PompeyVillan

8 hours ago, mjmooney said:

Louis used to love watching the football with me. I still miss the little sod. 

Did you get another cat after Louis? I'm thinking of getting another already. 

It's looking increasingly like Kier Starmer and Angela Rayner will win leader and deputy leadership race. I'm not so found of Rayner, I'd much rather Ian Murray but I can stomach Starmer or Nandy. RLB would be an absolute disaster. 

This is me, joined and lapsed because of Corbyn. 

Joined again to vote, and be a part of a better future. That's the hope.

11 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Google world powers and Britain / U.K. appears in the top 5 or 6 on just about every list , it’s true  we may not be the influence on the planet we were in the days of the Empire and we aren’t in the same league as the USA and China but we are still a world power 

but I’m interested to see what criteria you are using in forming your conclusion , then one would be in a position to argue otherwise  

Willy size. 

It's not that difficult to see it, part of the Brexit rhetoric was this strange sort of bleary-eyed colonial inspired patriotism. You know, painting Britain as the force of 1940 that stood alone in the world against the Nazis, the evil oppressor of Europe. Plenty of the Tory MP Brexit doughnuts were doing it. 

Where is it that it comes from, I don't know? Perhaps it's born out of the reality of Britain no longer being a world power anymore. Its hard for anyone to argue otherwise, so they invoke ideas of colonialism when Britain ruled the waves and disliked the French. 

I think it's also fair to say that France is romanticised by so many in this country, and many more in France (they do love themselves, do.thr French). It's a beautiful country of fine wine and food, arts, architecture, history and philosophy. 

Ruddy faced British Conservatives find all that quite threatening. All they have is their bigotry,  superiority complexes and erectile dysfunction. 

I need to get this off my chest. 

That was **** shit, and we've been **** shit at defending all season. We're a soft touch, turn up and we'll give a goal head start. 

Unless Samatta is the second coming of Messi and Pele combined, we're doomed. My faith is at an all time low. 

I might have changed my mind at full time mind, but as it stands I've lost faith in Smith's ability to keep us up. 

He's the sort of player you would expect a team like us to have. 

40 minutes ago, nick76 said:

I don’t understand this.  
 

We’ve basically kept him half a transfer window i.e. this one.  Only really Spurs were interested before then and the best you could argue to outsiders was he was too good for the championship.  We all know he’s got talent better than that but this ‘how on earth we’ve managed to keep hold of’ malarkey is false.  

To outsiders he’s a very talented player in a poor team with only half a season of top flight experience.  They still fawn over Maddison, Mount and co.  We know he’s better but outsiders will need more than half a season, I think summer will be the first time we’ll see any real interest whether we stay up or go down.  

If we stay up, it still maybe too soon for the kind of money we want and we don’t have to sell for pennies and i don’t think Jack will force a move.  If we go down he’ll go for decent money.

but this ‘how on earth we’ve managed to keep hold of’ malarkey is off the mark.  we know what we’ve got but others are only just starting to take serious notes now.

I think you're taking me too literally, I agree with you. 

Impressed with the fight in this team, but not the quality. 

How on earth we've managed to keep hold of Grealish this long us remarkable. He really is a top player. 

Mings was very good also. 

I thought everyone else was pretty average. Hause was pants and I'm not sure about Drinkwater, but he's obviously not match sharp yet. 

5 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

We've got a once in a generation player and we're not getting him the ball - we've isolated him through our own tactical choices. We're a mess.

 

It's unbelievable that Smith has decided that the best compromise is to move Grealish out wide to accommodate El Ghazi up front. We would be better off with Elmo at right wing, Trezeguet in the left, El Ghazi up front and Grealish in the middle, where he can get more of the ball. 

I have to say, it's a bit of a political risk celebrating implementing a political policy that has divided the country so much. 

It'll hardly get remainders on side having a light show to celebrate a moment they hoped would never happen. It'll be used again the government in the hard times ahead.

It just goes to shows how Johnson and his cronies have stoked division and shown contempt for huge swathes of the country. 

5 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

They really don't, they need to completely abandon it altogether.

They need to be a social democratic party, not a democratic socialist one. Anyone who thinks Socialism should still be a thing should probably go and read Schumpeter. This is precisely the problem with Labour, it is overrun with individuals who want to use the parties significant platform as a vector for getting socialism out there in the public consciousness. In so doing it will only degenerate into a sort of activist function and thus handing Tories power for a generation.

