Please stop this. "Woke" is not equivalent to "anti-racist", and, conversely, "anti-woke" is not equivalent to "racist". It is perfectly possible to be anti both, as indeed many on here are. Continually attacking this strawman just accelerates the decline in the level of debate.
In case someone else didn't post it on the last thread, this is for the haters that have been dissing Southgate:
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” Theodore Roosevelt
Southgate knows only defeat. That’s the point. He’s a thoroughly likeable man, a charming presence on TV, he seems to pretty good at managing people and sometimes unifying them, but when it comes to football he consistently falls short. He’s one of Napoleon’s ‘unlucky generals’. It’s rather sad.
He makes an interesting contrast with Boris. The prime minister. Who is, I’d guess, morally much inferior, not so good with staff, definitely not a unifier, and yet Boris is a winner. Consistently
A bit early to be writing the career epitaph of either. I think you are simply revealing bias, along with a lack of understanding of genuine leadership and a Trump like obsession with "winners" and "losers". Read the quote again, it could have been written for folk such as yourself.
Actually, you’re right. I didn’t read it properly. And it is a true and insightful quote
I will suspend judgement on Southgate, but I am still deeply pessimistic. I don’t think he has it in him, I hope he proves me wrong
Tell me Gerrard wouldn't do a better job.
Successful club manager treading over the hot coals of sectarian Glasgow. Legend of the game, universally respected, knows his football inside out. Champions League winner. Steely, determined, never, ever loses his temper. Young enough to understand the modern player and his mentality & aspirations.
He wouldn't want it, of course, but I would take him over Southgate in a heartbeat.
Why would Gerrard take the job though? He clearly wants the Liverpool job and will wait it out for the next 2-3 seasons until Klopp leaves. Southgate, for all his flaws, is probably the best England can do right now.
Why would anyone want a National job? Way more intrusive on your private life. Need to do overt politics. You can't buy players you want, nor sell the ones you don't want. You barely ever see your players for months at a time, don't get any time to prepare properly, are unable to manage injuries, or fitness generally. Very few games to get a rhythm. The list goes on...
This England team have the capability to win the biggest prize in football. That's a pretty big draw for managers but it would still be tough to attract someone with proven winning ability like Gerrard. His stint at Rangers has been excellent, he's restored credibility to that club and simultaneously pissed off Sturgeon and her ilk which makes it even sweeter.
Hmm. At Rangers you play Celtic and once/if you get that sussed you've sorted your title.
We are talking about a WC here with plenty of teams (only a couple of which we faced at the Euros) in with a shout.
I continue to say, as @FrancisUrquhart and I discussed last night, the depressing thing about the tactics was the lack of attacking intent. Against Ukraine and Denmark it was a pleasure to watch. Last night when Rice drove forward likewise.
Otherwise we had 30% possession, stayed virtually the whole game in our half and had one shot on goal.
Southgate has said he will reflect upon his decisions which is to be welcomed and perhaps one conclusion will be that with the hugely talented squad he has, he doesn't need to park the bus.
We shall see.
A good post. Italy, IMO, were there for the taking. A slow and tired defence up against a front 4 of Saka, Sterling, Kane and Grealish from kick off would have been incredibly tough for them to handle. The speed of Saka and Sterling plus Grealish being able to draw fouls would have been torture for Italy's old man defence.
We didn't need to park the bus for the whole second half and when we went to four in defence and stopped the improvement was really decent and we started actually challenging again but by then it was too late.
Listening to the radio this morning, I think Gareth Southgate was the only person in England who didn't think things needed changing at the 55/60 minute mark.
Its not like he does not have the personnel.
Grealish would have been the perfect introduction to break up Italy's rhythm.
In case someone else didn't post it on the last thread, this is for the haters that have been dissing Southgate:
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” Theodore Roosevelt
Southgate knows only defeat. That’s the point. He’s a thoroughly likeable man, a charming presence on TV, he seems to pretty good at managing people and sometimes unifying them, but when it comes to football he consistently falls short. He’s one of Napoleon’s ‘unlucky generals’. It’s rather sad.
He makes an interesting contrast with Boris. The prime minister. Who is, I’d guess, morally much inferior, not so good with staff, definitely not a unifier, and yet Boris is a winner. Consistently
A bit early to be writing the career epitaph of either. I think you are simply revealing bias, along with a lack of understanding of genuine leadership and a Trump like obsession with "winners" and "losers". Read the quote again, it could have been written for folk such as yourself.
Actually, you’re right. I didn’t read it properly. And it is a true and insightful quote
I will suspend judgement on Southgate, but I am still deeply pessimistic. I don’t think he has it in him, I hope he proves me wrong
Tell me Gerrard wouldn't do a better job.
Successful club manager treading over the hot coals of sectarian Glasgow. Legend of the game, universally respected, knows his football inside out. Champions League winner. Steely, determined, never, ever loses his temper. Young enough to understand the modern player and his mentality & aspirations.
He wouldn't want it, of course, but I would take him over Southgate in a heartbeat.
Why would Gerrard take the job though? He clearly wants the Liverpool job and will wait it out for the next 2-3 seasons until Klopp leaves. Southgate, for all his flaws, is probably the best England can do right now.
Why would anyone want a National job? Way more intrusive on your private life. Need to do overt politics. You can't buy players you want, nor sell the ones you don't want. You barely ever see your players for months at a time, don't get any time to prepare properly, are unable to manage injuries, or fitness generally. Very few games to get a rhythm. The list goes on...
This England team have the capability to win the biggest prize in football. That's a pretty big draw for managers but it would still be tough to attract someone with proven winning ability like Gerrard. His stint at Rangers has been excellent, he's restored credibility to that club and simultaneously pissed off Sturgeon and her ilk which makes it even sweeter.
Hmm. At Rangers you play Celtic and once/if you get that sussed you've sorted your title.
We are talking about a WC here with plenty of teams (only a couple of which we faced at the Euros) in with a shout.
I continue to say, as @FrancisUrquhart and I discussed last night, the depressing thing about the tactics was the lack of attacking intent. Against Ukraine and Denmark it was a pleasure to watch. Last night when Rice drove forward likewise.
Otherwise we had 30% possession, stayed virtually the whole game in our half and had one shot on goal.
Southgate has said he will reflect upon his decisions which is to be welcomed and perhaps one conclusion will be that with the hugely talented squad he has, he doesn't need to park the bus.
We shall see.
A good post. Italy, IMO, were there for the taking. A slow and tired defence up against a front 4 of Saka, Sterling, Kane and Grealish from kick off would have been incredibly tough for them to handle. The speed of Saka and Sterling plus Grealish being able to draw fouls would have been torture for Italy's old man defence.
We didn't need to park the bus for the whole second half and when we went to four in defence and stopped the improvement was really decent and we started actually challenging again but by then it was too late.
The clue was there from the Denmark game. In the 2nd half of extra time playing against 10 men who were exhausted, rather than bring on fast fresh players up front he changed to 5 at the back and allowed Denmark to attack.
In case someone else didn't post it on the last thread, this is for the haters that have been dissing Southgate:
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” Theodore Roosevelt
Southgate knows only defeat. That’s the point. He’s a thoroughly likeable man, a charming presence on TV, he seems to pretty good at managing people and sometimes unifying them, but when it comes to football he consistently falls short. He’s one of Napoleon’s ‘unlucky generals’. It’s rather sad.
He makes an interesting contrast with Boris. The prime minister. Who is, I’d guess, morally much inferior, not so good with staff, definitely not a unifier, and yet Boris is a winner. Consistently
A bit early to be writing the career epitaph of either. I think you are simply revealing bias, along with a lack of understanding of genuine leadership and a Trump like obsession with "winners" and "losers". Read the quote again, it could have been written for folk such as yourself.
Actually, you’re right. I didn’t read it properly. And it is a true and insightful quote
I will suspend judgement on Southgate, but I am still deeply pessimistic. I don’t think he has it in him, I hope he proves me wrong
Tell me Gerrard wouldn't do a better job.
Successful club manager treading over the hot coals of sectarian Glasgow. Legend of the game, universally respected, knows his football inside out. Champions League winner. Steely, determined, never, ever loses his temper. Young enough to understand the modern player and his mentality & aspirations.
He wouldn't want it, of course, but I would take him over Southgate in a heartbeat.
Why would Gerrard take the job though? He clearly wants the Liverpool job and will wait it out for the next 2-3 seasons until Klopp leaves. Southgate, for all his flaws, is probably the best England can do right now.
Why would anyone want a National job? Way more intrusive on your private life. Need to do overt politics. You can't buy players you want, nor sell the ones you don't want. You barely ever see your players for months at a time, don't get any time to prepare properly, are unable to manage injuries, or fitness generally. Very few games to get a rhythm. The list goes on...
This England team have the capability to win the biggest prize in football. That's a pretty big draw for managers but it would still be tough to attract someone with proven winning ability like Gerrard. His stint at Rangers has been excellent, he's restored credibility to that club and simultaneously pissed off Sturgeon and her ilk which makes it even sweeter.
Hmm. At Rangers you play Celtic and once/if you get that sussed you've sorted your title.
We are talking about a WC here with plenty of teams (only a couple of which we faced at the Euros) in with a shout.
I continue to say, as @FrancisUrquhart and I discussed last night, the depressing thing about the tactics was the lack of attacking intent. Against Ukraine and Denmark it was a pleasure to watch. Last night when Rice drove forward likewise.
Otherwise we had 30% possession, stayed virtually the whole game in our half and had one shot on goal.
Southgate has said he will reflect upon his decisions which is to be welcomed and perhaps one conclusion will be that with the hugely talented squad he has, he doesn't need to park the bus.
We shall see.
A good post. Italy, IMO, were there for the taking. A slow and tired defence up against a front 4 of Saka, Sterling, Kane and Grealish from kick off would have been incredibly tough for them to handle. The speed of Saka and Sterling plus Grealish being able to draw fouls would have been torture for Italy's old man defence.
We didn't need to park the bus for the whole second half and when we went to four in defence and stopped the improvement was really decent and we started actually challenging again but by then it was too late.
Listening to the radio this morning, I think Gareth Southgate was the only person in England who didn't think things needed changing at the 55/60 minute mark.
Its not like he does not have the personnel.
Grealish would have been the perfect introduction to break up Italy's rhythm.
Biggest loss for England last night, Foden. He was the man who has the ability to unlock top class defences, while also keeping the ball better than Grealish.
But yes the difference between Mancini and Southgate, Mancini spotted the problem, changed the tactics and it had fixed it on the fly by half way through the first half. Southgate / England team hasn't shown the ability to really effective switch game plans.
In case someone else didn't post it on the last thread, this is for the haters that have been dissing Southgate:
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” Theodore Roosevelt
Fantastic quote.
Beloved of Richard Nixon. https://www.nytimes.com/1973/06/07/archives/man-in-the-arena-essay.html ...Mr. Nixon viewed the lines in 1960, and does today, “straight”—without irony—as vividly expressive of his own attitude toward life in general, and to the political life in particular. “It is not the critic who counts” can be seen, let's face it, as anti‐intellectual, disparaging the man of thought while exalting the man of action, similar to the scornful “if you can't do, teach.” The contempt the President holds for carping critics is an inextricable part of his character, at times a source of strength, at other times a cause of self. damage....,/i>
It's breathtaking to think that a small proportion of the white men who would be so proud of themselves (sic) today had Bukayo Saka, Marcus Rashford, and Jadon Sancho scored with their penalty kicks, and who would be so full of "we" this, "we" that, and "we" the other — "we showed the Eye-ties" etc. — now feel hatred towards these three Englishmen, men who worked hard to gain their skills, because of their skin colour. It is crystal clear who are a disgrace to their country and who are a credit.
OT: Is this the third or fourth time since the election that a Boris 'bounce' has been over - seems to be something of a Barnes-Wallis affair to me....
OT: Is this the third or fourth time since the election that a Boris 'bounce' has been over - seems to be something of a Barnes-Wallis affair to me....
Ever-decreasing hops, spinning all the time, till it hits a solid wall and pops?
OT: Is this the third or fourth time since the election that a Boris 'bounce' has been over - seems to be something of a Barnes-Wallis affair to me....
