Alf Bentley

Interesting opinion article about China's approach to global power politics in the Trump era: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/oct/19/donald-trump-xi-jinping-china-trade-tariffs-us-beijing?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Iraq v Scotland or New Caledonia v Wales would certainly have been fun as play-offs. But I'm not sure, say Kosovo or Albania "would obviously walk it" against Nigeria or Panama. Scotland haven't always walked it against Costa Rica, as I recall. 3 CONCACAF nations qualifying as hosts created a qualification issue, but risking hosts not qualifying would have created a bigger one. Perhaps 3 extra CONCACAF qualifiers plus 2 play-off spots is marginally too many? But perhaps not, as Detroit argues...marginal decision, I'd say. I'd definitely have preferred more finals matches to have been staged in Mexico and Canada, but that's a different issue - and a decision heavily influenced by money, obviously. I can't be arsed to scrutinise the complications arising from UEFA play-off qualification via the Nations League (apparently San Marino could still qualify mathematically?! ). But looking at the 6 lowest-ranked of the 12 sides currently standing 2nd in UEFA WC qualifying groups seems a fair comparison: Czech Rep (42) Scotland (45) Albania (65) North Macedonia (67) Bosnia & Herzegovina (74) Kosovo (99) I wouldn't say that those UEFA nations have a particularly strong case for qualification ahead of the play-off contenders from other confederations - or that they'd have inevitably beaten them, if UEFA had been given more play-off places.....and that's without even considering your implied and correct point that the World Cup is meant to promote football as a global game. p.s. In South America, Peru (48), Venezuela (49) and Chile (57) are all already out without a play-off option.

So, both Nigeria and Cameroon sneak into the African play-offs....but only 1, at most, will make it out alive... Nigeria, Cameroon, Gabon and DR Congo, 1 to qualify for the inter-continental play-offs. Inter-continental play-offs (2 to qualify for WC finals): - Bolivia - New Caledonia - UAE or Iraq - 1 of the 4 African nations above - 2 x second-placed CONCACAF teams (perhaps Curaçao & Costa Rica, but groups are tight)

Yep. Despicable as Watkins was, in a democratic society, the rule of law should apply - not vigilante killings, even of those proven guilty of awful crimes. And what if someone wrongly convicted were to be murdered by imprisoned vigilantes? Doesn't apply to Watkins, but plenty of others have been wrongly convicted of foul crimes over the years. The two alleged killers have now been charged: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/ian-watkins-death-lostprophets-singer-man-charged-wakefield-priosn-b1252604.html Here's food for thought for anyone inclined to celebrate their actions (based on a quick Google News search).... - Alleged killer 1 was serving life for murdering an innocent man. Stabbed him repeatedly while he was lying on the ground in a case of mistaken identity over a drugs/gang feud: https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/23699846.sven-badzaks-killers-jailed-life-murder/ - Alleged killer 2 was serving 23 years for kidnapping a woman unknown to him, holding her prisoner and raping her 5 times: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-46551039

As the gesture of a friendly neighbour, I hope you've popped round and asked to borrow a Teasmaid, a fondue set and a cuddly toy?

So, we could still easily end up with Cameroon v Nigeria in the African play-offs. Only 1 African nation progresses to the global play-offs, as I recall. Mind you, looking at the table, SA might not find it easy to score 2 v. Rwanda. Despite only standing 4th, Rwanda have only conceded 6 goals in 9 qualifiers (and only scored 5). I presume Rwanda favour the 11-0-0 tactical formation...

I saw 2 great films last week: "I Swear": A dramatization of the life of John Davidson, a Scottish bloke with Tourette Syndrome from the 80s to the present. He's gone from facing appalling problems due to his condition (social rejection, family strife, legal charges, unemployment) to acceptance, regular work and doing great things to help others and spread awareness - earning him an MBE from the Queen. What's great about the film is that it successfully treads a fine line between worthiness and humour. It could easily have ended up being either another cheesy man-overcomes-problem feelgood story or entertainment getting cheap laughs. The scrapes he has gets into are often very funny, but it's black comedy. You're laughing with him, not at him. But it also gets across the serious traumas that a lack of understanding of the affliction can cause and how others can help sufferers alleviate them. "Ellis Park": A highly original film loosely blending musical expression, animal rescue documentary and childhood/family relations/life growth themes. It's centred around Warren Ellis, intense violinist with Nick Cave & the Bad Seeds and The Dirty Three. It manages to span sections showing how music is composed/performed and what it means with childhood memories/relations with parents/personal change in life - and with his visit to the sanctuary for wild animals that he funds in Sumatra, including some insight into the horrors of the wild animal trade, the rescue & rehabilitation work done by the Ellis Park team etc. Ellis himself comes across as an unusually thoughtful, humble bloke and the individual themes are interesting in their own right - but the film as a whole somehow adds up to more than its individual parts, like a reminder of what really matters in life.

