Wes Tender

No they didn't. They started off in very good voice and mocked us with their "is this a library" chant. They were impressive until Mane's hat trick silenced them and then it was us chanting "is this a library" back in their faces. Their goal came too close to half-time and even having scored, there was scarcely a murmur from them. Had the goal come in the first few minutes of the second half, their support might have built some momentum, but they had 15 minutes to contemplate how sh*t they had been, so there was a sombre acceptance that they would get nothing from the match. Apart from the gallows humour "we're going to win 5-4 and then 6-5, they never really made much noise during the second half apart from consoling themselves with their chant about them going to Wembley. I don't know where you sit, but from across the pitch in the family stand, one gets a fair idea of how the other side of the pitch sounds.

His record against Villa is very good.

Just got back home. What an incredible way to end the home season matches. I'm told that Pelle's first goal should have stood and after it was disallowed, the thought arose that it might be one of those matches where it would end up costing us points. But Villa's game plan of a high defensive line backfired badly when either they weren't winning the midfield balls, or balls were played over the top for the pace of Long and Mane, which they just couldn't handle. Hard to pick any of our players who didn't put in a good shift today, they were all great. During the second half, they took their foot off the pedal and Villa looked a bit more threatening, but ultimately they lacked the quality to break us down. Two of the goals will stand out in particular; the shot from distance from Long was sublime. The other was the Pelle goal where a great one-two involving Mane and Djuracic resulted in a superb cross from Mane for Pelle to thump in an unstoppable shot. But this will become known as the Mane game, which is going into the annals of Premier League history for the speed of his devastating hat trick. One of my neighbours in the Family stand reported that one of his family at home had gone out for a loo break when the score was 0-0 and when he got back to the match it was 3-0! We just have to hope that Spurs drop points against Hull and that we get something from the Man City match. Today's result will give us a great confidence boost and maybe unnerve City a bit.

Reading the title, I wondered what Koeman's connection with Cunard's flaships past and present was.

I do wish that people would stop creating myths about the voting figures. The Tories polled 36.9% of the votes cast. You can't go and include those who didn't bother to vote in creating a percentage of the entire electorate. If people chose not to vote, that is up to them. Neither can anybody bleat about the outcome if they didn't bother to vote. And the assumption cannot be made that none of those who didn't vote would have voted Conservative. If you wish to make out this sort of argument, then 2 million fewer people voted for the second party, Labour. As many favour PR, then the Tories would still have been elected with perhaps an even lower percentage of the electorate, which on your argument would make it even more unfair and you would end up complaining that the government only had 20% or so of public support.

The bit that says that he remarried in 2013 and has another child with his new wife?

Why would I be worried about him? I couldn't care a toss who leads the Labour Party. I'll leave the worrying about that to you lefties whose problem it is since your last leader got trounced by the Tory toffs.

Shylock I don't need any further corroboration, as what you have dished up so far doesn't lead me to conclude that you have proven your point. Your opinion is that the Tories would be bricking it if Jarvis were to be elected as Labour Party leader and mine is that they wouldn't. Questions about how he might be attacked by Tory Central office are hypothetical, as he has indicated that he will not be standing. He says that is for family reasons which may well be true, or it could be that he deems himself inadequately experienced at this stage to take on that role.

Last night there was the sign outside the restaurant; one meal for the price of two. Second meal free.

You didn't express yourself very clearly, then did you?

Shylock, your opinion has been proven to be without any cogent foundation and now you are becoming abusive. You state an opinion like this and are not able then to provide any substantiation for it beyond it being your own opinion and that of others unspecified, and a 3 year old Spectator article? It's all pretty feeble, isn't it?

Even when it is on money that the well-being of some people depends on?

