In about a week the deranged Democrats will go back to calling Trump “Hitler” - they can’t help themselves. A couple on TwiX are nearly there already
There’s a reasonable chance, with this rhetoric, that someone will take ANOTHER pot shot at the Donald
How will a whacko get another chance? Security is going to be presumably off the scale now for both candidates until polling day.
Yes. It will be MUCH harder. I’m just saying I wouldn’t be surprised if someone tries
The way the Dems have gone from saying “Trump is worse than Hitler” to “everyone must dial down the rhetoric” is painfully comic. And transparently hypocritical
Of course, it would have been better if they’d not gone hysterical a year ago. Then they wouldn’t be in this pickle. Likewise, it would have been better if they’d acknowledged Biden’s senility a year ago. But no
There seems to have been a collective amnesia from some who are now painting Trump as the poor victim who has spent the last 8 years promoting peace and unity !
Just say "it's a shame he missed". It's what you're thinking. I imagine a decent chunk of PB is thinking this. Thousands of American lefties are straight out saying it on TwiX. There's no shame in it if you REALLY think he is as bad as Hitler, because political violence, in that context, is arguably justified
Remember we are looking at Hitler in hindsight. We know what he, and the regime he led, evolved into.
There’s the debate in academia about how much Hitler pushed the increasing radicalisation (probably a lot but any paperwork, if there indeed was any authorising the increasing ferocity of the Holocaust, etc, etc is missing, presumably destroyed) and how much it was driven by enthusiastic acolytes ‘working towards the Fuhrer’, as the saying goes, meaning the idea that people in the hierarchy interpreted Hitler’s broad rhetoric and devised ever increasingly radical solutions promoted by his rhetoric and rantings. It seems there was never an overarching plan for the Holocaust - it evolved and radicalised over time and as Germany captured more territory full of Jews in the East, and needed a ‘Final Solution’.
So what scares me is that the iconography of Trump - the flags and stirring music when he came out of hospital after Covid, for example, is very Leni Riefenstahl. There’s a similar ‘Fuhrerpricip’ - whatever Trump says is inviolate and infallible. There seem to be millions of Americans who would willingly ‘work towards’ Trump, driving increasing radicalisation down the hierarchy.
That’s what scares me. To my eyes, it all looks similar to 1933 currently, with the potential to evolve and escalate to something much, much worse.
Do you think there are millions of Americans who would herd 20,000 Jews into a ravine and calmly put a bullet in each and every head? Do you think America under Trump would be expansionist (so presumably invading first Canada and then move south?
I'd steer clear of the Hitler comparisons. It does no favours. Hitler came to power in a state that lost a world war 15 years before where millions of Germans were seething with fury about the loss. A surrender when German armies where still on foreign soil. That many believed the army had been stabbed in the back. An era where political violence was the norm, not the horrific exception.
People have compared the Jan 6th Riots to the the beer hall putsch. But it was nothing like the same. There was no coherent plan to seize control of the arms of the state, just a bunch of deluded and dangerous idiots.
No I’m not saying that. What I’m saying is that I think it is possible that there are the seeds there for a regime to emerge that could go to some very dark places. How that manifests itself will be in a uniquely American way.
I want to slightly refine what I wrote above:
No I’m not saying that. What I’m saying is that I think it is possible that there are the seeds there for a regime, driven by a radical Christian Nationalist ideology, to emerge that could, driven by internal pressures and external events yet to happen, go to some very dark places. How that manifests itself will be in a uniquely American way.
I'm not saying it will happen, I'm saying that the ingredients, the petri dish, for something like that to happen is discernible. And if we do get the kind of regime that Trump and his backers are indicating they would like to see, then it will be very bad news indeed for the world. It won't be a replay of Nazi Germany and Trump isn't Hitler. But they are both iconoclastic leaders who aren't afraid to break things in the pursuit of what they want. And that is very dangerous.
SATs should be retained as a means of measuring educational attainment. Free schools and academies offer choice to parents and also should be retained
The main issue I have with SATS is that they measure how well a kid does in SATS, which is not the same as measuring attainment.
I can't recall who it was, but I remember reading about someone who became obsessed with IQ tests as a kid, did loads, got very good at them to the point that his school thought he was a genius and moved him into a high flyers programme. He wasn't a high flier - he had just learned how to do IQ. I worry that the same is true of SATS.
In terms of Maths and verbal reasoning skills SATs do largely measure attainment
I teach students across all years at Uni. One of the things we find is that schools prepare them for exams by doing past papers. Lots of past papers. You could imagine its just about learning the question style, but it goes a bit deeper than that. Hence my students constantly want past papers (which we provide one, as an example, only). I have no doubt that schools prepare kids for SATS by doing SATS questions and papers and they are thus, doing exactly what I suggest happens.
We do need an idea of how our kids are getting on. But there are many ways of doing this. Good teachers will know where kids are in their progression. Measurement distorts. It always does.
'Measurement distorts.' 'Exams distort' Why not just let every teacher give every pupil an A grade and be done with it!
Exams have a purpose; SATS don't have any good reason to exist.
The purpose of SATS is to gauge how well a school is doing - as you say they don't help the individual pupil and by forcing to teach to an exam doesn't give schools any flexibility in what they focus teaching on.
Yes, the KS2 SATS are purely for the purpose of ranking primary schools. That was clear at the time my lad was doing his; the school was practically begging the parents to get our kids to take them seriously even though we know the results would have no bearing on our children's futures.
SATs should be retained as a means of measuring educational attainment. Free schools and academies offer choice to parents and also should be retained
The main issue I have with SATS is that they measure how well a kid does in SATS, which is not the same as measuring attainment.
I can't recall who it was, but I remember reading about someone who became obsessed with IQ tests as a kid, did loads, got very good at them to the point that his school thought he was a genius and moved him into a high flyers programme. He wasn't a high flier - he had just learned how to do IQ. I worry that the same is true of SATS.
In terms of Maths and verbal reasoning skills SATs do largely measure attainment
I teach students across all years at Uni. One of the things we find is that schools prepare them for exams by doing past papers. Lots of past papers. You could imagine its just about learning the question style, but it goes a bit deeper than that. Hence my students constantly want past papers (which we provide one, as an example, only). I have no doubt that schools prepare kids for SATS by doing SATS questions and papers and they are thus, doing exactly what I suggest happens.
We do need an idea of how our kids are getting on. But there are many ways of doing this. Good teachers will know where kids are in their progression. Measurement distorts. It always does.
'Measurement distorts.' 'Exams distort' Why not just let every teacher give every pupil an A grade and be done with it!
Exams have a purpose; SATS don't have any good reason to exist.
They really really do. It's been shown time and again that SATS are a good way to spot talent in hard-to-reach demographics - poor people, working class people, ethnic minority people. SATS are GOOD for bright kids from tougher backgrounds
Some educationalists argue FOR them for precisely this reason
There's decent evidence for that, for the SAT in the US. In the UK, for KS2 SATS ?
Fair enough. I was definitely talking about America. I have no idea about the UK
That's nearly twice the number of average number houses built in the UK per year over the last decade...
Yes, and remember, this is just asylum seekers. So we'd have normal migration on top of that, which is at present around 600-700,000. So clever old Rory is suggesting we take 1m people a year, in eight years a city the size of LONDON
The only reason Rory was ever in the Tories was because he was too posh to be Labour. Ideologically he is a LD or even a Green, indeed he said before the GE he would likely vote LD or Green
But even that is fucking nuts. How can a Green want an extra 1m people a year in Britain. Our island is already crowded and denatured by overpopulation, another 1m people a year for ten years and you'd basically have to concrete the entire south of England
They are crazy and they are wilfully stupid, its like a cult has possessed them
There is a green logic, if you put aside domestic social/cultural questions and look at things globally.
The greenest arrangement of the global population would be as follows: the vast majority living in a string of vast megacities, in high rise towers, serviced by public transport and located in the maritime temperate zones of the world where there is the least combined demand for heating and air conditioning, and good water availability.
Highly intensive agriculture covering the minimum possible geographical footprint, potentially also with a vertical element.
The rest of the world a sparsely populated wilderness covered in vast untouched forests.
It's a sort of macrocosm of how, say, Japan is already. I doubt that vision is going to win the Greens or any other party many votes, not least in the likes of Waveney Valley or North Herefordshire, but if you were an alien empire running the earth as a SIM ecosystem that's how you would organise things.
However, the comments for the article gave me enough info for its intermediary stage, which is much like you describe. It is the only time I have been effectively asked to do a prequel...
Putting aside the global utopia/dystopia evoked by the Bladerunner megacity idea, on a more local or even continental scale there's an element of this that is indeed happening, and it's not without its ecological benefits.
France is one of the most marked examples. If you look at a map of population density in 1850 it's way way more spread out than now. In the last couple of centuries the population has left the countryside by the millions and settled in the cities. It's left huge tracts of French provincial landscape empty, but scattered with beautiful old rural buildings. Sadly in some parts of the country the agriculteurs have filled the void with extensive, pesticide and herbicide-ridden monoculture.
SATs should be retained as a means of measuring educational attainment. Free schools and academies offer choice to parents and also should be retained
The main issue I have with SATS is that they measure how well a kid does in SATS, which is not the same as measuring attainment.
I can't recall who it was, but I remember reading about someone who became obsessed with IQ tests as a kid, did loads, got very good at them to the point that his school thought he was a genius and moved him into a high flyers programme. He wasn't a high flier - he had just learned how to do IQ. I worry that the same is true of SATS.
In terms of Maths and verbal reasoning skills SATs do largely measure attainment
I teach students across all years at Uni. One of the things we find is that schools prepare them for exams by doing past papers. Lots of past papers. You could imagine its just about learning the question style, but it goes a bit deeper than that. Hence my students constantly want past papers (which we provide one, as an example, only). I have no doubt that schools prepare kids for SATS by doing SATS questions and papers and they are thus, doing exactly what I suggest happens.
We do need an idea of how our kids are getting on. But there are many ways of doing this. Good teachers will know where kids are in their progression. Measurement distorts. It always does.
'Measurement distorts.' 'Exams distort' Why not just let every teacher give every pupil an A grade and be done with it!
Exams have a purpose; SATS don't have any good reason to exist.
They really really do. It's been shown time and again that SATS are a good way to spot talent in hard-to-reach demographics - poor people, working class people, ethnic minority people. SATS are GOOD for bright kids from tougher backgrounds
Some educationalists argue FOR them for precisely this reason
That's American SATs, done for University admissions. I don't know how gameable/teachable they are- though they are almost certainly better than just going by social veneer.
In a thread about English education, I assume we're talking English SATs, done at the end of Primary school. Which I doubt that any secondary school even bothers looking at. They exist just to generate data for primary school performance tables.
So that tweet says Starmer, but you said the cabinet went as well.
So I’d rather wait for a bona fide news source.
I was being hyperbolic, not writing an article for the Gazette
AFAICS Starmer and Nandy both went by private jet. Nandy seems particularly absurd
I can see the logic (security, timing) but really, after all their rhetoric about Sunak, and Ed Milliband wanking on about net zero, a privaate jet to a football match??
"The Labour Cabinet" is me. That's my hyperbole. You may have noticed I can be hyperbolic. I'm writing comments on an obscure forum not a news report for the BBC
Starmer and Nandy went by private jet to a footy match, it still staggers me
So that tweet says Starmer, but you said the cabinet went as well.
