Majorism

I'm currently in my final year of The John Lyon School in Harrow. For six hours per week, I have Politics, with the fantastic Mr J Armstrong. You can follow him on Twitter, actually. But the reason I'm mentioning him is that we often have a fascinating discussion on a three-letter suffix, and where it can be applied: "-ism".

Socialism exists as an ideology, so does Liberalism, and Conservativism. Within these, you have your "sub-ideologies": socialism can be broken down into Marxism (original and orthodox), social democratism, and Blairism; Liberalism can be broken down into Classical Liberalism and Modern Liberalism, as well as neo-Liberalism; Conservativism can be broken down into Traditional Conservativism, One Nation Conservativism, and Thatcherism (or "New Rightism").

Not one person, Left, Right, or centre, would deny that "Thatcherism" is a distinct political ideology, not dissimilar to monetarism. So why doesn't John Major's government get the same treatment? I've only ever seen the term "Majorism" used once by the media, in 2011. However, as I shall now demonstrate, Majorism is clearly a distinct politico-economic ideology. Do I follow it? Not really, I'm more of a Thatcherite.

ECONOMICS

Whilst continuing some Thatcherite economic policies, such as privatisation (such as the 1993 privatisation of the rail network), Major had a economic ideology largely very different to Thatcher, contrary to popular belief.

1 - DEVALUATION

In the aftermath of "Black Wednesday" in 1992, the pound crashed against the Deutschmark, to which it was being pegged after Lawson and Howe bullied Thatcher into going into it in 1989. The Government were forced to take it out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM), as it had dropped below its lower limit.

Such a "flash crash" would, surely, cause the pound to go back up soon-ish? No - and with Lamont out of the door, Major decides to adopt an economic policy that is more different than Thatcher's. The pound is kept at a deliberately 'weak' level. What does a weak pound cause? An emphasis - and increases the value of - exports, with the drawback that imports are more expensive. Hence, people stopped importing goods, start exporting them, and we end up with export-led growth. 

2 - SMALL GOVERNMENT

Another key factor of Majorism is to do with budget responsibility. Thatcher did not tend to operate a budget surplus - but after the introduction of Majorism in 1992, the budget deficit does not rise once. With New Labour pledging in 1997 (but not 2001) to stick to the Conservatives' spending plans in this department (and they do stick to their word until the second term), we can attribute the fiscal period of 1993 - 2001 as Majorist economic budget responsibility. The budget deficit does not rise once - by 1998, this even hits a surplus.

By 2001, government spending as a percentage of GDP is at its lowest level since records began - and even the current Conservative government will not get this low (they were on course to, but minor changes to the economic forecast in the March 2015 budget means that they are no longer on course to "beat the record"). Thatcher didn't really decrease government spending as a percentage of GDP in this way. 

3 - UNEMPLOYMENT

Thatcher believed in the notion that controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment. Whatever your views on this statement, during the Majorism period of 1993 - 2001, save for the introduction of the National Minimum Wage in 1998, unemployment falls at a steady and constant rate. After Chancellor Gordon Brown is no longer bound by the New Labour manifesto to stick to Majorism in 2001, unemployment flattens out. He does this by increasing job opportunities for those out of work - one of the founding principles of the "back to basics" campaign of 1992. 

4 - INTEREST RATES

This is difficult to attribute all the way through the 1993 - 2001 period, as the Bank of England became responsible for setting monetary policy in 1997. But even looking between 1993 and 1997, when monetary policy was still within the government's control, the government had more control of interest rates after "Black Wednesday" than it did between 1989 and 1992. Interest rates hit a 20-year low under Majorism, as unlike Thatcher, inflation was not seen as a huge problem. Indeed, from a historical perspective, according to the BBC's "Back In Time For Dinner", the sheer amount of products available in the early 1990s, with a tin of beans being able to be purchased for just 3p, for example, meant that controlling inflation harshly, as had been done right up until 1992, was no longer necessary. Despite this, inflation continued to fall.

Whilst being slightly speculatory, it can be argued that the Bank of England adopted Majorism until 2001, too: the range interest rates were in in this period were where they were between 1994 and 1997. Lo and behold: post-2001, they're dropped below their Majorite trough of 5%, and inflation starts rising.

SOFT EUROSCEPTICISM

With the thorny issue of the European Union ripping the Conservative Party to shreds in the late 1980s (taking Thatcher along with it) and early 1990s, John Major attempted to balance the extreme views on both sides of his party by adopting a policy of soft Euroscepticism.

