Skip to content

Dominic Cummings is right – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,738
edited 7:15AM in General
Dominic Cummings is right – politicalbetting.com

I agree with Dominic Cummings that Sir Keir Starmer is rubbish at politics but Dominic Cummings needs to get his eyes tested if he thinks he can see evidence that Labour removes its leaders unlike the Tories.

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 4,144
    If Labour can bring themselves to get rid of a leader who's also a PM, then this might be Ed Miliband's time-is-right point.

    Good morning, everyone.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,002
    FPT:

    F1: I've probably blathered already about why I'm keeping an eye on Russell for 2026. Here's an explanation at slightly greater length of the main contenders for the title next year and why I think Russell's got a great shot:

    https://medium.com/@rkilner/why-russell-could-win-in-2026-13e9463696fa
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 1,770
    Why would 400+ Labour MP's vote to destabilise their jobs. It's not as if they are blessed with skills transferrable to the private sector. A bit like Dom I suppose.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,386
    Apologies to Ydoethur if the headline and opening words gave him apoplexy.
  • TazTaz Posts: 21,591
    Ed Miliband as PM. Labours Truss option.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,386
    Taz said:

    Ed Miliband as PM. Labours Truss option.

    Hush, don't deny me a 100/1 winner.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,217
    Taz said:

    Ed Miliband as PM. Labours Truss option.

    Unfortunately, he'd probably last in office for much longer.
    He has the potential to be worse than Truss.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,235
    All it needs for Starmer to go is for someone better at politics to come along. So as you were for now.

    (At the moment, whoever runs the British government is going to have a "Shawshank Redemption, only with more shit and no redemption" experience. Someone really good at politics will happily leave Starmer and Reeves to deal with that, so they can take over with clean hands a year before the next election.)
  • TazTaz Posts: 21,591
    Rayner to give resignation speech next week

    Will this be a ‘Geoffrey Howe’ moment.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2025/10/rayner-to-give-resignation-speech-next-week
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,235
    Taz said:

    Rayner to give resignation speech next week

    Will this be a ‘Geoffrey Howe’ moment.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2025/10/rayner-to-give-resignation-speech-next-week

    Unlikely.

    Howe went because he had been constructively dismissed by la Thatch, and they couldn't stand each other.

    Rayner went because she hadn't met the high ethical standards we rightly demand of our leaders, and with the equivalent of a Lord Sugar "with regret" firing.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,386
    Taz said:

    Rayner to give resignation speech next week

    Will this be a ‘Geoffrey Howe’ moment.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2025/10/rayner-to-give-resignation-speech-next-week

    Nah, Howe had been at Thatcher's side for 15 years and underpinned her successes from the start.

    Plus Howe was a lawyer and good with words and that made a devastating combination.

    He delivered his speech in sorrow not anger, I cannot see Rayner achieving that.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 45,559

    All it needs for Starmer to go is for someone better at politics to come along. So as you were for now.

    (At the moment, whoever runs the British government is going to have a "Shawshank Redemption, only with more shit and no redemption" experience. Someone really good at politics will happily leave Starmer and Reeves to deal with that, so they can take over with clean hands a year before the next election.)

    I think we can score these nitwits off the ‘better at politics’ list.

    https://x.com/nataliefleetmp/status/1978864163603489081?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 1,770
    Taz said:

    Rayner to give resignation speech next week

    Will this be a ‘Geoffrey Howe’ moment.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2025/10/rayner-to-give-resignation-speech-next-week

    Timed to coincide with the results of the DL. So an anointing if Powell or a pact if Phillipson.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,449
    Morning all :)

    As someone fairly ambivalent about Starmer and Reeves, I'm interested to see whether the antipathy toward them is personal or just the usual antipathy toward Labour Prime Ministers from those on the conservative side of the fence. I suspect, were Starmer to leave and another Labour PM to be in office, the antipathy would readily transfer to the new individual.

    Ho hum...in any case, short of an outright Cabinet mutiny, the only two reasonable and legal ways Starmer leaves office are either a) voluntarily or b) democratically in an election. The latter isn't on the horizon and the former will only happen once a rubicon of sorts is crossed and he simply doesn't want to do the job any longer. He's been in the job 15 months not 15 years so I suspect for all the crap, he may went on to go on a little while yet.

    We know the Budget is going to be horrible - it's the reckoning at the end of the party or the meal - the bill is on the table and we have to pay up. Reeves is going to raise taxes and cut spending - we know that as well. How imaginative she will be remains to be seen but it's going to be unpleasant - we all know that.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 53,637
    Nigelb said:

    This seems to be a very large breakthrough in cancer screening.

    Exciting results from blood test for 50 cancer
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c205g21n1zzo
    A blood test for more than 50 types of cancer could help speed up diagnosis, according to a new study.
    Results of a trial in North America show that the test was able to identify a wide range of cancers, of which three-quarters don't have any form of screening programme.
    More than half the cancers were detected at an early stage, where they are easier to treat and potentially curable.
    The Galleri test, made by American pharmaceutical firm Grail, can detect fragments of cancerous DNA that have broken off a tumour and are circulating in the blood...


    Quite a large trial, so there a good chance this works.

    Not only is that impressive in itself, but blood test is much easier than mammography, cervical cytology, colonoscopy etc.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 33,380

    Taz said:

    Rayner to give resignation speech next week

    Will this be a ‘Geoffrey Howe’ moment.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2025/10/rayner-to-give-resignation-speech-next-week

    Nah, Howe had been at Thatcher's side for 15 years and underpinned her successes from the start.

    Plus Howe was a lawyer and good with words and that made a devastating combination.

    He delivered his speech in sorrow not anger, I cannot see Rayner achieving that.
    On that note, the Telegraph podcast speaks to the former first daughter:-

    Carol Thatcher: The Tories stabbed my mother in the back, it stayed with her
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYBv_2osd6w
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 53,637
    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    As someone fairly ambivalent about Starmer and Reeves, I'm interested to see whether the antipathy toward them is personal or just the usual antipathy toward Labour Prime Ministers from those on the conservative side of the fence. I suspect, were Starmer to leave and another Labour PM to be in office, the antipathy would readily transfer to the new individual.

    Ho hum...in any case, short of an outright Cabinet mutiny, the only two reasonable and legal ways Starmer leaves office are either a) voluntarily or b) democratically in an election. The latter isn't on the horizon and the former will only happen once a rubicon of sorts is crossed and he simply doesn't want to do the job any longer. He's been in the job 15 months not 15 years so I suspect for all the crap, he may went on to go on a little while yet.

    We know the Budget is going to be horrible - it's the reckoning at the end of the party or the meal - the bill is on the table and we have to pay up. Reeves is going to raise taxes and cut spending - we know that as well. How imaginative she will be remains to be seen but it's going to be unpleasant - we all know that.

    I think Starmer is both thick skinned and convinced he is doing a good job, only that us numbskulls can't see it.

    I think he will retire before the GE, but not before 2028.

    By then Rayner may well be rehabilitated, and either Powell or Philipson well established as Deputy.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 33,380
    If you like a lot of chocolate on your biscuit … look away now
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/oct/18/chocolate-biscuit-club-penguin-mcvities-cocoa-prices

    Chocolate replaced by chocolate flavour.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,386
    Hah


  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,449
    Foxy said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    As someone fairly ambivalent about Starmer and Reeves, I'm interested to see whether the antipathy toward them is personal or just the usual antipathy toward Labour Prime Ministers from those on the conservative side of the fence. I suspect, were Starmer to leave and another Labour PM to be in office, the antipathy would readily transfer to the new individual.

    Ho hum...in any case, short of an outright Cabinet mutiny, the only two reasonable and legal ways Starmer leaves office are either a) voluntarily or b) democratically in an election. The latter isn't on the horizon and the former will only happen once a rubicon of sorts is crossed and he simply doesn't want to do the job any longer. He's been in the job 15 months not 15 years so I suspect for all the crap, he may went on to go on a little while yet.

    We know the Budget is going to be horrible - it's the reckoning at the end of the party or the meal - the bill is on the table and we have to pay up. Reeves is going to raise taxes and cut spending - we know that as well. How imaginative she will be remains to be seen but it's going to be unpleasant - we all know that.

    I think Starmer is both thick skinned and convinced he is doing a good job, only that us numbskulls can't see it.

    I think he will retire before the GE, but not before 2028.

    By then Rayner may well be rehabilitated, and either Powell or Philipson well established as Deputy.
    Yes, the Reform supporters are hoping against hope the next crisis or scandal will be the one that brings the Government down but that doesn't happen with majorities of 170 or so.

    They know time may not be on their side in terms of other developments including the revival of the Conservatives.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 15,666

    All it needs for Starmer to go is for someone better at politics to come along. So as you were for now.

    (At the moment, whoever runs the British government is going to have a "Shawshank Redemption, only with more shit and no redemption" experience. Someone really good at politics will happily leave Starmer and Reeves to deal with that, so they can take over with clean hands a year before the next election.)

    Yes. The date of Starmer's departure will be governed by a number of variables, which makes betting value a bit intuitive.

    Labour MPs first wish (and given Tory looming extinction and Reform's rise the needs of sane members of the public) is to keep their seats in maximal numbers in 2028/9. Human nature says this can't change. So any change has to be one which increases and maximises the chance of that.

    There is no point in consulting public opinion. Not a single viable, untainted candidate is widely known and deeply tested. Only a mixture of insider knowledge (the sort of wisdom that gave us Truss), intuition and guesswork on the part of MPs can fix a candidate in their interests.

    The bookies lists of runners and riders give it away. The 5th in Hills betting is someone no-one at all has heard of - Darren Jones - at 14/1.

    Above him are: Burnham - not an MP, Streeting - about to lose his seat; Mahmood - no-one has heard of her;
    Cooper - recently removed as not tough enough for Home Secretary.

    Who would you guess the majority of Labour MPs think is most able to save most seats in 2029 is the key, and in a sense only question.

    If the answer is no-one then Starmer may be the man. If there is such a person, who is it?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 53,637
    stodge said:

    Foxy said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    As someone fairly ambivalent about Starmer and Reeves, I'm interested to see whether the antipathy toward them is personal or just the usual antipathy toward Labour Prime Ministers from those on the conservative side of the fence. I suspect, were Starmer to leave and another Labour PM to be in office, the antipathy would readily transfer to the new individual.

    Ho hum...in any case, short of an outright Cabinet mutiny, the only two reasonable and legal ways Starmer leaves office are either a) voluntarily or b) democratically in an election. The latter isn't on the horizon and the former will only happen once a rubicon of sorts is crossed and he simply doesn't want to do the job any longer. He's been in the job 15 months not 15 years so I suspect for all the crap, he may went on to go on a little while yet.