So I’d rather wait for a bona fide news source.
I was being hyperbolic, not writing an article for the Gazette
AFAICS Starmer and Nandy both went by private jet. Nandy seems particularly absurd
I can see the logic (security, timing) but really, after all their rhetoric about Sunak, and Ed Milliband wanking on about net zero, a privaate jet to a football match??
This is a betting site, hyperbole costs people money.
Nandy is the Culture Secretary, it makes sense for her to go.
So that tweet says Starmer, but you said the cabinet went as well.
So I’d rather wait for a bona fide news source.
I was being hyperbolic, not writing an article for the Gazette
AFAICS Starmer and Nandy both went by private jet. Nandy seems particularly absurd
I can see the logic (security, timing) but really, after all their rhetoric about Sunak, and Ed Milliband wanking on about net zero, a privaate jet to a football match??
This is a betting site, hyperbole costs people money.
Nandy is the Culture Secretary, it makes sense for her to go.
You don't think it comes across as a tiny bit privileged and a touch hypocritical?
To be fair, a friend of mine went to the semi and the final and reckoned it significantly more challenging to get flights than tickets.
(He also reckoned DB to be the most useless railway service he had ever encountered.)
I'm more interested in the idea that 'the cabinet' went - what, all of them? I'm not massively surprised that the PM went - though I would have thought this is the sort of job we have a monarchy for - but how many politicians do we need at a football match?
"The Labour Cabinet" is me. That's my hyperbole. You may have noticed I can be hyperbolic. I'm writing comments on an obscure forum not a news report for the BBC
Starmer and Nandy went by private jet to a footy match, it still staggers me
Because “Government ministers travel on government plane to international event they’re expected to attend” isn’t really news?
It’s hardly as if EasyJet had a pile of spare seats for the afternoon flight, airlines had already spent the past week scrambling to charter every available plane in Europe to put on extra flights to Berlin yesterday.
To be fair, a friend of mine went to the semi and the final and reckoned it significantly more challenging to get flights than tickets.
(He also reckoned DB to be the most useless railway service he had ever encountered.)
I'm more interested in the idea that 'the cabinet' went - what, all of them? I'm not massively surprised that the PM went - though I would have thought this is the sort of job we have a monarchy for - but how many politicians do we need at a football match?
No, Jeez, that was me larking about. Starmer and Nandy went
"The Labour Cabinet" is me. That's my hyperbole. You may have noticed I can be hyperbolic. I'm writing comments on an obscure forum not a news report for the BBC
Starmer and Nandy went by private jet to a footy match, it still staggers me
Because “Government ministers travel on government plane to international event they’re expected to attend” isn’t really news?
It’s hardly as if EasyJet had a pile of spare seats for the afternoon flight, airlines had already spent the past week scrambling to charter every available plane in Europe to put on extra flights to Berlin yesterday.
I'd love to see Ed Miliband questioned on this, nonetheless
Also, Labour banged on and on about Sunak and his private jets and choppers, and now suddenly Oh it's fine they need them for government business. Sure. Sure sure. Cool cool
So that tweet says Starmer, but you said the cabinet went as well.
So I’d rather wait for a bona fide news source.
I was being hyperbolic, not writing an article for the Gazette
AFAICS Starmer and Nandy both went by private jet. Nandy seems particularly absurd
I can see the logic (security, timing) but really, after all their rhetoric about Sunak, and Ed Milliband wanking on about net zero, a privaate jet to a football match??
This is a betting site, hyperbole costs people money.
Nandy is the Culture Secretary, it makes sense for her to go.
You don't think it comes across as a tiny bit privileged and a touch hypocritical?
If it was the entire cabinet you may have a point but since it isn’t then no.
I’d also point out all commercial flights etc to Berlin have been sold out since Wednesday.
"The Labour Cabinet" is me. That's my hyperbole. You may have noticed I can be hyperbolic. I'm writing comments on an obscure forum not a news report for the BBC
Starmer and Nandy went by private jet to a footy match, it still staggers me
Because “Government ministers travel on government plane to international event they’re expected to attend” isn’t really news?
It’s hardly as if EasyJet had a pile of spare seats for the afternoon flight, airlines had already spent the past week scrambling to charter every available plane in Europe to put on extra flights to Berlin yesterday.
I'd love to see Ed Miliband questioned on this, nonetheless
Also, Labour banged on and on about Sunak and his private jets and choppers, and now suddenly Oh it's fine they need them for government business. Sure. Sure sure. Cool cool
Quiet conversations would have been had with the Spanish and German Governments - that makes going value for money....
"The Labour Cabinet" is me. That's my hyperbole. You may have noticed I can be hyperbolic. I'm writing comments on an obscure forum not a news report for the BBC
Starmer and Nandy went by private jet to a footy match, it still staggers me
Because “Government ministers travel on government plane to international event they’re expected to attend” isn’t really news?
It’s hardly as if EasyJet had a pile of spare seats for the afternoon flight, airlines had already spent the past week scrambling to charter every available plane in Europe to put on extra flights to Berlin yesterday.
There was endless criticism from Labour about Sunak using private or government planes to conduct government business. It’s funny they couldn’t even last two weeks before indulging in the same.
So that tweet says Starmer, but you said the cabinet went as well.
So I’d rather wait for a bona fide news source.
I was being hyperbolic, not writing an article for the Gazette
AFAICS Starmer and Nandy both went by private jet. Nandy seems particularly absurd
I can see the logic (security, timing) but really, after all their rhetoric about Sunak, and Ed Milliband wanking on about net zero, a privaate jet to a football match??
This is a betting site, hyperbole costs people money.
Nandy is the Culture Secretary, it makes sense for her to go.
You don't think it comes across as a tiny bit privileged and a touch hypocritical?
If it was the entire cabinet you may have a point but since it isn’t then no.
I’d also point out all commercial flights etc to Berlin have been sold out since Wednesday.
He just has to call the BA premier desk to get a couple of plebs bumped off a flight, no big deal.
To be fair, a friend of mine went to the semi and the final and reckoned it significantly more challenging to get flights than tickets.
(He also reckoned DB to be the most useless railway service he had ever encountered.)
I'm more interested in the idea that 'the cabinet' went - what, all of them? I'm not massively surprised that the PM went - though I would have thought this is the sort of job we have a monarchy for - but how many politicians do we need at a football match?
There were reports of significant issues with trains in the group stages for one of the England matches. I'm not surprised - surge capacity is hard. I recall trying to get a train back from Cardiff after a rugby final with about 20,000 others and there were NO extra trains. It seems like it ought to be obvious, but maybe its not possible in 2024 to run extra services...
So that tweet says Starmer, but you said the cabinet went as well.
So I’d rather wait for a bona fide news source.
I was being hyperbolic, not writing an article for the Gazette
AFAICS Starmer and Nandy both went by private jet. Nandy seems particularly absurd
I can see the logic (security, timing) but really, after all their rhetoric about Sunak, and Ed Milliband wanking on about net zero, a privaate jet to a football match??
This is a betting site, hyperbole costs people money.
Nandy is the Culture Secretary, it makes sense for her to go.
You don't think it comes across as a tiny bit privileged and a touch hypocritical?
If it was the entire cabinet you may have a point but since it isn’t then no.
I’d also point out all commercial flights etc to Berlin have been sold out since Wednesday.
He just has to call the BA premier desk to get a couple of plebs bumped off a flight, no big deal.
I find it hard to believe that all business and first class seats to airports an hour or two from Berlin were completely sold out
Because they could have flown to somewhere 2 hours away and got a driver and
1 saved tons of money and
2. Saved the climate
I have the feeling someone at number 10 didn’t try TOO hard on Opodo
Oh God Jamie Carragher is insisting that Southgate Must Stay
Someone make it stop. Please
If he goes and we go back to the other type of mediocrity (where we don't always qualify for World Cups and the Euros, and get knocked out in the group stages as per Brazil) will you be happier?
I regard the last 6 years as the best supporting the England football team. Two finals. Another semi and a loss in the quarters to a dodgy ref and a side that narrowly lost the final. Whats wrong with that?
Last night we came mighty close to a second equaliser. Who knows what would have happened after?
"The Labour Cabinet" is me. That's my hyperbole. You may have noticed I can be hyperbolic. I'm writing comments on an obscure forum not a news report for the BBC
Starmer and Nandy went by private jet to a footy match, it still staggers me
Because “Government ministers travel on government plane to international event they’re expected to attend” isn’t really news?
It’s hardly as if EasyJet had a pile of spare seats for the afternoon flight, airlines had already spent the past week scrambling to charter every available plane in Europe to put on extra flights to Berlin yesterday.
I'd love to see Ed Miliband questioned on this, nonetheless
Also, Labour banged on and on about Sunak and his private jets and choppers, and now suddenly Oh it's fine they need them for government business. Sure. Sure sure. Cool cool
Why do I have a suspicion that had Starmer not attended the final you may have been critical of his lack of patriotism?
Anyway, it looks like Starmer and Nandy plus, presumably, security and hangers-on went. They'd initially hoped to go by Ryanair, but Rachel Reeves had worked out that Starmer's excess baggage and other add-ons would make it more expensive to the taxpayer than the government plane.
To be fair, a friend of mine went to the semi and the final and reckoned it significantly more challenging to get flights than tickets.
(He also reckoned DB to be the most useless railway service he had ever encountered.)
I'm more interested in the idea that 'the cabinet' went - what, all of them? I'm not massively surprised that the PM went - though I would have thought this is the sort of job we have a monarchy for - but how many politicians do we need at a football match?
There were reports of significant issues with trains in the group stages for one of the England matches. I'm not surprised - surge capacity is hard. I recall trying to get a train back from Cardiff after a rugby final with about 20,000 others and there were NO extra trains. It seems like it ought to be obvious, but maybe its not possible in 2024 to run extra services...
When Wembley was under redevelopment and they used to play the English finals at Cardiff, there was one year where they had engineering works on the railway that they couldn’t clear, so there were almost no trains out, no hotel rooms for 50 miles in any direction, and 70,000 people trying to get out of Wales all at once.
Oh God Jamie Carragher is insisting that Southgate Must Stay
Someone make it stop. Please
Southgate inherited a mess. He has done a good job and is a good leader. You know as much about sport and leadership as you know about science, which is approximately the square root of jack shit. Lack of understanding of a subject would normally reduce someone's requirement to comment, but this is sadly not an inhibition in your case. It is why you are a journalist.
To be fair, a friend of mine went to the semi and the final and reckoned it significantly more challenging to get flights than tickets.
(He also reckoned DB to be the most useless railway service he had ever encountered.)
I'm more interested in the idea that 'the cabinet' went - what, all of them? I'm not massively surprised that the PM went - though I would have thought this is the sort of job we have a monarchy for - but how many politicians do we need at a football match?
No, Jeez, that was me larking about. Starmer and Nandy went
Oh God Jamie Carragher is insisting that Southgate Must Stay
Someone make it stop. Please
If he goes and we go back to the other type of mediocrity (where we don't always qualify for World Cups and the Euros, and get knocked out in the group stages as per Brazil) will you be happier?
I regard the last 6 years as the best supporting the England football team. Two finals. Another semi and a loss in the quarters to a dodgy ref and a side that narrowly lost the final. Whats wrong with that?