In case someone else didn't post it on the last thread, this is for the haters that have been dissing Southgate:
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” Theodore Roosevelt
Southgate knows only defeat. That’s the point. He’s a thoroughly likeable man, a charming presence on TV, he seems to pretty good at managing people and sometimes unifying them, but when it comes to football he consistently falls short. He’s one of Napoleon’s ‘unlucky generals’. It’s rather sad.
He makes an interesting contrast with Boris. The prime minister. Who is, I’d guess, morally much inferior, not so good with staff, definitely not a unifier, and yet Boris is a winner. Consistently
A bit early to be writing the career epitaph of either. I think you are simply revealing bias, along with a lack of understanding of genuine leadership and a Trump like obsession with "winners" and "losers". Read the quote again, it could have been written for folk such as yourself.
Actually, you’re right. I didn’t read it properly. And it is a true and insightful quote
I will suspend judgement on Southgate, but I am still deeply pessimistic. I don’t think he has it in him, I hope he proves me wrong
Tell me Gerrard wouldn't do a better job.
Successful club manager treading over the hot coals of sectarian Glasgow. Legend of the game, universally respected, knows his football inside out. Champions League winner. Steely, determined, never, ever loses his temper. Young enough to understand the modern player and his mentality & aspirations.
He wouldn't want it, of course, but I would take him over Southgate in a heartbeat.
Why would Gerrard take the job though? He clearly wants the Liverpool job and will wait it out for the next 2-3 seasons until Klopp leaves. Southgate, for all his flaws, is probably the best England can do right now.
Why would anyone want a National job? Way more intrusive on your private life. Need to do overt politics. You can't buy players you want, nor sell the ones you don't want. You barely ever see your players for months at a time, don't get any time to prepare properly, are unable to manage injuries, or fitness generally. Very few games to get a rhythm. The list goes on...
This England team have the capability to win the biggest prize in football. That's a pretty big draw for managers but it would still be tough to attract someone with proven winning ability like Gerrard. His stint at Rangers has been excellent, he's restored credibility to that club and simultaneously pissed off Sturgeon and her ilk which makes it even sweeter.
Hmm. At Rangers you play Celtic and once/if you get that sussed you've sorted your title.
We are talking about a WC here with plenty of teams (only a couple of which we faced at the Euros) in with a shout.
I continue to say, as @FrancisUrquhart and I discussed last night, the depressing thing about the tactics was the lack of attacking intent. Against Ukraine and Denmark it was a pleasure to watch. Last night when Rice drove forward likewise.
Otherwise we had 30% possession, stayed virtually the whole game in our half and had one shot on goal.
Southgate has said he will reflect upon his decisions which is to be welcomed and perhaps one conclusion will be that with the hugely talented squad he has, he doesn't need to park the bus.
We shall see.
A good post. Italy, IMO, were there for the taking. A slow and tired defence up against a front 4 of Saka, Sterling, Kane and Grealish from kick off would have been incredibly tough for them to handle. The speed of Saka and Sterling plus Grealish being able to draw fouls would have been torture for Italy's old man defence.
We didn't need to park the bus for the whole second half and when we went to four in defence and stopped the improvement was really decent and we started actually challenging again but by then it was too late.
Listening to the radio this morning, I think Gareth Southgate was the only person in England who didn't think things needed changing at the 55/60 minute mark.
Its not like he does not have the personnel.
Grealish would have been the perfect introduction to break up Italy's rhythm.
Grealish and Henderson on for Phillips and Trippier. We needed much more firepower in midfield where we were just getting overrun every time. Grealish playing in behind Kane makes sense as Kane wouldn't have to keep coming deep to get the ball all the time. The few matches where he hasn't needed to (Germany when Grealish came on, Ukraine where Sancho started and Denmark where Saka started) he was a completely different player. Going back to a setup where Kane had to be provider and finisher just destroyed our forwards momentum. Kane had no one to pass the ball to after collecting it near the half way line. The one time he did we scored.
It's breathtaking to think that a small proportion of the white men who would be so proud of themselves (sic) today had Bukayo Saka, Marcus Rashford, and Jadon Sancho scored with their penalty kicks, and who would be so full of "we" this, "we" that, and "we" the other — "we showed the Eye-ties" etc. — now feel hatred towards these three Englishmen, men who worked hard to gain their skills, because of their skin colour. It is crystal clear who are a disgrace to their country and who are a credit.
They're c***s, and hopefully that kind of supporter is dying out. I just feel bad for Saka and Sancho. So much responsibility to take pens in a final. Rashford missed and I do feel bad for him but less than the other two because Rashford is a fairly senior member of the squad and he takes pens for Man U and doesn't fuck up often.
I am hopeful that the rise in cases has slowed in the UK, and certainly in Scotland we seem to be seeing falls now (linked to school hols and lack of Scotland progression in the Euors no doubt, but also probably because vaccination genuinely works...) I am hoping England will follow suit soon, and certainly the rate of increase is slowing. That may be because all the kids are isolating from school..,
OT: Is this the third or fourth time since the election that a Boris 'bounce' has been over - seems to be something of a Barnes-Wallis affair to me....
Ever-decreasing hops, spinning all the time, till it hits a solid wall and pops?
i have never understood how this country gets into such a mess with school meals.
The taxpayer rightly funds a free education until 18 including the huge expense of teachers, facilities , equipment, books ,IT etc yet for some reason stops short of funding a universal free meal during the school day . I mean why ? It cannot be but a very small fraction of the overall education cost so it is on the face of it extremely petty but also would solve the bullying some kids get from having free meals and also give all kids a better diet.
Really odd the position on school meals to me that we have had for years
i have never understood how this country gets into such a mess with school meals.
The taxpayer rightly funds a free education until 18 including the huge expense of teachers, facilities , equipment, books ,IT etc yet for some reason stops short of funding a universal free meal during the school day . I mean why ? It cannot be but a very small fraction of the overall education cost so it is on the face of it extremely petty but also would solve the bullying some kids get fro having free meals and also give all kids a better diet.
Really odd the position on school meals to me that we have had for years
If I remember correctly when Lib Dems proposed it, it turns out it is rather expensive. Its one of those things like free tv licence, which sounds great, why not, and then somebody points out the cost and you say no its can't be that much and it is.
Now if you think on balance it is a good thing, that's a different matter.
In case someone else didn't post it on the last thread, this is for the haters that have been dissing Southgate:
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” Theodore Roosevelt
Southgate knows only defeat. That’s the point. He’s a thoroughly likeable man, a charming presence on TV, he seems to pretty good at managing people and sometimes unifying them, but when it comes to football he consistently falls short. He’s one of Napoleon’s ‘unlucky generals’. It’s rather sad.
He makes an interesting contrast with Boris. The prime minister. Who is, I’d guess, morally much inferior, not so good with staff, definitely not a unifier, and yet Boris is a winner. Consistently
A bit early to be writing the career epitaph of either. I think you are simply revealing bias, along with a lack of understanding of genuine leadership and a Trump like obsession with "winners" and "losers". Read the quote again, it could have been written for folk such as yourself.
Actually, you’re right. I didn’t read it properly. And it is a true and insightful quote
I will suspend judgement on Southgate, but I am still deeply pessimistic. I don’t think he has it in him, I hope he proves me wrong
Tell me Gerrard wouldn't do a better job.
Successful club manager treading over the hot coals of sectarian Glasgow. Legend of the game, universally respected, knows his football inside out. Champions League winner. Steely, determined, never, ever loses his temper. Young enough to understand the modern player and his mentality & aspirations.
He wouldn't want it, of course, but I would take him over Southgate in a heartbeat.
Why would Gerrard take the job though? He clearly wants the Liverpool job and will wait it out for the next 2-3 seasons until Klopp leaves. Southgate, for all his flaws, is probably the best England can do right now.
Why would anyone want a National job? Way more intrusive on your private life. Need to do overt politics. You can't buy players you want, nor sell the ones you don't want. You barely ever see your players for months at a time, don't get any time to prepare properly, are unable to manage injuries, or fitness generally. Very few games to get a rhythm. The list goes on...
This England team have the capability to win the biggest prize in football. That's a pretty big draw for managers but it would still be tough to attract someone with proven winning ability like Gerrard. His stint at Rangers has been excellent, he's restored credibility to that club and simultaneously pissed off Sturgeon and her ilk which makes it even sweeter.
Hmm. At Rangers you play Celtic and once/if you get that sussed you've sorted your title.
We are talking about a WC here with plenty of teams (only a couple of which we faced at the Euros) in with a shout.
I continue to say, as @FrancisUrquhart and I discussed last night, the depressing thing about the tactics was the lack of attacking intent. Against Ukraine and Denmark it was a pleasure to watch. Last night when Rice drove forward likewise.
Otherwise we had 30% possession, stayed virtually the whole game in our half and had one shot on goal.
Southgate has said he will reflect upon his decisions which is to be welcomed and perhaps one conclusion will be that with the hugely talented squad he has, he doesn't need to park the bus.
We shall see.
A good post. Italy, IMO, were there for the taking. A slow and tired defence up against a front 4 of Saka, Sterling, Kane and Grealish from kick off would have been incredibly tough for them to handle. The speed of Saka and Sterling plus Grealish being able to draw fouls would have been torture for Italy's old man defence.
We didn't need to park the bus for the whole second half and when we went to four in defence and stopped the improvement was really decent and we started actually challenging again but by then it was too late.
Declan Rice was impressive going forward. According to some on here, whom I've no reason to doubt, Rice had been expressly forbidden from doing that because the stats revealed he was no good at it. Maybe that is why he was substituted.
i have never understood how this country gets into such a mess with school meals.
The taxpayer rightly funds a free education until 18 including the huge expense of teachers, facilities , equipment, books ,IT etc yet for some reason stops short of funding a universal free meal during the school day . I mean why ? It cannot be but a very small fraction of the overall education cost so it is on the face of it extremely petty but also would solve the bullying some kids get from having free meals and also give all kids a better diet.
Really odd the position on school meals to me that we have had for years
Odd that with your PB name you want the state to feed every kid up to 18...
I am hopeful that the rise in cases has slowed in the UK, and certainly in Scotland we seem to be seeing falls now (linked to school hols and lack of Scotland progression in the Euors no doubt, but also probably because vaccination genuinely works...) I am hoping England will follow suit soon, and certainly the rate of increase is slowing. That may be because all the kids are isolating from school..,
Yes - Scotland was in the vanguard of this wave so has crested it first. The NW was the first region of England to go through this rise and is now (hopefully) topping out.
149,620 vaccinations in Flag of United Kingdom yesterday
Flag of England 33,937 1st doses / 80,755 2nd doses Flag of Scotland 5,999 / 15,945 Flag of Wales 860 / 7,383 NI 1,204 / 3,537
Likes of Tower Hamlets, Newham, Oxford, Cambridge are going to stop England getting to 40 million I reckon. Scotland and Wales will probably end up with highest %s vaccinated, Northern Ireland is going to be about 7% behind the UK average.
Getting a flu vaccine slashes the risk of falling severely ill with Covid, a study has suggested.
An analysis of nearly 75,000 coronavirus patients found those who received an annual influenza jab were 60 per cent less likely to end up in A&E compared to people not vaccinated against flu.
That seems a bit strange doesn't it - given that many oldies who have died would surely have had the flu jab?
It says, it doesn't reduce death if you suffer severely, but it does appear to reduce numbers where it goes from bad to severe. We know with COVID that there is a week period where you are ill, then for most people it just gets better, for others, you go downhill rapidly.
I presume, there is some sort of protective effect from the flu jab that reduces the overall numbers where they went downhill.
Or confounding factors weren't taken adequate account of. Some flu jabs are contraindicated for those aged 50+ or with weakened immune systems.
i have never understood how this country gets into such a mess with school meals.
The taxpayer rightly funds a free education until 18 including the huge expense of teachers, facilities , equipment, books ,IT etc yet for some reason stops short of funding a universal free meal during the school day . I mean why ? It cannot be but a very small fraction of the overall education cost so it is on the face of it extremely petty but also would solve the bullying some kids get fro having free meals and also give all kids a better diet.
Really odd the position on school meals to me that we have had for years
I've already answered that - some families are so dysfunctional that the children need to be fed, but not so dysfunctional that the children need to be taken into care (for that costs real money)..
i have never understood how this country gets into such a mess with school meals.
