Alf Bentley

Hull will be a division above Tottenham next season. Crewe are likely to be still in L2 next season, so unless we draw them in the cup, we won't be going there until the 27-28 season - though they might be a division above us by then.

According to BBC News, Olly Robbins has been summoned to answer questions before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on Tuesday. Will be most interesting to hear what he does or doesn't say. That committee is chaired by Emily Thornberry, one of the more impressive questioners in parliament...

It says a lot that there are very few that I can even imagine doing it....with varying degrees of credibility: James, Ricardo, Hamza, Vestergaard or Begovic?

Who knows....There's a fair chance of a hung parliament after the next election. There's also now a significant number of electoral reform supporters within the Labour Party and, being cynical, they might have a self-interest in promoting/accepting the idea of reform before or in the immediate wake of that election - as might other parties, including LDs, Greens and Reform.... I won't hold my breath, though.

Andy Kershaw (66), former BBC DJ - and a very good one: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn9qprx2ljlo Sad news, if not unexpected.

Fair comment. But that has always applied to every party to varying degrees, hasn't it? It's always applied to Labour and Tories in Govt down the decades (to varying degrees). The Liberal-SDP Alliance split into Lib Dems and Owen's SDP. Even Reform has split despite only having about 5 MPs. There are differences within the Green Party that would emerge in times of stress or power. Isn't it also partly a result of our electoral system, whereby a party capable of encompassing a wide range of views can obtain an absolute majority? Personally, I'd favour electoral reform, which might eliminate the chance of a single party winning an absolute majority and lead to more narrowly focused parties that then entered into coalition - a coalition between parties, rather than within each party? Another can of worms, I know...

Er.... - People on the Left slate him for changing too much - winning the leadership as Corbyn-lite, then shifting to the centre - So completely ineffective in opposition that he took over a party widely expected to be out of Govt for at least 10 years, if not forever, and led them to a landslide election win? People quite reasonably expected change when they voted Labour - and are massively dissatisfied that they haven't seen the change they wanted as quickly as they wanted. Partly down to Govt errors, partly down to circumstances (a rotten inheritance, years of stagnation & debt, Trump, multiple global crises - 2008 Crash, Covid, Ukraine, Iran War, aging population, climate change, social problems etc.) - and partly down to unreasonable voter expectations of rapid positive change, given Govt imperfection and massive, long-term problems. But I'm sure we'll never agree...

Nah! It's all clever psychology from Rowett. He's banking on psyching the players up to prove him wrong.

Assuming it is confirmed that he didn't know about the failed security vetting, I largely agree with you - for the reasons you've stated. But, unless the May elections are better than expected for Labour (unlikely), I assume it's likely he'll be forced out in a month's time. Though maybe not if the Iran war is still ongoing? Despite all the economic and other problems, if Iran war damage is limited by a deal and the restoration of trade flows, Labour still has 3 years to win back support through its political decisions, unlikely as that might seem now. But the public seem to have terminally taken against Starmer. So, I can see why the party might see a change of leader as necessary, as well as an economic/political upturn. I find the unprecedented antipathy towards Starmer strange. There is justified criticism for some of his decisions and U-turns, though others deserve credit. I can understand why people who buy into low-tax, low-spending politics or climate change denial would be hostile, but the extent of the hostility is astonishing. I assume that most of it is due to a combination of frustration with 16+ years of cost of living pressures, austerity and decline, and the naive belief that any Govt could quickly turn all that around. It's as if LCFC fans expected a new manager to immediately have us back in the PL challenging for Europe....when structural factors are against you and there has been long-term decline, it will take a few years to turn that around, even under perfect management. I suspect that a secondary issue contributing to Starmer's unpopularity is the personal impression he gives - coming across as a dull, uncharismatic man-in-a-suit. After the likes of Johnson, or Blair to a lesser extent, you'd hope we'd moved beyond wanting charismatic leaders. Hell, even Trump is not "dull", but I'd much prefer a dull leader who gets on with tackling tricky problems that require years to resolve, rather than a charismatic "entertainer".

