politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Antifrank’s 50/1 tip to be next Labour leader

ThreeQuidder said:

ydoethur said:

Mortimer said:

He was indeed the best candidate for those wanting Conservative victory at the next election. Unelectable SPAD weathervane politician. He would have lost seats to UKIP oop-north

I have to disagree Mortimer. Burnham was the best candidate for Labour in 2015, just as EM was in 2010. The problem is that they were relatively because the others were even more useless than they were and not because they were any actual good.

Labour are now, having selected the best candidate in 2010, trying the opposite by electing the weakest candidate, presumably on the grounds that relative quality didn't work last time. It's a point of view I suppose...

EdM the best candidate? He was neither the best alternative PM (DM) or the best LOTO (EdB).

David Miliband was not a plausible PM - he had no drive, or energy, or imagination. Ed Balls was far too divisive to be a successful Leader of the Opposition - a bit like Howard without the redeeming features of gravitas, intellect and vast experience. Balls would almost certainly have hardened moderate voters into opposition against Labour much earlier than Miliband did - although the consequence of that might have been his deposition.

Ed Miliband had ideas - but they were not always goods ones, and he did not have the sense to differentiate between the bad and good. He had attack lines - but he was unwilling to work on his presentation of them. He had good points to make - but he was never able to convince the voters to listen. His weakness was a distinct lack of self-awareness - but name one Labour politician who is blessed with that.

No, I'm going to stick with 'best candidate.' Feel free to continue to disagree.

EDIT - I would point out that the fact he was the best candidate should not be taken as a sign I thought he was actually any good - just that the others were worse.

saddened said:

HYUFD said:

JosiasJessop said:

HYUFD said:

JosiasJessop said:

HYUFD said:

He was not even Health Secretary at the time of Stafford, Alan Johnson was. If Burnham had an inability to lead, heaven help Labour now they have Corbyn 'leading' them

Not this old chestnut again. He was not Health Secretary, but he was Minister of State (Department of Health) (Delivery and Quality).

http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/andy-burnham/1427

And you also ignore his rather sick attitude to inquiries, which is where he really deserves criticism.

It was Johnson who was Secretary of State with overall responsibility, and Burnham was not on the wards in Stafford was he. Inquiries tend to be talking shops in most cases which achieve little. In any case, leaving this issue aside even when the Sun etc had tried to push Stafford Burnham still had a clear lead with the public as to who would be the best Labour leader

What do you think the Minister of State (Delivery and Quality) does?

As for your inquiries point; even the chair of the private, limited inquiry Burnham set up said the terms of reference were inadequate. It was only the coalition's public inquiry that finally got to the truth. Yet Burnham feels free to call for public inquiries into everything else...

none of the publicity around this issue stopped Burnham leading polls of the public as to the best Labour contendor for the leadership

And you see that as a good thing? He was the best candidate, it should scare the crap out of you.

No, as I normally vote Tory. Had Chuka Umunna stood he would have been better still but he did not, so of those who stood he was the best

madasafish said:

JosiasJessop said:

MikeK said:

In 1953 I was almost put on a draft for Korea as part of a medical team direct from the Guards camp of Pirbright. Luckily my immediate CO got me out of it and I went to Trieste instead. Much better.

crossed wires there.

My uncle got trained up in mine clearance in the UK and shipped out to Korea. Three days after he arrived, and before he got moved to a unit, the ceasefire was declared.

He then spent a few months lazing around in the sun before being shipped out again.

My family have been very lucky when it comes to wars. I can only hope there are no more wars to test our luck further.

I am obviously older.

My father spent 3 years in India, Palestine and Burma in WW2 - basically fighting the Japanese in a Sikh regiment. He was injured during all this. Not a subject he ever discussed.. I read the regimental history he had at home: some pretty horrendous stories. One of his brothers was killed as a pilot. My mother lived in London at the time: born in Somerset with 6 brothers/sisters..Stories of the Blitz etc.. Post WW2 was as bad as the war for rationing and REAL Austerity ,, Not the ersatz variety people complain of and post about using their I Phone on Twitter.

If any Chancellor cut consumer spending as Cripps did in post WW2 there would be riots..Not to mention a wage freeze..

Mr Madasafish, you sound like my vintage. My father, a fitter-armourer (or something like that) in the RAF spent the war in UK until VE Day when he was shipped out to be involved in munitions disposal in Denmark. Meanwhile, although of course at the time I didn't know him, my father-in-law spent the last 18 month or so of the War as part of a UXB team working around airfields in East Anglia. His team liked working on US airfields; once they'd rendered the fallen, but unexploded, bomb safe they would be taken to the appropriate mess and fed on steak, eggs, chips etc and ice-cream. As a vegetarian he wasn't interested in the steak (to the relief of the rest of the team) but the eggs, etc were very welcome.

