Sheaf Saint

Well all those predictions of a massive landslide by our resident sneering Tories seem a bit funny now. Despite the Tories trying to rig the election by changing the constituency boundaries in their favour, and the savage (and frankly disgraceful) smear campaign against Corbyn, May's gamble has spectacularly backfired. Of course, we do face a period of uncertainty now, but I am delighted that the electorate have prevented May from driving us off the hard Brexit cliff.

Whatever the final result, it's pleasing to see UKIP's support vanishing.

Can you clarify what you mean by 'destroy those at the top'? And as for the politics of envy label, it's just dismissive nonsense that serves your argument no favours. Wanting a fairer distribution of the nation's wealth has nothing to do with envy. If anything, envy is more closely associated with greed, and that is clearly more of a Conservative characteristic than Labour.

The national wealth, the public purse. Whatever you want to call it. Prime example is the selloff of the Royal Mail. Everybody knew that it was drastically undervalued. Then within days of the sale, the share value shot up and those that were given the privilege of buying them initially - Tory party donors, of course - made hundreds of millions in profit.

My feelings exactly. They spout empty platitudes about making a fair society that works for everyone, but their actions betray their real intentions. Every policy they enact is geared towards helping out their corporate donors and transferring as much public wealth as possible upwards to the already super wealthy elite, while shafting the rest of us. Since they came to power, the UK is the only country in the EU bar Greece that has seen a real-terms drop in wages, while the richest handful of families have doubled their wealth. The extreme austerity they have imposed on us isn't born out of necessity, it is purely ideologically driven. I genuinely cannot fathom how anybody who isn't already part of their super rich elite could bring themselves to vote for them. It really is like turkeys voting in favour of Christmas.

Are you suggesting that the Mail and the Sun are some kind of shining beacons of truth and integrity?

OK, so it is true that Corbyn spoke at the rally, and in the crowd was a very small number of Al-Muhajiroun troublemakers with whom the rest of the protesters refused to associate. The Sun and Mail have copied the article you posted word-for-word saying there were 200-300 of them, but the police report states only 30 at most. The issue here is that the Mail and the Sun are trying to insinuate that Corbyn was addressing a pro-Al-Muhajiroun demo and was actively trying to win favour with them directly. But all the evidence shows this to be a total misrepresentation of the truth.

Oh look, Seems like the Sun and the Mail have been caught out making sh*t up again... https://www.thecanary.co/2017/06/07/exclusive-police-reports-prove-sun-may-broken-law-last-ditch-attack-jeremy-corbyn/

Oh FFS Delldays - you've swallowed all the propaganda hook, line and sinker haven't you. You've read the smearing headlines, decided that they all must be true, and ignored every bit of explanation of them while ignoring the very same faults within the Tory party. The 'friends of Hamas' has been thoroughly debunked as the words of somebody using inclusive language trying to reach out to all parties in order to reach a peace settlement in a very volatile situation. How many times over the same period have British politicians described Israel as our 'friends' - because the Israeli government is just as guilty of indiscriminate murder of civilians as Hamas. Why are they the only ones we are allowed to call 'friends'? As for his involvement with the IRA - again he was trying to work towards a peace agreement that suited all parties. And guess what - sitting down and talking to Adams, McGuiness et al. was precisely how the situation was resolved in the end, so he was proven correct in his approach. Sorry if you don't like that. Have you heard of Maria Gatland? She's a Tory Councillor in Croydon, and a former active member of the IRA who is quoted as saying "I agree with the shooting of British soldiers and believe the more who are killed the better". Let's hear your defence for that shall we?

Perhaps not directly, but they have had some involvement... https://www.thelocal.se/20120903/42972 Wrong... https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/12/03/germ-d03.html

I saw a brilliant tweet from somebody yesterday (can't find it again to share it unfortunately). He had a very clear, simple, 4-step plan to reduce the threat of terrorism in the UK... 1. Stop selling £bns worth of arms to states who propagate and sponsor salafist extremism 2. Stop bombing their kids 3. Stop reducing the numbers of police on the streets 4. Stop cutting vital mental health and youth worker services Can't really argue with any of it, but none of it will never happen with the Tories in power.