1 - OPT-OUT ON THE SINGLE CURRENCY

John Major was caught between a rock and a hard place when it came to the thorny issue of the Euro; on the one hand, he had Ken Clarke et al - those who wish for full European integration, including the adoption of the single currency, and the Europhiles responsible for driving out Thatcher. On the other hand, he had John Redwood et al - the hard Eurosceptics who didn't want us to go into the single currency, or any single market at all. So when John Major went to Maastricht in 1992 to negotiate and sign the Treaty on the European Union, he declared the opt-out he'd secured on the Euro "game, set, and match for Britain".

2 - VETO

This turned out to be a case of "out of the frying pan, and into the fire", but at the time, he was praised by the Eurosceptics of his party for doing so. After the hated Jacques Delors (who Thatcher repeatedly mocked during her final years) was to be replaced as President of the European Commission, Major vetoed the appointment of Jean-Luc Dehaene, who wanted a European super-state. He was praised for this - but the "out of the frying pan, and into the fire" came when he found out they'd ended up with a clone of him instead, Jacques Santer.

3 - BACK TO THE PARTY

Tony Blair was always very good at being able to turn a soundbite. In 1997, one memorable edition of Prime Minister's Questions featured the quotation of Blair calling Major "weak, weak, weak" on the issue of Europe. But if one watches the full eight minutes, Major easily wins on substance, and says that he will ask his PPCs what the position on the EU should be, unlike Tony Blair, who told his PPCs what to think regarding Europe. Before the "referendum craze" of New Labour, this was as close as it got to the people having a direct say.

FOREIGN POLICY

There's not really a sub-heading I can use here, as it's very easily summarised: not attempting to take sides in conflicts where Britain is not directly threatened. For example, John Major oversaw the war occurring after the break-up of Yugoslavia in 1991, culminating in the war in Bosnia & Herzegovina in 1993. Major and his cabinet did not wish to get actively involved in it.

COMPARISONS WITH THE CAMERON GOVERNMENT

1 - ECONOMICS

Many people associate the current Conservative front bench with being Thatcherites - when Majorites is a better description of them economically:

- A weaker pound in order to promote export-led growth;

- Driving down the deficit and getting into a budget surplus;

- Driving down unemployment through the Work Programme;

- Record low interest rates alongside low inflation.

2 - EUROPE

David Cameron is a pure Majorite when it comes to Europe:

- Secured an cut in the EU budget in 2012 in real terms;

- Vetoed a treaty that was against the UK's national interest;

- Given a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU.

3 - FOREIGN POLICY

Cameron's foreign policy is more interventionist than Major's, but less so than Blair's.

_______________________________________________________________________

It is unambiguously clear to me that Majorism, as a distinct political ideology, exists. There are distinct policy ideas when it comes to Politics and Economics - although one does have to attribute that it is hard for him to make sweeping changes, considering he was continuing from a previous Conservative government.

I would argue that David Cameron's Conservative government is a Majorite government, not a Thatcherite one, as I have indicated above. (I may go into further detail on this in a later blog post, but I won't promise anything.)

Cricket and Terrestrial Television

It's Monday 6 July 2015, and in two days' time, another Ashes series is about to begin. It will be another Ashes series - and another test series - that I am unable to see in full, as it is being broadcast live on Sky Sports. I am not the billpayer in my household and so getting this (legally, at least) is out of my hands. Thankfully, I've timed my holidays by renting out some lovely cottages 'up naaaarth' which do possess this facility.

The final ever ball of live cricket on terrestrial TV.

Not a single ball of live cricket has been broadcast on terrestrial television since 1 June 2014, when the Kolkata Knight Riders defeated the Kings XI Punjab by three wickets in the Indian Premier League final, live on ITV4. As someone who hates the IPL, with its "leg side wides" and the improper shots (show Don Bradman the 'back away and swing' and he'd go absolutely ape), does this really count in any case? The final ball was bowled by a player I've never heard of to a batsman I've never heard of, who hit it for four over backward point.

The final ball of live test cricket was a big anticlimax, and this one I remember distinctly. On Monday 12 September 2005, Steve Harmison bowled a ball in the dark to Justin Langer, which glanced off his pads, beat Geraint Jones, and went for four leg byes. Australia now needed 338 runs to win with 14.2 overs left in the game, and Justin Langer called Matthew Hayden, Rudi Koertzen, and Billy Bowden together, and they all agreed that the light was too bad. The match was drawn, and England regained the Ashes. Unsurprisingly, this has never found its way onto the internet.

