juanpabloangel18

2 hours ago, magnkarl said:

It's like when Corbyn would flood a constituency with momentum-activists and 'vote'

Sounds awfully undemocratic... 

33 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I don’t think you’re supposed to vote Labour based on this sort of thought process.

The idea is, we need the tories out so vote Labour and make a wish.

 

I read an article in the New Statesman which basically suggested this is all part of the GE campaign, i.e. KS fighting with and purging left wing people from the party is good optics for middle England voters. Am not sure what the optics of people like Luke Akehurst are meant to be.

Maybe it's a good strategy in the short term. We'll see. But I don't think any of this will be soon forgotten once he's in power, and perhaps he'll then have a different problem on his hands. 

So this Luke Akehurst guy seems nice, although he's deleted about 2000 tweets this week so it's hard to check. I also note that he chairs Labour MP selection panels! Who'd have thought!

So - nothing remotely troubling at all about a fully paid up lobbyist for a pariah state (Israel) deselecting democratically elected candidates and then himself being parachuted into a safe seat.

Starmer really doing his best Stalin impression yet this week. What a dreadful time to be a social democrat.

30 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

the fact remains that being a member of one of those groups will not make you such an obvious visible target for abuse and violence on the level that has been faced by afro-caribbean and south Asian people in Britain since the 1950s. 

Interestingly (and further demonstrating that Abbott's letter was stupid and she was right to apologise), the article she was responding to by Tomiwa Owolade pointed out the Evidence for Equality National Survey report says that Gyspy Traveller and Roma people, and Jewish people self report as the most racially abused minorities in the UK (before going on to say that one data point shouldn't necessarily be gospel).

I totally agree with your overall point though, and I think a lot of criticism of DA is disingenuous at best.

30 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

I think Diane Abbott is a selective anti-racist campaigner

From the Jewish Chronicle: 

Quote

 

The letter came as a particular shock, Rabbi Gluck continued, because of Abbott’s previous commitment to her heavily Charedi constituency.

“Diane has worked passionately for the community,” he said. 

“She has helped us with shechita, with immigration issues, with the Shomrim.

“She’s done a tremendous amount for the black community, the Jewish community and her constituents at large. 

 

Jewish Voice for Labour:

Quote

 

The wording of Diane’s letter was unfortunate in that it appeared to compare forms of racism. Diane has rightly apologised for this.

All racism is abhorrent – and she has always fought against it.

 

17 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Is her 'first draft' letter not enough?

It's uniquely racist to hold your race above others. She diminished the suffering of Roma, Travellers and Jews in one fell swoop by comparing their suffering to being bullied for your hair colour, and by then pointing out that her race is the ultimate victim of racism. By also stating that these three minorities are just 'white' she essentially said that they have no racial identity. I presume it's also okay to say that to people who are BAME but with slightly paler complexions than her? 

It's racist, and you could even go as far as saying that it's denying minorities their racial heritage.

Here are some other DA statements:

The Guardian Profile: Diane Abbott

BBC

Change the colour of the statements, see how you feel.

The statements are stupid and poorly worded so I've no interest in defending them, and you've applied your own understanding of her intentions. My more generous interpretation of what she said in the draft letter is that when you're dark skinned in a white majority country you face a different kind of prejudice. Is that really controversial? 

Her swiftly issued apology said: 

Quote

Racism takes many forms and it is completely undeniable that Jewish people have suffered its monstrous effects, as have Irish people, Travellers and many others

Her record as an MP is that she has consistently voted to advance the causes of under privileged people regardless of race. 

I of course agree that black people can be racist I just don't agree that she is - she's clumsy 

2 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Is it? From the looks of her opinions and speeches, it really isn't. I know it hurts when all the leftist headliners are found out to be as dumb as their counterparts on the right, but she has a record of saying and doing really dumb and racist things.

Yes. It is.

Her voting record is anti racist. I can quickly google dozens of speeches she's made warning against islamophobia and antisemitism throughout her career.

Can you find me evidence of her "racism" that isn't a link to the Daily Telegraph or Jewish Chronicle?

(That she is "dumb" is an entirely different argument, and if you like, we can get into the double standards applied to different types of people in public life.)

34 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

She has a very narrow definition of racism which only constitutes that of her own race

Sorry but this is ill informed right wing  bollocks

15 hours ago, ml1dch said:

Diane Abbott out apparently, and not allowed to stand for Labour.

Back in, as a gesture, but not allowed to stand. And seems pretty clear KS has lied repeatedly to the media about the process. 

Very grimy stuff when considered against the likes of Neil Coyle, Stephen Reid, Barry Sherman, all of whom currently have the labour whip and said (IMO) worse things than DA.

7 hours ago, choffer said:

I’m beginning to wonder if our Laura is a bit worried about this election. 

Impartiality, my arse.

 

I genuinely think her appointment as BBC's chief political correspondent / political editor over the last ten years has been a significant factor in the decline of this nation.

https://bylinetimes.com/2022/03/30/laura-kuenssberg-bbc-political-editor-was-a-catastrophic-systemic-failure/
 

Quote

 

What they got was a journalist with access to the upper reaches of the Government, with a determination to get on air and tell everyone the whispers that she had heard from ministers, advisors and officials – before Sky or ITN.

What the BBC needed was someone who could take a step back, away from the scrum, and tell audiences when they were being lied to. That was something neither the BBC nor Kuenssberg has ever come to terms with.

