Rayvin

They're the Sunderland of political parties. Short lived and incompetently replaced managers, paedo scandals, Brexit backing, inflated sense of self regard, etc.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/ng-interactive/2022/sep/06/david-squires-on-the-great-var-and-refereeing-crisis-of-2022 Squires having another pop at us but I have to admit I laughed The Death Star's football team. I think I would genuinely be ok with that title.

I'm off down a rabbit hole on this now but the quick and easy answer is seems to be the idea with the former is the government steps back and lets the market get on with it, and the latter has the government serving the market to ensure optimal conditions for capitalist success, bending all of society into its service at the same time. On that definition, Truss is a neoliberal. Rather than letting consumers fail, refuse to pay or go without, as they would do through a laissez faire approach as a reaction to price increases, she is ensuring the market is sustained through the use of public money. That's how I -think- we should interpret this. https://brill.com/view/book/9789004464452/BP000023.xml

Thanks, will listen to this. I'm even providing citations, what more could you want?!

Here, I found a decent academic article on it - came into academic usage in the 1970s. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00131857.2021.1951704 The European model, I just read myself, is social liberalism - a school of thought created by the Germans. Neoliberalism has no interest whatsoever in any state intervention. It seeks to remove trade barriers, remove regulation, and treat all of society like consumers. It is entirely focused on the market, and removing it from government oversight. I think you would struggle to find anyone claiming it was anything other than this. So I would say you're thinking of Social Liberalism. With respect of Blair, in the sense that he was pro-globalization, pro trade, we can say that there were neoliberal elements to philosophy. I don't think that means he was fully neoliberal though, and that should be something you consider too as it means that the government intervention elements, his third way, was actually a blend of neoliberalism and social components. Thus, neoliberalism itself is not about that blend, Blair's approach was. Sort of like saying that there are elements of fascism that all governments demonstrate in some form, but that doesn't make them wholly fascist. The issue with neoliberalism for me is about the transfer of state assets to private entities, usually done for the mass enrichment of those individuals. Any time a state asset is sold, it's a neoliberal move. The market gains control, government loses it. In this case, Truss is taking a huge amount of public money and transferring it to private entities. Thatcher did the same with our oil. Neoliberalism is the mechanism through which this is done - rather than tax or regulate those companies, she is transferring public money.

I've literally just given you the definition of it - and it was called Neoliberalism then, just within academia and not the mainstream. You're the one who said Blair was neoliberal btw, I've not said anything of the sort. I'm just telling you what it actually means. Although I have heard people suggest that he was.

The selling off of UK oil wealth in the 80s to friends of the Tories instead of investing it into a sovereign wealth fund like Norway did would qualify as corruption delivered through the vehicle of Neoliberalism. Which is what this energy policy also is.

Blair didn't invent Neoliberalism and neither did Monbiot. I vaguely feel as though Hayek (not that one MF) might have done? It's a long standing economic policy concerning the transfer of state assets to private ownership. Defined by investopedia as follows: Neoliberalism is a policy model that encompasses both politics and economics. It favors private enterprise and seeks to transfer the control of economic factors from the government to the private sector. Many neoliberal policies concern the efficient functioning of free market capitalism and focus on limiting government spending, government regulation, and public ownership. Neoliberalism is often associated with the leadership of Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister of the U.K. from 1979 to 1990 (and leader of the Conservative Party from 1975 to 1990) and Ronald Reagan, the 40th president of the U.S. from 1981 to 1989. More recently, neoliberalism has been associated with policies of austerity and attempts to cut government spending on social programs.

I think neoliberalism and corruption may be synonyms. PL's understanding is exactly how I have it pinned. The only variant I've ever come across is a misinformed right wing one that equates it with "liberals" in the American sense. It is not that, and that false definition gives the real thing cover. Don't make me link that Monbiot article at you again

It's exactly what it is.

She seems to have a deeply held philosophical belief that this is ok. It's really quite amazing.

Sunderland losing to their local rivals. Local in terms of stature anyway.