The BBC hasn't broadcast a single ball in highlights form (excluding news reports) since the 2006-07 Ashes series, when England were trounced 5-0. The last ball in highlights form was Matthew Hayden hitting the winning runs at Sydney. Their last live ball was in 1998. 

Is there actually an appetite for terrestrial broadcasters to broadcast cricket? The answer is a resounding no. According to a 2015 BBC report, Sky are shelling out £65m (per year, presumably) for the rights to every single ball - live - faced by the England cricket team. Consider the fact that Channel 4, between 2002 and 2005, shelled out £150m, it's very rare for rights costs to go down for any sport. Sky would only have been able to get a reduction if no one else was willing to pay for the rights. Certainly, the furore over the 2013-14 Ashes highlights definitely shows that no one wants to broadcast cricket on terrestrial television. If you're unaware what happened, the BBC and ITV both pulled out at the last minute, causing Sky to take it upon themselves and put highlights on Pick TV, their Free-To-Air channel. It was such a last minute decision that it even ended with "next on Sky Sports 2...", until David Gower provided some "top and tail" to the programmes after Adelaide. 

The BBC are shelling out £60m for the flailing "Match Of The Day", £70m per year for Wimbledon, £15m for shared (and poor) F1 coverage (according to the F1 Broadcasting Blog), and suddenly, it all adds up. Put that money on the table to the ECB, and with the allure, and the inspiration, no doubt, that comes with terrestrial television, and the ECB may just go with the BBC. Consider that the BBC may be paying for the Radio rights as it is (although I doubt it), there's more money that could be saved if the BBC took a Radio + TV deal as one, rather than two deals. 

One of England's best batting performances ever, stuck
behind a £40 paywall.

I don't wish to take away anything from the excellent Sky coverage, which has broadcast every English overseas test live since 1990 (which I don't think had been done before), and continues to go from strength to strength. The trouble is that no one watches cricket any more. Even with pay-per-view TV, cricket is still higher in the ratings than it was for the 2001 Ashes series, live on Channel 4, but it is nowhere near the viewing figures for 2005 (Channel 4) or indeed, 2009 (Sky). 

Even if it was highlights, everyone remembers Kolo
Touré's own goal against Fulham. But how many people
remember Channel 5's commentary of the 2009 Ashes?

But why do so many more people watch - and are interested in - football than they are cricket, when 10 years ago, the opposite was true? Neither have the main event broadcast live on terrestrial television (the Premier League vs English tests). So where does the blame lie for the failure of cricket in the last 10 years? The England team for not doing well enough? No, they were world #1 in 2011. What about the other side of the coin? What has football done right that cricket hasn't? The BBC haven't made a mess of their highlights show in the same way Channel 5 have. "Cricket on Five" is terrible and is ridiculously poor, and is basically the very worst of Channel 4's coverage over the years. Limiting itself to just Mark Nicholas, Geoffrey Boycott, Simon Hughes, Michael Vaughan since 2011, and occasionally a few others, it's nowhere near the better Match Of The Day. So what Channel 5 must do is have a complete rethink. For starters, don't put ODI highlights on at 1am... 

I've just written a lengthy piece and I haven't come to any conclusion. What can be done? The BBC don't want it and ITV gave it all up. It's quite cheap in relation to other sports. Sky is the only reasonable option. Sky really should put the Ashes live on Pick, but that ruins their business model. Until the BBC stump up the courage to dump some of its ENDLESS Wimbledon coverage, we're stuck without cricket for a long time.

My Countdown Experience

Countdown. Thrills me to bits, with its hundreds of letters. Well, 26. There's a few VCRs of Countdown recordings I still have somewhere, and there's a photo album, featuring a photo of myself and the similarly-aged son of a friend of my father's (blimey, what a mouthful) watching a Richard Whiteley Countdown in 2004. I followed Countdown religiously when I was young. We'd done our own job of creating a homemade letters stack (easier said than done) and then I saved up and bought a proper board game from Hamley's in London. £20 was a lot in 2005 for a six-year-old!