I don't think I had ice-cream until about 1950, by which time I was at Grammar school.

@SkyBet: Mourinho's now 6/1 second fav to be the next Premier League manager to go after a 3-1 defeat: http://t.co/y5VwXgZkQv http://t.co/QVGklnEx3q

Dair said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Dair said:

Speedy said:

Meanwhile in the middle east:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/16-dead-after-charity-hospital-hit-apparent-u-s-airstrike-n438001

"Twelve Doctors Without Borders staff along with seven patients, including three children, were killed after an apparent U.S. airstrike hit the international charity's hospital in the Afghan city of Kunduz."

"Coalition spokesman Col. Brian Tribus confirmed that a U.S. airstrike conducted at around 2:15 a.m. local time on Saturday (5:45 p.m. ET Friday) "may have caused collateral damage to a nearby health facility." The incident was being investigated, he added."


I hope that none of the victims were British doctors, for political reasons at least.

Isn't this a War Crime with absolutely no wiggle room?

Although it seems that "it was the Americans" is acceptable wiggle room regardless of the law.

If it was deliberate. Not if it was a cock up.

The reports indicate that they are not claiming a mistake but justifying it by claiming Taliban were hiding there. As I understand it, unless they were firing from the position, it is illegal to launch an attack on a hospital.

Obama should be due for a date at The Hague**.

** Of course he won't be.

Did Obama personally order an attack on The Hospital, I doubt it, and the Taliban were clearly using the hospital as a shield. One thing Putin has is balls, even if dislikeable, clearly he could not give a toss about leftwing Human Rights Lawyers threats of 'The Hague' if anyone so much as sends one bomb against the likes of the Taliban and ISIS as he knows Russia is the biggest nation on earth by area, with nuclear weapons and an army of 771,000 with 2 million reserves, so all threats are toothless!

Scott_P said:

Alanbrooke said:

good to see you read the foreign press.

I got as far as wingsoverscotland and knew it was a joke

The truth is often funny when exposed. It certainly was here.

After days of the Loyalist press reporting this survey of Police Scotland as being the terrible SNP creating all sorts of moral issues driving police staff out, it turns out all the claims they made were lies.

The reasons they gave (lack of moral, pressure, etc) were tiny fractions of those surveyed. The only two reasons which got into double figures with the 33% who were considering leaving (less than the 56% of a English survey) were : -

20% no longer committed to the job - not much anyone can do about that.

49% changes to pensions. This is something the Scottish Government were willing to stop, were offering to pay the money to retain the previous pension deal. They were over-ruled by Westminster who were the ones who imposed the new pension settlement.

So the real story is that Scottish police staff are more satisfied with their job than those in England. And those who are dissatisfied predominantly feel this way because of changes imposted by Westminster.

richardDodd said:

Roger..and the Ruskies are just attacking anybody.. but that is ok..Cos they aint the YANKS

Bollocks. They simply aren't making a distinction between ISIS and the 'nice' terrorists. Boohoo.

SeanT said:

Bloody hell, we're going to lose, aren't we?

Australia will be fired by the temptation of bundling England out of their own World Cup, in the first round, thus inflicting the greatest possible humilation on the Poms.

England - 18; Australia - 24

Yup, I've bet accordingly.

I fully expect to be crying like a disgraced televangelist tonight.

Japan and/or Scotland will be in this world cup longer than us.

The shame. THE SHAME

Scotland and/or Japan ferfuxsake

i can't watch.

English rugby = me as a child when Dr Who was on.

SeanT said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

Bloody hell, we're going to lose, aren't we?

Australia will be fired by the temptation of bundling England out of their own World Cup, in the first round, thus inflicting the greatest possible humilation on the Poms.

England - 18; Australia - 24

Oh ye of little faith, we did beat Australia last November. If we lose, we lose but England certainly have a chance

Of course we have a chance, but I reckon the Aussie lust to embarrass us (added to the mental deflation of the Welsh defeat, not something you get over easily) will see us out of the Cup in round 1.

If and when that happens, Lancaster and Robshaw have to quit immediately. It will be an intolerable failure, but a fitting capstone to four years of failure with them at the helm.

When have Aussies EVER not lusted after embarrassing the Poms? We shall deal with failure when it comes (although as I have bets on France and Wales to win the Cup I am not too concerned if they do lose)

SeanT said:

Bloody hell, we're going to lose, aren't we?

Australia will be fired by the temptation of bundling England out of their own World Cup, in the first round, thus inflicting the greatest possible humilation on the Poms.

England - 18; Australia - 24

It's a distinct possibility, but hopefully they won't just capitulate like Scotland did earlier.

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

richardDodd said:

Just when Labour need him.. Denis Healey dies..