The taxpayer rightly funds a free education until 18 including the huge expense of teachers, facilities , equipment, books ,IT etc yet for some reason stops short of funding a universal free meal during the school day . I mean why ? It cannot be but a very small fraction of the overall education cost so it is on the face of it extremely petty but also would solve the bullying some kids get from having free meals and also give all kids a better diet.
Really odd the position on school meals to me that we have had for years
Odd that with your PB name you want the state to feed every kid up to 18...
yes i get this come back quite a lot . I dont mind the state funding areas of real need and my name comes more from state nannying than funding necessary things
Getting a flu vaccine slashes the risk of falling severely ill with Covid, a study has suggested.
An analysis of nearly 75,000 coronavirus patients found those who received an annual influenza jab were 60 per cent less likely to end up in A&E compared to people not vaccinated against flu.
That seems a bit strange doesn't it - given that many oldies who have died would surely have had the flu jab?
It says, it doesn't reduce death if you suffer severely, but it does appear to reduce numbers where it goes from bad to severe. We know with COVID that there is a week period where you are ill, then for most people it just gets better, for others, you go downhill rapidly.
I presume, there is some sort of protective effect from the flu jab that reduces the overall numbers where they went downhill.
Or confounding factors weren't taken adequate account of. Some flu jabs are contraindicated for those aged 50+ or with weakened immune systems.
In case someone else didn't post it on the last thread, this is for the haters that have been dissing Southgate:
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” Theodore Roosevelt
Southgate knows only defeat. That’s the point. He’s a thoroughly likeable man, a charming presence on TV, he seems to pretty good at managing people and sometimes unifying them, but when it comes to football he consistently falls short. He’s one of Napoleon’s ‘unlucky generals’. It’s rather sad.
He makes an interesting contrast with Boris. The prime minister. Who is, I’d guess, morally much inferior, not so good with staff, definitely not a unifier, and yet Boris is a winner. Consistently
A bit early to be writing the career epitaph of either. I think you are simply revealing bias, along with a lack of understanding of genuine leadership and a Trump like obsession with "winners" and "losers". Read the quote again, it could have been written for folk such as yourself.
Actually, you’re right. I didn’t read it properly. And it is a true and insightful quote
I will suspend judgement on Southgate, but I am still deeply pessimistic. I don’t think he has it in him, I hope he proves me wrong
Tell me Gerrard wouldn't do a better job.
Successful club manager treading over the hot coals of sectarian Glasgow. Legend of the game, universally respected, knows his football inside out. Champions League winner. Steely, determined, never, ever loses his temper. Young enough to understand the modern player and his mentality & aspirations.
He wouldn't want it, of course, but I would take him over Southgate in a heartbeat.
Why would Gerrard take the job though? He clearly wants the Liverpool job and will wait it out for the next 2-3 seasons until Klopp leaves. Southgate, for all his flaws, is probably the best England can do right now.
Why would anyone want a National job? Way more intrusive on your private life. Need to do overt politics. You can't buy players you want, nor sell the ones you don't want. You barely ever see your players for months at a time, don't get any time to prepare properly, are unable to manage injuries, or fitness generally. Very few games to get a rhythm. The list goes on...
This England team have the capability to win the biggest prize in football. That's a pretty big draw for managers but it would still be tough to attract someone with proven winning ability like Gerrard. His stint at Rangers has been excellent, he's restored credibility to that club and simultaneously pissed off Sturgeon and her ilk which makes it even sweeter.
Hmm. At Rangers you play Celtic and once/if you get that sussed you've sorted your title.
We are talking about a WC here with plenty of teams (only a couple of which we faced at the Euros) in with a shout.
I continue to say, as @FrancisUrquhart and I discussed last night, the depressing thing about the tactics was the lack of attacking intent. Against Ukraine and Denmark it was a pleasure to watch. Last night when Rice drove forward likewise.
Otherwise we had 30% possession, stayed virtually the whole game in our half and had one shot on goal.
Southgate has said he will reflect upon his decisions which is to be welcomed and perhaps one conclusion will be that with the hugely talented squad he has, he doesn't need to park the bus.
We shall see.
A good post. Italy, IMO, were there for the taking. A slow and tired defence up against a front 4 of Saka, Sterling, Kane and Grealish from kick off would have been incredibly tough for them to handle. The speed of Saka and Sterling plus Grealish being able to draw fouls would have been torture for Italy's old man defence.
We didn't need to park the bus for the whole second half and when we went to four in defence and stopped the improvement was really decent and we started actually challenging again but by then it was too late.
Declan Rice was impressive going forward. According to some on here, whom I've no reason to doubt, Rice had been expressly forbidden from doing that because the stats revealed he was no good at it. Maybe that is why he was substituted.
Rice had his game of the tournament last night, combining defensive and attacking play, then of course was whipped off for Henderson to come on......
Opinium Scottish sub-sample: SNP 57% Con 28% Lab 9% Grn 3% LD 2%
BJ approval - 38
Thinking back a couple of decades, if you had ever told me that the Conservatives would thrice outpoll Labour in Scotland, even in a small subsample ...
i have never understood how this country gets into such a mess with school meals.
The taxpayer rightly funds a free education until 18 including the huge expense of teachers, facilities , equipment, books ,IT etc yet for some reason stops short of funding a universal free meal during the school day . I mean why ? It cannot be but a very small fraction of the overall education cost so it is on the face of it extremely petty but also would solve the bullying some kids get fro having free meals and also give all kids a better diet.
Really odd the position on school meals to me that we have had for years
I've already answered that - some families are so dysfunctional that the children need to be fed, but not so dysfunctional that the children need to be taken into care (for that costs real money)..
I think what state_go_away meant was - why not simply provide meals for free, for all pupils, in all state schools?
i have never understood how this country gets into such a mess with school meals.
The taxpayer rightly funds a free education until 18 including the huge expense of teachers, facilities , equipment, books ,IT etc yet for some reason stops short of funding a universal free meal during the school day . I mean why ? It cannot be but a very small fraction of the overall education cost so it is on the face of it extremely petty but also would solve the bullying some kids get fro having free meals and also give all kids a better diet.
Really odd the position on school meals to me that we have had for years
I've already answered that - some families are so dysfunctional that the children need to be fed, but not so dysfunctional that the children need to be taken into care (for that costs real money)..
Well I am talking about why not offering meals to all kids ?
In case someone else didn't post it on the last thread, this is for the haters that have been dissing Southgate:
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” Theodore Roosevelt
Southgate knows only defeat. That’s the point. He’s a thoroughly likeable man, a charming presence on TV, he seems to pretty good at managing people and sometimes unifying them, but when it comes to football he consistently falls short. He’s one of Napoleon’s ‘unlucky generals’. It’s rather sad.
He makes an interesting contrast with Boris. The prime minister. Who is, I’d guess, morally much inferior, not so good with staff, definitely not a unifier, and yet Boris is a winner. Consistently
A bit early to be writing the career epitaph of either. I think you are simply revealing bias, along with a lack of understanding of genuine leadership and a Trump like obsession with "winners" and "losers". Read the quote again, it could have been written for folk such as yourself.
Actually, you’re right. I didn’t read it properly. And it is a true and insightful quote
I will suspend judgement on Southgate, but I am still deeply pessimistic. I don’t think he has it in him, I hope he proves me wrong
Tell me Gerrard wouldn't do a better job.
Successful club manager treading over the hot coals of sectarian Glasgow. Legend of the game, universally respected, knows his football inside out. Champions League winner. Steely, determined, never, ever loses his temper. Young enough to understand the modern player and his mentality & aspirations.
He wouldn't want it, of course, but I would take him over Southgate in a heartbeat.
Why would Gerrard take the job though? He clearly wants the Liverpool job and will wait it out for the next 2-3 seasons until Klopp leaves. Southgate, for all his flaws, is probably the best England can do right now.
Why would anyone want a National job? Way more intrusive on your private life. Need to do overt politics. You can't buy players you want, nor sell the ones you don't want. You barely ever see your players for months at a time, don't get any time to prepare properly, are unable to manage injuries, or fitness generally. Very few games to get a rhythm. The list goes on...
This England team have the capability to win the biggest prize in football. That's a pretty big draw for managers but it would still be tough to attract someone with proven winning ability like Gerrard. His stint at Rangers has been excellent, he's restored credibility to that club and simultaneously pissed off Sturgeon and her ilk which makes it even sweeter.
Hmm. At Rangers you play Celtic and once/if you get that sussed you've sorted your title.
We are talking about a WC here with plenty of teams (only a couple of which we faced at the Euros) in with a shout.
I continue to say, as @FrancisUrquhart and I discussed last night, the depressing thing about the tactics was the lack of attacking intent. Against Ukraine and Denmark it was a pleasure to watch. Last night when Rice drove forward likewise.
Otherwise we had 30% possession, stayed virtually the whole game in our half and had one shot on goal.
Southgate has said he will reflect upon his decisions which is to be welcomed and perhaps one conclusion will be that with the hugely talented squad he has, he doesn't need to park the bus.
We shall see.
A good post. Italy, IMO, were there for the taking. A slow and tired defence up against a front 4 of Saka, Sterling, Kane and Grealish from kick off would have been incredibly tough for them to handle. The speed of Saka and Sterling plus Grealish being able to draw fouls would have been torture for Italy's old man defence.
We didn't need to park the bus for the whole second half and when we went to four in defence and stopped the improvement was really decent and we started actually challenging again but by then it was too late.
Listening to the radio this morning, I think Gareth Southgate was the only person in England who didn't think things needed changing at the 55/60 minute mark.
Its not like he does not have the personnel.
Grealish would have been the perfect introduction to break up Italy's rhythm.
Was Grealish perhaps injured? In the semi-final, he was substituted on then off again, and last night did not take a penalty. Though as someone noted, it would be even better to have a player noted for scoring goals than one, like Grealish, vaunted for winning free kicks.
i have never understood how this country gets into such a mess with school meals.
The taxpayer rightly funds a free education until 18 including the huge expense of teachers, facilities , equipment, books ,IT etc yet for some reason stops short of funding a universal free meal during the school day . I mean why ? It cannot be but a very small fraction of the overall education cost so it is on the face of it extremely petty but also would solve the bullying some kids get fro having free meals and also give all kids a better diet.
Really odd the position on school meals to me that we have had for years
I've already answered that - some families are so dysfunctional that the children need to be fed, but not so dysfunctional that the children need to be taken into care (for that costs real money)..
I think what state_go_away meant was - why not simply provide meals for free, for all pupils, in all state schools?
Way too expensive and when it was trialled it didn't provide many benefits.
i have never understood how this country gets into such a mess with school meals.
The taxpayer rightly funds a free education until 18 including the huge expense of teachers, facilities , equipment, books ,IT etc yet for some reason stops short of funding a universal free meal during the school day . I mean why ? It cannot be but a very small fraction of the overall education cost so it is on the face of it extremely petty but also would solve the bullying some kids get fro having free meals and also give all kids a better diet.
Really odd the position on school meals to me that we have had for years
I've already answered that - some families are so dysfunctional that the children need to be fed, but not so dysfunctional that the children need to be taken into care (for that costs real money)..
I think what state_go_away meant was - why not simply provide meals for free, for all pupils, in all state schools?
Way too expensive and when it was trialled it didn't provide many benefits.
is it that expensive ? If the government can fund everything else to do with a kids educuation it seems odd this is left out
In case someone else didn't post it on the last thread, this is for the haters that have been dissing Southgate:
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” Theodore Roosevelt
Southgate knows only defeat. That’s the point. He’s a thoroughly likeable man, a charming presence on TV, he seems to pretty good at managing people and sometimes unifying them, but when it comes to football he consistently falls short. He’s one of Napoleon’s ‘unlucky generals’. It’s rather sad.
He makes an interesting contrast with Boris. The prime minister. Who is, I’d guess, morally much inferior, not so good with staff, definitely not a unifier, and yet Boris is a winner. Consistently
A bit early to be writing the career epitaph of either. I think you are simply revealing bias, along with a lack of understanding of genuine leadership and a Trump like obsession with "winners" and "losers". Read the quote again, it could have been written for folk such as yourself.
Actually, you’re right. I didn’t read it properly. And it is a true and insightful quote
I will suspend judgement on Southgate, but I am still deeply pessimistic. I don’t think he has it in him, I hope he proves me wrong
Tell me Gerrard wouldn't do a better job.