When Richard Whiteley died I apparently balled my eyes out (I was only 6!!). Des Lynam took over, and apart from his monotonous voice, the only thing I remember about him was that he always seemed to be very quick to start the clock, too much so, he'd punched the button before he'd finished saying "start the clock!". This gave rise to a lasting memory of Carol Vorderman reading out viewers' criticisms ("Digital Des", "Lightning Lynam"). Series 54, Conor Travers' series, I was hooked (Conor Travers was just awesome) and the Championship of Champions in 2006 that followed was fantastic. Apparently I shed a tear or two when Conor was knocked out of that (sorry, Paul!). I didn't watch Series 55 through to the very end of Series 61 (and I don't remember why I gave it up).

In December 2009, I'm channel-hopping with a friend of friend when I see the clock and it all comes flooding back. It turns out to be the third half of the epic Innis Carson/Chris Davies semi final, and Innis pulls away with SOLENOID, before Chris aces a numbers game and unscrambles EPITUSSLE on 25 seconds. I was hooked again.

During Series 62 in 2010, I combined the internet and Countdown - and that's when I discovered the various websites out there. In late 2010, I even tagged along to a meeting of contestants and fans to play Countdown. I finished stone dead last. I did this again the following year at the same location. I was getting CAT whilst they were getting CATACLYSM. At this stage, the wonderful Jeff Stelling left the show, to be replaced with Nick Hewer. I didn't take to Nick at first, but he grew on me by 2013. Just as well, as 2013 was the 30th Birthday Championship. The final was fantastic. The first "ambulance" in history, three nines in a row, and the joint highest ever score... from Conor Travers. December 2013 gave us the Series 69 finals, with Dylan Taylor taking on Callum Todd in the final, with Todd prevailing on a tie-break conundrum. That was very good.

I filled out the form as soon as I could. My 16th birthday meant I was now eligible to appear on Countdown (due to some annoying regulations). A life ambition for me, although perhaps not as good as some of the players in and around my ability. I send the form off in September 2014.

Fast forward to November and I get a phone audition. I spotted ESSENTIAL in one of the rounds and that pretty much cracked it. It takes the team four months to give me a date, and then I get 37 pages of notes in the post, looking for that date... there it is. Sunday 19 April 2015.

I don't remember much about the train journey up there except for me struggling with modern technology, trying to listen to Blackpool vs the mighty Fulham, then trying to watch qualifying for the Bahrain Grand Prix on 3G. There was a hotel laid on for us by Channel 4 and my father and I got there in time to watch Adam Federici make the costly error that dumped Reading out of the FA Cup. I can't remember the rest of Saturday very well.

The schedule for Sunday was an odd one. I was show one but that wasn't until 12:30 anyway. So a big breakfast (something I don't usually have) and I was up to the studios.

My first opponent was the carryover champion from Series 72, James Judge, having been stopped by the finals, and this was the very first programme of the new series. The wonderful Colin Murray was in Dictionary Corner, and he came in to make-up and spoke to us all before going down.

I remember make-up quite well. Once James, myself, and the players for shows two and three had turned up for the "morning" session, we were all taken upstairs by Lucy, whose job title I can't remember. A young man informed us that "Rachel's been shopping", and I saw Rachel eyeing up the brilliant (and the not-so-brilliant) dresses on the rack. Anyway, I ended up conversing for a while in make-up with Susie Dent. She's very different off-camera. It strikes me that she still looks nervous on camera 23 years after her debut, as she was very talkative backstage (and indeed, when the cameras weren't recording on the set).

So after being pampered (thinking "this won't stay on"), James and I finally got into the studio. We sat down, and in what proved to be a recurring theme, the floor manager tried (and failed) to mic me up. Finally, we got underway. I refused myself SOUPIER early on and although it made no difference at the time, by round four James had spotted FANCIEST to take the lead, before I struck back with MUTATED in round five. I then mistranscribed my solution to Round 6 (I wanted to say 100 + 50 + 9, but forgot the + 9), meaning I again trailed by 8. James got another eight onto his lead and I felt resigned, trailing by 16. I refused myself OUTRANGE in round eight as James also had seven. But in round nine I hit back with an exact solution. It was 49 - 43 going into the third half and I was the 43. Things got worse thereafter, when I had CAPITAS and PACIEST written down. I went for CAPITAS. PACIEST was in and CAPITAS wasn't. The gap was 13 with five to go. I then took six off that with TANNOY, before we both got sixes in rounds 12 and 13. 7 gap, 2 to go. I then managed to get one away on a 4 large so difficult Rachel couldn't get it... James was eight away. So it was 68 and 68 going into the conundrum. BOLDPAPER came up. The clock ran out and DROPPABLE was revealed. Difficult. Filming was stopped for a second conundrum, at which point I said to Colin that "we could be here all night!!" Conundrum #2. HONEYPLOX. Again, no answers. XYLOPHONE the solution. Susie then pointed out that OXYPHENOL was also a solution, so here we go again for conundrum #2 #2. GADWINNER. I immediately saw REWARDING, before spotting the extra N. I buzzed on 4 seconds to say "WANDERING" - and I made it. I still feel very sorry for James. He played very, very, well, and I was lucky to win in all honesty.

