Looks like the two matches this evening could be competitive: Netherlands v Sweden, Germany v Ivory Coast
Spoken to quite a few Dutch fans this week, lots come down to the SW in June who are hopeful rather than confident in the current generation of Dutch players. Many come to pay homage to William Of Orange who allegedly first set foot in the UK at Brixham where there is a Statue to commemorate the occasion. Christ he's a lot to answer for!
Immigrants coming over here and taking our (King's) job.
... or was this just outsourcing. And can we do it again for the PM's position.
The header should read "The Cabinet is Revolting".
Organisations are singular.
'organisations' is a plural, Shirley?
An organisation is a singular entity.
Better?
We've had this one on PB before. England are a good team or England is a good team?
From Gemini:
Both options are correct, but they reflect different regional habits. "England are a good team" is standard in British English, as collective nouns like teams or countries are treated as plural. "England is a good team" is standard in American English, which treats collective nouns as a single unit.
Since you are based in the UK, using "are" sounds much more natural.
Maybe Andy Burnham is the figure that can finally unite the country. He deserves a chance at that.
He might unite many liberals and the left behind him, Reform and increasingly Tory voters though are not fans of Burnham
You're seeing things through the ideological lens of someone interested in and who follows politics. Freedman circulated some research from the politics professor at Nuffield, Oxford yesterday that made the point that a lot of voters simply want what they termed 'valence' - " the non-ideological things that matter to practically everyone, regardless of which ideological ‘bloc’ they belong to: competence, delivery, commitment to people’s primary concerns" - and that these issues can override more ideological issues for many of them. They suggest " the British electorate has been primarily punishing the two largest parties on the issues of competence, or failures in competence, and for the primary issue of the cost of living, and feelings of economic insecurity", and that this underpins much of the support for Reform and the Greens.
Whether or not Burnham can address and deliver those things is another question entirely - as the professor goes on to set out in the rest of her piece - but it's not as simple as saying that Reform and Tory voters "are not fans of Burnham". Not least because, very clearly, many Makerfield voters who backed Reform in local elections last month just voted for Burnham this month.
Yes. This captures so much that is true. What counts is competence in the hard task of the state agencies running competently right now everything (that's a lot) they have undertaken to run, or be accountable for. Ultimately, for good or ill, that's nearly everything. Government has made massive rods for its own back by taking everything to itself. Its job is more or less impossible.
Many intangibles are more or less meaningless. But some mean a lot. Neither Burnham nor anyone else can do competently and rapidly everything government pretends to, though they could do better. Beyond the valence of competence they can deal in leadership and being very obviously good at things.
Most people live boringly OK decent lives with varying but OK levels of peace and prosperity. I am surrounded by them. I am one of them. This despite the unrelenting gloom of media and politics, all saying your glass is half empty and getting emptier. The rewards go to the leadership that can tell you your glass is half full and getting fuller. For this Burnham, or whoever, needs to tell a complaining nation plausibly where we are going and how we are going to get there.
Politics and its allied media have more or less stopped even trying, and its time someone did. This last is Starmer's greatest fail.
Maybe Andy Burnham is the figure that can finally unite the country. He deserves a chance at that.
He might unite many liberals and the left behind him, Reform and increasingly Tory voters though are not fans of Burnham
You're seeing things through the ideological lens of someone interested in and who follows politics. Freedman circulated some research from the politics professor at Nuffield, Oxford yesterday that made the point that a lot of voters simply want what they termed 'valence' - " the non-ideological things that matter to practically everyone, regardless of which ideological ‘bloc’ they belong to: competence, delivery, commitment to people’s primary concerns" - and that these issues can override more ideological issues for many of them. They suggest " the British electorate has been primarily punishing the two largest parties on the issues of competence, or failures in competence, and for the primary issue of the cost of living, and feelings of economic insecurity", and that this underpins much of the support for Reform and the Greens.
Whether or not Burnham can address and deliver those things is another question entirely - as the professor goes on to set out in the rest of her piece - but it's not as simple as saying that Reform and Tory voters "are not fans of Burnham". Not least because, very clearly, many Makerfield voters who backed Reform in local elections last month just voted for Burnham this month.
Many one nation centre Tory's would find Burnham far more palatable than Starmer and would find him far more palatable in non Tory of Labour v Reform seats than a Tory Party desperately trying to mimic Farage on the increasingly less real problem of immifgration and illegal migration and denial of Climate Change.
Burnham now is in clearly net negative territory with 2024 Tory voters as he increasingly pushes a tax and spend agenda that is left of Starmer.
Maybe Andy Burnham is the figure that can finally unite the country. He deserves a chance at that.