There are some shocking attendance figures in the bottom row of that chart. Middlesbrough 76% is poor, considering their good start. Swansea 74% and Preston 72% not great. Wednesday 59% is understandable given the mayhem at that club, but Blackburn 47%? I know they're not a massive club and haven't had a great time since their glory years, but 14k odd for their last match?! Apart from Wednesday, I wonder if the rest is just down to the clubs being in parts of the country where people are more skint? Or are some clubs over-charging more than others? Or PL glory hunters being drawn away to Newcastle/Sunderland or Burnley?

What's Montenegrin for "you're getting sacked in the morning!"??

Tense finale in this group, after South Africa failed to beat Zimbabwe. Realistically, all 3 teams now need to win their final fixture to qualify - the second-placed team probably won't qualify for the play-offs (though the decision to ignore matches v. 6th-placed team complicates matters and potentially helps Nigeria). South Africa probably still favourites, but it's on a knife-edge for all 3. If Nigeria and S. Africa both win, Nigeria could still go out, which is a shameful performance... Aubameyang made his presence felt yesterday.......scored all 4 goals in Gabon's 4-3 win over Gambia, but then got sent off! Gabon are now mathematically qualified for the play-offs. Assume Ivory Coast will top the group, though. Madagascar are now well placed to make the play-offs - if they win their last match in Mali. Cameroon are not yet guaranteed a play-off place, if they finish second behind Cape Verde. Africa having so many qualifiers but neither Nigeria nor Cameroon making it would be a shocker. Indonesia would be interesting qualifiers, but unlikely to make it. Would certainly be an achievement for Iraq, given recent war-torn history. They qualified in 1986 - lost all their matches by narrow scores. Come on, Curaçao! (Fellow nerd)

Indeed. From Sky....... "Before moving into politics, Lord Campbell was an athlete, famously breaking Olympic gold medallist Wyndham Halswelle's 53-year-old Scottish 300 yards record in 1961 before competing at the 1964 Olympic Games in Tokyo. He also held the British 100m record from 1967 to 1974, beating aspiring athlete OJ Simpson with a 10.2-second race ". Seemed a decent, moral sort - especially for a politician.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c07vxv8v89lo Hackers holding pictures and private data of thousands of nursery children and their families to ransom say they will publish more information online unless they are paid. Criminals calling themselves Radiant hacked Kido nursery chain and posted profiles of 10 children online on Thursday. On their website on the dark web - a part of the internet accessed using specialist software - they have shared a "Data Leakage Roadmap" saying "the next steps for us will be to release 30 more 'profiles' of each child and 100 employees' private data". [...] The hackers first contacted the BBC about their breach on Monday. After they published the first batch of children's' data online the BBC asked if they feel guilty about their distressing actions and the criminals said: "We do it for money, not for anything other than money." "I'm aware we are criminals," they said. "This isn't my first time and will not be my last time."

1. Make an effort to maintain valued friendships, even if the other person doesn't make as much effort. Longstanding friendships can be invaluable as you age. You still meet new people but never have the same depth of mutual understanding or back history. 2. When young, ask your grandparents or older relatives about their lives. As people get older, they often get more curious about the lives of previous generations - and, unless someone else asked, there's nobody left to ask any more. 3. "If in doubt, do it!" I mainly regret things I DIDN'T do, rather than things I DID. Have that adventure, make that bold move, risk getting rejected by that woman/man. This motto works for me, as a naturally cautious person of good judgment. If you are a reckless, impetuous individual of poor judgment, instead apply the motto "If in doubt, don't do it!" Yes, I know the thread title says "one thing you've learnt from life..." That brings me to.... 4. Rules and expectations are not meant to be obeyed. They are meant to be questioned, bent and/or broken - but always with good judgment, consideration and charm....

Every good thread deserves a theme tune....