    We know the Budget is going to be horrible - it's the reckoning at the end of the party or the meal - the bill is on the table and we have to pay up. Reeves is going to raise taxes and cut spending - we know that as well. How imaginative she will be remains to be seen but it's going to be unpleasant - we all know that.

    I think Starmer is both thick skinned and convinced he is doing a good job, only that us numbskulls can't see it.

    I think he will retire before the GE, but not before 2028.

    By then Rayner may well be rehabilitated, and either Powell or Philipson well established as Deputy.
    Yes, the Reform supporters are hoping against hope the next crisis or scandal will be the one that brings the Government down but that doesn't happen with majorities of 170 or so.

    They know time may not be on their side in terms of other developments including the revival of the Conservatives.
    Badenochs plan to be Britain's Milei hasn't aged well:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jul/24/kemi-badenoch-argentinian-president-javier-milei-template-conservatives-tory-government?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    She almost makes Starmer look good at this politics thing.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,893
    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    As someone fairly ambivalent about Starmer and Reeves, I'm interested to see whether the antipathy toward them is personal or just the usual antipathy toward Labour Prime Ministers from those on the conservative side of the fence. I suspect, were Starmer to leave and another Labour PM to be in office, the antipathy would readily transfer to the new individual.

    Ho hum...in any case, short of an outright Cabinet mutiny, the only two reasonable and legal ways Starmer leaves office are either a) voluntarily or b) democratically in an election. The latter isn't on the horizon and the former will only happen once a rubicon of sorts is crossed and he simply doesn't want to do the job any longer. He's been in the job 15 months not 15 years so I suspect for all the crap, he may went on to go on a little while yet.

    We know the Budget is going to be horrible - it's the reckoning at the end of the party or the meal - the bill is on the table and we have to pay up. Reeves is going to raise taxes and cut spending - we know that as well. How imaginative she will be remains to be seen but it's going to be unpleasant - we all know that.

    No, the Budget will be the reckoning WITHOUT the party. It's not as if we've been having a massive boom and now have a crash. Unless you're a train driver or a foreign climate aid recipient of course. We've been a stagnant and slow-growing economy and now must tighten our belts more and more, at least until our politicians rediscover economic literacy.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,449

    All it needs for Starmer to go is for someone better at politics to come along. So as you were for now.

    (At the moment, whoever runs the British government is going to have a "Shawshank Redemption, only with more shit and no redemption" experience. Someone really good at politics will happily leave Starmer and Reeves to deal with that, so they can take over with clean hands a year before the next election.)

    I think we can score these nitwits off the ‘better at politics’ list.

    https://x.com/nataliefleetmp/status/1978864163603489081?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
    I enjoy a good breakfast as much as the next man - well, probably better than the next man if truth be told. It's called a Full English but I'm not sure it represents "British Values" - having sampled Full Scottish, Welsh and Irish breakfasts over the years (and nothing wrong with any of them I might add), I don't feel especially patriotic when I'm tucking in at the cafe in the Barking Road.

    As an aside, the best breakfasts are usually cooked by people not necessarily of British origin - the Portuguese and Turks do the Full English really well. Indeed, one of the best "cafe da manha ingles" I've ever had was in Lisbon.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,537

    Apologies to Ydoethur if the headline and opening words gave him apoplexy.

    The loud bang you heard was me blowing up.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,386
    ydoethur said:

    Apologies to Ydoethur if the headline and opening words gave him apoplexy.

    The loud bang you heard was me blowing up.
    You must appreciate the eye test gag though?
  • boulayboulay Posts: 7,650
    stodge said:

    All it needs for Starmer to go is for someone better at politics to come along. So as you were for now.

    (At the moment, whoever runs the British government is going to have a "Shawshank Redemption, only with more shit and no redemption" experience. Someone really good at politics will happily leave Starmer and Reeves to deal with that, so they can take over with clean hands a year before the next election.)

    I think we can score these nitwits off the ‘better at politics’ list.

    https://x.com/nataliefleetmp/status/1978864163603489081?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
    I enjoy a good breakfast as much as the next man - well, probably better than the next man if truth be told. It's called a Full English but I'm not sure it represents "British Values" - having sampled Full Scottish, Welsh and Irish breakfasts over the years (and nothing wrong with any of them I might add), I don't feel especially patriotic when I'm tucking in at the cafe in the Barking Road.

    As an aside, the best breakfasts are usually cooked by people not necessarily of British origin - the Portuguese and Turks do the Full English really well. Indeed, one of the best "cafe da manha ingles" I've ever had was in Lisbon.
    You will find if you sit in a café by the sea here, eating a full English looking out at France in the distance you feel a giant surge of patriotism fuelled by the knowledge those nancy-boys are sitting looking sadly at a croissant to start their day. Sometimes it’s hard to suppress the roar of pride but it’s there, in your heart.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,449
    Fishing said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    As someone fairly ambivalent about Starmer and Reeves, I'm interested to see whether the antipathy toward them is personal or just the usual antipathy toward Labour Prime Ministers from those on the conservative side of the fence. I suspect, were Starmer to leave and another Labour PM to be in office, the antipathy would readily transfer to the new individual.

    Ho hum...in any case, short of an outright Cabinet mutiny, the only two reasonable and legal ways Starmer leaves office are either a) voluntarily or b) democratically in an election. The latter isn't on the horizon and the former will only happen once a rubicon of sorts is crossed and he simply doesn't want to do the job any longer. He's been in the job 15 months not 15 years so I suspect for all the crap, he may went on to go on a little while yet.

    We know the Budget is going to be horrible - it's the reckoning at the end of the party or the meal - the bill is on the table and we have to pay up. Reeves is going to raise taxes and cut spending - we know that as well. How imaginative she will be remains to be seen but it's going to be unpleasant - we all know that.

    No, the Budget will be the reckoning WITHOUT the party. It's not as if we've been having a massive boom and now have a crash. Unless you're a train driver or a foreign climate aid recipient of course. We've been a stagnant and slow-growing economy and now must tighten our belts more and more, at least until our politicians rediscover economic literacy.
    I do agree the "party" has been on the public finances and the vast amounts borrowed by Sunak during Covid which could and should have been repaid by a post-Covid one-off tax (instead we splurged it all the minute we came out of lockdown leading to inflation). There's also the small amount of the amount of fraud perpetuated by a "grateful" public but that's another story.

    I think I can imagine how you would define "economic literacy" and that's not going to help some of the most vulnerable in our society. Trying to run an ageing society of some 70 million people on the model that existed last century isn't going to work. We need to accept more taxation and for less until we can get borrowing down substantially. The debt interest payments are the killer but that's where we are.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 53,637


    Apart from the fact that Wolves only played one match away at Villa in the Eighties, Jenrick was 8 years old in 1990.

    His rose tinted glasses also seem to have missed pretty much all the football hooliganism of the Eighties, not least the 96 police injured when Leeds came to Villa Park.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,893
    edited 8:13AM
    For anybody who wants a quality off-beat film, I recommend Rental Family. It's a hilarious depiction of an American who gets mixed up with a subculture within Japanese society where you hire people for - theoretically platonic - companionship. I saw it at the London Film Festival yesterday and some of the scenes had me almost crying with laughter.

    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14142060/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_1_tt_7_nm_0_in_0_q_rental%20family
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 57,636
    stodge said:

    All it needs for Starmer to go is for someone better at politics to come along. So as you were for now.

    (At the moment, whoever runs the British government is going to have a "Shawshank Redemption, only with more shit and no redemption" experience. Someone really good at politics will happily leave Starmer and Reeves to deal with that, so they can take over with clean hands a year before the next election.)

    I think we can score these nitwits off the ‘better at politics’ list.

    https://x.com/nataliefleetmp/status/1978864163603489081?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
    I enjoy a good breakfast as much as the next man - well, probably better than the next man if truth be told. It's called a Full English but I'm not sure it represents "British Values" - having sampled Full Scottish, Welsh and Irish breakfasts over the years (and nothing wrong with any of them I might add), I don't feel especially patriotic when I'm tucking in at the cafe in the Barking Road.

    As an aside, the best breakfasts are usually cooked by people not necessarily of British origin - the Portuguese and Turks do the Full English really well. Indeed, one of the best "cafe da manha ingles" I've ever had was in Lisbon.
    The reason is simple - no one told the non-British people doing English breakfasts to use rubbish ingredients - Offal Fat Tubes instead of sausages and the kind of bacon that shrinks by 2/3rd when cooked

    We have a classic example down the road - on one side, a place run by an ancient Italian. Magnificent English Breakfast.

    On the other is a surviving example of the old style - run by an equally ancient British couple. Inedible.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 11,352

    If you like a lot of chocolate on your biscuit … look away now
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/oct/18/chocolate-biscuit-club-penguin-mcvities-cocoa-prices

    Chocolate replaced by chocolate flavour.

    I bought some penguins the other day for the first time in years and reckoned they tasted different to how I remembered them!
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 25,416
    Foxy said:



    Apart from the fact that Wolves only played one match away at Villa in the Eighties, Jenrick was 8 years old in 1990.

    His rose tinted glasses also seem to have missed pretty much all the football hooliganism of the Eighties, not least the 96 police injured when Leeds came to Villa Park.

    The idea 80s football was good natured fun is absurd. It was exciting and edgy but not good natured. By late 90s it was closer to how he describes it, although still openly sexist and homophobic.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,449
    Foxy said:

    stodge said:

    Foxy said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    As someone fairly ambivalent about Starmer and Reeves, I'm interested to see whether the antipathy toward them is personal or just the usual antipathy toward Labour Prime Ministers from those on the conservative side of the fence. I suspect, were Starmer to leave and another Labour PM to be in office, the antipathy would readily transfer to the new individual.

    Ho hum...in any case, short of an outright Cabinet mutiny, the only two reasonable and legal ways Starmer leaves office are either a) voluntarily or b) democratically in an election. The latter isn't on the horizon and the former will only happen once a rubicon of sorts is crossed and he simply doesn't want to do the job any longer. He's been in the job 15 months not 15 years so I suspect for all the crap, he may went on to go on a little while yet.

    We know the Budget is going to be horrible - it's the reckoning at the end of the party or the meal - the bill is on the table and we have to pay up. Reeves is going to raise taxes and cut spending - we know that as well. How imaginative she will be remains to be seen but it's going to be unpleasant - we all know that.

    I think Starmer is both thick skinned and convinced he is doing a good job, only that us numbskulls can't see it.

    I think he will retire before the GE, but not before 2028.

    By then Rayner may well be rehabilitated, and either Powell or Philipson well established as Deputy.
    Yes, the Reform supporters are hoping against hope the next crisis or scandal will be the one that brings the Government down but that doesn't happen with majorities of 170 or so.