Well he was 98, you cannot blame him, when Labour really needed him was 1980. John McDonnell praising him on BBC News now for staying loyal to Labour when other moderates defected to the SDP and for his service in WW2, humour and hinterland

That is true.
Dennis Healey remained to remind everyone of the Callaghan government, both ups and downs.
If he was elected leader in 1980 Labour would had split between it's establishment and it's base though. Labour was ripe for a major split over the economy since Healey's IMF situation, Foot was the only candidate that could and did limit the inevitable split as he kept the left wing base and stood up to Benn, while losing only a few from it's right.

Healey never had the credentials to stand up to the far-left.

Had Healey been leader though there would have been no SDP and the 1983 election much closer

With the likely consequence being Tony Benn elected leader in 1983.

No, as Healey would have made the 1983 election far closer and may even have got a hung parliament and stayed as leader

Highly unlikely that Healey would have got anywhere near a hung parliament, partly because of the positive support for Thatcher's Conservatives - Falklands, economy coming right etc. - but also because even though Healey would have been a better leader than Foot, Labour would have been even more ungovernable. There was a reason why Labour went for Foot. And the SDP may still have split due to the party rule changes which would in all probability have come in all the same.

Had Benn been in parliament after the 1983 election, he'd almost certainly have stood for the leadership, whether or not there was a vacancy. It would have been close - as the deputy leadership election was close - but going down to a Healey-led defeat might well have tipped the balance.

Enough of this though: I have a rugby match to watch.

Actually in 1983 there was a swing away from the conservatives, but to a split opposition. If the gang of 4 had stayed in a Healeyite Labour party then Labour gaining seats would have been a definite possibility.

HYUFD said:

Dair said:

HYUFD said:

Did Obama personally order an attack on The Hospital, I doubt it, and the Taliban were clearly using the hospital as a shield.

AIUI, unless they are using it as a position from which they are engaging in combat, it is always a War Crime to bomb a hospital. No ifs, no buts, no "but bad people are in there". You still can't do it.

It would be up to the prosecutor to decide who to pursue, Obama is Commander in Chief so is part of the chain of command.

If the Taliban were using that hospital as a base to hide their troops hardly surprising bombing targeting the Taliban hit it, even if unintentionally. War is war, and the Taliban and ISIS will fight dirtier, tough, the US is the most powerful military in the World, if Obama has any balls he should tell any War Crimes Tribunal to sod off!

Of COURSE they were using the hospital for a shelter - so have all the 'rebels' in Syria, but has that stopped us ignoring that that fact and using it to feed the narrative of Assad 'slaughtering his own people'? No.

In other news, Russia are claiming ISIS are on the ropes -

'One question that’s been asked repeatedly over the past thirteen months is why Washington has been unable to achieve the Pentagon’s stated goal of “degrading and defeating” ISIS despite the fact that the “battle” pits the most advanced air force on the planet against what amounts to a ragtag band of militants running around the desert in basketball shoes.'
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-03/russia-claims-isis-now-ropes-fighters-desert-after-60-airstrikes-72-hours

If Russia (and China who've now joined them) do manage to defeat ISIS in a matter of a few months, what exactly have the Americans been doing?

TheScreamingEagles said:

By the way, Manchester is heaving with the most annoying people on the planet, today and tomorrow.

Bloody One Directions fans everywhere, someone thought it was a good idea to schedule two One Direction Concerts at the same time as the Tory conference.

I'd have thought there would be a decent overlap of people wanting to attend both.

JosiasJessop said:

HYUFD said:

Dair said:

HYUFD said:

Did Obama personally order an attack on The Hospital, I doubt it, and the Taliban were clearly using the hospital as a shield.

AIUI, unless they are using it as a position from which they are engaging in combat, it is always a War Crime to bomb a hospital. No ifs, no buts, no "but bad people are in there". You still can't do it.

It would be up to the prosecutor to decide who to pursue, Obama is Commander in Chief so is part of the chain of command.

If the Taliban were using that hospital as a base to hide their troops hardly surprising bombing targeting the Taliban hit it, even if unintentionally. War is war, and the Taliban and ISIS will fight dirtier, tough, the US is the most powerful military in the World, if Obama has any balls he should tell any War Crimes Tribunal to sod off!

A quick Google produces this, which might be of interest:
https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule28
and
https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule97

If reports are to be believed and the Taliban were using proximity to a hospital to provide cover, then it looks as though they committed a war crime according to rule 97. The attacking US forces may have broken rule 28 as well.

But IANAL.

Indeed, but who is going to realistically prosecute the Taliban?

SeanT said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

Bloody hell, we're going to lose, aren't we?

Australia will be fired by the temptation of bundling England out of their own World Cup, in the first round, thus inflicting the greatest possible humilation on the Poms.