Successful club manager treading over the hot coals of sectarian Glasgow. Legend of the game, universally respected, knows his football inside out. Champions League winner. Steely, determined, never, ever loses his temper. Young enough to understand the modern player and his mentality & aspirations.
He wouldn't want it, of course, but I would take him over Southgate in a heartbeat.
Why would Gerrard take the job though? He clearly wants the Liverpool job and will wait it out for the next 2-3 seasons until Klopp leaves. Southgate, for all his flaws, is probably the best England can do right now.
Why would anyone want a National job? Way more intrusive on your private life. Need to do overt politics. You can't buy players you want, nor sell the ones you don't want. You barely ever see your players for months at a time, don't get any time to prepare properly, are unable to manage injuries, or fitness generally. Very few games to get a rhythm. The list goes on...
This England team have the capability to win the biggest prize in football. That's a pretty big draw for managers but it would still be tough to attract someone with proven winning ability like Gerrard. His stint at Rangers has been excellent, he's restored credibility to that club and simultaneously pissed off Sturgeon and her ilk which makes it even sweeter.
Hmm. At Rangers you play Celtic and once/if you get that sussed you've sorted your title.
We are talking about a WC here with plenty of teams (only a couple of which we faced at the Euros) in with a shout.
I continue to say, as @FrancisUrquhart and I discussed last night, the depressing thing about the tactics was the lack of attacking intent. Against Ukraine and Denmark it was a pleasure to watch. Last night when Rice drove forward likewise.
Otherwise we had 30% possession, stayed virtually the whole game in our half and had one shot on goal.
Southgate has said he will reflect upon his decisions which is to be welcomed and perhaps one conclusion will be that with the hugely talented squad he has, he doesn't need to park the bus.
We shall see.
A good post. Italy, IMO, were there for the taking. A slow and tired defence up against a front 4 of Saka, Sterling, Kane and Grealish from kick off would have been incredibly tough for them to handle. The speed of Saka and Sterling plus Grealish being able to draw fouls would have been torture for Italy's old man defence.
We didn't need to park the bus for the whole second half and when we went to four in defence and stopped the improvement was really decent and we started actually challenging again but by then it was too late.
Declan Rice was impressive going forward. According to some on here, whom I've no reason to doubt, Rice had been expressly forbidden from doing that because the stats revealed he was no good at it. Maybe that is why he was substituted.
Rice had his game of the tournament last night, combining defensive and attacking play, then of course was whipped off for Henderson to come on......
Yeah there was a real wtf moment at the pub when Rice's number came up and not Phillips.
I've been thinking about how you might rationalise this. I think the reasoning must be that not only are the Tories evil and wicked and self destructive (in wanting to kill off their core vote) but they are also staggeringly incompetent and it is only that incompetence that has stopped the NHS being destroyed by them until now.
Whether this is a back handed compliment to Boris (who is surely not in the same league of competence as Maggie was, even on his best day) is probably best left for the advanced class to wrestle with.
Mr. W, politicians and journalists think algorithms are magical incantations that can stop kids seeing bad stuff on the internet.
I'm amused you think they'd know what bots are.
I'm not tech savvy but seeing the bizarre lack of knowledge from the media and political class is somewhere between comic and tragic.
It's not so much bizarre as worked for.
The media, politics and government in general is, in general, a refuge for people who don't like maths, technical stuff etc.
In a supreme piece of comedy, I once described the questions/ideas a leading authority on project management (a foreigner) had put to me about the pile of NHS IT projects that were (at that time) steadily marching to their doom, to a high flying civil servant.
His reply (the civil servant) was that the suggested solutions of said expert were incompetent and incompatible with good government. And further that he didn't need "boffins" telling him how to run things.
OT: Is this the third or fourth time since the election that a Boris 'bounce' has been over - seems to be something of a Barnes-Wallis affair to me....
Ever-decreasing hops, spinning all the time, till it hits a solid wall and pops?
The latest NHS neurosis is that Javid doesn't talk about it as some revered organisation or in terms of "our" NHS I'm told. He's being called in by senior NHS bods for reeducation on this subject. Oddly the new health secretary believes that the NHS is there to serve the people, not the other way around.
OT: Is this the third or fourth time since the election that a Boris 'bounce' has been over - seems to be something of a Barnes-Wallis affair to me....
You mean he is going to hit a dam and explode?
More likely another landslide in a couple of years!
In case someone else didn't post it on the last thread, this is for the haters that have been dissing Southgate:
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” Theodore Roosevelt
Fantastic quote.
Beloved of Richard Nixon. https://www.nytimes.com/1973/06/07/archives/man-in-the-arena-essay.html ...Mr. Nixon viewed the lines in 1960, and does today, “straight”—without irony—as vividly expressive of his own attitude toward life in general, and to the political life in particular. “It is not the critic who counts” can be seen, let's face it, as anti‐intellectual, disparaging the man of thought while exalting the man of action, similar to the scornful “if you can't do, teach.” The contempt the President holds for carping critics is an inextricable part of his character, at times a source of strength, at other times a cause of self. damage....,/i>
It doesn't really tarnish it though does it?
No, it's a great quote. It does add a little nuance, though. Particularly when you consider the character of Teddy Roosevelt.
i have never understood how this country gets into such a mess with school meals.
The taxpayer rightly funds a free education until 18 including the huge expense of teachers, facilities , equipment, books ,IT etc yet for some reason stops short of funding a universal free meal during the school day . I mean why ? It cannot be but a very small fraction of the overall education cost so it is on the face of it extremely petty but also would solve the bullying some kids get from having free meals and also give all kids a better diet.
Really odd the position on school meals to me that we have had for years
Odd that with your PB name you want the state to feed every kid up to 18...
yes i get this come back quite a lot . I dont mind the state funding areas of real need and my name comes more from state nannying than funding necessary things
But where do you draw the line? One persons nannying, is another's necessary intervention...
OT: Is this the third or fourth time since the election that a Boris 'bounce' has been over - seems to be something of a Barnes-Wallis affair to me....
Ever-decreasing hops, spinning all the time, till it hits a solid wall and pops?
Good luck with that.
I didn't say what initiated the fuze - or indeed if the gaine functioned at all; it was David F who used 'explode'. Sooner or later Mr Johnson will no longer be PM, anyway. Whether he blows up or sinks into obscurity is a good question, though.
*on a pedantic point I do know that the Upkeep mine had a barometric fuzing - so it would sink into obscurity first and then perhaps blow up ... but that doesn't work so well!
Opinium Scottish sub-sample: SNP 57% Con 28% Lab 9% Grn 3% LD 2%
BJ approval - 38
Thinking back a couple of decades, if you had ever told me that the Conservatives would thrice outpoll Labour in Scotland, even in a small subsample ...
The new SLAB leader clearly has the 'Starmer' touch...
i have never understood how this country gets into such a mess with school meals.
The taxpayer rightly funds a free education until 18 including the huge expense of teachers, facilities , equipment, books ,IT etc yet for some reason stops short of funding a universal free meal during the school day . I mean why ? It cannot be but a very small fraction of the overall education cost so it is on the face of it extremely petty but also would solve the bullying some kids get from having free meals and also give all kids a better diet.
Really odd the position on school meals to me that we have had for years
Odd that with your PB name you want the state to feed every kid up to 18...
yes i get this come back quite a lot . I dont mind the state funding areas of real need and my name comes more from state nannying than funding necessary things
But where do you draw the line? One persons nannying, is another's necessary intervention...
well as you may guess my line is drawn more towards the "state go away " end
I've been thinking about how you might rationalise this. I think the reasoning must be that not only are the Tories evil and wicked and self destructive (in wanting to kill off their core vote) but they are also staggeringly incompetent and it is only that incompetence that has stopped the NHS being destroyed by them until now.
Whether this is a back handed compliment to Boris (who is surely not in the same league of competence as Maggie was, even on his best day) is probably best left for the advanced class to wrestle with.
It makes an interesting comparison with the concept of the struggle with evil in various religions.
The universal story is that the forces of evil are vast, powerful and on the brink on total victory. Only the valiant efforts of the ragged handful of the True Faith prevents the Final Fall.
The modern humorist notices the parallel (quite deliberate) with the War Hammer 40K universe. Where the clock is set forever to 23:59.59:999
In case someone else didn't post it on the last thread, this is for the haters that have been dissing Southgate:
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” Theodore Roosevelt
Southgate knows only defeat. That’s the point. He’s a thoroughly likeable man, a charming presence on TV, he seems to pretty good at managing people and sometimes unifying them, but when it comes to football he consistently falls short. He’s one of Napoleon’s ‘unlucky generals’. It’s rather sad.
He makes an interesting contrast with Boris. The prime minister. Who is, I’d guess, morally much inferior, not so good with staff, definitely not a unifier, and yet Boris is a winner. Consistently
A bit early to be writing the career epitaph of either. I think you are simply revealing bias, along with a lack of understanding of genuine leadership and a Trump like obsession with "winners" and "losers". Read the quote again, it could have been written for folk such as yourself.
Actually, you’re right. I didn’t read it properly. And it is a true and insightful quote
I will suspend judgement on Southgate, but I am still deeply pessimistic. I don’t think he has it in him, I hope he proves me wrong
Tell me Gerrard wouldn't do a better job.
Successful club manager treading over the hot coals of sectarian Glasgow. Legend of the game, universally respected, knows his football inside out. Champions League winner. Steely, determined, never, ever loses his temper. Young enough to understand the modern player and his mentality & aspirations.
He wouldn't want it, of course, but I would take him over Southgate in a heartbeat.
Why would Gerrard take the job though? He clearly wants the Liverpool job and will wait it out for the next 2-3 seasons until Klopp leaves. Southgate, for all his flaws, is probably the best England can do right now.
Why would anyone want a National job? Way more intrusive on your private life. Need to do overt politics. You can't buy players you want, nor sell the ones you don't want. You barely ever see your players for months at a time, don't get any time to prepare properly, are unable to manage injuries, or fitness generally. Very few games to get a rhythm. The list goes on...
This England team have the capability to win the biggest prize in football. That's a pretty big draw for managers but it would still be tough to attract someone with proven winning ability like Gerrard. His stint at Rangers has been excellent, he's restored credibility to that club and simultaneously pissed off Sturgeon and her ilk which makes it even sweeter.
Hmm. At Rangers you play Celtic and once/if you get that sussed you've sorted your title.
We are talking about a WC here with plenty of teams (only a couple of which we faced at the Euros) in with a shout.
I continue to say, as @FrancisUrquhart and I discussed last night, the depressing thing about the tactics was the lack of attacking intent. Against Ukraine and Denmark it was a pleasure to watch. Last night when Rice drove forward likewise.
Otherwise we had 30% possession, stayed virtually the whole game in our half and had one shot on goal.
Southgate has said he will reflect upon his decisions which is to be welcomed and perhaps one conclusion will be that with the hugely talented squad he has, he doesn't need to park the bus.
We shall see.
A good post. Italy, IMO, were there for the taking. A slow and tired defence up against a front 4 of Saka, Sterling, Kane and Grealish from kick off would have been incredibly tough for them to handle. The speed of Saka and Sterling plus Grealish being able to draw fouls would have been torture for Italy's old man defence.
We didn't need to park the bus for the whole second half and when we went to four in defence and stopped the improvement was really decent and we started actually challenging again but by then it was too late.
Declan Rice was impressive going forward. According to some on here, whom I've no reason to doubt, Rice had been expressly forbidden from doing that because the stats revealed he was no good at it. Maybe that is why he was substituted.
Rice had his game of the tournament last night, combining defensive and attacking play, then of course was whipped off for Henderson to come on......
...and Henderson whipped off again shortly thereafter. Not Southgate's best match as a manager, but he might just lean from the experience. England's young team certainly will.
I am hopeful that the rise in cases has slowed in the UK, and certainly in Scotland we seem to be seeing falls now (linked to school hols and lack of Scotland progression in the Euors no doubt, but also probably because vaccination genuinely works...) I am hoping England will follow suit soon, and certainly the rate of increase is slowing. That may be because all the kids are isolating from school..,
Yes - Scotland was in the vanguard of this wave so has crested it first. The NW was the first region of England to go through this rise and is now (hopefully) topping out.
ZOE ap is looking positive, with the exception of the NE, which is showing a rapid rise. Not sure why, but lets hope its not another sodding variant... Hopefully just the footy.
i have never understood how this country gets into such a mess with school meals.