I think you're right to some extent and the distinction is important. They're a coalition of socialist ideals, but social democracy is more likely to succeed with the electorate than their current policy platform.

The Labour leadership candidates are being coy about their ideas for policy positions in the future (apart from 10/10 RLB) and I do sense there will be a move in the right direction under Starmer. When asked about nationalisation recently he used the probation service as his first primary example of a service that needs to be nationalised and then said something about the railways. The probation service renationalisation is an absolute no brainer, it's a disgrace at the moment and nationalised railways and bus services are something that most people can get on board with.

I hope he can ween idealistic Corbynists off the idea of attempting to convert everyone to full blown socialism, cus it ain't gonna work. 

39 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Or not pander to the old gits, wait 10 years for that demographic to die off and win a landslide using basically the 2019 manifesto...

Woaa, I suggest you check the demographic information. That is categorically not going to happen. The demographics that Labour struggle with are not going away. To win an election they need to gain a good amount of votes from socially conservative, but economically left voters (old gits that voted Labour in the past, but don't anymore) and they need to win back all of the votes of socially liberal, but more centrist economic voters that they lost to the Lib Dems. 

LabourTogether are in the process of an election review, that sounds about as non partisan as Labour can manage, it'll be interesting to see what their conclusions are, which will be released just before the end of the leadership election. 

"Not pandering to the old gits" means ignoring the concerns of voters. Which leads to losing elections. It also indicative of a culture in Labour that seeks to blame the electorate for their choices. It's almost like "you're either with us or against us, and if you're against us, we don't want you". Which doesn't seem like a particularly astute democratic position to me..

Labour can go full throttle with the far left socialism of nationalising everything again if they want. If they do, I'm out, because that is a policy platform that can't win.

Labour need to make the case for socialism, they're a democratic socialist party afterall. 

I'm sorry if it seems like I've jumped on you @Jareth , I'm not directing all my criticism towards you personally. I'm just expressing concerns based on wider observations that I've made, and challenging your statement which I see to be perceived wisdom amongst some elements of the party. 

I think it's fair to say that I'm as guilty as anyone else in Labour for their demise. I joined (and left) because of Jeremy Corbyn. I'm actually back in again, I'm giving it another go, to vote for leader that isn't going to kill the party. It's also fair to say that my views have shifted in the last 18 months as I've watched Labour rip itself apart. I can't get on board with another leader offering the same policy platform or leadership style, and ultimately lack of leadership as Corbyn did.

The party needs to be united to win. Corbyn could never do that, and neither can RLB. I think probably the only candidate that could bridge the division is Starmer, but I've not made my mind up yet. 

8 hours ago, peterms said:

Well, it scans, but it's not right.

 

Jesus wept, they don't learn do they?

They're projecting Corbyn's image, ideological purity and even his song onto RLB.

The guy that just got thumped in an election. 

Mind you, she's encouraged them by giving him a 10/10 for Labours biggest loss since the 1930s. 

More of the same means more of the same. As bewildering as it is to have to point out, but more of the same, means more division, a fractured party and further loses. 

I describe RLB as the 'nightmare' choice. Probably a bit disingenuous of me because Emily Thornberry would be worse, but she'll never get it.

10 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Spot the barrister.

Spot the savvy operator. 

Starmer and Nandy are absolutely streets ahead of the others in terms of competency.

9 hours ago, bickster said:

In my book it makes her an idiot but what did that make Corbyn? A Tory Plant too? (there's a big argument for yes here btw)

Is it? Not convinced personally. I want a party leader prepared to take us back in and more to the point so will many of the demogrphic Labour need to get elected. They never understood this then and they still don't

I don't think rejoin will be the priority of many to be honest, and I say that as part of the now core Labour demographic who voted for remain

In fact, as an ardent remainer, I would swerve any candidate that advocates rejoining at this stage. It would indicate an accute lack of political savvy. 

Brexit has proved to be an issue that Labour cannot win on. Trying to replay the arguements of the last 4 years after losing the argument twice would just serve to further entrench the losses Labour made in traditional homelands and annoy remainers (such as myself!) that accept begrudgingly that the Conservatives have a mandate to go through with Brexit. 