England - 18; Australia - 24

Oh ye of little faith, we did beat Australia last November. If we lose, we lose but England certainly have a chance

Of course we have a chance, but I reckon the Aussie lust to embarrass us (added to the mental deflation of the Welsh defeat, not something you get over easily) will see us out of the Cup in round 1.

If and when that happens, Lancaster and Robshaw have to quit immediately. It will be an intolerable failure, but a fitting capstone to four years of failure with them at the helm.

When have Aussies EVER not lusted after embarrassing the Poms? We shall deal with failure when it comes (although as I have bets on France and Wales to win the Cup I am not too concerned if they do lose)

But this is an unusually delicious opportunity to embarrass us. Our own six-week-long festival of rugby World Cup, held in England, and they can humiliate us by making sure we depart in week 2? Like booting the hated host out of his own party immediately after the first cocktail.

We shall see, but England were in the Group of Death, and technically Wales are also hosting some of the matches

Dair said:

Australia look determined, the faces of the England players are... not so encouraging for their fans.

England are even all over the place on the run out from the tunnel.

Lol for goodness sake Dair let them actually get in the pitch before the Scottish criticism starts.

Mind you comment regarding England's demure agreed with we were just saying the same thing here.

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Dair said:

HYUFD said:

Did Obama personally order an attack on The Hospital, I doubt it, and the Taliban were clearly using the hospital as a shield.

AIUI, unless they are using it as a position from which they are engaging in combat, it is always a War Crime to bomb a hospital. No ifs, no buts, no "but bad people are in there". You still can't do it.

It would be up to the prosecutor to decide who to pursue, Obama is Commander in Chief so is part of the chain of command.

If the Taliban were using that hospital as a base to hide their troops hardly surprising bombing targeting the Taliban hit it, even if unintentionally. War is war, and the Taliban and ISIS will fight dirtier, tough, the US is the most powerful military in the World, if Obama has any balls he should tell any War Crimes Tribunal to sod off!

(snip)
In other news, Russia are claiming ISIS are on the ropes -

'One question that’s been asked repeatedly over the past thirteen months is why Washington has been unable to achieve the Pentagon’s stated goal of “degrading and defeating” ISIS despite the fact that the “battle” pits the most advanced air force on the planet against what amounts to a ragtag band of militants running around the desert in basketball shoes.'
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-03/russia-claims-isis-now-ropes-fighters-desert-after-60-airstrikes-72-hours

If Russia (and China who've now joined them) do manage to defeat ISIS in a matter of a few months, what exactly have the Americans been doing?

It will be interesting to see if those claims are true and, if they are, how much effect a few Russian air raids have had.

Unless you are claiming that the US/French/UK attacks have had no effect on IS?

Not enough effect to stop them having their ridiculous black flag waving Honda convoys across miles of open desert, no. Not enough to stop them growing and conquering more territory. Not cutting off any of their supply lines.

It's a scandal that we've wasted precious resources on what appears to have been a fig leaf.

SeanT said:

Australia look significantly superior.

England are understandably nervous.

Australia will win this fairly easily.

Remind me, what was your considered opinion on the number of medals GB would win at the London Olympics?

Luckyguy1983 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Dair said:

HYUFD said:

Did Obama personally order an attack on The Hospital, I doubt it, and the Taliban were clearly using the hospital as a shield.

AIUI, unless they are using it as a position from which they are engaging in combat, it is always a War Crime to bomb a hospital. No ifs, no buts, no "but bad people are in there". You still can't do it.

It would be up to the prosecutor to decide who to pursue, Obama is Commander in Chief so is part of the chain of command.

If the Taliban were using that hospital as a base to hide their troops hardly surprising bombing targeting the Taliban hit it, even if unintentionally. War is war, and the Taliban and ISIS will fight dirtier, tough, the US is the most powerful military in the World, if Obama has any balls he should tell any War Crimes Tribunal to sod off!

(snip)
In other news, Russia are claiming ISIS are on the ropes -

'One question that’s been asked repeatedly over the past thirteen months is why Washington has been unable to achieve the Pentagon’s stated goal of “degrading and defeating” ISIS despite the fact that the “battle” pits the most advanced air force on the planet against what amounts to a ragtag band of militants running around the desert in basketball shoes.'
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-03/russia-claims-isis-now-ropes-fighters-desert-after-60-airstrikes-72-hours

If Russia (and China who've now joined them) do manage to defeat ISIS in a matter of a few months, what exactly have the Americans been doing?

It will be interesting to see if those claims are true and, if they are, how much effect a few Russian air raids have had.

Unless you are claiming that the US/French/UK attacks have had no effect on IS?

Not enough effect to stop them having their ridiculous black flag waving Honda convoys across miles of open desert, no. Not enough to stop them growing and conquering more territory. Not cutting off any of their supply lines.

It's a scandal that we've wasted precious resources on what appears to have been a fig leaf.