My Mum made me go for piano lessons when I was about 9. Because she wished she'd learned to play an instrument as a child. I had to play classical music with a blue-rinse Tory lady teacher who made me stand in the corner and sing notes and who would slap my hands if I played a bum note. It put me off playing an instrument for life.....until now......I might make a bid for your accordion.

You are increasingly adopting the persona of a character in a classic novel - perhaps something by Jane Austen, no, Henry James?

So many options..... The skill of being a fantastic lover able to excite women the world over? Nah, I'm too old for all that... The ability to make lots of money, with all that it can buy? Nah, I really don't care enough about money.... The ability to live forever or even to age 120? Nah, it'd be too depressing watching everyone I cared about die and seeing my daughter turn into an old woman (at best) The skills to build a house? Now that would be quite satisfying... The skill to play a musical instrument to a high standard? Perhaps. I keep threatening my daughter that I'll learn to play the accordion .....but that's something I could conceivably still do.... No, on balance and after due consideration, I'd like to have the ability to adopt the form of a vulture and to roost on fence posts and telegraph poles, just to make people uneasy.

I made a post in the General News thread criticising the arrest of the blokes who projected an image of Trump and Epstein onto Windsor Castle as an infringement of freedom of speech. Ironically, my post seems to have been deleted. Naturally, I'm as cool as The Fonz about this. Indeed, @Finneganesque, I am currently sucking on a caramel wafer. Would be curious to know why that post was deleted, though? Clearly not because of the image, as @leicsmac's original post is still boldly on display. Because of criticism of the arrest or the Malicious Communications Act? Because of parallels I drew with other communications critical of public figures (Savile, Thatcher, Corbyn, Tory->Reform defecting MP, Mandelson, Farage)? Citing too many boring examples, perhaps? Would be helpful to know, so as to avoid recidivism....

I'm sorry to read this, as I see you as a good contributor - and was enjoying our debate in the News thread. I seriously hope that our exchange had nothing to do with whatever has happened? As others have said: please reconsider, take a break if need be. We can all disagree with moderating decisions at times, but that doesn't render the forum crap or pointless. Although I don't know what has caused this, I hope you're able to think again and continue to contribute.

A shorter post..... I'd genuinely never heard of Charlie Kirk, until his assassination became such a big deal. Another sign of how different generations are operating in different worlds - younger folk in a world more dominated by social media & US political debates, old gits like me in a vanishing world of MSM, alleviated only by a bit of FoxesTalk & Facebook?