There are so many examples of why this was bad both for the BBC and the UK’s political system in the years that followed. It began with the Leave campaign making lying a central part of its strategy during the Brexit referendum. The BBC’s response was to ‘balance’ these lies with information from the other side – rather than using their editorial judgement to call out when something was blatantly and dangerously false.

Kuenssberg’s approach to the job complimented this. Access was crucial. She would ring up (or be rung) by the top people in the Leave campaign, get a response and get on air. It didn’t matter whether the audience had a better understanding of the issues, all that mattered was beating her broadcasting opposite numbers to the story.

Scoops were seemingly all important, even if they just involved parroting Dominic Cummings – who masterminded the Vote Leave operation – before Robert Peston did.

For the first time in my lifetime – the Prime Minister and those around him lied unashamedly. And they lied, knowing that their dishonest version of events would be repeated by Kuenssberg.

 

13 hours ago, SJSharky said:

If I understand the registration rules correctly (quite possible that I don't), while Duran, Nedeljkovic and Lino Sousa count as U21 players in the PL, they can not be named in the UCL B List, because they've not been at the club for 2 years. Therefore they would take one of the 17 non-home grown spots.

Yeah this rule pickled me every year in my FM Villa save where I would sign promising U21 players forgetting they weren't actually very helpful for the UCL squad rules

Edit: I like that you've highlighted the potential importance of activating the buybacks on JPB or Archer for UCL purposes (or even Jack... )

2 hours ago, MotoMkali said:

Cause you can amortise it. The issue then becomes you have to raise an extra 50 mil every season. 

Absolutely has not sunk in yet. What a moment. A feeling of euphoria that won't fade for a long time.

A couple of initial thoughts:

- We can absolutely get to the CL playoffs and knockouts next year, with a couple of giant killings along the way for good measure. I genuinely believe this. 

- We can absolutely challenge for top 4 again next season and beyond, and I sort of expect us to if we recruit well. 1 - think about how unlucky we were with key injuries this year and we still managed it. Klopp will be gone. Chelsea squad will still be a mess. United and Spurs, who tf knows. 2 - We did on merit. Our form in the previous season under Unai warranted a top 4 finish too. It seems unlikely we will drop off for several years, with him at the helm.

2 hours ago, jimmygreaves said:

He's been generally awful

Jesus

1 minute ago, Villan_of_oz said:

The first paragraph isn't even remotely accurate, it is your opinion and that is fine. 

Smaller trophies?? we haven't won any trophy in just under 30 years....

I can guarantee you that Unai does not share your opinion and I'm absolutely glad of that.

So I guess you won't even watch the ECL final if we make then, and you'll just go to bed if we win it...

I think most sensible fans agree that it's fine to rest players for cup games. And Emery has consistently said the most important competition we're involved in is the PL - you can look this up if you want.

The rest, I cba

3 hours ago, Villan_of_oz said:

Apparently trophies aren't that important either

The vast majority of fans advocate rotating the team for league and FA cup games to keep the team fresh to play in the PL. Every single PL team does it, it's routine. If smaller trophies were so important,  this wouldn't happen. Everyone knows finishing as high as possible in the PL is the priority, and that's absolutely fine.

There is also nothing wrong with keeping an eye on whether 5th in the PL gets CL football (and I find it odd that people seem to take issue with that). It's an entertaining side show and adds another dimension of interest to high level games that otherwise have nothing to do with us - and what a privilege that is!

Although we'll get both, Champions League qualification over a UECL trophy all day for me.

• The UECL is cute little tournament, but it has no history or prestige. It was invented in 2021. It would be brilliant to win it, but, see below.
• There's no qualification round in the UCL next year. Once you're in, you're in a massive group and we'd be in the worst pot of teams, so we'd definitely be drawn against some European giants. Villa in a competitive match European match against Madrid, Barca, Bayern? Beating one of those teams at VP under the lights? Imagine!
• People saying 'it'd be a footnote of history' - I just disagree. Villa have not been in Europe's elite competition for over 40 years. It would be a historic achievement to be in it. And I definitely remember when Spurs got in under Redknapp, Leeds got in, Newcastle got in, etc. 
• If our squad get the experience of playing in the CL against elite European opposition, think about what that could do for their development under Unai. Who knows where that could take us.
• We'd probably be able to keep all of our players, whereas we probably wouldn't if we don't. Revenue, long term club health, all improved. People ignoring this fact are the same ones that will be moaning if we have to ship off Jacob or Dougie in the summer if we don't get in.
• Unai will win a trophy at Villa. We may not have a better chance of UCL qualification than we have this season, for several years.

But yeah both

Something is just off with this lad, and I won't miss him. The vibe just isn't right. Was incredibly thirsty for a goal at first (to the detriment of the team), his body language is consistently bad, waving his arms around in frustration like a petulant child. Silly fouls in good attacking areas too.

And don't get me started on him running into the crowd to celebrate an equalizer at home when there was time on the clock to go for a winner.

Yes he's not been his normal self, but he's been out for a long time with a serious injury, and his sharpness hasn't quite returned yet. There have been glimpses. It'll click soon

PS check out this 20 year old Portugese regen I just signed:

Beginning to think this pre-season tour of China was a bad decision

2 hours ago, MotoMkali said:

The biggest thing I've noticed about him is that he's very ponderous on the ball. It's all well and good being able to carry the ball 50 yards and pick a pass. But against good teams we need to play with mroe tempo to break the press and shift the defence to one side then the other to create more space for our wingers and midfielders. 

But the way we are playing, we're extremely patient with the ball in our own defensive third. We pass and probe and then only transition forward with numbers very quickly once there's an opportunity to break through the lines. I think he looks perfect for that approach, personally.