Last night we came mighty close to a second equaliser. Who knows what would have happened after?
England need a new direction and a new spirit of attack - like Spain. Southgate will never change
Oh God Jamie Carragher is insisting that Southgate Must Stay
Someone make it stop. Please
No. Southgate's done well, but his time is now up. Moreover, I keep hearing that England are so talented that with just a few managerial tweaks they'll be winning game after game after game and tournament after tournament after tournament. We need that to be empirically verified.
Oh God Jamie Carragher is insisting that Southgate Must Stay
Someone make it stop. Please
No. Southgate's done well, but his time is now up. Moreover, I keep hearing that England are so talented that with just a few managerial tweaks they'll be winning game after game after game and tournament after tournament after tournament. We need that to be empirically verified.
Oh God Jamie Carragher is insisting that Southgate Must Stay
Someone make it stop. Please
No. Southgate's done well, but his time is now up. Moreover, I keep hearing that England are so talented that with just a few managerial tweaks they'll be winning game after game after game and tournament after tournament after tournament. We need that to be empirically verified.
Yes. Exactly
And he’s not won anything. There is that, too
A gallant loser, as I say, is a loser. We need to stop excusing failure.
Oh God Jamie Carragher is insisting that Southgate Must Stay
Someone make it stop. Please
If he goes and we go back to the other type of mediocrity (where we don't always qualify for World Cups and the Euros, and get knocked out in the group stages as per Brazil) will you be happier?
I regard the last 6 years as the best supporting the England football team. Two finals. Another semi and a loss in the quarters to a dodgy ref and a side that narrowly lost the final. Whats wrong with that?
Last night we came mighty close to a second equaliser. Who knows what would have happened after?
A decade or so back, Millwall got to the final of the FA Cup. They achieved it purely by the draw falling such that they didn't really play anyone good all the way there. That approach basically explains Southgate's success. Beating Serbia and Slovenia doesn't really imply success.
In the Euros, there are basically five teams who are both big countries and well-resourced: England, France, Spain, Italy, Germany. For the WC, you can add Argentina and Brazil. Getting to the semi-finals of the Euros or the quarters of the WC therefore is no better than par. Granted it's better than any of Southgate's predecessors managed, but it's still not really success. Success would be an era when England beat other big 5/7 teams much more often than not. Whereas what we have now is England pootling through until they come across another big 5/7 team, then losing. England's success is like that of Rangers coming second in the SPL.
International football is a peculiar beast - because so many teams play it, you come across other big countries very rarely. So adequacy is often disguised as success (like the Rangers league position in the period before they've played Celtic).
Southgate is an adequate manager. That's not to be sneezed at - Sven was also adequate - but nor is it a cause for particular celebration.
"The Labour Cabinet" is me. That's my hyperbole. You may have noticed I can be hyperbolic. I'm writing comments on an obscure forum not a news report for the BBC
Starmer and Nandy went by private jet to a footy match, it still staggers me
Because “Government ministers travel on government plane to international event they’re expected to attend” isn’t really news?
It’s hardly as if EasyJet had a pile of spare seats for the afternoon flight, airlines had already spent the past week scrambling to charter every available plane in Europe to put on extra flights to Berlin yesterday.
There was endless criticism from Labour about Sunak using private or government planes to conduct government business. It’s funny they couldn’t even last two weeks before indulging in the same.
It’s perfectly normal hypocracy we get from all the politicians, no matter what colour their rosette.
There’s also security implications as well, the police don’t want him jumping on the EasyJet even if he’d love to do it that way, not unless there’s plenty of planning done beforehand. If the PM’s security detail tell him he’s going to the match on the government plane, then he’ll be going on the government plane or not at all.
Oh, and there’s now thought to be at least six police forces involved in the Trump rally, plus private security hired for the event. It’s no wonder there were co-ordination issues. Has to be one advantage in the UK of having VIP security under the Met, at least their radios can all talk to each other.
Southgate reign reminds me a bit of Eddie George with the rugby.
Initially taking over a poor team with limited players and formulating a playstyle that worked as hard to beat but limited flair, and that got the team to semi-finals and some famous wins. However, when the availability of much more talented players came along, they stuck with the same conservative style. England rugby are still kick kick kick kick, occasional use battering ram through the middle, team to this day.
As Tifo Football guys have explained the whole of world football knows how to nullify England's base strategy now, but still little change from the start. And hence why England struggled to create lots of chances game after game.
"The Labour Cabinet" is me. That's my hyperbole. You may have noticed I can be hyperbolic. I'm writing comments on an obscure forum not a news report for the BBC
Starmer and Nandy went by private jet to a footy match, it still staggers me
Because “Government ministers travel on government plane to international event they’re expected to attend” isn’t really news?
It’s hardly as if EasyJet had a pile of spare seats for the afternoon flight, airlines had already spent the past week scrambling to charter every available plane in Europe to put on extra flights to Berlin yesterday.
There was endless criticism from Labour about Sunak using private or government planes to conduct government business. It’s funny they couldn’t even last two weeks before indulging in the same.
It’s perfectly normal hypocracy we get from all the politicians, no matter what colour their rosette.
There’s also security implications as well, the police don’t want him jumping on the EasyJet even if he’d love to do it that way, not unless there’s plenty of planning done beforehand. If the PM’s security detail tell him he’s going to the match on the government plane, then he’ll be going on the government plane or not at all.
Oh, and there’s now thought to be at least six police forces involved in the Trump rally, plus private security hired for the event. It’s no wonder there were co-ordination issues. Has to be one advantage in the UK of having VIP security under the Met, at least their radios can all talk to each other.
I wonder if I will end up doing lots of threads on Starmer’s chopper like I did with Sunak?
To be fair, a friend of mine went to the semi and the final and reckoned it significantly more challenging to get flights than tickets.
(He also reckoned DB to be the most useless railway service he had ever encountered.)
I'm more interested in the idea that 'the cabinet' went - what, all of them? I'm not massively surprised that the PM went - though I would have thought this is the sort of job we have a monarchy for - but how many politicians do we need at a football match?
There were reports of significant issues with trains in the group stages for one of the England matches. I'm not surprised - surge capacity is hard. I recall trying to get a train back from Cardiff after a rugby final with about 20,000 others and there were NO extra trains. It seems like it ought to be obvious, but maybe its not possible in 2024 to run extra services...
Surge capacity is very challenging (and very interesting. I often marvel at the challenges of getting people away from the Old Traffords after events, and how relatively successful Metrolink is at it.) But DB’s problem didn’t appear to be providing enough trains to accommodate the surge, but providing any trains at all. I am, however, reporting this second hand.
To be fair, a friend of mine went to the semi and the final and reckoned it significantly more challenging to get flights than tickets.
(He also reckoned DB to be the most useless railway service he had ever encountered.)
I'm more interested in the idea that 'the cabinet' went - what, all of them? I'm not massively surprised that the PM went - though I would have thought this is the sort of job we have a monarchy for - but how many politicians do we need at a football match?
There were reports of significant issues with trains in the group stages for one of the England matches. I'm not surprised - surge capacity is hard. I recall trying to get a train back from Cardiff after a rugby final with about 20,000 others and there were NO extra trains. It seems like it ought to be obvious, but maybe its not possible in 2024 to run extra services...
Cardiff Central after an international, the up-platform heaving with drunken choristers and a dozen stationary carriages, all packed to brim. But no locomotive. So I walked to the front end where it was eerily deserted and waited and waited and in the fullness of time four empty carriages and a loco backed in. So I climbed on board and made myself comfortable. Next stop Gloucester. Toot Toot.
Oh God Jamie Carragher is insisting that Southgate Must Stay
Someone make it stop. Please
If he goes and we go back to the other type of mediocrity (where we don't always qualify for World Cups and the Euros, and get knocked out in the group stages as per Brazil) will you be happier?
I regard the last 6 years as the best supporting the England football team. Two finals. Another semi and a loss in the quarters to a dodgy ref and a side that narrowly lost the final. Whats wrong with that?
Last night we came mighty close to a second equaliser. Who knows what would have happened after?
A decade or so back, Millwall got to the final of the FA Cup. They achieved it purely by the draw falling such that they didn't really play anyone good all the way there. That approach basically explains Southgate's success. Beating Serbia and Slovenia doesn't really imply success.
In the Euros, there are basically five teams who are both big countries and well-resourced: England, France, Spain, Italy, Germany. For the WC, you can add Argentina and Brazil. Getting to the semi-finals of the Euros or the quarters of the WC therefore is no better than par. Granted it's better than any of Southgate's predecessors managed, but it's still not really success. Success would be an era when England beat other big 5/7 teams much more often than not. Whereas what we have now is England pootling through until they come across another big 5/7 team, then losing. England's success is like that of Rangers coming second in the SPL.
International football is a peculiar beast - because so many teams play it, you come across other big countries very rarely. So adequacy is often disguised as success (like the Rangers league position in the period before they've played Celtic).
Southgate is an adequate manager. That's not to be sneezed at - Sven was also adequate - but nor is it a cause for particular celebration.
I must have imagined beating Germany 2-0 in 2021 then.
I get your point, but I don't think you an say that two finals, a semi and a quarter are simply about luck. We've had that before and failed. Southgate has created something, and I fear it may prove temporary. The previous 'golden generation' was fractured by inter-club rivalry. Southgate has managed to avoid that completely and built a club team ethos.
I also reject the idea that not winning means its failure. On a facile level, yes. thats true. But more realistically 23 teams failed by that token. Very few teams actually with the Euros or the WC.
I think Southgate has been exceptional. Not merely adequate. Someone else might have done better (but who?). No-one else did since 1966.
We were outplayed. The question is can anyone make what appear to be a very talented group of players play more dynamically. Or is that the best we can expect.
About half way through the second half I realised I, along with other England fans no doubt, was just hoping we'd survive to penalties and then who knows. That can't be right.
Biden stumbled over “ballot” and it’s came out as halfway between “ballot” and “battle”. It didn’t interrupt the flow of his speech and was understandable given context
Radio 4 reported it as a “major gaffe” that will renew “doubt” about his candidacy
The man has a stutter FFS. What other disability would it be ok to mock?
It’s somehow pleasing to see “it’s just a stutter” still doing the rounds. Like seeing some genial old neighbour, long presumed dead, still shuffling to the corner shop
A mangled version of “ballot” and “battle” - it came out as “battot” - is.
He also called former-president Trump "former Trump", which has nothing to do with a stutter and is also darkly funny, in the circs
I’m well aware of that
My post was a criticism of Radio 4’s choice of material not a comment on Biden’s health.
Biden stumbled over “ballot” and it’s came out as halfway between “ballot” and “battle”. It didn’t interrupt the flow of his speech and was understandable given context
Radio 4 reported it as a “major gaffe” that will renew “doubt” about his candidacy
The man has a stutter FFS. What other disability would it be ok to mock?
Its an odd stutter that names Putin as president of Ukraine, and Donald Trump as your own vice-President.
Those were mistakes.
This was not.
Biden's stutter is so bad he thinks President Mitterand is still alive, and Europe is in fact Asia
It must be the worst stutter in the history of idiolalia
Biden stumbled over “ballot” and it’s came out as halfway between “ballot” and “battle”. It didn’t interrupt the flow of his speech and was understandable given context
Radio 4 reported it as a “major gaffe” that will renew “doubt” about his candidacy
The man has a stutter FFS. What other disability would it be ok to mock?