It'll be interesting to see if Robbins (the former top official) says anything. He wouldn't have been able to comment while still in post, but presumably could now? If he doesn't contest the claim that he didn't inform the Govt, maybe it's true? If so, that would possibly be the most extraordinary, incomprehensible decision (by Robbins) I've ever seen in politics. Starmer would have to explain details of what he knew and why he didn't know more, but could potentially escape blame - though not political damage. Regardless of their occupation or status, everyone who's ever worked will have encountered situations where they had to decide whether to act or to refer an issue to a line manager, customer, expert, regulator or whoever - to get "sign off", if the decision might have serious implications or be highly controversial. Anyone could make a wrong decision due to an issue being a marginal call or a lack of information important to the decision. That was not the case here. It was known to everyone with half a brain that US Ambassador post is a high-profile posting. Likewise, it was known that failing a security vetting is a serious matter. It was known to everyone with the slightest interest in politics, never mind an experienced, senior civil servant, that Mandelson was a controversial - if potentially justifiable - appointment. Regardless of rules and practices, it would've been blatantly obvious to almost anyone that appointing Mandelson after he'd failed a security vetting would need to be signed off by the Foreign Secretary, at least. Apparently, Robbins was faced with the decision 3 weeks into his new job. But he wasn't some panicky, eager-to-impress 18-year-old in his first job. He was an experienced, senior civil servant who'd been in high profile roles before - notably negotiating Brexit. If he did take such a decision without consulting/informing Govt, it was the most shockingly incomprehensible call I can think of (in politics, at least - we can probably cite a few such calls at LCFC in recent years ).

Impressive by Braga - from 2 down to 4-2 up away to Real Betis...

If we lost one of our matches by a 1-goal margin and won one by an 8-goal margin, we could even end up with an identical GD of -3. Imagine if we won 8-0 at Pompey, then drew our 2 home games, before losing 1-0 at Blackburn. Sadly, we can't finish with the same goals for/against as in 2007-08. We've already scored 12 more than we did that season - and have already conceded 19 more. "That's entertainment!"

Yes, that logic had occurred to me, too. Maybe it could happen. But presumably other potential candidates (Streeting? Rayner? Mahmood?) might seek to have Burnham blocked again. I don't know enough about NEC politics to anticipate whether that would have any impact. If anything, I suspect Rayner might be the one with the most influence there - union links and a bit more left-wing than the other 2? But then there's timing and practicalities. If Burnham only sought approval after Starmer had gone, it would take weeks, if not a couple of months, for him to get selected as candidate and then to hold the byelection. It would then take further weeks to hold a leadership election. That would leave the UK with a caretaker PM for, what, at least 3-4 months? At a critical time for foreign affairs & the economy... If Starmer does step down/get the boot (after the May elections, presumably), I wonder if a Westminster deal might be stitched up to avoid a contested election - perhaps Rayner and Streeting as PM and Deputy with guarantees on policies and powers - and a senior cabinet position to buy off anyone, like Mahmood, with the potential to stand as a credible alternative candidate? After all the (justified) rhetoric about Tory chaos, it wouldn't be a good look to have a temporary PM for several months, at a critical time, while the party busied itself with factional infighting... EDIT: On second thoughts, ignore some of the above. If Starmer goes, we probably wouldn't have a temporary PM, would we - we'd have a lame duck PM for 2-4 months: i.e. Starmer would announce his resignation, but would stay as Caretaker PM while a replacement was elected? Not great for the nation domestically or internationally, but has happened both in the UK (Thatcher, Blair, Cameron, May, Johnson....) and other countries (Scholz was lame duck Chancellor of Germany for several months). I suppose the summer recess would also come into calculations - could a byelection and leadership election be held before recess or would it be acceptable for them to wait until Sept?

Yes, I heard that. If that's true, it's absolutely extraordinary - and suggests a dysfunctional system of governance. I can believe that the idea of over-ruling the vetting failure MIGHT have originated from an official, who knew that the Govt was keen to appoint Mandelson for political reasons. But I struggle to believe that an official could've taken that decision without notifying, at least, the Foreign Secretary - who in turn would surely have told Starmer? If the decision was taken by an official, it would have been a very senior official, who surely would've been aware of the political and security risk of over-ruling a vetting decision - and surely would've felt obliged to have the decision signed off by senior ministers, be that Foreign Secretary or PM?!

I might be wrong, but my understanding is that Burnham could apply to run for another seat, but that it would be very difficult politically. Labour parliamentary by-election candidates have to be approved by the party's National Executive (NEC). I believe that last time they only blocked him from running in Gorton & Denton. So, if another MP stood down, I think he could apply again to the NEC to stand in the new seat. But, firstly would there be the partisan political will for the NEC, with a pro-Starmer majority, to allow him to stand? Even if there was, he was publicly rejected last time on the grounds that it wasn't in the public interest (or the party interest) to trigger a by-election for the Manchester mayoralty.... How could they justify taking a different decision this time, even if they wanted to - which they probably wouldn't...? If Starmer goes, I hope a means is found. It's actually arguably not in the party's interest or the public interest for him to be blocked!

Blimey. It already seemed a reckless decision to appoint Mandelson, given what was known about him - even allowing for info that he concealed. But the idea that he failed security vetting and someone senior thought it a good idea to overrule that?! If true, it should be quick to find out who decided and who knew - and they should be sacked. I'm in the minority to have some sympathy for Starmer. He's done some stuff right as well as some stuff wrong. Previously, my inclination would've been to give him longer to turn it around, though I recognised that he'd probably inevitably be deposed after Labour gets hammered in the forthcoming elections. But if this is true and he knew about it (whether or not it was done at his instigation), he should resign....and, in some ways, it would be even worse if he somehow didn't know about it. That would suggest dysfunctionality at the heart of government.