    They know time may not be on their side in terms of other developments including the revival of the Conservatives.
    Badenochs plan to be Britain's Milei hasn't aged well:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jul/24/kemi-badenoch-argentinian-president-javier-milei-template-conservatives-tory-government?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    She almost makes Starmer look good at this politics thing.
    It's not the worst strategy, however. Banging on about immigration will get her nowhere as Reform will always do it better. I imagine she'll be hoping a friendly administration in Washington will bail her out with a few billion if and when Badenochism hits the buffers.

    It's perfectly reasonable to ask what the State should be doing but also to ask why private providers can't or won't step up. It's my experience private companies don't enjoy running operations at a loss or at the kind of margins to which the public sector can operate.

    I mean, you don't have to fix the roads, you don't have to educate children and you don't have to look after the vulnerable and elderly if you don't believe that's what the State should be doing but you need to be honest with people and tell them they'll be on their own if you get elected.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 7,650

    If you like a lot of chocolate on your biscuit … look away now
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/oct/18/chocolate-biscuit-club-penguin-mcvities-cocoa-prices

    Chocolate replaced by chocolate flavour.

    I bought some penguins the other day for the first time in years and reckoned they tasted different to how I remembered them!
    Aren’t they a protected species?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,537

    ydoethur said:

    Apologies to Ydoethur if the headline and opening words gave him apoplexy.

    The loud bang you heard was me blowing up.
    You must appreciate the eye test gag though?
    It drove me to distraction.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 16,307
    Foxy said:



    Apart from the fact that Wolves only played one match away at Villa in the Eighties, Jenrick was 8 years old in 1990.

    His rose tinted glasses also seem to have missed pretty much all the football hooliganism of the Eighties, not least the 96 police injured when Leeds came to Villa Park.

    Football was better in almost every single respect in the 80s except hooliganism. He could have surfed a wave of nostalgia on ticket prices, British players, humour, accessibility - hooliganism is the only respect in which football has got better.
    None of our cities were run by sectarian cabals in the 80s (not in England, anyway). He could have focused on that.

    To be fair, he didn't say he went to watch Wolves away at Villa. He could have gone to see his most-hated team lose. Football fans do that sort of thing.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 25,416
    Cookie said:

    Foxy said:



    Apart from the fact that Wolves only played one match away at Villa in the Eighties, Jenrick was 8 years old in 1990.

    His rose tinted glasses also seem to have missed pretty much all the football hooliganism of the Eighties, not least the 96 police injured when Leeds came to Villa Park.

    Football was better in almost every single respect in the 80s except hooliganism. He could have surfed a wave of nostalgia on ticket prices, British players, humour, accessibility - hooliganism is the only respect in which football has got better.
    None of our cities were run by sectarian cabals in the 80s (not in England, anyway). He could have focused on that.

    To be fair, he didn't say he went to watch Wolves away at Villa. He could have gone to see his most-hated team lose. Football fans do that sort of thing.
    Or just accept Occams Razor. Politician is lying.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 56,129
    Foxy said:

    stodge said:

    Foxy said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    As someone fairly ambivalent about Starmer and Reeves, I'm interested to see whether the antipathy toward them is personal or just the usual antipathy toward Labour Prime Ministers from those on the conservative side of the fence. I suspect, were Starmer to leave and another Labour PM to be in office, the antipathy would readily transfer to the new individual.

    Ho hum...in any case, short of an outright Cabinet mutiny, the only two reasonable and legal ways Starmer leaves office are either a) voluntarily or b) democratically in an election. The latter isn't on the horizon and the former will only happen once a rubicon of sorts is crossed and he simply doesn't want to do the job any longer. He's been in the job 15 months not 15 years so I suspect for all the crap, he may went on to go on a little while yet.

    We know the Budget is going to be horrible - it's the reckoning at the end of the party or the meal - the bill is on the table and we have to pay up. Reeves is going to raise taxes and cut spending - we know that as well. How imaginative she will be remains to be seen but it's going to be unpleasant - we all know that.

    I think Starmer is both thick skinned and convinced he is doing a good job, only that us numbskulls can't see it.

    I think he will retire before the GE, but not before 2028.

    By then Rayner may well be rehabilitated, and either Powell or Philipson well established as Deputy.
    Yes, the Reform supporters are hoping against hope the next crisis or scandal will be the one that brings the Government down but that doesn't happen with majorities of 170 or so.

    They know time may not be on their side in terms of other developments including the revival of the Conservatives.
    Badenochs plan to be Britain's Milei hasn't aged well:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jul/24/kemi-badenoch-argentinian-president-javier-milei-template-conservatives-tory-government?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    She almost makes Starmer look good at this politics thing.
    Although, if she can get Trump to write Britain a cheque for £20 billion....
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,191
    stodge said:

    Fishing said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    As someone fairly ambivalent about Starmer and Reeves, I'm interested to see whether the antipathy toward them is personal or just the usual antipathy toward Labour Prime Ministers from those on the conservative side of the fence. I suspect, were Starmer to leave and another Labour PM to be in office, the antipathy would readily transfer to the new individual.

    Ho hum...in any case, short of an outright Cabinet mutiny, the only two reasonable and legal ways Starmer leaves office are either a) voluntarily or b) democratically in an election. The latter isn't on the horizon and the former will only happen once a rubicon of sorts is crossed and he simply doesn't want to do the job any longer. He's been in the job 15 months not 15 years so I suspect for all the crap, he may went on to go on a little while yet.

    We know the Budget is going to be horrible - it's the reckoning at the end of the party or the meal - the bill is on the table and we have to pay up. Reeves is going to raise taxes and cut spending - we know that as well. How imaginative she will be remains to be seen but it's going to be unpleasant - we all know that.

    No, the Budget will be the reckoning WITHOUT the party. It's not as if we've been having a massive boom and now have a crash. Unless you're a train driver or a foreign climate aid recipient of course. We've been a stagnant and slow-growing economy and now must tighten our belts more and more, at least until our politicians rediscover economic literacy.
    I do agree the "party" has been on the public finances and the vast amounts borrowed by Sunak during Covid which could and should have been repaid by a post-Covid one-off tax (instead we splurged it all the minute we came out of lockdown leading to inflation). There's also the small amount of the amount of fraud perpetuated by a "grateful" public but that's another story.

    I think I can imagine how you would define "economic literacy" and that's not going to help some of the most vulnerable in our society. Trying to run an ageing society of some 70 million people on the model that existed last century isn't going to work. We need to accept more taxation and for less until we can get borrowing down substantially. The debt interest payments are the killer but that's where we are.
    The free money furlough schemes promoted by Starmer and enacted by Sunak were utter folly. I suspect we would have all bought into the idea of a government helping hand loan to be paid back later at modest or interest free rates. The furlough scheme was also absurdly complicated and iniquitous. Some got nothing, others did extremely well, and the level of fraud was through the roof. A simple emergency payment to each individual with a payback rate via tax or reduced benefit over 5, 10 or 15 years would have been far more sensible.

    Our £10,000 business continuity loan was fully paid back recently. Although we paid ours back millions of scammers haven't.

    Starmer should be called to account and sacked for his checks and balances dereliction of duty over the Government of the day's furlough and non repaid loans fiasco.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,235
    Foxy said:



    Apart from the fact that Wolves only played one match away at Villa in the Eighties, Jenrick was 8 years old in 1990.

    His rose tinted glasses also seem to have missed pretty much all the football hooliganism of the Eighties, not least the 96 police injured when Leeds came to Villa Park.

    Jenrick's audience isn't you or me.

    To the people it's aimed at, this statement points to deeper truths- the boys aren't allowed to get together like this any more, and this is a loss to them.

    (That it happened for a reason, that modern stadiums are better and football without the fighting is preferred by most people, isn't totally relevant here.)

    Politicians of all colours do it all the time. Things that aren't truthful, but are truthy.

    But a Conservative politician becoming the friend of the soccer lout is yet another thing likely to make dead Conservatives from the 80s spin in their graves.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 25,416

    Foxy said:



    Apart from the fact that Wolves only played one match away at Villa in the Eighties, Jenrick was 8 years old in 1990.

    His rose tinted glasses also seem to have missed pretty much all the football hooliganism of the Eighties, not least the 96 police injured when Leeds came to Villa Park.

    Jenrick's audience isn't you or me.

    To the people it's aimed at, this statement points to deeper truths- the boys aren't allowed to get together like this any more, and this is a loss to them.

    (That it happened for a reason, that modern stadiums are better and football without the fighting is preferred by most people, isn't totally relevant here.)

    Politicians of all colours do it all the time. Things that aren't truthful, but are truthy.

    But a Conservative politician becoming the friend of the soccer lout is yet another thing likely to make dead Conservatives from the 80s spin in their graves.
    Thatch would have quite happily closed football down and would be amazed it now provides 0.5% of our total tax revenue.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,377
    Cookie said:

    Foxy said:



    Apart from the fact that Wolves only played one match away at Villa in the Eighties, Jenrick was 8 years old in 1990.

    His rose tinted glasses also seem to have missed pretty much all the football hooliganism of the Eighties, not least the 96 police injured when Leeds came to Villa Park.

    Football was better in almost every single respect in the 80s except hooliganism. He could have surfed a wave of nostalgia on ticket prices, British players, humour, accessibility - hooliganism is the only respect in which football has got better.
    None of our cities were run by sectarian cabals in the 80s (not in England, anyway). He could have focused on that.

    To be fair, he didn't say he went to watch Wolves away at Villa. He could have gone to see his most-hated team lose. Football fans do that sort of thing.
    What he has also conveniently forgotten is the endemic racism, which was the reason that crowds in the 1980s at places like Villa Park and Molineux did not reflect the ethnic diversity of their host populations.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,537
    boulay said:

    If you like a lot of chocolate on your biscuit … look away now
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/oct/18/chocolate-biscuit-club-penguin-mcvities-cocoa-prices

    Chocolate replaced by chocolate flavour.

    I bought some penguins the other day for the first time in years and reckoned they tasted different to how I remembered them!
    Aren’t they a protected species?
    It's not black and white.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 4,144
    boulay said:

    stodge said:

    All it needs for Starmer to go is for someone better at politics to come along. So as you were for now.

    (At the moment, whoever runs the British government is going to have a "Shawshank Redemption, only with more shit and no redemption" experience. Someone really good at politics will happily leave Starmer and Reeves to deal with that, so they can take over with clean hands a year before the next election.)

