[Siderite]

Why is it that whenever Brazil have a half-decent performance, we have commentators purring over them as if they are champions elect? Brazil looked the better side than Scotland, but the Scots did threaten them at times, and better teams may exploit that. Yet, the commentators I had on were speaking as if that was some all time classic Brazil performance, where no team could possibly defeat them. They weren’t that good; they had Vini and Cunha threaten, but other times, they looked vulnerable. Netherlands or Japan could well beat them and I would laugh if they did, given how much fawning they got today for what was a standard solid performance.

[Siderite]

I thought we were good in game 1, but that was not very good. That said, we drew with worse and played worse with Southgate. Still, I am not convinced about a deep run. Quarters, I feel.

1 user thanked author for this post.

alcazar

[Siderite]

Deereyme66 wrote:

The mob got what they wanted. How long before they’re chanting ‘Andy Burnham is a w***er’ till they finally get who they really want in power? Farage.

Not even waiting until he becomes PM:

https://x.com/GBPolitcs/status/2069426033510502571

[Siderite]

And, for clarity, I bring up the actions of who they support to demonstrate that they weren’t quite so kindly and for context. It’s an offence to support a proscribed group and that is what they were doing, so their arrests were perfectly legal. Just as it would be for any other banned group, be it Islamist or far-right. Starmer may have set in motion the banning, but when that is done, the police need to enforce the law as it stands and people are not above the law, no matter their age and how presentable they appear.

I was not speaking of the actions of PA with intent to say you support that, but to hammer home the reality of them supporting criminal thugs. I don’t intend to imply that anyone with a different view is like them. However, any criticism of Starmer should be about his decision to proscribe them, because arrests for supporting proscribed groups come from long before Starmer, but given the nature of PA I can understand why there were bans. Even if the terrorist reading may be more in contention.

[Siderite]

Siderite wrote:

I did find the left turning a blind eye to a group of radicalised thugs who used GBH against a police woman staggering. Violent assault for the cause is ok if you self-identify as having the ‘right views’. Oh, and you support ‘genocide’ if you don’t think a bunch of self-righteous thugs can go round committing crimes for the cause without consequence.

Not saying this is your view at all, but the thugs in question deserved the punishment they ended up getting, no matter the pious pleas of their fans saying how ‘caring’ and ’empathic’ they are. They clearly had none for those trying to enforce the law; potenital life changing injuries or death is ok for them.

However, this is the modus operandi of Palestine Action and why they were proscribed. As such, supporters coming out to express fandom for this group will face arrest, just as far-right fans of prohibited far-right groups would. Being old or presenting themselves more respectably than your stereotpical National Action thug doesn’t mean they should face different consequences. I had reservation about labelling PA as a terrorist group, but they are still a radicalised group that aim to disrupt important state apparatus, like defence.

No state would accept that because the culprits think they’re so moral (everyone thinks they have morality) and if they think they are being silenced, they should question why they would be able to protest with no issue if they weren’t trying to disrupt state apparatus or thwack police with slegdehammers for doing their jobs.

Correction for brain fart

[Siderite]

billpuntonsghost wrote:

As expected the question is not answered.

I think previous comments should be a strong indicator as to what I think of national mood without Starmer.

[Siderite]

I did find the left turning a blind eye to a group of radicalised thugs who used GBH against a police woman staggering. Violent assault for the cause is ok if you self-identify as having the ‘right views’. Oh, and you support ‘genocide’ if you think a bunch of self-righteous thugs can go round committing crimes for the cause without consequence.

Not saying this is your view at all, but the thugs in question deserved the punishment they ended up getting, no matter the pious pleas of their fans saying how ‘caring’ and ’empathic’ they are. They clearly had none for those trying to enforce the law; potenital life changing injuries or death is ok for them.

However, this is the modus operandi of Palestine Action and why they were proscribed. As such, supporters coming out to express fandom for this group will face arrest, just as far-right fans of prohibited far-right groups would. Being old or presenting themselves more respectably than your stereotpical National Action thug doesn’t mean they should face different consequences. I had reservation about labelling PA as a terrorist group, but they are still a radicalised group that aim to disrupt important state apparatus, like defence.

