Martin O Neil

[Not Nigel 0]

"and the labour shadow cabinet doesn''t have David Milliband in it"

I''m not quite sure that I said it did (making things up?)

[chicken 0]

Oh god - he mentioned THE WAR!

Everyone, stay well clear, we''ll have to get a clean up team in here soon. It is about to get very messy.

More seriously I would not judge someone, without knowing their reasons, for being in a position that requires them to make an important decision.

As for the parties - yeah I would agree both are about as bad as each other, the problem really is that both have been too extreme resulting in a huge swing from one spectrum to the other from the late ''80''s/early ''90''s to the early naughty''s.

The best (simplest) way to look at it is that when Blair and labour took control of the country they had an established target, to turn it''s fortunes around. They did that, but once they had they got greedy, they wanted more.

Much like Leeds at the same time in fact. And overstretched the country. In come the Tories and sadly, they are incredibly good at administrating, selling all of the countries good assets from under our feet, calling them cuts and wringing their hands.

The reality is they are cutting public services, forcing the local authorities to source privately which in turn actually costs more money, holds less accountability and effectively devalues services that were once considered amongst the best in the world.

Right now we have that sorted.

Martin O''Neill - needs more time, like Hughton really. The team is in transition and requires building. Johnson and Fletcher are quality and I''d have them here in a flash. Both are currently 25 and just about entering their prime.

Sunderland have a relatively young side, much like Villa with a lot of their players being 25 or younger.

[Nuff Said 5,092]

[quote user="singupcarrowroad"]"and the labour shadow cabinet doesn''t have David Milliband in it"

I''m not quite sure that I said it did (making things up?)[/quote]

But you did say "They would need to save money somewhere though, perhaps Ed Miliband''s £125k per 15 days would suddenly look like a gross waste of money. "

Trying to smear Ed Miliband or another innocent mistake?

Although I don''t agree with your views on much of this, I''m curious who you would suggest as a credible alternative to run the country? I''d rather have David Miliband than no-one, although personally I think, if you can get over the ''presentation issues'', his brother is a far better choice.

And yes, completely OT.

[Not Nigel 0]

"In come the Tories and sadly, they are incredibly good at administrating, selling all of the countries good assets from under our feet, calling them cuts and wringing their hands"

That is true, but what is also true is that the current NHS forms (the thing that the Tory''s are privatising this time around, was initially a Labour proposal. They wanted to do exactly the same thing, Blair wanted to do that. Brown didn''t, in fairness, but Blair wanted "competition" in the NHS, he was a free marketeer at heart - just like the Conservatives.

He never had the bottle to introduce a decent minimum wage. It was a good start, but he knew that he wouldn''t leave a real legacy there by introducing a living wage, instead he spent money on war because he was a sociopath who wanted a war legacy, peace time PM''s don''t very often get remembered in hundreds of years time. Thatcher will be the exception.

[Nuff Said 5,092]

Chicken, I would argue the opposite - the Tories and Labour are far too close to each other, both making a grab for the ''centre'' ground. That''s why there''s room for a policy free rabble rouser like Farrage.

[Nuff Said 5,092]

Er, Thatcher a ''peacetime'' PM????

I think everyone would agree there was a war in the Falklands during her reign. Some of us would add the miners, the NHS and the poor in general to that list.

[chicken 0]

Whether he wanted war for right or wrong reasons does not mean others wanted it for the same.

When people get on their high horses going on about the moral rights and wrongs they often only consider our perspective.

Having known several people who have volunteered their time to go out to some of the regions (Iraq, Afghanistan etc) as medical support etc I get the impression that there are large parts of the population that are happy ''tyrants'' are gone. In the case of Iraq there is a lot of evidence, even from before the war, of ethnic cleansing of different people''s like the Kurds.

I always try to take a balanced view. Their reasons may be wrong, but the act may be right - but surely one can only be judged by the outcomes?

Like football really. When a player is sold, what really tells is whether the money is re-invested in another player or into the club due to over-spending / mismanaging.

[Not Nigel 0]

"Trying to smear Ed Miliband or another innocent mistake?"