Its an odd stutter that names Putin as president of Ukraine, and Donald Trump as your own vice-President.
Those were mistakes.
This was not.
Biden's stutter is so bad he thinks President Mitterand is still alive, and Europe is in fact Asia
It must be the worst stutter in the history of idiolalia
Southgate reign reminds me a bit of Eddie George with the rugby.
Initially taking over a poor team with limited players and formulating a playstyle that worked as hard to beat but limited flair, and that got the team to semi-finals and some famous wins. However, when the availability of much more talented players came along, they stuck with the same conservative style. England rugby are still kick kick kick kick, occasional use battering ram through the middle, team to this day.
As Tifo Football guys have explained the whole of world football knows how to nullify England's base strategy now, but still little change from the start. And hence why England struggled to create lots of chances game after game.
BIB - the players have taken control of playing style in the last few months and things are MUCH improved, despite the two losses in NZ (both of which could and perhaps ought to have been wins). Its fashionable to deride England's playing style but is it that different to Ireland? The best sides aim for ultra quick ruck ball and where possible ball out of the tackle. Add into that an ability to shift the ball wide, accurately and quickly to get around defences (often now via a cross field kick-pass) and that's modern rugby. Its true that many international sides are extremely comfortable in defence, notably so out of the 22, so will happily use a kick when an attacking phase becomes bogged down. At the weekend England tried grubbers a bit too much when in the NZ 22 - I am all for keeping possession as long as possible in the main.
Southgate reign reminds me a bit of Eddie George with the rugby.
Initially taking over a poor team with limited players and formulating a playstyle that worked as hard to beat but limited flair, and that got the team to semi-finals and some famous wins. However, when the availability of much more talented players came along, they stuck with the same conservative style. England rugby are still kick kick kick kick, occasional use battering ram through the middle, team to this day.
As Tifo Football guys have explained the whole of world football knows how to nullify England's base strategy now, but still little change from the start. And hence why England struggled to create lots of chances game after game.
Sorry to be pedantic but isn't that Eddie Jones, Eddie George was the governor of the BoE for a while ?
Southgate reign reminds me a bit of Eddie George with the rugby.
Initially taking over a poor team with limited players and formulating a playstyle that worked as hard to beat but limited flair, and that got the team to semi-finals and some famous wins. However, when the availability of much more talented players came along, they stuck with the same conservative style. England rugby are still kick kick kick kick, occasional use battering ram through the middle, team to this day.
As Tifo Football guys have explained the whole of world football knows how to nullify England's base strategy now, but still little change from the start. And hence why England struggled to create lots of chances game after game.
It would have been fascinating to see what Eddie George could do with English rugby. Increase interest perhaps? Even more intriguing would be Eddie Jones at the Bank of England.
Biden stumbled over “ballot” and it’s came out as halfway between “ballot” and “battle”. It didn’t interrupt the flow of his speech and was understandable given context
Radio 4 reported it as a “major gaffe” that will renew “doubt” about his candidacy
The man has a stutter FFS. What other disability would it be ok to mock?
As far as I can tell this wasn't a live piece, it was recorded. So why didn't they record it again when he made the mistake? His backroom staff must be useless.
We were outplayed. The question is can anyone make what appear to be a very talented group of players play more dynamically. Or is that the best we can expect.
About half way through the second half I realised I, along with other England fans no doubt, was just hoping we'd survive to penalties and then who knows. That can't be right.
And yet if the second equaliser had gone in, and we'd reached penalties after a nervous 30 mins and won, who would have complained in England that Spain were the better side (they were). There are countless examples in sport where the 'better' side loses. Thats what makes it fun.
Southgate reign reminds me a bit of Eddie George with the rugby.
Initially taking over a poor team with limited players and formulating a playstyle that worked as hard to beat but limited flair, and that got the team to semi-finals and some famous wins. However, when the availability of much more talented players came along, they stuck with the same conservative style. England rugby are still kick kick kick kick, occasional use battering ram through the middle, team to this day.
As Tifo Football guys have explained the whole of world football knows how to nullify England's base strategy now, but still little change from the start. And hence why England struggled to create lots of chances game after game.
It would have been fascinating to see what Eddie George could do with English rugby. Increase interest perhaps? Even more intriguing would be Eddie Jones at the Bank of England.
We were outplayed. The question is can anyone make what appear to be a very talented group of players play more dynamically. Or is that the best we can expect.
About half way through the second half I realised I, along with other England fans no doubt, was just hoping we'd survive to penalties and then who knows. That can't be right.
The only period where England looked properly competitive was when they attacked after the first Spanish goal. When the equalised they almost immediately sat back again and let the Spanish play around them.
Most of the English players play for top clubs and are used to their teams both setting the tempo and dominating possession. They do not play their best when being told to be more defensive and to sit off. I think Southgate is overly cautious and reluctant to open the game up. That is, firstly, a bit boring and secondly, doesn't get the best out of his players. I think England need a manager who can make them more offensive and ambitious. Southgate made England hard to beat but they also found it hard to win.
Southgate reign reminds me a bit of Eddie George with the rugby.
Initially taking over a poor team with limited players and formulating a playstyle that worked as hard to beat but limited flair, and that got the team to semi-finals and some famous wins. However, when the availability of much more talented players came along, they stuck with the same conservative style. England rugby are still kick kick kick kick, occasional use battering ram through the middle, team to this day.
As Tifo Football guys have explained the whole of world football knows how to nullify England's base strategy now, but still little change from the start. And hence why England struggled to create lots of chances game after game.
Sorry to be pedantic but isn't that Eddie Jones, Eddie George was the governor of the BoE for a while ?
Never apologise for pedantry on PB. The sites name is Pedantic Betting after all.
We were outplayed. The question is can anyone make what appear to be a very talented group of players play more dynamically. Or is that the best we can expect.
About half way through the second half I realised I, along with other England fans no doubt, was just hoping we'd survive to penalties and then who knows. That can't be right.
And yet if the second equaliser had gone in, and we'd reached penalties after a nervous 30 mins and won, who would have complained in England that Spain were the better side (they were). There are countless examples in sport where the 'better' side loses. Thats what makes it fun.
My point was that if as a fan you realise that the best you can hope for is to survive to penalties and that the more open play there is the greater danger you are in, then you know the team should be in a different place.
Or he is saying something much more sinister: he wants to change the demographics of the country so much over tim that it is unrecognisable and is unable to vote for as he sees it populists.
It's the ideology of cranks, and it is incredibly dangerous. It would definitely mean PM Farage, or something much much worse
Someone needs to write a book about how the supposed sensible centre of politics became this crazy and unmoored from reality
He's getting eerily close to admitting to a "great replacement" conspiracy.
No, that’s how you are interpreting it.
What he is saying is that there are a lot of people fleeing dangerous places and we need to offer them asylum
I disagree with him, but that’s not the same as rolling out a classic racist trope as you are doing
Biden stumbled over “ballot” and it’s came out as halfway between “ballot” and “battle”. It didn’t interrupt the flow of his speech and was understandable given context
Radio 4 reported it as a “major gaffe” that will renew “doubt” about his candidacy
The man has a stutter FFS. What other disability would it be ok to mock?
As far as I can tell this wasn't a live piece, it was recorded. So why didn't they record it again when he made the mistake? His backroom staff must be useless.
Biden stumbled over “ballot” and it’s came out as halfway between “ballot” and “battle”. It didn’t interrupt the flow of his speech and was understandable given context
Radio 4 reported it as a “major gaffe” that will renew “doubt” about his candidacy
The man has a stutter FFS. What other disability would it be ok to mock?
As far as I can tell this wasn't a live piece, it was recorded. So why didn't they record it again when he made the mistake? His backroom staff must be useless.
The WH media spokesman was adamant they were going to be doing it live, at least beforehand.
Southgate reign reminds me a bit of Eddie George with the rugby.
Initially taking over a poor team with limited players and formulating a playstyle that worked as hard to beat but limited flair, and that got the team to semi-finals and some famous wins. However, when the availability of much more talented players came along, they stuck with the same conservative style. England rugby are still kick kick kick kick, occasional use battering ram through the middle, team to this day.
As Tifo Football guys have explained the whole of world football knows how to nullify England's base strategy now, but still little change from the start. And hence why England struggled to create lots of chances game after game.
BIB - the players have taken control of playing style in the last few months and things are MUCH improved, despite the two losses in NZ (both of which could and perhaps ought to have been wins). Its fashionable to deride England's playing style but is it that different to Ireland? The best sides aim for ultra quick ruck ball and where possible ball out of the tackle. Add into that an ability to shift the ball wide, accurately and quickly to get around defences (often now via a cross field kick-pass) and that's modern rugby. Its true that many international sides are extremely comfortable in defence, notably so out of the 22, so will happily use a kick when an attacking phase becomes bogged down. At the weekend England tried grubbers a bit too much when in the NZ 22 - I am all for keeping possession as long as possible in the main.
Its better, but NZ, SA, France, their default is run, then kick. England's is still kick then run. But under Eddie JONES it was far worse kick kick, some more kicking, oh we are near the line, give it the big centre to run direct at the line. I think Marcus Smith and Fin Smith are more inventive than Farrell, but worse goal kickers.
Oh God Jamie Carragher is insisting that Southgate Must Stay
Someone make it stop. Please
If he goes and we go back to the other type of mediocrity (where we don't always qualify for World Cups and the Euros, and get knocked out in the group stages as per Brazil) will you be happier?
I regard the last 6 years as the best supporting the England football team. Two finals. Another semi and a loss in the quarters to a dodgy ref and a side that narrowly lost the final. Whats wrong with that?
Last night we came mighty close to a second equaliser. Who knows what would have happened after?
A decade or so back, Millwall got to the final of the FA Cup. They achieved it purely by the draw falling such that they didn't really play anyone good all the way there. That approach basically explains Southgate's success. Beating Serbia and Slovenia doesn't really imply success.
In the Euros, there are basically five teams who are both big countries and well-resourced: England, France, Spain, Italy, Germany. For the WC, you can add Argentina and Brazil. Getting to the semi-finals of the Euros or the quarters of the WC therefore is no better than par. Granted it's better than any of Southgate's predecessors managed, but it's still not really success. Success would be an era when England beat other big 5/7 teams much more often than not. Whereas what we have now is England pootling through until they come across another big 5/7 team, then losing. England's success is like that of Rangers coming second in the SPL.
International football is a peculiar beast - because so many teams play it, you come across other big countries very rarely. So adequacy is often disguised as success (like the Rangers league position in the period before they've played Celtic).
Southgate is an adequate manager. That's not to be sneezed at - Sven was also adequate - but nor is it a cause for particular celebration.
I must have imagined beating Germany 2-0 in 2021 then.
I get your point, but I don't think you an say that two finals, a semi and a quarter are simply about luck. We've had that before and failed. Southgate has created something, and I fear it may prove temporary. The previous 'golden generation' was fractured by inter-club rivalry. Southgate has managed to avoid that completely and built a club team ethos.
I also reject the idea that not winning means its failure. On a facile level, yes. thats true. But more realistically 23 teams failed by that token. Very few teams actually with the Euros or the WC.
I think Southgate has been exceptional. Not merely adequate. Someone else might have done better (but who?). No-one else did since 1966.
All fair points, but:
"I must have imagined beating Germany 2-0 in 2021 then."