    I think we can score these nitwits off the ‘better at politics’ list.

    https://x.com/nataliefleetmp/status/1978864163603489081?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
    I enjoy a good breakfast as much as the next man - well, probably better than the next man if truth be told. It's called a Full English but I'm not sure it represents "British Values" - having sampled Full Scottish, Welsh and Irish breakfasts over the years (and nothing wrong with any of them I might add), I don't feel especially patriotic when I'm tucking in at the cafe in the Barking Road.

    As an aside, the best breakfasts are usually cooked by people not necessarily of British origin - the Portuguese and Turks do the Full English really well. Indeed, one of the best "cafe da manha ingles" I've ever had was in Lisbon.
    You will find if you sit in a café by the sea here, eating a full English looking out at France in the distance you feel a giant surge of patriotism fuelled by the knowledge those nancy-boys are sitting looking sadly at a croissant to start their day. Sometimes it’s hard to suppress the roar of pride but it’s there, in your heart.
    Some people don't want a big breakfast!
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,377

    Foxy said:



    Apart from the fact that Wolves only played one match away at Villa in the Eighties, Jenrick was 8 years old in 1990.

    His rose tinted glasses also seem to have missed pretty much all the football hooliganism of the Eighties, not least the 96 police injured when Leeds came to Villa Park.

    Jenrick's audience isn't you or me.

    To the people it's aimed at, this statement points to deeper truths- the boys aren't allowed to get together like this any more, and this is a loss to them.

    (That it happened for a reason, that modern stadiums are better and football without the fighting is preferred by most people, isn't totally relevant here.)

    Politicians of all colours do it all the time. Things that aren't truthful, but are truthy.

    But a Conservative politician becoming the friend of the soccer lout is yet another thing likely to make dead Conservatives from the 80s spin in their graves.
    Thatch would have quite happily closed football down and would be amazed it now provides 0.5% of our total tax revenue.
    She had a good go at it. Remember Colin Moynihan and the compulsory membership scheme?
  • boulayboulay Posts: 7,650
    On the important issues of the day, why are England Cricket’s pyjama strips so awful. Just seen the one in action today v NZ and it looks like the team forgot half the strip and the hosts managed to find 11 tops/trousers for them to borrow.

    The pads are a different blue to the the trousers, the shirts look like bad patterned warm up tops footballers use. Can’t we at least get this right and look the part? This country.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,002
    AnneJGP said:

    boulay said:

    stodge said:

    All it needs for Starmer to go is for someone better at politics to come along. So as you were for now.

    (At the moment, whoever runs the British government is going to have a "Shawshank Redemption, only with more shit and no redemption" experience. Someone really good at politics will happily leave Starmer and Reeves to deal with that, so they can take over with clean hands a year before the next election.)

    I think we can score these nitwits off the ‘better at politics’ list.

    https://x.com/nataliefleetmp/status/1978864163603489081?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
    I enjoy a good breakfast as much as the next man - well, probably better than the next man if truth be told. It's called a Full English but I'm not sure it represents "British Values" - having sampled Full Scottish, Welsh and Irish breakfasts over the years (and nothing wrong with any of them I might add), I don't feel especially patriotic when I'm tucking in at the cafe in the Barking Road.

    As an aside, the best breakfasts are usually cooked by people not necessarily of British origin - the Portuguese and Turks do the Full English really well. Indeed, one of the best "cafe da manha ingles" I've ever had was in Lisbon.
    You will find if you sit in a café by the sea here, eating a full English looking out at France in the distance you feel a giant surge of patriotism fuelled by the knowledge those nancy-boys are sitting looking sadly at a croissant to start their day. Sometimes it’s hard to suppress the roar of pride but it’s there, in your heart.
    Some people don't want a big breakfast!
    Been a while since I've tried eating more than a chocolate bar for breakfast. My inability to eat much at all meant that when I, briefly, had a student job it'd be a surprisingly long time before I ate for the day (I want to say 20 hours between supper and the first proper meal).
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 53,637
    edited 8:33AM

    Cookie said:

    Foxy said:



    Apart from the fact that Wolves only played one match away at Villa in the Eighties, Jenrick was 8 years old in 1990.

    His rose tinted glasses also seem to have missed pretty much all the football hooliganism of the Eighties, not least the 96 police injured when Leeds came to Villa Park.

    Football was better in almost every single respect in the 80s except hooliganism. He could have surfed a wave of nostalgia on ticket prices, British players, humour, accessibility - hooliganism is the only respect in which football has got better.
    None of our cities were run by sectarian cabals in the 80s (not in England, anyway). He could have focused on that.

    To be fair, he didn't say he went to watch Wolves away at Villa. He could have gone to see his most-hated team lose. Football fans do that sort of thing.
    Or just accept Occams Razor. Politician is lying.
    More likely it is false memory syndrome, and he actually remembers going to Villa Park to see Wolves in 1996, but by then Football had very much cleaned up its act in England.

    It's still pretty troublesome in much of Europe. I took a Greek colleague to a Leicester match last year who is a huge PAOK fan and goes to a lot of their away games. He couldn't get over how lax the security was at the ground, being used to airport like security checks, and quite major violence on the streets outside.

    He has promised me a PAOK game next time I am in Thessalonika.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 25,416
    Foxy said:

    Cookie said:

    Foxy said:



    Apart from the fact that Wolves only played one match away at Villa in the Eighties, Jenrick was 8 years old in 1990.

    His rose tinted glasses also seem to have missed pretty much all the football hooliganism of the Eighties, not least the 96 police injured when Leeds came to Villa Park.

    Football was better in almost every single respect in the 80s except hooliganism. He could have surfed a wave of nostalgia on ticket prices, British players, humour, accessibility - hooliganism is the only respect in which football has got better.
    None of our cities were run by sectarian cabals in the 80s (not in England, anyway). He could have focused on that.

    To be fair, he didn't say he went to watch Wolves away at Villa. He could have gone to see his most-hated team lose. Football fans do that sort of thing.
    Or just accept Occams Razor. Politician is lying.
    More likely it is false memory syndrome, and he actually remembers going to Villa Park to see Wolves in 1996, but by then Football had very much cleaned up its act in England.

    It's still pretty troublesome in much of Europe. I took a Greek colleague to a Leicester match last year who is a huge PAOK fan and goes to a lot of their away games. He couldn't get over how lax the security was at the ground, being used to airport like security checks, and quite major violence on the streets outside.

    He has promised me a POAK game next time I am in Thessalonika.
    People remember which decade they grew up in, so unless he has early onset dementia, I'm sticking with occams razor = lies.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 4,144

    Foxy said:

    stodge said:

    Foxy said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    As someone fairly ambivalent about Starmer and Reeves, I'm interested to see whether the antipathy toward them is personal or just the usual antipathy toward Labour Prime Ministers from those on the conservative side of the fence. I suspect, were Starmer to leave and another Labour PM to be in office, the antipathy would readily transfer to the new individual.

    Ho hum...in any case, short of an outright Cabinet mutiny, the only two reasonable and legal ways Starmer leaves office are either a) voluntarily or b) democratically in an election. The latter isn't on the horizon and the former will only happen once a rubicon of sorts is crossed and he simply doesn't want to do the job any longer. He's been in the job 15 months not 15 years so I suspect for all the crap, he may went on to go on a little while yet.

    We know the Budget is going to be horrible - it's the reckoning at the end of the party or the meal - the bill is on the table and we have to pay up. Reeves is going to raise taxes and cut spending - we know that as well. How imaginative she will be remains to be seen but it's going to be unpleasant - we all know that.

    I think Starmer is both thick skinned and convinced he is doing a good job, only that us numbskulls can't see it.

    I think he will retire before the GE, but not before 2028.

    By then Rayner may well be rehabilitated, and either Powell or Philipson well established as Deputy.
    Yes, the Reform supporters are hoping against hope the next crisis or scandal will be the one that brings the Government down but that doesn't happen with majorities of 170 or so.

    They know time may not be on their side in terms of other developments including the revival of the Conservatives.
    Badenochs plan to be Britain's Milei hasn't aged well:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jul/24/kemi-badenoch-argentinian-president-javier-milei-template-conservatives-tory-government?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    She almost makes Starmer look good at this politics thing.
    Although, if she can get Trump to write Britain a cheque for £20 billion....
    If he did that one day he'd want it back another.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 11,352
    boulay said:

    If you like a lot of chocolate on your biscuit … look away now
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/oct/18/chocolate-biscuit-club-penguin-mcvities-cocoa-prices

    Chocolate replaced by chocolate flavour.

    I bought some penguins the other day for the first time in years and reckoned they tasted different to how I remembered them!
    Aren’t they a protected species?
    Not once you pluck them
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 45,559
    Foxy said:

    stodge said:

    Foxy said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    As someone fairly ambivalent about Starmer and Reeves, I'm interested to see whether the antipathy toward them is personal or just the usual antipathy toward Labour Prime Ministers from those on the conservative side of the fence. I suspect, were Starmer to leave and another Labour PM to be in office, the antipathy would readily transfer to the new individual.

    Ho hum...in any case, short of an outright Cabinet mutiny, the only two reasonable and legal ways Starmer leaves office are either a) voluntarily or b) democratically in an election. The latter isn't on the horizon and the former will only happen once a rubicon of sorts is crossed and he simply doesn't want to do the job any longer. He's been in the job 15 months not 15 years so I suspect for all the crap, he may went on to go on a little while yet.

    We know the Budget is going to be horrible - it's the reckoning at the end of the party or the meal - the bill is on the table and we have to pay up. Reeves is going to raise taxes and cut spending - we know that as well. How imaginative she will be remains to be seen but it's going to be unpleasant - we all know that.

    I think Starmer is both thick skinned and convinced he is doing a good job, only that us numbskulls can't see it.

    I think he will retire before the GE, but not before 2028.

    By then Rayner may well be rehabilitated, and either Powell or Philipson well established as Deputy.
    Yes, the Reform supporters are hoping against hope the next crisis or scandal will be the one that brings the Government down but that doesn't happen with majorities of 170 or so.

    They know time may not be on their side in terms of other developments including the revival of the Conservatives.
    Badenochs plan to be Britain's Milei hasn't aged well:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jul/24/kemi-badenoch-argentinian-president-javier-milei-template-conservatives-tory-government?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    She almost makes Starmer look good at this politics thing.
    I’m beginning to think righties are some of the most gullible people going.
    Blair & his WMD bullshit, Farage & his Brexit bullshit, Trump & his MAGA bullshit, Truss and her cutting taxes will fix everything bullshit, the Israeli propaganda machine & their 40 beheaded babies bullshit, twitter & its Democrat politicians murdered by a Democrat bullshit and now seduced by a paunchy bullshitter with bugger’s grips and a chainsaw. These are only highlights of decades of naïveté.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,537

    boulay said:

    If you like a lot of chocolate on your biscuit … look away now
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/oct/18/chocolate-biscuit-club-penguin-mcvities-cocoa-prices

    Chocolate replaced by chocolate flavour.