Of course that was an innocent mistake. Although I''d happily attempt to smear Ed Miliband.

"I''m curious who you would suggest as a credible alternative to run the country?"

If I had to choose one of the five candidates in the Labour leadership campaign to serve as credible opposition to Cameron, I''d probably have chosen David Miliband, but that was in 2010. Since losing that leadership campaign he has spent very little time actually turned up to the house of commons and is taking high paid private sector consultancy jobs whilst being paid £65k a year + expenses to be a largely inactive backbencher. That makes me seriously question his integrity and intentions, so if I had to choose from the same five now I''d choose Andy Burnham or Ed Milliband, but lean towards Andy Burnham on the basis that there is at least a slim chance that he would banish Ed Balls to the backbenches. I realise that I have approached your question from a slightly different angle, but that''s because I don''t currently have a strong allegiance to any particular political party. If I had to choose a Labour party backbencher to throw into that mix, I''d probably choose Chris Bryant to join the five, and remove Dianne Abbott from the running (assuming that I can answer retrospectively on the basis that it was those five who stood). I can''t stand Dianne Abbott. I''m impressed with Bryant because he is a straight talker and very hard working.

[Mister Chops 7]

David Miliband twice had the opportunity to oust Gordon Brown in a relatively bloodless coup, and both times he bottled it the way Paul Ince bottled penalty shoot-outs yet still wanted to be known as "the Guv''nor".  He got what he deserved, i.e. shafted by his less capable but more diligent brother.  If only for a credible leader, the Labour party would easily be on their way back into power given the current incumbents make QPR look like a coherent and well run organisation.

[chicken 0]

@Nuff said: To add to the Maggie bit, the breaking of the Unions strength as well.

In regards to the other bit, I did say it was a simplistic view.

And actually what has happened is that to gain power labour moved for the middle, the Tories pretended to, and instead coalition-ed with the middle and then have put their old boots back on.

I can tell you this feels no different to the ''80''s other than there isn''t the big industry to take apart like they did then.

As for the mention of minimum wage - whilst I see it as a good thing it also works against rebuilding.

If you take the example of the USA in the 1920''s and 30''s you''ll see that what they did was to spread what wealth there was as far as they could by starting projects they knew would set them up for a long period of growth and productivity.

They rebuilt cities, built roadways and basic utilities such as damns and factory sites that have served them the best part of a century since. All because they could employ many for little. Although a more extreme case obviously. Mobalising a population can really help.

I always think the ''80''s was a waste. You had all of these chaps, used to working in mines, factories and other hard graft with their hands all made unemployed. We had a failing (and still do) rail network, poor road network and we totally missed the boat - had we have put those people to good use, using the skills they had, we would have at least had something a little more longer lasting out of it.

The minimum wage almost makes that impossible.

Back to Martin O''Neil - I think he is still a good manager but he is out of the good times and high times. Villa were a top half team. He''s left them in a bit of a situation - not entirely of his own making. Lerner doesn''t like to spend too much. Bent was a poor choice of player to spend big on and was a gamble that didn''t pay off.

[Nuff Said 5,092]

You had to bring football into it, didn''t you Chops? Sigh...

[Nuff Said 5,092]

I personally don'' t think David Miliband is that credible, he''s just a presentable Blair Mk2. A lot of what Ed has said has turned out to be shrewd. Sadly because he''s seen as Mr Bean Mk2, he''ll struggle to get any serious content across to the electorate because, let''s face it, it''s more important that our politicians look good and don''t do anything normal people do like get pissed or rack up speeding points, than have serious points to make.

And I would think it sad if O''Neill took Sunderland down, if only because he has positive memories for me with this club, even if it ended badly.

[Not Nigel 0]

"When people get on their high horses going on about the moral rights and wrongs they often only consider our perspective"

Struggling to get what you mean here, but the Iraq war breached a UN charter and so was an illegal war. That makes Tony Blair, and his cronies, war criminals.

It was a war + it was illegal = war crime.

Glad that you can trivialise wars which have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians (indirectly + directly), including many children, by likening it to a football transfer.

[Nuff Said 5,092]

The point I took from it was that there are two sides to every story. Is it better to stand on one side watching people die, or to intervene?

