CornwallFox

I might be wrong, but I suspect there's probably no such thing as 'failing' vetting. In exactly the same way as that's no such thing as a footballer 'failing ' a medical. It's a determination of risk. If a club really wants a player they might accept more risk around potential future injuries. If a prime minister really wants an ambassador, civil servants might deal with risk in a different way to enable the appointment. It may well not al be a yes or no issue in the first place. Though if it isn't, you'd think starmar would have said that. But then he isn't the best communicator it turns out.

Dominic Cummings was never vetted at all. Whether starmar should go or not, tbh I don't really care either way, it's not a story I've followed that closely but I'd be very happy with Burnham finding his way in, though not sure how that could happen in the required timeframe. This is very much just politics playing by opposition parties though. Plenty of previous appointments without vetting or with vetting issues that they ignored in government but somehow now it's a really big deal. I don't really buy it tbh. Whatever the outcome for starmar, I'm far more interested in the government finding a way to communicate effectively with the electorate and to make some decisions that affect cost of living in short order.

Haven't seen it but I have seen it hasn't gone down well. If he's going to go down for it he might as well go down swinging and point out the Boris Johnson also failed to pass security vetting but was still made foreign secretary. Apparently that's less important than an ambassador.

Where can I find the pod? Just on BBC app?

It's a funny one with Rodgers. He brought congerton and a number of awful signings in. In his last season he clearly wanted out, let schmeical go, refused to play our best defenders, and was responsible for the relegation. At the same time, in his first couple of years he took us from a boring midtable team with potential to fighting for top 4 and an fa cup. And both of those seasons for 2/3rds of the season we were fantastic - the best football team Leicester have ever had apart from that one untouchable season. A tale of what might have been, almost was, and it's wrecking.

Or simply not got rid of schmeical

What was Enzo's feedback?

Well currently Plymouth and Exeter are both in league one so that would make a couple of away days easy from here. Though Plymouth are currently just outside the playoffs and Exeter are in the relegation zone so even that might turn to shit as an idea.

Why is anybody going to the match to sing these songs in the first place?

Your point about lack of a senior striker being brought in was a dereliction of duty. It's something we've done time and again. Even out our peak, an extra striker in either of the seasons we missed out on champions League and we'd have made it.

Why is anybody even going? Surely nobody turning up, and if you want do something protest wise elsewhere in the city after calling the mercury and BBC, would be more effective?

I've defended him a fair bit but that's no more defending him. The team is shite. Manager shite. Management behind the scenes shite.

Let's hope west brom win

Think he offers more pace at the back while we throw the big men forward

He's been absolutely diabolical today. Thinks he's better than he is. I don't want to see any of this team next season.

Anybody but Daka

Our players are utterly pathetic. What an abysmal few years for recruitment and performances. The fact rudkin has been promoted and not sacked is an utter joke. We deserve to go down, we're appalling.

Need to get JJ on and start pushing forwards

I think Rodgers was probably right that the squad needing freshening the second time we just missed out on champions league. We are incredible for half that season. But then the club weren't honest about their limitations at the same time as Rodgers let schmeical go, froze out soyuncu and nothing has been right since. It was that summer. Poor recruitment, a squad a season too far on, a manager that wanted out and we've never recovered.

I absolutely hate the version of when you're smiling that has played the last few times I've been there. Presume it hasn't changed this season. Slow and turgid, nothing like how it was sung in the stands in the past.

It's just the sort of thing to get the political class as very worked up and shouty. It's just performative nonsense tbh

They're using the drones to attack Russian military positions that are attacking them. So they are defensive.

That questions ignores two important things: 1- a big share of the debt is owed to ourselves in the form of the bank of England. 2- if you borrow to invest, the assets and investments that arise from that also potentially increase in value. What's missing from this discussion is that the interest may rise, but it may be more than matched by the economic benefits. Besides either of these points, the only way the economy is going to start growing is to spend to invest, to put money into the economy. Once we have a good level of growth THAT'S when you start looking at how to create a surplus. You don't try to create the surplus in the bad times. This is precisely the reason that Gordon brown as chancellor is the only one in decades to produce a surplus. Whereas Osborne cut and cut and all he produced was a double dip recession and increased debt.

I'm really not a fan of this type of economic thinking, which entirely ignores the economic benefits of spending money. If ordinary people have a little more money, money supply really isn't the cause of inflation currently, and it creates demand, supports local business, enables business investment, increases tax revenues. The idea that government borrowing is intrinsically bad is, in my opinion, one of the reasons why the economy is a mess. We spent 15 years cutting and wondered why living standards stagnated.

What I don't really understand is why he's decided to try and pander to reform voters rather than left wing voters, even there's more of the latter in every election, just split across more parties. Cost of living is the single biggest issue affecting the electorate right now - I understand the climate emergency we're in leicsmac but many don't. Every time there's been direct government intervention to support the public - whether it be the COVID furlough scheme, or any other policy that has directly provided support to individuals - it's been popular. Surely they could have come up with real, meaningful support regarding energy costs by now? Even if it was a direct government to energy companies payment coupled with deep drops to bills. The right would go argue like crazy, the telegraph would moan about national debt, but the public would be hugely positive I do not understand why they haven't, other than the fact I think starmar genuinely is trying to make long term decisions he thinks it's best, while keeping any deficits as low as they can (which is really just pandering to the right wing press as the Tories never really bother with that when they want to do something). Starmar it's too focused on what is "right", rather than remembering governments need to win elections if they want to remain governments.