No state would accept that because the culprits think they’re so moral (everyone thinks they have morality) and if they think they are being silenced, they should question why they would be able to protest with no issue if they weren’t trying to disrupt state apparatus or thwack police with slegdehammers for doing their jobs.

[Siderite]

Resigning is a bit of an odd decision for someone who was building a totalitarian state, apparently.

[Siderite]

Youtube and other social media influencers, especially now they are being seen on TV. Self-centred egos out for drama. As amusing as it was to see Zlatan Ibrahimovic shut that Ishowspeed prat down when he was claiming Portugal would win the world cup because of Ronaldo (alongside past comments about being faster than Zlatan and other stupid comments to get views), it seemed scripted when the camerman then decided to follow the idiot around, acting like some child. I am also forever seeing Thogden and his cringeworthy antics, acting like every football game is amazing, like he is some big name with players and clickbait rubbish. Another one I have seen on Sky as some serious figure. Now we have Mark Goldbridge doing “what’s this overreaction to a heatwave nonsense, wasn’t like this in my day” Daily Mail tosh on twitter.

[Siderite]

The pensioners who were showing how much they believe in peace by supporting a group of vandals who had slegehammered a policewoman.

[Siderite]

To be fair, I think the hypocrisy from politicians and silly games is part of the reason why trust is so low, but people do excuse it for their own side and vilify it from others.

Darren Jones and Al Carns rumoured to be thinking of leadership runs.

[Siderite]

alcazar wrote:

Siderite wrote:

The state pension fund has never been about taking money away for future use. The money taken away through taxes has always been to fund current pensioners. The money they took from you or anyone 20, 30, 40 years ago was to fund the retirees of then, not for you. The amount you get is based off your NI to see how much you’re entitled to, but the money comes from today’s taxes, not from some stored pot anyone paid into.

But that was the idea.
Pot of money, stored, invested.
But they couldn’t resist spending it.
Now they whine.
Look it up.

It hasn’t worked that way, so my original point stands. The state pension is something the current workers pay for and will be a contribution to lack of growth in our stagnant economy. It’s a challenge for our governments that they haven’t faced and this belief about pension pots paid into over time funding the state pension makes it harder for the government to find solutions because no-one will be happy.

The country faces hard decisions and challenges, which will likely take years to address, but we all want immediate solutions and this causes rapid decline in trust in the PM. As we have seen over the past decade. I don’t think the next PM will change this, Burnham or otherwise. None have shown much will to address it. Starmer tried somewhat and got stick, so we’re left with pretending there can be no short term harm in trying to rebuild a more affordable economy, where wages can match expenditure. Which will lead to the next PM likely facing the same loss of trust when reality bites.

1 user thanked author for this post.

alcazar

[Siderite]

The state pension fund has never been about taking money away for future use. The money taken away through taxes has always been to fund current pensioners. The money they took from you or anyone 20, 30, 40 years ago was to fund the retirees of then, not for you. The amount you get is based off your NI to see how much you’re entitled to, but the money comes from today’s taxes, not from some stored pot anyone paid into.

[Siderite]

alcazar wrote:

Looks like he’s going, then?

I hope we get a leadership challenge and it isn’t just a coronation for Andy. For one, it would be a way to test him in a leadership electoral system. Rayner and Streeting have shown interest, so could run.

Out of that lot, I am currently leaning Rayner, but not enthralled by any and think thd problems in the country are too deep, with a system not favourable for any PM.

Though, I don’t think Starmer, for his many weaknesses needs to account fir handling of grooming gangs while at the CPS. Prosecutors have attested to his willingness to deal with the culprits.

[Siderite]

alcazar wrote:

Siderite wrote:

You don’t pay into any pot for the state pension. The government tracks your national insurance, works out how much you should get from work history and the money comes from taxpayers. It is a benefit and I am not using that term as a pejorative. The only pot for a pension you get is private.