The Tories aren't getting back into power though once Truss calls this GE, whether now or in 2 years.

Thank god we got to see the back of Patel at least. May she never be anywhere near the front benches ever again.

Think we need the win here really to avoid losing momentum - They've had a rough start but still a decent team. We're definitely capable if we can just put our chances away.

We are going to be paying for the mistake of ever electing the Tories for the rest of our goddamn lives. Once out of power, the party should be investigated for criminal negligence over the economy and shut the fuck down. It's not even about a difference of opinion anymore, they have ruined everything. Everything they have touched has gone to shit. Yes some of these causes are global in nature but they have left the country so frail and poorly disposed to deal with them because of their self indulgent, corrupt bullshit. We cannot afford to have the Tories in government ever again, they are dangerously incompetent. I think I'm at the stage where I'd join in if there was a move to forcibly remove them from power. We cannot afford any more of their incompetence, we really can't. Cretins like Truss pulling £100bn out of her arse for fucks sake, shit like that has consequences that span decades. I have zero trust in the money being used well or in anything like an optimal way. I have every expectation that we will be forced once again under the Conservatives to accept a lifetime of lower living standards just to indulge these venomous weapons. May they all burn in hell, along with everyone who votes for them from this point forward. Ignorance isn't an excuse anymore.

I still don't think we're quite arguing the same thing here. In terms of outcomes, you're saying you want to go back to a system that would have seen us unfairly penalised 3 times already this season, with the argument being what, this is somehow more consistent and balanced out? VAR needs to be operated correctly, and should not be subject to errors. Totally agree. It's being mishandled in its application clearly. But that's the same issue we have without it, rules being mishandled by human error. So this is what I'm struggling with I guess, I get (and share) the fury over the decision, but how can we argue that the alternative would be an improvement? It makes no sense. The correct argument to have is to demand higher standards for the use of it.

Agree but I just mean that without it, those decisions go against us. I know it got it right rather than doing us a favour, but that's the point really. 3 decisions which it turned around for us to get a justified outcome, that we otherwise wouldn't have had.

It has helped us a lot this season too mind, overturning decisions that would have hurt us. I think that issue at Palace was just incompetence on the part of whoever was officiating it rather than the system itself.

Not quite followed this but what has gone wrong for Leicester exactly? Can't just be Fofana since they only lost him a week ago and they've been dire all season. We might have another chance for Maddison in January if they keep on like this.

This is what he's going to point to as evidence of him being "balanced" the next time he's carrying on like a bellend.

Aye, supporters of Schalke are going to wake up soon to find they've actually been in a previously unknown but deeply intense 30-40 year relationship with Sunderland based on a Schalke fan once having a pint with a mackem who he probably mistook for a Stoke supporter.

Also had no idea about this, but will start paying more attention to Schalke from now on

I always think there's another really significant distinction between the way we talk about them and the way they talk about us though - mostly their threads are discussing NUFC itself, so the club, its results, etc. Their focus and obsession is Newcastle. This thread is discussing their obsession with us, not so much Sunderland itself. Most of their games don't even get a mention on here. We don't talk about their players unless they turn out to be paedos, and only talk about the club directly if its doing something hilarious. If you took out all the discussion in this thread about their obsession with us, I doubt it beats 200 pages in full, even over however many years. None of their threads are focused on what we think about them, it's all directed fully at the club itself. That is the purity of their devotion to NUFC. This thread is schadenfraude, their's is a jealous love letter.

It's going to be a top ten consolidation season, not a European push. Which was all it was ever going to be really unless some absolute gems became available at quite low prices on the transfer market. We're a good team, the players all try, the system is great, I can't really fault any of them for effort - but we just don't have the depth to make sure we always have quality to cover when the key men are out. It's fine though, we'll improve. The thing that should really be satisfying to us at this stage is that the system of play works. It really does. The players have bought into it, and I think at this point we've been consistently good for about half a season, maybe more. That's not a flash in the pan or a purple patch, it's just the level we have now. It's been a great start for both Howe and the new owners. We just need to be patient.