You're rather keen to assume that Russia's claims are true. Let's wait and see.

I'd also like to see evidence for "Not cutting off any of their supply lines." And please, this time, no links to a news organisation whose owner is best buds with Assad.

On another point, you're telling the US off for action in Afghanistan, yet criticising them for being too hesitant in Syria. Perhaps (rightly(( trying to follow the rules of law is the cause of some of the hesitancy, especially when people back home are keen to blame them for everything?

HYUFD said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Dair said:

HYUFD said:

Did Obama personally order an attack on The Hospital, I doubt it, and the Taliban were clearly using the hospital as a shield.

AIUI, unless they are using it as a position from which they are engaging in combat, it is always a War Crime to bomb a hospital. No ifs, no buts, no "but bad people are in there". You still can't do it.

It would be up to the prosecutor to decide who to pursue, Obama is Commander in Chief so is part of the chain of command.

If the Taliban were using that hospital as a base to hide their troops hardly surprising bombing targeting the Taliban hit it, even if unintentionally. War is war, and the Taliban and ISIS will fight dirtier, tough, the US is the most powerful military in the World, if Obama has any balls he should tell any War Crimes Tribunal to sod off!

Of COURSE they were using the hospital for a shelter - so have all the 'rebels' in Syria, but has that stopped us ignoring that that fact and using it to feed the narrative of Assad 'slaughtering his own people'? No.

In other news, Russia are claiming ISIS are on the ropes -

'One question that’s been asked repeatedly over the past thirteen months is why Washington has been unable to achieve the Pentagon’s stated goal of “degrading and defeating” ISIS despite the fact that the “battle” pits the most advanced air force on the planet against what amounts to a ragtag band of militants running around the desert in basketball shoes.'
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-03/russia-claims-isis-now-ropes-fighters-desert-after-60-airstrikes-72-hours

If Russia (and China who've now joined them) do manage to defeat ISIS in a matter of a few months, what exactly have the Americans been doing?

They clearly had some effect eg around Kobane but Russia and China have no qualms about human rights laws

Which is why they can be viewed as the bad guys.

That;s quite an important part of things.

Right kindle away till half time

There you go..useless defence..

SeanT said:

Told you.

Australia far too strong. They might win this at a canter.

This is modestly disastrous for the World Cup, inter alia - crowds and TV will lose interest. It will become a Southern Hemisphere Rugby Championship inexplicably held in the UK and interfering with the Premier League and Euro soccer.

Cobblers.

This is Ireland's moment. Or possibly, if there’s any justice from the gods, Wales'!

Talking of long term tips at big prices, I was half way through writing up some each way prem top scorer bets on here this morning then had to go out... Unfortunately I had them!

Vardy was one as was Pelle... Both scored, but they'll be bigger now!

HYUFD said:

Dair said:

HYUFD said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Dair said:

HYUFD said:

Did Obama personally order an attack on The Hospital, I doubt it, and the Taliban were clearly using the hospital as a shield.

AIUI, unless they are using it as a position from which they are engaging in combat, it is always a War Crime to bomb a hospital. No ifs, no buts, no "but bad people are in there". You still can't do it.

It would be up to the prosecutor to decide who to pursue, Obama is Commander in Chief so is part of the chain of command.

If the Taliban were using that hospital as a base to hide their troops hardly surprising bombing targeting the Taliban hit it, even if unintentionally. War is war, and the Taliban and ISIS will fight dirtier, tough, the US is the most powerful military in the World, if Obama has any balls he should tell any War Crimes Tribunal to sod off!

Of COURSE they were using the hospital for a shelter - so have all the 'rebels' in Syria, but has that stopped us ignoring that that fact and using it to feed the narrative of Assad 'slaughtering his own people'? No.

In other news, Russia are claiming ISIS are on the ropes -

'One question that’s been asked repeatedly over the past thirteen months is why Washington has been unable to achieve the Pentagon’s stated goal of “degrading and defeating” ISIS despite the fact that the “battle” pits the most advanced air force on the planet against what amounts to a ragtag band of militants running around the desert in basketball shoes.'
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-03/russia-claims-isis-now-ropes-fighters-desert-after-60-airstrikes-72-hours

If Russia (and China who've now joined them) do manage to defeat ISIS in a matter of a few months, what exactly have the Americans been doing?

They clearly had some effect eg around Kobane but Russia and China have no qualms about human rights laws

Which is why they can be viewed as the bad guys.

That;s quite an important part of things.

Yes, well in war the bad guys often win

I think the most serious guys win.

Dair said:

Interesting note from one of the Scottish by elections on Thursday. One of the three Liberals that actually stood was Lib Dem Voice editor and champion of #libdemfightback Caron Lindsay.

Spectacular result she achieved a 2.8pt increase in the Lib Dem vote. But only because they couldn't scrape together a candidate last time.