And I can very much believe Russians targeted Starmer given the Russians have targeted other European countries in similar plots, including the UK with Salisbury. It’s very much their MO.

Oh dear.
So near, yet so far.

The money taken for the state pension from the government is to fund current pensioners, not for some magic pot to fund you later. This isn’t an opinion, but fact.

[Siderite]

You don’t pay into any pot for the state pension. The government tracks your national insurance, works out how much you should get from work history and the money comes from taxpayers. It is a benefit and I am not using that term as a pejorative. The only pot for a pension you get is private.

And I can very much believe Russians targeted Starmer given the Russians have targeted other European countries in similar plots, including the UK with Salisbury. It’s very much their MO.

[Siderite]

Deereyme66 wrote:

Don’t agree. Particularly with Restore taking votes from Reform and in a few years possibly Tories making a slight comeback, Labour are anything but cooked.

Yeah, which is why I added the last sentence. However, the country has serious problems with growth a feeling things are deteriorating, with slow increases in living conditions and everything costing more. This, coupled with things like social media polarisation and scapegoating has created a divided and unhappy nation, where there is no popular decision or willing to confront or accept tough decisions.

We have a lot of money spent on the triple lock pension and winter fuel allowance, with an elderly population, and this harms growth. These policies are OK from the principle, but there is a lack of understanding of the consequences in the current environment. Starmer tried to address this, and admittedly set the barrier too low and was forced into an embarrassing u turn, but he at least saw a core problem people weren’t willing to confront. People are disheartened by the economic slowdown, but also don’t like the hard decisions that may be needed to find money to address this. Young people want to have better access to housing, but new housing gets vetoed due to bureaucracy over small things, people want benefits cut, but the largest benefits are pensions, WFA etc. Yet going after that was met with outrage. Brexit has hamstrung the nation and every PM since has soon fallen foul because the decisions needed to be made are unpopular with our economic environment. Starmer has suffered with all of this, alongside his poor charisma, baffling decisions and a hostile press. I don’t see Burnham, or many other MPs, willing to tackle this and the same pattern will repeat, as it has done for every PM since 2016. He already tried to cater for the WASPIs with their unreasonable demands, only to u turn when it was realised how unfeasible this is. None of that, and other arguments made by him, make me think this is a man who can confront the tough decisions and will likely go down a route that may sound good in vibe from the outset among his supporters, but will soon face the reality of the state of the country. As it did with Starmer, and his u turns, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak.

[Siderite]

I think Labour are cooked regardless. The problems facing the country are too deep and we are very divided. I can’t see Burnham being able to address them and his talk and actions fill me with little hope. The saving grave from Reform may be a Reform-Restore split.

[Siderite]

Iron-awe wrote:

Could get more embarrassing for Starmer now as Burnham wins Makerfield by 9000 votes with a 55% share of the votes cast, whatever your views on Burnham he is a very popular figure as opposed to his leader in Number 10.

Andy Burnham’s favourability rating is currently -11 with Yougov, declining and will likely decline further if he becomes PM and reality bites. That rating is higher than Starmer, but I have no faith that he would govern much better. His political games, all for himself, are partly why people are jaded with Labour and Conservative politicians and his ideas are weak and he’s already been u turning on statements.

1 user thanked author for this post.

alcazar

[Siderite]

alcazar wrote:

England look like Southgate 2.0.
Tippy tappy across their penalty area, ten men behind the ball, no outlet, defending a one goal lead.

Won 4-2 though, so an exciting game.

Much has been made of the extra teams diluting quality, but many sides have been a challenge. Cabo Verde and DR of Congo getting good results. Only South Africa, Curacao, Tunisia and Paraguay have been bad so far.

2 users thanked author for this post.

alcazar, Iron-awe

[Siderite]

The current government is Starmer’s, not Burnham’s. No matter how bad Starmer is as PM, he has no obligation to act as if Burnham should just be able to walk into number 10. What is slimy and opportunistic is asking around for an MP to stand down to make way for a by-election that wasn’t necessary, but for the ambition of one person and making sounds about his own government decisions while not being PM. This is more Machiavellian than Starmer with Corbyn.

