the same. Ours, by contrast, have undergone political reform, with elected mayors, but have not got much in the way of economic autonomy. England is the most centralised country in Europe and its great cities are prey to Treasury cheeseparing and ineptitude. They should be able to run their own affairs and be accountable to local voters for their actions. But the Treasury has never liked relinquishing its all-encompassing power and Ms Rayner's muscle-flexing has predictably been fought off by a Chancellor who can see someone after her job. This latest spat between the Cabinet duo was ostensibly over whether mayors should be able to impose tourist taxes, a suggestion that has roused howls of fury from predictable quarters. Usually I might have joined them; but actually a tourist tax is not a bad idea, albeit not for the reasons Big Ange gives. She sees the revenues as a way of topping up town hall coffers where they would no doubt be diverted into employing diversity officers and staging pride events. But there is a very good use to which the proceeds can be put, which is to support the continued free entry to museums and galleries. One of the few great achievements of the New Labour government was to remove charges in 2001. It has since been possible to visit the British Museum or the National Gallery for nothing. In New York you will pay $30 to go to the Metropolitan Museum of Art and in Paris a ticket to enter the Louvre will set you back 22 euros. It is 25 euros for the Uffizi in Florence and 15 euros for the Prado in Madrid. If you have been to any of these recently you will not have noticed a dearth of visitors. In some of them you can hardly move. One of the arguments against reimposing museum charges is that it will put people off going yet this has not been seen elsewhere. Moreover, the heads of the great national institutions say they are getting increasingly into financial difficulties and cannot rely on a Government struggling with massive debt to bail them out. Nor is this just about London. The English Civic Museums Network says institutions across the country are in financial difficulties because of budget cuts and at risk of closure. The recent spending review allocated another £270m to the country's galleries but this is seen as inadequate to the task. Sir Mark Jones, a former director of the British Museum and the V&A, has proposed a £20 entrance fee to enter publicly funded museums across the UK, though they would remain free to British taxpayers (though how that would work without ID cards I am not sure). 'It would make sense for us to charge overseas visitors for admission to museums as they charge us when we visit their museums,' said Jones. Indeed, this country has everything back to front. You can get into the Tate for free but it costs £26 for an adult ticket to St Paul's Cathedral, and £10 for children, setting back a family of four more than £70 to visit a church. In Paris you can go to Notre Dame for nothing. The point is we should not want to charge for museums and galleries but the economic exigencies may prove overwhelming for a Chancellor looking to cut costs anywhere she can. Since most taxpayers don't visit a museum from one year to the next, why would they mind? The hospitality industry is said to be against a tourist tax; but if it was a hypothecated levy designed to support the museums and galleries would there be objections? If enough is raised it could be used to pay for more police, not detectives but dedicated beat officers. It is a bit odd calling for cuts in benefits because they are unaffordable while expecting taxpayers who never go near an art gallery to subsidise free entry for tourists. Is it seriously being suggested that a room tax of £5 a night, or one per cent on the total bill, would put off visitors to London where a West End show can set a family of four back at least £500? Does anyone say they are not going to Barcelona because it has a tourist tax? The reality for those working themselves into a fury about tourist charges is that their own taxes are paying for things they hardly use but which visitors, almost by definition, use all the time. That's why they come to cities like London or Bath or Oxford. The pressure for admission fees to meet high operations costs like maintaining buildings and conserving collections will only grow. The money comes from the taxpayer or generous philanthropists, but for how much longer? It could cost as much as £500m to restore the British Museum's buildings and create new facilities so that more of its eight million objects could go on permanent display. To raise funds, the galleries run regular 'blockbuster' exhibitions for which they charge exorbitant sums, often using works they already possess as the centrepieces. They also ask for voluntary donations at the door. Is it really such a bad idea to seek a contribution from tourists by way of a hotel room levy specifically earmarked for museum and gallery upkeep, especially if the alternative is to pay £20 to go in? For now Rayner seems to have lost the argument with the Chancellor but no doubt will be back.