    I bought some penguins the other day for the first time in years and reckoned they tasted different to how I remembered them!
    Aren’t they a protected species?
    Not once you pluck them
    Sounds unpheasant.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,828
    Am I alone in thinking that picture bears a remarkable resemblance to Baldrick of 'cunning plan' fame?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,449

    AnneJGP said:

    boulay said:

    stodge said:

    All it needs for Starmer to go is for someone better at politics to come along. So as you were for now.

    (At the moment, whoever runs the British government is going to have a "Shawshank Redemption, only with more shit and no redemption" experience. Someone really good at politics will happily leave Starmer and Reeves to deal with that, so they can take over with clean hands a year before the next election.)

    I think we can score these nitwits off the ‘better at politics’ list.

    https://x.com/nataliefleetmp/status/1978864163603489081?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
    I enjoy a good breakfast as much as the next man - well, probably better than the next man if truth be told. It's called a Full English but I'm not sure it represents "British Values" - having sampled Full Scottish, Welsh and Irish breakfasts over the years (and nothing wrong with any of them I might add), I don't feel especially patriotic when I'm tucking in at the cafe in the Barking Road.

    As an aside, the best breakfasts are usually cooked by people not necessarily of British origin - the Portuguese and Turks do the Full English really well. Indeed, one of the best "cafe da manha ingles" I've ever had was in Lisbon.
    You will find if you sit in a café by the sea here, eating a full English looking out at France in the distance you feel a giant surge of patriotism fuelled by the knowledge those nancy-boys are sitting looking sadly at a croissant to start their day. Sometimes it’s hard to suppress the roar of pride but it’s there, in your heart.
    Some people don't want a big breakfast!
    Been a while since I've tried eating more than a chocolate bar for breakfast. My inability to eat much at all meant that when I, briefly, had a student job it'd be a surprisingly long time before I ate for the day (I want to say 20 hours between supper and the first proper meal).
    There's an adage about eating breakfast like a king, lunch like a lord and dinner like a pauper.

    I enjoy a good breakfast but I couldn't have a full English every day so it's a treat when I can (particularly with the Racing Post by my side - all the company a gentleman needs).
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,235

    Foxy said:

    Cookie said:

    Foxy said:



    Apart from the fact that Wolves only played one match away at Villa in the Eighties, Jenrick was 8 years old in 1990.

    His rose tinted glasses also seem to have missed pretty much all the football hooliganism of the Eighties, not least the 96 police injured when Leeds came to Villa Park.

    Football was better in almost every single respect in the 80s except hooliganism. He could have surfed a wave of nostalgia on ticket prices, British players, humour, accessibility - hooliganism is the only respect in which football has got better.
    None of our cities were run by sectarian cabals in the 80s (not in England, anyway). He could have focused on that.

    To be fair, he didn't say he went to watch Wolves away at Villa. He could have gone to see his most-hated team lose. Football fans do that sort of thing.
    Or just accept Occams Razor. Politician is lying.
    More likely it is false memory syndrome, and he actually remembers going to Villa Park to see Wolves in 1996, but by then Football had very much cleaned up its act in England.

    It's still pretty troublesome in much of Europe. I took a Greek colleague to a Leicester match last year who is a huge PAOK fan and goes to a lot of their away games. He couldn't get over how lax the security was at the ground, being used to airport like security checks, and quite major violence on the streets outside.

    He has promised me a POAK game next time I am in Thessalonika.
    People remember which decade they grew up in, so unless he has early onset dementia, I'm sticking with occams razor = lies.
    Question is, what kind of lie?

    Is it a calculated Brexit Bus lie, designed to get a pedantic response?

    Or is it a "Jeffrey Archer went to Oxford" lie, which no doubt felt true to the world's greatest storyteller, even though it wasn't really.

    Not that either sort is good.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 11,352

    Foxy said:

    Cookie said:

    Foxy said:



    Apart from the fact that Wolves only played one match away at Villa in the Eighties, Jenrick was 8 years old in 1990.

    His rose tinted glasses also seem to have missed pretty much all the football hooliganism of the Eighties, not least the 96 police injured when Leeds came to Villa Park.

    Football was better in almost every single respect in the 80s except hooliganism. He could have surfed a wave of nostalgia on ticket prices, British players, humour, accessibility - hooliganism is the only respect in which football has got better.
    None of our cities were run by sectarian cabals in the 80s (not in England, anyway). He could have focused on that.

    To be fair, he didn't say he went to watch Wolves away at Villa. He could have gone to see his most-hated team lose. Football fans do that sort of thing.
    Or just accept Occams Razor. Politician is lying.
    More likely it is false memory syndrome, and he actually remembers going to Villa Park to see Wolves in 1996, but by then Football had very much cleaned up its act in England.

    It's still pretty troublesome in much of Europe. I took a Greek colleague to a Leicester match last year who is a huge PAOK fan and goes to a lot of their away games. He couldn't get over how lax the security was at the ground, being used to airport like security checks, and quite major violence on the streets outside.

    He has promised me a POAK game next time I am in Thessalonika.
    People remember which decade they grew up in, so unless he has early onset dementia, I'm sticking with occams razor = lies.
    If he was 8 in 1990 then he was 18 in 2000. He could quite reasonably be said to have grown up in either/both the 80s or 90s
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,537

    Am I alone in thinking that picture bears a remarkable resemblance to Baldrick of 'cunning plan' fame?

    HArsh on Baldrick.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 11,352
    ydoethur said:

    boulay said:

    If you like a lot of chocolate on your biscuit … look away now
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/oct/18/chocolate-biscuit-club-penguin-mcvities-cocoa-prices

    Chocolate replaced by chocolate flavour.

    I bought some penguins the other day for the first time in years and reckoned they tasted different to how I remembered them!
    Aren’t they a protected species?
    Not once you pluck them
    Sounds unpheasant.
    Don’t grouse about it
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,537

    ydoethur said:

    boulay said:

    If you like a lot of chocolate on your biscuit … look away now
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/oct/18/chocolate-biscuit-club-penguin-mcvities-cocoa-prices

    Chocolate replaced by chocolate flavour.

    I bought some penguins the other day for the first time in years and reckoned they tasted different to how I remembered them!
    Aren’t they a protected species?
    Not once you pluck them
    Sounds unpheasant.
    Don’t grouse about it
    I want to indulge my famous grouse.
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,919
    Clive Lewis is who I would like to see leading the Labour party. He’s considered, has ideas which could coalesce into a vision, is a good communicator and understands the need to unite as much of the left as is possible.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 11,352
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    boulay said:

    If you like a lot of chocolate on your biscuit … look away now
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/oct/18/chocolate-biscuit-club-penguin-mcvities-cocoa-prices

    Chocolate replaced by chocolate flavour.

    I bought some penguins the other day for the first time in years and reckoned they tasted different to how I remembered them!
    Aren’t they a protected species?
    Not once you pluck them
    Sounds unpheasant.
    Don’t grouse about it
    I want to indulge my famous grouse.
    Jura on a silly track now
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 32,952
    I can't see Starmer lasting either. Farage's '2027' prophecy doesn't look ridiculously unlikely any more.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 53,637

    Cookie said:

    Foxy said:



    Apart from the fact that Wolves only played one match away at Villa in the Eighties, Jenrick was 8 years old in 1990.

    His rose tinted glasses also seem to have missed pretty much all the football hooliganism of the Eighties, not least the 96 police injured when Leeds came to Villa Park.

    Football was better in almost every single respect in the 80s except hooliganism. He could have surfed a wave of nostalgia on ticket prices, British players, humour, accessibility - hooliganism is the only respect in which football has got better.
    None of our cities were run by sectarian cabals in the 80s (not in England, anyway). He could have focused on that.

    To be fair, he didn't say he went to watch Wolves away at Villa. He could have gone to see his most-hated team lose. Football fans do that sort of thing.
    What he has also conveniently forgotten is the endemic racism, which was the reason that crowds in the 1980s at places like Villa Park and Molineux did not reflect the ethnic diversity of their host populations.
    Though even that racism was nuanced. I went to see this play in 2018 written by an Asian member of Leicester City's notorious "Baby Squad" hooligan ultras.

    https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2018/sep/16/riaz-khan-memoirs-of-an-asian-football-casual-interview-hooliganism-leicester-curve?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    I suspect his memory is more accurate than Jenricks.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 25,416

    Foxy said:

    Cookie said:

    Foxy said:



    Apart from the fact that Wolves only played one match away at Villa in the Eighties, Jenrick was 8 years old in 1990.

    His rose tinted glasses also seem to have missed pretty much all the football hooliganism of the Eighties, not least the 96 police injured when Leeds came to Villa Park.

    Football was better in almost every single respect in the 80s except hooliganism. He could have surfed a wave of nostalgia on ticket prices, British players, humour, accessibility - hooliganism is the only respect in which football has got better.
    None of our cities were run by sectarian cabals in the 80s (not in England, anyway). He could have focused on that.

    To be fair, he didn't say he went to watch Wolves away at Villa. He could have gone to see his most-hated team lose. Football fans do that sort of thing.
    Or just accept Occams Razor. Politician is lying.
    More likely it is false memory syndrome, and he actually remembers going to Villa Park to see Wolves in 1996, but by then Football had very much cleaned up its act in England.

    It's still pretty troublesome in much of Europe. I took a Greek colleague to a Leicester match last year who is a huge PAOK fan and goes to a lot of their away games. He couldn't get over how lax the security was at the ground, being used to airport like security checks, and quite major violence on the streets outside.

    He has promised me a POAK game next time I am in Thessalonika.
    People remember which decade they grew up in, so unless he has early onset dementia, I'm sticking with occams razor = lies.
    If he was 8 in 1990 then he was 18 in 2000. He could quite reasonably be said to have grown up in either/both the 80s or 90s
    From when he was born to 2003, Wolves played Villa 4 times at Villa Park, 2 of which were when he was under 2 years old. Believe what you want.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,537
    edited 8:48AM

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    boulay said:

    If you like a lot of chocolate on your biscuit … look away now
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/oct/18/chocolate-biscuit-club-penguin-mcvities-cocoa-prices

    Chocolate replaced by chocolate flavour.

    I bought some penguins the other day for the first time in years and reckoned they tasted different to how I remembered them!
    Aren’t they a protected species?
    Not once you pluck them
    Sounds unpheasant.
    Don’t grouse about it
    I want to indulge my famous grouse.
    Jura on a silly track now
    Well, in general I'm bigger on Teachers.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 56,129
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    boulay said:

    If you like a lot of chocolate on your biscuit … look away now
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/oct/18/chocolate-biscuit-club-penguin-mcvities-cocoa-prices

    Chocolate replaced by chocolate flavour.