With some relevance to NCFC ATM, how many people remember what Blair/Labour did in Sierra Leone?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/18/sierra-leone-international-aid-blair

(Can''t link it on an iPad, sorry)

[Not Nigel 0]

"To add to the Maggie bit, the breaking of the Unions strength as well"

+

"As for the mention of minimum wage - whilst I see it as a good thing it also works against rebuilding"

You clearly can''t decide whether you are a Tory or Labour, you sit somewhere in confusion world. What do you think Unions are for? They are for keeping the wages of their members high and their working hours down, in simplistic terms, that really is all that they do though. So you criticise Thatcher for weakening the Unions, and then appear to criticise a minimum wage (which in real terms, is actually pretty low right now).

I should add, that I am pro-minimum wage. You seem to appear to be advocating sending people down coal mines for less than minimum wage, you can''t be serious, can you? It is one of the most dangerous jobs that you can have, a fair wage for a coal miner in the North of England or Wales would be 2.5 x minimum wage for a maximum 48 hour week (4 x 12 hour shifts).

You do realise that there are still jobs in coal mines in this country? Right? They operate machines, rather than digging lumps of coal out with their hands like the 19th century, and they get paid about £25k to £30k per year.

I''m sure that their union will be delighted to know that you aren''t running the country.

[Not Nigel 0]

Here you go, this is what a coal miner does: http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/dec/21/coal-miner-day-shift-pit

"The minimum wage makes that impossible".

Deary me. Minimum wage for coal mining would be slavery, coal miners would never have been on £6.19 per hour in real terms in the 1980''s, they were always pretty well paid - and so they should have been, for risking their life every day!

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Mister Chops"]David Miliband twice had the opportunity to oust Gordon Brown in a relatively bloodless coup, and both times he bottled it the way Paul Ince bottled penalty shoot-outs yet still wanted to be known as "the Guv''nor".  He got what he deserved, i.e. shafted by his less capable but more diligent brother.  If only for a credible leader, the Labour party would easily be on their way back into power given the current incumbents make QPR look like a coherent and well run organisation.

[/quote]

 

Major political parties in civilised countries will usuall find their way back into ofice at some point in time but to refer to governm ent, even in relative or hopeful terms, as something resembling a well run organisation is, quite frankly, an oxymoron. It doesn''t exist. It will never exist. The kindest thing that can objectively be said about any goverment is that it is a necessary evil. The best that one can hope for is to minimize the size of the government at state level to a minimum. It usually takes a radical leader to do that but usually he/she will be found in the conservative rather than socialist ranks.   

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Mister Chops"]David Miliband twice had the opportunity to oust Gordon Brown in a relatively bloodless coup, and both times he bottled it the way Paul Ince bottled penalty shoot-outs yet still wanted to be known as "the Guv''nor".  He got what he deserved, i.e. shafted by his less capable but more diligent brother.  If only for a credible leader, the Labour party would easily be on their way back into power given the current incumbents make QPR look like a coherent and well run organisation.

[/quote]

 

Major political parties in civilised countries will usuall find their way back into ofice at some point in time but to refer to government, even in relative or hopeful terms, as something resembling a well run organisation is, quite frankly, an oxymoron. It doesn''t exist. It will never exist. The kindest thing that can objectively be said about any goverment is that it is a necessary evil. The best that one can hope for is to minimize the size of the government at state level to a minimum. It usually takes a radical leader to do that but usually he/she will be found in the conservative rather than socialist ranks.   

[BroadstairsR 2,138]

I clicked the heading to update on a thread about Martin O''Neill and stumbled upon a poorly-informed political debate.

 

Can we discuss religious matters next please?

[Not Nigel 0]

"I clicked the heading to update on a thread about Martin O''Neill and stumbled upon a poorly-informed political debate"

Feel free to chirp in with your own ''informed'' opinions, we can be the ones to decide whether they are well-informed or not.

