canarydan23

xG is irrelevant for England games until they include a Maguire factor in their algorithm. We did not deserve to win when Southgate picked him.

An interesting conference speech from Starmer (in terms of content, he'll never be a particularly appealing orator on account of his annoying, slightly nasally voice). Headline will be Great British Energy, a state-owned energy generation company. Whether it will go as far as becoming a household energy provider or focus only on generation I'm not sure, but it's an eminently sensible idea that has only been ignored for so long because of the strength of the energy lobby. Despite it being an obvious policy, I didn't expect Starmer would have the backbone for it.

We agree on something.

I'm an economic socialist, I'll give you that, but there's the odd issue that I find myself aligning with the right. Conversely, I think you overestimate Starmer. Boris Johnson was dreadful, but it wasn't until we were deep into Partygate that the polls started to give him even a slender lead. He just doesn't resonate with the electorate at all. All he is currently doing is profiting from exceptional Tory incompetence; if you're presented with a choice of being force-fed 10 litres of animal excrement or 1 litre of animal excrement, you take the litre. It doesn't mean that cow dung becomes a gourmet meal.

If Starmer gets in with a majority, PR will be temporarily dead and buried. There is zero chance, however much progressively-minded people, push for it, that a sitting Labour PM will ever, ever implement PR. He's a politician, hungry for power and will absolutely not undermine the system that delivered him that power. There is little I admire about the US electoral system, but the two-term presidential limit has merits for this very reason. Whereas a UK PM will never be that turkey voting for Christmas, a second term US President ceases to be a turkey so can vote for all the Christmas's they want. There are only two viable routes for PR; 1) An opposition Labour party shows a little bit of courage and a little less self-interest (two things we emphatically will not get under Starmer) and nails their colours to the PR mast 2) A Labour-led coalition with electoral reform as the price for Lib Dem support (as then, Starmer's self-interest is aligned with PR) Remember the 1997 Manifesto? It would have made a fantastic blue-print for a better country, and indeed was evidently a massive vote-winner given the landslide it delivered. That included a pledge for a referendum on electoral reform. Sadly, the deceitful, faux-progessive who fronted the manifesto decided to turn it into toilet paper as soon as he crossed the threshold of 10 Downing Street. Again, the manifesto was useful for Blair's self-interest and once it became a hindrance to it, it was abandoned. But my point is, if a Labour Party that gets elected on a manifesto that broadly in support of electoral reform doesn't change a damn thing, then what hope is there for one that categorically states they are against it? Hoping Labour get in power and then pushing for PR once they're in is a complete and total exercise in futility.

I think this is what terrifies people like SKS. Millions of people vote Labour because they are the best of the worst. Some people even become members on that basis; they're not massive fans of the party's approach but stomach it because the alternative is much worse. They (Starmer, Blair, possibly even Corbyn who shamefully ignored electoral reform) know this. We'll never be short of two things; self-interested rich people and idiots. Therefore there will always be a solid base of people that vote Tory whether in PR or FPTP. Labour, however, have a more informed demographic of voters and in PR they would abandon them in their droves for parties more aligned to their viewpoint. I voted Labour under Blair and will almost certainly vote for them under Starmer but I despise the pair of them; pro-establishment shills more interested in preserving a status-quo that has served them both very well thank you very much rather than actually instigating the reform our anarchic systems that routinely dumps on the majority desperately need. If they wanted my vote under PR, they'd need to come up with proper policies that will make lasting and meaningful change, rather than just shifting one gear down from what the current Tories are doing. Corbyn had the policies, but a leader of the opposition needs to act like they're more than a sixth-form activist to earn the trust of the nation in order to enact the policies we needed. Yes, there's a lot of talk now about how there is clear daylight between the Tories and Labour, but that's got f-all to do with Starmer's radicalism and everything to do with the fact that two actual idiots in Truss and Kwarteng have gone in a direction that even a Blair-idolising Knight of the Realm won't follow.

You've typed this in a country with Liz Truss as PM and Kwasi Kwarteng as Chancellor. It wasn't PR that delivered us those lunatics.

Letters already going to the 1922 Committee. That's what happens when you let a demonstrable idiot run the country. I'm staggered they managed to actually get someone worse than Boris. It would be impressive if the consequences to millions of people weren't so dire.

Do you also find it cute that a report from the Home Affairs Committee also think there was a link between the Rwanda announcement and the increase in the number of migrants? I mean, it's a committee with a majority Conservative membership. What the heck do they know?

Yeah, the owner, that Ecotricity guy, went on the airwaves saying how disappointed he was at Edwards and how the trust and faith he'd shown in him had been ignored. I doubt he'd be welcome back there in a hurry.

Only one point outside the playoffs on actual points. But way off on expected points. And that's what matters.

I'd have him over Starmer every day of every week of every month of every year. And I'm not even that massive a fan of him.

But...but....but...they're in the EU? Brexiteers told us such a policy was impossible! They weren't lying, were they?!

Yep, FTSE 100 below 7,000. That generally only happens due to big global events or lockdowns. This time, we can only blame rank Tory incompetence.

Why didn't he start?