John B

What have you heard from Corbyn that you have not liked? So why did you vote Tory ?

The Labour Manifesto was not far left it was just an anti austerity one there are plenty of labour politicans who are against austerity

Come on you Reds

Perhaps we should get in crap players and not improve them then we wont sell them

Well we have Ervine finishes it off

Because they are greedy gits

Why should they make a statement if Puel is still manager

I am with you if Puel was staying surely Reed would have said so my now I just cannot see how Puel can stay now

Yes I agree just met an old Labour MP whilst I was taking the dog for a walk who said something similar but he like me thinks May is pretty useless and particularly nasty and if we dont vote Labour she will become nastier I was this which seems to be how I feel about Mrs May The Conservative plan for this election was for it to be about personalities rather than policies. Theresa May versus Jeremy Corbyn. The question that the Conservatives want people to be thinking about as they cast their vote is which of the two do you think will be better at negotiating a good Brexit deal for Britain. And the polls suggest that many have made up their mind the answer is May. Making a choice based on personalities may not be a completely stupid thing to do. However people with little knowledge can be extremely poor judges of character. I shouldn’t really have to argue the case for this, but simply point to the current POTUS. How anyone could believe that he would improve the healthcare system and sort out the financial sector is beyond me, but then I had read a lot about him so it is difficult for me to imagine what someone less interested in politics might think. But we know in other situations that brief contacts can be very misleading: job interviews are an obvious example, as are interviews of prospective students. We think we can judge character with very little information, and we often fool ourselves in that respect. Or take, as an another example, Theresa May. Some of us may laugh at the endless repetition of ‘strong and stable’, but good propaganda is always based on a half-truth, and the half truth here is that many voters do think she is a cautious operator and a safe pair of hands. It is likely most people get this belief not from a detailed examination of her past actions, but from how she comes across in sound bites and interviews on the TV. The reality seems rather different. Her actions since becoming Prime Minister appear ill-judged and reckless. Take, for example, the pointless attempt to prevent parliament voting on Article 50. A strong and stable Prime Minister would (with a small amount of research) have realised that very few MPs within her party were prepared to be seen to ignore the referendum, and that therefore she would easily get her way. Instead she fought and lost a pointless battle in the courts. It had not been the first time she had wasted public money in this way. Much more serious were the decisions she took immediately after the referendum. There was no need to immediately attempt to define what the referendum really meant, but she impulsively did so in terms of reducing immigration and not being bound by rulings from the European court. It effectively condemned the UK to leaving the Single Market and a Hard Brexit, something that absolutely was not implied by such a close vote. And she chose three Brexiteers to be in charge of the negotiations, which was not a ‘clever political move’ but a disaster in terms of formulating realistic plans for negotiations with the EU. In fact it is rather difficult to think of a single good decision she has taken since becoming PM. Anyone who thinks her previous stint at the Home Office was more of a success should read the article by Jonathan Foreman that the Daily Telegraph pulled after pressure from her campaign. It ends “There’s a vast gulf between being effective in office, and being effective at promoting yourself; it’s not one that Theresa May has yet crossed.” That could be dismissed as exaggeration at a time of internal battles to become Tory leader, but it chimes with accounts by others. The Foreman article describes her as the most disliked member of two cabinets, unable to work easily with colleagues. Secretive, rigid, controlling, even vengeful are other adjectives used. Two characteristics she shows is a lack of collegiality, and a tendency to adopt firm positions when flexibility was required. A clear example of that is the inclusion of students in the target total for net migration, which has done great damage to one of our stronger export industries, as well as causing untold distress to many people. It is difficult to think of any rational reason to obstinately refuse to remedy this mistake, beyond that it might appear to show ‘weakness’ in May herself. The desire to project a false image of strength is unlikely to survive her encounter with the EU. As yet, she has done little to prepare the country for the many retreats she will have to make. Perhaps she thinks she can just lie about this, as she has been caught doing on at least two (here and here) occasions. It is a testament to these character flaws that so many find it difficult to know whether she will do a deal with the EU, or walk away in a faux gesture of defiant strength. Drawing unnecessary lines in the sand, personal aloofness and obstinacy designed to project an image of personal strength, are decidedly not the qualities you want in negotiating with the EU. Just as with Donald Trump, initial appearances can be deceptive. As her many U-turns suggest, she is far from strong and stable. The spin only works because authoritarian tendencies can easily be confused with strength and obstinacy can be confused with stability, and of course a powerful press can assist with the confusion. In reality it is difficult to imagine someone more ill-suited to making the best of the bad job that is Brexit, and on top of that we have grammar schools and an obsession with immigration. David Cameron may find that his reputation as the worst Prime Minister of modern times may not last very long.