The taxpayer rightly funds a free education until 18 including the huge expense of teachers, facilities , equipment, books ,IT etc yet for some reason stops short of funding a universal free meal during the school day . I mean why ? It cannot be but a very small fraction of the overall education cost so it is on the face of it extremely petty but also would solve the bullying some kids get fro having free meals and also give all kids a better diet.
Really odd the position on school meals to me that we have had for years
I've already answered that - some families are so dysfunctional that the children need to be fed, but not so dysfunctional that the children need to be taken into care (for that costs real money)..
I think what state_go_away meant was - why not simply provide meals for free, for all pupils, in all state schools?
Way too expensive and when it was trialled it didn't provide many benefits.
is it that expensive ? If the government can fund everything else to do with a kids educuation it seems odd this is left out
WTF is the point of having parents and families at all?
i have never understood how this country gets into such a mess with school meals.
The taxpayer rightly funds a free education until 18 including the huge expense of teachers, facilities , equipment, books ,IT etc yet for some reason stops short of funding a universal free meal during the school day . I mean why ? It cannot be but a very small fraction of the overall education cost so it is on the face of it extremely petty but also would solve the bullying some kids get fro having free meals and also give all kids a better diet.
Really odd the position on school meals to me that we have had for years
I've already answered that - some families are so dysfunctional that the children need to be fed, but not so dysfunctional that the children need to be taken into care (for that costs real money)..
I think what state_go_away meant was - why not simply provide meals for free, for all pupils, in all state schools?
Way too expensive and when it was trialled it didn't provide many benefits.
is it that expensive ? If the government can fund everything else to do with a kids educuation it seems odd this is left out
WTF is the point of having parents and families at all?
wow - a bit aggressive ! i am sure parents are invented for kids to do more than prepare a packed lunch
i have never understood how this country gets into such a mess with school meals.
The taxpayer rightly funds a free education until 18 including the huge expense of teachers, facilities , equipment, books ,IT etc yet for some reason stops short of funding a universal free meal during the school day . I mean why ? It cannot be but a very small fraction of the overall education cost so it is on the face of it extremely petty but also would solve the bullying some kids get fro having free meals and also give all kids a better diet.
Really odd the position on school meals to me that we have had for years
I've already answered that - some families are so dysfunctional that the children need to be fed, but not so dysfunctional that the children need to be taken into care (for that costs real money)..
I think what state_go_away meant was - why not simply provide meals for free, for all pupils, in all state schools?
Way too expensive and when it was trialled it didn't provide many benefits.
is it that expensive ? If the government can fund everything else to do with a kids educuation it seems odd this is left out
WTF is the point of having parents and families at all?
I have heard it said that one of the appeals of Harry Potter for children from some backgrounds, is the idea that a boarding school would allow them to completely escape their horrible home life....
i have never understood how this country gets into such a mess with school meals.
The taxpayer rightly funds a free education until 18 including the huge expense of teachers, facilities , equipment, books ,IT etc yet for some reason stops short of funding a universal free meal during the school day . I mean why ? It cannot be but a very small fraction of the overall education cost so it is on the face of it extremely petty but also would solve the bullying some kids get from having free meals and also give all kids a better diet.
Really odd the position on school meals to me that we have had for years
Odd that with your PB name you want the state to feed every kid up to 18...
yes i get this come back quite a lot . I dont mind the state funding areas of real need and my name comes more from state nannying than funding necessary things
But where do you draw the line? One persons nannying, is another's necessary intervention...
well as you may guess my line is drawn more towards the "state go away " end
Opinium Scottish sub-sample: SNP 57% Con 28% Lab 9% Grn 3% LD 2%
BJ approval - 38
Thinking back a couple of decades, if you had ever told me that the Conservatives would thrice outpoll Labour in Scotland, even in a small subsample ...
And the Lib-Lab pact, which once had unchallenged hegemony, now commands about 10% of the vote. That’s the thanks they get for all their decades of hard work leading to the Claim of Right for Scotland, the Scottish Constitutional Convention and the Scotland Act. And they thought they were being so clever…
On a back of the envelope sort of calculation , the money spent on the (useless) test and trace system could have funded free school meals for ALL kids for three years.
i have never understood how this country gets into such a mess with school meals.
The taxpayer rightly funds a free education until 18 including the huge expense of teachers, facilities , equipment, books ,IT etc yet for some reason stops short of funding a universal free meal during the school day . I mean why ? It cannot be but a very small fraction of the overall education cost so it is on the face of it extremely petty but also would solve the bullying some kids get fro having free meals and also give all kids a better diet.
Really odd the position on school meals to me that we have had for years
I've already answered that - some families are so dysfunctional that the children need to be fed, but not so dysfunctional that the children need to be taken into care (for that costs real money)..
I think what state_go_away meant was - why not simply provide meals for free, for all pupils, in all state schools?
Way too expensive and when it was trialled it didn't provide many benefits.
Nonsense. Works fantastically well in the Nordic countries.
In case someone else didn't post it on the last thread, this is for the haters that have been dissing Southgate:
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” Theodore Roosevelt
Southgate knows only defeat. That’s the point. He’s a thoroughly likeable man, a charming presence on TV, he seems to pretty good at managing people and sometimes unifying them, but when it comes to football he consistently falls short. He’s one of Napoleon’s ‘unlucky generals’. It’s rather sad.
He makes an interesting contrast with Boris. The prime minister. Who is, I’d guess, morally much inferior, not so good with staff, definitely not a unifier, and yet Boris is a winner. Consistently
A bit early to be writing the career epitaph of either. I think you are simply revealing bias, along with a lack of understanding of genuine leadership and a Trump like obsession with "winners" and "losers". Read the quote again, it could have been written for folk such as yourself.
Actually, you’re right. I didn’t read it properly. And it is a true and insightful quote
I will suspend judgement on Southgate, but I am still deeply pessimistic. I don’t think he has it in him, I hope he proves me wrong
Tell me Gerrard wouldn't do a better job.
Successful club manager treading over the hot coals of sectarian Glasgow. Legend of the game, universally respected, knows his football inside out. Champions League winner. Steely, determined, never, ever loses his temper. Young enough to understand the modern player and his mentality & aspirations.
He wouldn't want it, of course, but I would take him over Southgate in a heartbeat.
Why would Gerrard take the job though? He clearly wants the Liverpool job and will wait it out for the next 2-3 seasons until Klopp leaves. Southgate, for all his flaws, is probably the best England can do right now.
Why would anyone want a National job? Way more intrusive on your private life. Need to do overt politics. You can't buy players you want, nor sell the ones you don't want. You barely ever see your players for months at a time, don't get any time to prepare properly, are unable to manage injuries, or fitness generally. Very few games to get a rhythm. The list goes on...
This England team have the capability to win the biggest prize in football. That's a pretty big draw for managers but it would still be tough to attract someone with proven winning ability like Gerrard. His stint at Rangers has been excellent, he's restored credibility to that club and simultaneously pissed off Sturgeon and her ilk which makes it even sweeter.
Hmm. At Rangers you play Celtic and once/if you get that sussed you've sorted your title.
We are talking about a WC here with plenty of teams (only a couple of which we faced at the Euros) in with a shout.
I continue to say, as @FrancisUrquhart and I discussed last night, the depressing thing about the tactics was the lack of attacking intent. Against Ukraine and Denmark it was a pleasure to watch. Last night when Rice drove forward likewise.
Otherwise we had 30% possession, stayed virtually the whole game in our half and had one shot on goal.
Southgate has said he will reflect upon his decisions which is to be welcomed and perhaps one conclusion will be that with the hugely talented squad he has, he doesn't need to park the bus.
We shall see.
A good post. Italy, IMO, were there for the taking. A slow and tired defence up against a front 4 of Saka, Sterling, Kane and Grealish from kick off would have been incredibly tough for them to handle. The speed of Saka and Sterling plus Grealish being able to draw fouls would have been torture for Italy's old man defence.
We didn't need to park the bus for the whole second half and when we went to four in defence and stopped the improvement was really decent and we started actually challenging again but by then it was too late.
Declan Rice was impressive going forward. According to some on here, whom I've no reason to doubt, Rice had been expressly forbidden from doing that because the stats revealed he was no good at it. Maybe that is why he was substituted.
Rice had his game of the tournament last night, combining defensive and attacking play, then of course was whipped off for Henderson to come on......
...and Henderson whipped off again shortly thereafter. Not Southgate's best match as a manager, but he might just lean from the experience. England's young team certainly will.
I thought it was odd that Henderson wasn't on the pitch to take a penalty. It's worth noting the age of the England players that took penalties against Germany in Euro 96 compared with those that took last night:
The latest NHS neurosis is that Javid doesn't talk about it as some revered organisation or in terms of "our" NHS I'm told. He's being called in by senior NHS bods for reeducation on this subject. Oddly the new health secretary believes that the NHS is there to serve the people, not the other way around.
It's the old "not enough NHS beds or nurses" argument. As though we want people to be ill in order to keep the NHS busy. The ideal size of the NHS is tiny, and so low cost we could pay for it by merely taxing say French wines.
i have never understood how this country gets into such a mess with school meals.
The taxpayer rightly funds a free education until 18 including the huge expense of teachers, facilities , equipment, books ,IT etc yet for some reason stops short of funding a universal free meal during the school day . I mean why ? It cannot be but a very small fraction of the overall education cost so it is on the face of it extremely petty but also would solve the bullying some kids get fro having free meals and also give all kids a better diet.
Really odd the position on school meals to me that we have had for years
I've already answered that - some families are so dysfunctional that the children need to be fed, but not so dysfunctional that the children need to be taken into care (for that costs real money)..
I think what state_go_away meant was - why not simply provide meals for free, for all pupils, in all state schools?
Way too expensive and when it was trialled it didn't provide many benefits.
School meals are about £2.50 per child per day, which is £500 or so over a school year. You could get some more economy of scale by feeding everyone (... eventually, there'd be hefty costs in scaling up kitchen capacity to start with). The minimum funding per primary pupil in England is only £4000 (though it's higher in needier and/or more expensive areas).
I've been thinking about how you might rationalise this. I think the reasoning must be that not only are the Tories evil and wicked and self destructive (in wanting to kill off their core vote) but they are also staggeringly incompetent and it is only that incompetence that has stopped the NHS being destroyed by them until now.
Whether this is a back handed compliment to Boris (who is surely not in the same league of competence as Maggie was, even on his best day) is probably best left for the advanced class to wrestle with.
It works both ways. Consider the Tories' campaign to save the pound after Gordon Brown had explicitly ruled out joining the Euro, and despite it having been the Conservatives who'd taken us into the Euro's precursor, the ERM. (Remember ECUs?)
Opinium Scottish sub-sample: SNP 57% Con 28% Lab 9% Grn 3% LD 2%
BJ approval - 38
Thinking back a couple of decades, if you had ever told me that the Conservatives would thrice outpoll Labour in Scotland, even in a small subsample ...
And the Lib-Lab pact, which once had unchallenged hegemony, now commands about 10% of the vote. That’s the thanks they get for all their decades of hard work leading to the Claim of Right for Scotland, the Scottish Constitutional Convention and the Scotland Act. And they thought they were being so clever…
In most of Scotland the Tories are the main Unionist party and opponent of the SNP that is why, however Unionists are also canny enough to vote tactically to beat the Nationalists.
Hence Unionist tactical voting for Labour in Edinburgh Southern and Dumbarton and for the LDs in Edinburgh Western as well as tactical voting for the Tories in Aberdeenshire West, Eastwood and Dumfriesshire proved pivotal in preventing the SNP getting a majority at Holyrood in May
Opinium Scottish sub-sample: SNP 57% Con 28% Lab 9% Grn 3% LD 2%
BJ approval - 38
Thinking back a couple of decades, if you had ever told me that the Conservatives would thrice outpoll Labour in Scotland, even in a small subsample ...
The new SLAB leader clearly has the 'Starmer' touch...
He’s a Blairite when the Blair magic is dead and buried. All spin, no substance.
I've been thinking about how you might rationalise this. I think the reasoning must be that not only are the Tories evil and wicked and self destructive (in wanting to kill off their core vote) but they are also staggeringly incompetent and it is only that incompetence that has stopped the NHS being destroyed by them until now.