    I bought some penguins the other day for the first time in years and reckoned they tasted different to how I remembered them!
    Aren’t they a protected species?
    Not once you pluck them
    Sounds unpheasant.
    Don’t grouse about it
    I want to indulge my famous grouse.
    We quail in front of your game puns...
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 25,416
    Foxy said:

    Cookie said:

    Foxy said:



    Apart from the fact that Wolves only played one match away at Villa in the Eighties, Jenrick was 8 years old in 1990.

    His rose tinted glasses also seem to have missed pretty much all the football hooliganism of the Eighties, not least the 96 police injured when Leeds came to Villa Park.

    Football was better in almost every single respect in the 80s except hooliganism. He could have surfed a wave of nostalgia on ticket prices, British players, humour, accessibility - hooliganism is the only respect in which football has got better.
    None of our cities were run by sectarian cabals in the 80s (not in England, anyway). He could have focused on that.

    To be fair, he didn't say he went to watch Wolves away at Villa. He could have gone to see his most-hated team lose. Football fans do that sort of thing.
    What he has also conveniently forgotten is the endemic racism, which was the reason that crowds in the 1980s at places like Villa Park and Molineux did not reflect the ethnic diversity of their host populations.
    Though even that racism was nuanced. I went to see this play in 2018 written by an Asian member of Leicester City's notorious "Baby Squad" hooligan ultras.

    https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2018/sep/16/riaz-khan-memoirs-of-an-asian-football-casual-interview-hooliganism-leicester-curve?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    I suspect his memory is more accurate than Jenricks.
    I suspect he has a big advantage in actually having gone to matches.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,768
    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    As someone fairly ambivalent about Starmer and Reeves, I'm interested to see whether the antipathy toward them is personal or just the usual antipathy toward Labour Prime Ministers from those on the conservative side of the fence. I suspect, were Starmer to leave and another Labour PM to be in office, the antipathy would readily transfer to the new individual.

    Ho hum...in any case, short of an outright Cabinet mutiny, the only two reasonable and legal ways Starmer leaves office are either a) voluntarily or b) democratically in an election. The latter isn't on the horizon and the former will only happen once a rubicon of sorts is crossed and he simply doesn't want to do the job any longer. He's been in the job 15 months not 15 years so I suspect for all the crap, he may went on to go on a little while yet.

    We know the Budget is going to be horrible - it's the reckoning at the end of the party or the meal - the bill is on the table and we have to pay up. Reeves is going to raise taxes and cut spending - we know that as well. How imaginative she will be remains to be seen but it's going to be unpleasant - we all know that.

    It’s not just the right who dislike this government. Not by a long way.

    It’s that part of the left (nearly a fifth of the voters), that supports the Greens/Your Party. They see Israel/Gaza as the defining issue of our times, and can’t understand why that country is not subject to comprehensive economic, and even military, sanctions.

    Domestically, they want a government that imposes punitive taxes on “the rich” (anyone earning £50 k +,) drives landlords out of business, rejoins the EU, and overturns the Supreme Court’s ruling on sex/gender discrimination.

    They do, bizarrely but sincerely, see Starmer as a disguised right winger.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 25,416
    Sean_F said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    As someone fairly ambivalent about Starmer and Reeves, I'm interested to see whether the antipathy toward them is personal or just the usual antipathy toward Labour Prime Ministers from those on the conservative side of the fence. I suspect, were Starmer to leave and another Labour PM to be in office, the antipathy would readily transfer to the new individual.

    Ho hum...in any case, short of an outright Cabinet mutiny, the only two reasonable and legal ways Starmer leaves office are either a) voluntarily or b) democratically in an election. The latter isn't on the horizon and the former will only happen once a rubicon of sorts is crossed and he simply doesn't want to do the job any longer. He's been in the job 15 months not 15 years so I suspect for all the crap, he may went on to go on a little while yet.

    We know the Budget is going to be horrible - it's the reckoning at the end of the party or the meal - the bill is on the table and we have to pay up. Reeves is going to raise taxes and cut spending - we know that as well. How imaginative she will be remains to be seen but it's going to be unpleasant - we all know that.

    It’s not just the right who dislike this government. Not by a long way.

    It’s that part of the left (nearly a fifth of the voters), that supports the Greens/Your Party. They see Israel/Gaza as the defining issue of our times, and can’t understand why that country is not subject to comprehensive economic, and even military, sanctions.

    Domestically, they want a government that imposes punitive taxes on “the rich” (anyone earning £50 k +,) drives landlords out of business, rejoins the EU, and overturns the Supreme Court’s ruling on sex/gender discrimination.

    They do, bizarrely but sincerely, see Starmer as a disguised right winger.
    To make it worse, it is also some us of centrists who want to see more decisive and quicker action on investment and reform.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,768

    Foxy said:



    Apart from the fact that Wolves only played one match away at Villa in the Eighties, Jenrick was 8 years old in 1990.

    His rose tinted glasses also seem to have missed pretty much all the football hooliganism of the Eighties, not least the 96 police injured when Leeds came to Villa Park.

    Jenrick's audience isn't you or me.

    To the people it's aimed at, this statement points to deeper truths- the boys aren't allowed to get together like this any more, and this is a loss to them.

    (That it happened for a reason, that modern stadiums are better and football without the fighting is preferred by most people, isn't totally relevant here.)

    Politicians of all colours do it all the time. Things that aren't truthful, but are truthy.

    But a Conservative politician becoming the friend of the soccer lout is yet another thing likely to make dead Conservatives from the 80s spin in their graves.
    The aggro was the best thing about 1980’s football.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,079
    Foxy said:



    Apart from the fact that Wolves only played one match away at Villa in the Eighties, Jenrick was 8 years old in 1990.

    His rose tinted glasses also seem to have missed pretty much all the football hooliganism of the Eighties, not least the 96 police injured when Leeds came to Villa Park.

    I usually agree with you on most issues but the determination of people like your good self to pretend that there is no problem with Islam in the UK is why I suspect we will be heading towards a Reform-led government.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,537
    On topic, the problem with Dominic Cummings is not, and never has been, spotting the problems. He's actually quite good at that. The problem is he lacks at least one of the patience, humility or intellectual firepower to master them in sufficient depth to propose worthwhile solutions.

    We see that here. Problem - Starmer is struggling. Cummings' solution - change leader. Problem - almost impossible to do for Labour due to their rules on leadership ballots.

    Incidentally, I see another of his flaws was on full display this week - his strange fantasies about his own past.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,537

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    boulay said:

    If you like a lot of chocolate on your biscuit … look away now
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/oct/18/chocolate-biscuit-club-penguin-mcvities-cocoa-prices

    Chocolate replaced by chocolate flavour.

    I bought some penguins the other day for the first time in years and reckoned they tasted different to how I remembered them!
    Aren’t they a protected species?
    Not once you pluck them
    Sounds unpheasant.
    Don’t grouse about it
    I want to indulge my famous grouse.
    We quail in front of your game puns...
    You can quite sniping then.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 56,129
    Sean_F said:

    Foxy said:



    Apart from the fact that Wolves only played one match away at Villa in the Eighties, Jenrick was 8 years old in 1990.

    His rose tinted glasses also seem to have missed pretty much all the football hooliganism of the Eighties, not least the 96 police injured when Leeds came to Villa Park.

    Jenrick's audience isn't you or me.

    To the people it's aimed at, this statement points to deeper truths- the boys aren't allowed to get together like this any more, and this is a loss to them.

    (That it happened for a reason, that modern stadiums are better and football without the fighting is preferred by most people, isn't totally relevant here.)

    Politicians of all colours do it all the time. Things that aren't truthful, but are truthy.

    But a Conservative politician becoming the friend of the soccer lout is yet another thing likely to make dead Conservatives from the 80s spin in their graves.
    The aggro was the best thing about 1980’s football.
    Well, that - and Forest winning our second European Cup winners star.

    Oh, and the hairstyles....
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 20,762
    Nigelb said:

    This seems to be a very large breakthrough in cancer screening.

    Exciting results from blood test for 50 cancer
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c205g21n1zzo
    A blood test for more than 50 types of cancer could help speed up diagnosis, according to a new study.
    Results of a trial in North America show that the test was able to identify a wide range of cancers, of which three-quarters don't have any form of screening programme.
    More than half the cancers were detected at an early stage, where they are easier to treat and potentially curable.
    The Galleri test, made by American pharmaceutical firm Grail, can detect fragments of cancerous DNA that have broken off a tumour and are circulating in the blood...


    Quite a large trial, so there a good chance this works.

    38% false positive rate, or at lest 38% where the tumour is too small to detect? Clearly will be useful if it leads to secondary testing for confirmation.
    My leukemia still returned a ‘positive’ test on PCR even after remission. Fragments of DNA floating around that are non functional but still get replicated.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 33,380
    Foxy said:



    Apart from the fact that Wolves only played one match away at Villa in the Eighties, Jenrick was 8 years old in 1990.

    His rose tinted glasses also seem to have missed pretty much all the football hooliganism of the Eighties, not least the 96 police injured when Leeds came to Villa Park.

    You are mixing them up. Liz Truss is the one who was good at maths. Jenrick is the walk, talk and point guy.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,315
    Foxy said:



    Apart from the fact that Wolves only played one match away at Villa in the Eighties, Jenrick was 8 years old in 1990.

    His rose tinted glasses also seem to have missed pretty much all the football hooliganism of the Eighties, not least the 96 police injured when Leeds came to Villa Park.

    Every single statement in that comment is as false as the man himself. Including his claim he went to those matches when he was a toddler.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,449

    Sean_F said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    As someone fairly ambivalent about Starmer and Reeves, I'm interested to see whether the antipathy toward them is personal or just the usual antipathy toward Labour Prime Ministers from those on the conservative side of the fence. I suspect, were Starmer to leave and another Labour PM to be in office, the antipathy would readily transfer to the new individual.

    Ho hum...in any case, short of an outright Cabinet mutiny, the only two reasonable and legal ways Starmer leaves office are either a) voluntarily or b) democratically in an election. The latter isn't on the horizon and the former will only happen once a rubicon of sorts is crossed and he simply doesn't want to do the job any longer. He's been in the job 15 months not 15 years so I suspect for all the crap, he may went on to go on a little while yet.

    We know the Budget is going to be horrible - it's the reckoning at the end of the party or the meal - the bill is on the table and we have to pay up. Reeves is going to raise taxes and cut spending - we know that as well. How imaginative she will be remains to be seen but it's going to be unpleasant - we all know that.

    It’s not just the right who dislike this government. Not by a long way.