He might unite many liberals and the left behind him, Reform and increasingly Tory voters though are not fans of Burnham
You're seeing things through the ideological lens of someone interested in and who follows politics. Freedman circulated some research from the politics professor at Nuffield, Oxford yesterday that made the point that a lot of voters simply want what they termed 'valence' - " the non-ideological things that matter to practically everyone, regardless of which ideological ‘bloc’ they belong to: competence, delivery, commitment to people’s primary concerns" - and that these issues can override more ideological issues for many of them. They suggest " the British electorate has been primarily punishing the two largest parties on the issues of competence, or failures in competence, and for the primary issue of the cost of living, and feelings of economic insecurity", and that this underpins much of the support for Reform and the Greens.
Whether or not Burnham can address and deliver those things is another question entirely - as the professor goes on to set out in the rest of her piece - but it's not as simple as saying that Reform and Tory voters "are not fans of Burnham". Not least because, very clearly, many Makerfield voters who backed Reform in local elections last month just voted for Burnham this month.
Yes. This captures so much that is true. What counts is competence in the hard task of the state agencies running competently right now everything (that's a lot) they have undertaken to run, or be accountable for. Ultimately, for good or ill, that's nearly everything. Government has made massive rods for its own back by taking everything to itself. Its job is more or less impossible.
Many intangibles are more or less meaningless. But some mean a lot. Neither Burnham nor anyone else can do competently and rapidly everything government pretends to, though they could do better. Beyond the valence of competence they can deal in leadership and being very obviously good at things.
Most people live boringly OK decent lives with varying but OK levels of peace and prosperity. I am surrounded by them. I am one of them. This despite the unrelenting gloom of media and politics, all saying your glass is half empty and getting emptier. The rewards go to the leadership that can tell you your glass is half full and getting fuller. For this Burnham, or whoever, needs to tell a complaining nation plausibly where we are going and how we are going to get there.
Politics and its allied media have more or less stopped even trying, and its time someone did. This last is Starmer's greatest fail.
You miss the point that the government is accountable at the ballot box for the quality of people's lives, not just those parts run by state-owned enterprises. Everything could be privatised tomorrow and we could still vote the government out if petrol goes up because some damn fool has set fire to the Middle East. Labour knows this, or should do, because it was private sector shops closing in left-behind towns that triggered the collapse of the red wall, and the Conservatives know it too because of those nasty private-sector bankers taking against Liz Truss.
Burnham's first few months are probably going to be quite rough for Reform polling wise as I think their lead will disappear. Of course the inevitable disappointments, compromises and incompetencies of actually governing will pull Burnham back when we are through this phase. Or he might assemble a great team and be brilliant, who knows It'll be interesting to see how Nigel's mettle will be in the face of likely polling adversity in the meantime.
Maybe Andy Burnham is the figure that can finally unite the country. He deserves a chance at that.
He might unite many liberals and the left behind him, Reform and increasingly Tory voters though are not fans of Burnham
You're seeing things through the ideological lens of someone interested in and who follows politics. Freedman circulated some research from the politics professor at Nuffield, Oxford yesterday that made the point that a lot of voters simply want what they termed 'valence' - " the non-ideological things that matter to practically everyone, regardless of which ideological ‘bloc’ they belong to: competence, delivery, commitment to people’s primary concerns" - and that these issues can override more ideological issues for many of them. They suggest " the British electorate has been primarily punishing the two largest parties on the issues of competence, or failures in competence, and for the primary issue of the cost of living, and feelings of economic insecurity", and that this underpins much of the support for Reform and the Greens.
Whether or not Burnham can address and deliver those things is another question entirely - as the professor goes on to set out in the rest of her piece - but it's not as simple as saying that Reform and Tory voters "are not fans of Burnham". Not least because, very clearly, many Makerfield voters who backed Reform in local elections last month just voted for Burnham this month.
It was the LD and Green vote Burnham really squeezed in Makerfield as the LDs and Greens came behind Reform and the Conservatives. The Reform vote was still up on 2024 and would have been up further if not for Restore and most 2024 Tories who did not vote Tory again went to Reform not Burnham and Labour
Comments
... or was this just outsourcing. And can we do it again for the PM's position.
From Gemini:
Both options are correct, but they reflect different regional habits.
"England are a good team" is standard in British English, as collective nouns like teams or countries are treated as plural.
"England is a good team" is standard in American English, which treats collective nouns as a single unit.
Since you are based in the UK, using "are" sounds much more natural.
So there!
Many intangibles are more or less meaningless. But some mean a lot. Neither Burnham nor anyone else can do competently and rapidly everything government pretends to, though they could do better. Beyond the valence of competence they can deal in leadership and being very obviously good at things.
Most people live boringly OK decent lives with varying but OK levels of peace and prosperity. I am surrounded by them. I am one of them. This despite the unrelenting gloom of media and politics, all saying your glass is half empty and getting emptier. The rewards go to the leadership that can tell you your glass is half full and getting fuller. For this Burnham, or whoever, needs to tell a complaining nation plausibly where we are going and how we are going to get there.
Politics and its allied media have more or less stopped even trying, and its time someone did. This last is Starmer's greatest fail.
It'll be interesting to see how Nigel's mettle will be in the face of likely polling adversity in the meantime.
NEW THREAD