Whether this is a back handed compliment to Boris (who is surely not in the same league of competence as Maggie was, even on his best day) is probably best left for the advanced class to wrestle with.
It works both ways. Consider the Tories' campaign to save the pound after Gordon Brown had explicitly ruled out joining the Euro, and despite it having been the Conservatives who'd taken us into the Euro's precursor, the ERM. (Remember ECUs?)
Yes, that was equally stupid. Maybe politics is just easier if you decide yourself what those you oppose "really" want to do, despite all their lies to the contrary?
Is no-one in England happy with their team's success ?
I think they should be immensely proud of their silver medals. Shocking that the spoilt brats immediately removed them from their necks within seconds of being awarded them. Very rude.
I've been thinking about how you might rationalise this. I think the reasoning must be that not only are the Tories evil and wicked and self destructive (in wanting to kill off their core vote) but they are also staggeringly incompetent and it is only that incompetence that has stopped the NHS being destroyed by them until now.
Whether this is a back handed compliment to Boris (who is surely not in the same league of competence as Maggie was, even on his best day) is probably best left for the advanced class to wrestle with.
Or maybe the Tories are just lulling the public into a false sense of security before destroying the NHS.
i have never understood how this country gets into such a mess with school meals.
The taxpayer rightly funds a free education until 18 including the huge expense of teachers, facilities , equipment, books ,IT etc yet for some reason stops short of funding a universal free meal during the school day . I mean why ? It cannot be but a very small fraction of the overall education cost so it is on the face of it extremely petty but also would solve the bullying some kids get fro having free meals and also give all kids a better diet.
Really odd the position on school meals to me that we have had for years
I've already answered that - some families are so dysfunctional that the children need to be fed, but not so dysfunctional that the children need to be taken into care (for that costs real money)..
I think what state_go_away meant was - why not simply provide meals for free, for all pupils, in all state schools?
Way too expensive and when it was trialled it didn't provide many benefits.
School meals are about £2.50 per child per day, which is £500 or so over a school year. You could get some more economy of scale by feeding everyone (... eventually, there'd be hefty costs in scaling up kitchen capacity to start with). The minimum funding per primary pupil in England is only £4000 (though it's higher in needier and/or more expensive areas).
There is also the one off cost of new / expanded kitchen facilities that will be required.
If I remember correctly when Labour proposed this for the 2017 GE, I think the cost was estimated at about ~£1bn extra a year for just primary school kids to have lunch. This isn't for everybody to have breakfast club or after school food.
i have never understood how this country gets into such a mess with school meals.
The taxpayer rightly funds a free education until 18 including the huge expense of teachers, facilities , equipment, books ,IT etc yet for some reason stops short of funding a universal free meal during the school day . I mean why ? It cannot be but a very small fraction of the overall education cost so it is on the face of it extremely petty but also would solve the bullying some kids get from having free meals and also give all kids a better diet.
Really odd the position on school meals to me that we have had for years
Odd that with your PB name you want the state to feed every kid up to 18...
The state is acting in loco parentis for those kids, so yes have a meal at mealtime really should come with the territory.
Opinium Scottish sub-sample: SNP 57% Con 28% Lab 9% Grn 3% LD 2%
BJ approval - 38
Thinking back a couple of decades, if you had ever told me that the Conservatives would thrice outpoll Labour in Scotland, even in a small subsample ...
And the Lib-Lab pact, which once had unchallenged hegemony, now commands about 10% of the vote. That’s the thanks they get for all their decades of hard work leading to the Claim of Right for Scotland, the Scottish Constitutional Convention and the Scotland Act. And they thought they were being so clever…
In most of Scotland the Tories are the main Unionist party and opponent of the SNP that is why, however Unionists are also canny enough to vote tactically to beat the Nationalists.
Hence Unionist tactical voting for Labour in Edinburgh Southern and Dumbarton and for the LDs in Edinburgh Western as well as tactical voting for the Tories in Aberdeenshire West, Eastwood and Dumfriesshire proved pivotal in preventing the SNP getting a majority at Holyrood in May
Why do you care if the SNP got a majority or not? You’re never going to allow the Untermenschen a referendum irrespective of the parliamentary arithmetic.
i have never understood how this country gets into such a mess with school meals.
The taxpayer rightly funds a free education until 18 including the huge expense of teachers, facilities , equipment, books ,IT etc yet for some reason stops short of funding a universal free meal during the school day . I mean why ? It cannot be but a very small fraction of the overall education cost so it is on the face of it extremely petty but also would solve the bullying some kids get fro having free meals and also give all kids a better diet.
Really odd the position on school meals to me that we have had for years
I've already answered that - some families are so dysfunctional that the children need to be fed, but not so dysfunctional that the children need to be taken into care (for that costs real money)..
I think what state_go_away meant was - why not simply provide meals for free, for all pupils, in all state schools?
Way too expensive and when it was trialled it didn't provide many benefits.
School meals are about £2.50 per child per day, which is £500 or so over a school year. You could get some more economy of scale by feeding everyone (... eventually, there'd be hefty costs in scaling up kitchen capacity to start with). The minimum funding per primary pupil in England is only £4000 (though it's higher in needier and/or more expensive areas).
There is also the one off cost of new / expanded kitchen facilities that will be required.
If I remember correctly when Labour proposed this for the 2017 GE, I think the cost was estimated at about ~£1bn extra a year for just primary school kids to have lunch. This isn't for everybody to have breakfast club or after school food.
Not sure about requiring expanded facilities - the idea is simply to stop parents paying for the school meals that they get already.
Now, if you are talking about adding breakfast (which some have suggested).....
Opinium Scottish sub-sample: SNP 57% Con 28% Lab 9% Grn 3% LD 2%
BJ approval - 38
Thinking back a couple of decades, if you had ever told me that the Conservatives would thrice outpoll Labour in Scotland, even in a small subsample ...
And the Lib-Lab pact, which once had unchallenged hegemony, now commands about 10% of the vote. That’s the thanks they get for all their decades of hard work leading to the Claim of Right for Scotland, the Scottish Constitutional Convention and the Scotland Act. And they thought they were being so clever…
In most of Scotland the Tories are the main Unionist party and opponent of the SNP that is why, however Unionists are also canny enough to vote tactically to beat the Nationalists.
Hence Unionist tactical voting for Labour in Edinburgh Southern and Dumbarton and for the LDs in Edinburgh Western as well as tactical voting for the Tories in Aberdeenshire West, Eastwood and Dumfriesshire proved pivotal in preventing the SNP getting a majority at Holyrood in May
Why do you care if the SNP got a majority or not? You’re never going to allow the Untermenschen a referendum irrespective of the parliamentary arithmetic.
No, we’re really not, for at least another decade. And what will you do about it?
Is no-one in England happy with their team's success ?
I think they should be immensely proud of their silver medals. Shocking that the spoilt brats immediately removed them from their necks within seconds of being awarded them. Very rude.
It is the same at the Olympics. Silver means loser, whereas bronze often means you've outperformed yourself.
i have never understood how this country gets into such a mess with school meals.
The taxpayer rightly funds a free education until 18 including the huge expense of teachers, facilities , equipment, books ,IT etc yet for some reason stops short of funding a universal free meal during the school day . I mean why ? It cannot be but a very small fraction of the overall education cost so it is on the face of it extremely petty but also would solve the bullying some kids get fro having free meals and also give all kids a better diet.
Really odd the position on school meals to me that we have had for years
If I remember correctly when Lib Dems proposed it, it turns out it is rather expensive. Its one of those things like free tv licence, which sounds great, why not, and then somebody points out the cost and you say no its can't be that much and it is.
Now if you think on balance it is a good thing, that's a different matter.
Approx 7 million schoolchildren under 16 -ish. 190 schooldays a year -ish. £2.30 budget for a meal -ish.
= 7000000 * 190 * 2.30 /1000 = £3 billion for the term time bit, including just lunch -ish.
i have never understood how this country gets into such a mess with school meals.
The taxpayer rightly funds a free education until 18 including the huge expense of teachers, facilities , equipment, books ,IT etc yet for some reason stops short of funding a universal free meal during the school day . I mean why ? It cannot be but a very small fraction of the overall education cost so it is on the face of it extremely petty but also would solve the bullying some kids get fro having free meals and also give all kids a better diet.
Really odd the position on school meals to me that we have had for years
I've already answered that - some families are so dysfunctional that the children need to be fed, but not so dysfunctional that the children need to be taken into care (for that costs real money)..
I think what state_go_away meant was - why not simply provide meals for free, for all pupils, in all state schools?
Way too expensive and when it was trialled it didn't provide many benefits.
is it that expensive ? If the government can fund everything else to do with a kids educuation it seems odd this is left out
WTF is the point of having parents and families at all?
wow - a bit aggressive ! i am sure parents are invented for kids to do more than prepare a packed lunch
The idea is for them to raise a family with all the easy and not so easy stuff included. There is no compulsion to rear children if you lack the means to do so. You seem to forget that all this money has to be provided by someone. Taxpayers would generally like to keep some of thier earnings for themselves. Paying for other people's kids to be fed is not part of the deal in my book. Sorry if you find that aggressive. 33 years in the classroom taught me that most parents expect to provide for their children's needs even when sacrifices are needed to do so. Mine certainly were.
Conservative MP Natalie Elphicke has apologised after saying Marcus Rashford should have spent more time perfecting his game than playing politics
BBC said the Dover MP has now apologised saying last night I shared the frustration and heartbreak of millions of England fans
'I regret messaging privately a rash reaction about Marcus Rashford's missed penalty and apologise to him for any suggestion that he is not fully focused on football'
Our own @HYUFD said the same objectionable comments and it is time for him to make his own apology
I am so sorry for Rashford , Sancho and Saka for missing their spot kicks and need to have the love and understanding of our nation, not bigots and idiots making unacceptable comments either on here or on the media generally
It was pleasing to see how all the England players hugged their colleagues in distress, in marked contrast to Mbappe colleagues who virtually shunned him when he missed his penalty for France
Ever decent person in the country should have great love and affection for England, it's management and players as they look to grow together over the years into a great side
And well done Gareth Southgate
Yes I may have made a cheap point and said so too but there is no doubt a lot of Tories have felt Rashford has spent too much time campaigning on a political line they disagree with.
Why not be like Natalie Elphicke who has made a straightforward unqualified apology for the same thoughtless comments
Elphicke only apologised because of her high profile as an MP and the storm around it from the left on twitter, she would not have made the comment in the first place if she did not think it and as I have just posted many if not most of her Tory voters will have backed her in opposing Rashford's campaign as that Yougov polling data shows
Lets be clear. 47% of Tory voters disagreed with feeding hungry kids. A significant number of whom are the same WWC they complain are discriminated against by taking the knee.
Same with the education committee Tories horrified at the poor attainment of WWC pupils yet seem to think that repeatedly voting to reduce funding for the schools they go to, repeatedly attacking teachers and exams (too easy) and voting to keep them dirt poor (no we won't keep feeding them in the holidays, we can't afford it).
I would have more respect for them if they were open about it. We don't like poor people and won't pay for them. The likes of Ben Bradley get mocked when they say poor people will spend handout cash on drugs but at least he is open. the rest are frit.
No, 47% of Tories disagreed with this specific proposal to replace parental responsibility with government intervention
And for the people in the gutter beneath your ivory tower, there is no difference. Did the Tories make an alternative proposal? No, they said "you've had your benefits" and blamed the parents.
At least they did until the u-turn to provide the money after all. If as claimed this policy is so popular with Tory voters why the about turn to back it due to the wall of public outrage at saying no?
Punters are happy to support politicians who pursue twatty policies. But when faced with the stark realities as to the impact of twatty policies they are happy to change their minds. Perhaps people are less reactionary than you want them to be?
You forget that I’m not a Tory
As I said at the time, if benefits are not enough then increase them - argue that case. But they couldn’t persuade people of that so they sort a back door way to do so even though it involved a massive erosion of parental responsibility.
i have never understood how this country gets into such a mess with school meals.
The taxpayer rightly funds a free education until 18 including the huge expense of teachers, facilities , equipment, books ,IT etc yet for some reason stops short of funding a universal free meal during the school day . I mean why ? It cannot be but a very small fraction of the overall education cost so it is on the face of it extremely petty but also would solve the bullying some kids get fro having free meals and also give all kids a better diet.
