Rayvin

Does this even really matter? I mean, if it turns out that the takeover could have gone through, that doesn't mean it's suddenly back on the table, does it? I guess I can see an argument that we wouldn't be pursuing this if we hadn't had indications that the takeover would still be an option, but I can also see the argument that Ashley will want to extract some kind of settlement or compensation with or without the Saudis coming back into the picture.

As ever, if you added up all the left/centre left parties (I'll graciously add the LDs to that), we're ahead. Never thought I'd say it but maybe we really do need UKIP back.

Greens ahead of the LDs. That's starting to feel consistent. And I mean yes, it's fairly clear that Starmer isn't pulling up any trees here. Hopefully he's a good campaigner when the time comes but I suspect stuff like this is just going to throw him evermore into the arms of the 'red wall' voters.

And yet very "Britain, 2021"

Tories are considering putting up taxes, Labour are urging them not to. What kind of batshit parallel universe have we stumbled into?

It'll be a stage managed death by a thousand cuts, man. People won't notice because it'll be slow as fuck and leave voters will be doing their utmost to find the positives. We need to stop ceding ground to these people.

Aye and he took the same approach that we now apparently laud Starmer for. Pragmatic compromise. And for all Corbyn's "pragmatism" was a confusing, unstructured and poorly thought through mess, Starmer's is a clear and wholesale concession - and while yes, the ship has sailed, he's treating it like it's out at sea and approaching its destination, rather than having left the port and immediately started taking on water, which is the reality. Apart from his Brexit stance, which I consider short sighted and actually fairly desperate, I don't blame him for anything particularly. He doesn't risk enough to get anything right or wrong, at least not so far. Ultimately Starmer wants everyone to move on from Brexit as much as Johnson does, maybe more - and that's because Labour are fucked if it remains on the agenda. Which it will, because the damage will still be felt in 5 years time, and that broad church will be screaming at each other across the aisle. He cannot win with the approach he's taking unless Brexit goes sideways so monumentally that the Tories start tanking to the tune of about 10%, so I see little point in mollycoddling him. He's barely present and unless he grows a spine and a vision with some urgency, he's going to be a footnote in this country's shameful recent history. If he proves me wrong then more power to him, I'll certainly welcome it should it happen. But as it stands I'm sticking with my 10-15 years of Tory rule prediction. Brexit has annihilated Labour.

Corbyn at least tried to argue for a version of Brexit that wouldn't be a total fiasco - Starmer on the other hand has waved through the current deal without expressing any concern whatsoever. As shit as Corbyn was on Brexit, Starmer has outdone him. I'm really struggling to see Starmer as the next PM. He's no more electable than Corbyn was based on the evidence we're seeing at the moment. He's barely even fucking visible. EDIT - he's currently running third as 'best man for the PM job' with Yougov, behind Johnson in first and 'I don't know' in second. I suppose you could argue that the I don't know group have to break one way or the other in the end but that's still not a hugely encouraging sign IMO.

Grimes was a Lib Dem originally if I recall correctly? Then he jumped ship when he saw profit in the opportunity to spread false right wing talking points. He's reaping what he sowed on that front so it's tough to feel sorry for him. He's not some hapless, ignorant commentator who is the product of a right wing upbringing and a general lack of political education - he's someone who should know better, who indeed does know better, and who chooses profit from ignoring those things.

A lot of it is completely irrational, that's the problem. They're trying to stick the knife in because that's what they perceive happened to Corbyn. Many of the arguments they're throwing at Starmer qualify as fake news IMO. There's actually now a reasonable body of work that you can fairly criticise Starmer on, but the stuff they're going for is basically conspiracy theory twaddle.

I'm sorry like but "billion pound potential" from an energy drink? Maybe with his data arm, if that's set up under the same name, but I'm not exactly clear on what kind of data an energy drink manufacturer is able to get access to about their consumers that would be worth billions. He'll have paid the guy to come in and give him a PR story and almost certainly will have framed the 'billion pound potential' question along the lines of "We currently sell 10 sports drinks a year for £1 each. We plan to sell a billion + a year - do you agree that this would make us a £billion potential company?" "Yes, strange homeless man, that is basic maths. Now pay up my £10,000 per day 'consulting' fee".

It's hard to say I guess - they do still think of themselves as temporary residents in League 1, just beset each year by incompetence. But increasingly they're losing the players and status that such an argument relies on. I actually think the worst outcome for them in the short term would be promotion tbh - they'd soon realise just how far they've fallen.

What was he good at as a player? I can't really remember.

The other perplexing thing about this is what they think would happen if they did get the media attention they want? Somehow that would force the club into spending money or hiring a new manager or whatever it is they think the problem is? All it would do is remind people that they're a joke. The media are doing them a favour.

I mean they had a Netflix series documenting the whole fucking thing tbf.

1. Brexit 2. Happier Fish 3. ??? 4. Profit

I just mean it's a really pointless and divisive argument from their point of view that does neither side any favours whatsoever. I think Meenz is right about why it happens.

Damn, that's a weird one indeed.

As scary as that decision making process is, was he right?

I mean, she knew it was possible but gambled that it wouldn't happen before the vaccine came along. Now she's saying whatever seems vaguely plausible to avoid accountability for that decision. I guess you could call that incompetence, but I feel like cynical calculating and weighing human life against expenditure and effort would more exhaustively sum it up. As far as her bosses (and their objectives) are concerned, she's very competent, I'm sure.

I don't think they are morons really, I think the best way to refer to them now is 'differently informed'. They're now very politically aware compared to a few years ago, and therefore much less likely to pay attention to platitudes. And those who aren't informed probably couldn't even pick Starmer out of a line-up.

Maybe. And maybe it's standing in front of a flag. I doubt it though.

Abandoning the EU for one thing, but we all know my position on that and I'm aware of your views too. But he's going to have to offer them things for this to work - and I'd go so far as to say that they will have to be things of actual substance. This is what concerns me. I mean I guess there's a reality here where apart from betraying remainers, he does nothing else whatsoever to appease social conservatives - in which case fine, but the whole strategy is doomed to fail, making his displays rather pointless. Do you think these working class leave voters are going to vote for him just because he stands in front of the fucking flag?

Farage can do exactly what Starmer's trying and failing to do, would probably jump at it, and it would free Starmer up to actually stick to his guns on Labour values while granting Farage compromise concessions here and there which everyone would understand would be to bring about a system that isn't as fucking useless as FPTP. Everyone feels represented by their party and we all get the outcome we want. 4 million people voted for Farage's party before Brexit, he'd be a useful asset and he'd love the attention. It'd be sickening but this whole thing is sickening to me anyway - so I'd rather it actually worked if we have to go through it.

Agreed in terms of the facts, but not in terms of the narrative - and the narrative is now miles away from what reality is. We have consistently failed, under Brown, Miliband, Corbyn and very likely now Starmer, to be heard on economics. And the Tories are now outflanking us on it anyway. So I do get it, why Starmer is changing tack - but then economics can't and won't become the winning part of this argument. Starmer would in effect be asking people like us to ignore all of the bullshit he will bring about to appease the socially conservative voters, while at the same time asking us to vote to make their lives better (and it is them more than us who will benefit from a Labour government, economically). I just don't see it. I think Brexit killed that, honestly. The amount of contempt between the two groups is not going to permit that unity.