No, he didn't... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bbc-trust-rules-laura-kuenssberg-misrepresented-jeremy-corbyn-a7533096.html "BBC Trust rules Laura Kuenssberg inaccurately represented Jeremy Corbyn on shoot-to-kill"

I find the constant pressing on the point of nuclear war a bit tiresome tbh. You're saying that he doesn't have the balls to defend the country, but launching a nuclear attack on somebody because they have launched one on us isn't defending our nation, it's committing mass genocide on an innocent civilian population in retaliation for the actions of an unhinged, despotic lunatic. It solves nothing. The whole point of having a nuclear deterrent is that you never need to use it, therefore the whole 'would you/wouldn't you' argument is academic. The threat is supposed to be enough to stop somebody launching one against us - the clue is in the word 'deterrent'. I don't believe for one second that even Kimg Jong Un is so deranged that he would instigate something that will inevitably result in the total destruction of his entire country. As Carl Sagan put it: "The nuclear arms race is like two sworn enemies standing waist deep in gasoline, one with three matches, the other with five".

Apparently this is currently at number 4 in the charts...

https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/climate-breaks-multiple-records-2016-global-impacts

The thing that amazed me was how Amber Rudd had the audacity to stand there, with a straight face, and tell the nation that the only person with the strength and the leadership qualities to lead Britain forward is the woman who couldn't even summon the courage to publicly debate her fellow leaders in an election that she herself called. Did anybody see the Sky news clip of her yesterday being asked repeatedly why she was not appearing? She was so visibly rattled, like she always is when she faces a question at PMQs that she can't answer. The maniacal nervous laugh, reaching for her water every few seconds, falling back on repeating the same old line about 'getting the best deal for Britain' and launching a scathing attack on Corbyn while completely evading the question. She's lost the plot if you ask me. A total lame duck PM. She called this election because she thought she would win a landslide and increase her party's majority, but now that the polls are showing Labour a whole lot closer than expected, she's cracking under the pressure, as is her sidekick Boris the clown. If they are the right people to lead the Brexit negotiations, then I'm the b*stard son of Ghengis Khan and Joan of Arc.

More space for our midfielders to dither about in before passing sideways/backwards you mean? I still don't see the benefit.

So you're upset that the manager is now rectifying that with a substitution? Seems like he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

Yeah, because that's not at all going to be anything to do with the fact that this is Austin's first start since December and was never likely to be fit enough to play the whole 90 mins. We've got some utter f***ing muppets on this forum

They could always head to Quayside Road if the crowds get too much at Weston. With its amazing views of a scrapyard, the Stoke fans will feel right at home.

Do we? Really? With Austin out, the only player who looks remotely like getting goals is Gabbiadini. With Long and Rodriguez as our only other strikers, and too many midfielders who don't know how to hit a decent shot, is our lack of goals really that surprising?

And even then it still relies on the player actually accepting their terms and agreeing to the transfer. There's just no way he will agree terms with Everton, no matter how much money they are offering, when he knows full well that one of the top Champs League clubs is going to come knocking sooner rather than later.

Here's an interesting little snippet for you all... I've been visiting family this weekend and saw my 14 year old nephew who is in the Everton academy. I asked him what he thought of Koeman. He said he is undoubtedly a good manager, but he shows zero interest in the academy. The previous managers in his time there (Moyes and Martinez) were frequently seen around the training ground and always took time to get to know the kids, but apparently Koeman never visits and doesn't even bother to say hello if he passes them in a corridor. Fits with what we already knew about his ignorance of our own academy while he was with us. I told my nephew not to worry because he will no doubt have already moved on again by the time he's old enough to sign a pro contract.

No keeper in the world is stopping that. Perfect connection.

We didn't get a penalty because probably because Davis blazed the ball wide before the defender made contact. Not making excuses for him because it was reckless and dangerous, but it looked to me like he was just shaping himself to block the shot.