Alf Bentley

I hope he ran him over?

I've added a refinement to your data, Izzy. I've added the level at which the wins were achieved and number of years in charge: L = L1, C = Championship, P = Premier League, then a number for no. of years as manager. Amazing to note that, out of 10 of them, only Pearson and Rodgers lasted 2 years! And NP's first 2 years weren't even under KP.... How we rate different managers will depend on our priorities: - If winning major trophies and qualifying for Europe are dominant criterion, Claudio has to rank top - and Brendan second (success sustained over 2-3 seasons). - If net progress is main criterion, NP has to rank top (L1->PL title squad) & Puel gets credit for stabilising and assembling a good squad, whereas Rodgers took over a secure mid-table side and ended up getting us relegated....albeit after some glory & great football in his first 2 years. - If entertainment is key, early-period Rodgers rates top; NP & Claudio get kudos...and so does Sven, whereas Puel, late-period Rodgers & Cooper rate poorly. Patchy for Enzo, despite 23-24 glory. - Yet if value-for-money squad building matters, it's the opposite: Sven arguably should be bottom of the table & Puel near the top. - Then there's the personal likeability/entertainment factor. That's subjective, though most would rate Claudio, Sven & Shakey highly on this criterion - and many found Brendan unlikeable, even when his team was playing great football. NP was Marmite (I love Marmite, but some fools don't). Puel was a deadly dull interviewee. Enzo did a great job for us (his achievement turning round our relegated mess is under-rated) but I wonder how nice he is? He was a pro who never gave much away - Smith & even Cooper came across as more personable, at least on the surface. - As for those lads lusting after Sousa's high cheekbones and elegant suits....just get out of the closet already, we're a tolerant, liberal bunch on here! My arbitrary personal rankings.... 1. NP 2. Claudio 3. Rodgers (holding my nose, as I found the bloke oily & loathsome - and that last season was a needlessly damaging disgrace) 4. Puel 5. Enzo 6. Shakey 7. Cooper (I'm not sure other managers would be getting better results, more entertaining tactics could mean even fewer points & I reckon some over-rate our squad) 8. Smith 9. Sven (sorry, Sven - likeable bloke, entertaining cameo, but massive under-achievement pissing all that money up the wall) 10. Sousa - took a play-off squad into the relegation zone, the smart suits don't compensate

A man named Mr. Harry Victor Burton Wrapped himself in a pleated floral curtain He posted on a forum With eloquent decorum And attracted attention, that's for certain.

I hope you asked if they were ready to rumble? In all seriousness, that's weird. How could they have had evidence sufficient for a warning....unless they examined CCTV and had you on tape making your initial comment and deemed that sufficient? Otherwise, it would be just one person's word against another's.....and even if they did have CCTV, does telling someone to **** off seriously constitute a breach of the peace? Haven't people got something better to do with their time - and that applies to both the other party and the Scottish police? In the interests of candour, I should confess that I got bound over for a breach of the peace several decades ago. But I'd turned up drunk on a complete stranger's doorstep at 1am, incorrectly claimed that I lived there, asked to come in and sleep and then refused to leave when the police were called. So, I was bang to rights and fully deserving of the opprobrium of the criminal justice system. Free the Rumble One!

Thanks for the thought, Izzy. I'm still out here. It's just been a busy couple of months: moved to Devon, sorting the flat out, entertaining daughter, extended holiday and now wall-to-wall job applications... Plus I suppose I've been getting a bit lazy or at least seeing less point in posting. - I reckon we can mostly see what Cooper's plan is - to try to stay in games in the hope that flair players, striker or set pieces win us enough points to stay up and improve club finances enough to have a slightly better squad next season. It's often grim, sometimes dysfunctional but might work. - Likewise, I reckon most people with some objectivity can see how things stand with the govt: they've come up with some good ideas but have also needlessly cocked various stuff up, neither side of which will matter much in the long-term, as what matters is whether people feel like their lives and their country are starting to get a little bit better in 5 years time. Far too early to judge that - a big ask to achieve it, and it might all get blown off track by international economic or political events, anyway... I'll probably start mouthing off more often again at some point. Hope you're keeping well in the meantime.