[BroadstairsR 2,138]

[quote user="singupcarrowroad"]"I clicked the heading to update on a thread about Martin O''Neill and stumbled upon a poorly-informed political debate" Feel free to chirp in with your own ''informed'' opinions, we can be the ones to decide whether they are well-informed or not.[/quote]

 

I have always felt free to chirp in with my own "informed" opinions on this Board. On this partricular occasion I can''t be arsed.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="singupcarrowroad"] I do know the difference between a director and a non-executive director, because I hold both positions [/quote]

 

of course you do, absolutely no doubt whatsoever

 

(though, I might add, given your previous claim you might be better concentrating on just the one occupation)

 

[quote user="singupcarrowroad"]I may be a cynical, pessimistic, overly-negative masturbator [/quote] 6/3/2013, 8.15PM 

 

 

 

[Not Nigel 0]

"(though, I might add, given your previous claim you might be better concentrating on just the one occupation)"

Companies in all sectors, and of all sizes, require directors. At least one in fact. There are 4.5m ltd companies in the UK, each of whom have at least one registered director. It is hardly an exclusive club, you could become a company director tomorrow.

[chicken 0]

[quote user="singupcarrowroad"]Here you go, this is what a coal miner does: http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/dec/21/coal-miner-day-shift-pit

"The minimum wage makes that impossible".

Deary me. Minimum wage for coal mining would be slavery, coal miners would never have been on £6.19 per hour in real terms in the 1980''s, they were always pretty well paid - and so they should have been, for risking their life every day![/quote]

Did you read what I wrote - I said you can''t do what the USA did in the 20''s and 30''s whilst operating with a minimum wage. Well not with out completely devaluing the currency.

[Not Nigel 0]

We rely too much on food and energy imports to ever see currency devaluation as a viable means of boosting production, it would be a disaster (unless the Euro was devalued with it).

[chicken 0]

[quote user="singupcarrowroad"]"When people get on their high horses going on about the moral rights and wrongs they often only consider our perspective"

Struggling to get what you mean here, but the Iraq war breached a UN charter and so was an illegal war. That makes Tony Blair, and his cronies, war criminals.

It was a war + it was illegal = war crime.

Glad that you can trivialise wars which have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians (indirectly + directly), including many children, by likening it to a football transfer.[/quote]

First off you do understand that elements of the UN itself are open to political abuse? I''ll get more onto that in a second.

I wasn''t trying to trivialise anything, but attempting to at least to stay somewhat on topic. ;oD

Back to the UN. It was deemed illegal - not on any moral grounds what-so-ever.

Blair and Bush insisted upon using WMD''s being the primary reason for the war. The UN identified a severe lack of evidence to suggest there were any and so said a war was unjustified.

Sadly, the reality is that very few of these decisions actually come down to the humanitarian issues anymore.

I am sure you are aware that the UN was formed at the end of WWII as the direct successor of the League of Nations which was formed and then failed after WWI.

One of the UN''s primary functions was to help ensure that the atrocities such as those ordered by Hitler were to be prevented.

If you look into Iraq, you will find that under many UN charters there probably was a good case for war which it would have had to accept, and probably would have been compelled to accept. However that would also have meant that member nations would have to also commit an amount of their own forces to the task.

So, back to the original decision as to whether member states felt that this was a justified law and you will find that there is political voting going on.

Like I said, if you go and ask some of these people, of who''m I have friends who have worked with them - many will tell you how the war was worth it to them, just not for any of the reasons that have been publicised.

One example is the Kurds.

And once more back to O''Neil.

I don''t think he is the only one on a downer this season. The whole league seems a bit bereft of energy at the moment if you ask me. Perhaps Bale and AVB appart, oh and maybe some of them at Man U.

[chicken 0]

[quote user="singupcarrowroad"]We rely too much on food and energy imports to ever see currency devaluation as a viable means of boosting production, it would be a disaster (unless the Euro was devalued with it).[/quote]

Exactly my point. ;oD

[Bws Cat 0]

Ah yes, the minimum wage. The way of saying "I would pay you less, but I can''t. Fuck you, sorry".

[stoke canary 0]

Sorry to but in ,but really enjoyed watching Norwich when he was boss,this was agreat nights entertainment  http://youtu.be/7wwd2G1BVOk