Thanks for the interesting reply. Some random responses to your points.... - I completely agree that the economic system and policies (all parties) are slanted in favour of the elderly and against the young. It's tricky to counteract that as there are simply a lot more elderly than youth - and most OAPs vote. Giving votes to 16 & 17-year-olds should help a bit. A campaign encouraging young people to vote would be a good idea. Perhaps a hypothecated wealth/property tax might be electorally acceptable? Such as taxing homes and unproductive wealth above a certain level (£700k? £1m?) and assigning all the revenue to things like affordable housing, apprenticeships or HE tuition funding that would benefit young people? - Wealth taxes on expensive properties might also encourage more OAPs to downsize and could benefit the housing market overall, though that would require complex analysis. A lot of OAPs do downsize eventually - or justifiably want to enjoy some retirement time in a property they've worked all their lives for - but such a measure could be a fiscal incentive. I think there's also a sort-of-unselfish reason why some older folk hang onto large properties - the desire to leave an inheritance for children or grandchildren when they die. That thinking seems wrong to me - surely it's better to find ways of helping out younger generations when they're younger and most need it, while the old folk are still living? - That said, I think @Parafox's comment about many older people acting unselfishly has been under-appreciated. An awful lot of grandparents look after grandchildren regularly (for long hours in some cases), enabling adult kids to work and earn. A lot of OAPs also do voluntary work for charities, foodbanks etc. - I don't buy your thesis that Labour's move to the centre was driven by a chase for Boomer votes - at least under Kinnock (83-92). This doesn't tally with the fact (see Ipsos) that Boomers were literally the generation most likely to have voted for Foot's left-wing manifesto in 1983 - and were still voting Labour in 1987 & 1992 more than average and more than any generation except older Gen X. It also doesn't tally with my recollection of Kinnock. He wasn't an accepter of the neo-liberal consensus, as Blair was. He was more a pragmatic soft left type akin to Burnham or Rayner today. His shift towards moderation was heavily motivated by Labour's near-death experience in 1983 (losing to a landslide and only beating the Lib-SDP Alliance by 2% in national vote share). - The big question is why only 40-42% of Boomers voted Tory in 1983 (Tory landslide - total vote 44%), yet 50-60% voted Tory or Reform in 2024 (Tory annihilation - total Tory/Reform vote 38%). To stress, I don't just see this as the "old generational gap" - the historic tendency for a minority to drift right as they age. It's on a much larger scale now. That merits proper research by Left parties. - I see Labour's acceptance of the neo-liberal consensus as dating from Blair's arrival in 1994. I don't see it as mainly motivated by a quest for right-wing Boomer votes, though electability was a big factor in the shift to the centre, after 4 successive general election defeats. I see acceptance of the neo-liberal consensus as largely due to the simple reality that the capitalist and financial systems had globalised and become all-powerful, rendering it impossible to introduce left-wing policies in one country. The fact that no centre-left party has successfully introduced left-wing policies in any democratic developed nation for the past 40 years supports that claim. Mitterrand briefly tried in the 80s and was forced to back down. The Greeks tried a decade ago and were crushed. All other leftist govts in the West have largely operated within the all-powerful neo-liberal consensus imposed by the power of global capital, even if some have been slightly more radical than UK Lab. This is why Corbyn's policies were a complete non-starter - even if he'd somehow got elected, global markets would have forced him to back down or effectively forced him from office. - While Labour since Blair has indeed accepted the neo-liberal consensus (arguably having no choice), I don't think it's fair to tie them in with "dismantling post-war safety nets" or "prioritising markets over collective provision" - though not doing enough to reverse such dismantling & privatising would be fair criticism. Blair/Brown introduced the minimum wage, rolled out tax credits on a massive scale, introduced Sure Start pre-school provision and greatly increased public provision in health & education. Starmer has raised the minimum wage, again boosted public provision for nurseries, health & education, is bolstering employment rights and is nationalising rail and British Steel. I'd agree there are still big gaps - housing, local govt, care services etc. But the UK has an indebted, deficit-ridden economy, an aging population and operates within an economic system dominated by global capital and with an electorate averse to high taxes....not an easy ask to do more without major economic or electoral problems. - I'd say that the reshaping of the Tories was driven more by an ideological response (Thatcher & co) to the chaos of the 70s, in turn driven by the slowdown in growth triggered by the oil crises and other factors. Admittedly, I'm one of the younger Boomers, but I wasn't even able to vote in 1979, as I was too young - and older Boomers voted disproportionately for Labour in 1979.

I very much agree with this bit of your post, in particular. I see a lot of the socioeconomic problems and political strife across the developed world as down to a combination of: - Much slower economic growth since the 1970s - Burgeoning inequality since about the 1980s - An ongoing redistribution of wealth from labour to capital, as big capital/finance has become much more powerful & globally mobile/organised compared to people/politics As a statement of ideals, I agree with almost all of that Corbyn agenda. But I think politics has to be exercised pragmatically, not based on statements of ideals. I liked his 2017 manifesto, which was a bit more pragmatic. But I was always dubious about Corbyn's ability to win power - and without the power to implement change, there's no point in statements of ideals unless the aim is to achieve feelings of moral purity/superiority. Like you, I'm also doubtful that such a set of policies could have worked, even if Corbyn had been elected. The UK has a heavily-indebted, low-growth economy with a budget deficit and an aging population (like most nations in the West) - and a very open economy oriented towards trade and finance, deeply integrated into an open global capitalist system. If a Corbyn Govt had tried to implement all of that statement of ideals/policies, I reckon he'd have rapidly either crashed the economy or been forced to U-turn on most of his plans. Something similar happened to Mitterrand, when he was elected French President on a fairly Socialist agenda - rapid U-turn....and that was in the early 80s, when capitalist globalisation was at a much earlier stage. Something less purist than Corbyn but a bit bolder than Starmer is the best short-term hope, I think (PM Burnham?). Long-term, who knows, as the chances of problems diminishing look poor and support for populist/Far Right solutions is rising across the West....and that's without addressing the multiple likely impacts of climate change. Maybe something will shift things in a better direction, but for now the odds on more strife and neo-fascist solutions look better than those on greater harmony, & contentment and reduced inequality - not least as change for the better largely has to happen multinationally, not within a single country (notwithstanding the possibility of this or another govt achieving some incremental improvements in isolation).