Be fair, Deb. It is the joke thread and he was just trying to arouse a few snickers.

I can absolutely relate to this. Many years ago, I attended 3 interviews in a single day.... - Interview 1: Thought I did OK but nothing special. Not confident of outcome. - Interview 2: There were multiple vacancies and I performed like a dream. Very confident of an offer. - Interview 3: 3-person panel across a massive room. I was still young, so was massively intimidated - and felt I made a complete fool of myself at interview. No chance. I was rejected for Job 2, got offered Job 1 and did it for a month, then got offered Job 3, so moved to that one and did it for 3 years. When I left Job 3, I was allowed to see the panel's original interview notes: they were impressed but commented "at times he seemed to think he was interviewing us" (I'd asked 2 questions about the job, as I'd heard it was good to show interest). WTF! The intimidators were intimidated by quivering little old me...

That's essentially what the pollster Frank Luntz said on Laura Kuenssberg this morning. Namely, the main impact will be to boost turnout among Trump supporters - particularly in Pennsylvania, where the shooting happened.... Pennsylvania being 1 of the key states that Biden (or any Democrat replacement) needs to win to have any chance of securing the presidency. I wonder if there might be another impact, though, namely that it will increase Democrat pressure on Biden to withdraw as candidate? If this assassination attempt makes a Trump victory seem more likely, that will surely further encourage leading Democrats to push Biden to withdraw?

Some subliminal references in that propaganda?

My Bristol City mate just messaged me, saying he was a fans' favourite at Ashton Gate, too.

I don't claim to have any understanding of Iranian politics, but it's certainly an interesting development: https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/06/iran-reformist-masoud-pezeshkian-extends-lead-in-presidential-election-count Some important democratic decisions being taken just now, what with the UK, Iran, second round of French parliamentary voting tomorrow and presumably a conclusion soon re. Biden's candidacy, with the Democratic convention in August?

Much as I love Vardy and believe he can still make a contribution, I'll be pretty concerned if he's our 1st choice striker. I hope we sign a new 1st choice striker, unless one of the other strikers somehow convinces Cooper he can step up. Neither has convinced yet. Cannon is still young, new and worth persevering with as a squad player, but how much longer does Patson get?

I had to Google that one, I must admit. I was already grown up by the time that was on TV - insofar as I've ever grown up.

Although I'm a sentimentalist and would prefer to have kept KDH, I have a feeling we may come to view this KDH for wads of cash + Golding deal as a good one. I have little evidence for that. It may just be because I'm in a good mood today, but still....

I see Michael's middle name is Heinz. Maybe his parents were fans of Karl-Heinz Rummenigge or really loved quality baked beans. But I like to think they were devotees of this bloke.....

It's reported that turnout in the French parliamentary elections today is the highest for at least 40 years. I wonder what that means? Hopefully people mobilising to stop Le Pen's crew winning a majority, but could easily be the opposite or just high levels of interest..... I'm expecting the opposite in the UK on Thursday - a very low turnout. For democracy's sake, I hope that I'm wrong about that.

Most unexpected leaflet: Communist Party Most unexpected leaflet delivery: Reform UK, Greens and 2 different independents, all delivered simultaneously (presumably a hired leaflet delivery firm) Total leaflets so far: Labour 3, Greens 3, Lib Dems 1, Reform UK 1, Commies 1, Adam (Ind.) 1, Admani (Ind.) 1, Monster Raving Loonies 0, Tories 0 ()