Really odd the position on school meals to me that we have had for years
I've already answered that - some families are so dysfunctional that the children need to be fed, but not so dysfunctional that the children need to be taken into care (for that costs real money)..
I think what state_go_away meant was - why not simply provide meals for free, for all pupils, in all state schools?
Way too expensive and when it was trialled it didn't provide many benefits.
School meals are about £2.50 per child per day, which is £500 or so over a school year. You could get some more economy of scale by feeding everyone (... eventually, there'd be hefty costs in scaling up kitchen capacity to start with). The minimum funding per primary pupil in England is only £4000 (though it's higher in needier and/or more expensive areas).
There is also the one off cost of new / expanded kitchen facilities that will be required.
If I remember correctly when Labour proposed this for the 2017 GE, I think the cost was estimated at about ~£1bn extra a year for just primary school kids to have lunch. This isn't for everybody to have breakfast club or after school food.
Not sure about requiring expanded facilities - the idea is simply to stop parents paying for the school meals that they get already.
Now, if you are talking about adding breakfast (which some have suggested).....
You offer something for free, more people will want it. Why give your kid a packed lunch, when school are going to feed them.
If you start to do any googling, the likes of the IFS consistently say you will need to expand facilities and it will cost several £100 million.
Opinium Scottish sub-sample: SNP 57% Con 28% Lab 9% Grn 3% LD 2%
BJ approval - 38
Thinking back a couple of decades, if you had ever told me that the Conservatives would thrice outpoll Labour in Scotland, even in a small subsample ...
And the Lib-Lab pact, which once had unchallenged hegemony, now commands about 10% of the vote. That’s the thanks they get for all their decades of hard work leading to the Claim of Right for Scotland, the Scottish Constitutional Convention and the Scotland Act. And they thought they were being so clever…
In most of Scotland the Tories are the main Unionist party and opponent of the SNP that is why, however Unionists are also canny enough to vote tactically to beat the Nationalists.
Hence Unionist tactical voting for Labour in Edinburgh Southern and Dumbarton and for the LDs in Edinburgh Western as well as tactical voting for the Tories in Aberdeenshire West, Eastwood and Dumfriesshire proved pivotal in preventing the SNP getting a majority at Holyrood in May
Why do you care if the SNP got a majority or not? You’re never going to allow the Untermenschen a referendum irrespective of the parliamentary arithmetic.
No, we’re really not, for at least another decade. And what will you do about it?
It shows that no matter how eminent you may be, you can also be a total moron.
I have met a few novelists. I think being a moron is a requirement. They live in a sad fantasy world where they can play God (particularly in Pullman's case) with their creation. If they manage to get a publisher and a modicum of success they begin to feel they are god, even though everyone else knows they are a moron.
The difference between novelists and God is that God doesn't think he is a novelist.
Some of them may be. A bit strong to say all of them are,
I've been thinking about how you might rationalise this. I think the reasoning must be that not only are the Tories evil and wicked and self destructive (in wanting to kill off their core vote) but they are also staggeringly incompetent and it is only that incompetence that has stopped the NHS being destroyed by them until now.
Whether this is a back handed compliment to Boris (who is surely not in the same league of competence as Maggie was, even on his best day) is probably best left for the advanced class to wrestle with.
Or maybe the Tories are just lulling the public into a false sense of security before destroying the NHS.
i have never understood how this country gets into such a mess with school meals.
The taxpayer rightly funds a free education until 18 including the huge expense of teachers, facilities , equipment, books ,IT etc yet for some reason stops short of funding a universal free meal during the school day . I mean why ? It cannot be but a very small fraction of the overall education cost so it is on the face of it extremely petty but also would solve the bullying some kids get fro having free meals and also give all kids a better diet.
Really odd the position on school meals to me that we have had for years
I've already answered that - some families are so dysfunctional that the children need to be fed, but not so dysfunctional that the children need to be taken into care (for that costs real money)..
I think what state_go_away meant was - why not simply provide meals for free, for all pupils, in all state schools?
Way too expensive and when it was trialled it didn't provide many benefits.
School meals are about £2.50 per child per day, which is £500 or so over a school year. You could get some more economy of scale by feeding everyone (... eventually, there'd be hefty costs in scaling up kitchen capacity to start with). The minimum funding per primary pupil in England is only £4000 (though it's higher in needier and/or more expensive areas).
There is also the one off cost of new / expanded kitchen facilities that will be required.
If I remember correctly when Labour proposed this for the 2017 GE, I think the cost was estimated at about ~£1bn extra a year for just primary school kids to have lunch. This isn't for everybody to have breakfast club or after school food.
Not sure about requiring expanded facilities - the idea is simply to stop parents paying for the school meals that they get already.
Now, if you are talking about adding breakfast (which some have suggested).....
Not to forget some milk and cookies and a suitably woke story before bedtime ....
Is no-one in England happy with their team's success ?
I think they should be immensely proud of their silver medals. Shocking that the spoilt brats immediately removed them from their necks within seconds of being awarded them. Very rude.
It is the same at the Olympics. Silver means loser, whereas bronze often means you've outperformed yourself.
Any silver medalist disgracing themselves, their team and their country the way those brats did last night should have the award removed from the record. Give the bronze medalists silver medals and the fourth placed athletes bronze. That’ll soon stop the churlishness.
Opinium Scottish sub-sample: SNP 57% Con 28% Lab 9% Grn 3% LD 2%
BJ approval - 38
Thinking back a couple of decades, if you had ever told me that the Conservatives would thrice outpoll Labour in Scotland, even in a small subsample ...
And the Lib-Lab pact, which once had unchallenged hegemony, now commands about 10% of the vote. That’s the thanks they get for all their decades of hard work leading to the Claim of Right for Scotland, the Scottish Constitutional Convention and the Scotland Act. And they thought they were being so clever…
In most of Scotland the Tories are the main Unionist party and opponent of the SNP that is why, however Unionists are also canny enough to vote tactically to beat the Nationalists.
Hence Unionist tactical voting for Labour in Edinburgh Southern and Dumbarton and for the LDs in Edinburgh Western as well as tactical voting for the Tories in Aberdeenshire West, Eastwood and Dumfriesshire proved pivotal in preventing the SNP getting a majority at Holyrood in May
Why do you care if the SNP got a majority or not? You’re never going to allow the Untermenschen a referendum irrespective of the parliamentary arithmetic.
No, we’re really not, for at least another decade. And what will you do about it?
Opinium Scottish sub-sample: SNP 57% Con 28% Lab 9% Grn 3% LD 2%
BJ approval - 38
Thinking back a couple of decades, if you had ever told me that the Conservatives would thrice outpoll Labour in Scotland, even in a small subsample ...
And the Lib-Lab pact, which once had unchallenged hegemony, now commands about 10% of the vote. That’s the thanks they get for all their decades of hard work leading to the Claim of Right for Scotland, the Scottish Constitutional Convention and the Scotland Act. And they thought they were being so clever…
In most of Scotland the Tories are the main Unionist party and opponent of the SNP that is why, however Unionists are also canny enough to vote tactically to beat the Nationalists.
Hence Unionist tactical voting for Labour in Edinburgh Southern and Dumbarton and for the LDs in Edinburgh Western as well as tactical voting for the Tories in Aberdeenshire West, Eastwood and Dumfriesshire proved pivotal in preventing the SNP getting a majority at Holyrood in May
Why do you care if the SNP got a majority or not? You’re never going to allow the Untermenschen a referendum irrespective of the parliamentary arithmetic.
Nation of bottlers. You voted to live under our jackboot. Time to deal with it.
I've been thinking about how you might rationalise this. I think the reasoning must be that not only are the Tories evil and wicked and self destructive (in wanting to kill off their core vote) but they are also staggeringly incompetent and it is only that incompetence that has stopped the NHS being destroyed by them until now.
Whether this is a back handed compliment to Boris (who is surely not in the same league of competence as Maggie was, even on his best day) is probably best left for the advanced class to wrestle with.
It works both ways. Consider the Tories' campaign to save the pound after Gordon Brown had explicitly ruled out joining the Euro, and despite it having been the Conservatives who'd taken us into the Euro's precursor, the ERM. (Remember ECUs?)
Firstly, that was a one-off - the complaint is that Labour do it every single election.
Secondly, Gordon Brown wasn't Prime Minister, and it was pretty clear that he and Blair did not agree on the Euro.
Thirdly, the UK's crash out of the ERM - also under the Tories - is presumably part of what made it so very clear to them that joining its big brother was a Very Bad Idea.
I've been thinking about how you might rationalise this. I think the reasoning must be that not only are the Tories evil and wicked and self destructive (in wanting to kill off their core vote) but they are also staggeringly incompetent and it is only that incompetence that has stopped the NHS being destroyed by them until now.
Whether this is a back handed compliment to Boris (who is surely not in the same league of competence as Maggie was, even on his best day) is probably best left for the advanced class to wrestle with.
Or maybe the Tories are just lulling the public into a false sense of security before destroying the NHS.
So evil, wicked, self destructive and subtle? No wonder they keep winning.
Is no-one in England happy with their team's success ?
I think they should be immensely proud of their silver medals. Shocking that the spoilt brats immediately removed them from their necks within seconds of being awarded them. Very rude.
Yes. It's as though they believe themselves too good to accept a medal lesser than a winners. Whatever they intended it read as arrogant which to a lot of watchers made them bad losers. Not attractive at all
I've been thinking about how you might rationalise this. I think the reasoning must be that not only are the Tories evil and wicked and self destructive (in wanting to kill off their core vote) but they are also staggeringly incompetent and it is only that incompetence that has stopped the NHS being destroyed by them until now.
Whether this is a back handed compliment to Boris (who is surely not in the same league of competence as Maggie was, even on his best day) is probably best left for the advanced class to wrestle with.
Or maybe the Tories are just lulling the public into a false sense of security before destroying the NHS.
So evil, wicked, self destructive and subtle? No wonder they keep winning.
However, in the meantimes it supplies PB with endless 'one more heave' thread headers to keep up the spirits of the losers. The SNats can't get enough of them.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h As I understand things, the risk of Dutch-style mass transmission is v low if gatherings are outside. It should not be too much of a burden, in mid-Summer, to advise people to have their parties, dances, choirs & church services outside wherever feasible, just for a month or 2. +
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h One final thing to add. I think there is going to be so much Covid around for the next couple of months that old & vulnerable people, in particular, should be encouraged to avoid crowded settings altogether, & if things start to deteriorate should be told to self-isolate briefly.
Opinium Scottish sub-sample: SNP 57% Con 28% Lab 9% Grn 3% LD 2%
BJ approval - 38
Thinking back a couple of decades, if you had ever told me that the Conservatives would thrice outpoll Labour in Scotland, even in a small subsample ...
And the Lib-Lab pact, which once had unchallenged hegemony, now commands about 10% of the vote. That’s the thanks they get for all their decades of hard work leading to the Claim of Right for Scotland, the Scottish Constitutional Convention and the Scotland Act. And they thought they were being so clever…
The Anas effect appears to be taking a wee while to kick in. I'd got the impression on here that great things were expected..
Is no-one in England happy with their team's success ?
I think they should be immensely proud of their silver medals. Shocking that the spoilt brats immediately removed them from their necks within seconds of being awarded them. Very rude.
It is the same at the Olympics. Silver means loser, whereas bronze often means you've outperformed yourself.
Any silver medalist disgracing themselves, their team and their country the way those brats did last night should have the award removed from the record. Give the bronze medalists silver medals and the fourth placed athletes bronze. That’ll soon stop the churlishness.
No amount of carping from Scottish Nationalists will change the fact that Scotland scraped the qualifiers, got knocked out in the group stage and are currently 44th in the world rankings. You should probably stay off the subject of football.
Opinium Scottish sub-sample: SNP 57% Con 28% Lab 9% Grn 3% LD 2%
BJ approval - 38
Thinking back a couple of decades, if you had ever told me that the Conservatives would thrice outpoll Labour in Scotland, even in a small subsample ...
And the Lib-Lab pact, which once had unchallenged hegemony, now commands about 10% of the vote. That’s the thanks they get for all their decades of hard work leading to the Claim of Right for Scotland, the Scottish Constitutional Convention and the Scotland Act. And they thought they were being so clever…
In most of Scotland the Tories are the main Unionist party and opponent of the SNP that is why, however Unionists are also canny enough to vote tactically to beat the Nationalists.