Well yes, but what's Southgate's overall record against the big 5/7? I'd suggest if it were a league for the time of his tenure England would be firmly in relegation territory.
"I get your point, but I don't think you an say that two finals, a semi and a quarter are simply about luck. We've had that before and failed. Southgate has created something, and I fear it may prove temporary. The previous 'golden generation' was fractured by inter-club rivalry. Southgate has managed to avoid that completely and built a club team ethos." He has - and it's to be applauded - but it doesn't seem to have ended up with notably better results than the last adequate manager, Sven (again measured by the criterion of win/loss against decent opposition).
"I also reject the idea that not winning means its failure. On a facile level, yes. thats true. But more realistically 23 teams failed by that token. Very few teams actually with the Euros or the WC. " Well yes, but different standards for different teams, surely? For Slovenia it was an achievement just to qualify. For the big 5 teams, the benchmark should be rather higher.
"I think Southgate has been exceptional. Not merely adequate. Someone else might have done better (but who?). No-one else did since 1966"
Well I can agree with your third sentence at least. Who else would want to do it? It's certainly not obvious there's a better candidate.
Southgate reign reminds me a bit of Eddie George with the rugby.
Initially taking over a poor team with limited players and formulating a playstyle that worked as hard to beat but limited flair, and that got the team to semi-finals and some famous wins. However, when the availability of much more talented players came along, they stuck with the same conservative style. England rugby are still kick kick kick kick, occasional use battering ram through the middle, team to this day.
As Tifo Football guys have explained the whole of world football knows how to nullify England's base strategy now, but still not change. And hence why England struggled to score game after game.
It does feel like it's time for the next phase with this England team.
They are still not the world's greatest passers or keepers of the ball, but then no England team ever was. Watching Spain yesterday just reminded us all how certain countries seem to have been blessed with strong magnetic fields around their football boots, and some don't. However, of all the teams I watched in the competition it was England whose players seemed best at running at defenders and dribbling. That's quite a novelty after decades when there was usually one player capable of doing that. Now we have several.
Another notable development that goes beyond England is the dominance of the "Latin" countries in both the Euros and World cup. The last time a Northern European team won the European championship was Germany in 1996. Since then the only Northern European teams even to get to the final were England and Germany.
Germany won the World Cup in 2014 and the Netherlands reached the final in 2010, but that's it. Belgium despite their ranking and talent haven't troubled the scorers. The Dutch haven't won anything since their sole European win in 1988. Notably the only Central or Eastern European nation to get close to winning is one with a Mediterranean coast - Croatia.
Contrast this with the 70s and 80s. From 1972 to 1996 the European winners were Germany, Czechoslovakia, Germany, France, Netherlands, Denmark, Germany. Only one (semi) Southern European country in there.
Southgate reign reminds me a bit of Eddie George with the rugby.
Initially taking over a poor team with limited players and formulating a playstyle that worked as hard to beat but limited flair, and that got the team to semi-finals and some famous wins. However, when the availability of much more talented players came along, they stuck with the same conservative style. England rugby are still kick kick kick kick, occasional use battering ram through the middle, team to this day.
As Tifo Football guys have explained the whole of world football knows how to nullify England's base strategy now, but still little change from the start. And hence why England struggled to create lots of chances game after game.
It would have been fascinating to see what Eddie George could do with English rugby. Increase interest perhaps? Even more intriguing would be Eddie Jones at the Bank of England.
Woophs obviously i meant Eddie Jones.
A love child of Jamie George and Eddie Jones perhaps?
Southgate reign reminds me a bit of Eddie George with the rugby.
Initially taking over a poor team with limited players and formulating a playstyle that worked as hard to beat but limited flair, and that got the team to semi-finals and some famous wins. However, when the availability of much more talented players came along, they stuck with the same conservative style. England rugby are still kick kick kick kick, occasional use battering ram through the middle, team to this day.
As Tifo Football guys have explained the whole of world football knows how to nullify England's base strategy now, but still little change from the start. And hence why England struggled to create lots of chances game after game.
BIB - the players have taken control of playing style in the last few months and things are MUCH improved, despite the two losses in NZ (both of which could and perhaps ought to have been wins). Its fashionable to deride England's playing style but is it that different to Ireland? The best sides aim for ultra quick ruck ball and where possible ball out of the tackle. Add into that an ability to shift the ball wide, accurately and quickly to get around defences (often now via a cross field kick-pass) and that's modern rugby. Its true that many international sides are extremely comfortable in defence, notably so out of the 22, so will happily use a kick when an attacking phase becomes bogged down. At the weekend England tried grubbers a bit too much when in the NZ 22 - I am all for keeping possession as long as possible in the main.
Its better, but NZ, SA, France, their default is run, then kick. England's is still kick then run. But under Eddie JONES it was far worse kick kick, some more kicking, oh we are near the line, give it the big centre to run direct at the line. I think Marcus Smith and Fin Smith are more inventive than Farrell, but worse goal kickers.
Have you seen the clip going around (of Arsenal v Chelsea some time in the 1970s) when all that happens is that the ball gets booted (or headed) from one end of the pitch to the other. Times (and tactics) change. I wonder whether on the continent they were playing the long ball 40+ years ago also.
Biden stumbled over “ballot” and it’s came out as halfway between “ballot” and “battle”. It didn’t interrupt the flow of his speech and was understandable given context
Radio 4 reported it as a “major gaffe” that will renew “doubt” about his candidacy
The man has a stutter FFS. What other disability would it be ok to mock?
It’s somehow pleasing to see “it’s just a stutter” still doing the rounds. Like seeing some genial old neighbour, long presumed dead, still shuffling to the corner shop
A mangled version of “ballot” and “battle” - it came out as “battot” - is.
He also called former-president Trump "former Trump", which has nothing to do with a stutter and is also darkly funny, in the circs
I’m well aware of that
My post was a criticism of Radio 4’s choice of material not a comment on Biden’s health.
Don't be under any illusion that those involved in both articles didnt change their minds about Biden's decline, they just knew that it was no longer possible to deflect.
We were outplayed. The question is can anyone make what appear to be a very talented group of players play more dynamically. Or is that the best we can expect.
About half way through the second half I realised I, along with other England fans no doubt, was just hoping we'd survive to penalties and then who knows. That can't be right.
And yet if the second equaliser had gone in, and we'd reached penalties after a nervous 30 mins and won, who would have complained in England that Spain were the better side (they were). There are countless examples in sport where the 'better' side loses. Thats what makes it fun.
My point was that if as a fan you realise that the best you can hope for is to survive to penalties and that the more open play there is the greater danger you are in, then you know the team should be in a different place.
Quite so. Imagine how much nicer it must be as a Spanish fan. Yes you will have boring or difficult phases but you also know your team has an attacking spirit and real flair - which they can and will use to win
England grind their way through and hope for a lot of luck. We should have gone out well before the finals and with the talent we have - which is now undeniable as these players are at the best teams in the world - we should be doing much better than that
Southgate is a nice guy and he’s built a nice ethos but it’s time to try something else. Please god
Southgate reign reminds me a bit of Eddie George with the rugby.
Initially taking over a poor team with limited players and formulating a playstyle that worked as hard to beat but limited flair, and that got the team to semi-finals and some famous wins. However, when the availability of much more talented players came along, they stuck with the same conservative style. England rugby are still kick kick kick kick, occasional use battering ram through the middle, team to this day.
As Tifo Football guys have explained the whole of world football knows how to nullify England's base strategy now, but still little change from the start. And hence why England struggled to create lots of chances game after game.
BIB - the players have taken control of playing style in the last few months and things are MUCH improved, despite the two losses in NZ (both of which could and perhaps ought to have been wins). Its fashionable to deride England's playing style but is it that different to Ireland? The best sides aim for ultra quick ruck ball and where possible ball out of the tackle. Add into that an ability to shift the ball wide, accurately and quickly to get around defences (often now via a cross field kick-pass) and that's modern rugby. Its true that many international sides are extremely comfortable in defence, notably so out of the 22, so will happily use a kick when an attacking phase becomes bogged down. At the weekend England tried grubbers a bit too much when in the NZ 22 - I am all for keeping possession as long as possible in the main.
Its better, but NZ, SA, France, their default is run, then kick. England's is still kick then run. But under Eddie JONES it was far worse kick kick, some more kicking, oh we are near the line, give it the big centre to run direct at the line. I think Marcus Smith and Fin Smith are more inventive than Farrell, but worse goal kickers.
Farrell was/is one of the finest rugby players England has ever produced. This view is endorsed by numerous non-English Lions players and no less than Sir Clive. Sadly it is always online rugby "experts" that think they know better (much like Southgate critics), most of whom who have never picked up a ball and have as much knowledge of rugby as Leon has about science and technology.
Oh God Jamie Carragher is insisting that Southgate Must Stay
Someone make it stop. Please
If he goes and we go back to the other type of mediocrity (where we don't always qualify for World Cups and the Euros, and get knocked out in the group stages as per Brazil) will you be happier?
I regard the last 6 years as the best supporting the England football team. Two finals. Another semi and a loss in the quarters to a dodgy ref and a side that narrowly lost the final. Whats wrong with that?
Last night we came mighty close to a second equaliser. Who knows what would have happened after?
A decade or so back, Millwall got to the final of the FA Cup. They achieved it purely by the draw falling such that they didn't really play anyone good all the way there. That approach basically explains Southgate's success. Beating Serbia and Slovenia doesn't really imply success.
In the Euros, there are basically five teams who are both big countries and well-resourced: England, France, Spain, Italy, Germany. For the WC, you can add Argentina and Brazil. Getting to the semi-finals of the Euros or the quarters of the WC therefore is no better than par. Granted it's better than any of Southgate's predecessors managed, but it's still not really success. Success would be an era when England beat other big 5/7 teams much more often than not. Whereas what we have now is England pootling through until they come across another big 5/7 team, then losing. England's success is like that of Rangers coming second in the SPL.
International football is a peculiar beast - because so many teams play it, you come across other big countries very rarely. So adequacy is often disguised as success (like the Rangers league position in the period before they've played Celtic).
Southgate is an adequate manager. That's not to be sneezed at - Sven was also adequate - but nor is it a cause for particular celebration.
I must have imagined beating Germany 2-0 in 2021 then.
I get your point, but I don't think you an say that two finals, a semi and a quarter are simply about luck. We've had that before and failed. Southgate has created something, and I fear it may prove temporary. The previous 'golden generation' was fractured by inter-club rivalry. Southgate has managed to avoid that completely and built a club team ethos.
I also reject the idea that not winning means its failure. On a facile level, yes. thats true. But more realistically 23 teams failed by that token. Very few teams actually with the Euros or the WC.
I think Southgate has been exceptional. Not merely adequate. Someone else might have done better (but who?). No-one else did since 1966.
All fair points, but:
"I must have imagined beating Germany 2-0 in 2021 then."
Well yes, but what's Southgate's overall record against the big 5/7? I'd suggest if it were a league for the time of his tenure England would be firmly in relegation territory.
"I get your point, but I don't think you an say that two finals, a semi and a quarter are simply about luck. We've had that before and failed. Southgate has created something, and I fear it may prove temporary. The previous 'golden generation' was fractured by inter-club rivalry. Southgate has managed to avoid that completely and built a club team ethos." He has - and it's to be applauded - but it doesn't seem to have ended up with notably better results than the last adequate manager, Sven (again measured by the criterion of win/loss against decent opposition).