Linlithgow by-election result (1st October) :

SNP 43.1% (+1.4%)
Labour 22.9% (+2.6%)
Conservatives 20.5% (-12.7%)
Greens 5.9% (n/a)
Independent 4.8% (n/a)
Liberal Democrats 2.8% (n/a)

Outside the Highlands and Islands, finishing behind an Independent for a "mainstream" party is more than embarrassing. It's a pretty cast iron guarantee your party is extinct.

Hyperbole. Mainstream parties often get very low percentages in by elections and not just local ones. Here's Labour on 2% in a Westminster by-election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newbury_by-election,_1993

SeanT said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

Told you.

Australia far too strong. They might win this at a canter.

This is modestly disastrous for the World Cup, inter alia - crowds and TV will lose interest. It will become a Southern Hemisphere Rugby Championship inexplicably held in the UK and interfering with the Premier League and Euro soccer.

Really? France, Wales, Ireland and Scotland will still go through and at least one will get to the semis. Of course England won their only World Cup in Australia. Anyway, still 53 minutes to go

But the ENGLISH will lose interest. And given that this World Cup is being held almost entirely in England, it's not great for the sport. Or the tournament.

The great tournaments nearly always have the host nation doing well into latter rounds. Creates a buzz. Can't think of an exception? Also true for Olympics.

So what? The French did not get to the final in 2007, nor the Welsh in 2003 and their crowds still turned out, England's should do the same. In the soccer 2014 was still a great world cup even though Brazil also failed to make the final, Italia 90 perhaps the greatest of them all without the Italians there either. The Welsh are also hosting some of the matches anyway this year. Aussies score again so we shall see

SeanT said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

Told you.

Australia far too strong. They might win this at a canter.

This is modestly disastrous for the World Cup, inter alia - crowds and TV will lose interest. It will become a Southern Hemisphere Rugby Championship inexplicably held in the UK and interfering with the Premier League and Euro soccer.

Really? France, Wales, Ireland and Scotland will still go through and at least one will get to the semis. Of course England won their only World Cup in Australia. Anyway, still 53 minutes to go

But the ENGLISH will lose interest. And given that this World Cup is being held almost entirely in England, it's not great for the sport. Or the tournament.

The great tournaments nearly always have the host nation doing well into latter rounds. Creates a buzz. Can't think of an exception? Also true for Olympics.

Traitors Gate being oiled up to receive Lancaster?

logical_song said:

Dair said:

Interesting note from one of the Scottish by elections on Thursday. One of the three Liberals that actually stood was Lib Dem Voice editor and champion of #libdemfightback Caron Lindsay.

Spectacular result she achieved a 2.8pt increase in the Lib Dem vote. But only because they couldn't scrape together a candidate last time.

Linlithgow by-election result (1st October) :

SNP 43.1% (+1.4%)
Labour 22.9% (+2.6%)
Conservatives 20.5% (-12.7%)
Greens 5.9% (n/a)
Independent 4.8% (n/a)
Liberal Democrats 2.8% (n/a)

Outside the Highlands and Islands, finishing behind an Independent for a "mainstream" party is more than embarrassing. It's a pretty cast iron guarantee your party is extinct.

Hyperbole. Mainstream parties often get very low percentages in by elections and not just local ones. Here's Labour on 2% in a Westminster by-election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newbury_by-election,_1993

Newbury was traditional Liberal territory from the 70's till Clegg, Labour has no presence there since the Liberal revival.

JosiasJessop said:

You're rather keen to assume that Russia's claims are true. Let's wait and see.

I'd also like to see evidence for "Not cutting off any of their supply lines." And please, this time, no links to a news organisation whose owner is best buds with Assad.

On another point, you're telling the US off for action in Afghanistan, yet criticising them for being too hesitant in Syria. Perhaps (rightly(( trying to follow the rules of law is the cause of some of the hesitancy, especially when people back home are keen to blame them for everything?

Where have I told the US off for action in Afghanistan? I'm telling our supine media and political class off for parading manipulative images of suffering in Syria to build a case against Assad, but excusing (quite reasonably) US collateral damage. Do you think the Syrian 'rebels' haven't twigged that they can shelter in schools hospitals and mosques?

Theuniondivvie said:

saddened said:

SeanT said:

Bloody hell, we're going to lose, aren't we?

Australia will be fired by the temptation of bundling England out of their own World Cup, in the first round, thus inflicting the greatest possible humilation on the Poms.

England - 18; Australia - 24

It's a distinct possibility, but hopefully they won't just capitulate like Scotland did earlier.

Let's hope not, eh?

Let's hope not. I've supported Scotland in the rugby since I was a boy, but they capitulated today. There are rumours of a cunning plan, we can but hope.

SeanT said:

Anyway fuck it, back to the SOCCER. I hear Mourinho is in trouble.