I'll return to Labour, having voted Green in 2019 - and having been 50-50 red-green at the start of the campaign. Not that it makes any difference under FPTP, as I'm in Leicester South where Jon Ashworth had a 22,000+ majority in 2019. Reasons for switching back: - I'm cautiously hopeful that Starmer's Labour will prove to be a good govt in difficult circumstances, better than their campaign/declared policies suggest (an instinct, perhaps a leap of faith) - The Greens' campaign has pissed me off a bit, downplaying unpopular references to climate change in favour of unrealistic public spending policies and (locally) going big on Gaza (a terrible situation, but it's virtue-signaling or inflated national self-importance to believe that UK politicians calling for a ceasefire will have any impact on Netanyahu, when even the US struggles to influence him)

My words were not terribly original, but 2 (racist, homophobic) were accurate designations of the expressions the blokes used and 2 (spew, vile) expressed my disgust at what I saw and heard. You imply that you have an open mind, yet go on to state that if your claim about this man is disproven, "it will not change the minds of people who already support the party". You don't respond to the evidence that Reform officials guided the undercover journalist to go with the "actor". Presumably Reform did not employ the "actor" to discredit their own party. So, are you saying that he turned up "acting" on a voluntary, unpaid basis and Reform officials chanced to direct the C4 journalist to go with him? Or are you presuming that C4 secretly hired him (any evidence, if so?) and Reform chanced to direct the C4 journalist to go with him? You focus entirely on the "actor" (mainly a property developer, he says - easily checked, surely?) and ignore my point about the other blokes who came out with abuse, confirmed by Farage himself to have been known party activists. I don't believe that Reform is "full of foaming-at-the-mouth neo-Nazis" (your words are no more original than mine). My working assumption is that aside from a small number who do fit that description, there are many more who are uncomfortable with the pace of change in this country, particularly the UK becoming increasingly multi-racial. They often blame this change for the undoubted problems that the UK currently faces: cost of living crisis, lack of housing, NHS in crisis, crime, public squalor etc. I also see the rise in support for Reform as partly due to widespread disenchantment with the mainstream parties - with the Tories due to their record and scandals in office, Labour due to them not announcing clear solutions to the nation's problems (a cautious, defensive campaign, which I regret but understand - it's partly honesty that the state of the finances does not allow for promises of instant change, partly caution that any promises will be misrepresented and used to scare away potential Lab voters). The lessons of history are that right-wing extremism does not result from a sudden mass upsurge of "foaming-at-the-mouth" extremists. The hard core is usually small in number, though often with a charismatic leader who appeals to people who are not overtly politicised. They play on genuine economic/social problems and real, understandable (if often unjustified) fears held by people whose lives are difficult or who are uncomfortable with the state of the nation. They blame minority groups for this, spreading division and hatred. I presume that, at worst, Reform will only get a small number of MPs this time. But I do not welcome the idea of Reform leading or strongly influencing the opposition to Labour, if they win. It concerns me that might cause division and conflict in society. It also concerns me what will happen by 2029. The nation is in a state that will be hard to correct (high debt, high tax, low growth, collapsing public services, poor public health, aging population etc.). Even IF the incoming govt is a lot better than the outgoing crew (I'm hopeful, but there are no guarantees), the UK is still likely to have a lot of problems by 2029. If public discontent about problems is mainly channeled through a party mainly blaming immigrants and minorities, that is not a great prospect.

C4 News broadcast video footage of confirmed, identified Reform officials/activists suggesting that the undercover C4 journalist went door-to-door campaigning with the man mentioned - so, it was Reform's suggestion, not C4's. The man mentioned (a Reform volunteer, not a member/official) states that he is mainly a property developer, but does a bit of acting, which explains the videos of him discussing acting work. This is presumably easily verifiable by any competent journalist. The man mentioned said he was just expressing his own genuine views and apologised to Farage/Reform for any embarrassment caused. At least 2 other men in the C4 News undercover footage were shown spewing vile racist and homophobic abuse. Unlike the man mentioned, those two are confirmed Reform members/activists. Farage has now said that he disowns them and doesn't want them involved in his campaign any more. I wonder why their vile views weren't identified before they became party representatives - and how many others are out there unidentified by the chance of an undercover TV expose? If you have an open mind, you'll at least give those points some consideration.....