The arguement now moves to, what sort of post-Brexit country do we want? 

Certainly not the shit show that we're about to see. 

Rejoin won't be palatable until it all goes wrong. Even then, leavers will want us to see it through. 

9 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

From my very uninformed, layman point of view, not knowing much about any of the candidates really apart from Jess Phillips, I like the look of Nandy

From my obsessive following of this campaign so far, Lisa Nandy is by far the only candidate that truly understands the significance of their loss and the change in their electoral demographic. 

I like her talk about devolution and social Conservatism. As a social liberal who lives around social conservatives I get it too. 

If Labour don't broaden their church again and do it quick, they're in real danger of become a footnote in history. 

I'm not sure that the 'the far left' of the party really get her though, she voted in favour of Brexit which to many ignorant members makes her a 'Tory plant' or 'Red Tory'. Brexit history is neither here nor there for me now, considering that debate is over. 

Anyway, I'm not sure who my order of preference is yet, but Kier Starmer and Lisa Nandy are standing out for me.

58 minutes ago, sne said:

"perhaps in a disproportionate manner" 

I thought this was so **** retarded that it was fake. But it isn't fake. The President of a great nation is saying that he will instruct the military to act "...in a disproportionate manner". 

I feel like Iran will feel that they need to retaliate in a way that is open and clear. IE not in the behind closed doors war that is currently raging. 

But I'm also convinced that Iran will not want to risk an open conflict with America, because who really wants to take the Americans on in a fight? 

16 hours ago, mjmooney said:

The fact that Jeff Buckley - one (admittedly excellent) album is far better known than Tim Buckley - nine astonishingly varied albums. 

"Once I was" is one of my favourite songs. I don't know that much about his 10 albums though. 

1 hour ago, bickster said:

Which is why anyone voting for Ian Lavery needs their bumps felt.

His supposed consideration of standing must be a smoke and mirrors exercise to make RBL seem like a reasonable option, or some  other chicanery

Most reasonable people wouldn't employ him to walk their dog for fear it'd be sold... the dog consented, it wanted to be sold and it wanted me to keep the money. Proof? well thats between me and the dog, its a private matter

That's right, but the horrifying irony of the situation is that Boris Johnson is one dodgy bastard, but because he likes a pint, makes a jape now and then and ruffles his hair up (some) people (who lack critical thinking skills) see him as a loveable rouge. 

Labour as they are now, with a strong socially liberal, educated core, would reject such a figure and vote Green.

Lavery and Long-Bailey would be awful Labour leaders. 

My conclusion is that 5 years is a long time in politics, it isn't important that the next Labour leader is ideological pure or loves the manifesto or has lots of policy ideas now. The electorate are suspicious of idealogical leaders, they don't trust their motives.

Labour need a strategic leader who will will pick apart the Tories on the mess they will inevitably make of country and the opportunities Brexit will deliver for the opposition to exploit. They need someone who can win an argument whilst stopping the party from self destructing. 

The only credible candidate from this early stage is Kier Starmer. Being a remainer will be neither here nor there once Brexit is in motion, but it will help to be on the right side of the arguement when things go tits up, but broaching that issue will be require nuance. "I told you so, Socialism is the only way" won't work. 

Starmer is used to winning really important arguements, he looks and appears middle class, but is from a humble background. He's palatable enough to the Momentum types, and will be able to bring on board the more traditional centrists in the party. He is talking about uniting the party and getting the messaging right, he criticised the waves of confusing policy, and lack of economic credibility of Corbyn. 

The other candidates fill me with dread. 

It's an important time for Labour. They'll get one more stab at retaining their broad church, big party status, if they appoint a Corbyn continuity candidate, they'll suffer further humiliating defections, or another breakaway party. There's no appetite for full blown socialism. If that's the party they want to be then they will be the party of opposition. 

Worry about policy in 4 years time, a year before the election. Get real, play real politk and oppose the Tories at every turn. 

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

Sky feeling they have to publicly distance themselves from Neville’s comment that racism is bad.

I have to say, I admire Gary Neville for having the courage to talk candidly about racism on Sky. 

They'll be looking to drop him now. 

5 hours ago, lapal_fan said:

Get a room bum boys.

I can say that now, right? 

Of course you can, just make sure you distribute your prejudices equally. Equality is important.