Based on what you have managed so far to cite as evidence that the Tory hierarchy are having the living daylights scared out of them by the prospect of Dan Jarvis being elected as leader of the Labour Party, it isn't very impressive in supporting your contention. The people whose opinions matter in the Tory party are hardly going to come out in public and say who they would most fear as leader of the Labour Party, so any evidence has to be purely anecdotal hearsay and rumour. A bit like the mention in the Spectator about the life-long Tory saying that he would vote Labour if Jarvis was leader. It is meaningless. An article in the Spectator over 3 years old is hardly compelling evidence anyway, is it? But even then, it is interesting from a couple of points of view; his voting for the bombing in Libya and the doubts that were mentioned about whether as an ex-Army officer he would have sufficient understanding of how businesses work and the importance of them to the economy. It is suggested that he was causing concern to the right because he understood that the Labour Party needed to move towards the centre to be electable, yet this is something that was blindingly obvious to most sensible people who realised that Labour had elected the wrong Miliband as leader many years ago. But as he has indicated anyway that he will not stand, the whole thing is an irrelevance, unless he changes his mind based on stories that the Tories consider him to be Labour's best chance of being elected the next time around.

I think the pertinent point to make is that a lot of the stuff that has been the subject of such OTT hyperbole from the likes of Hockey are based on leaked proposals, not agreed policy. Boris is an influential figure in the Tory Party and his opinions will undoubtedly carry some considerable weight. The changes that are proposed and those that have already began to be implemented by the last Tory/Lib Dem government are all explained here:- https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2010-to-2015-government-policy-welfare-reform/2010-to-2015-government-policy-welfare-reform Most of it seems pretty reasonable to me.

What a remarkable generalisation based on nothing more than your opinion; unless of course you can point us towards some published opinion to that effect quoting somebody in the senior Tory hierarchy. What are these attributes that Jarvis posseses that would "scare the living daylights" out of the Tories?

I'm sure that KRG will be delighted to see that you have chosen to speak on his behalf. Regarding the Boris Johnson comment, maybe you didn't see this:-http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/01/10/why-boris-is-right-about-this/ Here is the TUC spokesman saying that he agrees with Boris. What have you to say about that? As for your reference to the comments from mainly the Rupert Murdoch press, I wasn't aware that Cameron had any control over their editorial policy. Must try harder.

Me too. Bang on the money.

I asked you to substantiate your post earlier when you wondered how Cameron could allow the "vicious callow attacks" on disabled people. You appear to have missed that, or is it that you can't substantiate it?

Please do elucidate. What vicious callow attacks? Who is making them? Give us some examples.

With the passage of several days, the indignant supporters of the losing parties have calmed down to the extent that the main topic of conversation is centered around such trite matters such as these blackboards from Labour supporting businesses. The first one was mildly amusing, but the copy-cat versions show a complete lack of original thought. The increasing irrelevance of some of these posts mean that it won't be long now until this thread starts its descent downwards in the hierarchy. Soon new political developments will deserve their own threads, rendering this one as redundant as the two Eds.

They would soon find out that this redistribution of wealth will see the wealthy leaving Scotland in their droves or finding ways to avoid paying the increased taxation, and the wealth-creators moving their businesses elsewhere, probably south of the border. I'm very content that the Scottish Parliament should have powers to raise their own taxation. When it all ends in disaster and wrecks their economy, it will be a lesson to those in England who think that austerity measures should be dropped and that it is OK to spend money that we don't have.

Hockey_Saint: Sweeping generalisations here about the general consensus about the voting system and dear Hockey still blubbing on about those nasty Tories and how everybody despises them, even if he is presumably talking of Scotland. It really is strange that considering that they were elected as the government with a clear majority of seats that they can be so universally despised. Or are these just the opinions of some posters on a football forum rather than the country at large?

Thanks for telling us what some Yank economist says. And this is his own personal opinion about his priorities and good for him. If other people have different priorities, then that is their prerogative. It is also good to have an American perspective on the matter when they don't have an NHS, a different National Debt, different priorities to ours and different costs of borrowing probably too. But I believe that the mention of attrition of Civil Servants probably struck a chord with you, as you are one, aren't you? But why would the Yanks do away with the most able Civil Servants? Surely if economies are to be made on the bureaucracy, it makes sense to cut the less able of them and to address the over-manning that usually exists.

*Yawn* Change the f*cking record. The size of that chip on your shoulder must cause you to walk lop-sided.

Really? According to this, there are 24 UKIP, 20 Labour, 19 Conservative, and a few others from the minor parties. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2014_%28United_Kingdom%29