    It’s that part of the left (nearly a fifth of the voters), that supports the Greens/Your Party. They see Israel/Gaza as the defining issue of our times, and can’t understand why that country is not subject to comprehensive economic, and even military, sanctions.

    Domestically, they want a government that imposes punitive taxes on “the rich” (anyone earning £50 k +,) drives landlords out of business, rejoins the EU, and overturns the Supreme Court’s ruling on sex/gender discrimination.

    They do, bizarrely but sincerely, see Starmer as a disguised right winger.
    To make it worse, it is also some us of centrists who want to see more decisive and quicker action on investment and reform.
    Unlike 1997, when the economic circumstances allowed the incoming Blair Government to be radical (and they weren't), I think many of us so-called "centrists" (the new perjorative it seems), whether we voted Labour or not, knew the incoming Starmer Government would have next to no room for manoeuvre.

    I thought it a grievous error to close down the options to raise income tax and VAT before the poll but I understand why they did though I think Labour would have won regardless given the incompetent inertia which passed for Government especially under Sunak.

    Had Reeves gone in with a quick budget (she was constrained by the OBR, another error) and announced tax rises, there'd have been the usual howls of anguish but in the end the question back to the Conservatives and Reform would have been "how would you reduce borrowing and cut taxes?" and they'd be forced to come clean as big public spending cutters.

    We'd be further down the road than we are now and the lost time has only accumulated the debt (and the interest repayments) as well as irritating those who wanted a new Government to do "something".
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 45,559
    Had my doubts about the whole Maccabi thing but now I understand they're on the side of the angels and must be free to rampage violently through the streets of Birmingham (some mistake surely?-ed)

    https://x.com/TRobinsonNewEra/status/1979240504299511912

  • GrahamGraham Posts: 1

    Foxy said:



    Apart from the fact that Wolves only played one match away at Villa in the Eighties, Jenrick was 8 years old in 1990.

    His rose tinted glasses also seem to have missed pretty much all the football hooliganism of the Eighties, not least the 96 police injured when Leeds came to Villa Park.

    Jenrick's audience isn't you or me.

    To the people it's aimed at, this statement points to deeper truths- the boys aren't allowed to get together like this any more, and this is a loss to them.

    (That it happened for a reason, that modern stadiums are better and football without the fighting is preferred by most people, isn't totally relevant here.)

    Politicians of all colours do it all the time. Things that aren't truthful, but are truthy.

    But a Conservative politician becoming the friend of the soccer lout is yet another thing likely to make dead Conservatives from the 80s spin in their graves.
    Thatch would have quite happily closed football down and would be amazed it now provides 0.5% of our total tax revenue.
    She had a good go at it. Remember Colin Moynihan and the compulsory membership scheme?
    Interesting that the real boom time for football seems to be over now. Wages in the premier leaguecare actually stagnating and the real boom period in wage growth was 1992 to 2012. Premier league wages up 50% last 10 years but went up about 6 fold in the first 10 years of the premier league.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,235
    edited 9:21AM
    Sean_F said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    As someone fairly ambivalent about Starmer and Reeves, I'm interested to see whether the antipathy toward them is personal or just the usual antipathy toward Labour Prime Ministers from those on the conservative side of the fence. I suspect, were Starmer to leave and another Labour PM to be in office, the antipathy would readily transfer to the new individual.

    Ho hum...in any case, short of an outright Cabinet mutiny, the only two reasonable and legal ways Starmer leaves office are either a) voluntarily or b) democratically in an election. The latter isn't on the horizon and the former will only happen once a rubicon of sorts is crossed and he simply doesn't want to do the job any longer. He's been in the job 15 months not 15 years so I suspect for all the crap, he may went on to go on a little while yet.

    We know the Budget is going to be horrible - it's the reckoning at the end of the party or the meal - the bill is on the table and we have to pay up. Reeves is going to raise taxes and cut spending - we know that as well. How imaginative she will be remains to be seen but it's going to be unpleasant - we all know that.

    It’s not just the right who dislike this government. Not by a long way.

    It’s that part of the left (nearly a fifth of the voters), that supports the Greens/Your Party. They see Israel/Gaza as the defining issue of our times, and can’t understand why that country is not subject to comprehensive economic, and even military, sanctions.

    Domestically, they want a government that imposes punitive taxes on “the rich” (anyone earning £50 k +,) drives landlords out of business, rejoins the EU, and overturns the Supreme Court’s ruling on sex/gender discrimination.

    They do, bizarrely but sincerely, see Starmer as a disguised right winger.
    Starmer's political problem is that he is seen as having knifed both St Jeremy and St Boris. Which is an awful lot of mourners hating you before you have really got started.

    That both of them managed to leap onto the knife that SKS happened to be holding at the time, like an accidental James Bond in a spy caper played for laughs, is too painful to process.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 11,352

    Foxy said:

    Cookie said:

    Foxy said:



    Apart from the fact that Wolves only played one match away at Villa in the Eighties, Jenrick was 8 years old in 1990.

    His rose tinted glasses also seem to have missed pretty much all the football hooliganism of the Eighties, not least the 96 police injured when Leeds came to Villa Park.

    Football was better in almost every single respect in the 80s except hooliganism. He could have surfed a wave of nostalgia on ticket prices, British players, humour, accessibility - hooliganism is the only respect in which football has got better.
    None of our cities were run by sectarian cabals in the 80s (not in England, anyway). He could have focused on that.

    To be fair, he didn't say he went to watch Wolves away at Villa. He could have gone to see his most-hated team lose. Football fans do that sort of thing.
    Or just accept Occams Razor. Politician is lying.
    More likely it is false memory syndrome, and he actually remembers going to Villa Park to see Wolves in 1996, but by then Football had very much cleaned up its act in England.

    It's still pretty troublesome in much of Europe. I took a Greek colleague to a Leicester match last year who is a huge PAOK fan and goes to a lot of their away games. He couldn't get over how lax the security was at the ground, being used to airport like security checks, and quite major violence on the streets outside.

    He has promised me a POAK game next time I am in Thessalonika.
    People remember which decade they grew up in, so unless he has early onset dementia, I'm sticking with occams razor = lies.
    If he was 8 in 1990 then he was 18 in 2000. He could quite reasonably be said to have grown up in either/both the 80s or 90s
    From when he was born to 2003, Wolves played Villa 4 times at Villa Park, 2 of which were when he was under 2 years old. Believe what you want.
    He’s a politician. are his lips moving?

    I was just questioning your previous argument
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 11,352
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    boulay said:

    If you like a lot of chocolate on your biscuit … look away now
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/oct/18/chocolate-biscuit-club-penguin-mcvities-cocoa-prices

    Chocolate replaced by chocolate flavour.

    I bought some penguins the other day for the first time in years and reckoned they tasted different to how I remembered them!
    Aren’t they a protected species?
    Not once you pluck them
    Sounds unpheasant.
    Don’t grouse about it
    I want to indulge my famous grouse.
    Jura on a silly track now
    Well, in general I'm bigger on Teachers.
    Walk on Johnnie, you’ve tried hard enough.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 57,636

    Foxy said:

    stodge said:

    Foxy said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    As someone fairly ambivalent about Starmer and Reeves, I'm interested to see whether the antipathy toward them is personal or just the usual antipathy toward Labour Prime Ministers from those on the conservative side of the fence. I suspect, were Starmer to leave and another Labour PM to be in office, the antipathy would readily transfer to the new individual.

    Ho hum...in any case, short of an outright Cabinet mutiny, the only two reasonable and legal ways Starmer leaves office are either a) voluntarily or b) democratically in an election. The latter isn't on the horizon and the former will only happen once a rubicon of sorts is crossed and he simply doesn't want to do the job any longer. He's been in the job 15 months not 15 years so I suspect for all the crap, he may went on to go on a little while yet.

    We know the Budget is going to be horrible - it's the reckoning at the end of the party or the meal - the bill is on the table and we have to pay up. Reeves is going to raise taxes and cut spending - we know that as well. How imaginative she will be remains to be seen but it's going to be unpleasant - we all know that.

    I think Starmer is both thick skinned and convinced he is doing a good job, only that us numbskulls can't see it.

    I think he will retire before the GE, but not before 2028.

    By then Rayner may well be rehabilitated, and either Powell or Philipson well established as Deputy.
    Yes, the Reform supporters are hoping against hope the next crisis or scandal will be the one that brings the Government down but that doesn't happen with majorities of 170 or so.

    They know time may not be on their side in terms of other developments including the revival of the Conservatives.
    Badenochs plan to be Britain's Milei hasn't aged well:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jul/24/kemi-badenoch-argentinian-president-javier-milei-template-conservatives-tory-government?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    She almost makes Starmer look good at this politics thing.
    Although, if she can get Trump to write Britain a cheque for £20 billion....
    What is interesting about Argentina and Milei is that what we are seeing is such an old story that it isn’t being recognised.

    Milei is cutting government spending to vaguely match the tax take. Rather than printing money. He is (partly) liberalising the economy. Note that he is against nearly all the Trump economic crap - tarried etc.

    This is the classic IMF approach of yore.

    This is because, in Argentina, they are living in the end results of the Trumpist garbage - Peronism. Which is fascism lite, combined with state intervention in everything and heavy public spending without regard to the deficit.

    The current result is why the IMF was always hated on the Left - the medicine comes at the price of harsh economic results for a fair bit of time.

    Which is why, traditionally, the IMF would arrange loans to tide a new government over - through the bad patch - to the other side.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 53,637

    Nigelb said:

    This seems to be a very large breakthrough in cancer screening.

    Exciting results from blood test for 50 cancer
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c205g21n1zzo
    A blood test for more than 50 types of cancer could help speed up diagnosis, according to a new study.
    Results of a trial in North America show that the test was able to identify a wide range of cancers, of which three-quarters don't have any form of screening programme.
    More than half the cancers were detected at an early stage, where they are easier to treat and potentially curable.
    The Galleri test, made by American pharmaceutical firm Grail, can detect fragments of cancerous DNA that have broken off a tumour and are circulating in the blood...


    Quite a large trial, so there a good chance this works.

    38% false positive rate, or at lest 38% where the tumour is too small to detect? Clearly will be useful if it leads to secondary testing for confirmation.
    My leukemia still returned a ‘positive’ test on PCR even after remission. Fragments of DNA floating around that are non functional but still get replicated.
    All screening tests produce false positives. This is stressful for the patient, and can waste resources, but it is the false negatives that we worry about and rightly so, as @Cyclefree's current illness demonstrates.

    The ideal screening test is easy to administer, easy to interpret, and produces few false negatives. It flags up patients needing more complex diagnostics. It is the first of several diagnostic filters, not a definitive one.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 11,352
    FF43 said:

    Foxy said:



    Apart from the fact that Wolves only played one match away at Villa in the Eighties, Jenrick was 8 years old in 1990.