Hi seven minute monologue this evening was priceless. I'm convinced something has gone on at the club - I reckon some of the players are upset at the loss of Eva Carneiro.

tlg86 said:

SeanT said:

Anyway fuck it, back to the SOCCER. I hear Mourinho is in trouble.

Hi seven minute monologue this evening was priceless. I'm convinced something has gone on at the club - I reckon some of the players are upset at the loss of Eva Carneiro.

Me too. Players want a manager that believes them when injured, not one that wants them ignored. Jose has lost the dressing room.

SeanT said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

Told you.

Australia far too strong. They might win this at a canter.

This is modestly disastrous for the World Cup, inter alia - crowds and TV will lose interest. It will become a Southern Hemisphere Rugby Championship inexplicably held in the UK and interfering with the Premier League and Euro soccer.

Really? France, Wales, Ireland and Scotland will still go through and at least one will get to the semis. Of course England won their only World Cup in Australia. Anyway, still 53 minutes to go

But the ENGLISH will lose interest. And given that this World Cup is being held almost entirely in England, it's not great for the sport. Or the tournament.

The great tournaments nearly always have the host nation doing well into latter rounds. Creates a buzz. Can't think of an exception? Also true for Olympics.

So what? The French did not get to the final in 2007, nor the Welsh in 2003 and their crowds still turned out, England's should do the same. In the soccer 2014 was still a great world cup even though Brazil also failed to make the final, Italia 90 perhaps the greatest of them all without the Italians there either. The Welsh are also hosting some of the matches anyway this year. Aussies score again so we shall see

Rugby is much weaker than soccer, and - besides - in all those tournaments the hosts at least made it to the semis or whatever. A host team being bundled out in round 1, as I predicted - hah! - is unheard of in Rugby.

The UK papers will take revenge on Lancaster and Robshaw and then they will turn to the "proper" footie. Rugby will go off the front page. TV audiences will slowly dwindle.

The Cup will now lose its sparkle in the hosting nation. Not good.

Anyway fuck it, back to the SOCCER. I hear Mourinho is in trouble.

England did win their one world cup overseas, in Australia, and got to the Final in 1991 in the last world cup on home soil, in this match they lost the match with the co-hosts, Wales which meant they failed to qualify. There are plenty of Aussies, Kiwis, Springbocks, French, Japanese etc in Britain who will still go to the matches as will most of the Brits who already have tickets, I really don't think this makes that much difference other than being another case where England hosts the world and fails to perform itself

TheScreamingEagles said:

Well I'm turning Japanese and Irish for the rest of the tournament,

Argies looking good too!

Luckyguy1983 said:

JosiasJessop said:

You're rather keen to assume that Russia's claims are true. Let's wait and see.

I'd also like to see evidence for "Not cutting off any of their supply lines." And please, this time, no links to a news organisation whose owner is best buds with Assad.

On another point, you're telling the US off for action in Afghanistan, yet criticising them for being too hesitant in Syria. Perhaps (rightly(( trying to follow the rules of law is the cause of some of the hesitancy, especially when people back home are keen to blame them for everything?

Where have I told the US off for action in Afghanistan? I'm telling our supine media and political class off for parading manipulative images of suffering in Syria to build a case against Assad, but excusing (quite reasonably) US collateral damage. Do you think the Syrian 'rebels' haven't twigged that they can shelter in schools hospitals and mosques?

You seemed to be moaning about it below.

The case against Assad is strong. It;s just that you don't believe the copious evidence, yet are strangely very keen to jump on Russia's utterly unverified claim about ISIS's weakness.

Since you're not even willing to believe that Assad gassed his own citizens back in 2013, there seems little that you would be willing to blame Assad for. And given your previous comments on the Ukraine, the same seems to be true for Russia and Putin.

SeanT said:

Imagine the last England group match, against Andorra or Tahiti or whoever it is. So utterly embarrassing. It will just be a chorus of boos and derision from the crowd, with no interest whatsoever in the result. What player would WANT to play that match? Why risk your cullions for an exercise in the excruciating?

Risible.

England’s last game is againts Argentina’s neighbours Uruguay.

Read into that what you will.

Dair said:

Speedy said:

SeanT said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

Told you.

Australia far too strong. They might win this at a canter.

This is modestly disastrous for the World Cup, inter alia - crowds and TV will lose interest. It will become a Southern Hemisphere Rugby Championship inexplicably held in the UK and interfering with the Premier League and Euro soccer.

Really? France, Wales, Ireland and Scotland will still go through and at least one will get to the semis. Of course England won their only World Cup in Australia. Anyway, still 53 minutes to go

But the ENGLISH will lose interest. And given that this World Cup is being held almost entirely in England, it's not great for the sport. Or the tournament.