"I also reject the idea that not winning means its failure. On a facile level, yes. thats true. But more realistically 23 teams failed by that token. Very few teams actually with the Euros or the WC. " Well yes, but different standards for different teams, surely? For Slovenia it was an achievement just to qualify. For the big 5 teams, the benchmark should be rather higher.
"I think Southgate has been exceptional. Not merely adequate. Someone else might have done better (but who?). No-one else did since 1966"
Well I can agree with your third sentence at least. Who else would want to do it? It's certainly not obvious there's a better candidate.
In 2018, from nowhere Southgate took an inexperience squad to the WC semis, where they lost to a very good Croatia, inspired by Modric. At 1-0 up there where several chances for second but the ball didn't fall right. In 2021 they lost on penalties to Italy. On penalties. Not quite a lottery but also good to acknowledge the manner of defeat. In 2022 they lost to France with a ref who gave the French every marginal call.
The role of luck in sport is huge, and I think England have often been unlucky at the big moments. Maradona, Lampard, Gaza just failing to connect in 1996, Waddles long range effort in 1990 and so on. I don't think England have ever put together a side and style of play that anyone would say "best in Europe" in the way that the French and Spanish have over recent times. The Germans have been brutally efficient.
I'm resigned to Southgate going and England getting worse.
"Villagers 'shell-shocked' after solar farm approved
Campaigners opposed to a 2,500-acre solar farm said they were "shell-shocked" after the plan was approved by the secretary of state for energy, external.
Sunnica's £600m energy farm on the Cambridgeshire-Suffolk border was given the green light on Friday.
Opponents say the scheme takes some of the most productive land in the UK out of use, while ignoring alternative sites such as south-facing commercial roof space.
The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero says the "benefits of the proposed development outweigh its adverse impacts"."
Ashcroft US July poll finds Biden's voteshare unchanged since May on 44%. Trump's vote is up 2% to 42% with Kennedy on 10% and Stein and West on 1% each
Southgate reign reminds me a bit of Eddie George with the rugby.
Initially taking over a poor team with limited players and formulating a playstyle that worked as hard to beat but limited flair, and that got the team to semi-finals and some famous wins. However, when the availability of much more talented players came along, they stuck with the same conservative style. England rugby are still kick kick kick kick, occasional use battering ram through the middle, team to this day.
As Tifo Football guys have explained the whole of world football knows how to nullify England's base strategy now, but still little change from the start. And hence why England struggled to create lots of chances game after game.
BIB - the players have taken control of playing style in the last few months and things are MUCH improved, despite the two losses in NZ (both of which could and perhaps ought to have been wins). Its fashionable to deride England's playing style but is it that different to Ireland? The best sides aim for ultra quick ruck ball and where possible ball out of the tackle. Add into that an ability to shift the ball wide, accurately and quickly to get around defences (often now via a cross field kick-pass) and that's modern rugby. Its true that many international sides are extremely comfortable in defence, notably so out of the 22, so will happily use a kick when an attacking phase becomes bogged down. At the weekend England tried grubbers a bit too much when in the NZ 22 - I am all for keeping possession as long as possible in the main.
Its better, but NZ, SA, France, their default is run, then kick. England's is still kick then run. But under Eddie JONES it was far worse kick kick, some more kicking, oh we are near the line, give it the big centre to run direct at the line. I think Marcus Smith and Fin Smith are more inventive than Farrell, but worse goal kickers.
Farrell was/is one of the finest rugby players England has ever produced. This view is endorsed by numerous non-English Lions players and no less than Sir Clive. Sadly it is always online rugby "experts" that think they know better (much like Southgate critics), most of whom who have never picked up a ball and have as much knowledge of rugby as Leon has about science and technology.
They are different players and the game moves on. Marcus Smith adds a different dimension to England attack, he is a more elusive runner than Farrell, and he does things in games that Farrell has never done in international games. See the past two NZ games. However, Farrell overall runs the game better, better tackler, makes far less mistakes, much superior goal kicker.
We can list footballers who are listed as the finest ever produced, but Bellingham would now have them for breakfast, as the game changes, improves.
We’ve got three local council by-elections in Camden coming up, as three Labour Camden councillors got elected as MPs (to places outside Camden).
London based carpetbaggers. Just what the voter ordered.
Georgia Gould has been elected in Queen’s Park and Maida Vale, which is next door to Camden, so she hasn’t gone far, to be fair.
Lloyd Hatton has been elected in South Dorset, where he grew up. Indeed, he’s been dual living in Weymouth and Camden.
Danny Beales has been elected in Uxbridge, which is also where he grew up.
Grew up, but left the area they were so committed to it. Same with Alan Strickland in Newton Aycliffe.
It is still very cynical.
I live about 300m from where I grew up, some decades earlier, but that’s pretty unusual, particularly in London. People’s lives take them to different places. I don’t think you need to have lived your whole life somewhere to represent it well.
I wouldn’t have voted for Gould, Hatton or Beales personally, but calling them all cynical feels a bit OTT to me.
Southgate reign reminds me a bit of Eddie George with the rugby.
Initially taking over a poor team with limited players and formulating a playstyle that worked as hard to beat but limited flair, and that got the team to semi-finals and some famous wins. However, when the availability of much more talented players came along, they stuck with the same conservative style. England rugby are still kick kick kick kick, occasional use battering ram through the middle, team to this day.
As Tifo Football guys have explained the whole of world football knows how to nullify England's base strategy now, but still little change from the start. And hence why England struggled to create lots of chances game after game.
BIB - the players have taken control of playing style in the last few months and things are MUCH improved, despite the two losses in NZ (both of which could and perhaps ought to have been wins). Its fashionable to deride England's playing style but is it that different to Ireland? The best sides aim for ultra quick ruck ball and where possible ball out of the tackle. Add into that an ability to shift the ball wide, accurately and quickly to get around defences (often now via a cross field kick-pass) and that's modern rugby. Its true that many international sides are extremely comfortable in defence, notably so out of the 22, so will happily use a kick when an attacking phase becomes bogged down. At the weekend England tried grubbers a bit too much when in the NZ 22 - I am all for keeping possession as long as possible in the main.
Its better, but NZ, SA, France, their default is run, then kick. England's is still kick then run. But under Eddie JONES it was far worse kick kick, some more kicking, oh we are near the line, give it the big centre to run direct at the line. I think Marcus Smith and Fin Smith are more inventive than Farrell, but worse goal kickers.
Farrell was/is one of the finest rugby players England has ever produced. This view is endorsed by numerous non-English Lions players and no less than Sir Clive. Sadly it is always online rugby "experts" that think they know better (much like Southgate critics), most of whom who have never picked up a ball and have as much knowledge of rugby as Leon has about science and technology.
They are different players and the game moves on. Marcus Smith adds a different dimension to England attack, he is a more elusive runner than Farrell, and he does things in games that Farrell has never done in international games. See the past two NZ games.
However, Farrell overall runs the game better, better tackler, makes far less mistakes, much superior goal kicker.
Much more likely to get yellow carded, or give lip to the ref and conceded ten yards too...
"Villagers 'shell-shocked' after solar farm approved
Campaigners opposed to a 2,500-acre solar farm said they were "shell-shocked" after the plan was approved by the secretary of state for energy, external.
Sunnica's £600m energy farm on the Cambridgeshire-Suffolk border was given the green light on Friday.
Opponents say the scheme takes some of the most productive land in the UK out of use, while ignoring alternative sites such as south-facing commercial roof space.
The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero says the "benefits of the proposed development outweigh its adverse impacts"."
To be fair, a friend of mine went to the semi and the final and reckoned it significantly more challenging to get flights than tickets.
(He also reckoned DB to be the most useless railway service he had ever encountered.)
I'm more interested in the idea that 'the cabinet' went - what, all of them? I'm not massively surprised that the PM went - though I would have thought this is the sort of job we have a monarchy for - but how many politicians do we need at a football match?
To be fair, a friend of mine went to the semi and the final and reckoned it significantly more challenging to get flights than tickets.
(He also reckoned DB to be the most useless railway service he had ever encountered.)
I'm more interested in the idea that 'the cabinet' went - what, all of them? I'm not massively surprised that the PM went - though I would have thought this is the sort of job we have a monarchy for - but how many politicians do we need at a football match?
I don't expect your friend is the head of a government thay just shut down the future of north sea oil and gas on the altar of Gaia
Southgate reign reminds me a bit of Eddie George with the rugby.
Initially taking over a poor team with limited players and formulating a playstyle that worked as hard to beat but limited flair, and that got the team to semi-finals and some famous wins. However, when the availability of much more talented players came along, they stuck with the same conservative style. England rugby are still kick kick kick kick, occasional use battering ram through the middle, team to this day.
As Tifo Football guys have explained the whole of world football knows how to nullify England's base strategy now, but still little change from the start. And hence why England struggled to create lots of chances game after game.
BIB - the players have taken control of playing style in the last few months and things are MUCH improved, despite the two losses in NZ (both of which could and perhaps ought to have been wins). Its fashionable to deride England's playing style but is it that different to Ireland? The best sides aim for ultra quick ruck ball and where possible ball out of the tackle. Add into that an ability to shift the ball wide, accurately and quickly to get around defences (often now via a cross field kick-pass) and that's modern rugby. Its true that many international sides are extremely comfortable in defence, notably so out of the 22, so will happily use a kick when an attacking phase becomes bogged down. At the weekend England tried grubbers a bit too much when in the NZ 22 - I am all for keeping possession as long as possible in the main.
Its better, but NZ, SA, France, their default is run, then kick. England's is still kick then run. But under Eddie JONES it was far worse kick kick, some more kicking, oh we are near the line, give it the big centre to run direct at the line. I think Marcus Smith and Fin Smith are more inventive than Farrell, but worse goal kickers.
The SA v Ireland game last Saturday was brilliant running rugby for the whole game, culminating in a Jonny-Wilkinson-style drop goal to give the visitors the win right as the clock ran out.
Oh God Jamie Carragher is insisting that Southgate Must Stay
Someone make it stop. Please
If he goes and we go back to the other type of mediocrity (where we don't always qualify for World Cups and the Euros, and get knocked out in the group stages as per Brazil) will you be happier?
I regard the last 6 years as the best supporting the England football team. Two finals. Another semi and a loss in the quarters to a dodgy ref and a side that narrowly lost the final. Whats wrong with that?
Last night we came mighty close to a second equaliser. Who knows what would have happened after?
A decade or so back, Millwall got to the final of the FA Cup. They achieved it purely by the draw falling such that they didn't really play anyone good all the way there. That approach basically explains Southgate's success. Beating Serbia and Slovenia doesn't really imply success.
In the Euros, there are basically five teams who are both big countries and well-resourced: England, France, Spain, Italy, Germany. For the WC, you can add Argentina and Brazil. Getting to the semi-finals of the Euros or the quarters of the WC therefore is no better than par. Granted it's better than any of Southgate's predecessors managed, but it's still not really success. Success would be an era when England beat other big 5/7 teams much more often than not. Whereas what we have now is England pootling through until they come across another big 5/7 team, then losing. England's success is like that of Rangers coming second in the SPL.