But for program two I was up against one of those people who was doing the game show circuit, Michael Stokes. He'd been on 15 to 1 in 2014 (as had James Judge in the William G Stewart era), so immediately I was nervous. Nick dubbed this "performers' edition", as I had sung Dead Or Alive whilst Michael had appeared on stage with Diana Ross. But I always think the key to this game is to get a lead early on. And I did so, memorably declaring GONADS in round one (prompting Nick to ask Susie if she had any GONADS in the corner). We tied rounds two and three and so I led 22 - 16 going into the break. Golden gonads was doing the trick for me. We tied round four, but a horrible set in round five allowed me to get FINER whilst Michael could only get RAIN. I then hit the numbers game on the head, giving me a 21-point advantage at what I consider to be the halfway stage (although it technically isn't). Round 7 was two 7s, before Michael played PLANING in round eight whilst I stuck with PLAIN (although Rachel misspelt this on the board as PLANE), but Michael had used a phantom N, so this gave me a bigger advantage. We then both got the third numbers, and then I made the biggest mistake of all: Michael declared four in round 10, I had a six and a seven. Feeling a little complacent with a 26-point lead, I went for the invalid COZIEST. We then tied the next two letters rounds before I pulled out another seven in the last letters game with IMPALED. I then hit the numbers game on the head, giving me a chance to get 100, something I've not done online often. I couldn't see the answer to LONGTULIP, mind you, and it finished 92 - 63.

My third opponent was one amazing woman who's lived a full-on life. There is so much she has done it would easily be a post in itself. Maxine Jones was, amazingly, 60. She looked very good for 60. In round one, I spotted OUTLINES to take an eight-point lead, before we both hit a seven in round two and got the numbers game in round three. 25 - 17. I pulled out another seven in round four, and although we couldn't get past five in round five, I hit the numbers in round six splendidly, to lead by 25 points. I then extended my lead further in round seven, but Maxine struck back with HAREMS in round eight. I then hit round nine on the nose and I had a 36-point lead going into part three. We tied rounds 10 and 11, before Maxine, trailing by 36 with four to go, gambled on SONDAGE, but this was disallowed, and I now had a 42-point lead with three to go. I then took my foot off the gas a little, and missed the darrenic seven in round 13, did something completely stupid in round 14 (if you're going to declare not written down, make sure you can remember your method), and missed MULTICONS (which Rachel got). Maxes in those three rounds would have given me 108, but as it was I only got 81. Maxine got 53, but I think she deserved more than that, the scoreline didn't fully tell the story.

The next two contestants arrived at the studios and I was immediately worried as one was a university student and one looked serious and focused. I fell behind to the University student, Abby Fawkes, early on, when she found CRAWLED in round two. I managed to get two away on the numbers game to draw level. But in round four I fell behind again when Abby declared POLITE and to add insult to injury, my five was disallowed. Meanwhile, DC suffered from PENILE dysfunction. My plight got worse in round seven when I had PAILED disallowed, giving me a 12-point deficit. I declared LAUNDER in round eight to get this back to five, before we both failed to get the target on round nine, and I pointed out to Rachel that Nick read out the same clue to Teaser #2 as Teaser #1. I wrote this piece before transmission, so I don't know how they rectified this. [Ed - it turns out they didn't] But in round 10 all thoughts of double teasers were behind me now, and I spotted RADIOS whilst STAIRS was disallowed as Abby had spotted a phantom S, giving me a one-point lead. I then hit the darrenic seven before round 12 produced one of the crappiest letters selections in the history of Countdown. Abby had a 3. I had a 4. DC had eight. No, literally, they had EIGHT for five. I was now 12 ahead but not 100% home and dry yet. I pulled out further in round 13, and with 19 points the gap Abby picked two large on the final numbers game. I got it and she didn't, giving me a 29-point cushion. On the conundrum I could hear Colin scribbling away frantically on my right, knowing that he'd probably got it. The scramble was BLEAKRAJI and I could see JAIL-, but I rather stupidly was looking at the -ER route so declared JAILBAKER on 26 seconds. Abby hit the buzzer on 29.75 and declared JAILBREAK. I was annoyed with myself (although I didn't say this on camera when asked!). The final score was 78 - 59.