I thought Corbyn was unelectable, I thought he was a poor leader. However as the election campaign develops, there is no question that Corbyn is demonstrating he is a much more rounded politician than automaton May. When he talks, he is actually in touch with the feelings associated with his words. Theresa May is anything but strong and stable. She was so far ahead in the polls she thought she could get away with shafting working and middle class families by snatching their children's inheritance to pay for social care. The moment her ratings took a nose dive she U-turned. If she was truly passionate about the policy, she would stick to her convictions, not bring in a cap and then argue that black was white that the manifesto pledge had not changed Theresa May's words are not in touch with her feelings, her words are in touch with 'being on message'. She is obsessed with damaging Jeremy Corbyn, because when she looks too deeply at the conservative record and their policies, there is much to cover up. Since 2010, the following has happened (1) The overall tax burden as a % of GDP is the highest it has been for thirty years. Higher than in the mid-seventies. All the Tories have done is shift taxation from income tax to taxes on spending and increased it. (2) You will love this one - The conservative party have spent more and paid less back into the treasury, over any period you wish to look at, despite the myth of labour profligacy and conservative prudence. http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/ (3) Collapse in the number of Employment tribunal claims since the fee to bring a claim has increased from £200 to over £1,000. (only 1% of 54,000 pregnant women who have been unfairly dismissed have claimed at a tribunal) (4) Just about managing working families have lost on average £2,000 per year in tax credits cuts. Corporation tax cut to 19%. The lowest of the 'wealthy' EU states. (5) Social Care - 40% cuts to Local Authority budgets. (6) NHS - Real term cut in funding (7) Real term cut in education spending ( Employment rights eroding away. The Tories have increased the time to two years before an employee can bring a claim. A refusal to regulate against zero hour contracts, when this is one of the single biggest causes of poverty and reliance on food banks (9) An exponential increase in the use of food banks. (10) A social security system that makes a concerted effort to make it difficult to claim. A sanctions system that is aimed at saving money, not helping the unemployed get back into work. These ten points are the tip of the iceberg. If we want a cohesive and fair society, that will not result in economic collapse (stop believing the tory bull**** on labours record (see point 2 above)), then there is only one person and party to vote for. Vote Corbyn. Vote Labour.

Corbyn - Stop dropping bombs in the middle east and fully fund our police and security forces to deal with any domestic threats. Scrap bedroom tax, scrap tuition fees, decent wages for Nurses and free training. Why would you vote against that? What's the alternative? More police cuts, 24 A+E's earmarked for closure, pay for your own social care, tax cuts for the wealthy,social security cuts for the British Public, students coming out of UNI in debt just for wanting an Education, more zero hour exploitation, Kill foxes and scrap laws protecting Elephant ivory, Continue to sell weapons to Islamic regimes and sell off what's left of our public services to foreign investors. Wow tough choice isn't it.

We are where we are but you are right if we had not invaded Ireland and other countries like India/Pakistan and been pretty nasty there the past and not bombed Irag Afganistan and Libya we would not had so much terrorism in the UK you reap what you sow . As a country I think we are the second biggest arms exporter in the world so we do get involved with violence through out the world

But what is the point when we dont have any exceptional attacking players I doubt Austin Long and JRod would get many games in the teams above us Getting a new manager will not help that much if Austin Long and JRod fail to convert chances and Boufal and Tadic flatter to decieve

I expect the Club is waiting to see the outcome of the Pl's investigation into the proposed new owner

I would be very surprised if a team in 13th place played exciting football most teams in the bottom half play to stay in the PL

You make a reasonable point but I cannot see how Puel has any affect on Forster not saving goals and Long missing them

Seems quite reasonable to me if these players had performed better we would have had a much better season and maybe Puel would not be under so much pressure if players do not perform to their usual standards it is hard on the manager

I think Puel should leave as I doubt any manager will get us higher than 8th next season as the top teams buy all the best players and it is players who ultimately win matches

What happens now? Is the election cancelled?

Are you suggesting that if Austin is now fully fit he should not be playing

You make an excellent point but we will probably lose some players but if we dont I think we need a better Davis Stephens and Rodriques

Why is it always the managers fault if highly paid players cant score goals and miss penalties

And there the gibbering Tory reveals why the Tories in fact don't get econmics at all... The vast majority of debt since 1945 has been created by Tory governments. The vast majority of debt has been repaid by Labour governments. Why? Because Tories have got it into their posh dimwitted skulls that a national economy is like a household budget. They refuse to invest in the economy because they think that doing so is like frivolously buying a sofa. And the idiots that vote for them go along with this painful charade, to the detriment of the nation.

It is great to finally have at least one of the two main parties putting the case for a large increase in public investment when the government’s borrowing costs are so low. It is great to see one party prepared to raise taxes to stop the growing squeeze on the NHS and the new squeeze on education. It is great that Labour have a fiscal rule which tries to represent current macroeconomic understanding rather than the wisdom of the George Osborne. Let’s hope this lasts beyond this election.

First, re income tax: the proposed tax increase is fair. It will impact a little over 1 million people. Because of the suggested structure the estimated yield looks to be realistic if at the top end of the range. The tax will not be a disincentive: it may encourage more tax saving by spending on pensions at the £80,000 margin. The corporation tax increase is wise. These increases make complete sense. More than that, there will be capacity to pay them. Labour proposes to increase GDP by spending. When a government spends more when there is unemployment or underemployment the result is not inflation, it is growth. And that growth always creates the capacity to pay the tax that funds the growth. This is a fact. The only question is how to collect that tax from the economy. Labour has chosen to do so in progressive ways consistent with its plans to reshape society. This, as I explained in 2015, is precisely what The Joy of Tax is. No one can blame Labour for doing exactly what tax is meant to do and leaving most in the country better off as a result. The only question is why the Tories won’t do the same. They will, of course, claim that this is a suicide note from Labour. And they will say it will harm the economy. But neither is true. Government spending when the economy is stagnating at less than capacity is wholly rational. And if it increases the ratio of government spending to total economic activity than has been usual, so what? What we need is government spending on health, education, social care, education and so much more. We are clearly not wanting to spend more on what the private sector has to offer or we would be doing so. This manifesto does then, very clearly, deliver what the economy needs. In that case is there a downside? None at all, I suggest, unless you ‘re in the top 3 pr 4 per cent of income earners or are a large company or bank. And let’s be clear, these groups have the capacity to pay.