Hence Unionist tactical voting for Labour in Edinburgh Southern and Dumbarton and for the LDs in Edinburgh Western as well as tactical voting for the Tories in Aberdeenshire West, Eastwood and Dumfriesshire proved pivotal in preventing the SNP getting a majority at Holyrood in May
Why do you care if the SNP got a majority or not? You’re never going to allow the Untermenschen a referendum irrespective of the parliamentary arithmetic.
No, we’re really not, for at least another decade. And what will you do about it?
After hubris comes nemesis.
Second time today for that line from you.....
It is a leitmotif when discussing BritNat affairs.
Opinium Scottish sub-sample: SNP 57% Con 28% Lab 9% Grn 3% LD 2%
BJ approval - 38
Thinking back a couple of decades, if you had ever told me that the Conservatives would thrice outpoll Labour in Scotland, even in a small subsample ...
And the Lib-Lab pact, which once had unchallenged hegemony, now commands about 10% of the vote. That’s the thanks they get for all their decades of hard work leading to the Claim of Right for Scotland, the Scottish Constitutional Convention and the Scotland Act. And they thought they were being so clever…
The Anas effect appears to be taking a wee while to kick in. I'd got the impression on here that great things were expected..
If Anas had any ‘greatness’ in him it would have been glimpsed long ago. He’s just the least mediocre of an astonishingly untalented parliamentary group.
Opinium Scottish sub-sample: SNP 57% Con 28% Lab 9% Grn 3% LD 2%
BJ approval - 38
Thinking back a couple of decades, if you had ever told me that the Conservatives would thrice outpoll Labour in Scotland, even in a small subsample ...
And the Lib-Lab pact, which once had unchallenged hegemony, now commands about 10% of the vote. That’s the thanks they get for all their decades of hard work leading to the Claim of Right for Scotland, the Scottish Constitutional Convention and the Scotland Act. And they thought they were being so clever…
In most of Scotland the Tories are the main Unionist party and opponent of the SNP that is why, however Unionists are also canny enough to vote tactically to beat the Nationalists.
Hence Unionist tactical voting for Labour in Edinburgh Southern and Dumbarton and for the LDs in Edinburgh Western as well as tactical voting for the Tories in Aberdeenshire West, Eastwood and Dumfriesshire proved pivotal in preventing the SNP getting a majority at Holyrood in May
Why do you care if the SNP got a majority or not? You’re never going to allow the Untermenschen a referendum irrespective of the parliamentary arithmetic.
No, we’re really not, for at least another decade. And what will you do about it?
After hubris comes nemesis.
Second time today for that line from you.....
It is a leitmotif when discussing BritNat affairs.
Just a bit more on England penalties. I'd forgotten that Henderson missed v Colombia in 2018. Also, check out Rashford's penalty - he looked at the ball that night (see 2:24):
I see Gary Neville said that we don't criticise players for missing penalties any more. I'm not sure we ever have, to be honest. I don't like Rashford's style, but it is what is and someone has to miss eventually. Here's the list of England players to have missed in tournament shootouts:
Pearce Waddle
Southgate
Ince Batty
Beckham Vassell
Lampard Gerrard Carragher (very unlucky in my opinion as he was made to retake)
i have never understood how this country gets into such a mess with school meals.
The taxpayer rightly funds a free education until 18 including the huge expense of teachers, facilities , equipment, books ,IT etc yet for some reason stops short of funding a universal free meal during the school day . I mean why ? It cannot be but a very small fraction of the overall education cost so it is on the face of it extremely petty but also would solve the bullying some kids get fro having free meals and also give all kids a better diet.
Really odd the position on school meals to me that we have had for years
I've already answered that - some families are so dysfunctional that the children need to be fed, but not so dysfunctional that the children need to be taken into care (for that costs real money)..
I think what state_go_away meant was - why not simply provide meals for free, for all pupils, in all state schools?
Way too expensive and when it was trialled it didn't provide many benefits.
School meals are about £2.50 per child per day, which is £500 or so over a school year. You could get some more economy of scale by feeding everyone (... eventually, there'd be hefty costs in scaling up kitchen capacity to start with). The minimum funding per primary pupil in England is only £4000 (though it's higher in needier and/or more expensive areas).
There is also the one off cost of new / expanded kitchen facilities that will be required.
If I remember correctly when Labour proposed this for the 2017 GE, I think the cost was estimated at about ~£1bn extra a year for just primary school kids to have lunch. This isn't for everybody to have breakfast club or after school food.
Not sure about requiring expanded facilities - the idea is simply to stop parents paying for the school meals that they get already.
Now, if you are talking about adding breakfast (which some have suggested).....
You offer something for free, more people will want it. Why give your kid a packed lunch, when school are going to feed them.
If you start to do any googling, the likes of the IFS consistently say you will need to expand facilities and it will cost several £100 million.
The problem is that packed lunches tend to be unhealthy shit food. A sandwich, crisps etc. Maybe a piece of fruit. Not necessarily what you'd have at home if having lunch at home fresh from a kitchen, but the kids aren't ay home.
If the child is at home preparing a healthy lunch is different to a packed lunch.
The schools have facilities and offer fresh meals already. The only difference is whether it's paid for as an extra or not. But since the school is acting in loco parentis it isn't unreasonable for a healthy meal to be part of the responsibilities at the time.
Opinium Scottish sub-sample: SNP 57% Con 28% Lab 9% Grn 3% LD 2%
BJ approval - 38
Thinking back a couple of decades, if you had ever told me that the Conservatives would thrice outpoll Labour in Scotland, even in a small subsample ...
And the Lib-Lab pact, which once had unchallenged hegemony, now commands about 10% of the vote. That’s the thanks they get for all their decades of hard work leading to the Claim of Right for Scotland, the Scottish Constitutional Convention and the Scotland Act. And they thought they were being so clever…
In most of Scotland the Tories are the main Unionist party and opponent of the SNP that is why, however Unionists are also canny enough to vote tactically to beat the Nationalists.
Hence Unionist tactical voting for Labour in Edinburgh Southern and Dumbarton and for the LDs in Edinburgh Western as well as tactical voting for the Tories in Aberdeenshire West, Eastwood and Dumfriesshire proved pivotal in preventing the SNP getting a majority at Holyrood in May
Why do you care if the SNP got a majority or not? You’re never going to allow the Untermenschen a referendum irrespective of the parliamentary arithmetic.
No, we’re really not, for at least another decade. And what will you do about it?
After hubris comes nemesis.
Oh! What is the SNP nemesis? Will it ultimately be the man who was once the hero of all Nats, you know the one...he that was described as a "bully and sex pest" by his own QC? Whatsisname, the little fat arsehole who looks like a toad?
Comments
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scots-descend-queens-park-glasgow-24512974.amp
Its not like he does not have the personnel.
Grealish would have been the perfect introduction to break up Italy's rhythm.
But yes the difference between Mancini and Southgate, Mancini spotted the problem, changed the tactics and it had fixed it on the fly by half way through the first half. Southgate / England team hasn't shown the ability to really effective switch game plans.
Nation/Positives/Deaths (Positives Last Mon/Deaths Last Mon):
Sco / 2,134 / 0 ( 2,372 / 0 )
Wal / 1,190 / 0 (1,256 / 2 )
Unfortunate double entendre in that title BTW.
Flag of England 33,937 1st doses / 80,755 2nd doses
Flag of Scotland 5,999 / 15,945
Flag of Wales 860 / 7,383
NI 1,204 / 3,537
The taxpayer rightly funds a free education until 18 including the huge expense of teachers, facilities , equipment, books ,IT etc yet for some reason stops short of funding a universal free meal during the school day . I mean why ? It cannot be but a very small fraction of the overall education cost so it is on the face of it extremely petty but also would solve the bullying some kids get from having free meals and also give all kids a better diet.
Really odd the position on school meals to me that we have had for years
Now if you think on balance it is a good thing, that's a different matter.
"Who Should and Who Should NOT get a Flu Vaccine" (CDC).
Whether this is a back handed compliment to Boris (who is surely not in the same league of competence as Maggie was, even on his best day) is probably best left for the advanced class to wrestle with.
The media, politics and government in general is, in general, a refuge for people who don't like maths, technical stuff etc.
In a supreme piece of comedy, I once described the questions/ideas a leading authority on project management (a foreigner) had put to me about the pile of NHS IT projects that were (at that time) steadily marching to their doom, to a high flying civil servant.
His reply (the civil servant) was that the suggested solutions of said expert were incompetent and incompatible with good government. And further that he didn't need "boffins" telling him how to run things.
It does add a little nuance, though. Particularly when you consider the character of Teddy Roosevelt.
*on a pedantic point I do know that the Upkeep mine had a barometric fuzing - so it would sink into obscurity first and then perhaps blow up ... but that doesn't work so well!
The universal story is that the forces of evil are vast, powerful and on the brink on total victory. Only the valiant efforts of the ragged handful of the True Faith prevents the Final Fall.
The modern humorist notices the parallel (quite deliberate) with the War Hammer 40K universe. Where the clock is set forever to 23:59.59:999
Not Southgate's best match as a manager, but he might just lean from the experience. England's young team certainly will.
Euro 96:
1. Shearer - 25
2. Platt - 29
3. Pearce - 34
4. Gascoigne - 29
5. Sherringham - 30
6. Southgate - 25
Euro 2020:
1. Kane - 27
2. Maguire - 28
3. Rashford - 23
4. Sancho - 21
5. Saka - 19
The minimum funding per primary pupil in England is only £4000 (though it's higher in needier and/or more expensive areas).
Hence Unionist tactical voting for Labour in Edinburgh Southern and Dumbarton and for the LDs in Edinburgh Western as well as tactical voting for the Tories in Aberdeenshire West, Eastwood and Dumfriesshire proved pivotal in preventing the SNP getting a majority at Holyrood in May
If I remember correctly when Labour proposed this for the 2017 GE, I think the cost was estimated at about ~£1bn extra a year for just primary school kids to have lunch. This isn't for everybody to have breakfast club or after school food.
Now, if you are talking about adding breakfast (which some have suggested).....
190 schooldays a year -ish.
£2.30 budget for a meal -ish.
= 7000000 * 190 * 2.30 /1000
= £3 billion for the term time bit, including just lunch -ish.
England numbers. Probably within 10% -ish.
We win everything else. This is our hoodoo
As I said at the time, if benefits are not enough then increase them - argue that case. But they couldn’t persuade people of that so they sort a back door way to do so even though it involved a massive erosion of parental responsibility.
If you start to do any googling, the likes of the IFS consistently say you will need to expand facilities and it will cost several £100 million.
Secondly, Gordon Brown wasn't Prime Minister, and it was pretty clear that he and Blair did not agree on the Euro.
Thirdly, the UK's crash out of the ERM - also under the Tories - is presumably part of what made it so very clear to them that joining its big brother was a Very Bad Idea.
@andrew_lilico
·
1h
As I understand things, the risk of Dutch-style mass transmission is v low if gatherings are outside. It should not be too much of a burden, in mid-Summer, to advise people to have their parties, dances, choirs & church services outside wherever feasible, just for a month or 2. +
Andrew Lilico
@andrew_lilico
·
1h
One final thing to add. I think there is going to be so much Covid around for the next couple of months that old & vulnerable people, in particular, should be encouraged to avoid crowded settings altogether, & if things start to deteriorate should be told to self-isolate briefly.
Yes 45%
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8x-scKCKiCE
And Sancho scored in the third place playoff of the Nation's League, though he nearly missed (see 4:36):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0YhfHOTY7w
I see Gary Neville said that we don't criticise players for missing penalties any more. I'm not sure we ever have, to be honest. I don't like Rashford's style, but it is what is and someone has to miss eventually. Here's the list of England players to have missed in tournament shootouts:
Pearce
Waddle
Southgate
Ince
Batty
Beckham
Vassell
Lampard
Gerrard
Carragher (very unlucky in my opinion as he was made to retake)
Young
Cole
Henderson
Rashford
Sancho
Saka
If the child is at home preparing a healthy lunch is different to a packed lunch.
The schools have facilities and offer fresh meals already. The only difference is whether it's paid for as an extra or not. But since the school is acting in loco parentis it isn't unreasonable for a healthy meal to be part of the responsibilities at the time.