Some might say this is politics and ambition, but it’s not afforded tk those with the ‘wrong’ vibes.

1 user thanked author for this post.

alcazar

[Siderite]

Didn’t say they were a good side. The fact that I said they had no end product should attest to that.

[Siderite]

If Scotland had 2 fantastic strikers they would have to play far better than that to get anywhere near 6 goals. It is all about the result though, not taking away that aspect, but Scotland’s performance was bad, while Haiti was spirited but with no end product.

[Siderite]

Gutted for Haiti. If they had any kind of end product that could well have been a draw. Scotland were very poor.

[Siderite]

Andrew Neil hasn’t forgotten – he has one on his head for hair.

[Siderite]

On a lighter note, ticks and fleas. At least mosquitos and horse flies are important pollenators, but these blights seem to have little ecological benefits.

[Siderite]

PD needs to control his mouth. Nothing harmful here to others, but loses him credibility.

[Siderite]

Veering slightly towards controversial territory, but trite phrases and self-declarations of belief that seem to make them sound more reasoable than the opponent. Even though it isn’t backed by evidence.

Examples include:

“I am entitled to my opinion” – Everyone is, but not all opinions are equal. If your opinion isn’t backed by evidence, then it isn’t as strong as one with evidence and clinging to this to try and make it sound like it is on a par is illogical and damaging for it to be accepted as some legitimate debating point.

“the right side of history” – How does anyone know what the ‘right side of history’ is? Events are usually morally complex and this trite phrase serves to shut off any self-reflection as whether their beliefs are correct. They can use this to assure themselves that they are to be remembered as the ‘heroes’ of today and everyone else as the villain, when it’s far more healthy to give benefit of the doubt to opponents, unless there is sufficient reason, and when their understanding may be proven to be wrong. Plenty of people in history thought they were on the ‘right side of history’ and were wrong. Just look at the eugenecists.

“Contrarian” – Thinking for yourself is valuable, but this often means “I will believe any old crap because it’s not mainstream and this makes me smart for not following the crowd.” Except there are plenty of beliefs that aren’t mainstream, and just because some people might just accept what they read as true, it doesn’t make opposite views right, nor does believing in fringe views make you some genius. What matters is whether your argument can be backed by evidence, which does often correlate with mainstream beliefs.

[Siderite]

Iron-awe wrote:

Awaywego wrote:

Can’t really blame Trump for the USA holding the tournament it was awarded in 2018, now you can blame the swiss wop who sucks up to all and sundry. (Trump was president when t was given)
The equivalent to our Positive Dave giving away his little trinkets and taking every opportunity to have his photo shoot.

Mmm and the other points a I made about legitimate officials banned and fans who have already paid and are coming over to support their country being banned from the USA by the Trump administration, you are fine with all that I suppose. These are legitimate football fans who you always purport to support every other time?

As much as I dislike Trump, Russia 2018 and Qatar 2022 were worse decisions given the worse natures of their governments and human rights abuses. FIFA were always going to suck up to Trump when they sucked up to Putin and the Sheikhs.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Iron-awe, Awaywego

[Siderite]

CMC wrote:

Iron-awe wrote:

Not sure where the CODs are getting information about our ticket sales from as we cannot find out ourselves about them, probably more close season bullshit I’m guessing, who knows who cares what codheads think anyway.

If you go on their forum, they’ve got a thread on Us, Hull and Lincoln pinned at the top. Only one missing is Grimsby’s most popular team, Liverpool.

500+ pages. Forever on their mind, but many of us think a lot about them, to be fair.

That said, the radio silence from the club is annoying. After last season I thought it was vital the club air something to build fan morale, but it has been the usual lack of communication which builds fan paranoia and concern, which will impact season ticket sales. And any questions gets the eye rolls and disdain from the board in favour of vague positive vibes from Positivity Dave and co that tell us little.

2 users thanked author for this post.

alcazar, Iron-awe

[Author]

Posts