International football is a peculiar beast - because so many teams play it, you come across other big countries very rarely. So adequacy is often disguised as success (like the Rangers league position in the period before they've played Celtic).
Southgate is an adequate manager. That's not to be sneezed at - Sven was also adequate - but nor is it a cause for particular celebration.
I must have imagined beating Germany 2-0 in 2021 then.
I get your point, but I don't think you an say that two finals, a semi and a quarter are simply about luck. We've had that before and failed. Southgate has created something, and I fear it may prove temporary. The previous 'golden generation' was fractured by inter-club rivalry. Southgate has managed to avoid that completely and built a club team ethos.
I also reject the idea that not winning means its failure. On a facile level, yes. thats true. But more realistically 23 teams failed by that token. Very few teams actually with the Euros or the WC.
I think Southgate has been exceptional. Not merely adequate. Someone else might have done better (but who?). No-one else did since 1966.
All fair points, but:
"I must have imagined beating Germany 2-0 in 2021 then."
Well yes, but what's Southgate's overall record against the big 5/7? I'd suggest if it were a league for the time of his tenure England would be firmly in relegation territory.
"I get your point, but I don't think you an say that two finals, a semi and a quarter are simply about luck. We've had that before and failed. Southgate has created something, and I fear it may prove temporary. The previous 'golden generation' was fractured by inter-club rivalry. Southgate has managed to avoid that completely and built a club team ethos." He has - and it's to be applauded - but it doesn't seem to have ended up with notably better results than the last adequate manager, Sven (again measured by the criterion of win/loss against decent opposition).
"I also reject the idea that not winning means its failure. On a facile level, yes. thats true. But more realistically 23 teams failed by that token. Very few teams actually with the Euros or the WC. " Well yes, but different standards for different teams, surely? For Slovenia it was an achievement just to qualify. For the big 5 teams, the benchmark should be rather higher.
"I think Southgate has been exceptional. Not merely adequate. Someone else might have done better (but who?). No-one else did since 1966"
Well I can agree with your third sentence at least. Who else would want to do it? It's certainly not obvious there's a better candidate.
In 2018, from nowhere Southgate took an inexperience squad to the WC semis, where they lost to a very good Croatia, inspired by Modric. At 1-0 up there where several chances for second but the ball didn't fall right. In 2021 they lost on penalties to Italy. On penalties. Not quite a lottery but also good to acknowledge the manner of defeat. In 2022 they lost to France with a ref who gave the French every marginal call.
The role of luck in sport is huge, and I think England have often been unlucky at the big moments. Maradona, Lampard, Gaza just failing to connect in 1996, Waddles long range effort in 1990 and so on. I don't think England have ever put together a side and style of play that anyone would say "best in Europe" in the way that the French and Spanish have over recent times. The Germans have been brutally efficient.
I'm resigned to Southgate going and England getting worse.
So is it something in the water that means English players can't play like Arsenal under Arsene the French.
Southgate reign reminds me a bit of Eddie George with the rugby.
Initially taking over a poor team with limited players and formulating a playstyle that worked as hard to beat but limited flair, and that got the team to semi-finals and some famous wins. However, when the availability of much more talented players came along, they stuck with the same conservative style. England rugby are still kick kick kick kick, occasional use battering ram through the middle, team to this day.
As Tifo Football guys have explained the whole of world football knows how to nullify England's base strategy now, but still little change from the start. And hence why England struggled to create lots of chances game after game.
BIB - the players have taken control of playing style in the last few months and things are MUCH improved, despite the two losses in NZ (both of which could and perhaps ought to have been wins). Its fashionable to deride England's playing style but is it that different to Ireland? The best sides aim for ultra quick ruck ball and where possible ball out of the tackle. Add into that an ability to shift the ball wide, accurately and quickly to get around defences (often now via a cross field kick-pass) and that's modern rugby. Its true that many international sides are extremely comfortable in defence, notably so out of the 22, so will happily use a kick when an attacking phase becomes bogged down. At the weekend England tried grubbers a bit too much when in the NZ 22 - I am all for keeping possession as long as possible in the main.
Its better, but NZ, SA, France, their default is run, then kick. England's is still kick then run. But under Eddie JONES it was far worse kick kick, some more kicking, oh we are near the line, give it the big centre to run direct at the line. I think Marcus Smith and Fin Smith are more inventive than Farrell, but worse goal kickers.
Farrell was/is one of the finest rugby players England has ever produced. This view is endorsed by numerous non-English Lions players and no less than Sir Clive. Sadly it is always online rugby "experts" that think they know better (much like Southgate critics), most of whom who have never picked up a ball and have as much knowledge of rugby as Leon has about science and technology.
They are different players and the game moves on. Marcus Smith adds a different dimension to England attack, he is a more elusive runner than Farrell, and he does things in games that Farrell has never done in international games. See the past two NZ games.
However, Farrell overall runs the game better, better tackler, makes far less mistakes, much superior goal kicker.
Much more likely to get yellow carded, or give lip to the ref and conceded ten yards too...
In recent years, the no arm and high tackle has been a bit of a problem for him.
I see the Thomas Crooks who is said to have donated $15 to Act Blue is now claimed not to be the same guy. He's a 69 year old, apparently.
It's always worth waiting rather than jumping to conclusions.
At the moment it just seems utterly bizarre that the apparent would-be assassin appears to have been a quite unremarkable lad with no particular political opinions. I await further information (actual information, that is, not Twitter/X-style Chinese whispers).
If you are conspiratorially minded, he is a perfect cleanskin
There's a puzzling line in the NYT analysis. It says "the explosives in the car [of the shooter] suggest he expected to survive the sassytempt"
How the F would you expect to survive an obvious sassytempt on Trump,..... unless you expected protection from the police?
If so, some police didn't get the memo and shot his head to pieces in 15 seconds. Or the police/someone lied to him
"Villagers 'shell-shocked' after solar farm approved
Campaigners opposed to a 2,500-acre solar farm said they were "shell-shocked" after the plan was approved by the secretary of state for energy, external.
Sunnica's £600m energy farm on the Cambridgeshire-Suffolk border was given the green light on Friday.
Opponents say the scheme takes some of the most productive land in the UK out of use, while ignoring alternative sites such as south-facing commercial roof space.
The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero says the "benefits of the proposed development outweigh its adverse impacts"."
Is it really true that productive farmland is being taken out of use? If so there must be a reason the landowners are doing that.
Most around here have been sited on grass, not on land under the plough. Its also true that grass still grows around solar farms so can be used to graze stock (sheep mainly).
We were outplayed. The question is can anyone make what appear to be a very talented group of players play more dynamically. Or is that the best we can expect.
About half way through the second half I realised I, along with other England fans no doubt, was just hoping we'd survive to penalties and then who knows. That can't be right.
And yet if the second equaliser had gone in, and we'd reached penalties after a nervous 30 mins and won, who would have complained in England that Spain were the better side (they were). There are countless examples in sport where the 'better' side loses. Thats what makes it fun.
My point was that if as a fan you realise that the best you can hope for is to survive to penalties and that the more open play there is the greater danger you are in, then you know the team should be in a different place.
Quite so. Imagine how much nicer it must be as a Spanish fan. Yes you will have boring or difficult phases but you also know your team has an attacking spirit and real flair - which they can and will use to win
England grind their way through and hope for a lot of luck. We should have gone out well before the finals and with the talent we have - which is now undeniable as these players are at the best teams in the world - we should be doing much better than that
Southgate is a nice guy and he’s built a nice ethos but it’s time to try something else. Please god
As you were an apologist for Lizzy Lettuce and Bozo, and therefore a picker of outstanding leadership qualities, I imagine you would like us to return to Sam Allardyce?
Southgate reign reminds me a bit of Eddie George with the rugby.
Initially taking over a poor team with limited players and formulating a playstyle that worked as hard to beat but limited flair, and that got the team to semi-finals and some famous wins. However, when the availability of much more talented players came along, they stuck with the same conservative style. England rugby are still kick kick kick kick, occasional use battering ram through the middle, team to this day.
As Tifo Football guys have explained the whole of world football knows how to nullify England's base strategy now, but still little change from the start. And hence why England struggled to create lots of chances game after game.
BIB - the players have taken control of playing style in the last few months and things are MUCH improved, despite the two losses in NZ (both of which could and perhaps ought to have been wins). Its fashionable to deride England's playing style but is it that different to Ireland? The best sides aim for ultra quick ruck ball and where possible ball out of the tackle. Add into that an ability to shift the ball wide, accurately and quickly to get around defences (often now via a cross field kick-pass) and that's modern rugby. Its true that many international sides are extremely comfortable in defence, notably so out of the 22, so will happily use a kick when an attacking phase becomes bogged down. At the weekend England tried grubbers a bit too much when in the NZ 22 - I am all for keeping possession as long as possible in the main.
Its better, but NZ, SA, France, their default is run, then kick. England's is still kick then run. But under Eddie JONES it was far worse kick kick, some more kicking, oh we are near the line, give it the big centre to run direct at the line. I think Marcus Smith and Fin Smith are more inventive than Farrell, but worse goal kickers.
Farrell was/is one of the finest rugby players England has ever produced. This view is endorsed by numerous non-English Lions players and no less than Sir Clive. Sadly it is always online rugby "experts" that think they know better (much like Southgate critics), most of whom who have never picked up a ball and have as much knowledge of rugby as Leon has about science and technology.
They are different players and the game moves on. Marcus Smith adds a different dimension to England attack, he is a more elusive runner than Farrell, and he does things in games that Farrell has never done in international games. See the past two NZ games.
However, Farrell overall runs the game better, better tackler, makes far less mistakes, much superior goal kicker.
Much more likely to get yellow carded, or give lip to the ref and conceded ten yards too...
In recent years, the no arm and high tackle has been a bit of a problem for him.
Plus he has also become a known offender and I think gets punished partly on reputation.
Interesting thread thank you Y doethur. It does seem though that you think most of the issues on your list are unsolvable so it’s hard to see what you would like the new Education Secretary to do.
I spent many a family party listening to my teacher Uncle complain vigorously about the Education Secretary of the day and eventually I asked him just what they could do to win his favour. He couldn’t think of anything beyond a wage increase.
It is a very fair question and one I was pondering myself while I wrote it.
The answer is most of these come back to poor management by the government.The issue, therefore, is in the top layer.
I do not see how these can be directly improved without causing at least as many problems as it would solve. To do so without devolving yet more work to the front line would require energy, money and administrative capacity that’s been wasted over the years so just isn’t there.
Getting rid of that top layer of management, notably the DfE, might help somewhat in the long term but in the short term I honestly don’t see how things can improve.
Moreover, she and Starmer have both been clear they want to work with the Civil Service rather than micromanaging it or replacing it.
So I’m saying she’s been set up to fail before she starts.
Comments
No I’m not saying that. What I’m saying is that I think it is possible that there are the seeds there for a regime, driven by a radical Christian Nationalist ideology, to emerge that could, driven by internal pressures and external events yet to happen, go to some very dark places. How that manifests itself will be in a uniquely American way.
I'm not saying it will happen, I'm saying that the ingredients, the petri dish, for something like that to happen is discernible. And if we do get the kind of regime that Trump and his backers are indicating they would like to see, then it will be very bad news indeed for the world. It won't be a replay of Nazi Germany and Trump isn't Hitler. But they are both iconoclastic leaders who aren't afraid to break things in the pursuit of what they want. And that is very dangerous.