    His rose tinted glasses also seem to have missed pretty much all the football hooliganism of the Eighties, not least the 96 police injured when Leeds came to Villa Park.

    Every single statement in that comment is as false as the man himself. Including his claim he went to those matches when he was a toddler.
    How about this one?

    The language, chants, and antics were - at times - less than well-mannered.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 31,229
    Sean_F said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    As someone fairly ambivalent about Starmer and Reeves, I'm interested to see whether the antipathy toward them is personal or just the usual antipathy toward Labour Prime Ministers from those on the conservative side of the fence. I suspect, were Starmer to leave and another Labour PM to be in office, the antipathy would readily transfer to the new individual.

    Ho hum...in any case, short of an outright Cabinet mutiny, the only two reasonable and legal ways Starmer leaves office are either a) voluntarily or b) democratically in an election. The latter isn't on the horizon and the former will only happen once a rubicon of sorts is crossed and he simply doesn't want to do the job any longer. He's been in the job 15 months not 15 years so I suspect for all the crap, he may went on to go on a little while yet.

    We know the Budget is going to be horrible - it's the reckoning at the end of the party or the meal - the bill is on the table and we have to pay up. Reeves is going to raise taxes and cut spending - we know that as well. How imaginative she will be remains to be seen but it's going to be unpleasant - we all know that.

    It’s not just the right who dislike this government. Not by a long way.

    It’s that part of the left (nearly a fifth of the voters), that supports the Greens/Your Party. They see Israel/Gaza as the defining issue of our times, and can’t understand why that country is not subject to comprehensive economic, and even military, sanctions.

    Domestically, they want a government that imposes punitive taxes on “the rich” (anyone earning £50 k +,) drives landlords out of business, rejoins the EU, and overturns the Supreme Court’s ruling on sex/gender discrimination.

    They do, bizarrely but sincerely, see Starmer as a disguised right winger.
    On any traditional definition of political sides, Labour occupy the Centre Right position formerly taken by Cameroon and One Nation Tories.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 25,416

    FF43 said:

    Foxy said:



    Apart from the fact that Wolves only played one match away at Villa in the Eighties, Jenrick was 8 years old in 1990.

    His rose tinted glasses also seem to have missed pretty much all the football hooliganism of the Eighties, not least the 96 police injured when Leeds came to Villa Park.

    Every single statement in that comment is as false as the man himself. Including his claim he went to those matches when he was a toddler.
    How about this one?

    The language, chants, and antics were - at times - less than well-mannered.
    The "at times" makes it at best misleading.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 33,380
    OllyT said:

    Foxy said:



    Apart from the fact that Wolves only played one match away at Villa in the Eighties, Jenrick was 8 years old in 1990.

    His rose tinted glasses also seem to have missed pretty much all the football hooliganism of the Eighties, not least the 96 police injured when Leeds came to Villa Park.

    I usually agree with you on most issues but the determination of people like your good self to pretend that there is no problem with Islam in the UK is why I suspect we will be heading towards a Reform-led government.
    And so is the problem the other way which is not acknowledging that Maccabi Tel Aviv fans have their own, richly deserved, thuggish reputation. And the different other problem which both sides are guilty of is conflating Jews and Israelis. Most British Jews could not find Maccabi Tel Aviv on the map. Well, actually they could but only because it has Tel Aviv in its name.

    Anyway, now that the Prime Minister with his usual deft political touch has turned this into a major issue, perhaps they can simply play at a neutral stadium that is more easily policed.

    And going back to Jenrick's 1980s nostalgia, West Ham had to play a European Cup-winners Cup match behind closed doors. Bloody UEFA.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 25,416

    OllyT said:

    Foxy said:



    Apart from the fact that Wolves only played one match away at Villa in the Eighties, Jenrick was 8 years old in 1990.

    His rose tinted glasses also seem to have missed pretty much all the football hooliganism of the Eighties, not least the 96 police injured when Leeds came to Villa Park.

    I usually agree with you on most issues but the determination of people like your good self to pretend that there is no problem with Islam in the UK is why I suspect we will be heading towards a Reform-led government.
    And so is the problem the other way which is not acknowledging that Maccabi Tel Aviv fans have their own, richly deserved, thuggish reputation. And the different other problem which both sides are guilty of is conflating Jews and Israelis. Most British Jews could not find Maccabi Tel Aviv on the map. Well, actually they could but only because it has Tel Aviv in its name.

    Anyway, now that the Prime Minister with his usual deft political touch has turned this into a major issue, perhaps they can simply play at a neutral stadium that is more easily policed.

    And going back to Jenrick's 1980s nostalgia, West Ham had to play a European Cup-winners Cup match behind closed doors. Bloody UEFA.
    Aston Villa shouldn't have to suffer here either. The match should go ahead. Police should do what they can to avoid violence but if it happens trouble makers on both sides should be dealt with harshly as we do after riots.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 57,636
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    This seems to be a very large breakthrough in cancer screening.

    Exciting results from blood test for 50 cancer
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c205g21n1zzo
    A blood test for more than 50 types of cancer could help speed up diagnosis, according to a new study.
    Results of a trial in North America show that the test was able to identify a wide range of cancers, of which three-quarters don't have any form of screening programme.
    More than half the cancers were detected at an early stage, where they are easier to treat and potentially curable.
    The Galleri test, made by American pharmaceutical firm Grail, can detect fragments of cancerous DNA that have broken off a tumour and are circulating in the blood...


    Quite a large trial, so there a good chance this works.

    38% false positive rate, or at lest 38% where the tumour is too small to detect? Clearly will be useful if it leads to secondary testing for confirmation.
    My leukemia still returned a ‘positive’ test on PCR even after remission. Fragments of DNA floating around that are non functional but still get replicated.
    All screening tests produce false positives. This is stressful for the patient, and can waste resources, but it is the false negatives that we worry about and rightly so, as @Cyclefree's current illness demonstrates.

    The ideal screening test is easy to administer, easy to interpret, and produces few false negatives. It flags up patients needing more complex diagnostics. It is the first of several diagnostic filters, not a definitive one.
    I regularly get a PSA test. Yes, false positives. But very low chance of a false negative.

    In many ways, a classic example of the issue.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,315
    Starmer's political problem is he's losing his base while failing to win over those that might support Reform. He either needs to shoot Farage's fox (unlikely) or set out a compelling alternative.

    This doesn't feel like a dilemma that would interest Cummings.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,647

    OllyT said:

    Foxy said:



    Apart from the fact that Wolves only played one match away at Villa in the Eighties, Jenrick was 8 years old in 1990.

    His rose tinted glasses also seem to have missed pretty much all the football hooliganism of the Eighties, not least the 96 police injured when Leeds came to Villa Park.

    I usually agree with you on most issues but the determination of people like your good self to pretend that there is no problem with Islam in the UK is why I suspect we will be heading towards a Reform-led government.
    And so is the problem the other way which is not acknowledging that Maccabi Tel Aviv fans have their own, richly deserved, thuggish reputation. And the different other problem which both sides are guilty of is conflating Jews and Israelis. Most British Jews could not find Maccabi Tel Aviv on the map. Well, actually they could but only because it has Tel Aviv in its name.

    Anyway, now that the Prime Minister with his usual deft political touch has turned this into a major issue, perhaps they can simply play at a neutral stadium that is more easily policed.

    And going back to Jenrick's 1980s nostalgia, West Ham had to play a European Cup-winners Cup match behind closed doors. Bloody UEFA.
    Aston Villa shouldn't have to suffer here either. The match should go ahead. Police should do what they can to avoid violence but if it happens trouble makers on both sides should be dealt with harshly as we do after riots.
    Both sides in this instance isn't Villa fans and Tel Aviv fans. It is anti-Semiites and Tel Aviv fans.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 25,416
    FF43 said:

    Starmer's political problem is he's losing his base while failing to win over those that might support Reform. He either needs to shoot Farage's fox (unlikely) or set out a compelling alternative.

    This doesn't feel like a dilemma that would interest Cummings.

    I'm not sure there is much that Starmer can do to make himself or the government popular. It would therefore be nice if he could do things that were effective and unpopular rather than just dilly dally his way to unpopularity.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 33,380

    OllyT said:

    Foxy said:



    Apart from the fact that Wolves only played one match away at Villa in the Eighties, Jenrick was 8 years old in 1990.

    His rose tinted glasses also seem to have missed pretty much all the football hooliganism of the Eighties, not least the 96 police injured when Leeds came to Villa Park.

    I usually agree with you on most issues but the determination of people like your good self to pretend that there is no problem with Islam in the UK is why I suspect we will be heading towards a Reform-led government.
    And so is the problem the other way which is not acknowledging that Maccabi Tel Aviv fans have their own, richly deserved, thuggish reputation. And the different other problem which both sides are guilty of is conflating Jews and Israelis. Most British Jews could not find Maccabi Tel Aviv on the map. Well, actually they could but only because it has Tel Aviv in its name.

    Anyway, now that the Prime Minister with his usual deft political touch has turned this into a major issue, perhaps they can simply play at a neutral stadium that is more easily policed.

    And going back to Jenrick's 1980s nostalgia, West Ham had to play a European Cup-winners Cup match behind closed doors. Bloody UEFA.
    Aston Villa shouldn't have to suffer here either. The match should go ahead. Police should do what they can to avoid violence but if it happens trouble makers on both sides should be dealt with harshly as we do after riots.
    Is that a new opinion? As I said with the West Ham example, football matches have been played in empty stadiums owing to crowd trouble for decades. This is not the invention of an antisemitic cabal that has recently infiltrated Uefa.

    But I disagree with the ban. There should be a plan to keep rival fans apart, as is commonly done. It might be that moving to a different stadium would facilitate this.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,832
    edited 9:43AM
    Starmer isn't that rubbish at politics, after all he led Labour from landslide defeat to landslide victory five years later. He is more of a lawyer than natural politician though hence his current unpopularity and often self inflicted errors he and Reeves have made.

    TSE is right though and Cummings is wrong, he is unlikely to be replaced anytime soon. Rayner has been forced to resign after a scandal, Nandy is not up to the job of being PM and was even beaten by Long Bailey last time and Ed Miliband led Labour to defeat in 2015. Labour leadership rules also do not allow a no confidence vote in the party leader by party MPs unlike Conservative rules. A leader has to be nominated by MPs, be an MP themselves and beat the incumbent in a membership vote.

    If Burnham returned as an MP polls show Labour members would vote for him over Starmer and a recent MiC poll showed a Burnham led Labour would narrowly beat Reform. However unless Burnham returns to Parliament then Starmer is likely safe
Sign In or Register to comment.