Just imagine if the right-wing vote in Clacton is split between Farage and the Tories and this bloke comes swanking across the stage, swinging his coat tails, having been elected as MP......

It's starting to look possible - a joyous prospect in the short-term. Still time for things to change (events, media, Reform UK impact, exceptionally low turnout etc.), but it's looking like a major "change" election - and potentially a big realignment on the right (post-election, Tory-Reform electoral pact seems unlikely). If the Tories do lose as badly as the polls are suggesting, Farage's idea of a "reverse takeover" of the Tory party (or some sort of right-wing merger) could be feasible. Not least as many of the saner Tory leadership contenders, like Hunt & Mordaunt, would almost certainly lose their seats - whereas the likes of Truss, Braverman & Badenoch are more likely to hold their seats (though Rees-Mogg is a likely loser). That's a sobering prospect for 2029, if Labour do win and there's a "reverse takeover" of the Tories or the Tories simply become even more Trumpian. Given the state of the nation's economy and debt, plus structural factors like an aging population, low growth, AI & climate change, it will be enormously hard for the next govt to retain popularity in 2029, even IF they govern very wisely. If lives aren't made noticeably better within 5 years, there's every chance that voters could turn to the Hard Right or Populist Right in 2029, whatever form that takes. If you think I'm just a doom-monger, I remember post-2019 debating with MattP on here and saying that, contrary to expectations, Labour might come back to win in 2024 (though I didn't anticipate a possible Tory collapse on this scale) and the SNP might collapse to Labour's benefit, given their time in power and inability to secure independence. Still, I'll enjoy the Tory massacre if it happens - though with some trepidation about the difficulties ahead for any govt. There are certain forms of PR that I'd oppose for reasons like that: e.g. the national system in Israel that allows extremist religious elements excessive influence. On the contrary, I think the saner forms of PR, like STV in multi-member constituencies, would be more likely to stabilise politics - and improve our quality of governance. Though no system is perfect. I think the instability in politics and the rise of the far right in many countries is due to multiple factors (growing inequality, economic insecurity, rapid social change, alienation from modern politics esp. given social media & the dishonesty and manipulation often needed to win elections etc.). If anything, I think forms of PR have prevented the Far Right from gaining power in some countries (e.g. Netherlands). In multiple countries, the Far Right has achieved 25-35%+ of the vote, but more mainstream parties have refused to form coalitions with it. Yet, in 2029, if a hypothetical Labour govt was unpopular, it's by no means impossible that a Farage-led party of the Far/Populist Right could win 30-35% of the vote......and, under FPTP, gain an absolute majority over a highly centralised nation. That's partly why I think Labour would be wise to legislate for PR, even if they do win big in 2024. Though I do see other benefits: better quality of governance and more stability through shifting coalitions, less of a narrow focus on swing voters in marginal seats, plus simple democratic fairness - it's an outrage that the SNP can win 95% of Scottish seats with 45% of the vote or that the Greens or, yes, UKIP/Reform have lacked parliamentary representation despite their sizeable vote. Keeping the Far Right out of parliament via FPTP doesn't prevent its influence - as we saw with UKIP influence over Tory policy for the past 10-15 years, not least the Brexit referendum. In the last 20 years, FPTP has given us the "stability" of Blair's support for the Iraq War, years of Tory austerity, public service decay & low growth, the Brexit referendum/negotiations fiasco, Johnson, Truss etc......

Why's that? Are you becoming Illiberal Fox?

Great stuff.....the Maradonas of the Carpathians! It's going to be like 1994 all over again.....

I have France beating Netherlands in the final, England losing to Italy in the quarters, Scotland losing in the last 16, Germany losing to Spain in the quarters. Didn't predict many serious shocks - Ukraine making the quarters, Georgia picking up 1 or 2 points.......but I'm sure there'll be a few surprises, though maybe not on the scale of Greece winning the Euros this time.