Volume doesn’t equal proof.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/piers-morgan-joins-sons-private-33241779
https://x.com/LeoMars75/status/1812552054084087918
France is one of the most marked examples. If you look at a map of population density in 1850 it's way way more spread out than now. In the last couple of centuries the population has left the countryside by the millions and settled in the cities. It's left huge tracts of French provincial landscape empty, but scattered with beautiful old rural buildings. Sadly in some parts of the country the agriculteurs have filled the void with extensive, pesticide and herbicide-ridden monoculture.
So I’d rather wait for a bona fide news source.
In a thread about English education, I assume we're talking English SATs, done at the end of Primary school. Which I doubt that any secondary school even bothers looking at. They exist just to generate data for primary school performance tables.
AFAICS Starmer and Nandy both went by private jet. Nandy seems particularly absurd
I can see the logic (security, timing) but really, after all their rhetoric about Sunak, and Ed Milliband wanking on about net zero, a privaate jet to a football match??
https://www.reddit.com/r/flightradar24/comments/1e35a7i/british_pm_keir_starmer_heading_into_berlin_for/
Starmer and Nandy went by private jet to a footy match, it still staggers me
Nandy is the Culture Secretary, it makes sense for her to go.
(He also reckoned DB to be the most useless railway service he had ever encountered.)
I'm more interested in the idea that 'the cabinet' went - what, all of them? I'm not massively surprised that the PM went - though I would have thought this is the sort of job we have a monarchy for - but how many politicians do we need at a football match?
It’s hardly as if EasyJet had a pile of spare seats for the afternoon flight, airlines had already spent the past week scrambling to charter every available plane in Europe to put on extra flights to Berlin yesterday.
Also, Labour banged on and on about Sunak and his private jets and choppers, and now suddenly Oh it's fine they need them for government business. Sure. Sure sure. Cool cool
I’d also point out all commercial flights etc to Berlin have been sold out since Wednesday.
Someone make it stop. Please
Because they could have flown to somewhere 2 hours away and got a driver and
1 saved tons of money and
2. Saved the climate
I have the feeling someone at number 10 didn’t try TOO hard on Opodo
I regard the last 6 years as the best supporting the England football team. Two finals. Another semi and a loss in the quarters to a dodgy ref and a side that narrowly lost the final. Whats wrong with that?
Last night we came mighty close to a second equaliser. Who knows what would have happened after?
Anyway, it looks like Starmer and Nandy plus, presumably, security and hangers-on went. They'd initially hoped to go by Ryanair, but Rachel Reeves had worked out that Starmer's excess baggage and other add-ons would make it more expensive to the taxpayer than the government plane.
Yes. Exactly
And he’s not won anything. There is that, too
https://x.com/metpoliceuk/status/1812527759832269232
"Metropolitan Police
@metpoliceuk
Please remember there are no outdoor screens showing the #EURO2024 final in central London.
Many of the pubs are already full.
If you were thinking of travelling in perhaps consider other options and remember to plan your journey home."
In the Euros, there are basically five teams who are both big countries and well-resourced: England, France, Spain, Italy, Germany. For the WC, you can add Argentina and Brazil. Getting to the semi-finals of the Euros or the quarters of the WC therefore is no better than par. Granted it's better than any of Southgate's predecessors managed, but it's still not really success. Success would be an era when England beat other big 5/7 teams much more often than not. Whereas what we have now is England pootling through until they come across another big 5/7 team, then losing. England's success is like that of Rangers coming second in the SPL.
International football is a peculiar beast - because so many teams play it, you come across other big countries very rarely. So adequacy is often disguised as success (like the Rangers league position in the period before they've played Celtic).
Southgate is an adequate manager. That's not to be sneezed at - Sven was also adequate - but nor is it a cause for particular celebration.
There’s also security implications as well, the police don’t want him jumping on the EasyJet even if he’d love to do it that way, not unless there’s plenty of planning done beforehand. If the PM’s security detail tell him he’s going to the match on the government plane, then he’ll be going on the government plane or not at all.
Oh, and there’s now thought to be at least six police forces involved in the Trump rally, plus private security hired for the event. It’s no wonder there were co-ordination issues. Has to be one advantage in the UK of having VIP security under the Met, at least their radios can all talk to each other.
Initially taking over a poor team with limited players and formulating a playstyle that worked as hard to beat but limited flair, and that got the team to semi-finals and some famous wins. However, when the availability of much more talented players came along, they stuck with the same conservative style. England rugby are still kick kick kick kick, occasional use battering ram through the middle, team to this day.
As Tifo Football guys have explained the whole of world football knows how to nullify England's base strategy now, but still little change from the start. And hence why England struggled to create lots of chances game after game.
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/08/13/rishi-sunaks-chopper-is-going-to-get-him-into-a-lot-of-trouble/
(TBF, that works, but as it is only by killing the host, it doesn't really count.)
I am, however, reporting this second hand.
I get your point, but I don't think you an say that two finals, a semi and a quarter are simply about luck. We've had that before and failed. Southgate has created something, and I fear it may prove temporary. The previous 'golden generation' was fractured by inter-club rivalry. Southgate has managed to avoid that completely and built a club team ethos.
I also reject the idea that not winning means its failure. On a facile level, yes. thats true. But more realistically 23 teams failed by that token. Very few teams actually with the Euros or the WC.
I think Southgate has been exceptional. Not merely adequate. Someone else might have done better (but who?). No-one else did since 1966.
About half way through the second half I realised I, along with other England fans no doubt, was just hoping we'd survive to penalties and then who knows. That can't be right.
My post was a criticism of Radio 4’s choice of material not a comment on Biden’s health.
Either that or a tedious troll.
Hulkenberg has scored more points in the last 2 races than Perez in the last 6.
Most of the English players play for top clubs and are used to their teams both setting the tempo and dominating possession. They do not play their best when being told to be more defensive and to sit off. I think Southgate is overly cautious and reluctant to open the game up. That is, firstly, a bit boring and secondly, doesn't get the best out of his players. I think England need a manager who can make them more offensive and ambitious. Southgate made England hard to beat but they also found it hard to win.
What he is saying is that there are a lot of people fleeing dangerous places and we need to offer them asylum
I disagree with him, but that’s not the same as rolling out a classic racist trope as you are doing
https://x.com/levinejonathan/status/1812583225203511566
"I must have imagined beating Germany 2-0 in 2021 then."
Well yes, but what's Southgate's overall record against the big 5/7? I'd suggest if it were a league for the time of his tenure England would be firmly in relegation territory.
"I get your point, but I don't think you an say that two finals, a semi and a quarter are simply about luck. We've had that before and failed. Southgate has created something, and I fear it may prove temporary. The previous 'golden generation' was fractured by inter-club rivalry. Southgate has managed to avoid that completely and built a club team ethos."
He has - and it's to be applauded - but it doesn't seem to have ended up with notably better results than the last adequate manager, Sven (again measured by the criterion of win/loss against decent opposition).
"I also reject the idea that not winning means its failure. On a facile level, yes. thats true. But more realistically 23 teams failed by that token. Very few teams actually with the Euros or the WC. "
Well yes, but different standards for different teams, surely? For Slovenia it was an achievement just to qualify. For the big 5 teams, the benchmark should be rather higher.
"I think Southgate has been exceptional. Not merely adequate. Someone else might have done better (but who?). No-one else did since 1966"
Well I can agree with your third sentence at least. Who else would want to do it? It's certainly not obvious there's a better candidate.
They are still not the world's greatest passers or keepers of the ball, but then no England team ever was. Watching Spain yesterday just reminded us all how certain countries seem to have been blessed with strong magnetic fields around their football boots, and some don't. However, of all the teams I watched in the competition it was England whose players seemed best at running at defenders and dribbling. That's quite a novelty after decades when there was usually one player capable of doing that. Now we have several.
Another notable development that goes beyond England is the dominance of the "Latin" countries in both the Euros and World cup. The last time a Northern European team won the European championship was Germany in 1996. Since then the only Northern European teams even to get to the final were England and Germany.
Germany won the World Cup in 2014 and the Netherlands reached the final in 2010, but that's it. Belgium despite their ranking and talent haven't troubled the scorers. The Dutch haven't won anything since their sole European win in 1988. Notably the only Central or Eastern European nation to get close to winning is one with a Mediterranean coast - Croatia.
Contrast this with the 70s and 80s. From 1972 to 1996 the European winners were Germany, Czechoslovakia, Germany, France, Netherlands, Denmark, Germany. Only one (semi) Southern European country in there.
Lloyd Hatton has been elected in South Dorset, where he grew up. Indeed, he’s been dual living in Weymouth and Camden.
Danny Beales has been elected in Uxbridge, which is also where he grew up.
This held right until the debates, and then those very same people who had perpetuated the lie admit that it is cognitive decline after all.
Before debate:
https://www.newsweek.com/i-understand-biden-his-condition-difficult-1893707
After debate:
https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-stumbles-during-debate-six-moments-that-hurt-president-1918548
Don't be under any illusion that those involved in both articles didnt change their minds about Biden's decline, they just knew that it was no longer possible to deflect.
England grind their way through and hope for a lot of luck. We should have gone out well before the finals and with the talent we have - which is now undeniable as these players are at the best teams in the world - we should be doing much better than that
Southgate is a nice guy and he’s built a nice ethos but it’s time to try something else. Please god
It is still very cynical.
The role of luck in sport is huge, and I think England have often been unlucky at the big moments. Maradona, Lampard, Gaza just failing to connect in 1996, Waddles long range effort in 1990 and so on. I don't think England have ever put together a side and style of play that anyone would say "best in Europe" in the way that the French and Spanish have over recent times. The Germans have been brutally efficient.
I'm resigned to Southgate going and England getting worse.
Campaigners opposed to a 2,500-acre solar farm said they were "shell-shocked" after the plan was approved by the secretary of state for energy, external.
Sunnica's £600m energy farm on the Cambridgeshire-Suffolk border was given the green light on Friday.
Opponents say the scheme takes some of the most productive land in the UK out of use, while ignoring alternative sites such as south-facing commercial roof space.
The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero says the "benefits of the proposed development outweigh its adverse impacts"."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clmydgke2mko
https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2024/07/before-the-shooting-bidens-capacity-had-become-a-bigger-factor-than-trumps-character-my-latest-us-polling/
We can list footballers who are listed as the finest ever produced, but Bellingham would now have them for breakfast, as the game changes, improves.
I wouldn’t have voted for Gould, Hatton or Beales personally, but calling them all cynical feels a bit OTT to me.
I can't particularly see Akoto's connection (@turbotubbs) with SW Wiltshire mind.
Arsenal under Arsenethe French.https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jul/15/electric-vehicle-ev-chargers-uk-installations
It is a very fair question and one I was pondering myself while I wrote it.
The answer is most of these come back to poor management by the government.The issue, therefore, is in the top layer.
I do not see how these can be directly improved without causing at least as many problems as it would solve. To do so without devolving yet more work to the front line would require energy, money and administrative capacity that’s been wasted over the years so just isn’t there.
Getting rid of that top layer of management, notably the DfE, might help somewhat in the long term but in the short term I honestly don’t see how things can improve.
Moreover, she and Starmer have both been clear they want to work with the Civil Service rather than micromanaging it or replacing it.
So I’m saying she’s been set up to fail before she starts.