Though not 100% clear, Rowett's press conference comments suggest neither James nor Ramsey will start, though both might be on the bench. I can imagine us adopting an ultra-defensive approach, perhaps with Choudhury introduced in defensive midfield? Maybe hoping to stay in the game and/or hoping Daka manages to score on a counter-attack or Fatawu hits the target with a long shot - introducing James and/or Ramsey if the match is still in play with 20 minutes left? I can't pretend to be optimistic, regardless of his tactical approach. Hope I'm proved wrong, but why would a side that has repeatedly buckled under the slightest pressure suddenly show great resilience under even greater pressure? There's always the luck factor, I suppose....but that really is the last refuge of the dreamer...

At the last match..... - Sod Jersey Budd - Even sod the Birch (in a nice way) - Definitely sod the lap of dishonour We want to see Mrs. G with a mike, singing this in the centre circle - Bocelli revisited for a new era....

Taking your post in the spirit intended and looking at all the remaining fixtures.... - I think 3 wins probably would save us & almost certainly would if 2 of the wins were v. Pompey & Blackburn - I think 2 wins and 2 draws might or might not save us - again, a better chance if the wins were v. Pompey & Blackburn I just had a look at the home and away records of all teams.... - Fair point that neither Pompey nor Blackburn have good home records (rank 22nd & 23rd, respectively) - The bad news is that, for away record, Hull and Millwall rank 4th and 1st! All considered, I think we're currently 95% relegated. If we lose at Pompey, it's 99.9%. If we draw, it's 98%. If we win, it's 65%. Can't see it happening, sadly. Please prove us wrong, LCFC - just find 1 gutsy (or lucky) performance somehow, to keep hope alive and maybe restore some belief - and nerves among rivals. Nah, I can't see it happening...

We need a miracle now. But the battle to avoid the 3rd relegation slot will probably go to the last day. A team could go down on 50+ points with GD coming into the equation (all very close on GD). Current points Charlton 49 Blackburn 48 WBA 46 Pompey 45 Oxford 44 - Charlton play Wednesday, which probably makes them safe - Blackburn have tough games until their last match , so could still be sweating on the last day - WBA finish at Wednesday, so another win before then would probably make them safe (Preston A? Watford H?). Could still need a win v. the Owls, though - If Pompey beat us, one more win would take them to 51pts and their last 2 matches are Stoke A & Birmingham H, both teams on the slide with little to play for... - Oxford play at home to Wednesday, so that's surely at least 47pts for them. Derby A, Wrexham H & Millwall A look tough on paper, though Millwall will probably have missed automatic promotion by the last day... I reckon my money's on Oxford finishing 3rd bottom, but if they can pull out 1 more win (aside from v Wednesday), final day could look interesting with God knows who going down on 50pts?

I'd no idea either, but apparently it's not news - and that's even according to the notoriously Farage-friendly GB News: https://www.gbnews.com/royal/buckingham-palace-king-charles-easter-message-update So... - The King attended an Easter service yesterday - The old Queen didn't issue an Easter message every year either - The monarch does issue a Christmas message on TV every year - The King is known to be a Christian, had Christian wedding services and was crowned in a Christian cathedral, not in the East London Mosque The euphemism "culture wars" gets used, but let's face it, this is an attempt by Reform to win support by snidely inciting resentment and hatred. On a lighter note, as a member of the Atheist/Absurdist Community, where the hell's my royal message?!?

It says BST at top left -> British Summer Time, I presume.

Your post triggered me to listen to a classic Gil Scott-Heron track for the first time in years. 40+ years old, but still brilliant - and astonishingly relevant....

That's funny, as my only experience of Kings Lynn FC was a good one. Folkestone Town (my local team growing up) and Kings Lynn were briefly together in the old Southern Premier c. 1982-83, both having been promoted the previous season, as I recall. I was studying/working/dolemongering in Norwich at the time, with parents still in Kent, so I attended both league matches, home and away. The two teams were very evenly matched, so they were two really good, hard-fought games: 2-1 to Folkestone in Kent, 3-2 to Kings Lynn in Norfolk. I've thought well of Kings Lynn since then, so am sorry to hear they've gone to shite in multiple ways! Mind you, football fortunes are cyclical, as all LCFC fans now know, if they didn't know before....

I recently attended my first non-league match for years (Torquay v Chesham) and enjoyed it a lot more than I expected. The quality of the football was much higher than I expected - certainly a lot higher than when I regularly attended Folkestone matches in my youth. But it also reminded me how much more I enjoy matches standing on a terrace - an instinctive, physical sense of greater involvement, compared to watching from a seat.