Opponent five looked difficult. Olly Hall had a beard (which automatically makes men look 100% more serious). I fell 10 points behind early on when I missed an easy numbers game, but closed this down in round four - even though I refused myself DOSAGES, I declared a six when Olly declared five. SOAKED was my word. We then tied every round up until round eight, when I took the lead by virtue of having PUNNET versus the invalid PINCE. In round nine I got the numbers game with four away (and during the break, Rachel, Colin, and I were all trying to crack 807 without success). With my appalling conundrum record (17% at that point) then I knew 9 points wouldn't be enough of a lead, and so by spotting AIRPORT at the very last second in round 12, I pulled out to 16. I then achieved my second ambition on Countdown (to get a "very, very good" and a "he knows his Countdown words" from Susie) when I declared ATOMISER. During a filming break, Susie asked me about the invalid nine MORTALISE, as she thought it was in (but was promptly disappointed). I replied that I knew it wasn't in as I'd seen it come up before and be disallowed. Conundrum cock-up #2 followed, when I really should have got RESPONDED, but stuck the R and E in the wrong place and rang in with SPONDERED... Olly did something similar and rang in with DESPONDER, before an audience member (who ended up starting a fan club for me afterwards, even stalking me when I went for dinner) answered with RESPONDED. End of day one and I was the returning champion.

At the time, I was glad to get to the overnight halt. Poor Nick looked absolutely knackered at this point. But I just couldn't sleep during the night and I felt even more nervous when I returned. In a sense, you're most nervous for show one, but when you start picking wins up, you lose nerves. But when you start getting a lot of wins, you end up knowing there's a finals place at stake.

I went to the green room on day two to meet the next three contestants: a serious quizzer, an apterite, and one very shy man. Beat these three and I'll be an octochamp. Show six would be against an Irishman, Pat Lonegan, the "Brain Of Kildare", which sounded ominous.

Now, I was 110% sure that ELATIONS was in, so much so that I was fishing for it; missing OUTLINES (which I had played yesterday) completely. I immediately went seven behind, and in round two I struck back with the darrenic TADPOLE, before a stupidly easy numbers game gave Pat and I 17 each into the break. I refused myself INROAD in round four, keeping the game deadlocked, before falling behind when Pat had PALLID to my POLLS. Another easy numbers game, and I started to panic. But in round seven I thought I'd get the lead back when I spotted QUIETER... only for Pat to say "ESQUIRE" and keep his six-point lead. I then missed the niner TRAPEZIUM in round eight. Thankfully, so did Pat, and everyone in the studio in the next break had to inform Nick what one was, much to Rachel's dismay. Then I picked four large on the numbers, and was so engrossed in finding 832 via the 937.5 rule that I'd completely missed the easy way to 831. I was now 13 behind. We tied round 10 before I missed ANCHOR in round 11 and I was now 19 behind, probably chasing a lost cause. But spotting ATTAINS in round 12 got the gap back to 12... we tied round 13... come on... please deliver a hard one, CECIL... Oh. We got to 536 two different ways but that was that. I had my hopes up during the clock as Pat was still scribbling away, only for him to put his pen down on 20 seconds. I knew he'd got it. He then solved VENUSCOLD to win 76 - 98.

I stayed behind to watch Pat play the next show against apterite Rob Maxwell and take a few snaps with Rachel and Nick (but not Joe "Macclederry", as Nick would say). Then I had to run off to catch the train back to London, and all of a sudden my life was back to normal.

At the time of writing, I don't know if I'm going to be in the finals or not. It's very difficult to guess, certainly. Are 5 wins and 494 points going to be enough? I'm now hoping that we don't get lots of 6+ winners (although Jonathan Wynn and Thomas Carey, two apterites I know, might fancy their chances). I don't know how the rest of that day's filming went, so we'll see.