The great tournaments nearly always have the host nation doing well into latter rounds. Creates a buzz. Can't think of an exception? Also true for Olympics.

Good, that means Rugby matches are not fixed to the same scale as Football.
S.Korea and Japan in 2002, Germany in 2006, S.Africa in 2010 and Brazil in 2014 are examples of teams being pushed forward by FIFA.
None of that shady business in Rugby.

South Africa went out in the group stages in 2010. Japan went out in the Last 16 in 2002. Germany and Brazil reaching the late stages were not surprises.

I suspect Speedy is referring to South Korea in 2002 - it was very suspicious. I can't remember much about Germany's progress in 2006, but some of the refereeing in Brazil last year was suspicious.

foxinsoxuk said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Well I'm turning Japanese and Irish for the rest of the tournament,

Argies looking good too!

Narrow little Nationalist that I am, I just couldn't support Argentina.

More chance of me supporting France

Merkel now facing a party revolt as leading members say asylum policy must be stopped,

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/fluechtlingskrise/fluechtlingskrise-seehofer-fordert-signal-fuer-aufnahmestopp-von-merkel-13837053.html

Looks like Ashcroft and Oakeshott are serialising their book in the Sunday Times now.

The big revelation

The toxic ‘E word’ has long plagued David Cameron. Now the incendiary biography of the PM by Michael Ashcroft and Isabel Oakeshott reveals that for all his Eurosceptic posturing he has privately declared he would not quit the EU

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1615183.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2015_10_03

SeanT said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

Told you.

Australia far too strong. They might win this at a canter.

This is modestly disastrous for the World Cup, inter alia - crowds and TV will lose interest. It will become a Southern Hemisphere Rugby Championship inexplicably held in the UK and interfering with the Premier League and Euro soccer.

Really? France, Wales, Ireland and Scotland will still go through and at least one will get to the semis. Of course England won their only World Cup in Australia. Anyway, still 53 minutes to go

But the ENGLISH will lose interest. And given that this World Cup is being held almost entirely in England, it's not great for the sport. Or the tournament.

The great tournaments nearly always have the host nation doing well into latter rounds. Creates a buzz. Can't think of an exception? Also true for Olympics.

so we shall see

Rugby

England did win their one world cup overseas, in Australia, and got to the Final in 1991 in the last world cup on home soil, in this match they lost the match with the co-hosts, Wales which meant they failed to qualify. There are plenty of Aussies, Kiwis, Springbocks, French, Japanese etc in Britain who will still go to the matches as will most of the Brits who already have tickets, I really don't think this makes that much difference other than being another case where England hosts the world and fails to perform itself

No, you definitely need a buzz in a tournament, and that can only come from the host nation feeling good about itself, as it progresses, allied with great organisation, lots of fans, &c.

I've no doubt the rest of the tournament will go off well, but there will be no buzz. TV audiences will nosedive. Remember England are the biggest tier 1 rugby nation by money and population.

I bet ITV lose money on it, for a start. And they paid SQULLIONS.

See here:

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2015-09-16/itv-can-convert-huge-tv-audiences-with-the-rugby-world-cup


"If England can get that far, things will look very rosy for ITV, and audiences of 10 to 15 million will be possible."

Oops.

My heart bleeds for ITV, all that revenue lost when they could have had X Factor or Midsommer Murders reruns instead, a tragedy beyond comprehension!

TGOHF said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Looks like Ashcroft and Oakeshott are serialising their book in the Sunday Times now.

The big revelation

The toxic ‘E word’ has long plagued David Cameron. Now the incendiary biography of the PM by Michael Ashcroft and Isabel Oakeshott reveals that for all his Eurosceptic posturing he has privately declared he would not quit the EU

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1615183.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2015_10_03

I guess the co- authors are going out guns blazing - more evidence lite stuff coming..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3258485/Samantha-Cameron-left-furious-untrue-smear-against-marriage-husband-David-Lord-Ashcroft-s-bombshell-biography-PM.html

It’s in the Mail, it must be true!

SeanT said:

Cookie said:

SeanT said:

Imagine the last England group match, against Andorra or Tahiti or whoever it is. So utterly embarrassing. It will just be a chorus of boos and derision from the crowd, with no interest whatsoever in the result. What player would WANT to play that match? Why risk your cullions for an exercise in the excruciating?

Risible.

But why would there be boos? This isn't a good performance, but nor is it a desperately poor one. There is no lack of effort, nor of adventure. And there is no shame in losing to better teams. I'm disappointed, but can't be angry about it.

No it's piss poor. The richest biggest rugby nation PLAYING AT HOME should get out of Round 1. It's embarrassingly bad. I predict boos, or at least golf claps, when we take on the rugby might of Belize.

Rugby fans are not footy fans. They will turnout for good rugby whoever wins.

My stake on Australia -12.5 is looking good!