I'll bite belatedly..... You are correct to say that the Boomer generation now vote disproportionately for the Right and that this is a serious problem. It is also true that, while older people have always tended to vote more for the Tories, they are much more likely to do so now - the Left/Right voting gap between young and old has become a chasm. But it is factually incorrect to imply that the Boomer generation has voted consistently for the Right over the decades from Thatcher - and provably so. Here is the proof: https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/how-britain-voted-october-1974 If you compare the overall figures for elections from 1979 to 1992 to figures for the Boomer generation (then young-to-middle-aged), you'll see that Boomers disproportionately voted Labour. The ones who voted disproportionately for Thatcher were older - the pre-WW2 generations. This destroys your thesis of a uniquely and consistently selfish generation. When it comes to age, the big question is why large numbers of Boomers voted Left in early adult life but have switched to the Right now they're older - to a much greater degree than previous generations when they aged. You assume that this is based on short-sighted selfishness, citing only anecdotal evidence. For some Boomers, I'm sure you're right: some will always have been selfish, others will have voted Left out of self-interest when young and now vote Right out of self-interest when old. But I very much doubt that's the whole story. Like you, I have nothing more than anecdotal evidence for my thesis, but I reckon a lot of this big shift is due to: (1) Much weaker class/family voting loyalty than previous generations, partly reinforcing (2) Fear of rapid change. Pre-Boomer generations voted much more out of class loyalty/family tradition, so fewer went Tory in old age - no longer the case. Every aspect of life seems to be changing faster and faster: work, institutions, media, technology, racial mix, food/drink, social identity.... Rapid change scares a lot of older people, encouraging many to vote for "how things used to be" (often a false perception of the past and often damaging progress,). It's certainly an issue that deserves proper research. But @leicsmac was right to note that age isn't the only demographic that matters. Those Ipsos figures also show how voting by gender has shifted: throughout the Thatcher era, women were still more likely than men to vote Tory. That situation has now reversed: since 2005, women are increasingly more likely to vote Left, men increasingly more likely to vote Right. This is particularly true of the gender gap for the 18-24 demographic, with 2025 votes for the Greens being 23% for women v. 12% for men and votes for Reform or Tory being 22% for men v. 12% for women. Here's a good link (same data as yours, but with good, brief analysis): https://www.psa.ac.uk/psa/news/gender-and-generational-shifts-uk-voting-trends-what-should-we-think A sizeable number of young men also support the Far Right in other countries: e.g. LePen in France, Trump in the USA. Of course, there'll also be big racial disparities. I'm sure white people vote disproportionately for the Right. Perhaps we need to shift some of the blame from Boomers to men - and to white men, in particular? (Tongue-in-cheek comment from a white male Leftist Boomer - Boomer by 2 yrs). That question of why so many Boomers have switched from voting Lab under Thatcher to voting Tory/Reform now is a big one, though, and one that I hope parties on the Left are looking at. If they can stop haemorrhaging elderly votes to the Right, it'll greatly improve their chances. Not least as there are a lot more pensioners than young people and they're much more likely to vote (low voting rates among the young being another issue - all parties are categorically NOT the same, folks. Who's in Govt DOES matter).

This reminds me of childhood trips up from Kent to Sheffield to stay with my grandparents c. 1967-74. We'd travel up the A1 through a load of places that all seemed to have weird names: Chipping Ongar, Buntingford, Godmanchester, Wellow, Clowne... We'd stop off for a packed lunch in the car park of a service area, allowing us to have a piss and the family dog to cease panting in the hatchback boot and stretch his legs, without money being spent. Packed lunch would be something like doorstep fishpaste sandwiches, an orange Club biscuit (the highlight) and weak tea out of plastic cups. We'd have lunch in the car on those trips. The calor gas stove only came out on daytrips to the Peak District or travelling around Ireland....parents forever trying to find a boulder offering shelter from the wind, so that the stove wouldn't blow out. Those trips could get tedious if it took a long time to find my Mum "a nice view" (seriously, what use is "a nice view" when you're a kid - though it was OK if you could get out of the car and scramble on the rocks). It got more fun if rain forced us into a bar in Ireland. Back then, kids generally weren't allowed in pubs in England, but were in Ireland (rural areas, at least) - so we'd get to have a Cidona and a pack of Tayto crisps in the bar, instead of sitting in the car with Coke and Golden Wonder (sorry, never heard of Walkers) while the parents went in the pub, like in England. Irish bars also always had a row of old blokes in flat caps sitting on stools at the bar supping Guinness, which I found fascinating...